Invasive Neobiota – neue Herausforderung im Umweltrecht

Ohne Zusammenfassung     

An American Looks at the European Union

Abstract: Anyone who has followed the evolution of six European nations from a simple Coal and Steel Community to the current twenty‐five Member State European Union (EU), has witnessed a truly remarkable passage. Nonetheless, the EU remains a decidedly jerrybuilt affair. Through numerous enlargements, increased competences, changes in structure and operation, the Union has been bedevilled by the fact that it is neither a simple international treaty with 25 signatories, nor a truly federal union. Rather, the EU has operated, sometimes effectively, often shakily, between these two extremes; exhibiting a sort of ‘fear of federalism’. From a US perspective, this article looks at the present state of the European Union and asks why it has met its potential in some ways, but has fallen so far short in others. Obviously, the tension between the Member States and the Community institutions is one reason. The article asks why do the states compete so much with one another, when their true competition is often with non‐European entities? Why does the European Council never seem to act in a timely manner? Why do euro‐citizens have so poor of an appreciation of what the Community does for them? Why does the Common Agricultural Policy, which contributes such a small amount to European gross domestic product, so dominate the EU budget and agenda? Can the euro, clearly the world's second currency after the US dollar, ever win over its doubters and harmonise European financial service markets? Does enlargement improve or threaten the future of the Community? And can its Common Foreign and Security Policy ever be successful if it is forced to compete with parallel politics in the Member States? All of these questions are addressed in this article with the hope that, through an external critique, the EU will live up to its potential both at home and abroad.     

The Limits of Issue Ownership Dynamics: The Constraining Effect of Party Preference

Issue ownership theory argues that when a voter considers a party to be the most competent amongst others to deal with an issue (that is, the party “owns” the issue), chances are the voter will vote for that party. Recent work has shown that perceptions of issue ownership are dynamic: they are affected by the media coverage of party messages. However, based on the broad literature on partisan bias, we predict that parties' efforts to change issue ownership perceptions will have a difficult time breaching the perceptual screen created by a voter's party preference. Using two separate experiments with a similar design we show that the effect of partisan issue messages on issue competence is moderated by party preference. The effect of issue messages is reinforced when people already like a party, and blocked when people dislike a party.