Suchergebnisse

Chapter 1. Disasters and the state in South Africa -- Chapter 2. Of Bombs and Natural Risks: Inventing Disasters in Colonial and Apartheid South Africa -- Chapter 3. Disaster Connections: Knowledge, Democracy and Policy Change -- Chapter 4. Reforming the State: The Institutionalisation of Disaster Management -- Chapter 5. Disciplining Disasters: Science and the Government of Disasters -- Chapter 6. Protecting the 'Most Vulnerable'? The Management of a Disaster and the Making/Unmaking of Victims after Xenophobic Violence in 2008 in South Africa -- Chapter 7. Conclusion.

The European Union has experienced a series of transboundary crises that have tested its capacity and legitimacy. The financial and refugee crises have highlighted the political and administrative limits to existing EU crisis management arrangements. In particular, they have strained understandings of member state solidarity, and they have given rise to conflicts over the direction of future EU transboundary crisis management capacities within and across policy domains. To develop enhanced transboundary crisis management capacity and legitimacy, it is essential to understand the different types of crises that have affected the European Union - ranging from 'traditional' emergencies, such as terrorist attacks or natural disasters, to the consequences of enhanced market liberalisation and integration, such as the banking crisis or the dramatic levels of youth unemployment, and the explicit rejection by member states of key liberal democratic constitutional commitments, namely 'backsliding'. In addition, the context of the new normal of re-nationalised electoral politics, the challenge of coordinating highly dispersed systems of multi-level governance, and the tension of dealing with (often incompatible) short- and long-term objectives also shape EU transboundary crisis management. This White Paper identifies four deficits in contemporary transboundary crisis management: deficits in central authority, in prescriptiveness, in subsidiarity, and in flexibility. These deficits point to the contested nature of debates over future transboundary crisis management in the EU and its member states. This White Paper identifies four different approaches towards enhancing capacity and legitimacy: i) a reliance on 'ad hoc' responses, ii) a strengthening of EU-level capacity; iii) a strengthening of multi-level governance; and iv) a strengthening of consistency of member state policies. Each of these approaches is associated with distinct advantages and pathologies.

This study explores the way in which European governance seeks to address transboundary crises. Transboundary crises pose a particular challenge for administrative systems as costs and benefits are unevenly distributed, organisational and jurisdictional competencies over- and underlap, and as problem definitions and solutions are usually disputed. Boundaries are essential for the identity of national states, they are critical for determining the jurisdictional competence of organisations and they are critical for administering individual phenomena. Transboundary crises, in contrast, do not respect such boundaries. Crises themselves might be disruptive, but might be contained within certain boundaries. In the context of transboundary crises, disruption crosses jurisdictional boundaries. Furthermore, decisions in one place do not just affect the quality of the crises in that particular locality, they also affect the nature of the crisis in other jurisdictions. Transboundary crises are said to be of particular relevance to the contemporary context of governance as processes of globalisation have increased vulnerabilities to crises. Furthermore, the rise of multi-level and supra-national forms of governance reduces states' ability to tackle crises within their own boundaries (Boin et al. 2013). In other words, transboundary crises present a central challenge to any contemporary system of governing. This study is particularly interested in the ways in which the EU as a system of multi-level governances organises crisis management regimes to address certain types of transboundary crises. The question of how the EU addresses transboundary crises has become increasingly pertinent since the financial crisis is said to have brought about a new era of 'emergency politics' (White 2015). The financial and sovereign debt crises highlighted the vulnerability of the EU and its member states to transboundary crises. It also highlighted the tensions that emerge from seeking to develop coordinated responses in the context of an ...

Les catastrophes dites « naturelles » (séismes, ouragans, tsunamis, éruptions volcaniques, inondations...) ont longtemps été et sont encore aujourd'hui, pour la plupart, analysées par les sciences de la terre et sciences de l'ingénieur. Au cours du XX e siècle, elles sont également devenues un objet de recherche pour les sciences sociales, déplaçant par la même occasion l'objet d'investigation et d'intervention sur les catastrophes, en les rendant moins « naturelles » et plus « sociales ». Cette concurrence des savoirs, entre sciences de la terre et sciences sociales, a accompagné la mise à l'agenda politique international des catastrophes depuis les années 1970. Au travers d'une comparaison dans le temps et à l'échelle transnationale, l'article s'intéresse à la façon dont ces déplacements et frictions scientifiques ont participé de transformations politiques globales de la Guerre froide à la période actuelle, entre enjeux de sécurité, d'environnement et de développement. L'article montre comment la distribution sociale des disciplines est indissociable de reconfigurations politiques qui promeuvent, adoptent ou rejettent certaines approches au détriment d'autres. Plus généralement, l'enjeu est de mettre en perspective l'inscription politique des savoirs dans des configurations globales au regard de leurs concurrences.

What could a European Union (EU) response mechanism to health emergencies look like in the context of a more integrated Health Union? Despite an increased EU role in the preparedness, monitoring and coordination of health emergencies over the past two decades, Member States' responses to the first wave of COVID-19 were surprisingly uncoordinated. In light of calls to improve cooperation regarding future health emergencies, this article discusses the creation of EU surveillance, preparedness and response mechanisms for health emergencies. Using insights from previous research and secondary literature, we highlight gaps in the existing serious cross-border health threats regulatory framework and discuss opportunities for further EU action. Based on a comparison with other EU crisis management mechanisms (the Banking Union, risk preparedness in the electricity sector and food safety), we discuss different crisis decision-making and coordination models and their potential applicability to the health sector. We then formulate several propositions to strengthen Decision 1082/2013/EU on serious cross-border health threats to streamline ex ante pandemic preparedness and organise emergency responses.

What could a European Union (EU) response mechanism to health emergencies look like in the context of a more integrated Health Union? Despite an increased EU role in the preparedness, monitoring and coordination of health emergencies over the past two decades, Member States' responses to the first wave of COVID-19 were surprisingly uncoordinated. In light of calls to improve cooperation regarding future health emergencies, this article discusses the creation of EU surveillance, preparedness and response mechanisms for health emergencies. Using insights from previous research and secondary literature, we highlight gaps in the existing serious cross-border health threats regulatory framework and discuss opportunities for further EU action. Based on a comparison with other EU crisis management mechanisms (the Banking Union, risk preparedness in the electricity sector and food safety), we discuss different crisis decision-making and coordination models and their potential applicability to the health sector. We then formulate several propositions to strengthen Decision 1082/2013/EU on serious cross-border health threats to streamline ex ante pandemic preparedness and organise emergency responses.