25 research outputs found
Rezension: "Besuch in der Hölle. Dantes Göttliche Komödie. Biographie eines Jahrtausendbuchs" von Franziska Meier
No full textFranziska Meiers vorliegende Studie stellt einen wichtigen Beitrag zur aktuellen wissenschaftlichen Erforschung von Dantes Divina Commedia dar. In ihrer Untersuchung erläutert sie nicht nur die grundlegenden Kontexte der Entstehungsgeschichte und die Biografie des schon zu Lebzeiten umstrittenen Verfassers. Vielmehr gelingt es Meier, auch linguistische Aspekte, Fragen der Übersetzung und der Rezeption außerhalb Europas schlüssig darzustellen. Die Autorin und Übersetzerin Lorena Pircher, selbst auch Romanistin, hat diese Studie für die Medienimpulse rezensiert.Franziska Meier\u27s study represents an important contribution to current scholarly research on Dante\u27s Divina Commedia. In her new book, she not only explains the fundamental contexts of the genesis of the Commedia and biography of the author, who was already controversial during his lifetime. Rather, Meier also succeeds in coherently presenting linguistic aspects, questions of translation and reception outside Europe. The author and translator Lorena Pircher, herself also a Romance scholar, reviewed this study for Medienimpulse
Caractérisation moléculaire du VIH-1 et résistance aux antirétroviraux chez des patients de Brazzaville, République du Congo
No full textBORDEAUX2-BU Santé (330632101) / SudocSudocFranceF
Debating the economic crisis in the European Parliament : Enriching the discourse
No full textChapter 6 explores how the European Parliament (EP) has addressed the issue of entrepreneurship. In contrast to the European Commission or the Council of the European Union, the EP is a more heterogeneous institution constituted by different political parties, committees, politicians and bureaucrats. By analysing parliamentary debates, the author demonstrates how the EP has used its policy-influencing instruments to act as a political entrepreneur and to define entrepreneurship in a broader sense. The debates on the Small Business Act and The European Private Company (EPC) Statute show that the EP has extended the discussion on entrepreneurship by introducing legal and social aspects which have led to innovative approaches to promoting the common good. In addition, the EP has been able to influence the decision-making process and enhance the open method of coordination.</p
The EU’s Commission Regulatory Scrutiny Board [Elektronisk resurs] : better regulation or biased influence on legislation?
No full textThis study examines the role and impact of the European Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) on the EU legislative process. The RSB was created in 2015 as an oversight body to assess the quality of draft impact assessments, fitness checks, and major evaluations within the Commission. While some studies have argued that the RSB contributes to better regulation, recent examples in EU decision-making (e.g., the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive) cast doubts over its role and potential biases towards large industries. Therefore, this report analyses the RSB's role and potential influence and has two interlinked aims. First, to shed light on the RSB's inner activities, the report provides a literature review on the better regulation agenda and the development of the RSB, as well as an analysis of the RSB's activities from 2015 to 2022. Second, to scrutinise the RSB's potential influence on EU’s legislative decision-making, the report presents the main voices of critics towards the RSB in selected legislative examples. The overall aim is to shed light on the RSB’s role in the EU legislative process and explore to what extent its opinions may influence decision-makers in this process. Based on an analysis of the official RSB documents, a vast range of Commission’s documents, newspaper articles, reports by interest groups and NGOs, and seven elite interviews, the study provides four concrete policy recommendations for the RSB in EU's legislative process. First, the study argues that the better regulation agenda and the RSB toolbox should be evaluated again in light of the current high ambitions in the area of sustainability of the current Commission under Ursula von der Leyen. To ensure higher social and environmental standards, smarter than less regulation is often needed. Instead of having a narrowed focus on arithmetic principles like the regulatory offsetting (‘one-in, one-out’ approach), impact assessments should account for long-term impacts on society. Second, the study recommends that it is unnecessary to classify between positive versus negative opinions. Specifically, the study criticises the possibility of the RSB to issue second negative opinions as this tends to politicise the EU legislative process. Third, the study argues that the RSB’s de facto veto position should be abolished as second negative opinions tend to delay the legislative process, while enhancing polarisation among policy-makers. Fourth, the study recommends enhanced transparency and the facilitating access to RSB’s documents. The study suggests that the RSB promotes policy-making behind closed doors and lacks public accountability. Moreover, the structure and priorities of the RSB indeed imply that it potentially exerts a biased influence. The analysis of the RSB in this study demonstrates that external opinions are increasingly influencing the legislative process. The author calls for a rethinking of the current RSB and suggests considering alternatives to the Board. </p
The EU’s Commission Regulatory Scrutiny Board : better regulation or biased influence on legislation?
No full textThis study examines the role and impact of the European Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) on the EU legislative process. The RSB was created in 2015 as an oversight body to assess the quality of draft impact assessments, fitness checks, and major evaluations within the Commission. While some studies have argued that the RSB contributes to better regulation, recent examples in EU decision-making (e.g., the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive) cast doubts over its role and potential biases towards large industries. Therefore, this report analyses the RSB's role and potential influence and has two interlinked aims. First, to shed light on the RSB's inner activities, the report provides a literature review on the better regulation agenda and the development of the RSB, as well as an analysis of the RSB's activities from 2015 to 2022. Second, to scrutinise the RSB's potential influence on EU’s legislative decision-making, the report presents the main voices of critics towards the RSB in selected legislative examples. The overall aim is to shed light on the RSB’s role in the EU legislative process and explore to what extent its opinions may influence decision-makers in this process. Based on an analysis of the official RSB documents, a vast range of Commission’s documents, newspaper articles, reports by interest groups and NGOs, and seven elite interviews, the study provides four concrete policy recommendations for the RSB in EU's legislative process. First, the study argues that the better regulation agenda and the RSB toolbox should be evaluated again in light of the current high ambitions in the area of sustainability of the current Commission under Ursula von der Leyen. To ensure higher social and environmental standards, smarter than less regulation is often needed. Instead of having a narrowed focus on arithmetic principles like the regulatory offsetting (‘one-in, one-out’ approach), impact assessments should account for long-term impacts on society. Second, the study recommends that it is unnecessary to classify between positive versus negative opinions. Specifically, the study criticises the possibility of the RSB to issue second negative opinions as this tends to politicise the EU legislative process. Third, the study argues that the RSB’s de facto veto position should be abolished as second negative opinions tend to delay the legislative process, while enhancing polarisation among policy-makers. Fourth, the study recommends enhanced transparency and the facilitating access to RSB’s documents. The study suggests that the RSB promotes policy-making behind closed doors and lacks public accountability. Moreover, the structure and priorities of the RSB indeed imply that it potentially exerts a biased influence. The analysis of the RSB in this study demonstrates that external opinions are increasingly influencing the legislative process. The author calls for a rethinking of the current RSB and suggests considering alternatives to the Board. </p
The EU’s Commission Regulatory Scrutiny Board: Better regulation or biased influence on legislation?
No full textThis study examines the role and impact of the European Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) on the EU legislative process. The RSB was created in 2015 as an oversight body to assess the quality of draft impact assessments, fitness checks, and major evaluations within the Commission. While some studies have argued that the RSB contributes to better regulation, recent examples in EU decision-making (e.g., the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive) cast doubts over its role and potential biases towards large industries. Therefore, this report analyses the RSB's role and potential influence and has two interlinked aims. First, to shed light on the RSB's inner activities, the report provides a literature review on the better regulation agenda and the development of the RSB, as well as an analysis of the RSB's activities from 2015 to 2022. Second, to scrutinise the RSB's potential influence on EU’s legislative decision-making, the report presents the main voices of critics towards the RSB in selected legislative examples. The overall aim is to shed light on the RSB’s role in the EU legislative process and explore to what extent its opinions may influence decision-makers in this process. Based on an analysis of the official RSB documents, a vast range of Commission’s documents, newspaper articles, reports by interest groups and NGOs, and seven elite interviews, the study provides four concrete policy recommendations for the RSB in EU's legislative process. First, the study argues that the better regulation agenda and the RSB toolbox should be evaluated again in light of the current high ambitions in the area of sustainability of the current Commission under Ursula von der Leyen. To ensure higher social and environmental standards, smarter than less regulation is often needed. Instead of having a narrowed focus on arithmetic principles like the regulatory offsetting (‘one-in, one-out’ approach), impact assessments should account for long-term impacts on society. Second, the study recommends that it is unnecessary to classify between positive versus negative opinions. Specifically, the study criticises the possibility of the RSB to issue second negative opinions as this tends to politicise the EU legislative process. Third, the study argues that the RSB’s de facto veto position should be abolished as second negative opinions tend to delay the legislative process, while enhancing polarisation among policy-makers. Fourth, the study recommends enhanced transparency and the facilitating access to RSB’s documents. The study suggests that the RSB promotes policy-making behind closed doors and lacks public accountability. Moreover, the structure and priorities of the RSB indeed imply that it potentially exerts a biased influence. The analysis of the RSB in this study demonstrates that external opinions are increasingly influencing the legislative process. The author calls for a rethinking of the current RSB and suggests considering alternatives to the Board.
The EU’s Commission Regulatory Scrutiny Board: Better regulation or biased influence on legislation?
No full textThis study examines the role and impact of the European Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) on the EU legislative process. The RSB was created in 2015 as an oversight body to assess the quality of draft impact assessments, fitness checks, and major evaluations within the Commission. While some studies have argued that the RSB contributes to better regulation, recent examples in EU decision-making (e.g., the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive) cast doubts over its role and potential biases towards large industries. Therefore, this report analyses the RSB's role and potential influence and has two interlinked aims. First, to shed light on the RSB's inner activities, the report provides a literature review on the better regulation agenda and the development of the RSB, as well as an analysis of the RSB's activities from 2015 to 2022. Second, to scrutinise the RSB's potential influence on EU’s legislative decision-making, the report presents the main voices of critics towards the RSB in selected legislative examples. The overall aim is to shed light on the RSB’s role in the EU legislative process and explore to what extent its opinions may influence decision-makers in this process. Based on an analysis of the official RSB documents, a vast range of Commission’s documents, newspaper articles, reports by interest groups and NGOs, and seven elite interviews, the study provides four concrete policy recommendations for the RSB in EU's legislative process. First, the study argues that the better regulation agenda and the RSB toolbox should be evaluated again in light of the current high ambitions in the area of sustainability of the current Commission under Ursula von der Leyen. To ensure higher social and environmental standards, smarter than less regulation is often needed. Instead of having a narrowed focus on arithmetic principles like the regulatory offsetting (‘one-in, one-out’ approach), impact assessments should account for long-term impacts on society. Second, the study recommends that it is unnecessary to classify between positive versus negative opinions. Specifically, the study criticises the possibility of the RSB to issue second negative opinions as this tends to politicise the EU legislative process. Third, the study argues that the RSB’s de facto veto position should be abolished as second negative opinions tend to delay the legislative process, while enhancing polarisation among policy-makers. Fourth, the study recommends enhanced transparency and the facilitating access to RSB’s documents. The study suggests that the RSB promotes policy-making behind closed doors and lacks public accountability. Moreover, the structure and priorities of the RSB indeed imply that it potentially exerts a biased influence. The analysis of the RSB in this study demonstrates that external opinions are increasingly influencing the legislative process. The author calls for a rethinking of the current RSB and suggests considering alternatives to the Board.
The EU’s Commission Regulatory Scrutiny Board: Better regulation or biased influence on legislation?
No full textThis study examines the role and impact of the European Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) on the EU legislative process. The RSB was created in 2015 as an oversight body to assess the quality of draft impact assessments, fitness checks, and major evaluations within the Commission. While some studies have argued that the RSB contributes to better regulation, recent examples in EU decision-making (e.g., the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive) cast doubts over its role and potential biases towards large industries. Therefore, this report analyses the RSB's role and potential influence and has two interlinked aims. First, to shed light on the RSB's inner activities, the report provides a literature review on the better regulation agenda and the development of the RSB, as well as an analysis of the RSB's activities from 2015 to 2022. Second, to scrutinise the RSB's potential influence on EU’s legislative decision-making, the report presents the main voices of critics towards the RSB in selected legislative examples. The overall aim is to shed light on the RSB’s role in the EU legislative process and explore to what extent its opinions may influence decision-makers in this process. Based on an analysis of the official RSB documents, a vast range of Commission’s documents, newspaper articles, reports by interest groups and NGOs, and seven elite interviews, the study provides four concrete policy recommendations for the RSB in EU's legislative process. First, the study argues that the better regulation agenda and the RSB toolbox should be evaluated again in light of the current high ambitions in the area of sustainability of the current Commission under Ursula von der Leyen. To ensure higher social and environmental standards, smarter than less regulation is often needed. Instead of having a narrowed focus on arithmetic principles like the regulatory offsetting (‘one-in, one-out’ approach), impact assessments should account for long-term impacts on society. Second, the study recommends that it is unnecessary to classify between positive versus negative opinions. Specifically, the study criticises the possibility of the RSB to issue second negative opinions as this tends to politicise the EU legislative process. Third, the study argues that the RSB’s de facto veto position should be abolished as second negative opinions tend to delay the legislative process, while enhancing polarisation among policy-makers. Fourth, the study recommends enhanced transparency and the facilitating access to RSB’s documents. The study suggests that the RSB promotes policy-making behind closed doors and lacks public accountability. Moreover, the structure and priorities of the RSB indeed imply that it potentially exerts a biased influence. The analysis of the RSB in this study demonstrates that external opinions are increasingly influencing the legislative process. The author calls for a rethinking of the current RSB and suggests considering alternatives to the Board.
Challenges of providing HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in Martinique, French West Indies
No full textInternational audienc
Recommended from our members
Advanced optical imaging methods for investigating manuscripts
No full textThis paper gives an overview of advanced optical imaging methods relevant to the study of manuscripts. While some of the methods covered are well established, others are very much in active development. ‘Optical’ in this context is loosely defined to cover the near ultraviolet, visible and the near infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Optical imaging methods are in general non-destructive and can be applied in situ. They are non-invasive if care is taken to ensure a safe dosage of illumination during the imaging process. The examples given in this paper are biased towards work that the author has been involved in. This is by no means a comprehensive review. The aim of the paper is to illustrate how advanced optical imaging techniques can assist in the investigation of manuscripts
