The European Union funded NEOShield project: A global approach to near-Earth object impact threat mitigation

Although discussions are underway within the Action Team 14 of the United Nations COPUOS, there is currently no concerted international plan addressing the impact threat from near-Earth objects (NEOs) and how to organize, prepare and implement mitigation measures. We report on a new international project to address impact hazard mitigation issues, being the subject of a proposal submitted to the European Commission in response to the 2011 FP7 Call "Prevention of impacts from near-Earth objects on our planet". Our consortium consists of 13 research institutes, universities, and industrial partners from 6 countries and includes leading US and Russian space organizations. The primary aim of the project, NEOShield, is to investigate in detail the three most promising mitigation techniques: the kinetic impactor, blast deflection,and the gravity tractor, and devise feasible demonstration missions. Furthermore, we will investigate options for an international strategy for implementation when an actual impact threat arises. The NEOShield project was formally accepted by the European Commission on 17 November 2011 and funded with a total of 5.8 million Euros for a period of 3.5 years. The kick-off meeting took place at the DLR Institute of Planetary Research, Berlin, in January 2012. In this paper we present a brief overview of the planned scope of the project.

Local, European and global: An exploration of migration patterns of social workers into Ireland

Whilst the project to increase workforce mobility is part of a common labour force policy across the European Union, for some social workers, it has also been coupled with an aspiration to develop a pan-European identity within the profession (Lorenz, 1994, 2000; Frost, 2008). In this article, taking the island of Ireland as an example, we examine empirical data on the movement of social workers in recent years, both within Ireland and inward from outside the island, and consider the challenges and opportunities this has presented for the profession, also drawing on the British experience. From this analysis, some tentative conclusions are drawn about what is happening, what is possible and what is desirable in balancing aspirations for increased mobility within the European Union and a pan-European social work identity against the needs and interests of local, European and global communities.

Explaining levels of deprivation in the European Union

In this paper we seek to explain variations in levels of deprivation between EU countries. The starting-point of our analysis is the finding that the relationship between income and life-style deprivation varies across countries. Given our understanding of the manner in which the income-deprivation mismatch may arise from the limitations of current income as a measure of command over resources, the pattern of variation seems to be consistent with our expectations of the variable degree to which welfare-state regimes achieve 'decommodification' and smooth income flows. This line of reasoning suggests that cross-national differences in deprivation might, in significant part, be due not only to variation in household and individual characteristics that are associated with disadvantage but also to the differential impact of such variables across countries and indeed welfare regimes. To test this hypothesis, we have taken advantage of the ECHP (European Community Household Panel) comparative data set in order to pursue a strategy of substituting variable names for country/welfare regime names. We operated with two broad categories of variables, tapping, respectively, needs and resources. Although both sets of factors contribute independently to our ability to predict deprivation, it is the resource factors that are crucial in reducing country effects. The extent of cross-national heterogeneity depends on specifying the social class and situation in relation to long-term unemployment of the household reference person. The impact of the structural socio-economic variables that we label 'resource factors' varies across countries in a manner that is broadly consistent with welfare regime theory and is the key factor in explaining cross-country differences in deprivation. As a consequence, European homogeneity is a great deal more evident among the advantaged than the disadvantaged.

European Union Cross-Border Cooperation and Conflict Amelioration

The relevance of European Union (EU) cross-border cooperation for European border con?ict amelioration may be questioned in the contemporary global climate of threat and insecurity posed by forces of ’dark globalisation’. In any case, empirical evidence exposes the limitations of cross-border cooperation in advancing con?ict amelioration in some border regions. Nevertheless, in an enlarged EU which encompasses Central and East European member states and reaches out to neighbouring states through cross-border cooperation initiatives, the number of real and potential border con?icts with which it is concerned has risen exponentially. Fortunately, there are cases of EU ’borderscapes’ that have adopted a cross-border ’peace-building from below’ approach leading to border con?ict amelioration. Unfortunately, countervailing pressures on EU cross-border cooperation from border security regimes (principally Schengen), the Eurozone crisis, EU budgetary constraints, the conceptualisation of ’Europe as Empire’, and the possible recon?guration of the EU itself compromises this approach. Therefore, the path of European integration may well shift from one of inter-state peace-building and regional crossborder cooperation after the Second World War, to border con?ict and coercion in constituting and reconstituting state borders after the recon?guration of the EU.

Beyond Financialisation? Transformative Strategies for More Sustainable Financial Markets in the European Union

The global financial crisis has led many regulators and lawmakers to a rethinking about current versus optimum financial market structures and activities that include a variety and even radical ideas about delevaraging and downsizing finance. This paper focuses on the flaws and shortcomings of regulatory reforms of finance and on the necessity of and scope for more radical transformative strategies. With 'crisis economics' back, the most developed countries, including the EU member states, are still on the edge of disaster and confronted with systemic risk. Changes in financial regulation adopted in the aftermath of the financial meltdown have not been radical enough to transform the overall system of finance-driven capitalism towards a more sustainable system with a more embedded finance. The paper discusses financialisation in order to understand the development trends in finance over the past decades and examines various theories to describe the typical trends and patterns in financial regulation. By focusing on a limited number of regulatory reforms in the European Union, the limitations of current reforms and the need for additional transformative strategies necessary to overcome the finance-driven accumulation regime are explored. Finally, the regulatory space for such transformative strategies and for taming finance in times of crisis, austerity, and increased public protest potential is analysed.

European Union Non-Discrimination Law: Comparative Perspectives on Multidimensional Equality Law

EU equality law is multidimensional in being based on different rationales and concepts. Consequently, the concept of discrimination has become fragmented, with different instruments envisaging different scopes of protection. This raises questions as to the ability of EU law to address the situation of persons excluded on a number of grounds. This edited collection addresses the increasing complexity of European Equality Law from jurisprudential, sociological and political science perspectives. Internationally renowned researchers from Scandinavian, Continental and Central European countries and Britain analyse consequences of multiplying discrimination grounds within EU equality law, considering its multidimensionality and intersectionality. The contributors to the volume theorise the move from formal to substantive equality law and its interrelation to new forms of governance, demonstrating the specific combination of non-discrimination law with welfare state models which reveal the global implications of the European Union. The book will be of interest to academics and policy makers all over the world, in particular to those researching and studying law, political sciences and sociology with an interest in human rights, non discrimination law, contract and employment law or European studies.

European Union Cross-Border Cooperation as Conflict Transformation:Potential and Limits

Cross-border cooperation as conflict transformation provides a potential strategy for the European Union (EU) to help realise its founding peacebuilding objective. A wealth of cross-border cooperation activity sponsored by the EU spans a quarter of a century. Although the conflict transformation capacity of that cooperation is questionable in some border regions there is evidence to suggest that it has delivered peacebuilding dividends in other border regions. However, EU cross-border cooperation as conflict transformation faces a number of significant twenty-first century challenges including: ghost borders of the communal imagination; EU external border securitization; perceptions of EU and Russian empire-building; and the Mediterranean transmigrant/refugee crisis. It is argued that these challenges pose significant obstacles to EU cross-border cooperation as conflict transformation and undermine the peacebuilding objective of European integration.