The European Youth Parliament
February, 2012
Topic Preparation Kit
The 69th International Session
Istanbul, Turkey
This project has been funded by the European Commission. This publication reflects the
views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use
which may be made of the information contained therein.
European Youth Parliament, Sophienstraße 28-29, 10178 Berlin, Germany. Tel.: +49 (0)30 97 00 50 95 Fax::+49 (0)30 280 95 150
I. DELEGATES’ PREPARATION KIT
a. Committee Topics
For your information you will find a list of all 15 Committee Topics. Always be aware of the
work of the other Committees, since everybody will participate in the final discussions of the
General Assembly.
b. Committee Topic Preparation
Overviews: The overviews are written by the Committee chairpersons to serve as
background material. They aim to identify the key issues at stake while synthesizing the topic
area. The objective is naturally to keep these overviews as balanced as possible, yet they may
not receive unanimous consent. It should be noted that the EYP strongly encourages
independent thinking so feel free to disagree!
Keywords: The non-exhaustive list of keywords intends to facilitate searching for
information, may it be documents, news items or articles, at different types of search engines,
news websites and encyclopedias.
Research Links: As regards the suggestions for research links, the list is by no means
exhaustive. Rather than citing individual links, we have preferred indicating links to websites
where several relevant documents and articles can be found. Please note that the EYP is not
responsible for the contents on various websites; the texts reflect the opinions of their authors
only.
We wish you successful preparation and interesting reading!
Ruben Wagenaar
Ville Vasaramäki
President
Executive Director
2
II. COMMITTE TOPICS
Cold winter after Arab Spring? More than 5000 civilian deaths and rising demand for military
intervention: How should the EU work with the international community to prevent further
escalation of violent oppression in Syria and pave the way for a peaceful transition to a more
democratic system?
Chaired by: Valeriia Cherednichenko (UA)
In light of unceasing concern over Iran’s nuclear programme and renewed talks on expanding EU
sanctions. What role should the EU adopt to promote a peaceful outcome to the issue of Iran’s
nuclear programme and thereby ensure stability and security in the region?
Chaired by: Veronica Gleizer (SE)
Danish re-imposition of border controls, Dutch surveillance cameras and French-Italian calls for
Schengen reform: An attack on freedom of movement or a necessary response to illegal
immigration? In light of growing anti-Schengen sentiment, what is the best balance between a
sustainable migration strategy and freedom of movement in Europe?
Chaired by Alexandre Narayanin (FR)
Advertising by means of behavioural targeting in social media and concerns over consumer’s data
protection rights: What stance should European governments take?
Chaired by Bentley Yaffe (TR)
From outright bans to completely liberal markets. In light of growing disparities in attitudes
and practices, and increased calls for a unified European approach: What stance should the EU
take on the supposed need for a common legal framework on online gambling? How best can
a balance be achieved between consumers’ protection and free movement of services in this
area?
Chaired by: Jorg Körner (DE)
3
Short-term crisis-fighting measures versus environmental protection: What strategy should
European governments adopt in order to move towards an environmentally sustainable and
resource-efficient Europe?
Chaired by: Hanna Ollinen (FI)
A lost generation? Facing the challenge of dramatically high youth unemployment rates: What
short-term actions and structural labour market reforms are necessary to ensure that the
current generation of European youth does not become irreversibly excluded from the labour
market?
Chaired by: Valentina Mina (CY)
In light of the deepening European debt crisis: How can the EU sustainably foster fiscal discipline 1
whilst taking into account divergent spending cultures amongst its Member States?
Chaired by: Kerstin Mathias (DE)
Compromising viability for economic stability? In search of measures to discourage excessive risktaking in the financial sector: Is the proposed Financial Transactions Tax (FTT)2 part of the
solution?
Chaired by: James Benge (UK)
Building inclusive societies and addressing discrimination: how should the European countries
tackle growing discrepancies in attitude and policies towards same-sex marriage and adoption, in
an increasingly diversifying Europe?
Chaired by: Andrea Stagni (IT)
4
North Korea’s permanent state of food crisis. More than a decade and a half of humanitarian relief
initiatives and over €124 million spent: How should the EU evaluate its relationship with North
Korea in light of widespread violation of human rights? Is there a role for European humanitarian
assistance for North Korea?
Chaired by Marius Aure (NO)
Who feeds the artist? At a time when cultural spending is hit hard by the financial crisis and legal
enforcement of copyrights is becoming increasingly difficult, what measures should the EU take
to develop a fair and stimulating system of recognition and reward that puts the artist at its heart?
Chaired by: Maite Karssenberg (NL)
Bridging the cultural divides of Europe. More than a decade since the Helsinki summit, both
European and Turkish scepticism of Turkey’s accession to the EU and its ability to fulfil the
Copenhagen Criteria remain high, and the conflict with Cyprus unresolved. Moving beyond
the current political deadlock, what priorities must be set in further negotiations?
Chaired: Schima Labitsch (AT)
Communicating Europe. In light of an increasingly negative public discourse: How can the
European project win back the understanding of its citizens and be brought closer to its people?
Chaired by Ruben Wagenaar (NL) and Adriana Díaz Martín-Zamorano (ES)
Harvesting a better Europe. In light of Commission proposals for a renewed Common
Agricultural Policy for the period 2014-2020: How can the EU ensure its policy objectives of
revitalising rural areas and increasing the agricultural sector’s competitiveness and sustainability are
best achieved in a volatile global market?
Chaired by Chriss Hall (UK)
5
III. Committee Topic Preparation
Cold winter after Arab Spring? More than 5000 civilian deaths and rising demand for military
intervention: How should the EU work with the international community to prevent further
escalation of violent oppression in Syria and pave the way for a peaceful transition to a more
democratic system?

“The time has come to speak with one voice and demand an end to the bloodshed and speak out
for a democratic future for Syria.3”
The wave of Arab unrest that started with the Tunisian revolution of January 2011 reached Syria
in mid-March with initial protests against the torture of students in the small southern city Dar’a.
These were local responses to specific abuses of power by the Syrian regime, inspired by the
uprisings in other countries of the Middle East. Today, isolated protests in March have become a
nationwide force.4 President Bashar al-Assad who took the rule over Syria in 2000, has been
swinging between brutal crackdowns and vacuous concessions, such as granting citizenship to
thousands of Kurds in the north of the country. According to human rights groups, the number
of people who died in Syria since March 2011 amounts to more than 7,0005.
Syria’s bloodshed has been condemned by many international actors, including the EU, the U.S.,
the League of Arab States (LAS), the UN and separate countries. This was followed by a number
of sanctions from all angles. Among others, the EU has imposed an arms embargo on Syria and
has frozen assets of a number of individuals and entities deemed to be supporting the regime. 6
Unfortunately, these and other sanctions have been ineffective until now. In her statement, HR 7
Catherine Ashton stated that “the EU continues to support all efforts of the LAS and calls once
more on all members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) to assume their responsibilities.8” In
November, the Arab League called for al-Assad to delegate powers to his deputy in order for the
parliamentary and presidential elections to be held under Arab and international supervision.9 This
3
6
has been rejected by Syria. In late January, LAS also suspended its monitoring mission in Syria
stating that it was too dangerous to proceed.
On the 4th of February the massacre in the city of Homs took away more than 200 lives, making it
the deadliest so far in the regime’s crackdown10. The same day a UNSC resolution backing the
Arab League plan to resolve the crisis in Syria, with 13 votes in favor, was vetoed by Russia and
China11. Russia stated that “it was not their place to intervene in another country's domestic
affairs”12.
The core of this topic lies in determining which of the possible scenarios will pave Syria’s way to
a more democratic system and what direction this way will take. Should the EU and the
international community continue to impose sanctions without taking any direct actions? With
the responsibility to protect (R2P) in mind, is a UNSC resolution on Syria a necessary measure,
and if so, how to secure its adoption? Moreover, on the question of a possible military
intervention, is this a sensible direction to go in, and will it be able to bring the conflict to a quick
and satisfactory end?13 Or will the latter only bring Syria to a civil war and destabilise the situation
in the whole region? To make matters even more complex, it is important to keep in mind Syria
has a liability not found in Tunisia and Egypt- it is a majority Sunni nation that is ruled by a
religious minority, the Alawite sect of Shiite Islam.14 This fact may yet inflame another spark in
the inner conflict of Syria. Ultimately then, will such military intervention do more good than
harm or do the activists have no choice but to take up arms and fight this battle alone?15
By Valeriia Cherednichenko (UA)

Arab Spring, League of Arab States (LAS), High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs
and Security Policy, UN Security Council (UNSC), Responsibility to protect (R2P), military
intervention

1. Introductory material:
Field Research Report by International Crisis Group (ICG), July 2011
7
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/egypt-syria-lebanon/syria/109popular-protest-in-north-africa-and-the-middle-east-vii-the-syrian-regimes-slow-motionsuicide.aspx
Middle East Briefing n.31 by ICG, November 2011
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/egypt-syrialebanon/syria/B031-uncharted-waters-thinking-through-syrias-dynamics.aspx
2. Official sources
Report of the independent international commission of inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic,
Human Rights Council, 23 November 2011
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/17/docs/A-HRC-S-17-2Add1.pdf
Syrian Arab Republic and EU-Syria relations, European Union External Action
http://eeas.europa.eu/syria/index_en.htm
Report of the League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria, 24 December 2011-18 January
2012
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2012/al030212.html
EU Council conclusions on Syria
http://www.eu-un.europa.eu/articles/en/article_11783_en.htm
3. Media coverage
Draft of Security Council Resolution on Syria, 31 January, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/world/middleeast/draft-of-security-council-resolutionon-syria.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Syria-Protests (2011-) by The New York Times
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/syria/index.html
Syria resolution vetoed by Russia and China at United Nations, 4 February 2012, The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/04/assad-obama-resign-un-resolution
4. Video material
“Inside Syria” project by Aljazeera
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidesyria/2012/01/201212975618333832.html
8
In light of unceasing concern over Iran’s nuclear programme and renewed talks on expanding
EU sanctions. What role should the EU adopt to promote a peaceful outcome to the issue of
Iran’s nuclear programme and thereby ensure stability and security in the region?

In the aftermath of the US nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, nuclear weapons,
their destructive effect and proliferation have become a global phenomenon. In 1970 the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) came in to effect, in which the signatory states
in the possession of nuclear weapons obliged themselves not to prolife them, and the states
currently not in possession not to develop them. Today, a total of 188 states have signed the treaty
including all EU Member States and Iran16.
According to the NPT all countries hold a legitimate right for peaceful use of nuclear energy17,
including Iran. This right, however, is conditioned on compliance with the obligations not to
develop nuclear weapons and not to contribute to nuclear proliferation. Due to this obligation, all
nuclear activities within and between countries must be conducted in a manner that is transparent
to the international community and supervisable by the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) and its safeguard system – the system that found Iran in non-compliance with the NPT
transparency obligations in 2005.
In November 2011, the IAEA published a report indicating Iran had carried out activities
"relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device"18. This intensified the already existing
concern over Iran’s nuclear programme and its possible military dimension and gave fuel to
international fears that the country is in the process of developing nuclear weapons. Iran dismissed
these claims as fictitious and argued that their nuclear programme is purely intended for peaceful
purposes19.
This development has led to binding sanctions for all members of the UN, foremost regarding
Iran’s lucrative oil industry20. In addition to these, the EU in late 2011 also imposed the following,
among others, complementary sanctions and restrictive measures against Iran: (1) Trade concerning
technology related to enrichment of nuclear weapons has been prohibited for all EU member
states, (2) EU operators are not to trade nor invest in Iranian oil and gas industries and (3) financial
9
services, such as grants and concessional loans to the Iranian government, are not allowed while
activities of EU financial institutions with banks domiciled in Iran are monitored21. By July 1st
2012, Member States shall have phased out current contracts with Iran and switched to alternate
sources of oil to further put pressure on Iran22. The question is if these UN and EU implemented
sanctions have had a satisfying result, and if not, how they can be expanded to further ensure
stability and security in the region.
The relationship between the EU and Iran has since 2005 been dominated by these concerns over
the Iranian nuclear programme23. Although the EU’s objective to develop a durable and
cooperative relationship with Iran remains, Iran’s continued refusal to comply with the
international obligations stated in the NPT has left the EU with no choice but to impose the
aforementioned sanctions on the country. The EU has repeatedly, through the Foreign Affairs
Council and High Representative Catherine Ashton, stated its full support for all efforts to obtain
a negotiated and diplomatic solution to the problem24. Any such negotiations, if they are to be
moved forward, must be accompanied by the confidence building measures requested by the
international community through the IAEA, in line with the resolutions adopted by the UN
Security Council. In 2003, Iran temporarily suspended all nuclear enrichment in an attempt to
reach consensus with the international community through E3+3 talks (France, Germany, the UK,
the US, China and Russia). These talks later on collapsed, mainly due to the fact that no agreement
could be reached since they were either rejected by Iran or blocked by the US.
The inherent conflict of this topic is that despite that Iran argue that their nuclear enrichment is
solely for peaceful purposes, it occurs behind a veil of secrecy. Alongside this, a formation of a
unified cooperative policy between the UN, the EU, the US, Russia and China seems impossible
to reach due to the parties’ different interests in Iran. Which role should and could the EU take in
this and is the EU even an actor that can ensure stability and security in the region? Should the
EU get further involved by expanded sanctions or should we rather trust the mutual deterrence a
nuclear weapon equipped Iran would create in the region?
By Veronica Gleizer (SE)

The EU, Iran, nuclear weapons, the UN, IAEA, NPT, non-proliferation, sanctions
10

1. Introductory material
Q&A on sanctions on Iran
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15983302
Q&A on the nuclear issue of Iran
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428
IAEA Iran report- What you need to know about Iran and the problem surrounding their nuclear
programmeme
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15673941
UN inspectors visit Iran in January 2012 to follow up on the IAEA report from november 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16778292
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arguing that Iran does not have, and does not need,
nuclear weapons
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15637539
2. Official links
Factsheet by the Council of the European Union- the European Union and Iran + annex of
imposed EU sanctions on Iran
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/127511.pdf
Speech of High Representative Catherine Ashton on Iran and its nuclear programmeme
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/127787.pdf
Council of the European Union- Iran: New EU sanctions target sources of finance for nuclear
programmeme
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/127444.pdf
The IAEA and Iran – portal with all reports and resolutions concerning Iran and its nuclear
programmeme
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/index.shtml
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf
11
3. Other
Academic article, “European Union [security] discourses and practices on the Iranian nuclear
programmeme”, published 2010:
http://web.ebscohost.com.ludwig.lub.lu.se/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a793d16e-2d554808-916c-827f525284fb%40sessionmgr104&vid=7&hid=110
”IAEA-EU joint action – partnership in improving security” the cooperation between the IAEA
and the EU in general, what is being done and what can be done:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/NuclearSecurity/nseu1211.pdf
UN resolution 1540 (2004) on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons:
http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/328/43/PDF/N0432843.pdf?OpenElement
UN resolution 1977 (2011) on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons:
http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/306/79/PDF/N1130679.pdf?OpenElement
Videos on Iran, the EU and nuclear weapons:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=iran%2C+nuclear+weapons&oq=iran%2C+nucl
ear+weapons&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1445l5633l0l7118l21l18l0l0l0l0l193l1897
l8.10l18l0
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=iran%2C+the+EU%2C+nuclear+weapons&oq=
iran%2C+the+EU%2C+nuclear+weapons&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=15178l31748l0l
32193l32l30l1l17l0l0l212l1339l7.4.1l12l0
12
Danish re-imposition of border controls, Dutch surveillance cameras and French-Italian calls
for Schengen reform: An attack on freedom of movement or a necessary response to illegal
immigration? In light of growing anti-Schengen sentiment, what is the best balance between a
sustainable migration strategy and freedom of movement in Europe?

Schengen light vs. freedom of movement: In an effort to halt criminals from Eastern Europe
Denmark temporarily re-implemented border controls in May 2011. Since the beginning of 2012,
the Dutch authorities have been monitoring all citizens crossing their borders as well as registering
car numbers with the help of camera surveillance in order to combat cross-border crime, illegal
immigration and drugs trafficking. And finally France and Italy called for a “Schengen light”
reform in the debate over how to deal with refugees from North Africa. All this stresses the need
for European action towards a sustainable migration policy covering both illegal and legal
immigration as well as integration aspects and partnerships with non-EU countries.
The freedom to move and reside as laid down in Article 21 of the Maastricht Treaty25 represents
one of the EU’s core values. This is also embraced by the Schengen Agreement which constitutes
a territory of 26 countries where free movement of persons is guaranteed and all internal borders
have been abolished in lieu of a single external border.26 However, in contrast to the internal
borders, the external ones still need to be secured and protected. Illegal immigration thereby
presents only one reason why the EU agency FRONTEX27 was created in 2005 as a specialised
and independent body tasked to coordinate the operational cooperation between Member States
and promote a pan-European approach in the field of border security.28 The Arab Spring bringing
25.000 illegal immigrants to the EU’s shores has exposed gaps within the current system and
especially highlighted the need for increased border security at Greek, Spanish and Italian borders
through which most entries occur29. However, illegal immigrants also increasingly try to enter
through the EU’s eastern borders.
Especially in light of these recent developments, Europeans are worried about the pressure
immigrants put on the welfare state, job security, an ageing population, and their future in an
increasingly globalised world. On the other hand there is also an economic need for labour
migration, with the European Commission (EC) clearly stating a need for qualified workers from
abroad to fill the gap in our labour market, partly due to recent demographic developments. By

13
2060, the EU will be short of 50 110 million workers and by 2020 we will already be missing one
million health care professionals. In an attempt to tackle these issues the EC has already set up an
immigration portal30 for people wishing to immigrate to the EU and introduced the blue card
directive for highly qualified workers.31
However, in order to maximise the benefits afforded by legal migration, integration also needs to
be taken into consideration. While keeping in mind that successful integration requires both the
immigrant as well as the destination country to adopt and be prepared, do Member States have
the capacity to take on additional immigrants, and to provide the adequate infrastructure? And are
European societies therefore willing and ready to realise the full potential of migration policies?
Another important aspect of the EU’s migration policy is its cooperation with non-EU countries.
It has already successfully implemented return policies such as the one fighting smuggling as stated
in the framework of the Global Approach to migration and mobility.32 Within this framework it
has also introduced migration missions, cooperation platforms and mobility partnerships.33 This
approach enables migration issues to be addressed in a comprehensive way and many claim it
should be further developed.
In light of a growing xenophobia among Europeans and with far-right wing parties increasingly
entering national parliaments, immigration has become a controversial and sensitive topic.
However, when dealing with this topic one needs to differentiate between legal and illegal
immigration. On which grounds should we accept immigrants and does the EU maybe even have
a moral obligation to do so? Since EU Member States currently have diverging approaches to
both immigration and integration, it will be the committee’s task to look for common ground.
There is of course a strong moral argument involved in this discussion as well. Does the EU have
the right to benefit from strategic and economically clearly beneficial migration while refusing to
accept less qualified immigrants turning to the EU in times of crises in search for a better life? And
how should we balance the freedom of movement of EU citizens and the need for stricter border
controls to safeguard our borders? Those are the two fundamental issues that need to be addressed.
On both accounts, one has to think on how the concrete implementation will look like.
By Alexandre Narayanin (FR)
14

Schengen area; migration strategy; Maastricht treaty; legal and illegal immigration; FRONTEX;
freedom of movement; border controls.

1. Introductory Material
An overview of EU immigration policy:
http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/immigration/immigration_intro_en.htm
Freedom of movement in the EU:
http://eumovement.wordpress.com/directive-200438ec/
FRONTEX’ official website:
http://www.frontex.europa.eu/
An overview of research in the area of migration policy, European Forum for Migration studies:
http://www.efms.uni-bamberg.de/promis_e.htm
2. Official links
Infringement procedure in the EU.
http://www.svrez.gov.si/en/areas_of_work/coordination_of_european_affairs/infringement_proc
edures_in_the_eu/
Integration policy for immigrants: http://ec.europa.eu/homeaffairs/policies/immigration/immigration_integration_en.htm
Current migration strategy: http://ec.europa.eu/news/justice/110506_en.htm
Dublin II regulation:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_as
ylum_immigration/l33153_en.htm
EURODAC regulation: http://ec.europa.eu/homeaffairs/policies/asylum/asylum_identification_en.htm
Europe 2020 targets:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/europe_2020_indicators/headline_indicators
15
3. Other
Denmark’s border controls re-imposition:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,762064,00.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13366047
Dutch surveillance cameras:
http://euobserver.com/22/114327
http://euobserver.com/22/114751
French-Italian calls for Schengen reform:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13189682
http://www.euractiv.com/future-eu/france-italy-call-schengen-treaty-write-news-504329
Illegal immigration:
http://img.breitbart.com/images/2008/7/6/080707030144.887p132m/CPS.MXQ11.060708050
915.photo01.photo.jpg
16
Advertising by means of behavioural targeting in social media and concerns over consumer’s
data protection rights: What stance should European governments take?

Social media is a concept that has been increasingly influential in the area of social and economic
policy and development, with such popular examples of social media applications as Facebook
boasting more than 845 million active users34. With the widespread use and popularity of these
applications the issue of how we as users may be affected by their business practices has become a
matter of concern for parties ranging from parents and individual consumers to governments and
international inter-governmental organisations.
Social media can be defined as ‘a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological
and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of usergenerated content’35. Examples of these applications range from social networks such as Facebook
and Google+ to content communities such as YouTube and collaborative projects such as
Wikipedia. This accepted definition of social media focuses on the interactive potential that is
based on the existence and actions of the users of these applications, thus placing great importance
on how social media interacts with this user base.
One of the primary forms of interaction between these applications and their users has become
the gathering, storing and use of user data36. Using different methods to track user data and online
behaviour is an essential element of web-based advertising, an area of income that is projected to
reach an overall value of 8.3 billion dollars by 201537. The primary means of tracking user
behaviour patterns has been through the use of HTTP cookies, tags that link online behaviour
trends to the user’s web browser. While these cookies do contain specifics of websites viewed and
the time they were viewed for, they are not identification tags in forms of caches of intimate
personal information of the user. The information and trends identified from these cookies are the
elements that are used to customise and prioritise advertisements targeting users based on their
previous preferences on the web. This opportunity to better target interest groups through their
own preferences has led to social media applications charging increasing rates for advertisements.
17
The areas of data protection and use of data, such as HTTP cookies, have already been regulated
by European governments, the EU and the Council of Europe. The Convention for the
Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, the Data
Protection Directive (95/46/EC) and the Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communication
(2002/58/EC) have all been passed in order to regulate the digital industry and how they are able
to store and use consumer data. However, with increasing numbers of social media applications
now featuring large amounts of personal details supplied by the users themselves concerns have
arisen that these regulations may not be able to provide adequate protection to users with regards
to how such data is used.
An additional issue has become the global nature of the web and digitisation, with the recent
events surrounding the US House of Representatives’ attempts to pass the Stop Online Privacy
Act (SOPA) and the US Senate’s attempts to pass the similar Protect IP Act (PIPA) proving that
state regulation of the web may pose problems of jurisdictional validity. Another side of this issue
can be seen in the larger digital companies’ reactions to such legislative bodies, with the most
recent example of Google refusing to delay the publication of their new privacy policy until the
European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) could review the policy38
Privacy versus Sustained Innovation
The central conflict within this situation is the need to strike a balance between the rights of the
users and the needs of the social media industry, with the requirement to define the overarching
responsibilities and duties governing this relationship. The current status quo that has been
reached through legislation and regulation might be challenged by the increased reliance upon the
services provided by social media applications and the personal data that make such services
appealing.
Many users willingly share increasing amounts of personal data in order to fully utilise the social
element and interaction made possible by these social media applications. While control in these
situations do predominantly lie with the user, in terms of privacy settings and how much
information they decide to share, a general lack of knowledge as to how this data is stored and
what rights social media applications have as to the use of this data might prevent the
understanding required in order to make informed digital choices. An additional concern is that
increasingly detailed online profiles will become more susceptible to abuse if social media
applications are not tasked with providing suitable storage and protection mechanisms.
For social media applications finding new methods to use the vast amount of data that entails the
personal preferences of their users will provide a significant boost to their income and
profitability, thereby increasing their market value, appeal to investors and ability to continue to
18
provide their services free of charge. The balance of the issue will ultimately depend on the users,
the central concept that is both forms product of these social media applications and the means of
providing value to their services.
Questions to Consider
What balance should be struck between sustaining social media services at the level we are
accustomed to and the control we as users maintain over the use and storage of our personal data?
 Increased education or the introduction of empowerment? What methods should be
introduced to help users become accustomed to behavioural targeting in advertisements?
 With the realities of a global web what can governmental, European and supranational
institutions realistically do to legislate and regulate in this area? Furthermore, which of
these institutions and bodies have competence to legislate in these areas?
By Bentley Yaffe (TR)

Social media, Web 2.0, online privacy, behavioural targeting, HTTP cookies, consumer
protection, The Data Protection Directive, Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications

1. Introductory material
Analysis of Facebook and the use of personal user data (good additional links in section 4 of the
article:
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/tips/is-facebook-sharing-personalinformation3.htm
An explanation on the development and profitability of different online advertising methods:
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/web-advertising10.htm
An explanation of different methods of online behavioural targeting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/05/bbc_online_and_behavioural_targ.html
Blog focusing on the impact of behavioural advertising in digital industries:
http://behaviouraltargeting.biz/
19
YouTube video on how behavioural targeting through social media can benefit businesses
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXcOqC_D3Cg
A very simplified advertisement campaign by AOL explaining the workings of behavioural
targeted advertisements:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/aol-brings-out-the-penguins-to-explain-ad-targetingok-saul-and-louise-post-with-article/
2. Official links
Digital Agenda 2020 for Europe:
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/pillar.cfm?pillar_id=43&pillar=Digital%2
0Single%20Market
Directive 95/46/EC, Data Protection Directive:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:en:NOT
Directive 2002/58/EC, Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0058:EN:NOT
European Commission proposal regarding the reform of data protection rules:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/data-protection/news/120125_en.htm
European Commission information page about data protection:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/index_en.htm
3. Other
An analysis of how online privacy might change with the development of new web technologies:
http://www.csoonline.com/article/482479/potential-privacy-gotchas-in-cloud-computing
Carla C. J. M. Millar & Chong Ju Choi, ‘Advertising and Knowledge Intermediaries: Managing
the Ethical Challenges of Intangibles’:
20
http://www.jstor.org/pss/25075183?searchUrl=/action/doBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dsocial%2B
media%2Band%2Btargeted%2Badvertising%26acc%3Doff%26wc%3Don&Search=yes
Four ways in which behavioural targeting might improve the web and social applications:
http://mashable.com/2011/04/26/behavioural-targeting/
An analysis of the dangers of personal data in the context of cybercrime:
http://www.cio.com/article/698820/Are_You_at_Risk_What_Cybercriminals_Do_With_Your
_Personal_Data_?page=3&taxonomyId=3089
21
From outright bans to completely liberal markets. In light of growing disparities in attitudes
and practices, and increased calls for a unified European approach: What stance should the EU
take on the supposed need for a common legal framework on online gambling? How best can
a balance be achieved between consumers’ protection and free movement of services in this
area?

Online gambling is a form of gambling allowing consumers to wager money in games of chance
(including lotteries and casino-style games) or in betting transactions (both in sports and other
events) via electronic means accessible from a distance. The market for online gambling services is
constantly growing with an estimated 12.5bn $ (about 9.5bn €) total revenue generated in Europe
alone in 2010 and gambling in the EU accounting for almost 50% of the total global market 39.
The share of the online gambling market in the EU is roughly 10% of the complete gambling
market already and this number is expected to rise to 12% by 2012 (ref). In 9 Member States
gambling revenues exceed 1% of the GDP and in Malta they make up 7.8% of GDP (data from
2008)40
Traditionally, legislation of gambling (and thus also of its online varieties) has been exempt from
some key elements of centralised EU legislation such as the Services Directive and the Ecommerce Directive. According to the principle of subsidiarity, gambling remained to a large
extent a matter of national legislation and thus is differentially regulated in different Member
States. Depending on the traditions Member States have regarding regulating gambling,
approaches range from outright bans of online gambling over tight state monopolies to the
opening of the market to licensing providers of gambling services with more or less strict
regulations on who can obtain a license under which conditions. Reasons for tight regulations,
apart from the question of the morality of gambling itself, are mainly found in the areas of
consumer protection and crime prevention. While there is conflicting evidence from studies of
the subject area4142, there is a fear that the anonymity and easy availability of online gambling
services will foster problems of gambling behaviour and addiction. The increased possibilities for
fraud and the potential for money laundering are further arguments for strict regulations. On the
other hand, the transnational availability of gambling services via the Internet makes the
effectiveness of prohibitive measures on a national level questionable and the operation of illegal
gambling services attractive. Another argument in favour of a more liberal legislation is the
22
potential amount of tax revenue generated by gambling services (“Italy says it collected about
€150 million in taxes last year (2009) as a result of a partial liberalisation of the business”43), which
are often channeled to charitable causes or to supporting sports and cultural activities, especially in
countries operating big centralised lotteries44.
The diverging legislation on online gambling in different Member States and the fact that in
practice online gambling services are easily accessible across borders have led to calls for a more
harmonised European approach on the topic from representatives of the gambling industry45, as
well as politicians on the European level46. In several cases the European Court of Justice has
ruled that the legislation in some states is inhibiting the free movement of services in violation47 of
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article 56)48, while in general reaffirming
the possibility for Member States to completely ban online gambling49.
Thus to investigate the need and possibilities for common European legislation, the European
Commission has initiated a Green Paper public consultation in March 201150. In its reply from
October 2011 the European Parliament calls for closer cooperation between Member States and
the drafting of common minimum standards for licensing gambling providers, but advises to leave
it to the Member States to set their own legal frameworks for online gambling51. The European
Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) used its reply to the public consultation to express its
hope for a harmonisation and liberalisation of the European online gambling market52. Proposals
for legislative action from the European Commission can be expected in spring 2012.
An optimal solution to the question will tackle the following key elements: How can effective
regulation work in the digital age with gambling services provided across borders? How can
consumers’ rights best be protected and the risks of criminal misuse of gambling services be
minimised in the light of the freedom of movement of services? Does controlled access or a
prohibitive approach offer more protection from the harmful effects of online gambling? How can
a balance between harmonisation of European legislation and respecting the principle of
subsidiarity and diverging national traditions be achieved?
By Jorg Körner (DE)
23

Online gambling, free movement of services, subsidiarity, fraud, prohibition, problem gambling,
consumer protection, green paper, illegal gaming.

1. Introductory material
General introduction into how online gambling works:
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/online-gambling.htm
Summary of the situation in the EU in the Economist (July 2009)
http://www.economist.com/node/14041688
Extensive summary of the current situation in the EU (March 2011)
http://www.eubusiness.com/topics/single-market/gambling-4
Article about the plans of the European Commission to harmonise online gambling legislation
http://www.euractiv.com/consumers/commission-eyes-eu-regulation-online-gambling-news507351
Germany’s online gambling laws are not in line with EU regulations
http://www.euractiv.com/consumers/online-gambling-eu-puts-germany-pressure-news-506672
2. Official links
European Commission official page on Gambling:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/gambling_en.htm
EC green paper consultation:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/docs/2011/online_gambling/com2011_128_e
n.pdf
24
Additional Information for the EC green paper:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/docs/2011/online_gambling/sec2011_321_en
.pdf
Press release of European Court of Justice against Germany and Austria:
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2010-09/cp100078en.pdf
3. Other
Website of the European Gaming and Betting Association, a lobbying group for gambling
providers:
http://www.egba.eu/en/
factsheets prepared by the Remote Gambling Association, another lobbying group for online
gambling providers:
http://www.rga.eu.com/pages/en/rga-fact-sheets.html
25
Short-term crisis-fighting measures versus environmental protection: What strategy should
European governments adopt in order to move towards an environmentally sustainable and
resource-efficient Europe?

Human wealth is based on the consumption of natural resources, such as materials, energy and
land. In the EU, the production of materials and energy is largely dependent on imported natural
resources. Fifty percent of our energy is imported; for example the supply of uranium used in
nuclear energy, our primary energy source, is completely dependent on imports53. A steady supply
for our imported natural resources is a vital part of much needed stability in our manufacturing
industry and energy production. The manufacturing sector employs nearly 30%54 of the total nonfiscal business economy in the EU27; easily the largest sector within this grouping. However, these
natural resources on which we are clearly too dependent, are scarce, and the manner and quantities
in which we are using them are damaging to our environment.
The negative consequences of misuse and overuse of natural resources in the manufacturing
process and in energy production are clearly outlined for the consumer, the economy and
foremost the environment. The EU cannot regulate the use of natural resources in production in
non-Member States, despite the fact that these goods are imported into the EU. However, the
adoption in 2001 of the EU sustainable development strategy and the sixth environment action
programme (6EAP) aiming at ‘breaking the linkage between economic growth and resource use’
set the standard for the EU’s position. As early as 2011, the Commission launched a flagship
initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy called ‘A resource-efficient Europe’, which collects the
guidelines for the move towards a ‘green economy’. The benefits are clearly lined up, ranging from
new employment opportunities to making the EU more competitive and technologically
advanced. Resource-efficiency needs to be integrated into many policy areas and stages of
production.
The committee’s main focus will be on the natural resources that are used in manufacturing
processes and in energy production. The committee will depart from the initiatives in ‘A resourceefficient Europe’ to identify major exporting regions, imported resources and to examine specific
manufacturing sectors for the future. The question is not how to create a change in consumption
patterns, which is a slow process that can be traced back to the level of the individual citizen, but
rather how the EU can regulate the actual manufacturing processes so as to diminish its harmful
impact on the environment, without compromising our current standard of living. The link
26
between the provider of natural resources and the importer is thus important and the
environmental and ethical aspects in the extraction of natural resources. In this discussion, the EU
plays a huge role as a diplomatic link between suppliers of natural resources and manufacturing
industries. On the global arena the EU has considerably more power to regulate extraction and
restrictions in comparison to individual countries and manufacturers. In this context, the means by
which this process is influenced, as well as national competencies and differences in regulations
will be taken into consideration.
At a time in which economic instability results in a strong focus on short-term revival, finding
measures to initiate more resource-efficient production is difficult. It is imperative that the
committee concentrates on the specifics; whether that be the measures that can be taken, the
sectors they reside in the actors that they will affect. The key question ultimately is how to
minimize pressure on the environment through the manufacturing process, whilst simultaneously
ensuring the current goals of economic growth.
By Hanna Ollinen (FI)

6EAP, Europe 2020, resource efficiency, resource efficiency targets, resource extraction, EU
renewable energy directive, renewable energy, manufacturing industry, sustainable production,
green economy

1. Introductory material
Europa.eu on resource-efficiency:
http://ec.europa.eu/resource-efficient-europe/
Eurostat – Sustainable Development in the European Union:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-31-11-224/EN/KS-31-11-224EN.PDF
Communication from the EC to the EP and the Council:
A resource-efficient Europe – Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy
http://ec.europa.eu/resource-efficient-europe/pdf/resource_efficient_europe_en.pdf
EC Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe:
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/docs/2011_env_003_resource_efficient_euro
pe_en.pdf
27
2. Official links
Europe 2020:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/doc/2011_energy2020_en.pdf
European Environment Agency:
http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/
European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Growth:
http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/
Institute for European Environmental Policy:
http://www.eref-europe.org/htm/about_us.php
3. Other
In Victory for the West, W.T.O. Orders China to Stop Export Taxes on Minerals, New York Times
30.1.2012:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/business/wto-orders-china-to-stop-export-taxes-onminerals.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=european union+resource&st=cse
EU warns wasting environmental resources could spark new recession, guardian.co.uk 29.12.2011:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/29/eu-environmental-resources-new-recession
Integrating energy efficiency performance in production management – gap analysis between
industrial needs and scientific literature
Bunse, Katharina ;Vodicka, Matthias ; Schönsleben, Paul ; Brülhart, Marc ; Ernst, Frank O.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2011,Vol.19(6), p.667-679
http://www.sciencedirect.com.esc-web.lib.cbs.dk/science/article/pii/S0959652610004452
28
A lost generation? Facing the challenge of dramatically high youth unemployment rates: What
short-term actions and structural labour market reforms are necessary to ensure that the
current generation of European youth does not become irreversibly excluded from the labour
market?

In the aftermath of the financial and economic crisis, unemployment rates have risen across the
EU. Young people55 have been hit hardest by the effects of the austerity measures introduced
across Europe, – youth unemployment is as high as 49.6% in Spain, 46.6% in Greece and 30.1%
in Italy56 - as they are often ‘last-in first-out’57 in the job market. While many governments have
boosted spending on programmes to help the youth out of this problem, the statistics still remain
high. Nonetheless, the extent of the problem varies greatly amongst Member States as some
countries have been successful in keeping youth unemployment rates low.
According to the latest data youth unemployment in the EU is at 22.7%58 - equal to
approximately five million young unemployed - while the total unemployment rate is at a more
modest, albeit high, 9.8%59. The youth labour market is significantly more volatile than that of
mature workers, and youth unemployment is typically more sensitive to changes in GDP than
overall unemployment.
Moreover, the level of education no longer seems to play an important role in protecting the
youth against unemployment, as people of all educational levels have been hit by the effects of the
recent recession60. Even so, amongst those hit the hardest are young people with low education
levels, those with an immigration background and those who live in remote areas.
The consequences of high youth unemployment rates go beyond the risk of youth poverty. The
problem presents dangerous social and political effects, such as social exclusion, low levels of
political participation, depression, poorer health, as well as higher incidences of crime and
29
suicide61. For young people at the launch of their working lives, the damage of unemployment
may be deep and long-lasting, potentially creating a ‘lost generation’. The effects of youth
unemployment are therefore to be felt by the wider society.
To fight against this problem labour market reforms facilitating the entry of young people in the
workplace are necessary. It is therefore the responsibility of each country to take action and
provide measures and changes in legislation. A lot has already been done with many countries
developing initiatives in education, to prevent early school leaving and re-integrate drop-outs, in
training to help ease the transition from school to work and in employment, with measures such
as tax system reliefs and subsidies aiming to encourage companies to recruit and train young
people. Despite these measures, the problems persist and more needs to be done.
The EU, in its turn, places great importance on the issue of youth unemployment and has
developed a number of initiatives under its EU Youth Strategy 2010-201862 to help combat this
problem. Furthermore, the EU sets goals at both EU and Member State level under its economic
strategy Europe 2020 with three key priorities: smart growth, sustainable growth and inclusive
growth63. Under this strategy the Commission goes as far as making county specific
recommendations for each Member State64.
To prepare for this topic, delegates must be aware of the various causes of the problem, as well as
of the situation in different Member States. They need to be able to analyse the reasons behind
the different levels of youth unemployment from state to state as well as the different methods
used to fight the issue in each state. An in depth understanding of the EU initiatives and the EU
Youth Strategy in place is also necessary. Finally, the delegates will need to propose solutions and
elaborate on both short term actions required to address the problem in the immediate future as
well as long term structural reforms of the labour markets of Member States that are necessary to
tackle the problem at its root.
By Valentina Mina (CY)

Youth unemployment, NEET, labour market, entrepreneurship, training, EU Youth Strategy,
Europe Strategy 2020.
30

1. Introductory material
Report by the European Commission on current situation and the role of member states:
ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=7276&langId=en
Report on by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
on youth unemployment figures:
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2011/72/en/1/EF1172EN.pdf
Summary of the New EU- Youth Strategy.
http://ec.europa.eu/youth/documents/citizens_summary_3.pdf
Article on ‘Last in, First out’ definition
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40453626/Why_Are_Youth_Unemployment_Rates_Higher
Video by the OECD on the problem of youth unemployment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW_P0UIkmYc&feature=related
2. Official links
All about Europe 2020 strategy:
http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm
Europe 2020 Country Specific Recommendations:
http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/tools/monitoring/recommendations_2011/index_en.htm
EU Youth Policy:
http://ec.europa.eu/youth/youth-policies/eu-youth-strategy_en.htm European Employment Strategy.
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=101&langId=en –
Latest statistics on youth unemployment presented by eurostat.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Table_youth_unemplo
yment_MS.png&filetimestamp=20110930133430
3. Other
Academic report on Youth Unemployment in Europe and the US which outlines causes and
consequences of the problem:
31
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~blnchflr/papers/blanchflowerbell%20nordic%20final%20 –
Analysis of demand side barriers.
http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/employment/off-to-a-good
start-jobs-for-youth/removing-demand-side-barriers-to-youth-employment_9789264096127
9-en BBC article on EU’s launch of the youth unemployment plan:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16274113
Speech by Jose Barrosso on the creation of jobs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZzwY1zk3To
Video by Press TV on the EU discussions on youth unemployment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stoODcS85L4
32
In light of the deepening European debt crisis: How can the EU sustainably foster fiscal
discipline65 whilst taking into account divergent spending cultures amongst its Member States?

On 30 January 2012, 25 EU Member States took what Mario Draghi, President of the European
Central Bank, described as “the first step towards a fiscal union”66. All Member States, excluding
the UK and the Czech Republic67, agreed to sign a treaty68 imposing quasi-automatic sanctions on
countries that breach EU budget deficit limits and enshrine budget rules in national law. The
treaty is due to be signed at the next EU summit on March 1 st and ratified by the end of the year.
While the causes of the current crisis are complex, one of the main problems has always been that
euro zone countries share a single currency, however, no common fiscal policy. By entering the
Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)69 they have relinquished control of all national monetary
policy to a central and independent authority70, the European Central Bank (ECB). They are
therefore subject to financial regulations, yet there is no overarching system or sufficiently
powerful actor to hold them accountable when rules are flouted. Thus, there is a lack of
coordination between these two major instruments of macroeconomic policy. In a monetary
union with fiscal independence, a common framework for fiscal policies could be justified by the
risk of moral hazard71 since individual countries cannot be made accountable for their budgetary
imprudence, as credible mechanisms to punish them do not exist. This is especially pertinent as
the non-bailout provisions72 in the EMU have never been used as an effective threat. The new
fiscal pact is an attempt to rectify this situation.
33
In order to reach this political agreement the initial December Conclusions 73 had to be altered,
however, the fiscal pact will still be linked to the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) 74 in such a
way that only countries that have agreed to the fiscal treaty can make use of this bailout fund. It
will furthermore enhance the role of the European Commission (EC) in scrutinising national
budgets.
While the UK’s and the Czech Republic’s veto is in large parts politically motivated, there are
many economists doubting the severe restriction of deficit spending as laid down in the new
treaty, dismissing it as a political gesture to calm German voters and restore market confidence. As
a British official put it "to write into law a Germanic view of how one should run an economy
and that essentially makes Keynesianism illegal is not something we would do". 75 Effectively the
argument around this treaty boils down to the potentially most fundamental debate in economics:
The fight between Keynesians and their opponents. The former believe that governments should
run deficits during recessions and periods of high unemployment to compensate for lack of private
demand by injecting purchasing power into the economy76. Traditionally they believe in the
power of fiscal policy77 while their main counterparts, the Monetarists, foremost focus on
monetary policy. Rather than financing growth via bonds they advocate an increase in money
supply78. However, there are also a few others, such as representatives of the Austrian School,
arguing that the more important issue is to reduce the deficit by cutting taxes and government
spending. They claim that budget deficits are bad since they allegedly lead to higher interest rates
and these in turn are believed to reduce investment79, proponents of this view assert that avoiding
deficits should be the primary goal of fiscal policy.
It has been one of the main goals of European fiscal policy to secure sound public finances in the
context of deeper economic integration, in particular within the EMU. Member States have long
been required to coordinate their economic policies in the Council within the context of Broad
Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPGs)80. The rules laid down in the Stability and Growth Pact
(SGP)81, which were later reinforced and extended by the so-called “Six Pack” 82, lie at the core of
34
this policy area. The crises, however, exposed gaps in the current system and showed that existing
instruments for policy coordination, such as the Excessive Deficit Procedure, need to be used
more fully. At the national level, experiences with the EU fiscal rules have been characterised by
frequent breaches of the deficit ceiling as well as by significant deviations from the medium-term
fiscal objectives, resulting in insufficient reductions of debt levels. At the European level, there has
been a reluctance to follow stipulated procedures in general and to apply sanctions in particular83
The pursuit of the newly reinforced goal of fiscal discipline has been marked by differences in
terms of vigour, emphasis and sincerity throughout Europe during the past years. In addition it is
significantly easier for certain Member States, such as Germany and some Nordic States, to follow
this approach since their export surplus84 can offset domestic private saving often generated by
such policies. However, to ask each Eurozone country to achieve an export surplus is highly
irrational, if not impossible. Furthermore the ECB’s aim to keep inflation below 2% favours
certain economic policies, which in turn brings up the question which role it should play in this.
All of this explains why these differences in economic and public-spending cultures need to be
taken into consideration when drafting a pan-European framework for fiscal discipline.
While the lack of fiscal discipline by itself cannot explain the scale of the problems indebted
countries are facing, it is still worth noting that both the U.S. financial crisis and Europe’s debt
problems were tied to lax fiscal discipline. It is important to keep in mind that enforcing fiscal
discipline, hence ensuring balanced national budgets, is only one aspect of a potential solution to
the current crisis, however, the only one this topic deals with. It is important to keep in mind that
without a change in the EU’s primary law, a culture of fiscal discipline can only be fostered
through the Open Method of Coordination (OMC)85, therefore bearing the great risk of the
political ineffectiveness of intergovernmental treaties further complicating the matter. It will be
the committee’s task to draft a framework on how a sustainable European fiscal policy can be
enforced focussing on both preventive and corrective measures, while keeping in mind that
“Europe can't starve itself to death”86 with ever stricter austerity measures87.
By Kerstin Mathias (DE)
35

Fiscal discipline; Stability and Growth Pact; Excessive Deficit Procedure; Excessive Imbalance
Procedure; Fiscal Pact; “Six Pack“; EU Stability and Convergence Programmes.

Please also read the links provided in the footnotes and the footnotes themselves carefully.
1. Introductory material
A report by the Directorate General for Internal Policies on Fiscal Policy Coordination in
Europe:
http://people.su.se/~calmf/FiscPolCoordEuropeFINAL.pdf
Overview of Economic Governance in the EU:
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/index_en.htm
An overview of the new legislative proposal on economic governance (Six Pack):
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/11/647
Fiscal Polices, an overview by the European Central Bank:
http://www.ecb.int/mopo/eaec/fiscal/html/index.en.html
“Modern Macroeconomics – Its Origins, Development and Current State”, Brian Snowdon,
Howard R. Vane:
http://www.cui-zy.cn/Recommended/Nature&glabolization/Modern%20Macroeconomics%20%20Its%20Origins,%20Development%20And%20Current%20State.pdf
2. Official links
A Report by the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs on Public Debt and
Fiscal Policy in EMU (especially p.3-19 are absolutely essential for the understanding of the
topic):
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication7584_en.pdf
The Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the European Economic and
Monetary Union“ as agreed to sign on30th January:
36
http://www.european-council.europa.eu/media/579087/treaty.pdf
Relevant legal text and guidelines on EU economic governance:
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/legal_texts/index_en.htm
Proposal for a Regulation on the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of
Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial
stability in the euro area:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0819:FIN:EN:PDF
Proposal for a Regulation on common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary
plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficit of the Member States in the euro area:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0821:FIN:EN:PDF
A paper on the Stability and Growth Pact by the European Central Bank:
http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scpops/ecbocp129.pdf
Provision of deficit and debt data by Eurostat (2007-2010):
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-26042011-AP/EN/2-26042011-APEN.PDF
EU Area Government Debt:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-06022012-AP/EN/2-06022012-APEN.PDF
3. Other
A summary and analysis of the Fiscal Stability Treaty:
http://eulaw.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/the-eu-fiscal-stability-treaty-summary-and-analysis/
Reviews of the new fiscal treaty:
By Joan Marc Simon, chairman of Democracia Global in Spain:
http://www.euractiv.com/euro-finance/new-fiscal-pact-medicine-may-killing-patient-analysis510521
by Massimiliano Marcellino, Professor at the European Institute Florence:
http://www.eurointelligence.com/eurointelligence-news/comment/singleview/article/whywedont-need-the-new-fiscal-treaty.html
37
by Carole Ulmer, director for relations with EU institutions at the think tank Confrontations
Europe:
http://www.euractiv.com/euro-finance/useful-treaty-empty-gesture-analysis-510612
A critical view of the potential impact of excessive deficit reduction:
Javier Solana, former High Representative for Common and Security Policy, arguing
against austerity measures:
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/solana15/English
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e15ba792-4830-11e1b1b400144feabdc0.html#axzz1lo0UbOZ
George Irvin, Honorary Professorial Research Fellow at the University of London,
explaining Europe’s debt trap:
http://blogs.euobserver.com/irvin/
Reaction to the agreement reached on 30th January to sign the fiscal pact:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/30/us-eu-summit-idUSTRE80S0SR20120130
Olli Rehn, Vice-President of the European Commission, on “A New Stability Culture in
Europe”:
http://www.investineu.com/content/olli-rehn-vice-president-european-commission-andmember-commission-responsible-economic-and-12c4
Some thoughts on the Stability and Growth Pact:
http://www.eestipank.info/pub/en/dokumendid/publikatsioonid/seeriad/kroon_majandus/_200
4/_2004_4/_1.pdf?ok=1
Fiscal Policy in Debt-Ridden Countries:
http://europeanseminars.eliamep.gr/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Carlos-Mulas-GranadosFiscal-Policy-Debt-Ridden2.pdf
38
Compromising viability for economic stability? In search of measures to discourage excessive risktaking in the financial sector: Is the proposed Financial Transactions Tax (FTT)88 part of the
solution?

Late on Sunday 29 January 2012, Nicolas Sarkozy became the first leader of a major European
country to announce the implementation of a Financial Transactions Tax, a plan that will "create
a shockwave and set an example that there is absolutely no reason why those who helped bring
about the crisis shouldn't pay to restore the finances".89 He will almost certainly not be the last.
However, Sarkozy's tax is likely to only focus on the trading of shares and as such would not be as
wide-ranging as current proposals, though there is no reason why the other aspects of the FTT90
could not be added later.
At the December 9th summit of the European Council 26 Member States (this has subsequently
fallen to 25 with the Czech Republic citing "constitutional reasons" for their inability to sign any
treaty) agreed to the signing of a treaty containing both a fiscal compact and an agreement to
implement a tax on financial transactions. For Britain however, this was such an issue that David
Cameron vetoed a possible revision of the Lisbon Treaty that would make Member States
introduce this FTT. Britain's veto should not come as a surprise as of all Member States it is most
reliant on the financial sector, with London being a global financial hub and with financial
services making up around 9% of British GDP and was a key driving force behind growth from
the mid-1980s onwards.91 Britain maintains that it will support a global FTT but this seems
highly unlikely as the USA has shown little interest in introducing it. At the G20 meeting in
November of last year proposals were made by Bill Gates in which a global financial transactions
tax could be used to increase contributions to poorer countries but this was rejected by the USA
and India (somewhat surprisingly in the second case as they already operate a tax on securities).
President Obama remains wedded to his own proposals for a Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee,
taxing those firms who received US public money during the crisis. But without the support of a
country with such a powerful banking sector the UK in particular feels that introducing an FTT
would be putting their firms at a competitive disadvantage. The rejection of a Europe-wide
approach means European institutions will have little say as to the introduction of taxes, which
39
will be done on a country-by-country basis, though we can assume that in each country the FTT
will look vaguely similar.
Calls for a FTT are not solely motivated by economic arguments. Indeed one could question how
effective such a tax is in purely economic terms. Granted it could provide somewhere between
EUR 16.4 and 43.4 billion (0.13 to 0.35% of GDP) if implemented across Europe but this could
reduce future GDP growth by 0.17% and in twenty years time by up to 0.5%. But politically
taxing bankers can make a lot of sense, it is unquestionably the case that for many bankers are
responsible for the abysmal economic performance of major economies in the past five years.
Returning to Sarkozy's quote it is clear that he sums up the mood of many across Europe (for
further evidence study the cases of Stephen Hester's bonus92 and Sir Fred Goodwin's
knighthood93). Movements such as “Occupy” and the “Robin Hood Tax” have made clear the
depths of public hatred for banks. And it is not just in the public sphere that there is a move to
'ensure that the banking sector shares its responsibility for the economic crisis', with 63% of MEPs
supporting the introduction of a FTT even if it makes Europe's banking sector less competitive. 94
And of course Sarkozy's introduction of the tax was timed to coincide with a package of measures
that he claims will make the French economy more competitive but arguably seem to be strongly
focused on securing him a second term as French President.
But the committee have to ask themselves whether the introduction of a FTT will correct a
market failure, excessive risk taking, and what the consequences of its introduction would be. The
key aim, however, of this topic is to discourage excessive risk-taking in the financial sector and
there are more ways of doing this than simply introducing a tax. Other proposals include
removing the tax exemption that stocks and shares trading has, taxing, capping or even abolishing
bonuses and changing interest payments on debt. And within all of this we must bear in mind the
important role banking plays in our economy and that hitting banks too hard may force them to
consider moving elsewhere. What is certainly clear is that there is no simple solution to this
problem, as world leaders have discovered over the past few years.
The financial crisis that began in 2007 exposed huge flaws in the system of the global economy
and made clear that all of us, from individuals to nations, were over-reliant on the financial
industry and the debt it allowed us to build up. In proposing a FTT, Member States have decided
that the pre-crisis mode of financial governance is unsustainable. It will be up to the Committee
on Economic and Monetary Affairs II to find a balance between state intervention and free
market and to decide just how we can support a key part of the European economy and ensure
40
our financial sector remains competitive on a global level whilst guaranteeing that the mistakes of
previous years are not repeated.
By James Benge (UK)

Financial Transaction Tax, Tobin Tax, derivatives, bonds, G20, banking regulation, banking
reform, credit crunch

1. Introductory material
I have not included any links with regards to this but it is essential that you fully understand the
financial crisis that began in 2007, what caused it, the ramifications it has had on both the banking
sector and the global economy and the political and economic reactions to it. Focus on the
beginning and end of the introductory article though I would encourage you to read more of this
IMF summation on financial sector taxation:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2010/paris/pdf/090110.pdf
Larry Elliot is amongst the best economic writers around and all his articles on the Guardian
website are well worth reading, though this is a particularly relevant one, coming from the initial
announcement of an FTT by Jose Manuel Barroso in September:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/sep/28/european-union-tobin-tax
This Elliot article is also very useful background:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/03/who-caused-financial-crisis-great-recession
This article both provides a strong overview of the case for and against an FTT as well as offering
useful alternatives: http://www.cpb.nl/en/publication/an-evaluation-of-the-financial-transactiontax
2. Official links
The Commission's proposal for an FTT:
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/other_taxes/financial_sector
/com(2011)594_en.pdf
41
The European Parliament also endorsed this proposal, though it has no say over taxation:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA2011-0080
The Commission's report on pay for bankers:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/docs/directors-remun/summary_ia_en.pdf
3. Other
The public attitude:
The Robin Hood Tax is a UK-based organisation that calls for the introduction of an FTT to
provide greater equality. This video may not be balanced but it does give you an idea of some of
the arguments in the public sphere in favour of a FTT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7udTn2GyCs
Algirdas Šemeta, the EU Tax Commissioner, offers the Commission's perspective to the public:
http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2012/01/10/ftt-damage-european-economy/
Political arguments:
This podcast gives you an idea of the interlinking of politics and economics in the future of the
financial sector: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/audio/2012/feb/02/politics-weeklypodcast-french-election
A decent summation of economic arguments against this tax, whilst acknowledging the political
case in favour of it:
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/10/03/the-wrong-tax-for-europe/
The threat of banks moving abroad is real
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8456251/Barclaysinvestors-want-move-to-New-York.html,
though some would urge governments to call their bluff
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/06/banks-threats-tax-government
The culture of banking
Coming from an experienced market trader, this article offers an insider's perspective on the
impact of an FTT:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-04/markets/30587803_1_trading-volume-highfrequency-trading-yakov-amihud
42
This is a particularly interesting piece on the possibility of reforming the culture of banking:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/deborah-doane/banker-bonuses-the-biggerproblem_b_1241731.html
The Commission's report on pay for bankers:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/docs/directors-remun/summary_ia_en.pdf
This book should give you a great deal of background into how risk taking became such a key
part of financial markets:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_XBAZbzME3cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=infectious+gr
eed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KzEsT4yuBoPD0QW4psCtCA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q
&f=false
Other links:
A good article on the EU's regulatory response to the financial
crisis:http://www.egmontinstitute.be/paperegm/ep39.pdf
It would be dangerous to consider proposals for the FTT outside its wider European
context:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14934728
As the title suggests, it is important that decisions around taxation are ruled by one's head over
one's heart: http://www.economist.com/node/17902729?story_id=17902729
43
Building inclusive societies and addressing discrimination: how should the European countries
tackle growing discrepancies in attitude and policies towards same-sex marriage and adoption,
in an increasingly diversifying Europe?

Over the last two decades, the EU has become increasingly committed to the active promotion of
human rights. The Amsterdam Treaty (1997) empowered the EU to take action to combat
discrimination based on gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual
orientation95. In 2000, the EU adopted the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which became
binding after the Lisbon Treaty (2009) came into force. This extension includes sexual orientation
as a prohibited ground of discrimination96, being the first international human rights charter to do
so. Such developments, however significant, grant homosexuals’ rights on an individual basis only,
leaving the question of same-sex couples’ legal recognition undetermined.
However, rather than the European institutions, the key stakeholders of this topic are the
Member States, who exert full jurisdiction on family law97. Since 1989, when Denmark
introduced the Registreret Partnerskab (registered union), several European countries have also
acknowledged same-sex couples as rights holders. As of 2012, most EU Member States grant legal
protection of same-sex partnerships98, and some have gone as far as acknowledging LGBT couples
as eligible to adopt99. However, the legislative situation in Europe remains extremely diverse, due
to the heterogeneity of social, cultural and ethical factors and attitudes100 playing an active role in
the policy making process.
The lack of a harmonised legislation has a relevant impact on same-sex couples’ lives, as they may
substantially lose the acquired rights when exerting their freedom of movement within the EU.
For instance, a person engaged in a same-sex marriage in Belgium, whose spouse has an accident
whilst on holiday in Italy, would not be given the basic right of deciding whether the partner
should be on a life support machine or not. The most significant piece of European legislation on
this question is the Report on the situation of fundamental rights in the EU101, adopted by the
European Parliament on the 14th of January 2009. This document calls for mutual recognition of
44
existing legislation between Member States and, most significantly, the application of the principle
of equality on the ground of same-sex couples102 (which some consider as the battering-ram to
legalise marriage and adoption all over the EU103).
From marriage to unregistered cohabitation: the diverse ways same-sex couples are
recognised
Marriage is a social union between people, created by a legal contract generating kinship. It is
aimed to ensure certain rights of the contractors including mutual assistance, inheritance, and
maintenance. The judicial and social definition of marriage varies according to different cultures
and States, the most relevant difference being the accessibility to same-sex couples. Since 2001,
ten countries have begun allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide104. Moreover, some
jurisdictions that do not perform same-sex marriages recognise those performed elsewhere105. The
introduction of same-sex marriage results from legislative changes to marriage laws, court rulings
based on constitutional guarantees of equality, or a combination of these factors. In some
countries, it replaced a previous system of registered partnerships. The recognition of such
marriages is a political, social, moral, and religious issue in many countries. Conflicts arise over
whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into marriage, be required to use a different
status (which either grant equal right or limited rights in comparison to matrimony), or not have
any such rights. A related subject is whether the term marriage should be applied106.
In most EU Member States where gender-neutral marriage is not allowed, same-sex couples can
access different forms of legal recognition (civil/registred/domestic partnerships, reciprocal
beneficiary relationships, civil solidarity pacts, etc.), generally labelled as civil union. Civil union is
defined as a government-sanctioned relationships providing rights, benefits, and responsibilities
similar (in some countries, identical) to civil marriage.
Differences between European countries in this field are huge, not only in the terms of the
possibilities they offer, but also the extent to which partnerships contracted abroad are recognised
(if at all).
Protecting the children’s right: adoption as a possibility for all?
Adoption is a legal institution whereby a person assumes the parenting for another and, in so
doing, permanently transfers all rights and responsibilities from the biological parent(s). Whereas
marriage focuses on the rights of both contractors, the primary aim of adoption is to ensure the
rights of the adopted. Criteria for adopting vary according to different cultures and States.
Should the sexual orientation of prospective adoptive parents be considered when placing
children in adoptive homes? Although substantial research has demonstrated that children of
45
lesbian and gay parents develop in ways that are similar to those of heterosexual parents107, families
with lesbian and gay parents remain controversial in courtrooms, legislatures, and media. There
are only a small number of studies exploring family functioning and children’s adjustment in
adoptive families with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples. The findings of these studies are
consistent with those of previous research in that parental sexual orientation has not been found
to be significantly associated with child outcomes or family functioning108. Rather, family process
variables, such as quality of parenting and attachment relationships, were significantly associated
with family outcomes. However, very little empirical research about adoptive lesbian and gay
families has been reported. Existing research, while valuable, can be criticised on a number of
grounds (the most important of which is the limited research target109). Thus, the appropriateness
of lesbian and gay adoptions continues to be questioned110, and conceptual questions about the
role of sexual orientation in parenting remain unsettled111.
Another key problem to tackle regards homosexuals’ biological children. Whether they result
from in vitro fertilisation or previous heterosexual relationships, they may be exposed to
controversies over legal guardianship. Many European countries do not grant homosexuals the
right to adopt their partners’ children. Therefore, under the circumstances that the biological
parent is in no condition to fulfill their duties, their partner would not be able to legally
contribute to the children’s education and welfare. Custody over the minor would then be
assigned in a judicial way.
Questions to consider
The Committee on Human Rights has to provide answers to several distinct problems, which can
be grouped in three main areas:
1) The question of same-sex couples’ legal recognition: should there be any? What juridical
instrument would best meet the need of legal protection for homosexual couples, taking into
account the diverse legislations of European countries?
2) The question of adoption: in the light of the child interest, should same-sex couples be
eligible to exert full parental rights? Under what conditions? Should alternative forms of legal
guardianship be considered?
3) The question of attitudes towards same-sex couples: how best can the EU balance between
the personal freedom of thought and expression and the non-discrimination principle?
By Andrea Stagni (IT)
46

Same-sex marriage, gender-neutral marriage, same-sex adoption, LGBT family, LGBT
partnership, family law.

(a) Human Rights and general picture
Toolkit on human rights by LGBT people protection, European Council, 2010
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/st11179.en10.pdf
Report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union 2004-2008, MEP Catania,
2008 (see art 72-78)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6
-2008-0479&language=EN
International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersexual Association (ILGA) database on LGBT
related issues
http://ilga.org/ilga/en/Articles?select=tag:marriage%20%2F%20civil%20unions;
Essay on the socio-cultural aspect of same-sex couples’ legal recognition
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/753687/same-sex-marriage/272415/Religiousand-secular-expectations-of-marriage-and-sexuality
(b) Same-sex marriage
Catholic Church’s official position on same-sex unions, Card. Ratzinger, 2003.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030
731_homosexual-unions_en.html
IV. Overview on religious groups’ positions on same-sex marriage
http://www.pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/Religious-Groups-OfficialPositions-on-Same-Sex-Marriage.aspx
Article on the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling on same-sex marriages, Buyse,
2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jun/24/european-court-of-human-rights-civilpartnerships
Essay on the ECHR ruling on same-sex marriages, Thienel, 2010
http://invisiblecollege.weblog.leidenuniv.nl/2010/03/02/gay-marriage-and-the-echr
47
Article on same-sex legal union, Kolasinski, 2004
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
(c) Same-sex adoption
European Parliament resolution of 19 January 2011 on international adoption in the EU
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-20110013+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
Report on the effects legal partnership laws on the well-being of children, American Academy of
Pediatrics, 2006:
http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/118/1/349.full.pdf+html
Report on child development in adoptive same-sex families (see pages 1-3, 11-14), Farr, Forcett
& Patterson, 2010:
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf
Statement on same-sex couple parenting, American Psychological Association, 2004:
http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/parenting.aspx
Report (ES) on the effects of parents’ sexual orientation on children, Fontana, Martinez &
Romeu, 2005:
http://www.fides.org/spa/approfondire/2005/spagna_noesigual.html
Research on the effects of parents’ sexual orientation on children, Stacey & Biblartz, 2001
http://borngay.procon.org/sourcefiles/How_does_the_Sexual_Orientation_of_Parents_Matter.pd
f
Report on second-parent adoption by same-sex parents, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;109/2/339.pdf
48
North Korea’s permanent state of food crisis. More than a decade and a half of humanitarian
relief initiatives and over €124 million spent: How should the EU evaluate its relationship with
North Korea in light of widespread violation of human rights? Is there a role for European
humanitarian assistance for North Korea?

On the 19th of December 2011, state run media in North Korea announced the death of North
Korean ruler Kim Jong-il112. Kim Jong-il’s youngest son Kim Jong-un was hailed as the “Great
Successor” and the next ruler of North Korea113. Will the average North Korean benefit from Kim
Jong-un’s ascension to absolute leader, or will the widespread abuse of human rights and the
recurring food shortages in the country continue? Since the end of the Korean War, North Korea
has followed Juche, or self-reliance, as a key guiding principle114. Additionally, the policy of Songun,
or “military first”, is vital in order to understand North Korean domestic policy. Due in part to the
policies of self-reliance and military first, North Korea has been bereft of the benefits of partaking
in the global economy. Since the mid-1990s, natural disasters, climate variations, and economic
mismanagement have converged on the production of crops and ultimately forced the country to
rely on foreign aid in order to feed its own people.
By its own estimates, the European Commission (EC), states that between 1995 and 2008 it
provided €124.4 million of aid in 130 projects intended to supply emergency food, improve health
services and provide access to clean water and sanitation in North Korea115. The European
Commission Humanitarian Office (ECHO) channelled the majority of their aid through the
World Food Programme (WFP), the largest humanitarian agency fighting hunger worldwide. In
2010 ECHO became the Directorate-General (DG) for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection,
primarily being tasked with the responsibility to handle the short-term dangers of food crisis,
while the EU’s Food Security Thematic Programme (FSTP) is responsible for the long-term
structural developmental aspects of crop production in North Korea, primarily through funding
NGOs.
A Commission-issued humanitarian assessment in June 2011, expressed deep concern over North
Korea’s ability to feed its own people and recommended immediate emergency assistance.
Following up on the assessment, the Commission announced a €10 million aid package on the
49
4thof July 2011, in order to help out approximately 650 000 North Koreans who would otherwise
be at risk of dying from starvation116.
According to Amnesty USA’s Annual Report for North Korea 2011, North Korean authorities
continued to violate a series of key human rights, concerns shared by as many as 40 human rights
organisations117118. According to Amnesty USA, North Korean authorities operated at least 6
detention facilities or forced labour camps (gwalliso) in 2010, in which allegedly as many as 200
000 political prisoners were detained in an arbitrary manner without standing a fair trial119.
Reportedly, the detainees faced widespread torture, and at least 60 people were executed, some
publicly and some in secret, for infractions such as divulging the price of rice and other
information on living conditions to sources living outside of the country120.
One of the most controversial issues the committee will have to discuss is the question of whether
the EU should use humanitarian aid as a political tool to clamp down on human rights violations
in North Korea. It is imperative that the committee carefully considers the full impact of its
decisions: should humanitarian aid be used as a political tool, it might follow that North Korea
withdraws its plead for humanitarian assistance, ultimately affecting the North Korean people the
most. On the other hand, if no specific demands are tied-in with humanitarian aid from the EU,
the committee must bear in mind the question of how to avoid supporting the status quo and the
ruling elite of the current regime, and ultimately guarantee that the aid reaches those who are
most in need.
Essentially, this topic boils down to three central questions:
1. Whether more than 15 years of humanitarian aid in North Korea has been effective,
2. Whether the EU should use humanitarian aid as a political tool in order to limit human
rights violations, and
3. Whether European aid should play any role at all in a non-European sovereign state such
as North Korea.
Marius Aure (NO)

Food crisis, North Korea, DPRK, humanitarian relief initiatives, human rights violations, WFP,
FAO, ECHO, Juche, Songun, Gwalliso
50

1. Introductory material
New York Times
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/northkorea/index.htm
l
Factsheet by the European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection on Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/dprk-factsheet_en.pdf
European Commission Press Release - Emergency food assistance to North Korea
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/826&format=HTML&aged=0
&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
2. Official links
World Food Programme – Current Operations - Emergency Food Assistance to North Korea
http://www.wfp.org/countries/Korea--Democratic-People-s-Republic--DPRK/Operations/Emergency-Food-Assistance-to-Vulnerable-Groups-in-the-Democratic
World Food Programme – Current Operations – Nutrition Support for Women and Children
http://www.wfp.org/countries/Korea--Democratic-People-s-Republic--DPRK/Operations/Nutrition-Support-for-Women-and-Children
European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid & Civil Protection in Democratic People's Republic
of Korea
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/aid/asia/dprk_en.htm
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations on the DPRK
http://www.fao.org/countries/55528/en/prk/
The World Food Programme (WFP) on the DPRK
http://www.wfp.org/countries/korea-democratic-peoples-republic-dprk
3. Other
Human Rights Watch - World Report 2011 North Korea
http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2011/north-korea
Amnesty International Annual Report 2011 on North Korea
http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/annual-report-north-korea-2011?page=show
51
United States Institute of Peace - Special Report - The Politics of Famine in North Korea by
Andrew Natsios
http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/14962/1/The%20Politics%20of%20Fami
ne%20in%20North%20Korea.pdf?1
United Nations - Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/countries/AsiaRegion/Pages/KPIndex.aspx
Food and Agriculture Organisation / World Food Programme – Crop and Food Security
Assessment Mission to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 16. November 2010
http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/al968e/al968e00.htm
List of UN Sanctions towards North Korea
http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1718/xport_list.shtml
EU’s Sanctions towards North Korea
http://eeas.europa.eu/cfsp/sanctions/docs/measures_en.pdf
52
Who feeds the artist? At a time when cultural spending is hit hard by the financial crisis and
legal enforcement of copyrights is becoming increasingly difficult, what measures should the
EU take to develop a fair and stimulating system of recognition and reward that puts the artist
at its heart?

On 19 November 2011, Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission (EC)
responsible for the Digital Agenda, gave a speech titled ‘Who feeds the artist?’, in which she raised
the question of how to properly recognise and reward European artists in today’s society. 121 She
highlighted the importance of Europe’s creative sector, whilst addressing the fact that artists are
increasingly struggling to make a living. In the current digital era and with a financial crisis in full
swing, she stated, we have to change our often outdated policies in order to be able to properly
recognise and reward our artists: ‘We need to go back to basics and put the artist at the centre,
not only of copyright law, but of our whole policy on culture and growth.’
Europe’s creative industries currently account for 3.3% of the EU's GDP and 3% of jobs in the
EU.122 Furthermore, the European cultural sector, consisting of the visual arts, performing arts,
cultural heritage and the cultural industries also showed an overall growth of 19,7% between 1999
and 2003 (12,3% higher than the growth of the general economy).123 But the cultural sector’s
contribution is not all quantifiable: It’s also tremendously valuable in terms of tourism, innovation,
social integration and the overall quality of life in Europe. However, many artists often live on less
than the minimum wage and the widespread budget cuts on cultural spending in the last years
seem to make matters only worse.124 Another phenomenon that is threatening the survival of
many small and medium cultural enterprises is the struggle for copyright enforcement (and thus
artists’ revenues) in the digital era. The rapid movements of information and the ever-evolving
communication technologies on the Internet challenge the current European rights management
system, and more and more people, like Neelie Kroes, call for some kind of reform.
Michel Barnier, European Commissioner on the Internal Market, has recently set out a proposal
for a wide-ranging strategy to modernise intellectual property rights (IPR)125 in the European
53
Single Market.126 When it comes to copyright, he emphasises the need for multi-territorial
copyright licensing, creating European digital libraries and intensifying the Commission’s efforts
in fighting counterfeiting and piracy through the European Observatory on Counterfeiting and
Piracy. Piracy accounts for 24% of the worldwide Internet bandwidth consumption127 and the
illegal downloading of things like music, films and e-books is growing by the day. The EU has
two main bodies in charge of IPR protection, which are the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (OHIM) and the European Patent Office (EPO). On 26 January 2012, the EU
signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), an international agreement that has
been ratified by 22 Member States already but still needs consent from the European Parliament.
ACTA has attracted much criticism in recent times (see for example the riots in Poland in late
January this year128), due to worries that it infringes on data privacy and freedom of information.
Is this the way forward in tackling the problem of enforcing copyright in the digital era?
As Kroes said: ‘there are many new ideas out there’. In addition to her colleague of the Internal
Market, she mentions a whole range of other possibilities that do not necessarily have to do with
copyright alone: ICT129, taxes and more general legal measures can also help improve the
relationship between the artist (the right-holder) and the consumer, and all parties in between
(mainly copyright collecting societies, which play a big role in negotiating and managing artists’
rights)130. In addition to these ideas, there is the cultural budget of the EU that can help support
European artists. On 23 November 2011 the EC proposed a new programme dedicated to the
cultural sector, called ‘Creative Europe’.131 As part of this programme, the EC wants arts spending
to go up to 37% in the next EU budget (2014-2020), amounting to a total of €8.1 billion that
would reach up to 300.000 artists. This proposal still needs to be accepted by the Members States.
In brief: many ideas, options, plans and proposals. It is clear that the current system of protecting
and remunerating our artists is under pressure for change. Some would like to see all art freely
accessible for everyone; others highlight the importance of protecting artists’ intellectual rights.
What role should art play and how important is it for our society? Some see a role for the EU in
stimulating European culture to thrive, others see no justification for governmental support,
especially in these times of crises. What does the committee on Culture and Education think is
54
the best approach for the EU? In other words: what measures should the EU take to develop a
fair and stimulating system of recognition and reward that puts the artist at its heart?
By Maite Karssenberg (NL)

Cultural sector, digital era, copyright, piracy and counterfeiting, EC IPR proposal, ACTA,
collective rights management, ICT, taxes on cultural goods, budget cuts, Creative Europe
programme

(Please also read the links in the footnotes!)
1. Introductory material
Neelie Kroes’ speech, absolutely essential to understanding this topic:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/11/777
How to deal with handling collective rights in the digital era. Especially watch the video of the
chat show including different actors in the EU-wide debate on a new IPR policy:
http://euobserver.com/893/32211
Various greatly informative stances on anti-piracy efforts:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16658923
All about the newly proposed IPR strategy:
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_20102014/barnier/headlines/news/2011/05/20110524_en.htm
2. Official links
Great overview of what Europe’s cultural and creative industries are and mean to Europe:
http://www.keanet.eu/report/accesstofinance2010.pdf
Everything concerning copyright and the EU:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/index_en.htm
55
On the 2004 IPR Enforcement Directive:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/directives_en.htm
European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy (also take a look at the useful links on this
page): http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/observatory/index_en.htm
Creative Europe proposal: http://ec.europa.eu/culture/creative-europe/index_en.htm
EC’s first ever Green Paper on Europe’s creative industries:
http://ec.europa.eu/culture/documents/greenpaper_creative_industries_en.pdf
On ACTA http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/trade-topics/intellectualproperty/anti-counterfeiting/
3. Other:
Interesting debate on the management of online music:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/01/pete-townshend-john-peel-lecture and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2011/nov/03/pete-townshend-itunes-youtubegrooveshark?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
About the digitisation of European cultural heritage, mostly books:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jan/12/report-warns-digital-dark-age-privatesector?INTCMP=SRCH
IFPI Digital Music Report 2012: http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_resources/dmr2012.html
Interesting article on ACTA: http://euobserver.com/871/115128
56
Bridging the cultural divides of Europe. More than a decade since the Helsinki summit,
both European and Turkish scepticism of Turkey’s accession to the EU and its ability to
fulfil the Copenhagen Criteria remain high, and the conflict with Cyprus unresolved.
Moving beyond the current political deadlock, what priorities must be set in further
negotiations?

With Turkey’s application for membership to the European Economic Community (EEC) in
1959, it has taken itself and the EU on to a process which is at a crossroads that raises fundamental
questions on the credibility of Western institutional promises on the one hand and the inevitable
discussion on the nature of the EU, both culturally and politically, on the other. Signing the
Ankara Agreement132 in 1963 laid the cornerstone for Turkey’s accession and was destined to
prepare the country initially for a Customs Union133 , and consequently for adhesion to the EU.
After the realisation of the Customs Union in 1995, it was in 1999 at the Helsinki Summit that
the European Council decided to grant Turkey candidate status and set up a pre-accession strategy
embodied in the Accession Partnership134 and the National Programme135. Both aimed at
incentivising reform through Turkey’s obligation to comply with the Copenhagen criteria and
furthermore adopt and implement the acquis communautaire136 of the EU. Accession negotiations
started in 2005, when Turkey successfully complied with the Copenhagen political criteria and
thus proved to be ready for the 35 chapters of the acquis to be opened. To date, only 13 out of 33
chapters have been opened with solely one provisionally closed, and the fact that closing a chapter
requires the unanimous approval of all EU Member States calls for much endurance on both sides.
The current deadlock both parties find themselves in is a product of several intertwined issues,
some of more substantial and others of more technical nature. Technically speaking, despite of the
incentivising effect the prospect of eventual EU accession has proven to be, namely modernising
Turkish politics and economy, there remain many problem zones to be addressed successfully
should Turkey want to comply with a gradually increasing acquis communautaire. In the political,
legal and social sphere, the changes in the constitution, diminishing the power of the military and
abolishing the death penalty, cannot help compensating for the inherent problem of Turkish
57
Foreign Policy. These policy issues regard the resolving of the conflict with Cyprus, as well as the
cessation of the suppression and discrimination of the domestic Kurdish population, normalisation
of its relations with Armenia and the reported infringements on the freedom of expression. In the
economic sphere privatisation has encouraged increased employment, whereas the absence of a
full application of the Customs Union on Cyprus, as well as an account and trade deficit,
represent serious issues for the future. More generally, the Commission in its newest report has
raised Turkey’s need for the improvement of its administrative capacities in order to fully
implement and enforce EU legislation.137 On a substantial level, the EU is not coherent in its
advocacy of its relations with Turkey, mainly due to different stances of its Member States,
grounded in their domestic politics towards enlargement and Turkey. This substantial level leads
to the very core of the current deadlock: The lack of an elite consensus of EU Member State
governments, which is a crucial prerequisite for preserving the continuity of reforms necessary for
an eventual accession. Currently, some Member States, such as Germany, France and Austria,
favour a ‘privileged partnership’, whereas others such as the UK, Finland and Italy favour a true
effort towards eventual membership. In addition to this, other pressing issues on the EU agenda
such as the financial crisis of 2008 as well as problems from the last enlargement wave of 2004,
incentivise a stronger focus on vertical rather than horizontal integration138. Moreover, a hitherto
underestimated actor, the electorate in Member States, often being confronted with a public
discourse of Islamphobia and a lack of insight into high politics, can arguably block factual and fair
negotiations with Turkey.
As to Turkey itself, if it were to join the EU, it would represent the biggest and most powerful
Member State in terms of size, population and voting power. In its region it is a pivotal actor and
an important political and economic partner for the EU with a possible accession benefiting both
sides enormously. Being a bridgehead between Europe and Asia it can help the EU to effectively
deal with Islamic countries, contribute to economic gains and increase the EU’s capacity to
develop itself as an effective global power. Thus, solving the current deadlock and setting the
right priorities as soon as possible is of crucial importance as the process has reached a point of
frustration and inaction. The alternative notion of a ‘privileged partnership’ should be treated with
caution, as the EU itself has given an institutionalised promise by accepting Turkey as a candidate
country in 1999 as well as by the accession partnership in 2005, which clearly states that ‘The
shared objective of the negotiations is accession139’. Any deviation from this can thus arguably be
discredited as politics of ‘double standards’140 on behalf of the EU. Turkey on its behalf described
58
the notion of a ‘privileged partnership’ as insulting and non-acceptable. Nonetheless, it needs to
be judged to which degree an alternative partnership is the only way to maintain the EU’s and
Turkey’s stability in the long run, both internally and externally. It cannot be stressed enough that
the basis for discussion is primarily opting either for a straightforward approach towards eventual
accession or a ‘privileged partnership’. For this, arguments in favour and against these two options
need to be weighing against each other and short as well as long-term aims defined according to
this decision.
In order to find realistic solutions, examining the conditions that have led into and out of
deadlocks in EU-Turkey relations in the past, i.e. the negotiations of 1963, 1999 and 2005, can
help substantially. Also, new priorities need to consider the vast amount of hostility Turkey has
been confronted with until now, Turkey’s shifting Foreign Policy focus to the East and the EU’s
own obligation to represent its Member States’ interests and needs. Also, in case an alternative to
full membership is opted for, possible consequences for the EU, such as i.e. Turkey distancing
itself from it, need to be taken into consideration. In light of a challenging year with the
upcoming French presidential elections and the Cypriot EU presidency, resolving the deadlock is
put on thin ice. Nicolas Sarkozy, the incumbent French President, is arguably prone to use antiTurkish sentiments to gain votes and Cyprus, by holding the EU presidency being responsible for
setting the Council’s agenda and work programme, will most likely not be favourable to the
current climate between Turkey and the EU. These events call for immediate action on behalf of
both sides and setting clear priorities is hereby more vital than ever.
By Schima Labitsch (AT)

Turkey – EU membership negotiations, Accession Partnership, ‘privileged partnership’, adoption
of the acquis communautaire, Cyprus conflict, relations with Armenia, European Commission
reports Turkish developments, deadlocks Turkey accession timeline, shifting Turkish Foreign
Policy, Islamphobia, Copenhagen criteria.

1. Introductory material
A summary of EU – Turkey membership talks including a timeline, the most important conflicts,
current positions of different countries and organisations as well as various external links for
further research:
http://www.euractiv.com/enlargement/eu-turkey-relations-linksdossier-188294,
59
Ilgaz, M. and Toygür, I. (2011) ‘EU-Turkey Accession Negotiations: the State of Play and the
Role of the New Turkish Foreign Policy (WP)’, Real Institutio Elcano:
http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano_eng/Print?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTE
XT=/wps/wcm/connect/elcano/Elcano_in/Zonas_in/DT8-2011,
Paul, A. (2011) ‘The Turkey – EU deadlock’, Commentary, European Policy Centre:
http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/pub_1220_the_turkey-eu_deadlock.pdf,
2. Official links
Footnotes contain important official links from the European Commission on the most important
official documents and agreements. Furthermore, the following must be consulted:
Key documents such as the Accession Partnership, the Negotiating Framework and Progress
Reports by the European Commission (EC):
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/candidate-countries/turkey/key_documents_en.htm
On the Accession Partnership, the financial framework and the conditions Turkey must fulfill in
order to comply with the acquis communautaire:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/enlargement/ongoing_enlargement/community_acquis_t
urkey/e40111_en.htm
3. Other
Schimmelfennig, F. (2009) ‘Entrapped again: The way to EU membership negotiations with
Turkey’, Palgrave Macmillan, International Politics, Vol. 46(4), p. 413 – 431. (To be sent via
Email.)
‘What does Turkey think?’ (2011), European Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tank.
Collection of nine essays by Turkish experts and political figures from different backgrounds on
questions of Turkish identity, democratization and Ankara’s developing Foreign Policy:
http://www.ecfr.eu/page/-/ECFR35_TURKEYFINALFINAL.pdf,
‘Turkey is part of Europe. Fear keeps it out of the EU’ (2009), The Guardian. Tariq Ramadan on
a strategic vision for eventual Turkish membership:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/06/turkey-eu-membership,
60
‘Preserving Europe : Offer Turkey a 'privileged partnership' instead’ (2004), New York Times.
Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg arguing in favor of a ‘privileged partnership’ as a realistic alternative
to full membership:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/opinion/15iht-edgutten_ed3_.html,
‘Angela Merkel's 'Privileged Provocation' in Turkey’ (2010), Der Spiegel. Ralf Beste and Daniel
Steinvorth on the importance of providing an honest answer and a critical analysis of Germany’s
attitude:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,686485,00.html,
‘An uncertain path’ (2011), The Economist. The Economist on the status quo of EU – Turkish
relations and decreasing EU influence:
http://www.economist.com/node/21532303,
61
Communicating Europe. In light of an increasingly negative public discourse: How can the
European project win back the understanding of its citizens and be brought closer to its
people?

With the EU in crisis, the majority of the political elite claims that the need for European
cooperation has never been greater. Yet the European people are becoming increasingly critical
towards the European idea and terms such as bureaucracy, democratic deficit141 and technocracy
are often associated with the EU. Eurosceptic parties are entering national parliaments all over
Europe and citizens feel threatened by an anonymous, intransparent and distant EU. When
comparing the Eurobarometer (EB) results142 from autumn 2009143 and autumn 2011144, it
becomes evident that the trust from citizens towards the EU has decreased, namely from a 48% to
a current 34%. This means that the public opinion towards the EU and its institutions supports
the thesis of an increasingly negative public image of the EU.
So where does this increasingly negative public discourse come from? The public negative
opinion essentially falls on an institutional dimension. First of all, a certain democratic deficit has
been pointed out in the current EU institutions system with the European Parliament (EP) in the
spotlight, as it is the only EU institution directly elected.145 Many argue that the EP is too weak in
comparison to the Council and the Commission. However, a few scholars like Majone and
Moravscik146 are strictly against the allegation that power has shifted to the executive and that the
EU lacks any type of democratic participation and accountability.
Secondly, the distribution of seats between Member States and the Parliament’s power in the
legislative process have often been at the centre of debate during previous revisions of the treaties.
At the moment, the distribution is to be based on the principle of ‘degressive proportionality’. In
other words, the more populous a state is, the more MEPs it has and the larger the number of
inhabitants represented by an MEP. However, is this system equally fair for all countries,
especially the largest ones?
62
In addition many consider EP elections as second-order-elections. Voting is the most direct
activity that connects the citizens with the political sphere, however, the analysis of the last
European elections in 2009 shows that just 43 %147 of the electorate casted their votes. While
national elections are held on the basis of domestic issues, this is not the case for European topics
in the EP elections. Neither are they about personalities and parties at EU level nor the direction
of the EU policy agenda. Foddesal and Hix148 further identify a lack of competition for European
leadership positions. Do 43% of the electorate provide sufficient representation to legitimise the
EP? And how could this be improved?
Furthermore, beyond the institutional aspect of the issue, there are also important political,
economic and sociocultural implications. From a political perspective, recent years have seen a
rapid rise of European extreme right-wing and nationalistic parties, which directly impacts the
citizens’ perception of the European project. Therefore most national politicians find themselves
in a dilemma. On the one hand, Brussels pulls them towards deeper European integration, while
on the other hand, an increasingly frustrated domestic electorate is asking for the restoration of
national sovereignty. Many cleverly employ this sentiment by blaming Brussels for unpopular
domestic measures, making it a scapegoat and thereby avoid national responsibility and
accountability.
Finally, from a sociocultural perspective, it is essential to analyse how the EU is currently
communicated to its citizens, hence reflect upon the alleged lack of a European public sphere149.
An open, pluralist, and critical public discourse rooted in independent media is considered crucial
for providing an interface between state and society in a democratic polity. Such a public sphere
can be constructed through social and discursive practices and, at the same time, a cross-border
community of communication over issues that concern all Europeans rather than individual
nationalities. A considerable amount of research has recently been undertaken on the way EU
issues are being reported and debated and it has been observed that stories from other European
countries are often given low priority in all media, which is often called the fourth estate of our
society. As a consequence, this has implications for the knowledge Europeans are likely to acquire
about each other and the EU as well as for their ability to identify with other Europeans. Are EU
citizens sufficiently well informed about the issues, debates and events, political or not, that
preoccupy the citizens of other EU countries? How do European decision-makers interact with
the electorate and how should they engage in a more constructive public dialogue? Considering
63
that culture is what unites people, does Europe lack a common public sphere especially as
Member States do already have a national public sphere?
Considering current trends like the decrease of trust in the EU, the debate on the democratic
deficit of the EU or the raise in support of nationalistic parties, clearly discloses problems in how
Europe is currently communicated to its citizens. The important questions is how the European
project can win back the understanding of its citizens and be brought closer to its people? As the
Catalan poet Miquel Martí i Pol wrote: ‘Everything is to be done and everything is possible’.150
By Ruben Wagenaar (NL) and Adriana Díaz Martín-Zamorano (ES)

Public opinion on the European Union, Democratic Deficit, European public sphere, turnout in
European elections, Eurobarometer results.

1. Introductory material
Centre for European Political Communications, institutionally located in the University of Bristol
(United Kingdom):
http://www.eurpolcom.eu/.
Check on the multiple ‘research projects’, such as:
‘Television news and the European public sphere: a preliminary investigation’ by Freetz Groothues:
http://www.eurpolcom.eu/exhibits/EurPolCom_working_paper_6.pdf
DE VREESE, Claes H., University of Amsterdam, 2007. ‘The EU as a public sphere’:
http://europeangovernance.livingreviews.org/Articles/lreg-2007-3/download/lreg-20073Color.pdf
Eurozine (Network of European journals) articles:
http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2004-06-21-eurozine-en.html
Eurozine Editorial: ‘Europe talks to Europe: Towards a European public sphere?’:
http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2004-06-21-eurozine-en.html
FRIEDRIKSSON, Carl Henrik, ‘Energizing the European public space’:
64
http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2004-05-13-fredriksson-en.html
FRAILE, Marta; DI MAURO, Danilo, European Union Democracy Observatory (EUDO). ‘The
Economic Crisis and Public Opinion About Europe’, 2010.
http://www.eui.eu/Projects/EUDO-PublicOpinion/Documents/11-12-SpotlightEUDO.pdf
KOOPMANS, Ruud; ERBE, Jessica, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB),
2003. ‘Towards a European Public Sphere? Vertical and Horizontal Dimensions of Europeanised
Political Communication’:
http://edoc.vifapol.de/opus/volltexte/2009/1179/pdf/iv03_403.pdf
2. Official links
2009 Post-Elections survey – European Parliament Eurobarometer Spring 2009:
http://www.europarlbarcelona.eu/ressource/static/files/EB71-3_Post-electoralSynthese_analytique_EN.pdf
Eurobarometer results: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb44/chap7_en.htm
Most recent one: Eurobarometer first results November 2011 (Public opinion):
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb76/eb76_first_en.pdf
European Union Democracy Observatory (EUDO) from the European University Institute,
especially the sections on ‘EUDO Public Opinion’ and ‘EUDO Data Centre’:
http://www.eui.eu/Projects/EUDO/Home.aspx
Living Reviews on European Governance – Multidisciplinary e-journal publishing solicited stateof-the-art articles in the field of European integration and governance research:
http://europeangovernance.livingreviews.org/
Special Eurobarometer 2009 – The 2009 European Elections report:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_303_en.pdf
Action Plan to Communicate Europe by the Commission:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/pdf/communication_com_en.pdf
3. Other
Europeans and the crisis IV – European Parliament Eurobarometer September 2011:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/00191b53ff/Eurobarometer.html;jsessionid=
13507A6263D8B3586233D99767D33AAD.node2?tab=2011_0
65
The Guardian, ‘Left, right, left: how political shifts have altered the map of Europe’, 22 nd
November 2011: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/jul/28/europe-politicsinteractive-map-left-right
TIME Specials: ‘Europe’s Right Wing: A Nation-by-Nation Guide to Political Parties and
Extremist Groups’:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2085728,00.html
Professor Rasmussen on the “Two Faces of the Public Sphere. The Significance of Internet
Communication in Public Deliberation”:
http://www.regione.toscana.it/regione/multimedia/RT/documents/1211883113188_rasmussen.p
df
Swantje Lingenberg on “The audience’s role in constituting the European public sphere”:
http://www.sfb597.unibremen.de/homepages/lingenberg/downloads/Democracy_and_Participation.pdf
66
Harvesting a better Europe. In light of Commission proposals for a renewed Common
Agricultural Policy for the period 2014-2020: How can the EU ensure its policy objectives of
revitalising rural areas and increasing the agricultural sector’s competitiveness and sustainability
are best achieved in a volatile global market?

OVERVIEW
Since the Treaty of Rome, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been an established part of
EU policy151. Clearly, as it has been a foundation of how the EU has functioned over the past half
century, the aims of the CAP have been considered integral to protecting European interests.
However, there are many different opinions as to the validity of, and the success in reaching these
aims. In the critical economic situation that Member States currently find themselves in, the
amount that is being spent on the CAP is arguably disproportionate to the outcomes the EU
receives. At a time when neither national governments nor individual tax payers have money to
spare, 47% of the EU's budget is spent on protecting the competitiveness of the EU agricultural
sector, despite agriculture only accounting for 5% of the European workforce, and 1.5% of our
GDP152. On October 12th 2011, the European Commission proposed a number of policy changes
in an attempt to make the CAP more cost effective, bringing about great benefits for not only our
farmers, but for our natural environment and rural areas.
The proposals put forward by the Commission attempt to address the perceived weaknesses of the
current CAP153, which are mainly considered to be of economic and environmental nature. Many
would argue that the methods used by the CAP to protect European farmers, and a desirable
market price for agricultural products, (subsidising EU farmers and tariffs on commodity imports)
come at a huge cost. It is argued that not only are these internal subsidies inefficiently allocated,
but that the small protection and competitiveness held within in the EU is outweighed by the
damage that it causes to developing global economies. In addition, the overproduction of foods
and commodities, which is paid for by CAP, comes at a great price. Not only is there huge
material waste in the shape of 'grain mountains', but the overproduction has led to great
environmental damage. The previous policy of 'set-aside' farming areas has been unsuccessful, but
so far no other solutions have been produced.
The inherent conflict within the topic is between those who believe that the proposals by the
Commission154 fix the problems of the current CAP and those who believe that either the
67
proposals are too expensive and ineffective, or that CAP itself is a policy for a different age. With
the greater interlinked economy in which we reside, so obviously shown by the global nature of
the financial crisis, and the European Crisis, the CAP arguably looks like a very inward focused
policy. Furthermore, the CAP has not changed as much as many would hope it would have by this
point in its 'life'. It still focuses on the major agricultural states in the Union (France, Spain and
Great Britain) and perhaps loses focus of the developing agricultural states in the East. The
committee will need to decide on a pan-EU approach that benefits the rural areas in all states,
attempting to leave national interests behind. The committee will have to weigh up whether the
CAP proposals are the best way for the EU to face up to its agricultural and rural commitments in
this new global age. For this it is absolutely imperative that the committee on Agriculture and
Rural Development has a very clear understanding of how the reform proposals differ from the
previous CAP, and how some would say they fix the problems that exist in the agricultural sector.
It's apparent that the committee will have to find a place on a sliding scale between the two
extremes of whole-heartedly backing the CAP proposals, to fundamentally disagreeing with the
notion of CAP. On this scale we also find the positions of feeling that the proposals are a step in
the right direction, but not extensive enough, or that they're too expensive for the benefits they
bring about. With an extensive knowledge of both the proposed reforms, and what the EU
agricultural sector requires, the committee should answer the question of whether these reforms
are enough, and whether there's more to be done to protect European farming and rural
sustainability in the current global economic climate.
Chris Hall (UK)
68

Common Agricultural Policy, 'greening', capping, agricultural subsidy, environmentally sustainable
farming, agricultural innovation, food security, global competitiveness, agricultural public goods.

1. Introductory material
Text of the Treaty of Rome. Article 39 highlights the aims of the CAP:
http://www.cvce.eu/viewer/-/content/cca6ba28-0bf3-4ce6-8a76-6b0b3252696e/en
– Video giving example of member state costs of CAP:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15282928
Very brief overview of the aims of the proposals:
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/index_en.htm
Inequalities of CAP.:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11216061
69
Brief reform introduction that highlights where states may disagree:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/business/global/eu-proposes-major-changes-to-farmsupports.html?_r=2&ref=commonagriculturalpolicy
2. Official links
Commission proposals:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1181&format=HTML&aged=0
&language=en&guiLanguage=en
Slideshow of proposals:
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/slide-show_en.pdf
Legal proposals for CAP:
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/index_en.htm
50 years of CAP: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/50-years-of-cap/index_en.htm
Very useful summary of the need for reform:
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/debate/report/summary-report_en.pdf
Explanation of the main elements of the CAP reform:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/11/685&format=HTML&ag
ed=0&language=en&guiLanguage=en
3. OtherVideo on the future of the CAP (important to understand who has made this video
and why):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W6221fH6DU&feature=related
Academic study into global food security and the positive outcomes of removing the CAP:
http://www.reformthecap.eu/sites/default/files/Food%20Security%20Zahrnt.pdf
70