Shared Responsibility For Mission: Pastoral Planning For The New Millennium

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. CONDON
2005 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 439-447
Author(s):  
ARMIN VON BOGDANDY ◽  
MARKUS WAGNER

A perception of institutional crisis is pervading international organizations. One evermore fashionable response by the administration of an affected organization is to entrust a group of eminent persons to consider its future. Perhaps not surprisingly the resulting report calls for a politically feasible strengthening of that organization for which it provides good grounds. The most important recent example is the United Nations report entitled ‘A more secure world: our shared responsibility’. A similar approach has been taken by WTO Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi who called Peter Sutherland, Jagdish Bhagwati, Kwesi Botchwey, Niall FitzGerald, Koichi Hamada, John H. Jackson, Celso Lafer and Thierry de Montbrial on to a Consultative Board, the task of which was to think about the ‘Future of the WTO’ by ‘Addressing institutional challenges in the new millennium’. The group selected is particularly close to the current institution; it includes no scholar, intellectual, or politician who has voiced substantial and serious criticism.


2001 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. A16
Author(s):  
N. Fan ◽  
S.K. Leung ◽  
C.K. Wong ◽  
S. Tse ◽  
Y.S. Sze ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Luis R. Fraga ◽  
Rodney E. Hero ◽  
John A. Garcia ◽  
Michael Jones-Correa ◽  
Valerie Martinez-Ebers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2012 ◽  
Vol 82 (3) ◽  
pp. 216-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Venkatesh Iyengar ◽  
Ibrahim Elmadfa

The food safety security (FSS) concept is perceived as an early warning system for minimizing food safety (FS) breaches, and it functions in conjunction with existing FS measures. Essentially, the function of FS and FSS measures can be visualized in two parts: (i) the FS preventive measures as actions taken at the stem level, and (ii) the FSS interventions as actions taken at the root level, to enhance the impact of the implemented safety steps. In practice, along with FS, FSS also draws its support from (i) legislative directives and regulatory measures for enforcing verifiable, timely, and effective compliance; (ii) measurement systems in place for sustained quality assurance; and (iii) shared responsibility to ensure cohesion among all the stakeholders namely, policy makers, regulators, food producers, processors and distributors, and consumers. However, the functional framework of FSS differs from that of FS by way of: (i) retooling the vulnerable segments of the preventive features of existing FS measures; (ii) fine-tuning response systems to efficiently preempt the FS breaches; (iii) building a long-term nutrient and toxicant surveillance network based on validated measurement systems functioning in real time; (iv) focusing on crisp, clear, and correct communication that resonates among all the stakeholders; and (v) developing inter-disciplinary human resources to meet ever-increasing FS challenges. Important determinants of FSS include: (i) strengthening international dialogue for refining regulatory reforms and addressing emerging risks; (ii) developing innovative and strategic action points for intervention {in addition to Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) procedures]; and (iii) introducing additional science-based tools such as metrology-based measurement systems.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document