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.

'Battling in Brussels': The DUP and the European union

Although the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) does not conform to the model of Europeanization outlined by Ladrech (2002), there is some evidence of change along the lines identified by De Winter and Gomez-Reino (2002) with reference to other European ethnoregionalist parties. For example, the DUP has certainly adapted its behaviour and policies at both local and European levels with a view to exploiting new political opportunities offered by Europeanization. However, De Winter and Gomez-Reino's argument that participation in European institutions has made formerly-Eurosceptic ethnoregionalist parties 'moderate Eurocritics' does not fully apply to the DUP. The DUP continues to demonstrate a number of Eurosceptic characteristics, including ones grounded in extreme religious interpretations of the purpose and process of European integration. Nevertheless, the party's Eurosceptic outlook does not prevent it from being willing to 'battle in Brussels' (as put in its 2009 manifesto for the European elections) in order to serve domestic (party) interests - a tactic not dissimilar to the DUP's approach to Northern Ireland politics in general.

A Constitution of Social Governance for the European Union

This chapter considers the EU’s socio-economic constitution under the lens of humaneness. It argues that the EU’s unique socio-economic constitution demands equilibrium of socio-economic integration instead of widening the gap between economic integration at EU levels and social integration at national levels. While the EU lacks the legislative competences to achieve this equilibrium, the constitutional principle still prevails. Indeed, the EU competences reflect its own values as well as the socio-economic constitutions of its constituent Member States. These frequently do not allow for total state-governance of social spheres such as working life, education, care or other social services. Instead, societal actors are given scope to (co-)govern these spheres at national levels. Accordingly, the apparent tension between the EU’s socio-economic values and principles and its limited competences in the social policy field can be resolved through a dynamic interpretation of the EU Treaties towards a “constitution of social governance”. This interpretation reads the Treaties as authorising governance by societal actors. The chapter connects the idea of humanness to the ideals of social governance at EU level and proposes two options for practical application of the concept. These are rules for trans-national labour markets based on European collective labour agreements and a European higher education sector developed by agreements between universities.

Using Comparative Reasoning in Human Rights Adjudication:The Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights Compared

This article examines the relationship between the methods that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) use to decide disputes that involve ‘human’ or ‘fundamental’ rights claims, and the substantive outcomes that result from the use of these particular methods. It has a limited aim: in attempting to understand the interrelationship between human rights methodology and human rights outcomes, it considers primarily the use of ‘comparative reasoning’ in ‘human’ and ‘fundamental’ rights claims by these courts. It is not primarily concerned with examining the extent to which the use of comparative reasoning is based on an appropriate methodology or whether there is a persuasive normative theory underpinning the use of comparative reasoning. The issues considered in this chapter do some of the groundwork, however, that is necessary in order to address these methodological and normative questions.

Researching gender democracy in the European Union: challenges and prospects

working paper no 5, 2008