Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (1190)
- Part of a Book (639)
- Working Paper (550)
- Editorship book (113)
- Doctoral Thesis (92)
- Book (83)
- Contribution to a Periodical (64)
- Review (34)
- Case Study (15)
- Conference Proceeding (14)
Language
- English (2848) (remove)
Keywords
- Germany (22)
- - (20)
- Centre for Sustainability (20)
- China (16)
- Social entrepreneurship (13)
- European Union (12)
- Fertility (12)
- social innovation (10)
- Economics (8)
- Governance Report (8)
The European Union (“EU”) and India, two of the most significant jurisdictions in the world, are in the process of introducing transformative legal and policy instruments that seek to leverage digital technologies for health. On 15 August 2020, India unveiled its National Digital Health Mission policy - later rolled out as the Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission (“ABDM”) - that seeks to create an open, interoperable digital health ecosystem in the country, enabling various digital health systems to engage with each other and empower individuals to be in control of their health data. On the other hand, on 3rd May 2022, the EU released a proposal for a regulation for a European Health Data Space (“EHDS”) to address health-specific challenges to electronic health data access and sharing and create a common space where natural persons can easily control their electronic health data.
However, considering these jurisdictions' geographical, cultural, and historical dispositions, various concerns emerge that may cause hindrance to these projects. While the EU has demonstrated its highlyadvanced approach towards policy-making in data-relevant domains, including health, India has showcased its efficiency and experience in scaling data systems and making them interoperable. Accordingly, this research paper highlights certain specific policy- and implementation-level concerns that both jurisdictions need to pay heed to while going ahead with their respective projects. Additionally, after studying the various digital healthcare ecosystems in these jurisdictions, the paper makes certain recommendations to work towards a seamless design, development, deployment, and operation of the frameworks.
The COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity for management scholars to address large-scale and complex societal problems and strive for greater practical and policy impact. A brief overview of the most-cited work on COVID-19 reveals that, compared with their counterparts in other disciplines, leading management journals and professional associations lagged in providing a platform for high-impact research on COVID-19. To help management research play a more active role in responding to similar global challenges in the future, we propose an integrative framework that emphasizes a phenomenon’s impact, the conditions that the phenomenon creates at multiple levels, and the responses of actors to such conditions, as well as the dynamic relationships and interactions among these actors. By shifting attention to phenomena and their overall impact, this framework can help scholars better position their work to address large-scale and complex problems and also to assess research for its contribution to generate impact beyond academia.
Estimating the effect of intergroup contact over years: evidence from a youth program in Israel
(2024)
We study how an intervention combining youth intergroup contact and sports affects intergroup relations in the context of an active conflict. We first conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of one-year program exposure in Israel. To track effects of a multiyear exposure, we then use machine-learning techniques to fuse the RCT with the observational data gathered on multiyear participants. This analytical approach can help overcome frequent limitations of RCTs, such as modest sample sizes and short observation periods. Our evidence cannot affirm a one-year effect on outgroup regard and ingroup regulation, although we estimate benefits of multiyear exposure among Jewish-Israeli youth, particularly boys. We discuss implications for interventions in contexts of active conflict and group status asymmetry.
This chapter introduces the contribution of Europe to the development of human rights ideas, law, and institutions. In a spirit of ‘provincialising Europe’, it argues that Europe’s contributions to human rights are ambivalent and dynamic. The chapter first examines natural rights and rights of citizens as twin, but also potentially conflicting, developments in demarcating Europe’s contributions to human rights. Europe is historically a home of human rights ideas as well as strong critiques and double standards in the use of these ideas. The chapter then examines European contributions to the legalization of human rights with a focus on two institutional Europes: that of the Council of Europe and the European Union. Finally, the chapter reviews contemporary human rights debates, against the backdrop of authoritarianization in Europe on the one hand and demands for new human rights to tackle the climate crisis, and digitalization of modern societies on the other.
The aim of this chapter is to consider whether accusations of judicial activism towards the European Courts are rooted not in the activity of the CJEU per se but rather a wider ‘imbalance’ between law and politics in the present-day EU. Revisiting an earlier chapter, the chapter considers three sources of such an imbalance: the gap between the jurisdiction of the CJEU and the EU’s legislative competence; judicial reasoning at the EU level; and the imbalance in the EU between market and non-market objectives. While the chapter argues that the EU retains such an imbalance, recent developments, particularly the increasing dynamism of the EU legislature, have significantly narrowed the gap between the EU’s political and legal capacities in the last decade. As the chapter will conclude, the EU carries a less institutionally ‘lonely’ Court than in the past, providing the Union’s judiciary with greater leverage to temper activist claims.
The Court inhabits a ‘political space’ to which it is called upon to respond. This points to its need to develop cooperative relationships not only with courts but also with political actors (such as national governments and the EU legislature) and even to directly address and explain decisions to EU citizens themselves. This book is aimed at answering the question of ‘How does the CJEU position itself as a political as well as a legal actor?’ with a view to better understanding the work of the Court and addressing its contestation. For that purpose, we explore in this introductory chapter what is meant by judicial ‘activism’ and judicial ‘politics’, before examining the different varieties of judicial politics our authors have shown an interest in. This will pave the way to drawing some lessons on the factors to take into account when seeking to address and respond to contestation of the work of the Court.
Addressing the tensions between the political and the legal dimension of European integration as well as intra-institutional dynamics, this insightful book navigates the complex topic of judicial politics. Providing an overview of key topics in the current debate and including an introductory chapter on different conceptions of judicial politics, experts in law and politics interrogate the broader political role of the European Court of Justice.