WHY THE DELIBERATIVE IDEAL JUSTIFIES PUBLICITY – EVEN IF PUBLICITY MAY UNDERMINE DELIBERATION

Este artigo avalia, criticamente, os argumentos que, na teoria política, defendem, por razões epistémicas, o papel do secretismo na política. Desta maneira, enfatizamos alguns dos efeitos negativos que a publicidade pode ter na deliberação (designadamente: obscurecendo o processo informacional, favorecendo retóricas plebiscitárias e substituindo a discussão aberta por comportamentos conformistas e/ ou barganha). Com base na análise da Sexta Reforma do Estado Belga de 2010-2011, este artigo defende que embora a publicidade possa produzir efeitos negativos na deliberação, não se pode provar que estes efeitos são mais severos do que aqueles produzidos por uma deliberação à porta fechada. Além disso, argumentamos que uma justificação epistémica da deliberação à porta fechada não poderia ser aceite por um cidadão razoável: a justificação da publicidade não depende dos seus efeitos epistémicos positivos mas sim do facto de a avaliação e definição destes não poder ser deixada ao critério das partes em negociação.This paper critical assesses those arguments in democratic theory which defend the role of secrecy in politics in epistemic terms, that is, by emphasizing some of the negative effects that publicity in deliberation can have (namely: obscuring the informational process, favoring plebiscitory rhetorics, and replacing open discussion with conformist behaviors and/or bargaining). Based upon the analysis of the 2010-2011 Belgian Sixth State Reform, the paper argues that, even if publicity can produce negative effects on deliberation, it cannot be proven that these effects are more severe than those produced by a closed-doors deliberation. Furthermore, it argues that an epistemic justification of closed-door deliberation could not be accepted by a reasonable citizen: the justification of publicity does not rely on its epistemic positive effects, but on the fact that the assessment and definition of these cannot be left to the negotiating parties

The Challenges for Implementing the Nagoya Protocol in a Multi-Level Governance Context:Lessons from the Belgian Case

The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing is the latest protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Its implementation can lead to two fundamentally different processes: a market-oriented self-regulatory approach, which emphasizes the self-regulating capacity of the economic actors involved, or a normative institutionalist approach, which focuses on the norms and formal rules of institutions that not only support and frame, but also shape and constrain the actions of the players acting within them. This paper analyzes the challenges related to the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol in the specific case of Belgium, and evaluates the possibility of moving from a self-regulatory to an institutional approach of implementation, which we argue is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Protocol. This move is analyzed in the specific multi-level governance context characterizing the Nagoya Protocol, which has a natural tendency towards a market-oriented self-regulatory approach

Study for the implementation in Belgium of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit‐sharing to the Convention on Biological Diversity Final report

Study commissioned by Federal Public Service for Health, Food Chain Safety and the Environment, Directorate‐General for the Environment, Service for multilateral and strategic matters (SPSCAE) Bruxelles Environnement/Leefmilieu Brussel (IBGE‐BIM) Vlaamse overheid, Departement Leefmilieu, Natuur en Energie (LNE) Service public de Wallonie, Direction générale opérationnelle Agriculture, Ressources naturelles et Environnement (DGARNE

Democratie? Wat een goed idee!

De steeds toenemende mondialisering doet de burger de greep verliezen op economie, landbouw, informatie en dies meer. Macht en middelen zijn in de handen van een kleine minderheid; partijen en politici worden gegijzeld door lobbygroepen. Is de democratie nog steeds het meest gepaste politieke systeem om aan deze uitdagingen het hoofd te bieden? Tertio zoekt het uit

Représenter l’absence : les figures paradoxales du juge dans le cinéma de science-fiction dystopique

Si le cinéma de science-fiction interroge les notions de justice et droit, la figure du juge semble curieusement absente du genre et plus particulièrement du sous-genre dystopique. Que nous enseigne cette absence sur les imaginaires sociaux charriés par le genre dystopique et sur la place du juge dans la modernité libérale ? Afin de répondre à ces questions, cette étude abordera trois positionnements de la science-fiction vis-à-vis de la modernité : la mise en scène de l’état de nature, la représentation de l’hypermodernité et les récits de reconstruction sociale. Elle analysera les raisons pour lesquelles la figure du juge reste à chaque fois absente ou, du moins, profondément altérée. Elle s’attachera à distinguer l’absence du juge de l’absence de fonction judiciaire, certains films représentant des juges n’assumant plus aucune fonction judiciaire ou, à l’inverse, une fonction judiciaire qui n’est plus assurée par un juge. Les trois configurations évoquées nous conduiront à interroger autant la relation que la science-fiction entretient avec la modernité libérale que ce que l’effacement du juge dit de leurs impensés respectifs

La méthode ouverte de coordination au cœur de la gouvernance européenne

La méthode ouverte de coordination au cœur de la gouvernance européenn