Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (25) (remove)
Keywords
- European Union (25) (remove)
Institute
Data are presented on young people's sexual victimisation and perpetration from 10 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain) using a shared measurement tool (N = 3480 participants, aged between 18 and 27 years). Between 19.7 and 52.2% of female and between 10.1 and 55.8% of male respondents reported having experienced at least one incident of sexual victimisation since the age of consent. In two countries, victimisation rates were significantly higher for men than for women. Between 5.5 and 48.7% of male and 2.6 and 14.8% of female participants reported having engaged in a least one act of sexual aggression perpetration, with higher rates for men than for women in all countries. Victimisation rates correlated negatively with sexual assertiveness and positively with alcohol use in sexual encounters. Perpetration rates correlated positively with attitudes condoning physical dating violence and with alcohol use in men, and negatively with sexual assertiveness in women. At the country level, lower gender equality in economic power and in the work domain was related to higher male perpetration rates. Lower gender equality in political power and higher sexual assertiveness in women relative to men were linked to higher male victimisation rates.
The term solidarity is lacking a precise definition despite being embedded as primary law in the EU treaties and regardless of its pivotal role in the current debate on the euro crisis. Once the semantic core is unearthed we sketch three dimensions of European solidarity (motives, references, level of action). Through this we shall distil three ideal types of an intergovernmental European solidarity: a federal, an organic and a distributive type. Empirically we assign the most relevant measures, which were discussed and partially enacted in the course of the euro crisis, to the three ideal types where we identify an increasing tendency towards a distributive solidarity. Once the first elements will be upgraded to a full-blown distributive solidarity through further integration, several risks arise from a normative perspective.
Inhalt: Introduction: The problem at hand Approaches to EU’s external identity making Mechanisms of external identity making Theoretical approaches to the EU’s external identity making The EU’s external identity promotion The ENP policy instruments Conclusions References
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.
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).