Suchergebnisse

The article provides a critical overview of the rise of resilience at the European Union (EU) level and to what extent its adoption is reshaping the terms of the EU's peacebuilding interventions. In reaction to the perceived shortcomings of the "liberal peace" approach, international actors, including the EU, are now describing their interventions through a new resilience discourse. The article argues that resilience offers a four-fold contribution to promoting sustainable peace: (1) a focus on complexity; (2) a systems approach; (3) a shift toward local capacities; and (4) an emphasis on human agency. Focusing on the EU's discourse and its peacebuilding practices in the Western Balkans, the evidence suggests that the EU has only embraced a systems/integrated approach, while neglecting deeper understandings of complexity, local capacities and human agency. As a result, the contribution of resilience to EU peacebuilding remains limited.

During the past year, the Commonwealth of Virginia has experienced numerous developments in health law on all three major legal fronts-legislative, judicial, and administrative law. These developments have covered a range of health law topics, including everything from revisions to the public certificate of need process for health care facilities and the regulation of body-piercing of minors on the legislative front, to key decisions regarding the scope of the Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Act and the Health Care Decisions Act on the judicial front, to action on the regulatory front regarding independent external appeals ofhealth plan denials and hospice care under the Medicaid program. This article offers a summary of some of the most significant developments in health law in each of these three legal arenas during the past year.

Abstract
This article reflects on how European Union (EU) narratives of the crisis of the liberal international order (LIO) have reshaped its resilience approach and its foreign and security policy more broadly. Drawing on qualitative textual analysis, we trace the evolution of the EU's resilience approach over time and the way it has been shaped by crisis narratives. While the idea of resilience was introduced in EU foreign policy to foster the resilience of crisis-affected societies from the bottom up, the perception of an increasingly contested world first led to a reinterpretation of resilience in pragmatic ways, with values and interests combined selectively to protect the rules-based international order. More recently, on the grounds of a worsening crisis of the LIO, resilience has taken a defensive turn, adopting a more geopolitical stance to strengthen the EU's own resilience and that of the LIO. We argue that EU crisis narratives about the LIO thus serve to sustain and to rescue it. Furthermore, we conclude that the defensive reinterpretation of resilience is eroding the normative character of EU foreign and security policy. It also challenges the persistence of the LIO in the long term.

Resilience has emerged as a key theme in recent policy making. It spans a range of policy fields from infrastructure protection through to humanitarian intervention. This Research Paper looks at resilience as a theme of development strategy and humanitarian intervention and examines how it has emerged in German policy making. It argues that the dominant approach to resilience is a form of neoliberal governmentality that seeks to govern populations from a distance, devolve responsibility to people and communities, promote market mechanisms, encourage entrepreneurial behaviour and promote adaptation innovation and
transformation among traditional communities. However, it is also recognised that this is a strongly Anglo-Saxon approach, targeted at specific individuals and communities. The purpose of the paper is to consider the extent to which German policy making is simply a reflection of this dominant Anglo-Saxon approach, or whether there is a more distinctive German view of resilience. It does this by exploring tensions in the German discourse, indicating that there might be other political dynamics in play alongside the neoliberal ones.

Shani, G. ; Chandler, D.: Introduction. - S. 196-197 Debrix, F.: We other IR Foucaultians. - S. 197-199 Richmond, O. P.: Foucault and the paradox of peace-as-governance versus everyday agency. - S. 199-202 Joseph, J.: What can governmentality do for IR? - S. 202-204 Chandler, D.: Forget Foucault, forget Foucault, forget Foucault ... - S. 205-207 Calkivik, A.: Why not to choose a secure "We" in a security-obsessed world. - S. 207-209 Shani, G.: De-colonizing Foucault. - S. 210-213 Pasha, M. K.: Disciplining Foucault. - S. 213-215