Suchergebnisse

This master's thesis approaches the debate around biotechnology, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the notion of food sovereignty as they are addressed by an Indian, food sovereignty activist group called Navdanya. Basing on the material produced by Navdanya, I am determining, by the means of a theory guided content analysis, what kind of an alternative food sovereignty is. Furthermore, I am examining how food sovereignty can be considered as a means of resistance to the impacts of the GMOs in India. I am arguing that the introduction of the GMOs to India created an opportunity to govern populations and furthermore life and nature. I am examining this by utilising Michel Foucault's theory of biopolitics as a theoretical framework. In order to find out how governance and resistance are practiced, I utilise Foucault's notions of truth and power by illustrating how they can be utilised as a means to create governance and resistance. Therefore, I formulated a "truth regime of biotechnology" to represent the governance, operated by the actors supporting the utilisation of the GMOs, as well as to describe how the governance is created and justified under the regime. As a means of resistance, Navdanya produces alternative truths and puts into practice an alternative of food sovereignty – "the new politics of truth". Navdanya succeeds in its resistance by managing to create the alternative truth of food sovereignty, which does not utilise or reproduce the truths of the biotechnology regime. Navdanya does this by managing to detach the power of the biotechnology regime's truths from their economic and political roles they play in society. The traditional complexity with resistance, in relation to the State of India, is present, which can be however explained by utilising the new ways in approaching the notion of resistance in the context of the Global South.

Food justice denotes both a social movement and an academic discourse of theorizing what constitutes a fair food system where the benefits and harms of food production and consumption are distributed equally and where every human being has a right to food. In the general discourse of food justice, a just food system is also assumed to promote the sustainability of food systems. In this article, I point out the problems of this assumption by revealing the tensions between the social and environmental aspects of justice in food systems. They relate largely to the fact that local food is not synonymous for environmentally sustainable and low-carbon food, yet the food justice discourse has assumed that re-localization of food systems guarantees its environmental soundness. Another, related tension concerns the democratization of the food system that may aggravate the environmental burdens of the food system in certain conditions when not paired with education and scientific knowledge. I illustrate how the conflicts between various claims for justice emerge, how they could be avoided, and I also discuss how the society could foster the emergence of food citizenship that would promote justice and sustainability in food systems. Keywords: food justice, environmental sustainability, local food, food democracy ; Ruokaoikeudenmukaisuus viittaa ruokajärjestelmän reiluuteen eli siihen, miten oikeudenmukaisesti ruoan tuotannon, prosessoinnin, kaupan ja kuluttamisen hyödyt ja haitat jakaantuvat ja miten yhdenvertainen mahdollisuus ihmisillä on riittävään ja kulttuurisesti hyväksyttävään ravitsemukseen. Ruokaoikeudenmukaisuuden diskurssissa on vallinnut oletus, että ruokajärjestelmän oikeudenmukaisuus kulkee käsi kädessä järjestelmän kestävyyden kanssa. Tässä artikkelissa tarkastelen ruokaoikeudenmukaisuuden suhdetta ruokajärjestelmän ekologiseen kestävyyteen ja osoitan suhteen olevan jännitteinen tavoilla, jotka ovat toistaiseksi jääneet lähes huomiotta. Erityisesti tarkastelen lähiruoan ekologista kestävyyttä, joka on otettu usein annettuna oikeudenmukaisuuden diskursseissa: artikkelissa osoitan tämän oletuksen ongelmallisuuden. Toinen samankaltainen jännite liittyy ruokademokratian lisäämiseen, joka ei välttämättä paranna ruokajärjestelmän kestävyyttä vaan saattaa joissain tapauksissa jopa hidastaa ruokajärjestelmän kestävyystransitiota. Lopussa pohdin, miten artikkelissa tunnistettujen jännitteiden kanssa voidaan tulla toimeen ja miten ruokademokratiaa voitaisiin lisätä tavalla, joka tukee sekä oikeudenmukaisuutta että ekologisesti kestävän ruokajärjestelmän rakentamista. Avainsanat: ruokaoikeudenmukaisuus, ekologinen kestävyys, lähiruoka, ruokademokratia

Turkey first applied for EU membership in 1987 and started negotiations for full membership in October 2005 after lengthy and challenging negotiations between EU member states. This master's thesis attempts to examine the relationship between the negotiations for EU membership that are going on between Turkey and the EU Commission and the public discussion on the subject. The research material consists of selected posts on the Financial Times discussion forum and the Acquis communautaire and Copenhagen criteria. By comparing the research material this thesis attempts to investigate if the public deliberation and official negotiations focus on the same issues and requirements for membership. The theoretical background for this analysis is deliberative democracy, according to which public debate should be a prerequisite for agenda setting and decision making. The findings of the thesis reveal that the public discussion does touch on the acquis communautaire and Copenhagen criteria to some degree, but the public is also concerned with non-acquis issues such as the culture and history. A unique feature of the accession negotiations is also the amount of commentary from heads of state regarding the negotiations, which was also noted in the research material. In the light of deliberative democratic theory it can be noted that the public may take part in the discussion over Turkey's membership, but it has little or no chances of setting the agenda for the negotiations.

This work, prepared and published during the author's stay at the RSCAS, EUI, is a "compilation thesis" (in Finnish "artikkeliväitöskirja"), Department of Political Sciences, University of Helsinki, and contains the major part of the author's PhD thesis (forthcoming print monograph, 2012). ; The future is uncertain, and the financial system of the European Union has to take into account this uncertainty. This book looks at the different means it has at its disposal to do so, and analyses how these means have evolved since the creation of the general budget of the European Communities in 1968. The analysis is extended to a broader study of the development of the European Union through several case studies: negotiations on the Financial Regulation of 25 June 2002,on its first modifi cation, adopted on 13 December 2006, and on the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound fi nancial management and on the Multiannual Financial Framework for 2007-2013. The question of the uncertainty of the future is addressed using the so-called "Theory of Budgetary Flexibility". This theory, developed originally to analyse national budgetary systems, establishes an essential distinction between External Flexibility and Internal Flexibility, on the one hand, and Annual Flexibility and Multiannual Flexibility on the other hand. It is particularly useful here as it enables us to examine under a common framework processes that are often considered separate (and treated in the literature as such), and to draw conclusions at systems' level. The book is divided into three Parts: - Part One (Chapters 1 to 3), which forms the theoretical part of this book, includes an analysis of the specificities and of the functioning of the budgetary and financial systems of the European Union, while presenting an "état des lieux" of studies carried out in these fields; - Part Two (Chapters 4 to 13) deals with changes that have been made to various forms of flexibility since 1968. Special attention is paid not only to the consequences these changes have had for the various actors involved – namely the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and Member States – but also for the financial system of the European Union as a whole; - Part Three (Chapters 14 to 18) addresses the question of how the changes examined in Part Two affect the general development of the European Union.