Suchergebnisse

A l'hora de fer balanç sobre la Cimera Mundial de la Societat de la Informació, potser el més remarcable es trobi en el terreny dels procediments, més que no pas dels resultats. És a dir, en la incorporació de mecanismes de debat i seguiment multisectorials - amb la presència de representants de la societat civil, d'interlocutors governamentals i del món empresarial- per tal de pensar els futurs desenvolupaments de la societat de la informació. Precisament, la multisectorialitat serà una de las característiques de l'Internet Governance Forum, un nou instrument internacional per debatre sobre el govern d'internet impulsat a la Cimera. ; A la hora de hacer balance sobre la Cumbre mundial de la sociedad de la información, quizás lo más remarcable se halle en el ámbito de los procedimientos, más que no en el de los resultados. Es decir, en la incorporación de mecanismos de debate y seguimiento multisectoriales -con la presencia de representantes de la sociedad civil, de interlocutores gubernamentales y del mundo empresarial- para pensar en los desarrollos futuros de la sociedad de la información. Precisamente, la multisectorialidad será una de las características del Internet Governance Forum, un nuevo instrumento internacional para debatir sobre el gobierno de internet impulsado en la Cumbre. ; When it comes to assessing the World Summit on the Information Society, the most remarkable point may lie in the field of procedures rather than results. In other words, in the incorporation of multisectoral debate and monitoring mechanisms - with the presence of civil society representatives as well as governmental and corporate interlocutors - when it comes to thinking about future developments of the information society. In fact, multisectorality will be one of the characteristics of the Internet Governance Forum, a new international instrument to discuss Internet governance as promoted at the Summit.

Com la seva generació, Valls és marcat per la Guerra Civil i la repressió franquista. Per això veié la humanitat des del realisme polític pessimista i agonista; i cercà fonamentar filosòficament un «nosaltres» que acabés amb la lluita de tots contra tots. Analitzem els seus atacs als «nosaltres» construïts sobre la classe, la cultura o nació, la societat civil o el «jo» individual, l'emotivisme i el moralisme, que són impotents i alimenten el natural «agonisme» humà. A canvi, Valls primer va creure trobar el «nosaltres» en l'Església, però se'n desmarcà radicalment i només confià en una versió hegeliana de l'Estat. En aquest article, fem un balanç de l'obra i la docència acadèmica del professor recentment desaparegut ; Like the rest of his generation, Valls was marked by the Spanish Civil War and the Francoist repression. Therefore he viewed humanity from realpolitik, pessimistic and agonistic; he searched to give a philosophical base to an "we" which would end the struggle of one against another. We analyze his attacks on "we" built on class, culture or nationality, civil society o the "I" individual, emotivism or moralism, which are impotent and feed the natural human "agonism". Instead, Valls first thought he'd found the "we" in the church, but then changed radically and only trusted the Hegelian version of the state. In this article we take a balance of the work and teaching of the recently departed professor

La gestió de la diversitat religiosa és una política estratègica en la qual ens hi juguem bona part del nostre futur. Una política que, més enllà de les legítimes diferències polítiques, s'ha de fonamentar en dos objectius bàsics: garantir el dret al ple exercici de la llibertatreligiosa i el manteniment de la cohesió. Per aconseguir aquests objectius cal desenvolupar i estendre una nova mirada cap a la diversitat religiosa basada en el coneixementd'aquesta diversitat, en la implementació del marc legal existent i en una voluntat de crear llaços entre els diferents sectors socials. Aquesta nova mirada no es pot circumscriure a l'àmbit de les administracions, sinó que cal que arribi al conjunt de la societat ; The treatment of religious diversity is a strategic policy area in which a significant part of our future is at stake, and an area of strategicconcern that, above and beyond legitimate political differences, must be focused on two basic objectives: the guaranteeing of the right to the full exercise of religious freedom and the maintenance of cohesion. In order to achieve these objectives it is necessary to develop and disseminate a new approach to religious diversity based on knowledge and understanding of this diversity, the implementation of the existing legal framework and a willingness to for ge links between different sectors of the social fabric, and this new approach must not be confined to the realms of public administration, but must extend to take in the whole of society. ; La gestión de la diversidad religiosa es una política estratégica en la que nos jugamos buena parte de nuestro futuro. Una política que, más allá de las legítimas diferencias políticas, debe fundamentarse en dos objetivos básicos: garantizar el derecho al pleno ejercicio de la libertad religiosa y el mantenimiento de la cohesión. Para conseguir estos objetivos es necesario desarrollar y extender una nueva mirada hacia la diversidad religiosa basada en el conocimiento de esta diversidad, en la implementación del marco legal existente y en una voluntad de crear lazos entre los diferentes sectores sociales. Estanueva mirada no se puede circunscribir al ámbito de las administraciones, sino que debe llegar al conjunto de la sociedad.

Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...

Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...

Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...

The Global Nutrition Report (GNR) provides a global profile and country profiles on nutrition for each of the United Nations' 193 member states, and includes specific progress for each country. It will be a centerpiece of the Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2) in Rome on 19-21 November, organized by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. ; Supplementary Online Materials ix Acknowledgments x Abbreviations xii Executive summary xiii Chapter 1 ntroduction 2 Chapter 2 Nutrition Is Central to Sustainable Development 7 Chapter 3 Progress toward the World Health Assembly Nutrition Targets Is Too Slow1 5 Chapter 4 The Coexistence of Different Forms of Malnutrition Is the "New Normal" 22 Chapter 5 The Coverage of Nutrition-Specific Interventions Needs to Improve 29 Chapter 6 Interventions Addressing the Underlying Determinants of Nutrition Status Are Important, but They Need to Be More Nutrition sensitive 38 Chapter 7 The Enabling Environment Is Improving, but Not Quickly Enough 47 Chapter 8 The Need to Strengthen Accountability in Nutrition 56 Chapter 9 What Are the Priorities for Investment in Improved Nutrition Data? 67 Chapter 10 Key Messages and Recommendations 71 Appendix 1 The Nutrition Country Profile: A Tool for Action 75 Appendix 2 Which Countries Are on Course to Meet Several WHA Targets? 77 Appendix 3 Which Countries Are on Course for Which WHA Targets? 79 Appendix 4 Donor Spending on Nutrition-Specific and Nutrition-Sensitive Interventions and Programs 84 Appendix 5 How Accountable Is the Global Nutrition Report? 86 Appendix 6 Availability of Data for Nutrition Country Profile Indicators 88 Notes 91 References 95 PANELS Panel 11 Types of Nutrition Investment, Lawrence Haddad 4 Panel 21 Nutrition and the Sustainable Development Goals—No Room for Complacency, Michael Anderson 11 Panel 22 Some New Data from India: What If?, Lawrence Haddad, Komal Bhatia, and Kamilla Eriksen 12 Panel 23 How Did Maharashtra Cut Child Stunting?, Lawrence Haddad 13 Panel 24 Can Improving the Underlying Determinants of Nutrition Help Meet the WHA Targets?, Lisa Smith and Lawrence Haddad 14 Panel 41 Malnutrition in the United States and United Kingdom, Jessica Fanzo 25 Panel 42 Regional Drivers of Malnutrition in Indonesia, Endang Achadi with acknowledgment to Sudarno Sumarto and Taufik Hidayat 26 Panel 43 Compiling District-Level Nutrition Data in India, Purnima Menon and Shruthi Cyriac 27 Panel 44 Targeting Minority Groups at Risk in the United States, Jennifer Requejo and Joel Gittelsohn 28 Panel 51 Measuring Coverage of Programs to Treat Severe Acute Malnutrition, Jose Luis Alvarez 37 Panel 61 Trends in Dietary Quality among Adults in the United States, Daniel Wang and Walter Willett 41 Panel 62 How Did Bangladesh Reduce Stunting So Rapidly?, Derek Headey 43 Panel 63 Using an Agricultural Platform in Burkina Faso to Improve Nutrition during the First 1,000 Days, Deanna Kelly Olney, Andrew Dillon, Abdoulaye Pedehombga, Marcellin Ouédraogo, and Marie Ruel 45 Panel 71 Is There a Better Way to Track Nutrition Spending? 48 Panel 72 Tracking Financial Allocations to Nutrition: Guatemala's Experience, Jesús Bulux, Otto Velasquez, Cecibel Juárez, Carla Guillén, and Fernando Arriola 49 Panel 73 A Tool for Assessing Government Progress on Creating Healthy Food Environments, Boyd Swinburn 51 Panel 74 Engaging Food and Beverage Companies through the Access to Nutrition Index, Inge Kauer 52 Panel 75 How Brazil Cut Child Stunting and Improved Breastfeeding Practices, Jennifer Requejo 54 Panel 81 Scaling Up Nutrition through Business, Jonathan Tench 61 Panel 82 How Civil Society Organizations Build Commitment to Nutrition, Claire Blanchard 62 Panel 83 Building Civil Society's Capacity to Push for Policies on Obesity and Noncommunicable Diseases, Corinna Hawkes 63 Panel 84 Can Community Monitoring Enhance Accountability for Nutrition?, Nick Nisbett and Dolf te Lintelo 64 Panel 85 National Evaluation Platforms: Potential for Nutrition, Jennifer Bryce and colleagues 65 Panel 86 The State of African Nutrition Data for Accountability and Learning, Carl Lachat, Joyce Kinabo, Eunice Nago, Annamarie Kruger, and Patrick Kolsteren 66 ; PR ; IFPRI1; CRP4; B Promoting healthy food systems ; DGO; A4NH; PHND ; CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH)

El franquismo fue una dictadura brutal, pero no siempre fue igual. En los años cuarenta y cincuenta se vivió en una dictadura similar a las fascistas, en un clima de guerra civil, de represión y de terror. La sociedad vivía en el miedo y/o en la sumisión. Las minorías resistentes eran heroicas, pero no modificaban el régimen político. Durante los años sesenta, ciertos sectores de la sociedad empiezan a perder gradualmente el miedo; el Estado no controla la vida social ni la cotidianidad en el uso de la lengua; se desarrolla la lucha sindical pese a la represión; el mundo universitario y cultural menosprecia el franquismo y, a finales de los años sesenta, emergen demandas y protestas sociales en los barrios populares. En este marco, los núcleos políticos, la mayoría de izquierdas y nacionalistas, empiezan a enraizarse en los ámbitos más críticos del régimen. La Transición pactada era casi inevitable. La mayoría de la sociedad no quería la continuidad del franquismo, aunque temían un cambio traumático y violento. El resultado fue un inicio democrático formal. No obstante, el franquismo institucional estaba presente en las Fuerzas Armadas, en la alta burocracia, en la Judicatura, etc. La Transición fue un inicio de democratización. ; Francoism was a brutal dictatorship, but it was not always that way. During the 1940s and 1950s, people in Spain lived under a dictatorship like that of other fascist dictatorships, in a civil war atmosphere of repression and terror. Society lived in fear and/or submission; resistant minorities were heroic, but they did not change the political regime. In the 1970s, some segments of society gradually began to lose their fear; the Spanish state no longer controlled social or daily life regarding the use of language; the fight of the trade unions grew despite State repression; universities and cultural spheres despised Francoism and, by the end of the decade, social demands and protests emerged in working-class neighbourhoods. In this context, the political cores -most of the left as well as nationalists- began to take root in the most critical areas of the regime and an 'agreed transition' became almost inevitable. Most of society did not want the Franco regime to continue, but they also feared a traumatic and violent change. The result was a formal democratic beginning. However, institutional Francoism was still present, for example, in the armed forces, the upper echelons of bureaucracy, and the Judiciary. Transition was the beginning of democratisation. ; El franquisme va ser una dictadura brutal, però no sempre va ser igual. En els anys quaranta i cinquanta es va viure en una dictadura similar a les feixistes, en un clima de guerra civil, de repressió i de terror. La societat vivia en la por i en la submissió. Les minories resistents eren heroiques, però no modificaven el règim polític. Durant els anys seixanta, sectors de la societat comencen a perdre gradualment la por; l'Estat no controla la vida social ni la quotidianitat en l'ús de la llengua; es desenvolupa la lluita sindical malgrat la repressió; el món universitari i cultural menysprea el franquisme i, a finals dels anys seixanta, emergeixen demandes i protestes socials als barris populars. En aquest marc, els nuclis polítics, la majoria d'esquerres i nacionalistes, comencen a arrelar en els àmbits més crítics del règim. La Transició pactada era gairebé inevitable. La majoria de la societat no volia la continuïtat del franquisme, encara que temien un canvi traumàtic i violent. El resultat va ser un inici democràtic formal. Tanmateix, el franquisme institucional estava present en les Forces Armades, en l'alta burocràcia, en la Judicatura, etc. La Transició va ser un inici de democratització.