15 Septembre 2019 (Version rev.) Pierre Borgoltz EU LOGOS Athena Advisory Board member- Project H2020 SEnECA – (Première version publiée les 11 et 15 Juillet 2019 - site EULOGOS) Résumé…
En ce qui concerne le Brexit, aucune majorité à Westminster n’a réussi à approuver le texte de l'accord: puisque, à Bruxelles, les partenaires européens ont refusé d’ouvrir à nouveau les…
Le mardi 10 Septembre 2019, le Collège des commissaires de la Commission européenne (CE) a été nommé par sa nouvelle Présidente, Ursula Von Der Leyen. Dans son discours, elle a…
A resolution was adopted by the European Parliament (EP) in February 2014 that defined prostitution and forced prostitution as a matter of gender equality and recommended that all Member States took action to fight it, especially with the endorsement of the “Nordic model” implemented in Sweden, Iceland, Norway and, since 2016, in France. However, across the European Union (EU), there are still several types of legislations in place and this heterogeneity makes it harder to combat sexual exploitation. Indeed, it is actually giving sex traffickers blurred borders to work with. A contradiction therefore arises between the values promoted by the EU and its legislative action to tackle the issues it is denouncing. By not implementing a legally compelling legislation, the EU seems to be going against its values.
Almost every day, new stories emerge about some populist right-wing politician doing something outrageous. Whether it is another racist Trump-tweet, some right-wing party seeking Russian funding, or hate-speech against immigrants. What once used to terminate a political career has become distinguished etiquette for the populist far-right. Media, civil society, and politicians seem helpless in finding an adequate response. None of these scandals seem to threaten the political success of the far-right. How can this development be explained?
Suite au compte rendu de la conférence-débat « L’Europe au défi des populismes » du 22 mai 2019 dispensé par Jean-Yves Camus et Cas Mudde, #LaRéplique a décidé de s’intéresser…
En 2017, à l’échelle mondiale, 42 % des femmes n’avaient toujours pas accès à l’interruption volontaire de grossesse (IVG) dans leur pays natal et près de la moitié des avortements étaient clandestins. Cela pose un problème majeur de santé publique, car ce type d’avortement se déroule souvent dans des conditions sanitaires dangereuses. Chaque année, 47 000 femmes perdent la vie à cause des avortements à risques[1]. Malgré tout, dans l’ensemble le droit à l’avortement s’est amélioré entre 2000 et 2018 21 pays l’ont rendu légal. Cependant, actuellement, le droit à l’IVG est mis à mal un peu partout dans le monde, notamment par la montée du conservatisme. Par exemple, aux Etats-Unis l’IVG reste un droit en sursis où près de 16 États ont modifié leur loi sur l’avortement compliquant l’accès à l’IVG.
On thursday the 11th of July 2019, the Estonian foreign policy institute, international center for defence and security and Konrad Adenauer shifting were organizing a conference about the book Post Crimea shift in EU-Russia relations: from fostering interdependence to managing vulnerabilities. The authors of the book are Kristi Raik & Andras Rácz.
Just over a year ago, on May 25, the General Data Protection Regulation (commonly known as the GDPR) was adopted by the European Union (EU) Member States. This regulation marked not only an important development for the field of data protection and its harmonisation across the Union, but also highlighted the debate between security and privacy in this new digital age. A year after its entry into force, academics, policy-makers and company owners reflect upon the changes undertook to comply with the regulation and its impacts. Although positive developments can be observed as going in the right direction, there is still much work left to do. This article reflects upon the first year of the GDPR and assesses the positive and more difficult developments it engaged as well as its current position not only in the EU, but equally across the globe.
In November 2017, The European Commission launched the contest “Challenge to Solve” which invites citizens and scientists to rethink the way new technologies are used in the context of humanitarian aid[1]. With this contest that ends in January 2020, the EU sheds light onto the “Agenda for Humanity” brought forward by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon during the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit[2]. In the light of increasing humanitarian crisis across the globe, this agenda emphasises the necessity to innovate and explore the role of new technologies to overcome humanitarian problems. Therefore, this paper seeks to explore the meddling of the technological and humanitarian fields and provide insight into the extent these new technologies could tackle serious humanitarian disasters.