LOMODEMICISSUE I

It fills us with joy that you have decided to open -and maybe even read- issue one by Lomodemic. We hope that the articles our journalists have carefully written for you, will add something to the topic overviews and that they will inspire you during Committee Work and General Assem-bly. Whereas the Delft2014 preparation kit serves as a source for factional information, these articles aim to approach the topics in a more personal way. You can agree or disagree with what is written on the following pa-ges and you can have an opinion about it or not. There is nothing wrong with simply agreeing, but do not forget to also share that with others. As the American composer John Cage once said “I have nothing to say and I am saying it”.

There is one journalist for every committee and thus also one article for every topic. After having gained some new knowledge about your own topic, close the issue and open it again on another random page. Voila, a new article and thus a new way for you to become smarter© . Every topic is just as interesting and complex and they all involve you personally in one way or another. Keep that placard high and bright and let your voice be heard.

Lobi,

Matteo and Nastassia EDITORSJasper EDITORIAL ASSISTANTTim VIDEO EDITOR

LOMODEMIC

THE CONTRIBUTORS

EZINNE MOLENKAMP (NL)

Don’t mind the pron-unciation. 18 years of age, enjoys kicking some ass in her spare time. Not chinese or Asian.

AGRI - 3

KEES FOEKEMA (NL)

Often play Sinterklaas (the Dutch version of Santa Claus). Will either study Internatio-mal Relations & Orga-nisations or something completely different next year.

DROI - 5

RICCARDO PASSARELLA (CH)

Also known as: Panda, Might Panda, Supreme Panda and Lord Panda. Italian/Portuguese, 20 year old entity with Swiss papers. Studies law at the University of Fribourg (CH)

INTA - 7

CIARA ROBINSON (UK)

Pronounced Keera. 18 years of age and en-joying a gap yah. Works at a toy store and talen-ted lacrosse player. Will be studying Liberal arts and Humanity next year.

AFET I - 9

CASSIE TINGEN (NL)

Benjamin Cassie, 17 years old. Will finish secondary school this year. Talented dancer and singer, but will be studying International Relations.

TRAN II - 13

JOSEPHINE DATTATREYA ANDELA (NL)

Will celebrate birthday during the session. Cur-rently still in secondary school, will be studying International Relations and Organisations next year.

AFET II - 15

ANNA NICHOLS (IE)

19 year old Irish gal. Studying Law & Politics in the beautiful Trinity in Dublin. Plays the piano and the clarinet. Has an obsession for water.

ECON - 19

CARLA CELDA (ES)

From Barcelona. 20 years old and currently studying Audiovisual Communication - a degree about cinema, television and general media. Always has cold feet.

TRAN I - 21

THE CONTROVERSY OF THE

COMMON AGRICULTURE POLICY

ARTCILE BY EZINNE MOLENKAMP

The CAP started operating after the Second World War with the goal to boost food production in Eu-rope. The CAP this day combines a direct subsidy payment to farmers of the European Union (EU) for crops and land that may be cultivated with price support mechanisms, including guaranteed minimum prices, import tariffs and quotas on certain goods from outside the EU. The CAP, howe-ver, has created many conflicts over the years, especially outside of Europe. The latest reform of CAP unfortunately does not focus on resolving those conflicts. The main alteration is that farmers today receive money for so called greening measures designed to sustain and conserve our natural environ-

ment. So what main conflicts has the CAP resulted in over the years, and whom does it affect?

It is not the topic of headlines, yet the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) probably has the single biggest impact on the European environment, our landscape, our po-licy towards the non-industrialised world and the amount of money in our pockets.

3

Under the current agreement, all farms in the EU, big or small, receive subsidies regardless of whether they make profits or not. Some big farms get more than a million euro’s a year. Jan Verhage, owner of a big commercial farm in The Netherlands explains the necessity of this by saying,“When we go look at the US, we can see that they get great amounts of support from their governments, too. In the end they are with whom we are competing. If we want to main-tain our position on the global market, subsi-dies are inevitable.”

Luke Gablot runs a small new farm in Cam-bridge, England and is trying to get a foothold in the business. “It’s a lot of pressure, even with subsidies I cannot even afford to waste a single

potato. The pro-fits I gain from my crops do not add up to the production costs. ” Gablot declares. Subsi-dies are of great necessity for a lot of farmers due to the rising costs of fuel, fertilizers and machinery and

most importantly the Commidity Price Moni-toring, which means farmers cannot decide on their selling prices themselves.

One has to to consider the fact that the CAP gives Europe food security. Without the CAP, we would be dependent on fluctuating imports and as global warming increasingly impacts harvests, it is even more important to protect domestic food supplies. Therefore it is good that the CAP has introduced a new green pillar to its reform.

Yet many conflicts still stay untouched. Deve-lopment issues played a very limited role in the debates on the reform. How will the committee on AGRI handle this controversial topic and its effect on the global food market and non-EU farmers without picking sides?

One main conflict is that due to the European support to its own agricul-ture, third world farmers, especially in

Africa, have very small chances on the global food market. The so called European Fortress is making it impossible for third world countries to be able to sell their products in Europe, as the EU maintains high tariffs on specific agri-cultural imports.

Another result is that cheap food dumping in development countries has become endemic, as EU farms often overproduce. It is deceiving the citizens of third world countries into buying cheap dumped European products instead of local products; not knowing it is actually ruining their own economy. Most third world farmers cannot compete with the goods supplied from the food moun-tains of Europe and quickly go out of business, feeling suitably embittered by the way their livelihoods have been devastated.

De Schutter, a law professor who has served as the United Nations expert on food rights, stated about the effects of the CAP that the EU is bound by law – Article 21 of the EU treaty - to weigh the impact of its policies abroad and that the EU’s Policy Coherence for Development calls for “ensuring that all EU policy areas with an external impact be designed to support and not contradict the fight against poverty and the achievement of the [UN] Millennium Develop-ment Goals.” Yet Schutter adds another side to the story, by saying, “Reform of the CAP means high stakes for the European farmers”. This sta-tement brings us to the importance of analysing stories of the EU farmers..

“It is not the topic of headlines, yet the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) pro-bably has the single biggest impact on the

European environment, our landscape, our policy towards the non-industrialised world

and the amount of money in our pockets.”

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (AGRI)

4

THE BREAST OF BOTH WORLDS

The boob-job, it is a term most people would associate with the Sex and the City series or with weird TLC shows. Until recently that is. Due to the Poly Implant Prosthèse (PIP) scandal in France, the

significance of the term ‘boob-job’ has become much more ponderous. The French company PIP was known to be the third largest supplier of breast implants or ‘fake boobs’ in the world. All around the

ARTICLE BY KEES FOEKEMA

The boob-job, it is a term most people would associate with the Sex and the City series or with weird TLC shows. Until recently that is. Due to the Poly Implant Prosthèse

(PIP) scandal in France, the significance of the term ‘boob-job’ has become much more ponderous. The French company PIP was known to be the third largest supplier of breast implants or ‘fake boobs’ in the world. All around the globe 300.000 women from 65 different countries put their trust in the company and thought they were the proud owners of one of the best breast implants out there. They could not have been more wrong. In March 2010 the Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) confirmed that most breast implants manufac-tured by the company since 2001 have been filled with a silicone gel with a composition that differs from the one approved. It seemed that the gel inside the implants contained a composition that was, to say the least, undesirable, as the implants were be-lieved to seriously harm one’s health. Authorities in Britain and France have confirmed that in case of rupture, the PIP implants can cause inflammation, scarring and even Fibrosis.

So why is it that women all around the world could have been endangered so ridiculously easy? In other words, how in the world could this have happened? A British PIP recipient stated: “When you go to the doctor, you don’t say ‘who makes your me-dicine?’ -- you just assume it’s going to be safe. To think that I’ve got mattress silicone inside me, and God knows what else they used, it’s disgusting. It’s like a ticking time bomb is inside of me.” Clearly the recipient put all her faith in her doctor. The doctor on his turn placed confidence in the Notified Bodies that make sure medical devices meet their safety requirements. In the current system, manufacturers of medical devices are

checked up on by the so-called ‘notified bodies’. A Notified Body is an organisation that has been accredited by one of the Member States (MS) to assess whether a product meets certain preordain-ed standards. For example, a Notified Body may designate that a medical device conforms to the EU Medical Devices Directive, which defines the standards for medical devices. With this De-claration of Conformity, the manufacturer can label the product with the CE Mark, which is required for distribution and sale in the European Union (EU). In total there are around 80 notified bodies within the EU.

This system does sound pretty solid, however, it is evident that the legislations around the medical devices have their short-comings and loopholes. The system seems to lack both trans-parency and adequacy, and thus the health of EU citizens is at stake. Since the health of EU citizens seems extremely precious to us all, the European Commission considered the problem and proposed a new set of legislations. In a nutshell, the new propo-sal aims to reinforce the supervision of Notified Bodies, clinical investigations, and market surveillance. What’s also extremely significant is that the European Commission wants to implement regulations that introduce provisions ensuring transparency and traceability regarding the devices.

This last bit is interesting, as ensuring transparency and ade-quacy at the same time is a hard task. Transparency is of gre-at importance to prevent more exposure of patients to faulty medical devices. The way I see it, no one is waiting for another ‘fake-boob-disaster’. Adequate disclosure of the legislations is also believed to be absolutely essential to make sure the Notified Bodies have a clearer task and that the medical devices are chec-

THE BREAST OF BOTH WORLDS

The boob-job, it is a term most people would associate with the Sex and the City series or with weird TLC shows. Until recently that is. Due to the Poly Implant Prosthèse (PIP) scandal in France, the

significance of the term ‘boob-job’ has become much more ponderous. The French company PIP was known to be the third largest supplier of breast implants or ‘fake boobs’ in the world. All around the

ARTICLE BY KEES FOEKEMA

checked up on by the so-called ‘notified bodies’. A Notified Body is an organisation that has been accredited by one of the Member States (MS) to assess whether a product meets certain preordain-ed standards. For example, a Notified Body may designate that a medical device conforms to the EU Medical Devices Directive, which defines the standards for medical devices. With this De-claration of Conformity, the manufacturer can label the product with the CE Mark, which is required for distribution and sale in the European Union (EU). In total there are around 80 notified bodies within the EU.

This system does sound pretty solid, however, it is evident that the legislations around the medical devices have their short-comings and loopholes. The system seems to lack both trans-parency and adequacy, and thus the health of EU citizens is at stake. Since the health of EU citizens seems extremely precious to us all, the European Commission considered the problem and proposed a new set of legislations. In a nutshell, the new propo-sal aims to reinforce the supervision of Notified Bodies, clinical investigations, and market surveillance. What’s also extremely significant is that the European Commission wants to implement regulations that introduce provisions ensuring transparency and traceability regarding the devices.

This last bit is interesting, as ensuring transparency and ade-quacy at the same time is a hard task. Transparency is of gre-at importance to prevent more exposure of patients to faulty medical devices. The way I see it, no one is waiting for another ‘fake-boob-disaster’. Adequate disclosure of the legislations is also believed to be absolutely essential to make sure the Notified Bodies have a clearer task and that the medical devices are chec-

ked sufficiently. Adequate disclosure, however, often goes hand in hand with complex and tedious worded resolutions and thus, bureaucracy.

Lastly, let’s take a look into the market of medical devices. It is commonly believed that the competiveness within the medical devices sector makes the sector one of the most innovative and diverse sectors in the EU. This innovativeness contributes vastly to the quality of Europe’s healthcare. Every single day, products ranging from simple plasters to the most ingenious pacemakers are being improved, and new products are put on the market, all thanks to this sector. In other words, we European citizens are very dependant on the manufacturers of medical devices. With that as a given fact, ensuring a more enforced and a more adequate legislation whilst sustaining competiveness and a free market, is all and all a hard task. It is an interesting dilemma and trade-offs will have to be made.

To conclude, the problem is not at all an easy one to tackle. This context has put forward this challenge: The main issue is trying to conciliate a patients’ safety, timely access to medical devices and sustainability of the system, whilst ensuring innovation for the industry of the sector.For now, I want to wish good luck to the Committee on Human Rights.Eat right, exercise regularly, die anyway.

COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS (DROI)

6

The original treaties, namely the Treaty of Rome (TEEC) adopted in 1957, did not mention any fundamental right,

aside from few exceptions strictly related to economic goals, as they were considered to be a competence of the Member States (MSs). This situation was dangerous, since the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has always considered the European Law to be superior to the natio-nal legal frame and this also includes every constituti-onal mechanism of protection of fundamental rights. MSs faced what has been called the dilemma between revolt (against the European system) and revolution (against their own constitutions and their obligations towards the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)). For this reason, the court recognised the values as general principles (non-written but obligatory) of European Law. It is worth to mention in this sense the Handelsgesellschaft affair or Defren-ne II. The court didn’t judge these cases arbitra-rily, but allegedly based itself on a short note in the preamble (not binding) of the TEEC, which mentioned the social goal of the Community. Also, the rights are issued from the constituti-onal traditions of MSs and the ECHR. The first time an act of Primary Law, namely the trea-ties, referred to “Fundamental Rights” was in

the preamble of the Single European Act. They have eventually been included in the treaty of Maastricht and strengthened in the Amster-dam, Nice and Lisbon revisions. Moreover, a charter of fundamental rights (the Charter) was adopted in 2000 and made legally binding with the revision of 2007. This charter offers a similar protection to the one of the ECHR, to which the EU “shall accede”, as stated in Arti-

cle 6 §2 TEU. In case of accession to the ECHR, the Convention would not give new competences to the Union, but the fundamental rights would be even

more protected on a European level, as the Eu-ropean Court of Human Rights would be com-petent for judging violations of these rights by the EU above the ECJ, which already interprets the Charter conformably to the Strasbourg case law and the ECHR.

Apart from the fundamental rights, the Union is based upon many other values, which are introduced by article 2 TEU. Equality, with the elimination of any kind of discrimination is one of them and it is often present in the trea-ties, like at Article 19 TFEU, which allows the Council to adopt directives (actually adopted in 2000) to forbid discriminations in a social context.

“The first time an act of Primary Law, namely the treaties, referred to “Funda-

mental Rights” was in the preamble of the Single European Act.”

THE QUESTION OF VALUES

Apart from the four fundamental liberties the European Economic Community was founded in 1958, the european construction got formally acquainted with fundamental rights and other values only in the late 80’s and finally with the establishment of the EU in 1992 through the Treaty of Maastricht.

ARTICLE BY RICCARDO PASSARELLA

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE (INTA)

7

Democracy (latu sensu) is ano-ther fundamental value and a condition to access the EU sin-ce the formulation of the Co-penhagen and Madrid Accessi-on Criteria in 1990s; since the Treaty of Amsterdam, it is also possible to suspend the rights of MSs that violate the demo-cratic principles (see Article 7 TEU). The respect of the rule of law is also a value developed by the ECJ in Les Verts affair as one that has to be respected by any institution that can adopt acts of EU law able to have juridical effects on third parties. Other values mentioned in the treaties and in the case law of the court are social justice and cultural pluralism.

The EU also set objectives for itself that are mentioned in Article 3 TEU. They are obliga-tory and considered a basis for interpretation, but they are not justiciable. One of these goals is the protection and impro-vement of Environment, from which derive the high environ-mental standards required for merchandise to enter the market. This objective naturally differs from the fundamental values (in part objectives them-selves) previously mentioned, but shows the commitment of the Union to create a more live-able world for the future and make amend for mistakes from the past.

Upon Article 21 TUE, the EU

must respect the values and objectives it has been founded on also in its external action. With this article being under Title V, which concerns the CFSP, and generally referring to External Action on the inter-national scene, it is difficult to argue with certainty that it also applies to FTAs. It easier to acknowledge that the EU should further its efforts in this area and require the respect of its own values and goals from its partners. This is the only way to ensure coherence in the practice of the EU both on an external and internal levels. If the EU decided to give more priority to FTAs instead of its own values and goals, its res-ponsibility could be engaged.

8

Since the Ukrainian protests began in November, they have rapidly escalated from peaceful to violent to revolutionary. These demonstrations, focussed in the epicentre of Kiev, have now become widespread.

Protestors have been targeting government administration buildings as a means of demonstrating their grievances. The revolution initially began as a response to the government’s decision to sign an econo-mically beneficial deal with Russia instead of a partnership agreement with the EU that fosters further

integration.

THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION

Political Responsibility or the Pursuit of Economic Prosperity?

ARTCILE BY CIARA ROBINSON

9

The seemingly popular Association Agree-ment that would have been signed was meant to further the relationship with

Ukraine, going beyond cooperation, to gradual economic integration and deepening political coo-peration. Part of the original agreement was tied to upholding democracy and preserving the rule of law in Ukraine. Presently, the offer is still available although due to the recent violence Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the EU Commission, warned that the situation may have to be reviewed. On the other hand, the deal with Russia slashed Ukrainian gas prices and bought a significant amount of go-vernment bonds. If Ukraine chooses to backtrack on this deal, it may damage their relations with Russia, a country they are heavily reliant on. Ho-wever, there is still great potential in the possibility of European economic integration and political support. As European Council President Herman Van Rompuy argued the “future of Ukraine be-longs with the EU.”

Ukraine’s relationship with Russia and the EU has historically been complex. Having achieved independence in 1991 from the Soviet Union, the Ukraine has been in transition. The change from a planned economy to a market economy was a difficult one. Whilst Ukraine has struggled to maintain political, social and economic stability, its aspirations to develop a strong and independent nation-state still remain. However, Ukraine’s con-tinued reliance on Russia for energy and gas was highlighted in the 2006 disagreements between key energy companies. The country also suffered detrimental damage in the 2008 global financi-al crisis where they required a bailout from the International Monetary Fund. These facts serve to highlight how sensitive the economic situation is. Combined with the country’s split over its relati-onship with Europe, tensions continue to deepen. The geographical divide between the pro-Euro-pean North/West and pro-Russia South/East has never been so distinct.

Recent developments intensified the already volatile situation with the revolution’s first repor-ted deaths on the 22nd of January. The Russian minister Sergei Lavrov has described the situation as, “out of control.” The Ukrainian governments’ attempt to repress demonstrators has led to nume-rous human rights violations. Reports of torture,

the use of tear gas and unfair trials have circulated the media. However, it must be recognised that in previous weeks protestors have also been com-mitting illegal offences including the torching of police vehicles and stabbing officers. Initially the demonstrations were peaceful but undemocratic anti-protest laws were passed radicalising the op-position. Under pressure from demonstrators and the international community, these laws have now been repealed by Parliament. Furthermore, Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov, and his cabinet have now resigned as a result of the continued unrest.

The situation clearly portrays the difficulties that some unstable governments face. As seen throughout history, many developing countries face similar issues of creating a balance between their economic agendas and the preservation of their political and social responsibilities. Argua-bly, the deal with Russia was formed in order to support the Ukrainian citizens and maintain economic stability. Failing to sign the EU Associ-ation Agreement does not mean that the Ukraine failed to uphold these responsibilities. However, the government has failed its people in the conti-nued corruption and abuse of basic human rights. The way in which the situation in Ukraine has been handled is unacceptable. The fact that such a wide-spread revolution is occurring exposes the failure of the nation’s democratic process and shows that the Ukrainian government is not only unrepresentative but has ultimately ignored the needs of its people.

Critical questions still remain unanswered and we have to consider what measures will promote most stability in the country. Is Ukraine prioritising its economic prosperity over the social welfare of its people? How can the EU, recognising the complex situation, develop new measures to improve its re-lationship with Ukraine? And finally, how can the EU encourage Ukraine to protect the aspirations and rights of its citizens from the oligarch corrup-tion that appears to have infiltrated its political system?

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS I (AFET I)

10

“THE FUTURE OF UKRAINE BELONGS

WITH THE EU”

ARTICLE BY CASSIE TINGEN

The increasingly impor-tant maritime transport is worldwide under the

threat of piracy and robberies at sea. This issue will be tackled by the committee on Transport and Tourism II. However, in order to come up with ground breaking resolutions, it is of vital impor-tance to know which measures are already in place.

The United Nations (UN) Secu-rity Council together with the

European Union (EU) has broad-ly acknowledged the problem of the seafaring pirates off the coast of East-Africa. With the shipping routes at danger as well as hu-manitarian aid being disrupted, because of ongoing piracy and organised crime, the UN Secu-rity council and the EU have set up strategies to stop and prevent piracy. The special United Nati-ons Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has a separate delega-tion handling piracy, focussing

mainly on good jurisdiction and trails against the pirates, which is called the Counter Piracy Pro-gramme (CPP). Additionally, the European Union Navel Force is currently operating in Somalia trying to prevent and combat acts of piracy off the shore of Somalia. Operation Atalanta is the present military operation focussing on protecting humanitarian aid and transport vessels in the high risk areas.

OPERATION PIRACY ATTACK

13

The UNODC Counter Piracy Pro-gramme strived to provide help to Kenya in dealing with Somali pirates in 2009. Today, the CPP is also operating in the Seychelles, Somalia, Maldives, Tanzania and Mauritius. The main goal of the CPP is to detain and prosecute piracy effectively according to in-ternational law and international human rights. The CPP continues to support the criminal justice professionals in each country dealing with Somali piracy. It en-courages equipment, training and logistical assistance throughout the trial process. For example, a mentoring scheme was set up offe-ring direct support and training to law enforcement policemen in the regions in need.

Furthermore, in November 2013 the U.N. Security Council una-nimously passed a resolution calling on Somalia to pass laws, banning seafaring pirates off the coast of Somalia. The resolution also strongly urged the nation to combat pirates and the crime lords working on land more forcefully. This resolution has summoned Somalia to increase the judiciary process against pirates and take them to trial. However, the Somali

government does not control all areas of the country, as some are run by al-Shabaab militants allied with Al-Qaeda. This problem accounts for the government’s lack of knowledge and power over the area, a problem the United Nati-ons is hoping to attack as well.

The EU plays a noteworthy role in combating piracy off the coast of East-Africa as part as their international effort. The Com-mon Security and Defence Po-licy (CSDP) has launched a EU NAVFOR plan called Operation Atalanta on behalf of the EU in 2008, which will end in 2014. This operation is working on protecting the humanitarian aid and redu-cing the interference of shipping routes by pirates along the most important maritime routes in the world. Especially the World Food Programme (WFP) vessels brin-ging help to people in Somalia are being protected, together with the African Union Mission in Somalia (AUMISOM) ships. Moreover, the EU NAVFOR is working on the prevention, repression and deter-rence of piracy and robberies at the seas for the coast of Somalia. The EU NAVFOR warships carry out patrols in the transit corridor

in the Gulf of Aden north of Somalia. Furthermore, the war-ships preform investigation and surveillance operations around the transit corridor. The warships and Maritime Patrol and Recon-naissance Aircraft (MPRA) con-duct physical and visual checks of ships going through the high risk area. These checks are friendly approaches aimed at gathering information, informing the vessels about self-protection measures against piracy and gaining a better understanding of the situation by speaking with the crew of ships in the region.

The EU and the UN have been working on prevention and re-pressing piracy over the last few years, but despite the effort piracy has not fully been ended. Short term solutions have been perfor-med successfully, but a long term solution granting the safety of the ever increasing maritime trans-port and humanitarian aid is yet to come.

“Short term solutions have been performed succes-sfully, but a long term solution granting the safety of the ever increasing maritime transport and humani-

tarian aid is yet to come.”

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND TOURISM II (TRAN II)

13 14

An intense debate is being held on the trade of arms between Europe and the Middle East. Questions are being raised: Should the European Union determine arms trade or should that responsibility lay with the Member States individually? Is Europe willing to potentially cause bloodshed in exchange for economic benefit? Or should the European Union maintain its status of being a pioneer in the cooperation between

countries? Three individuals, three point of views, three opinions:

ARTICLE BY JOSEPHINE DATTATREYA ANDELA

AN ECONOMISTA GUARDIAN AND AN INDEPENT

WALK INTO A BAR

The Economist: “The base of a healthy economy is a free market mechanism. Govern-

ment interruption in the market of military products would therefore be a terrible mistake. Not only because almost half of Europe’s oil is imported from the Middle East, but also be-cause the value of the traded arms is rising, making the market only more and more profitable. Even though economists look at the situation from an economic point of view, that does not mean that they are inhumane. On the contrary, the trouble is actually caused by the unrealistic approach proposed by the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Take clause 6, concerning the grounds on which Member States can trade with one another. If states themselves would regulate that traded weapons may not “be used in the commission of genocide, or crimes against humanity”, it would prove dif-ficult, and even unfeasible, for gover-nments of the trading states to have full transparency into exactly what the weapons leaving their borders will be used for. In case traders of arms are informed on the use of the arms, there is another obstacle that needs to be overcome namely the fact that it would be difficult to prove.”

The Guardian: “Values versus values. The EU proclaims itself to be the example of peace and democracy. If

the EU wants to maintain this leading role it is simply impossible to conti-nue being one of the largest exporters of arms. Guardians of human rights share the view of the United Nations (UN) and want to make the weapon fabricants responsible for the delivery and use of the products. This does not mean that the Guardian fully supports the ATT as the laws con-cerned should be formulated more precisely and give a clearer picture of the proposed policies. Additional-ly, the dependence on oil from the Middle-East should not be the final word as it contains only 45 per cent of oil meaning that energy coming from fracking, solar and wind are not even taken into consideration. This means that the percentage of 45 does not give a clear view of the actual depen-dence.

Furthermore the morally correct path does not necessarily have to be harm-ful to Member States since the cur-rent situation asks for international laws that would supersede national interests. On the one hand this means reducing the arms trade, which will logically lead to a decreased national income of the exporting countries. On the other hand it will be beneficial as the risk of war will decrease and the relations between nations will be advantageous.”

16

The Independent: “Is the deter-mination of arms trade an EU competency? Not in the eyes of The Independent. On the con-trary, Member States should be able to choose for themselves as the ATT is quite controversial and therefore highly important to give the governments a direct say in the matter. Moreover, another supranational treaty seems inef-fective as there is already legis-lation imposed by the EU that covers the European arms trade with the Middle East. The ATT is very similar, which makes its impact doubtful. Currently, some Member States such as Germany, the United Kingdom and Belgi-um specifically have yet to report

their data concerning the value of arms exports, which is requi-red according to EU legislation. When countries do not follow the present legislation new supranati-onal legislation will probably not solve it. That being said, there are still a lot of reasons why a country would decline to implement the ATT. Since, just like every UN treaty, the ATT is of a suggestive nature and therefore not defining, given that such a treaty cannot be too radical or rigid as it would not have been passed by the General Assembly of the UN. Some may argue that it is contradictory that the ATT recommends legislation, despite the fact that the UN does not have any legal power to force

countries to do this. However, they do have the ability to sanc-tion countries. The Independent would suggest adjusting the ATT as there are plenty of loopholes and grey areas that should be co-vered before integration into the European Security Strategy. As one can see these individuals can’t seem to come to a consen-sus, therefore they ask the Com-mittee on Foreign Affairs II to come with a brilliant resolution.

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS II (AFET II)

17

17

At first glance, it would seem that digital currencies are the stuff of legend, especially given how most EU citizens now perceive their banks and government’s financial policies as a result of the economic crisis. However, the possibility of mainstream banking by the people, for the people is becoming an increasingly feasible reality thanks to the rise of digital currencies such as Bitcoin.

Although only established in 2009, Bitcoin is fast becoming a major economic player on the world stage thanks to its ‘cheap, easy and free’ image, its finite supply that prevents massive de-

valuations and inflations, its apparently steady and predictable growth. Its greatest claim is that it allows participants in Bitcoin transactions to have more equal power in the financial process than conventional currencies, as it allows people to have greater control over their money than

they would if it was in a bank.

TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE ?

An examination of the merits, downsides and implications of digital currencies.

ARTICLE BY ANNA NICHOLS

19

Watching the slickly produced intro-ductory video on Bitcoin’s homepage, it’s clear that its creators are keen to

advocate a move away from traditional approa-ches to banking and money and to encourage people to be more independent in their finan-cial habits by being less reliant on conventional financial institutions. However, the method in which it does this involves focusing on the faults of traditional financial systems and their capacity to restrict the economic freedom of the individu-al, and fails to address any of the flaws or con-cerns raised by critics about digital currencies. Although much of this criticism can be derived from the fact that such currencies are relatively new and have had not the opportunity to fully develop and address certain problems, these fears predominantly revolve around one central tenet of digital currencies’ revolutionary claims.

The fact that there is no central bank or instituti-on that regulates the behaviour of Bitcoin, unlike traditional currencies and banks, means that the value of Bitcoin is more susceptible to bubbles and dramatic changes in values than its promoti-onal material suggests. The value of Bitcoin is ul-timately determined by consensus, meaning that its worth, unlike other assets such as silver or gold, is entirely dependent on how much its users and the general public feel it should be valued. This subjectivity has the potential to leave digital currencies and investors in a vulnerable position if better, more effective forms of currency appear or if public opinion simply changes.

Furthermore, industry experts are keen to point out that for Bitcoin and other digital currencies to become mainstream or ‘the currency of the future’, the high-tech and elitist connotations attached to using digital currencies need to be eliminated, in order for the moderately techno-logically literate (or the majority of EU citizens) to feel confident enough to invest and use their money in such a way. Aside from skills concerns, the anonymous nature of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, whereby cryptography is used in order to achieve greater security, is also a source of concern to non-users as these heightened anony-

mity measures mean that people cannot always identify the individuals or companies with whom they are making transactions.

In recent months many Member States, who aside from Germany and Denmark have been somewhat reluctant to engage in the economic possibilities that accompany digital currencies, have used the criminal ramifications surroun-ding digital currencies as their excuse for a lack of engagement with the issue thus far. Although cynics would argue that this is due to govern-ments not wanting to voice their real concerns (state banks lose out on potential tax revenue every time a Bitcoin transaction takes place, given its lack of ties to any traditional financial institution, while also losing out on control of the population’s funds), there is an element of validity to this argument. The nature of Bitcoin and other digital currencies’ means of operations, especially their anonymity and lack of govern-ment regulation, has made the use of Bitcoin as a financial mechanism particularly attractive to those with a propensity to engaging in criminal and illegal activities, as was illustrated by the uncovering of the Silk Road black market at the end of 2013. Such events taint the name of digital currencies and impede governments and indi-viduals from viewing them as a legitimate and safe form of currency, hindering the potential for constructive engagement processes.

In conclusion, perhaps the principal reason why the EU has appeared to be inactive about the digital currency question so far is because it is unsure of the extent of its regulatory capacities. Given the transnational nature of Bitcoin, a lack of current pan-European legislation and the fact that the majority of Member State’s financial de-cisions are made at a national level, it is unclear where the legislative line between state autonomy and EU intervention should be drawn. Despite this, it is imperative that the EU makes a stance on its position regarding digital currencies, in order for meaningful and unambiguous decisi-ons to be made.

COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND MONETARY AFFAIRS (ECON)

European cities increasingly face problems caused by transport and traffic. The

question on how to enhance urban mobility while at the same time using green transportati-on, trying to reduce accidents and congestions, whist being accessible to the public is held into account by the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMP). Although there are some policies and measures defined regarding transportation, the environmen-tal impact has not been reduced yet. Urban mobility accounts for 40% of all CO2 emissions of road transport and up to 70% of other pollutants from transport, a per-centage that is exponenti- ally growing with the urba-nisation.The EU pledge for sustainability is trying to find the balance

between social equity, environ-mental quality and economic development. So what is the next step to achieve this goal? There are established policies under articles 70 and 80, like the efficiency of the EU transport system, energy dependency, climate change and socio-eco-nomic objectives. Actions that partly depend on the national, regional and local authorities, which are also keeping in mind that mobility in urban areas is also an important facilitator for growth and employment and for sustainable development in their country areas. In recent years, the ini- tiatives have been

sup-

ported by framework program-mes on research and technologi-cal development to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of public transportation.The best solution is at the same time probably one of the biggest conflicts. Expanding public transportation to inaccessible urban areas is the chosen option for most European countries. It is also considered the most eco-friendly option. Unfortunate-ly, public transport cannot always meet the needs of all passengers in price, route, timetable or fre-quency. In spite of the different transport technologies and in-frastructures

that

Nowadays, the increasing world’s population is an undisputable fact bound to the growing urbanisation level in the cities and urban areas. Cities are home to over 70% of the population of the European Union (EU) and account for some 85% of the EU’s GDP. However, a large percentage of European citizens live in an urban environment

with over 10.000 inhabitants. This creates a situation that is no longer sustainable as it results into severe congestion, poor air quality, noise emissions and high levels of CO2 emissions, jeopardising the EU’s goals for a competitive and resource-efficient transport system.

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND TOURISM I (TRAN I)

WALKING TOWARDS GREEN TRANSPORTATION

ARTCLE BY CARLA CELDA

ported by framework program-mes on research and technologi-cal development to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of public transportation.The best solution is at the same time probably one of the biggest conflicts. Expanding public transportation to inaccessible urban areas is the chosen option for most European countries. It is also considered the most eco-friendly option. Unfortunate-ly, public transport cannot always meet the needs of all passengers in price, route, timetable or fre-quency. In spite of the different transport technologies and in-frastructures

that

have been implemented in European cities, with as main objective balancing functiona-lity and environmental impact, public transport has not provided citizens with all the benefits given by private transport.

While rapid transit solutions are trying to expand their network coverage to urban areas far away from cities, the “last mile” pro-blem is still present. This conflict exists when the public transport hubs are generally far away from ones final destination in the area. Unfortunately, this means that geographically most of an ur-

ban area will be beyond an easy walking distance to a station and private transport services will be needed as well. The pollution caused by trans-port contributes about one-fifth of the EU’s total carbon dioxide emissions, a percentage that has increased by nearly 23% in the last twenty years. Fifteen percent of the EU’s emissions of CO2 are emitted by light-duty vehicles (cars and vans), which is partially a result of the “last mile” problem and the citizens’ mobility from urban areas to cities. In July 2012 the European Commission pro-posed a new legal framework that ensures

that the CO2 emissions from private vehicles continue to be reduced while giving the auto-motive industry the certainty it needs to carry out long-term investments and develop innova-tive technologies. Any proposal of future targets will be based on a thorough assessment of their economic, social and environ-mental impacts.In conclusion, urban mobility is a growing concern to urban areas’ citizens where traffic situation should be improved and CO2 emissions reduced. Here the main question is: How can the EU find the balance between functional and green

transportation and how can it promote public

transport?

Nowadays, the increasing world’s population is an undisputable fact bound to the growing urbanisation level in the cities and urban areas. Cities are home to over 70% of the population of the European Union (EU) and account for some 85% of the EU’s GDP. However, a large percentage of European citizens live in an urban environment

with over 10.000 inhabitants. This creates a situation that is no longer sustainable as it results into severe congestion, poor air quality, noise emissions and high levels of CO2 emissions, jeopardising the EU’s goals for a competitive and resource-efficient transport system.

WALKING TOWARDS GREEN TRANSPORTATION

ARTCLE BY CARLA CELDA

22

LOMODEMICISSUE I