The relationship between past and present has been the subject of controversial debates in historical research time and again. In 2013, to give a prominent example, Philip Alston in a review essay discussed the issue of "Does the past matter?" with regard to a debate on the origins of human rights. The debate was dedicated to the controversial question of "[h]ow far back can we trace the genealogy of today's international human rights system". In this review, I would like to rephrase this question to ask instead to what degree the present matters for historical writing. Other than in the work of Alston, this is not meant as a question on the contingency and path-dependence of history, but rather as a reflection on how historians describe and evaluate the past and what role knowledge of the present may have in this context. .
Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION II. LITERATURE REVIEW III. THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 1\. Trends in Peace Missions 1.1. The Evolution of Interventions 1.1.1. Military Occupation and Colonial Rule 1.1.2. Mandates and Trusteeships 1.1.3. Traditional Peacekeeping 1.1.4. Multidimensional Peacebuilding 1.1.5. Statebuilding and Nation-building 1.1.6. International Transitional Administration 1.1.7. Quo Vadis? 1.2. Descriptive Analysis of UN Peace Missions 1.2.1. Number of UN Peace Missions 1.2.2. Duration 1.2.3. Manpower 1.2.4. Resources 1.2.5. Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding 2\. The Research Question 2.1. Friendly Takeover 2.2. Light Footprint 2.3. Reconciling the Two Approaches 2.4. Context Matters IV. THE ANALYSIS 1\. Concept Specification 1.1. Definition of Peacebuilding and Case Selection 1.2. Operationalization and Descriptive Data 1.2.1. Defining the Outcome 1.2.1.1. Security 1.2.1.2. Statehood 1.2.2. Constructing a Measure of the Scale of Peace Missions 1.2.2.1. Duration 1.2.2.2. Manpower 1.2.2.3. Resources 1.2.2.4. Scale of the Peace Missions in the Sample 1.2.3. Constructing a Measure of the Scope of Peace Missions 1.2.3.1. Did External Actors Enforce Peace with Military Power? 1.2.3.2. Did External Actors Participate in Executive Policing? 1.2.3.3. Did External Actors Engage in Security Sector Reform? 1.2.3.4. Did External Actors Take on Executive Powers? 1.2.3.5. Did External Actors Take on Legislative Powers? 1.2.3.6. Did External Actors Shape the New Constitution? 1.2.3.7. Did External Actors Take on Judicial Powers? 1.2.3.8. Did External Actors Decisively Shape Economic Policies? 1.2.3.9. Scope of the Peace Missions in the Sample 1.2.4. A Combined Measure of Mission Intrusiveness 1.2.5. Trends of Mission Intrusiveness 2\. Two-Step fs/QCA Analysis 2.1. From QCA to Two-Step fs/QCA 2.2. Definition of Remote and Proximate Conditions 2.3. Calibration of Fuzzy Sets 2.4. The Fuzzy Set Data Sheet 3\. Analysis 3.1. fs/QCA Analyses for Necessary Conditions 3.2. Two-step fs/QCA Analyses for Sufficient Conditions ...
Die Südosteuropa-Studien werden von der in München ansässigen Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft, der wichtigsten Wissenschaftsorganisation der Südosteuropa-Forschung im deutschsprachigen Raum, herausgegeben. Sie dienen der vertieften und interdisziplinären wissenschaftlichen Darstellung wichtiger Themen aus der Südosteuropa-Forschung. Auch Fragen zur aktuellen politischen und sozio-ökonomischen Entwicklung in der Region Südosteuropa werden aufgegriffen. Herausgeber der Einzelbände sind renommierte Repräsentanten der deutschen und internationalen Südosteuropa-Forschung.
A number of other articles in this issue are alert to what they hope will be a productive synergy, one that must evolve between home, school, and other institutions if the concept of "mainstreaming" is to succeed in practice. Delivered in another context, Friedenberg's remarks on a synergy that already operates between home and school to compel conformity in the young, as an element of essential political and economic function within our total culture, have a peculiarly daunting signiflcance. Such a cultural mechanism seems irreversible, and "there are no nice cultures;" nearly all children are handicapped by being born into families that, far from offering resistance on their behalf, collaborate in their oppression. Can conscious efforts like mainstreaming really break this cycle, help children to understand themselves and where and who they are in the world, and increase the number of those exceptional families which provide society with a "small but crucial source of heroes in times of crisis"?
Funder: Public Health Agency of Canada ; Funder: Government of Norway ; BACKGROUND: In July, 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) commenced work to update the 2010 Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health and established a Guideline Development Group (GDG) comprising expert public health scientists and practitioners to inform the drafting of the 2020 Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior. The overall task of the GDG was to review the scientific evidence and provide expert advice to the WHO on the amount of physical activity and sedentary behavior associated with optimal health in children and adolescents, adults, older adults (> 64 years), and also specifically in pregnant and postpartum women and people living with chronic conditions or disabilities. METHODS: The GDG reviewed the available evidence specific to each sub-population using systematic protocols and in doing so, identified a number of gaps in the existing literature. These proposed research gaps were discussed and verified by expert consensus among the entire GDG. RESULTS: Evidence gaps across population sub-groups included a lack of information on: 1) the precise shape of the dose-response curve between physical activity and/or sedentary behavior and several of the health outcomes studied; 2) the health benefits of light-intensity physical activity and of breaking up sedentary time with light-intensity activity; 3) differences in the health effects of different types and domains of physical activity (leisure-time; occupational; transportation; household; education) and of sedentary behavior (occupational; screen time; television viewing); and 4) the joint association between physical activity and sedentary time with health outcomes across the life course. In addition, we acknowledge the need to conduct more population-based studies in low- and middle-income countries and in people living with disabilities and/or chronic disease, and to identify how various sociodemographic factors (age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status) modify the health effects of physical activity, in order to address global health disparities. CONCLUSIONS: Although the 2020 WHO Guidelines for Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior were informed by the most up-to-date research on the health effects of physical activity and sedentary time, there is still substantial work to be done in advancing the global physical activity agenda.
Funder: The Public Health Agency of Canada and the Government of Norway provided financial support, without which this work could not have been completed ; Objectives: To describe new WHO 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Methods: The guidelines were developed in accordance with WHO protocols. An expert Guideline Development Group reviewed evidence to assess associations between physical activity and sedentary behaviour for an agreed set of health outcomes and population groups. The assessment used and systematically updated recent relevant systematic reviews; new primary reviews addressed additional health outcomes or subpopulations. Results: The new guidelines address children, adolescents, adults, older adults and include new specific recommendations for pregnant and postpartum women and people living with chronic conditions or disability. All adults should undertake 150–300 min of moderate-intensity, or 75–150 min of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or some equivalent combination of moderate-intensity and vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity, per week. Among children and adolescents, an average of 60 min/day of moderate-to-vigorous intensity aerobic physical activity across the week provides health benefits. The guidelines recommend regular muscle-strengthening activity for all age groups. Additionally, reducing sedentary behaviours is recommended across all age groups and abilities, although evidence was insufficient to quantify a sedentary behaviour threshold. Conclusion: These 2020 WHO guidelines update previous WHO recommendations released in 2010. They reaffirm messages that some physical activity is better than none, that more physical activity is better for optimal health outcomes and provide a new recommendation on reducing sedentary behaviours. These guidelines highlight the importance of regularly undertaking both aerobic and muscle strengthening activities and for the first time, there are specific recommendations for specific populations including for pregnant and postpartum women and people living with chronic conditions or disability. These guidelines should be used to inform national health policies aligned with the WHO Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018–2030 and to strengthen surveillance systems that track progress towards national and global targets.
Funder: The Public Health Agency of Canada and the Government of Norway provided financial support, without which this work could not have been completed ; OBJECTIVES: To describe new WHO 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. METHODS: The guidelines were developed in accordance with WHO protocols. An expert Guideline Development Group reviewed evidence to assess associations between physical activity and sedentary behaviour for an agreed set of health outcomes and population groups. The assessment used and systematically updated recent relevant systematic reviews; new primary reviews addressed additional health outcomes or subpopulations. RESULTS: The new guidelines address children, adolescents, adults, older adults and include new specific recommendations for pregnant and postpartum women and people living with chronic conditions or disability. All adults should undertake 150-300 min of moderate-intensity, or 75-150 min of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or some equivalent combination of moderate-intensity and vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity, per week. Among children and adolescents, an average of 60 min/day of moderate-to-vigorous intensity aerobic physical activity across the week provides health benefits. The guidelines recommend regular muscle-strengthening activity for all age groups. Additionally, reducing sedentary behaviours is recommended across all age groups and abilities, although evidence was insufficient to quantify a sedentary behaviour threshold. CONCLUSION: These 2020 WHO guidelines update previous WHO recommendations released in 2010. They reaffirm messages that some physical activity is better than none, that more physical activity is better for optimal health outcomes and provide a new recommendation on reducing sedentary behaviours. These guidelines highlight the importance of regularly undertaking both aerobic and muscle strengthening activities and for the first time, there are specific recommendations for specific populations including for pregnant and postpartum women and people living with chronic conditions or disability. These guidelines should be used to inform national health policies aligned with the WHO Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018-2030 and to strengthen surveillance systems that track progress towards national and global targets.
Funder: PAL Technologies ; Funder: Public Health Agency of Canada; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100011094 ; Funder: Government of Norway ; BACKGROUND: In 2018, the World Health Organisation (WHO) commenced a program of work to update the 2010 Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health, for the first-time providing population-based guidelines on sedentary behaviour. This paper briefly summarizes and highlights the scientific evidence behind the new sedentary behaviour guidelines for all adults and discusses its strengths and limitations, including evidence gaps/research needs and potential implications for public health practice. METHODS: An overview of the scope and methods used to update the evidence is provided, along with quality assessment and grading methods for the eligible new systematic reviews. The literature search update was conducted for WHO by an external team and reviewers used the AMSTAR 2 (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) tool for critical appraisal of the systematic reviews under consideration for inclusion. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method was used to rate the certainty (i.e. very low to high) of the evidence. RESULTS: The updated systematic review identified 22 new reviews published from 2017 up to August 2019, 14 of which were incorporated into the final evidence profiles. Overall, there was moderate certainty evidence that higher amounts of sedentary behaviour increase the risk for all-cause, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer mortality, as well as incidence of CVD, cancer, and type 2 diabetes. However, evidence was deemed insufficient at present to set quantified (time-based) recommendations for sedentary time. Moderate certainty evidence also showed that associations between sedentary behaviour and all-cause, CVD and cancer mortality vary by level of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), which underpinned additional guidance around MVPA in the context of high sedentary time. Finally, there was insufficient or low-certainty systematic review evidence on the type or domain of sedentary behaviour, or the frequency and/or duration of bouts or breaks in sedentary behaviour, to make specific recommendations for the health outcomes examined. CONCLUSIONS: The WHO 2020 guidelines are based on the latest evidence on sedentary behaviour and health, along with interactions between sedentary behaviour and MVPA, and support implementing public health programmes and policies aimed at increasing MVPA and limiting sedentary behaviour. Important evidence gaps and research opportunities are identified.
German edition also published separately, Berlin, 1911. ; Appeared originally in Zeitschrift für politik, v. 4, 1911, pts. 2-3, under title: Die praxis der deutschen arbeiterversicherung. ; Mode of access: Internet.
To accelerate the energy transition, the EU "Clean Energy for all Europeans" package aims to strengthen the involvement of end consumers in the energy market. To this end, together with so-called "active consumers" and provisions for individual and collective renewable energy self-consumption, two types of energy communities were introduced. The EU framework, however, leaves many details of the transposition process to the national level. The corresponding directives were supposed to be transposed by the end of December 2020 (recast Electricity Market Directive, defining active consumers and citizen energy communities) and by the end of June 2021 (Renewable Energy Directive, defining renewables self-consumption and renewable energy communities). In this paper, we critically discuss major developments of the transposition, including questions of the general distinction of the different concepts, governance and ownership, physical expansion, administrative barriers and the overall integration of energy communities into the energy system. The analysis builds on country case studies as well as on previous work by the authors on the status of the transposition process throughout the EU. The paper shows that the national approaches differ greatly and are at very different stages. While basic provisions are in place in most Member States to meet the fundamental EU requirements, the overall integration into the energy system and market is only partly addressed. This concerns, for instance, the analysis of system impacts of energy communities and measures that would allow and support energy system-friendly behaviour. In addition, several practical hurdles need to be overcome. These often relate to administrative requirements such as complex registration and licensing procedures, the need for the involvement of several institutions, or difficult procedures for access to relevant data. The paper concludes that discussed barriers will need to be carefully addressed if the high expectations for the role of energy communities are to be met.
