Suchergebnisse

Political Science - De opdracht voor deze tekst is gegeven door de projectgroep Markt, staat en samenleving van de WRR. Een aantal externe auteurs werd gevraagd in detail te beschrijven hoe het afstemmingsproces van vraag en aanbod in praktijk werkt. In tegenstelling tot de theorie, vraag en aanbod, prijs en kwaliteit gebeuren niet automatisch; dit werpt een tweede vraag op, namelijk welke rol de overheid in dit proces speelt. De serie WRR-webpublicaties omvat studies die in het kader van de werkzaamheden van de WRR tot stand zijn gekomen. De verantwoordelijkheid voor de inhoud en de ingenomen standpunten berust bij de auteurs.

EU public procurement law provides different options for preventing geopolitically undesirable dependency on third country suppliers in critical infrastructure. Their effectiveness solely depends, however, on the willingness of national authorities to use those. Recently, the EU therefore adopted the International Procurement Instrument (IPI) Regulation, within the sphere of the Common Commercial Policy (CCP), to condition the access to public contracts for third country entities on reciprocity. This article explores the security dimension of this issue. After generally considering the role of sovereignty as a limit to international trade, the article specifies the security risks which may arise in a public procurement context and sets out the legal options for Member States to address those. The article then discusses how security intrinsically shapes CCP instruments and how the new regulation could indicate a shift in the EU's role, from facilitating legal options for Member States, towards the Commission itself restricting the market access for certain third countries. Although such bans ought to be based on a lack of reciprocity rather than security, in times of weaponized dependencies the security dimension is undeniable. When considering interdependence as a stabilizing force in international relations, reciprocity itself has in fact become a security objective.
EU law, Public Procurement, National Security, Critical Infrastructure, Common Commercial Policy, International Procurement Instrument, Economic Interdependence, Sovereignty, World Trade Organization, Government Procurement Agreement

Ever since the Maastricht Treaty, the EU has been increasingly engaged in the military domain. More recently, many initiatives on intergovernmental EU cooperation have emerged in the area of Common Security and Defence Policy, such as those initiatives in the context of permanent structured cooperation (PESCO). At the same time, the Commission initiated policies and legislation on military industries based on the supranational regime of the internal market, such as the Defence Procurement Directive (DPD) which was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in 2009. The EU Treaties, however, include a clear exception for military equipment and recognise national security as the sole responsibility of the Member States. The DPD aims to liberalise European armaments industries by imposing public procurement obligations on Member States for their military procurement. Such obligations, however, may conflict with the national security strategies of the Member States aimed at the survival of domestic industry. Consequently, Member States often still rely on the Treaty-based exception. This Article aims to provide a new legal approach to this conflict by, first, looking at the historic and legal context in which policies and legislation came about, secondly, determining the function of military procurement based on international relations theories and, thirdly, evaluating the internal market policies and legislation within this context. Finally, the author sets out a theoretical basis for legal interpretation of EU military procurement law. To overcome the conflict, the author argues for reconsideration of the internal market legal base of the military procurement regime and regulation of the legally controversial offset agreements.

AbstractPolicymakers in industrialized countries attempt to contain the costs of sick leave and disability schemes by limiting access to include medically proven cases only. However, a person's incapacity to work cannot be fully deduced by referring to his or her medical condition. It is the question whether using more restrictive eligibility criteria that focus on medical evidence actually reduces the number of benefit recipients and makes access to employee benefit arrangements fairer. This ethnographic study shows that physicians working in Dutch illness certification practices use alternative methods to restrict access to sick leave programmes. Doctors do not control their clients in a restrictive sense of the word. Rather, they exercise control over their clients by inciting them to internalize norms about being active and responsible. While we do not claim that this is good per se, we do contend that this control style may have some advantages over and above more restrictive control mechanisms. Elaborating on policy that supports this alternative notion of control, therefore, seems worthwhile.

Background and aim: India has had a wheelchair-delivery system in place for several years but its impact on users is inadequate. Therefore, this research reviews the system to examine how the right to personal mobility can be served better. Method: this paper undertakes a narrative review of the existing government-aided wheelchair provision system from the perspectives of legislation and implementing agencies, both governmental and non-governmental, through document review and key informant interviews. Results: the results indicate that all steps of the government-funded wheelchair provision system are executed by the same system. Manufacture and supply take place nationally, but wheelchair services are largely absent. Moreover, the right to access mobility devices is not upheld for all users. Conclusion: the established government-aided wheelchair provision system is inadequate in terms of coverage, design, production, supply, and wheelchair services. Therefore, there is a need to reconsider the system by increasing its coverage and creating partnerships between the government, non-governmental agencies, and private agencies to improve access.

Background and aim: India has had a wheelchair-delivery system in place for several years but its impact on users is inadequate. Therefore, this research reviews the system to examine how the right to personal mobility can be served better. Method: this paper undertakes a narrative review of the existing government-aided wheelchair provision system from the perspectives of legislation and implementing agencies, both governmental and non-governmental, through document review and key informant interviews. Results: the results indicate that all steps of the government-funded wheelchair provision system are executed by the same system. Manufacture and supply take place nationally, but wheelchair services are largely absent. Moreover, the right to access mobility devices is not upheld for all users. Conclusion: the established government-aided wheelchair provision system is inadequate in terms of coverage, design, production, supply, and wheelchair services. Therefore, there is a need to reconsider the system by increasing its coverage and creating partnerships between the government, non-governmental agencies, and private agencies to improve access.