What May the Sheep safely know?

The relationship of knowledge and liberties in modern societies presents a multitude of fascinating issues that deserve to be explored more systematically. The production of knowledge is dynamic, and the conditions and practice of freedom is undergoing transformation. These changes ensure that the linkages between liberty and knowledge are always subject to changes. In the past, the connection between scientific knowledge, democracy, and emancipation seemed self-evident. More recently, the close linkage between democracy and knowledge has been viewed with skepticism. This volume explores the relationship between knowledge and democracy, Do they support each other, do they mutually depend on each other, or are they perhaps even in conflict with each other? Does knowledge increase the freedom to act? If additional knowledge contributes to individual and social well being, does it also enhance freedoms? Knowledge and Democracy focuses on the interpenetration of knowledge, freedom and democracy, and does so from various perspectives, theoretical as well as practical. Modern societies are transforming themselves into knowledge societies. This has a fundamental impact on political systems and the relationship of citizens to large social institutions. The contributors to this book systemically explore whether, and in what ways, these modern-day changes and developments are connected to expansion of the capacities of individual citizens to act. They focus on the interrelation of democracy and knowledge, and the role of democratic institutions, as well as on the knowledge and social conduct of actors within democratic institutions. In the process of investigation, they arrive at a newplatform for future research and theory, one that is sensitive to present-day societal conflicts, cleavages, and transformations generated by new knowledge.

"The Godfather goes to Brussels". A evolução do conceito de crime organizado no contexto da área de liberdade, segurança e justiça

Oartigo tem como objectivo reconstruir de forma crítica o discurso da união europeia relativa-mente ao crime organizado, tentando estabelecer uma relação entre este e um discurso mais lato sobre a criação e desenvolvimento da área de liber-dade, Segurança e Justiça (alsj). ésalientada a forma como os argumen-tos justificadores de uma cooperação mais profunda da alsjassentaram na necessidade de compensar pelas exter-nalidades negativas do mercado interno e de proteger a liberdade de circulação de possíveis abusos. esta tendência levou à gradual institucio-nalização da área de Justiça e assuntos internos a nível europeu, caracterizada por uma luta permanente entre a sua intergovernamentalização e a comuni-tarização This article aims at tracing, critically, the European Union’s discourse on organized crime, by establishing its relation with a wider discourse on the creation and development of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (afsj). It pointed out how the rationale for the afsj’s deeper integration was the need to compensate for the negative externalities of the Internal Market and to protect the liberty of movement from abuse. This trend led to the definition of a balance between freedom and security, characterized by a gradual eu institutionalization of Justice and Home Affairs and a permanent struggle between the intergovernmentalisation and the communitarization of this area.

Justice and prisons policy

The field of justice policy is, of course, a critical one for state activity – indeed, arguably it is the most important field of activity, as the state exercises its ability to develop and enforce its rules, including by depriving individuals of their liberty. Notwithstanding this, scholarship in the field was, for many years, dominated by experts coming from different perspectives of legal studies, rather than political science. Nowadays, that has shifted somewhat, as interest in the activity of constitutional courts in political systems has grown, inspired, for instance, by the work of Martin Shapiro, Alec Stone Sweet, R. Daniel Kelemen and many others (e. g. Shapiro 1988; Shapiro and Stone 1994; Stone Sweet 2000; Shapiro and Stone Sweet 2002; Kelemen 2006).