On 19 December 2008 the Official Journal of Belgium published the 'Law regarding the procurement and use of human body material destined for human medical applications or for scientific research purposes'. This paper will comment on various aspects of the Law: its scope of application (what is understood by 'body material'?); its concept of 'residual human body material' (with far-reaching implications for the type of consent required for research); the nature of actions with and uses of human body material that are explicitly prohibited; the right of donors to be informed of relevant information revealed by the use of their body material; and the special responsibilities placed on hospital ethics committees. As will be argued in this paper, several of these provisions are highly problematic from an ethical point of view, especially those relating to consent. Meanwhile, the Minister of Public Health has asked the Belgian Advisory Committee on Bioethics for advice on the incorporation of the 'presumed consent' model, that applies to post mortem organ donation, into the biobank Law's provisions on post mortem removal and use of body material. This aspect of the Law effectively extends the 'presumed consent' regime, both from organs to body material in general, and from therapeutic uses to research uses.
In this paper, we present a framework for the analysis of shock and conflict in social-ecological systems and investigate the implications of this perspective for the understanding of environmental governance, particularly its evolutionary patterns and drivers. We dwell on the distinction between shock and conflict. In mapping the relation between shock and conflict, we invoke a different potentiality for altering rigidity and flexibility in governance; different possibilities for recall, revival and trauma; and different pathways for restructuring the relation between governance, community and environment. Shock and conflict can be both productive and eroding, and for each, one can observe that productivity can be positive or negative. These different effects in governance can be analyzed in terms of object and subject creation, path creation and in terms of the dependencies recognized by evolutionary governance theory: path, inter-, goal and material dependencies. Thus, shock and conflict are mapped in their potential consequences to not only shift a path of governance, but also to transform the pattern of self-transformation in such path. Finally, we reflect on what this means for the interpretation of adaptive governance of social-ecological systems.
In 2015 the Council of Europe introduced a new criminal law convention to address organ trafficking. The main focus of the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs is the crime of illicit organ removal. The act of illicit organ removal is also criminalised under international human trafficking instruments that consider it as a form of exploitation of a living organ donor. As both legal frameworks rely on two key concepts to determine if the respective crimes occurred, namely, valid consent to organ removal and the presence of monetary benefits, a clear overlap exists when an organ is removed from a living donor. The question arises as to whether the illicit organ removal, based on the same factual circumstances and material evidence, is sufficiently distinct for an offender to be prosecuted under both regimes simultaneously or in separate criminal proceedings, without violating the principle of ne bis in idem. This paper aims to answer that question by (1) examining the crime of illicit organ removal under both criminal regimes and (2) analysing Belgian criminal law frameworks on human trafficking and organ trafficking in the context of the applicability of the principle of ne bis in idem as developed by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. This analysis reveals the complexity of the issue. It also confirms the proximity of the legal definitions of both types of crimes, resulting in a considerable overlap and a clear risk of double prosecution and punishment. On the basis of these findings, recommendations are formulated on how to harmonise the application of both trafficking frameworks so as to minimise that risk.
In this special issue, we present a number of distinct contributions to recent debates on the interlinkage between place branding with spatial planning theory and the embedded of both in governance. The idea to organise this special issue emerged from our common research interests. For us it was rather puzzling that planning and branding had not been connected in a systematic manner, either in theory or in practice. The encouragement towards this special issue occurred after a post-conference meeting in Amsterdam, The Netherlands in September 2017. As guest editors, we had been convinced of the potential of place branding as a way to make planning more sensitive to its own potential for encouraging value creation and support spatial transformation. We never considered this a way to maximizing value or to subjugate spatial planning to a capitalist system. But we did believe that spatial planning in a capitalist context would make itself very vulnerable if it was not sensitive to issues of economic value, and also sensitive to arguments and lobbying by developers, property owners, and citizens. We had a strong feeling that place branding perspectives could render planning more sensitive in this regard, and we were, to some extent, exhausted with schematic discussions of planning being seen as an opponent of free enterprise and property rights and place branding represented as the 'handmaiden of capitalism'. We believed that place branding had the potential to protect and preserve what is valuable to a community, but that it had to develop at least a greater awareness of the issues of democratic legitimacy engendered by its claims to importance. We wanted to get a deeper understanding of this problematic separation and invite authors from two sides of the divide to think about the other side. And it was not easy. The marketing roots of place branding made it hard for some authors to envision branding in the frame of governance, and in that frame to consider how it could get closer to planning. While in planning, intellectual but also administrative traditions made it hard to make connections at first. But we believe we did succeed in bringing together a group of competent and open minded authors who were willing to cross the divide and think about various possible ways to relate planning and branding. Sometimes, tough discussions were part of the game, and both contributors and guest editors had to re-examine their assumptions. We believe this happened, and we are proud of the result. This collection of papers, is certainly not the 'last word' in this debate but it is for sure a major step forward in the search for synergies between planning and branding. We assume that many possible relations are imaginable and practicable. When considering those possible synergies, one need to take into account the diversity of forms of planning and branding, as well as the diversity of situations, marked by different issues and assets. Many critiques of place branding and its former incarnation, place marketing, have focused on the bias towards economic development. This raised questions regarding the power of a small circle of experts (especially in places with a strong tourism sector), but also regarding the narrow focus of community development implied, the limited set of assets appreciated, the limited range of possible futures envisioned, or the small number of common goods articulated. The idea of spatial planning has been similarly captured, according to much of the academic literature, by narrow economic development goals, with old ambitions being routinely ditched to redefine planning as simply creating space for developers. A key argument of this special issue, one found in different forms in most of the contributions, is that effective synergies between planning and place branding requires a thorough understanding of planning and branding practices and the embedding of both in governance. This means looking beyond the labels, and beyond the self-presentations of both sets of professionals, and mapping out in detail how planning and branding really work in the given location. It also means that the actual (versus formal) position of each in broader governance configurations requires attention. Once an image of actual practices in a bigger governance system is sketched, the current impact of both planning and branding can be better understood, as can be their current relations, and some possibilities for re-configuring those relations. Furthermore, an understanding of the evolution of the governance system and its modes of self-transformation, helps to see how current forms of planning and branding might be transformed and brought into more fruitful relations. For most of the authors included in this special issue, two important concepts shared by planning and branding, are assets and narratives, with branding offering a promise to stabilize communities by creating place-based value sensitive to assets and narratives.
In this special issue, we present a number of distinct contributions to recent debates on the interlinkage between place branding with spatial planning theory and the embedded of both in governance. The idea to organise this special issue emerged from our common research interests. For us it was rather puzzling that planning and branding had not been connected in a systematic manner, either in theory or in practice. The encouragement towards this special issue occurred after a post-conference meeting in Amsterdam, The Netherlands in September 2017. As guest editors, we had been convinced of the potential of place branding as a way to make planning more sensitive to its own potential for encouraging value creation and support spatial transformation. We never considered this a way to maximizing value or to subjugate spatial planning to a capitalist system. But we did believe that spatial planning in a capitalist context would make itself very vulnerable if it was not sensitive to issues of economic value, and also sensitive to arguments and lobbying by developers, property owners, and citizens. We had a strong feeling that place branding perspectives could render planning more sensitive in this regard, and we were, to some extent, exhausted with schematic discussions of planning being seen as an opponent of free enterprise and property rights and place branding represented as the 'handmaiden of capitalism'. We believed that place branding had the potential to protect and preserve what is valuable to a community, but that it had to develop at least a greater awareness of the issues of democratic legitimacy engendered by its claims to importance. We wanted to get a deeper understanding of this problematic separation and invite authors from two sides of the divide to think about the other side. And it was not easy. The marketing roots of place branding made it hard for some authors to envision branding in the frame of governance, and in that frame to consider how it could get closer to planning. While in planning, intellectual but also administrative traditions made it hard to make connections at first. But we believe we did succeed in bringing together a group of competent and open minded authors who were willing to cross the divide and think about various possible ways to relate planning and branding. Sometimes, tough discussions were part of the game, and both contributors and guest editors had to re-examine their assumptions. We believe this happened, and we are proud of the result. This collection of papers, is certainly not the 'last word' in this debate but it is for sure a major step forward in the search for synergies between planning and branding. We assume that many possible relations are imaginable and practicable. When considering those possible synergies, one need to take into account the diversity of forms of planning and branding, as well as the diversity of situations, marked by different issues and assets. Many critiques of place branding and its former incarnation, place marketing, have focused on the bias towards economic development. This raised questions regarding the power of a small circle of experts (especially in places with a strong tourism sector), but also regarding the narrow focus of community development implied, the limited set of assets appreciated, the limited range of possible futures envisioned, or the small number of common goods articulated. The idea of spatial planning has been similarly captured, according to much of the academic literature, by narrow economic development goals, with old ambitions being routinely ditched to redefine planning as simply creating space for developers. A key argument of this special issue, one found in different forms in most of the contributions, is that effective synergies between planning and place branding requires a thorough understanding of planning and branding practices and the embedding of both in governance. This means looking beyond the labels, and beyond the self-presentations of both sets of professionals, and mapping out in detail how planning and branding really work in the given location. It also means that the actual (versus formal) position of each in broader governance configurations requires attention. Once an image of actual practices in a bigger governance system is sketched, the current impact of both planning and branding can be better understood, as can be their current relations, and some possibilities for re-configuring those relations. Furthermore, an understanding of the evolution of the governance system and its modes of self-transformation, helps to see how current forms of planning and branding might be transformed and brought into more fruitful relations. For most of the authors included in this special issue, two important concepts shared by planning and branding, are assets and narratives, with branding offering a promise to stabilize communities by creating place-based value sensitive to assets and narratives.
This book offers a unique perspective on cosmopolitanism, examining the ways it is constructed and reconstructed on the small scale in an ongoing process of matching the local with the global, a process entailing mutual transformation. Based on a wide range of literatures and a series of case studies, it analyzes the different versions and functions of cosmopolitanism and points to the need to critically re-examine current conceptions of globalization. The book first illustrates the interplay between networks and narratives in the construction of cosmopolitan communities in three specific cities: Trieste, Odessa and Tbilisi. Each has a past more cosmopolitan than the present and each uses that cosmopolitan past to guide them towards the future. Next, the book focuses on narrative dynamics by isolating several discourses on the cosmopolitan place and figure in European cultural history. It then goes on to detail the internal representations and local functions of larger wholes in smaller communities, shedding a new light on issues of inter- disciplinary interest: self- governance, participation, local knowledge, social memory, scale, planning and development. Of interest to political scientists, anthropologists, economists, geographers and philosophers, this book offers an insightful contribution to theories of globalization and global/ local interaction, bringing the local discursive mechanics into sharper focus and also emphasizing the semi- autonomous character of narrative constructions of self and community in a larger world
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
This book offers a unique perspective on cosmopolitanism, examining the ways it is constructed and reconstructed on the small scale in an ongoing process of matching the local with the global, a process entailing mutual transformation. Based on a wide range of literatures and a series of case studies, it analyzes the different versions and functions of cosmopolitanism and points to the need to critically re-examine current conceptions of globalization. The book first illustrates the interplay between networks and narratives in the construction of cosmopolitan communities in three specific cities: Trieste, Odessa and Tbilisi. Each has a past more cosmopolitan than the present and each uses that cosmopolitan past to guide them towards the future. Next, the book focuses on narrative dynamics by isolating several discourses on the cosmopolitan place and figure in European cultural history. It then goes on to detail the internal representations and local functions of larger wholes in smaller communities, shedding a new light on issues of inter- disciplinary interest: self- governance, participation, local knowledge, social memory, scale, planning and development. Of interest to political scientists, anthropologists, economists, geographers and philosophers, this book offers an insightful contribution to theories of globalization and global/ local interaction, bringing the local discursive mechanics into sharper focus and also emphasizing the semi- autonomous character of narrative constructions of self and community in a larger world.
Steering has negative connotations nowadays in many discussions on governance, policy, politics and planning. The associations with the modernist state project linger on. At the same time, a rethinking of what is possible by means of policy and planning, what is possible through governance, which forms of change and which pursuits of common goods still make sense, in an era of cynicism about steering yet also high steering expectations, seems eminently useful. Between laissez faire and blue-print planning are many paths which can be walked. In this thematic issue, we highlight the value of evolutionary understandings of governance and of governance in society, in order to grasp which self-transformations of governance systems are more likely than others and which governance tools and ideas stand a better chance than others in a particular context. We pay particular attention to Evolutionary Governance Theory (EGT) as a perspective on governance which delineates steering options as stemming from a set of co-evolutions in governance. Understanding steering options requires, for EGT, path mapping of unique governance paths, as well as context mapping, the external contexts relevant for the mode of reproduction of the governance system in case. A rethinking of steering in governance, through the lens of EGT, can shed a light on governance for innovation, sustainability transitions, new forms of participation and self-organization. For EGT, co-evolutions and dependencies, not only limit but also shape possibilities of steering, per path and per domain of governance and policy.
Steering has negative connotations nowadays in many discussions on governance, policy, politics and planning. The associations with the modernist state project linger on. At the same time, a rethinking of what is possible by means of policy and planning, what is possible through governance, which forms of change and which pursuits of common goods still make sense, in an era of cynicism about steering yet also high steering expectations, seems eminently useful. Between laissez faire and blue-print planning are many paths which can be walked. In this thematic issue, we highlight the value of evolutionary understandings of governance and of governance in society, in order to grasp which self-transformations of governance systems are more likely than others and which governance tools and ideas stand a better chance than others in a particular context. We pay particular attention to Evolutionary Governance Theory (EGT) as a perspective on governance which delineates steering options as stemming from a set of co-evolutions in governance. Understanding steering options requires, for EGT, path mapping of unique governance paths, as well as context mapping, the external contexts relevant for the mode of reproduction of the governance system in case. A rethinking of steering in governance, through the lens of EGT, can shed a light on governance for innovation, sustainability transitions, new forms of participation and self-organization. For EGT, co-evolutions and dependencies, not only limit but also shape possibilities of steering, per path and per domain of governance and policy.
In this paper we reflect on the relationship between planning and law. We analyse the Dutch interpretation and implementation of the European Union Habitats and Birds Directives by investigating the practices of delineation of protected areas. These directives provide a legislative framework for the designation of protected sites as well as for decision making about social and economic activities that might have negative effects on the conservation objectives. The formal boundaries of the protected area can have legal, political, and economic consequences and are therefore the subject of much debate. Using Niklas Luhmann's social systems theory, we analyse the debates concerning delineation and the potential for planning to reduce tensions and balance interests. It is argued that the irreducible differences between the economic, political, and legal perspectives, in combination with the Dutch path of a legalistic interpretation of EU directives, have produced a situation in which the role of planning is reduced and new forms of planning are hard to implement.
In this paper, we explore the importance of silence in planning, an endeavor we deem relevant in an era where communication and planning are seen as nearly equivalent. We investigate the meanings and functions of silence in the interpretation of plans, planned space and the planning process. We distinguish silence in the literal sense, as absence of sound, and metaphorical silence, representing other forms of absence: of other voices, of oppressed discourse, of intentionality. The paradoxical nature of silence, as potential fullness and emptiness of meaning, increases complexity and unpredictability in the interpretation of space, plans and the planning process. It is argued that a process of participatory planning, including many actors, documents and interpretations of space, necessarily multiplies the ambiguities introduced by silence. This creates steering problems for planners, but it also introduces openness and flexibility. Silence can have the positive function of stretching up the interpretations of space, plans and the process.
In this article, we argue that Niklas Luhmann has a lot to offer present-day planning theory. Until now, planning theory has been engaged with Luhmann's work only minimally. Convinced of its potential, we want to show how Luhmann's systems theory offers fresh insight into both limits and possibilities of planning in contemporary society. We argue that Luhmann's understanding of society as functionally differentiated into self-referentially closed subsystems (politics, economy, law, science, etc.) creates space for a complex and subtle analysis of planning practice. In particular, we look at the role of planning within an autopoietic account of society, and its ability to steer other social subsystems. Planning is seen as the form of steering aiming to coordinate processes of spatial organization, therefore an activity dealing with steering problems. We illustrate key concepts of the systems theory in brief analyses of planning situations and interpret these situations using the systems theoretical framework. The analyses center around the questions of planning's steering capacity and the role of the planner, thus creating linkages with mainstream discussions in planning theory.
