European Cosmopolitanism and Civil Society

The discussion of European cosmopolitanism and civil society has failed to take questions of culture seriously enough. While remaining sympathetic to liberal forms of cosmopolitanism, this article considers the view that such proposals fail to make space for the 'Other'. In the context of histories of nationalist violence, masculinism and consumerism this article discusses the charge that ideas of European civilization need to be reconsidered. In the final part of the article, I discuss the view that cultural feminism and certain versions of multiculturalism have much to contribute towards the European project. However, at this point, I seek to distance myself from essentialist arguments in respect of identity. A generative European cosmopolitanism would do well to take questions of cultural domination seriously without reducing the complexity of modern identities.

Modernising charity : steps to an alternative architecture for common law charity jurisprudence

This chapter addresses the question, how can the common law concept of charity law be modernised? There are difficulties with the present jurisprudential conception. The focus of the chapter is not on those difficulties, however, but rather on the development of an alternative architecture for common law jurisprudence. The conclusion to which the chapter comes is that charity law can be modernised by a series of steps to include all civil society organisations. It is possible if the ‘technical’ definition of charitable purpose is abandoned in favour of a contemporary, not technical concept of charitiable purpose. This conclusion is reached by proposing a framework, developed from the common law concept of charities, that reconciles into a cohesive jurisprudential architecture all of the laws applying to civil society organisations, not just charities. In this section, first the argument is contextualised in an idea of society and located in a gap in legal theory. An analogy is then offered to introduce the problems in the legal theory applying, not just to charities, but more broadly to civil society organisations. The substantive challenge of mapping an alternative jurisprudence is then taken in steps. The final substantive section conceptualises the changes inherent in a move beyond charities to a jurisprudence centred on civil society organisations and how this would bring legal theory into line with sectoral analysis in other disciplines.

Legal activism for ensuring environmental justice

This article reviews some of the roles environmental lawyers have played in ensuring environmental justice in Bangladesh. It leans on law and social movement theories to explicate the choice (and ensuing success) of litigation as a movement strategy in Bangladesh. The activists successfully moved the courts to read the right to a decent environment into the fundamental right to life, and this has had the far-reaching effect of constituting a basis for standing for the activists and other civil society organisations. The activists have also sought to introduce emerging international law principles into the jurisprudence of the courts. These achievements notwithstanding, the paper notes that litigation is not a sustainable way to institute enduring environmental protection in any jurisdiction and recommends the utilisation of the reputation and recognition gained through litigation to deploy or encourage more sustainable strategies.

The responsibility of intermediaries: Emerging IP protection schemes, from Content ID, to three-strikes and follow-the-money

The only effective and scalable way to regulate the actions of people on the internet is through online intermediaries. These are the institutions that facilitate communication: internet service providers, search engines, content hosts, and social networks. Governments, private firms, and civil society organisations are increasingly seeking to influence these intermediaries to take more responsibility to prevent or respond to IP infringements. Around the world, intermediaries are increasingly subject to a variety of obligations to help enforce IP rights, ranging from informal social and governmental pressure, to industry codes and private negotiated agreements, to formal legislative schemes. This paper provides an overview of this emerging shift in regulatory approaches, away from legal liability and towards increased responsibilities for intermediaries. This shift straddles two different potential futures: an optimistic set of more effective, more efficient mechanisms for regulating user behaviour, and a dystopian vision of rule by algorithm and private power, without the legitimising influence of the rule of law.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, Copyright Law and Education

There is much concern across the Pacific rim about the impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) upon public education. The secretive trade agreement involves a dozen nations across the Pacific, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, and Indonesia may soon join. Although the text was finalised at the Atlanta talks in October 2015, the Agreement has not yet been made public. (The NTEU has joined with other unions and civil society organisations in calling for the agreement to be revealed to facilitate public debate before any decisions are made by Parliament.) So whilst we cannot examine all the text that may impact on public educations, WikiLeaks has published the final version of the Intellectual Property Chapter of the TPP. The Intellectual Property Chapter of the TPP alone, with its copyright term extension, limits on copyright exceptions, and enforcement measures, will have a significant impact for educators and public education.

Greenwashing the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Fossil fuels, the environment, and climate change

There has been much controversy over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a plurilateral trade agreement involving a dozen nations from throughout the Pacific Rim – and its impact upon the environment, biodiversity, and climate change. The secretive treaty negotiations involve Australia and New Zealand; countries from South East Asia such as Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan; the South American nations of Peru and Chile; and the members of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada, Mexico and the United States. There was an agreement reached between the parties in October 2015. The participants asserted: ‘We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.’ The final texts of the agreement were published in November 2015. There has been discussion as to whether other countries – such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Korea – will join the deal. There has been much debate about the impact of this proposed treaty upon intellectual property, the environment, biodiversity and climate change. There have been similar concerns about the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a proposed trade agreement between the United States and the European Union. In 2011, the United States Trade Representative developed a Green Paper on trade, conservation, and the environment in the context of the TPP. In its rhetoric, the United States Trade Representative has maintained that it has been pushing for strong, enforceable environmental standards in the TPP. In a key statement in 2014, the United States Trade Representative Mike Froman insisted: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative maintained: ‘Our proposals in the TPP are centered around the enforcement of environmental laws, including those implementing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in TPP partner countries, and also around trailblazing, first-ever conservation proposals that will raise standards across the region’. Moreover, the United States Trade Representative asserted: ‘Furthermore, our proposals would enhance international cooperation and create new opportunities for public participation in environmental governance and enforcement.’ The United States Trade Representative has provided this public outline of the Environment Chapter of the TPP: A meaningful outcome on environment will ensure that the agreement appropriately addresses important trade and environment challenges and enhances the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment. The Trans-Pacific Partnership countries share the view that the environment text should include effective provisions on trade-related issues that would help to reinforce environmental protection and are discussing an effective institutional arrangement to oversee implementation and a specific cooperation framework for addressing capacity building needs. They also are discussing proposals on new issues, such as marine fisheries and other conservation issues, biodiversity, invasive alien species, climate change, and environmental goods and services. Mark Linscott, an assistant Trade Representative testified: ‘An environment chapter in the TPP should strengthen country commitments to enforce their environmental laws and regulations, including in areas related to ocean and fisheries governance, through the effective enforcement obligation subject to dispute settlement.’ Inside US Trade has commented: ‘While not initially expected to be among the most difficult areas, the environment chapter has emerged as a formidable challenge, partly due to disagreement over the United States proposal to make environmental obligations binding under the TPP dispute settlement mechanism’. Joshua Meltzer from the Brookings Institute contended that the trade agreement could be a boon for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim: Whether it is depleting fisheries, declining biodiversity or reduced space in the atmosphere for Greenhouse Gas emissions, the underlying issue is resource scarcity. And in a world where an additional 3 billion people are expected to enter the middle class over the next 15 years, countries need to find new and creative ways to cooperate in order to satisfy the legitimate needs of their population for growth and opportunity while using resources in a manner that is sustainable for current and future generations. The TPP parties already represent a diverse range of developed and developing countries. Should the TPP become a free trade agreement of the Asia-Pacific region, it will include the main developed and developing countries and will be a strong basis for building a global consensus on these trade and environmental issues. The TPP has been promoted by its proponents as a boon to the environment. The United States Trade Representative has maintained that the TPP will protect the environment: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the TPP negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative discussed ‘Trade for a Greener World’ on World Environment Day. Andrew Robb, at the time the Australian Trade and Investment Minister, vowed that the TPP will contain safeguards for the protection of the environment. In November 2015, after the release of the TPP text, Rohan Patel, the Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, sought to defend the environmental credentials of the TPP. He contended that the deal had been supported by the Nature Conservancy, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, the World Wildlife Fund, and World Animal Protection. The United States Congress, though, has been conflicted by the United States Trade Representative’s arguments about the TPP and the environment. In 2012, members of the United States Congress - including Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and John Kerry (D-MA) – wrote a letter, arguing that the trade agreement needs to provide strong protection for the environment: ‘We believe that a '21st century agreement' must have an environment chapter that guarantees ongoing sustainable trade and creates jobs, and this is what American businesses and consumers want and expect also.’ The group stressed that ‘A binding and enforceable TPP environment chapter that stands up for American interests is critical to our support of the TPP’. The Congressional leaders maintained: ‘We believe the 2007 bipartisan congressional consensus on environmental provisions included in recent trade agreements should serve as the framework for the environment chapter of the TPP.’ In 2013, senior members of the Democratic leadership expressed their opposition to granting President Barack Obama a fast-track authority in respect of the TPP House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said: ‘No on fast-track – Camp-Baucus – out of the question.’ Senator Majority leader Harry Reid commented: ‘I’m against Fast-Track: Everyone would be well-advised to push this right now.’ Senator Elizabeth Warren has been particularly critical of the process and the substance of the negotiations in the TPP: From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is, Why are the trade talks secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill. I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed. Think about that. Real people, people whose jobs are at stake, small-business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day—those people, people without an army of lobbyists—they would be opposed. I believe if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then maybe that trade agreement should not happen. The Finance Committee in the United States Congress deliberated over the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in 2014. The new chair Ron Wyden has argued that there needs to be greater transparency in trade. Nonetheless, he has mooted the possibility of a ‘smart-track’ to reconcile the competing demands of the Obama Administration, and United States Congress. Wyden insisted: ‘The new breed of trade challenges spawned over the last generation must be addressed in imaginative new policies and locked into enforceable, ambitious, job-generating trade agreements.’ He emphasized that such agreements ‘must reflect the need for a free and open Internet, strong labor rights and environmental protections.’ Elder Democrat Sander Levin warned that the TPP failed to provide proper protection for the environment: The TPP parties are considering a different structure to protect the environment than the one adopted in the May 10 Agreement, which directly incorporated seven multilateral environmental agreements into the text of past trade agreements. While the form is less important than the substance, the TPP must provide an overall level of environmental protection that upholds and builds upon the May 10 standard, including fully enforceable obligations. But many of our trading partners are actively seeking to weaken the text to the point of falling short of that standard, including on key issues like conservation. Nonetheless, 2015, President Barack Obama was able to secure the overall support of the United States Congress for his ‘fast-track’ authority. This was made possible by the Republicans and dissident Democrats. Notably, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden switched sides, and was transformed from a critic of the TPP to an apologist for the TPP. For their part, green political parties and civil society organisations have been concerned about the secretive nature of the negotiations; and the substantive implications of the treaty for the environment. Environmental groups and climate advocates have been sceptical of the environmental claims made by the White House for the TPP. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Australian Greens and the Green Party of Canada have released a joint declaration on the TPP observing: ‘More than just another trade agreement, the TPP provisions could hinder access to safe, affordable medicines, weaken local content rules for media, stifle high-tech innovation, and even restrict the ability of future governments to legislate for the good of public health and the environment’. In the United States, civil society groups such as the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, WWF, the Friends of the Earth, the Rainforest Action Network and 350.org have raised concerns about the TPP and the environment. Allison Chin, President of the Sierra Club, complained about the lack of transparency, due process, and public participation in the TPP talks: ‘This is a stealth affront to the principles of our democracy.’ Maude Barlow’s The Council of Canadians has also been concerned about the TPP and environmental justice. New Zealand Sustainability Council executive director Simon Terry said the agreement showed ‘minimal real gains for nature’. A number of organisations have joined a grand coalition of civil society organisations, which are opposed to the grant of a fast-track. On the 15th January 2013, WikiLeaks released the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP - along with a report by the Chairs of the Environmental Working Group. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' publisher, stated: ‘Today's WikiLeaks release shows that the public sweetener in the TPP is just media sugar water.’ He observed: ‘The fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism.’ This article provides a critical examination of the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP. The overall argument of the article is that the Environment Chapter of the TPP is an exercise in greenwashing – it is a public relations exercise by the United States Trade Representative, rather than a substantive regime for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim. Greenwashing has long been a problem in commerce, in which companies making misleading and deceptive claims about the environment. In his 2012 book, Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams, Guy Pearse considers the rise of green marketing and greenwashing. Government greenwashing is also a significant issue. In his book Storms of My Grandchildren, the climate scientist James Hansen raises his concerns about government greenwashing. Such a problem is apparent with the TPP – in which there was a gap between the assertions of the United States Government, and the reality of the agreement. This article contends that the TPP fails to meet the expectations created by President Barack Obama, the White House, and the United States Trade Representative about the environmental value of the agreement. First, this piece considers the relationship of the TPP to multilateral environmental treaties. Second, it explores whether the provisions in respect of the environment are enforceable. Third, this article examines the treatment of trade and biodiversity in the TPP. Fourth, this study considers the question of marine capture fisheries. Fifth, there is an evaluation of the cursory text in the TPP on conservation. Sixth, the article considers trade in environmental services under the TPP. Seventh, this article highlights the tensions between the TPP and substantive international climate action. It is submitted that the TPP undermines effective and meaningful government action and regulation in respect of climate change. The conclusion also highlights that a number of other chapters of the TPP will impact upon the protection of the environment – including the Investment Chapter, the Intellectual Property Chapter, the Technical Barriers to Trade Chapter, and the text on public procurement.

Broadening public input into science policy decision making: can the democratic model for science communication influence scientific, innovation and technological trajectories?

This PhD thesis investigates the potential use of science communication models to engage a broader swathe of actors in decision making in relation to scientific and technological innovation in order to address possible democratic deficits in science and technology policy-making. A four-pronged research approach has been employed to examine different representations of the public(s) and different modes of engagement. The first case study investigates whether patient-groups could represent an alternative needs-driven approach to biomedical and health sciences R & D. This is followed by enquiry into the potential for Science Shops to represent a bottom-up approach to promote research and development of local relevance. The barriers and opportunities for the involvement of scientific researchers in science communication are next investigated via a national survey which is comparable to a similar survey conducted in the UK. The final case study investigates to what extent opposition or support regarding nanotechnology (as an emerging technology) is reflected amongst the YouTube user community and the findings are considered in the context of how support or opposition to new or emerging technologies can be addressed using conflict resolution based approaches to manage potential conflict trajectories. The research indicates that the majority of communication exercises of relevance to science policy and planning take the form of a one-way flow of information with little or no facility for public feedback. This thesis proposes that a more bottom-up approach to research and technology would help broaden acceptability and accountability for decisions made relating to new or existing technological trajectories. This approach could be better integrated with and complementary to government, institutional, e.g. university, and research funding agencies activities and help ensure that public needs and issues are better addressed directly by the research community. Such approaches could also facilitate empowerment of societal stakeholders regarding scientific literacy and agenda-setting. One-way information relays could be adapted to facilitate feedback from representative groups e.g. Non-governmental organisations or Civil Society Organisations (such as patient groups) in order to enhance the functioning and socio-economic relevance of knowledge-based societies to the betterment of human livelihoods.

Community Engagement in Ireland's Developmental Welfare State: a study of the life cycle approach

The idea that people matter in modern democracies, often referred to as 'civic engagement' is recognised at the highest international level (United Nations 2008: 9). Civic or community engagement is essential to how budgets are decided, policy is developed and public services delivered. Significantly, community engagement is crucial in developing policy for sustained economic and social development. In Ireland the idea of the Developmental Welfare State (DWS) is based on the premise that the social policy system should support citizens so as to reach their full potential. Such a system comprises three overlapping elements: tax and welfare transfer, the provision of services and activist initiatives (National Economic and Social Council, 2005: ix-xviii). Civil Society Organisations have been challenged to 'operationalise the DWS' using a 'life cycle framework' as part of Ireland's corporatist partnership model (Department of Taoiseach, 2006: 40).

Social Services of General Interest: The EU Competence Regime and a Constitution of Social Governance

In discussing the potential role of the EU, the Member States, their composite parts and civil society organisations in establishing social services of general interest at sub-national, national, transnational and EU wide levels, this chapter explores the EU competence regime for social services of general interest. Its analysis contradicts a tendency in academic writing to demand protection of national prerogatives for shaping welfare states against EU intervention at all costs, because this would be counterproductive for the progress of the EU project. It submits that an EU constitution of social governance should create mixed responsibilities so that the EU, states and civil society actors support each other in creating preconditions for social integration in the EU. It uses the field of social services of general interests as an example of applying this general theoretical concept.

Criação de uma estratégia de comunicação integrada para uma organização de carácter confessional

Trabalho de projeto apresentado à Escola Superior de Comunicação Social como parte dos requisitos para obtenção de grau de mestre em Gestão Estratégica das Relações Públicas.

Projecto de parceria entre a ONGD Estímulo e a Rede de Farmácias Portuguesas: a união de esforços entre sectores para a resolução de problemas contemporâneos

Trabalho de projeto apresentado à Escola Superior de Comunicação Social como parte dos requisitos para obtenção de grau de mestre em Gestão Estratégica das Relações Públicas.

El desempeño de Unamsil en el programa DDR durante el proceso de paz en Sierra Leona. Estudio de caso: los niños soldados. 1998-2005

El interés de este Estudio de Caso es investigar la manera en que la Misión de Paz de la ONU en Sierra Leona (UNAMSIL) redireccionó el programa Desarme, Desmovilización y Reintegración (DDR) hacia los niños soldados durante el post-conflicto en el país. Se analiza cómo a través de la coordinación de diferentes Agencias y Organizaciones Internacionales con UNAMSIL, el Gobierno y la Sociedad Civil hace posible que se refuerce el rol de los Interim Care Centers (ICCs) en donde se enfrentaron las necesidades esenciales de los menores excombatientes para lograr un mejor proceso de su desmovilización y reintegración. Se explica de igual forma, las diferentes herramientas que sirven para llevar a cabo la resolución del conflicto y la reconstrucción de la paz, enfocándose en el peacekeeping, peacemaking y peacebuilding, como mecanismos que ayudaron a crear un espacio seguro para los niños exsoldados. Por último, se exponen los alcances y límites de los ICCs con respecto a la reintegración de los menores excombatientes

A framework for revitalisation of rural education and training systems in sub-Saharan Africa: Strengthening the human resource base for food security and sustainable livelihoods

Recent studies of the current state of rural education and training (RET) systems in sub-Saharan Africa have assessed their ability to provide for the learning needs essential for more knowledgeable and productive small-scale rural households. These are most necessary if the endemic causes of rural poverty (poor nutrition, lack of sustainable livelihoods, etc.) are to be overcome. A brief historical background and analysis of the major current constraints to improvement in the sector are discussed. Paramount among those factors leading to its present 'malaise' is the lack of a whole-systems perspective and the absence of any coherent policy framework in most countries. There is evidence of some recent innovations, both in the public sector and through the work of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society organisations (CSOs) and other private bodies. These provide hope of a new sense of direction that could lead towards meaningful 'revitalisation' of the sector. A suggested framework offers 10 key steps which, it is argued, could largely be achieved with modest internal resources and very little external support, provided that the necessary leadership and managerial capacities are in place. (C) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Democratização do acesso a água no semi-árido: o caso da comunidade rural de Pendências dos Emídios no município de Serrinha/RN

Brazil lives a time of experimentation and maturity as it pertains to managing the use of water, which comes institutionalising increasingly social participation. In Rio Grande do Norte, since 1997, the government has been developing actions accordingly, through the State Department of Water Resources, which has implemented a programme of adutoras within the State and created Water Users Associations, in the installation of dessalinizadores for places where the Adutora was not necessary or not yet arrived, so that should be managed by communities through associations of users. Since 2003, Civil Society Organisations - CSOs come through ASA - Articulation in the Semi-arid Brazilian, implementing the P1MC - Program of Training and Mobilization for Social Living with the Semi-Arid (One Million Rural Cisternas), in its third year of implementation in Rio Grande do Norte, in the spirit of working together with the semi arid. In the municipality of Serrinha / RN which incorporates the Semi-arid region, we find in the rural community of Pendêcias dos Emídios the experience of the State and Civil Society, which referred to a discussion about the environmental sustainability of these initiatives. The general objective of this work is to examine the strategies for participatory management in the use and access to water in the community of Pendêcias dos Emídios of the municipality of Serrinha / RN, to understand how those experiences can contribute to environmental sustainability. The methodology used envolvel bibliographic research in categories involving each article, the analysis of the terms of reference of each strategy as part of the documentary research, the application forms covering 40 families benefited, and interviews based on comprehensive analysis of the speech. This study is divided into 02 articles, where the first is a discussion held on collective action and environmental sustainability, and the second is held a discussion about the sustainability of the initiatives underway to access water. The results of the discussion held on 02 articles that had their empirical built from the experience of the Commonwealth of Pendências dos Emídios revealed how far will the ability of the State to promote collective action and the limitations of the perception of sustainability that permeates these initiatives in the search for democratic access to water in semi-arid