@article{HeckeFuhrWolfs2021,
  author    = {Hecke, Steven van and Fuhr, Harald and Wolfs, Wouter},
  title     = {The politics of crisis management by regional and international organizations in fighting against a global pandemic},
  series = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  volume    = {87},
  journal   = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Sage},
  address   = {Los Angeles, Calif. [u.a.]},
  issn      = {0020-8523},
  doi       = {10.1177/0020852320984516},
  pages     = {672 -- 690},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Despite new challenges like climate change and digitalization, global and regional organizations recently went through turbulent times due to a lack of support from several of their member states. Next to this crisis of multilateralism, the COVID-19 pandemic now seems to question the added value of international organizations for addressing global governance issues more specifically. This article analyses this double challenge that several organizations are facing and compares their ways of managing the crisis by looking at their institutional and political context, their governance structure, and their behaviour during the pandemic until June 2020. More specifically, it will explain the different and fragmented responses of the World Health Organization, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund/World Bank. With the aim of understanding the old and new problems that these international organizations are trying to solve, this article argues that the level of autonomy vis-a-vis the member states is crucial for understanding the politics of crisis management. <br /> Points for practitioners <br /> As intergovernmental bodies, international organizations require authorization by their member states. Since they also need funding for their operations, different degrees of autonomy also matter for reacting to emerging challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The potential for international organizations is limited, though through proactive and bold initiatives, they can seize the opportunity of the crisis and partly overcome institutional and political constraints.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{EbersHochRosenkranzetal.2021,
  author    = {Ebers, Martin and Hoch, Veronica R. S. and Rosenkranz, Frank and Ruschemeier, Hannah and Steinr{\"o}tter, Bj{\"o}rn},
  title     = {The European Commission's proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act},
  series = {J : multidisciplinary scientific journal},
  volume    = {4},
  journal   = {J : multidisciplinary scientific journal},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  address   = {Basel},
  issn      = {2571-8800},
  doi       = {10.3390/j4040043},
  pages     = {589 -- 603},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {On 21 April 2021, the European Commission presented its long-awaited proposal for a Regulation "laying down harmonized rules on Artificial Intelligence", the so-called "Artificial Intelligence Act" (AIA). This article takes a critical look at the proposed regulation. After an introduction (1), the paper analyzes the unclear preemptive effect of the AIA and EU competences (2), the scope of application (3), the prohibited uses of Artificial Intelligence (AI) (4), the provisions on high-risk AI systems (5), the obligations of providers and users (6), the requirements for AI systems with limited risks (7), the enforcement system (8), the relationship of the AIA with the existing legal framework (9), and the regulatory gaps (10). The last section draws some final conclusions (11).},
  language  = {en}
}