scholarly journals Annex 1: A template for a report from the process of integrated impact assessment on border control technologies in the European Union and the Schengen Area

2021 ◽  
pp. 163-218
Author(s):  
Nikolas Ioannidis ◽  
Simone Casiraghi ◽  
Alessandra Calvi ◽  
Dariusz Kloza
2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Didier Bigo

What practices of (in)securitization involve the notions of border and border control in the European Union? How do these practices operate? How are they assembled? In the resulting assemblage, is the notion of borders – understood as state borders – still relevant for the control of individuals and populations moving across the frontiers of the EU? Drawing on empirical observations and with a specific focus on how border control is translated into different social universes, this article seeks to show that practices of control are routinely embedded in a practical sense that informs what controlling borders does and means. This practical sense is itself informed by different professional habitus and work routines involving deterrence and the use of force, interrogation and detention, surveillance of populations on the move and the profiling of (un)trusted travellers. Its strength varies in relation to its shared dimension by most of the operators, and is adjusted to the materiality of borders as well as to the local contexts in which it is deployed. It activates, or does not activate, the maximal use of various control technologies (satellites, pre-registration and interoperable exchange of data between the state and private bureaucracies, biometrics identifiers, body-scanners). For understanding practices of (in)securitization, actual work routines and the specific professional ‘dispositions’ are therefore more important than any discourses actors may use to justify their activities.


2004 ◽  
Vol 06 (02) ◽  
pp. 177-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOE WESTON

Directive 97/11/EC, amending the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (85/337/EEC), introduced a number of key changes to the procedures of EIA in the European Union (EU). One significant amendment was the introduction of a requirement for EIAs to be completed for "changes or extensions to Annex I or II projects that have already been authorised executed or are in the process of being executed and which are likely to have significant adverse effects on the environment (CEC, 1997). That requirement imposes a duty on competent authorities to screen all changes and extensions of Annex I and Annex II projects for the need for EIA. Applying legal and policy principles established in the European Union, the scope of what constitute relevant changes and extensions is very wide. Given this wide scope, it would be reasonable to assume that screening changes or extensions would have been a major growth area of EIA activity in the UK. However, evidence presented here indicates just the opposite and suggests that many local planning authorities are not fully aware of the full implications of this clause in the EIA Directive. Furthermore, for the full implications of the "changes and extensions" clause to be implemented in the UK may require further amendments to the EIA legislation.


2007 ◽  
Vol 09 (02) ◽  
pp. 141-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
JENNIFER FRANZ ◽  
COLIN KIRKPATRICK

Since the adoption of the EU's first Sustainable Development Strategy in 2001, the European Commission has been committed to undertaking impact assessments of its major policy proposals, covering the potential positive and negative economic, social and environmental effects both inside and outside the European Union. This paper provides as evaluation of a sample of the Commission's recent EC Impact Assessments, focusing on the extent to which the goal of sustainable development has been integrated into the impact assessment analysis.


Author(s):  
Ana Vazquez Alejos ◽  
Iñigo Cuiñas ◽  
Isabel Expósito ◽  
Manuel García Sánchez

In this chapter the authors present their information model implemented for one pilot developed in the “RFID from Farm to Fork” (F2F) project which looks for the extension of RFID technologies throughout the complete food chain. They describe the privacy assessment proposed by the European Union that allows the evaluation of the privacy and security impact for a RFID application under study. The main privacy risks have been identified and described by the related EU Directives concerning RFID technology. The authors describe the questionnaire elaborated by the EU to assess the privacy robustness level of a RFID application, and they showcase a real wine pilot deployed in Spain. In this chapter, the authors also examine the privacy risks in the middleware communication with both RFID reader and back-end system. The EPCIS has been the Open Source middleware solution adopted in the F2F project. For the F2F pilot deployed in the wine sector, the authors describe the privacy impact assessment questionnaire designed for this case. Finally, they discuss the threads on the RFID tags, the advantages provided by the WISP technology in this regard and its repercussion on the risk questionnaire.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document