Suchergebnisse

Preliminary Material /Jonas Grimheden and Rolf Ring -- Group Accommodation and the Challenges of Education: Multicultural or Intercultural or a Combination of the Two? /Asbjørn Eide -- The Importance of an Education in Human Rights /M. Arthur Diakité -- The Education of Police in Human Rights a Framework for Human Rights Programmes Forpolice /Ralph Crawshaw -- Human Rights Education in China /LI Baodong -- Human Rights Education and Research in China: the Contribution of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute /Sun Shiyan -- Human Rights Education in the Netherlands /Cees Flinterman and Stacey Nitchov -- The Protection of Civilian Educational Institutions During the Active Hostilities of International Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law /David a. G. Lewis -- The Self-reflective Human Rights Promoter /Jonas Grimheden -- Hugo Grotius and the Roots of Human Rights Law /Ove Bring -- Human Rights before International Criminal Courts /Vojin Dimitrijevic and Marko Milanovic -- Never Again? Rwanda and the World /Lennart Aspegren -- The Contested Notion of Freedom of Opinion /Herdís Thorgeirsdóttir -- From Protective Passports to Protected Entry Procedures? the Legacy of Raoul Wallenberg in the Contemporary Asylum Debate /Gregor Noll -- Implementing International Human Rights Law on Behalf of Asylum Seekers and Refugees: the Record of the Nordic Countries /Robin Lööf and Brian Gorlick -- The Legal Position of Asylum-seekers in Austria /Lauri Hannikainen -- Refugees in Swedish Private International Law /Michael Bogdan -- Civil Freedoms and Rights in the Swedish Constitution of 1974: the Process and the Rationale /Carl-Gustaf Andrén -- Various Interpretations of Human Rights for Women Challenges at United Nations Conferences /Elisabeth Gerle -- Implementation of International Conventions as a Socio­Legal Enterprise: Examples from the Convention on the Rights of the Child /Håkan Hydén -- List of Contributors /Jonas Grimheden and Rolf Ring.

A professor in public law discusses her experience with interdisciplinary sciences, especially between public law and political science regarding peace and conflict research. Public law and political science are unified in many ways, especially after the increasing influence of the highly politicized EU-law, and have yielded good results within the study of soft law (i.e. informal rules), conflict, human trafficking, and the power of the EU jurors. However, maybe the most ambitious project of them all is the research of how states of war and dictatorships can be transferred into states of peace and democracy. Despite its many opportunities, interdisciplinary science has its problems, such as a lack of a mutual scientific language and different theoretical structures. Luckily, many of these problems can be countered with thorough planning. L. Pitkaniemi

Wild animals are used for research and management purposes in Sweden and throughout the world. Animals are often subjected to similar procedures and risks of compromised welfare from capture, anesthesia, handling, sampling, marking, and sometimes selective removal. The interpretation of the protection of animals used for scientific purposes in Sweden is based on the EU Directive 2010/63/EU. The purpose of animal use, irrespective if the animal is suffering or not, decides the classification as a research animal, according to Swedish legislation. In Sweden, like in several other European countries, the legislation differs between research and management. Whereas, animal research is generally well-defined and covered in the legislation, wildlife management is not. The protection of wild animals differs depending on the procedure they are subjected to, and how they are classified. In contrast to wildlife management activities, research projects have to implement the 3Rs and must undergo ethical reviews and official animal welfare controls. It is often difficult to define the dividing line between the two categories, e.g., when marking for identification purposes. This gray area creates uncertainty and problems beyond animal welfare, e.g., in Sweden, information that has been collected during management without ethical approval should not be published. The legislation therefore needs to be harmonized. To ensure consistent ethical and welfare assessments for wild animals at the hands of humans, and for the benefit of science and management, we suggest that both research and management procedures are assessed by one single Animal Ethics Committee with expertise in the 3Rs, animal welfare, wildlife population health and One Health. We emphasize the need for increased and improved official animal welfare control, facilitated by compatible legislation and a similar ethical authorization process for all wild animal procedures.

Det finns lantbruksföretagare som idag upplever en stor arbetsbelastning, ekonomisk börda, frustration och stress orsakat av olika lagkrav och myndighets- och branschkontroller, vilket är ett allvarligt hinder för utveckling och tillväxt i sektorn. Denna studie syftade till att identifiera och kvantifiera tid och kostnader för olika regelverk som belastar de svenska lantbruks- och landsbygdsföretagarna och analysera effekterna av dessa. Studien omfattade analys av utvecklingen av antalet regler som gäller för lantbruksföretag under 1996-2016. För att kvantifiera tid och kostnad för lantbruksföretagens administration användes en digital dagbok där cirka 50 lantbruksföretagare registrerade den tid som de årligen lade ner för insamling, dokumentation och rapportering av uppgifter och kostnader för administration, kontroll, inspektioner och tillstånd. Vidare intervjuades 30 lantbruks- och landsbygdsföretagare, statliga tjänstemän och rådgivare om deras erfarenheter kring lagstiftning och byråkrati i svensk livsmedelsproduktion. Under 20-årsperioden 1996-2016 ökade antalet lagkrav som berör lantbruket med 120%. Flest lagkrav berör gårdar med nötkreatur i kombination med växtodling (ca 450 lagkrav). Under samma period ökade även kravet på antalet journaler med 340% (från 5 till 22) och tillfällen då det krävs en anmälan eller tillstånd med 450% (från 6 till 33). Den ökande byråkratin tar tid att hantera och medför en kostnad och mental belastning för företagen. Den administrativa aktivitet som tog mest tid var journalföring, märkning och rapportering av djur. Kostnaden för rapportering av djur (per djurenhet) var fem gånger högre för får jämfört med nötkreatur. Förberedelser, genomförande och efterarbete av kontroller var den administrativa aktivitet som tog näst mest tid för företagen. Drygt 70% av företagen som deltog i studien kontrollerades minst en gång under en sexmånadersperiod. Knappt 30% av företagen kontrollerades av både myndighet och bransch under samma period. Flera företag framförde önskemål om att kommuner, myndigheter och bransch skulle samordna eller samverka kring kontroller. De flesta företagen som medverkade i projektet var generellt nöjda med sin inspektör eller kontrollant men upplevde det som ett stort problem när kontrollanten hade låg kompetens, speciellt inom djurskydd. De ansåg att utfallet av kontrollen delvis var ett resultat av vilken kontrollant de haft, eller vilken kommun de var verksamma i och att det skiljde sig åt mellan kontrollanter och kommuner. Företagarna upplevde tvärvillkorskontroller extra jobbiga, då en avvikelse kunde få stora ekonomiska konsekvenser. Tjänstemännen ansåg att de arbetade med samsyn inom myndigheten och kände sig ibland hotade och uthängda i media. Det har i många år funnits en politisk vilja att förenkla regelverket för företagen. Detta har avspeglats i att flera myndigheter har fått i uppdrag att förenkla via sitt regleringsbrev. Frekvensen på detta uppdrag har varierat mellan olika myndigheter och år. Förenklingarna som genomförts har ibland förenklat för företagen och ibland för myndigheterna.

There is a movement away from government governance of farm animal welfare towards more private governance. As a result, many farmers need to comply with both legislation and private standards simultaneously. The overall aim with this project was to study the intentions of different animal welfare regulations, and how effective these systems can be in improving animal welfare. The first study examined the intentions and values of various animal welfare regulations. The second study analysed the content and structure of different sets of Swedish regulations, and the last study focused on controls at the farm level, to identify common remarks and risk factors of non-compliance at dairy farms in official (CAB) and private (Arla) control. We found that the aim of a regulation could be quite vague, and more ambitious than what is included in the detailed requirements. Policymakers had different views on what constitutes 'necessary suffering' and 'natural behaviour'. These differences were seen both between countries, between regulations in a country, and between species in a regulation. The second study illustrated that private standards for dairy cows in Sweden partly covered the same requirements as the legislation, with the exception of the organic standard. However, due to vague wordings and different ways of measuring it was not always clear if the requirements were truly identical between the regulations. In the third study we identified that inspections focused on different areas; dirty dairy cattle being the most common non-compliance in official controls, and dirty cowsheds being most common during Arla audits. The highest risk for non-compliance was, however, similar for CAB and Arla; tie-stalls during winter. Organic farms had a lower risk for non-compliance compared to conventional farms. This project identified the need to clearly define concepts and desired animal welfare outcomes in order to reduce the gaps between intentions, requirements and assessments within a regulation. Also gaps between different animal welfare regulations need to be illuminated with the purpose of either clarifying the differences or reducing the gaps provided that the aims are similar. The presence of both similarities and differences between different regulations and control systems puts extra high demands on transparency, predictability and clarity during inspections.

Rising levels of discontent among rural residents and parts of the hunting community toward large carnivore conservation policy has effected a phenomenon of socio-politically motivated illegal killing of these unpopular species. Such wildlife crime formed the investigation of an interdisciplinary and internationally collaborative research project headed by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Ultuna, Uppsala. Through 3 years of in-depth interview studies with hunters in Sweden, a quantitative survey to hunters, comparative studies in other parts of the world and close collaboration with Fennoscandian researchers and practitioners, this project ran to completion at the end of 2016. The following report marks the dissemination and discussion of the research results and insights for future research produced by this project. Hence, it represents the first time the full research project and its members stand before the public and interest groups. The report synthesizes two days of workshop thematic discussions between 45 participants from societal sectors including hunting and nature conservation NGOs, county administrative boards, Environmental Protection Agencies, law enforcement, environmental attorneys and farming associations as they feature across the Fennoscandian countries: Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland. Its discussions center on social control in wildlife crime, the juridification of hunting issues, the influence of the EU and platforms for going forward to mitigate poaching, in particular of large carnivores like the wolf. The report is an essential read for both researchers and practitioners faced with the problem of socially accepted, but secretive and hidden, forms of illegal hunting in response to governmental legitimacy crises, distrust of policy and policy-makers, and as a manifestation of rural resistance in modernity.

You may not have thought about why tomatoes look the way they do, why our pets and farm animals are so calm and friendly, or how it is possible to get a watermelon without any seeds in it. Although the breeding of plants and livestock have shaped more or less everything we eat, few people know about the scientific achievements and the tedious work that results in the food we see on our plates every day. With this book we wish to give an overview of the background of domestication and breeding, from the beginning of farming more than 10,000 years ago to the molecular work of today. We present the basics of the structures and functions of genes, describe why and how different breeding methods are applied to crops and livestock, and give some insight into legislation surrounding the use of biotechnology in breeding in the EU and in Sweden. We also provide an overview of different products produced through genetic modification, a summary of the economic impact of such crops, and some ethical issues related to breeding in general and to genetic modification in particular.

Is it really meaningful to talk about "good" science? We hesitate. We desire good (state) science stumbling near a positivist scientific view. We wish for political science theory -- and practice as much as possible to emulate natural science theory and methodology -- to be objective, to look for hard facts, causal relationships, universal laws, and by using the "right" methods to reach the "right" or "true" knowledge and thus make us the "real" knowledge producers. At the same time we believe it is important to keep the discussion on good science not only alive but also always ongoing. Perhaps this is an ongoing discussion about our research efforts and research ideals of what constitutes good science? It is our guiding principle when we formulated the following manifesto for the good of science. Adapted from the source document.

Plant breeding has always relied on progress in various scientifc disciplines to generate and enable access to genetic variation. Until the 1970s, available techniques generated mostly random genetic alterations that were subject to a selection procedure in the plant material. Recombinant nucleic acid technology, however, started a new era of targeted genetic alterations, or precision breeding, enabling a much more targeted approach to trait management. More recently, developments in genome editing are now providing yet more control by enabling alterations at exact locations in the genome. The potential of recombinant nucleic acid technology fueled discussions about potentially new associated risks and, starting in the late 1980s, biosafety legislation for genetically modifed organisms (GMOs) has developed in the European Union. However, the last decade has witnessed a lot of discussions as to whether or not genome editing and other precision breeding techniques should be encompassed by the EU GMO legislation. A recent ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union indicated that directed mutagenesis techniques should be subject to the provisions of the GMO Directive, essentially putting many precision breeding techniques in the same regulatory basket. This review outlines the evolving EU regulatory framework for GMOs and discusses some potential routes that the EU may take for the regulation of precision breeding.

When animals are exposed to a novel situation such as transportation, they react by eliciting certain physiological and behavioural functions in order to cope with the situation. These changes can be measured to indicate how much stress the animal is suffering. Physiological stress indicators often measured in animal transport research include changes in heart rate, live-weight, cortisol levels, and blood composition including electrolytes, metabolites and enzymes (Broom and Johnson, 1993). Animal behavioural stress indicators include struggling, vocalisation, kicking or biting, hunching of the back, urination, defecation and recumbence (Broom et al. 1996; Gregory, 1998). Meat quality parameters post mortem can also help to indicate stress levels in animals (Grandin, 1990; Gregory, 1998). These include incidence of bruising and DFD in all farm animal species and PSE in pigs. Mortality is also an obvious indicator of poor welfare. Combined aspects of transport that contribute to causing stress in livestock include loading and unloading procedures, close proximity to stock handlers, water/feed deprivation, noise, riding in a truck, mixing with other animals and being forced into unfamiliar environments. The responses of stock to these conditions will depend on the animal's genetically controlled adaptability, physical condition and its previous handling experiences (Gross and Siegel, 1993). Factors such as the adequate preparation of animals for transport, controlled prior access to feed and water, minimal disruption to social groups, considerate animal handling skills, adequate handling and transport facilities including good ventilation in trucks, and careful driving technique are major areas that dictate the standard of animal transport. For example, considerations for pigs should include a pre-transport fasting period which balances the requirement to avoid hunger, travel sickness and deaths. Breeding and selecting for more stress-resistant genotypes of pigs can improve the welfare by reducing mortality and the metabolic consequences of transport stress. Other factors influencing animal transport include farm size and country size. For example, livestock transport in Scandinavia involves transport vehicles travelling to more than one farm in order to fill a vehicle. In Australia often one farm pick up can fill a truck, and although the distances may be much longer to the abattoir, it will be more direct. The market demand dictates the type of animals transported. For example the veal trade in Europe demands young live calves to be transported over long distances from northern countries which supply it to the southern countries which demand it. This trade exists in live animals rather than meat because the demanding countries further fatten and slaughter these animals specific to their needs. The industry set up influences the standard of animal transport in different countries. For example in countries where industries are vertically integrated consisting of producer-owned slaughter plant co-operatives (Sweden and Denmark), producers are paid according to slaughter weight and lean meat percentage, therefore there is more consistent quality control measures in place. In Australia the marketing system is such that it provides no economic incentive to reduce losses. Greater public awareness of animal welfare seems to be increasing in western countries, and as a result there is more pressure on the livestock industry to adopt better standards for the farming, handling, transport and slaughter of animals. The transport of livestock in Australia continues to be under increased scrutiny from overseas markets and animal welfare groups. In the European Union (EU), public pressure has been a successful instigator to the drafting and continued improvement of comprehensive legislation for animal transport. EU animal transport laws cover aspects such as minimum design standards for livestock vehicles (including ventilation controls), maximum journey lengths before resting intervals, stocking rates, what animals are considered as fit to travel, and general handling and care requirements of animals in transport. These laws are causing debate between northern and southern countries in areas such as maximum journey lengths and vehicle design standards. Some countries such as the UK have also gone to a great effort to adjust national laws in order to incorporate EU transport laws, but countries such as Spain and Italy have not. Typically it is these countries that more often have poor standards of animal welfare, and the welfare of farmed animals has historically been of low priority (Schmidt, 1995). When and how these countries will adopt the comprehensive EU animal transport regulations, continues to be an unanswered and politically sensitive question between EU member states.