European Union

Length of video : 129'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

Length of video : 113'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

Length of video : 81'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

Length of video : 77'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

Length of video : 159'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

The awards ceremony for the 2024 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought laureates, María Corina Machado and Edmundo González Urrutia, will be held on Tuesday 17 December.
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Committee on Development
Subcommittee on Human Rights

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

Length of video : 180'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

On 5 December, SEDE Members will have an exchange of views with the first-ever European Commissioner for Defence and Space Andrius Kubilius on the important topic of EU defence at the time when the EU faces urgent and long-term challenges to its defence, including the cooperation with NATO and in view of the White Paper on Defence to be presented in the first 100 days in office. ...
The day before, on 4 December, Deputy Secretary General for Peace, Security and Defence Charles Fries will brief the Members on priorities following the Foreign Affairs Council-Defence of 19 November 2024. In addition, SEDE will also hold an exchange of views on Ukrainian women veterans, in the framework of the forthcoming European Parliament Gender Equality week. It will be an opportunity to hear what is currently in place to support women veterans in Ukraine but also an occasion for Ukrainian women veterans to share their own experience, their struggles and their recommendations to ensure their reintegration into society.
Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

MEP urge the international community to take swift and decisive action to address the alarming escalation in Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

HSBC Holdings and Others v Commission
Competition
Competition in the field of Euro Interest Rate Derivatives: the General Court confirms the Commission’s amended decision against HSBC

Nord Stream 2 v Parliament and Council
Energy
Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline: the General Court dismisses the action by Nord Stream 2 contesting the directive extending the internal market rules on natural gas to cover gas pipelines from third countries

It’s time to say goodbye to the UACES family, where I’ve had the honor of serving as Communications Manager and Interim Chair over the past two years. Like everything in life, this journey came with its ups and downs, successes and challenges. Yet, I wouldn’t trade a single moment of it. I can genuinely say that this experience has been incredibly rewarding, and I wholeheartedly encourage all of you to become part of this amazing community. 

This experience has been truly unique and unforgettable for many reasons. First, UACES introduced me to processes I never imagined I’d be part of—not just individually, but as a member of the entire Graduate Forum Committee. From organizing conferences and arranging events to participating in discussions about academic journal management and even coordinating the timing of pre-event cocktails, I found myself immersed in aspects of academia I had previously only observed. These experiences not only allowed me to contribute but also offered me fresh perspectives on the academic world. 

Second, thanks to the incredible people I met along the way, I now feel like I have a door waiting to welcome me in almost every European city. I won’t be visiting as an unwelcome guest but as a close friend, having shared unforgettable memories through UACES events. The friendships I’ve formed within the UACES community go beyond casual connections. They are colleagues and collaborators I look forward to growing with, standing in solidarity with, and learning alongside throughout what I hope will be a long and fulfilling career in academia. 

Finally, perhaps my favorite part of this journey has been the feeling of being surrounded by hundreds of mentors—offering both personal and professional guidance for navigating potential challenges I face now or may encounter in the future. The PhD journey is filled with new experiences, and part of the process is learning to manage expectations and time while prioritizing mental health to ensure a sustainable path forward. As part of the UACES Graduate Forum, I had the privilege of being in constant contact with incredible colleagues—from rising-star postdocs to well-established professors. I truly don’t think I could have found an equivalent experience anywhere else. 

Overall, I wholeheartedly encourage you to become part of this wonderful family. You will enjoy every moment of it. If you have any questions or need advice, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me! 

The post Farewell Blog from Barış Ertürk appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Faced with the current state of international politics at the moment, many have been questioning what is the place for diplomacy? With the rise of far-right governments who seek to undermine the role of multilateral cooperation, one could ask: does it even exist anymore? And if so, why is it relevant to study it? My PhD research seeks to understand precisely how it is possible that international cooperation is able to take place, despite overall rhetorical contestation.

In order to better understand it, my research takes the case of the cooperation between the European Union (EU) and Brazil. While bilaterally, this partnership is often faced with contestation, in the multilateral fora, namely in United Nations Human Rights Council, this is not always the case. To comprehend how this cooperation is taking place, I wanted to go beyond the textual analysis of resolutions and go to where this cooperation takes place: Geneva.

In this sense, I was very lucky that the UACES microgrant allowed me to pursue a week of field work in Geneva to conduct interviews with diplomats working at the Human Rights Council. During my short stay in Geneva, I was also able to observe one of the sessions of the Universal Periodic Review, which allowed me to see how delegates work with each other in action. Thus, this research trip was crucial to the development of my research, and to understanding how the process of cooperation, and mostly how diplomacy has a significant – yet frequently overlooked – impact in world politics. In fact, international relations and diplomacy studies are often seen as different fields of research and with distinct purposes. Nonetheless, if there is one key takeaway from my fieldwork in Geneva is that it is incredibly valuable to not forget that world politics takes place in the form of human interactions.

The post UACES Microgrant Report: a trip to the United Human Rights Council in Geneva appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Photo taken during field work: Mauna Kea is shrouded in clouds in the background

Anna-Lena Rüland

Large science projects, also known as “Big Science”, are typically presented as a win-win for all stakeholders involved, including for the local community. Yet research has shown that local opposition to Big Science is common, although it tends to be short-lived and often fails to raise wide-spread awareness. Some argue that this is because activists that oppose Big Science struggle to appear legitimate while criticizing a project that is generally associated with economic development and scientific progress.

The story is different for the kiaʻi mauna (Hawaiian for protectors of the mountain). The kiaʻi have sustained opposition to the Thirty Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawaiʻi Island, since 2011, and have managed to raise wide-spread attention of their resistance. In a recently published article, I investigate why the kiaʻi have succeeded in sustaining such momentum. Based on interviews that I conducted with community members, local astronomers, and kiaʻi, I found that there are six factors which explain the resilience of local resistance to the Thirty Meter Telescope. To the local community, most of my findings are unlikely to be a revelation. But for those that are not familiar with Hawaiʻi, a deep dive into the Thirty Meter Telescope controversy holds valuable lessons about science-society relations.

Hawaiʻi is a unique case with a unique history, much of which has considerably shaped local resistance to the Thirty Meter Telescope. To provide some of the background knowledge that is needed to understand the controversy, I draw on the excellent work of Hawaiian scholars that have meticulously chronicled the history of astronomy development on Hawaiʻi and local opposition to it. Their research indicates that a multitude of factors have triggered local opposition to astronomy development on Mauna Kea. For instance, it has been argued that astronomy development on Mauna Kea, a volcanic mountain of great cultural significance to many Native Hawaiians, infringes on indigenous practices and rights. Existing research also indicates that past mismanagement of the mountain, that has seen the construction of 13 telescopes over 40 years, has led to local discontent. Finally, some scholars contend that local opposition to astronomy development on Mauna Kea mirrors a broader struggle to decolonize Hawaiʻi, whose annexation by the US in 1898 is politically and legally contested.

Within this tense context, the proposal to build the Thirty Meter Telescope, a construction that rivals imposing landmarks like the Parisian Arc de Triomphe, almost instantly triggered local resistance. When the Thirty Meter Telescope was first proposed in 2010, local opposition materialized in the form of legal challenges. Later, in 2014 and 2015, a growing number of local community members, by then known as kiaʻi, engaged in non-violent direct action to prevent the telescope’s construction. Between 2015 and 2019, during the height of the Thirty Meter Telescope controversy, thousands of kiaʻi blocked access to the telescope construction site. Only the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 eventually put a halt to the blockade.

In my article, I identify six factors that help to explain why the kiaʻi have succeeded in sustaining opposition to the Thirty Meter Telescope since 2011. These six factors are:

• Multi-generational leaderful organization

Including different generations of (Native) Hawaiians in the resistance was essential because each generation was able to contribute different skillsets and experiences. Over time, this facilitated effective task division. For instance, younger kiaʻi were able to publicize local opposition on social media. Kiaʻi of an older generation that had participated in past Hawaiian movements, in turn, helped to shape kiaʻi strategies by sharing their knowledge of which tactics had proven successful in previous resistance movements. Having several leaders, or in other words a leaderful organization, was crucial for similar reasons. This organizational strategy enabled the effective distribution of responsibilities among a group of individuals that had the willingness, capacity, and skills to take on leadership tasks. As local resistance continued, distributing leadership responsibilities among several individuals also ensured that leaders did not burn out.

• Grassroots resources

Sustained local opposition would not have been possible without a continuous flow of tangible and intangible grassroots resources like money, food, and time. These were needed for the kiaʻi to vary the use of tactics throughout their struggle and to draw attention to local grievances.

• Versatile tactics

Combining different tactics such as legal challenges, non-violent direct action, and campaigning on social media significantly stalled telescope development and helped the kiaʻi to bring attention to their cause. Especially social media campaigns helped the kiaʻi to recruit likeminded individuals for their struggle and to gain additional supporters, both of which were needed to sustain resistance and to raise wide-spread awareness.

• Anti-science counterframing

Local opposition furthermore sustained momentum because the kiaʻi successfully framed the Thirty Meter Telescope controversy as a multidimensional issue, where not science itself but rather questionable research practices of “mainstream” science were up for debate. Making this distinction in framing the Thirty Meter Telescope controversy was crucial for the kiaʻi because it helped them to counter popular media frames which presented the issue as one of “science vs. religion” and portrayed the kiaʻi as anti-science.

• Local and national political opportunity

The kiaʻi also succeeded in sustaining momentum for their advocacy because the local and national political context were conducive to it. At the national level, advocating to protect a place of great cultural significance to an indigenous population resonated with a greater awareness of indigenous (land) rights. At the local level, the kiaʻi experienced little pushback as those in favor of the telescope were not as well organized and media-savvy as the kiaʻi. Local community members that supported the Thirty Meter Telescope moreover tended to be less vocal than the kiaʻi because their pro-telescope activism was met with disapproval and, in some cases, harassment.

• Place attachment-driven commitment

Finally, local opposition persisted because activists were deeply committed to preventing further astronomy development on Mauna Kea. This commitment was largely driven by a strong attachment to the mountain, including to its unique environment and the cultural sites that it harbors.

What do we learn from this? I believe that there are at least two important take-aways from the Thirty Meter Telescope controversy. First, it demonstrates that there are instances where activists succeed in framing their struggle against Big Science as legitimate. This, in turn, is an important precondition to sustain and raise wider support for it. Second and more broadly, the controversy also underlines the need for Big Science proponents to be knowledgeable about and respectful of the distinct circumstances and historical grievances of the local community which is or will be hosting a project. This especially applies to contexts where particular groups have been or continue to be marginalized. Acquiring such context sensitivity requires Big Science proponents to engage with and, where possible, thoroughly embed themselves in the local community. This is easier said than done, but community-based research practices that have been introduced in fields like archaeology or anthropology may provide a blueprint for the effective inclusion of local communities into the planning, design, and outreach activities of Big Science initiatives.

 

Dr. Anna-Lena Rüland is a research fellow at University College London. In her current research, she focuses on science diplomacy, research security, and European science, technology and innovation policy.

 

References

Rüland A-L (2024) Sustaining Local Opposition to Big Science: A Case Study of the Thirty Meter Telescope Controversy. Technology in Society 78: 102597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102597.

Salazar JA (2014) Multicultural Settler Colonialism and Indigenous Struggle in Hawaiʻi: The Politics of Astronomy on Mauna a Wākea. University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Honolulu.

TMT International Observatory (2022) About. Available at: https://www.tmt.org/page/about (accessed 11 September 2024).

The post When does local resistance to Big Science persist and raise wide-spread attention? Lessons learned from the Thirty Meter Telescope controversy. appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

If Donald Trump follows through on a promise to lower the US corporate tax rate from 21% to Ireland's rate of 15%, fears are growing that the tech firms will pack up and head home.

The move leaves the ruling SPD with Germany's most unpopular chancellor as their candidate at a time when the party is already trailing in third place behind the opposition conservatives and the far-right.

George Simion dreams of restoring Romania's pre-World War Two borders, which include areas now in Bulgaria, Moldova and Ukraine and has been declared persona non grata in the latter two.