Rezension zu: Irini Katsirea, Public Broadcasting and European Law

Public broadcasting has always been a regulatory field somewhat zealously guarded within the nation states' sphere and kept willingly untouched by regional or international rules. Values inherent to the role of public broadcasting, such as cultural and national identity, social cohesion, pluralism and a sustained public sphere, were thought too critical and too historically connected with the particular society to allow any "outside" influence. Different regulatory models have emerged to reflect these specificities within the national boundaries of European countries. Yet, as media evolved technologically and economically, the constraints of state borders were rendered obsolete and the inner tension between culture and commerce of the television medium became more pronounced. This tension was only intensified with the formulation of a European Community (EC) layer of regulation, which had as its primary objective the creation of a single market for audiovisual services (or as the EC Directive beautifully put it, a "Television without Frontiers"), while also including some provisions catering for cultural concerns, such as the infamous quota system for European and independent productions. Against this backdrop, public broadcasting makes a particularly intriguing subject for a study of regulatory dilemmas of national versus supranational, integration versus intergovernmentalism, culture versus commerce, intervention versus liberalisation, and all this in the dynamic setting of contemporary media. The present paper reviews Irini Katsirea's book PUBLIC BROADCASTING AND EUROPEAN LAW and seeks to identify whether all elements of the complex governance puzzle of European public service broadcasting rules are analytically well fitted together.

Business as Usual? : The Implementation of the UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity and EU Media Law and Policies

Irrespective of the diverse stances taken on the effect of the UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity in the external relations context, since its wording is fairly open-ended, it is clear to all observers that the Convention’s impact will largely depend on how it is implemented domestically. The discussion on the national implementation of the Convention, both in the policy and in the academic discourses, is only just emerging, although six years the Convention’s entry into force have passed. The implementation model of the EU can set an important example for the international community and for the other State Parties that have ratified the UNESCO Convention, as both the EU and its Member States acting individually, have played a critical role in the adoption of the Convention, as well as in the longer process of promoting cultural concerns on the international scene. Against this backdrop, this article analyses the extent to which the EU internal law and policies, in particular in the key area of media, take into account the spirit and the letter of the UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity. Next to an assessment of the EU’s implementation of the Convention, the article also offers remarks of normative character – in the sense of what should be done to actually attain the objective of protecting and promoting cultural diversity. The article seeks to critically evaluate the present state of affairs and make some recommendations for calibration of future policies.

The story of Community preference for food security

"Préférence communautaire" is an in-built notion of the CAP since its inception with the Treaty of Rome (1957). Its’ simple objective laid down at the Stresa Conference in 1958 is to prefer community produce over imports wherever possible, while at the same time promoting agricultural exports and FDI (“vocation exportatrice de l’Europe”). Does this contrast or correlate with the notion of “food sovereignty” which originated in 1996 as a notion of small farmer self-sufficiency (Via Campesina), and which now has found its way into the official EC discourse? Recent CAP reforms indeed seem to continue banking on border protection and on the occasional export subsidy. Nonetheless, coming together with claims to mitigate climate change, “food sovereignty” à la CAP fails to acknowledge efficiency losses at home and negative spillover effects on the right to food of food exporting developing countries. This chapter asks whether new non-tariff and domestic support measures are just new wine in the old cask of fortress Europe, together with the FDI promotion instruments of the FED and others. Might the increasing dynamics and new challenges of agricultural trade and investment lead to lower market and production shares for European farms? It concludes that in the medium term the WTO Green Box has the only legal and effective tools to promote EU agriculture and food.