Search

This editorial addresses the following documents published in this and a previous edition of the SAMJ:The Central Drug Authority (CDA)'s position paper on cannabisThe CDA's position paper on harm reductionThe CDA's response to the editorial 'Comment on the CDA's position statement on cannabis'. As there is considerable overlap between the contents of the above documents, this editorial tries to avoid covering all the arguments put forward both in these documents and in the author's 'Comment on the CDA's position statement on cannabis'. Instead, it sets out to inform medical professionals and civil society why the incorporation of illicit drugs into the existing regulatory framework of drug control is the only holistic way to implement comprehensive harm reduction measures and bring an end to the 'war on drugs'.Instead it sets out to inform medical professionals and civil society as to why the incorporation of illicit drugs into the existing regulatory framework of drug control is the only holistic way to both implement comprehensive harm reduction measures and bring an end to the 'war on drugs'.

This article offers a discursive analysis of the Conservative green paper for international development, published as part of the closely fought election campaign of 2010 that culminated in a UK coalition government with the Liberal Democrats. The article examines the paper in comparison with the discursive shifts represented by the first Department for International Development (DfID) white paper, published by the outgoing Labour administration in 1997. In contrast with the optimistic and globalist developmentalism that characterised Labour's development discourse, the green paper sounds a more cautious note, using empire to focus on Britain's leadership role in poverty alleviation rather than on global progress, and brings back the full force of developmentalism only at the point where it seeks to legitimate spending on security concerns as a development concern. The article then moves on to examine the green paper's most explicit discursive move, the signalling of a ‘post-bureaucratic age’. This move towards increased information provision to promote transparency and accountability is likely to signal greater control by powerful donors in securitised times, albeit with a potential re-scaling of responsibility for poverty alleviation to the poorest local communities. Finally, the article looks briefly at information technologies in relation to the transnational spatiality of civil society, arguing that attention needs to be paid to the more embodied forms of transnational association encouraged by the green paper, and to the selection and impacts of information, which need to be seen in the discursive context of wider Conservative constructions of the ‘big society’.

Problem: Visions of technology, future scenarios, guiding visions (Leitbilder) represent imaginations of future states of affairs that play a functional role in processes of technological research, development and innovation—e.g. as a means to create attention, communication, coordination, or for the strategic exertion of influence. Since a couple of years there is a growing attention for such imaginations of futures in politics, the economy, research and the civil society. This trend concerns technology assessment (TA) as an observer of these processes and a consultant on the implications of technology and innovation. TA faces increasing demands to assess imaginations of futures that circulate in the present and to participate in shaping these through scenarios or foresights. More than ever, this raises the question, which propositions can be made based on these imaginations by TA and how this can be used in advisory practices. Imaginations of futures are relevant for TA not as predictions but in their significance and effectiveness in the present, which need to be understood and assessed.

The Commission' s White Paper examining options for reforming European governance was published on 25 July 2001.1 It is coincidental that the document emerged within a month of the Irish 'no' vote in their referendum on the Nice Treaty.2 This makes the document all the more pertinent. The Commission seizes upon the Irish decision as evidence that the White Paper raises issues that must be addressed to counteract the apathy and resistance of European citizens to the activities of the EU and to integration more generally. Whilst this may be true in part, the Irish 'no' was not exclusively a reaction to the White Paper's conclusions that political procedures are at fault and require reform. Rather, the Irish decision was more concerned with the actual direction and policy that the EU has adopted, particularly with regard to the enlargement process.3 The White Paper comes at a crucial stage of EU integration. Enlargement and political union are both key objectives for which the EU has set ambitious deadlines to complete. Perhaps rather belatedly, the White Paper has recognised that for these objectives to be successful, the Union must be more in tune with the expectations of its citizens. For example, concepts such as citizenship need to be given a more tangible meaning that enables EU citizens to feel as if they themselves have a stake in the direction that the EU is taking. The Commission President, Romano Prodi's ongoing programme of reforms to combat fraud and mismanagement are a welcome development and the White Paper is an integral part of that reform process. The emphasis on participation through engaging with civil society and a commitment to increased openness are both important inclusions, though there is room for further improvement in these areas. This White Paper is aimed not just at politicians, but at all who have a stake in the EU. Ultimately this includes all EU citizens whose lives are affected by European legislation, whether at their place of employment or if they are buying a package holiday. The question that remains to be answered is whether the White Paper will provide the necessary impetus for all levels of governance in the EU to engage with citizens with regard to what role the EU should play in their lives. The engagement with civil society is crucial but may not be enough. Apathy in the

The publication was issued within the project ‘Transfer of Know-How for Small and Mid-size Businesses in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine’ which aims to assist SMEs in those countries by providing support to stakeholders in their efforts to develop analytical and policy advocacy capabilities and by opening new channels of communication between SMEs and NGOs in the Visegrad Four countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) and the rest of the European Union.The objective of the study is to deliver the complete findings and outcomes of the project aimed at Ukraine. This White Paper serves as an authoritative document with action plans, budgets, and a tangible way for the beneficiary country stakeholders to move forward with the agenda of small and medium-sized business development.It presents an overview of the collected background information and contains basic data on the countries, including some key macroeconomic comparisons as well as rankings in major competitiveness reports (e.g. Doing Business report by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development), identifies the project stakeholders and provides an overview of the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises in Ukraine. It also includes the findings of two surveys implemented by the Slovak-Ukrainian team.Based on the findings, the “Discussion and Recommendations” section presents various perspectives on the problems of SMEs in Ukraine using the experience of the accession process of Slovakia, specific examples of key initiatives that led to the resolution of the problems, as well as case studies from various industries. It stresses the involvement of all parties including the EU, local governments, civil society, business associations, and the SMEs themselves.The key outcome of the paper is a road map – a very specific plan of actions including schedules, budgets, and other details within the scope of this project that will help the beneficiary country to cope with problems regarding the agenda of small and middle business development using the expertise and experience of institutions and stakeholders accumulated throughout the Slovak EU accession process. It includes a wide range of activities including a discussion of the project results with various Ukrainian stakeholders, workshops aimed at increasing knowledge about EU markets, legislation and standards, as well as strategic and institutional moves.

The World Bank and IMF have proposed the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) framework for all poor countries as a condition of receiving unconditional debt relief under the HIPC Initiative. The PRSPs will also be the key vehicle for the World Bank and IMF and other donors for various assistance packages, including loans. Like its predecessors, the PRSP framework promotes the ideas of ‘participation’ and ‘ownership’. This article argues that ownership of such a grand framework cannot possibly rest with the poor countries or their people if the whole idea is the product of World Bank and IMF think-tanks. It discusses participation in the development of Bangladesh's PRSP and argues that neither participation nor ownership was the target in preparing a national poverty-reduction strategy: they were merely necessary components of a document required for the continuation of debt and lending relationships with the World Bank and IMF.

In recent years, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have shifted their policy orientation away from a focus on economic growth alone towards a greater emphasis on country ownership and civil society participation. This found expression in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper approach introduced in the late 1990s. However, this new approach does not yet represent the fundamental change necessary to foster meaningful ownership reflective of country priorities and circumstances. In support of this argument, the inherent contradictions and constraints of the PRSP approach are examined, drawing on several developing country experiences with poverty reduction strategies.

The concept of ‘civil society’ has been rediscovered in contemporary discourses concerning the relationship between democracy and governance. This paper analyses this rediscovery in the more specific context of the European Commission’s 2001 White Paper on European Governance. However, processes of transnationalisation, governmentalisation and autonomisation may compromise much of the potential of ‘European civil society’ as an intermediating sphere of social action. By reinforcing these processes, the White Paper undermines the normative claims made for a civil society premised upon the voluntary nature of its associative forms and its distinctive open, communicative and deliberative rationality.

The Lifelong Learning Platform (LLLP) is a European umbrella organisation with special status, gathering 40 associations with European outreach and membership, active in the field of education, training and youth. LLLP is covering all sectors of formal, non-formal and informal learning. The Platform aims to voice citizen’s concerns about lifelong learning, promoting its holistic vision “from cradle to grave” and helping people in their life transitions.This vision is meant to ensure equity and social cohesion as well as active citizenship,advocating that education and training should be described beyond terms of employability and economic growth also as a framework for personal development and proposing solutions to make lifelong learning a reality for all.The Platform promotes a dialogue between civil society organisations and public authorities in order to modernise our educational systems and to support public sector innovation.

The Allens Hub for Technology, Law and Innovation is a community of scholars at UNSW Sydney aiming to add breadth and depth to research on the interactions among law, legal practice and technological change in order to enrich scholarly and policy debates and enhance understanding and engagement among the legal profession, the judiciary, industry, government, civil society and the broader community. The views of those participating in this submission are our own, based on our research, and do not represent the official views of UNSW Sydney or Allens. We were grateful for the opportunity to present our views at a consultation on 30 July 2018; this document attempts to summarise these in writing, taking account of the subsequent discussion at that event and conferral with colleagues after the event.

The United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) Occasional Papers is a series of ad hoc publications presenting, in edited form, papers or statements made at meetings, symposiums, seminars, workshops or lectures that deal with topical issues in the field of arms limitation, disarmament and international security. They are intended primarily for those concerned with these matters in Government, civil society and in the academic community. This paper provides historical background on the special sessions of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (1978, 1982 and 1988) and discusses efforts to convene a fourth special session. The Assembly has used these sessions to enable Member States to participate in the process of developing or strengthening global norms in disarmament. Complementing work done elsewhere in the multilateral disarmament machinery, the sessions enable consideration of how the various parts of the disarmament puzzle fit together in a coherent whole.

ISTR Voluntas Best Paper Awards for 2012 and 2013 were awarded at the ISTR Conference in Munster, 23rd July 2014. The Best Paper Award Committee’s rationale and citation of the two prize winning articles are presented here. ISTR’s journal Voluntas is a highly productive journal, which has published an increasing number of articles in recent years, and which has also become indexed in the ISI Social Citation Index. Voluntas published 49 papers in 2012 and 53 in 2013. This included one special issue on civil society in Africa, and several thematic

The central theme of the 2011 World Development Report (WDR) is that violent conflict remains a constant threat to human rights, peace and sustainable development. While the nature of violent conflict maybe changing1 its negative impact on poor people in terms of rights violations, public health, forced displacement and diminution of life chances is the same. Critical to establishing peace and the necessary confidence between state and citizen is providing a sense of security, freedom from fear, and the protection of basic rights and entitlements. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship, overlapping and sometimes contradictory, between a range of approaches to security and justice in conflict affected contexts, and to place these efforts within a broader rule of law framework. This, it will be argued, greatly assists in addressing the kind of frictions and blind-spots that commonly exist in making the transition from violence to peace. The paper will then examine some of the instruments and approaches adopted by governments and international partners in addressing the kinds of stresses which result in violent conflict. Finally, it will examine the gaps in the international arena which continue to persist in this area of support. A series of security and justice-themed papers produced for the WDR 2011 outline in more detail the issues, approaches and lessons of the key components including: security, public security in peacekeeping settings, criminal justice, justice and administrative law, and transitional justice.

Civil Rights and the Making of the Modern American State. By Megan Ming Francis. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. 197 pp., $27.99 paper.Megan Ming Francis' new book, Civil Rights and the Making of the Modern American State, tells the story of how the early anti-lynching crusade of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) shaped the modern civil rights movement. The book is crisply written, well-documented, and powerfully argued. It should be read by anyone interested in the history of civil rights in the United States as well as American Political Development (APD), institutional choice, and social movements. The book represents a key contribution to a growing trend that seeks to understand the micro-foundations of the evolution of the American state and federal policy, which offers a decentered account of institutional development in American politics and underscores the role of groups in creating opportunities for change from the bottom-up.At its core, Francis' book is a fascinating political history that seeks to fill a gap in our understanding of the civil rights movement in the United States. Whereas most accounts begin with the story of school desegregation, Francis starts with the founding of the NAACP and its fight against lynching. By pushing the time-line back, Francis brings to light the importance of the NAACP's victory in Moore v. Dempsey (1923), the historic Supreme Court decision that marked the first federal intervention into state crim-inal court proceedings. Francis shows how this initial victory influenced subsequent NAACP campaigns, including its securing of funding that led to the establishment of the Legal Defense Fund, which fueled the fight to desegregate schools. In the process, Francis ties the struggle over civil rights to campaigns against political violence and a profoundly unjust criminal justice system-issues that are still at the core of the ongoing fight for racial equality.It would be a mistake, however, to think of Francis' book as a gap-filling exercise. The heart of the analysis grapples with longstanding debates over the role of structure and agency in politics and social change. Francis argues that the existing literature tends to focus narrowly on the structural aspects of the story, describing the shifting opportunity structure of American politics in the shadow of Cold War imperatives. Francis directly challenges this view, arguing that "[t]he problem with these top-down accounts of political change is that they privilege institutions over citizen agency and thus understate the role of civil society and different forms of civic activity" (p. 15). The critical point is that, even if we accept the importance of institutions and the ever-shifting opportunity structure in American politics-and Francis is careful to acknowledge these factors-these opportunities are not self-executing, actors must seize these opportunities and decide how to exploit them. Francis takes us into that process, revealing its contingency and historical context. What emerges is a reclaiming of agency in the process of change, even in a case where the institutional opportunities for change were highly constrained.Stepping further back, Francis' work is part of a broader movement in APD literature that seeks to explore the grassroots foundations of the development of the state and federal policy. Other works along these lines include Charles Epp's Making Rights Real (2009), which details the creation of coalitions between activists and professionals that gave rise to new modes of governance at the local level, and Douglas Reed's The Building of the Federal Schoolhouse (2014), which identifies the ways in which local groups and urban politics has shaped (and been shaped by) decades of federal school policy. Anyone interested in APD must heed the call of these works to explore how group and individual level activity and local politics influence the state and federal policy development. …

It is not enough to have knowledge, one must also apply it. It is not enough to have wishes, one must also act.Johann Wolfgang von GoetheIntroductionGender mainstreaming* 1 of the security sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) twenty years ago was perceived as a "foreign" syntagma and proved very difficult to translate into the three official languages (Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian). The challenge was not only translation but also the transposition of that concept into reality. The link between the concept of gender mainstreaming and security sector tasks and responsibilities was a new topic for BiH society as well as globally. As a post-conflict country, in the last twenty years Bosnia and Herzegovina has gone through reforms in different areas such as police, intelligence, justice, etc. Those reforms were intensified in the period from 2003 until 2008 in the framework of the BiH integration process into the European Union and NATO. At that time, neither the BiH political elite nor representatives of the international community were aware of the benefits of the integration of the gender con- cept in those nor in other reforms in the country. It was women's organizations that started familiarizing the BiH public with the importance of including and applying the concept of gender in security sector reforms, namely to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (UNSCR 1325).2 They first gained financial support from the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) and other UN organizations in order to implement different programs and projects. Those efforts, commitments, and the influence of these women's organizations led to the government at all levels in Bosnia and Herzegovina establishing in 2003 official gender mechanisms such as the Gender Center of Government of Federation, the Gender Center of Government of Republic Srpska and, in 2004, the Gender Equality Agency at the national level. Their establishment came at a crucial moment for the institutionalization of gender mainstreaming in all areas of public and private life in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Only a few years after those gender mechanisms were established they were applied in the drafting of two strategic documents, the Gender Action Plan (GAP)3 for the period 2006-2013 and an Action Plan for the implementation of UNSCR 1325 in Bosnia and Herzegovina (AP 1325)4 for a period of three years (20102013). Those two documents were not imposed or drafted externally, which was the case with many other documents in Bosnia and Herzegovina from that period. They were produced by the representatives of BiH institutions together with the representatives of NGOs according to local priorities and needs, an important precondition for local ownership and sustainability of the whole process. Because of this, many were hopeful that enacting these documents would have a real and positive effect on the lives of men, women, and children throughout the country.In this article I first give a brief overview of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina before those national policy documents were adopted and of the post-adoption period. Second, my intention is to analyze the reasons why the adoption of AP 1325 was perceived as a big success in the country as well as the region and at a global level. Third, because I was personally involved in the implementation of the first AP 1325 on behalf of the Ministry of Security and in the drafting of the second AP 1325, my focus will be on the achievements of the Ministry of Security in the implementation process of AP 1325 as well as my personal experience with gender mainstreaming of the security sector in BiH. Finally, in my conclusion I examine the main lessons learned, current challenges, and present my personal view of how the envisaged goals from the documents can bring meaningful and real change to the daily lives of all people in Bosnia and Herzegovina.The Period Before AP 1325: The Role of Civil Society and International Community in Bosnia and HerzegovinaBetween 2005 and 2007, or almost five years before the implementation of UNSCR 1325, women's advocacy groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina relied on raising awareness through public and media presentations to demonstrate the importance of their implementation in the country. …

Using the Department for International Development’s recent White Paper on Development as a case study, this article critically reassesses Escobar’s notion of development discourse. Rather than being monolithic and static, as Escobar and others have implied, the writers argue that changes can and do take place within development organizations. Not only does the White Paper clearly signal a new direction in policy; it also results both from changes within DFID – in personnel and in the balance of power between interest groups – and between DFID and civil society.