--------------------- Opiniones e información sobre temas de interés para el consumidor ----------------------
22/04/2017
21/04/2017
● Martín Molinuevo, “Brexit: Trade Governance and Legal Implications for Third Countries”. World Bank Group (2017) 19 pp.
Abstract
While precise impact of Brexit on the EU/UK trade and investment agreements with third countries will depend primarily on the terms of the withdrawal agreement to be concluded between them, most scenarios suggest an extensive process of amendment of the text and/or commitments in multilateral and bilateral agreements. At the multilateral level, the UK will remain a WTO Member, but will no longer be represented by the EU. The separation of the UK obligations from the current EU lists of concessions and schedules of commitments will require amendments that, particularly regarding subsidies and quotas, may lead to a broader renegotiation process requiring consensus of all interested WTO members. At the bilateral level, the status of current EU PTAs with regard to the UK and its trading partners remains uncertain: Some elements suggest that these PTAs may no longer be valid for the UK, or that, even if legally valid, they will no longer cover the relationship between the UK and the third country. Further, EU agreements focusing on goods only will no longer apply to the UK. For these agreements to continue to apply, the UK and the third country will need to amend some aspects of the text of the agreement as well as of the lists of commitments. Investment treaties concluded by the UK with third countries will remain valid, and no amendment is in principle necessary. Parties could require amendments to the text of the treaty, due to a fundamental change in circumstances. LDCs and developing countries who benefit from the EU GSP will continue under this regime for the remaining EU member, but that GSP framework will no longer be applicable to the UK.
[...]
See more at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/26351/WPS8010.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
19/04/2017
● Robert Burdock y Peter Ampt, “Food Sovereignty: The Case and the Space for Community Led Agricultural Autonomy within the Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition”
Journal of Agricultural Science, Vol. 9 nº
5 (2017) doi:10.5539/jas.v9n5p1.
Publicado como avance on
line el 15 de abril de 2017
Abstract
Much has been written about food security, nutrition security and the
ability of people to access their food needs. Food sovereignty and the
associated ability of people to participate in the production, distribution and
consumption decisions of their food have been at the fringe of this discussion.
Linked with this is the debate on the question of pursuing policies of food
self-sufficiency or policies of self-reliance where food imports are considered
a natural extension of food security. Examining the elements of food security
through the food system participation framework of food sovereignty is an
opportunity worthy of further exploration. This paper seeks to add a dimension
to the understanding of food security by considering the value that a food sovereignty
perspective has on the right to access food that is nutritious and safe for
consumption. Current themes are cited and reviewed, and the implications of
both food security and food sovereignty perspectives for the food system are
argued. Agricultural trade liberalisation has benefited some societies and
harmed others. To this end, the Global Strategic Framework (the Framework) on
Food Security and Nutrition has recently incorporated the philosophy of the
food sovereignty movement into its guidelines. The Framework provides an opportunity
to view food security through a lens of food sovereignty providing guidance for
all societies on how to safeguard their food security.
Keywords: food sovereignty, food security, agriculture, political
economy
08/04/2017
Donald Trump's election as US President has brought about an important policy shift with regard to Mexico, all the more so because the new US Administration seems determined to complete the promised wall along the US-Mexico border and deport undocumented immigrants. It also intends to renegotiate NAFTA, stating that it does not adequately protect US interests.
Consultar: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4977487/4977487-6256437850758213634
17/03/2017
Ayris, P., (2017). Brexit – and its potential impact for open access in the UK
Insights. 30(1), pp. 4–10.
DOI: http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.336
Abstract
This article looks at the possible implications of Brexit for approaches to open access (OA) in the UK. It begins by sketching current issues in Brexit debates at the end of 2016 as the context into which discussions about open access are then placed. Issues in four thematic areas are analysed: OA policies and mandates, EU copyright reform, new OA publishing models and open science. The level of dependence in the UK on European developments is assessed in each case and its contribution to Brexit issues identified. The paper concludes that Brexit presents not only challenges, but also opportunities which the UK could seize. In open access, the UK is already playing a leadership role. In areas of open science, particularly in relation to the European Open Science Cloud, it is the European Commission which is asserting leadership. The UK needs to consolidate its current activity and ensure that, whatever the nature of Brexit arrangements, its freedom does not lead to isolation.
w
10/03/2017
● Malin Wållgren, “Exploring the Outer Limits of Article 114 TFEU – towards a general power?”
Uppsala Universitet (2016) 64 págs.
An analysis of non-market objectives
and ”measures having as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal
market“
W
● Ellen Vos and Maria Weimer, “Differentiated Integration or Uniform Regime? National Derogations from EU Internal Market Measures”
Maastricht Working Papers (2016) 43 págs.
Abstract
The EU has most frequently resorted to harmonisation as a model to
achieve its internal market. This contribution examines the dynamics of legal
differentiation in EU’s internal market law laid down in Article 114 TFEU and
secondary laws. It concludes that there has been a modest number of invocations
of the derogation possibilities under Article 114 (4) and (5) TFEU and the
safeguard clauses. The low number may be due to the fact that may both the
Commission and the Courts have a very rigid reading of the procedure whilst the
grounds for invocation are very limited. This low number nevertheless does not
automatically imply that Member States agree with the level of protection laid
down in the EU’s harmonisation measures or that the opt out mechanisms are not
relevant. Derogation mechanisms may play an important role in the negotiations
of the level of protection in the draft legislative acts. This study moreover
reveals that the derogation mechanisms may be important devices of regulatory
adjustment and learning in the fields of public health and environmental protection
in the EU. They ultimately may rather strengthen the uniformity of regulatory requirements
in the EU internal market instead of leading to regulatory diversity.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)