Search results

Transparency International

From: Handbook of Transnational Economic Governance Regimes edited by Christian Tietje & Alan Brouder, (Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Germany), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, LEIDEN • BOSTON 2009, 1073 pages, Chapter Transparency International by Michel van Hulten, p. 243-252, ISBN 978 90 04 16330 0.. Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Smart and Age-Friendly Cities in Romania

The role of smart cities in order to improve older people’s quality of life, sustainability and opportunities, accessibility, mobility, and connectivity is increasing and acknowledged in public policy and private sector strategies in countries all over the world. Smart cities are one of the technological-driven initiatives that may help create an age-friendly city. Few research studies have analysed emerging countries in terms of their national strategies on smart or age-friendly cities. In this study, Romania which is predicted to become one of the most ageing countries in the European Union is used as a case study. Through document analysis, current initiatives at the local, regional, and national level addressing the issue of smart and age-friendly cities in Romania are investigated. In addition, a case study is presented to indicate possible ways of the smart cities initiatives to target and involve older adults. The role of different stakeholders is analysed in terms of whether initiatives are fragmentary or sustainable over time, and the importance of some key factors, such as private–public partnerships and transnational bodies. The results are discussed revealing the particularities of the smart cities initiatives in Romania in the time frame 2012–2020, which to date, have limited connection to the age-friendly cities agenda. Based on the findings, a set of recommendations are formulated to move the agenda forward. CC-BY Original article: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145202 (This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers "Age-Friendly Cities & Communities: State of the Art and Future Perspectives") https://www.dehaagsehogeschool.nl/onderzoek/lectoraten/details/urban-ageing#over-het-lectoraat

Open for Business: Pathways to strengthen CGIAR's responsible engagement with the private sector

The ‘Living Q’ an interactive method for actor engagement in transnational marine spatial planning

The interaction of stakeholders is regarded key in modern environmental and spatial planning. Marine/maritime spatial planning (MSP) is an emerging marine policy domain, which is of great interest worldwide. MSP practices are characterized by diverse approaches and a lack of transnational cooperation. Actors with various backgrounds have to identify mismatches and synergies to jointly aim towards coherent and coordinated practices. The ‘Living Q’ is a communication method to make actors aware systematically about their viewpoints in an interactive, communicative and playful environment, while it draws on results of a proceeding ‘Q Methodology’ study. Results from ‘Living Q’ exercises with international expert’s groups from European Sea basins show that the method is capable to foster communication and interaction among actors participating in ‘Living Q’ exercises, while having the potential to generate added value to planning processes by actor interaction in a collaborative setting.

Vehicle4 Energy Services (V4ES) evaluation for upscaling and transnational potential

This report is intended to collect, present, and evaluate the various solutions applied in individual operational pilots for their (upscaling and transnational transfer) potential, in terms of opportunities and barriers, over the short and long(er)-term. This is done by identifying the main characteristics of the solutions and sites and the relevant influencing factors at different local (dimension) contexts.The analysis provides insights in barriers but also opportunities and conditions for success across four main dimensions that make up the local context landscape. We consider two main roll-out scenarios:1. Upscaling within the boundaries of the country where the operational pilot (OP) took place2. Transnational Transfer relates to the potential for transferring a (V4)ES solution to any of the other three (project) countriesThere are several aspects within the four main dimensions that are cross-cutting for all four countries, either because EU legislation lies at its roots, or because market conditions are fairly similar for certain influencing factors in those dimension.Ultimately, both Smart Charging and V2X market are still in their relevant infancies. The solutions applied in various SEEV4-City pilots are relatively straightforward and simple in ‘smartness’. This helps the potential for adoption but may not always be the optimal solution yet. The Peak shaving or load/demand shifting solutions are viable options to reduce costs for different stakeholders in the (electricity) supply chain. The market is likely to mature and become much smarter in coming 5 – 10 years. This also includes the evolvement (or spin-offs) of the solutions applied in SEEV4-_City as well. At least in the coming (approximately) 5 years Smart Charging appears to have the better financial business case and potential for large scale roll-out with less (impactful) bottlenecks, but looking at longer term V2X holds its potential to play a significant role in the energy transition.A common denominator as primary barriers relates to existing regulation, standards readiness and limited market availability of either hardware or service offerings.

The application of arbitration in transnational private regulation

This paper investigates the prospective application of arbitration by Transnational Private Regulation (TPR). It builds on the study of TPR developed by Fabrizio Cafaggi et al. TPR addresses the ever-increasing transfer of regulatory power from national to global levels, and from public to private regulators. TPR entails private regulatory co-operation be-yond the jurisdictional boundaries of States through voluntary standards. The regimes of TPR are built by a variety of actors, such as companies, NGOs, independent experts, and epistemic communities. Examples of TPR can be found in food safety, forestry management, trade, and derivatives, among other fields. More specifically, they concern private actors engaging in transnational coordination of standard setting such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) that was developed to foster responsible management of the world’s forests. There are four main characteristics of TPR: legitimacy, quality, effectiveness, and enforcement. I will describe those four characteristics in brief here. First, the legitimacy of TPR is built around consent through voluntary entry, participation, and exit of regulated entities. Important to this contribution is that the legitimacy of TPR goes beyond its legal dimension, measured by purely legal standards. Hence, the legitimacy of TPR is largely determined by standards developed by social and economic institutions relevant to specific TPR regimes. The role of those institutions in standard settings is higher in private TPR regimes than private-public TPR regimes, where some forms of compliance are mandatory. Second, the quality of TPR corresponds to the ex ante and ex post evaluation cycle of regulatory processes. It is also linked with the transparency of TPR. Third, the effectiveness of TPR is measured according to the extent to which the objectives of TPR (or selected TPR regimes) are met. And finally, enforcement of TPRis understood as ‘ensuring compliance with commitments’. Enforcement of TPR can take place through courts, administrative agencies, and private dispute resolution—including the arbitration at the core of this contribution. Cafaggi’s study identified rather selective use of arbitration in TPR, but also recommended changes to make arbitration law more adaptable to TPR. Furthermore, the study recommended that more specialized dispute resolution institutions are created to exclusively serve TPR. Against this background, I shift the main focus of analysis from TPR to arbitration. Whereas Cafaggi argued that arbitration may be suitable for TPR as a means of private enforcement, in this paper I go even further, arguing that arbitration as a means of informal, out-of-court dispute resolution is well suited to strengthen the normativity of TPR. This is so because private arbitration actors (including, inter alia, arbitrators and arbitral institutions) are already equipped with the tools necessary to facilitate cross-border TPR, which is done through informal standards and procedures with origins in the communitarian values and reputational mechanisms used by different communities before the development of modern States. The roots of most private justice regimes—including arbitration—are informed by communitarian values such as collaboration, participation, and personal trust. Those values, together with other core characteristics of arbitration correspond to all core characteristics of TPR, making both systems comparable and complementary. The analytical framework incorporated in this paper follows the four core characteristics of TPR. Hence, the paper is organized into five sections. The first section contains the introduction. In the second section, I analyze the legitimacy of arbitration vis-à-vis the legitimacy of TPR. In the third section, I investigate the accountability of arbitration as a means of quality signaling vis-à-vis TPR. In the fourth section, I focus on the remedies available to arbitrators in a view of TPR’s effectiveness. Finally, in the fifth section, I analyze enforcement through arbitration and its impact on the exclusiveness versus complementarity of TPR regimes. Conclusions follow, including recommendations for future research. Part of topic "The blurring distinction between public and private in international dispute resolution"