Search

This article contributes to two debates about international relations (IR) as a discipline: first, how global is IR, and how is it structured? Second, what is the state of theory in IR? We conducted (co-) citation analyses of both Web of Science (WoS) and—for the first time— non-WoS publications from Europe, North America, Latin America, Africa, and Asia. With regard to the first question, we find that global IR resembles a core–periphery structure as a "hub and spoke" system whereby transatlantic core nodes are interconnected to each other and to some periphery nodes, while the periphery nodes are connected to the core but not to each other. IR scholarship in the periphery quotes the transatlantic theory cluster but is not linked to each other, not even in the same region. Knowledge produced in the periphery has to go through the transatlantic core in order to be recognized globally. As to the transatlantic core, we identify two major (co-) citation clusters: one committed to IR theory-building across issue areas from a variety of perspectives and the other focused on security studies with a strong emphasis on quantitative methods. With regard to the second question, global IR hangs together through references to the IR theory cluster consisting of North American and European authors who appear to define what IR theory is. Scholars in the periphery refer to this transatlantic IR theory cluster when engaging in theory-building. IR theories have become rather diverse and pluralistic, even in the core. While scholars still refer to the big "isms," they use them around the globe in a synthesizing manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is a broad consensus in the European public health community that international collaboration and coordination are key in the fight against antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Yet, while experts typically testify the importance of cross-national learning and a coordinated effort to reduce the spread of multi-resistant bacteria, there are mixed views about how that is best realized in practice, particularly on the dichotomy between horizontal and vertical activities. Methods National action plans (NAP) from all EU member states were systematically overviewed by two independent researchers. We followed a fixed procedure for locating a broad and comparable content on the international dimensions, and letting these vary on scales. Results We find that countries adhere to four different strategies for international coordination, varying between 'high' and 'low' on values of vertical and horizontal activities. Most countries spend none or very little space to discuss international activities, while some countries use their NAPs to outline their aspiration for taking leading roles in the international struggle. Moreover, in line with previous research, we find that many countries directly mimic the Global Action Plan, but also that a large share of countries describe independent arrangements in their international strategies. Conclusions European countries recognize AMR and its inherent international governance challenge differently in their NAPs, which may have implications for coordinated action to address the issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses vaccination hesitancy among people in Europe and U.S. with reference to the article published in "Journal of Public Health". Topics discussed include development of strategic approach against widespread misinformation and conspiracy theories on COVID-19 vaccines, research published by EU agency Eurofound on the vaccine hesitancy among adults in Europe, and progress on COVID-19 vaccination campaigns in US.

The article informs that the U.S. European centrality is urgently needed toward cohesive and comprehensive transatlantic ‘One Health' approach in addressing global COVID19 response and health security. Topics include multifaceted and multilateral global COVID-19 ‘One Health' approach and develop an enhanced transatlantic post-pandemic recovery; and role of European Union (EU) joint procurement of medical countermeasures to large-scale disease outbreaks with considerable public support.

Background: End-of-life care attracts major policy interest. Place of death is an important metric of individual experience and health system performance. Most people prefer to die at home, but hospital is the most common place of death in high-income countries. Little is known about international trends in place of death over time. Methods: We aimed to collate population-level data on place of death in Europe for the years 2005-2017, and to evaluate association with national characteristics and policy choices. We sought outcome data from the 32 European Economic Area countries. We identified national economic, societal, demographic and health system predictors from Eurostat, OECD and the WHO. We analysed these cross-national panel data using linear regression with panel-corrected standard errors. Results: Our analytic dataset included 30 countries accounting for over 95% of Europe’s population and economic activity. Average national proportion of deaths occurring in hospital in the study period ranged from 26% to 68%, with a median of 52%. Trends vary markedly by region and wealth, with low and decreasing hospital deaths in the North-West, and high and increasing prevalence in the South and East. Controlling for demographic and economic factors, strong palliative care provision and generous government finance of long-term care were associated with fewer hospital deaths. Conclusions: We found modifiable policy choices associated with hospital mortality, as well as wider structural economic and societal factors. Policymakers can act to curb worrisome trends inhospital mortality. Data on places of death outside hospital can improve future research, policy and practice. Key messages: Cross-national longitudinal analysis. Trends of hospital deaths in Europe, association between hospital mortality rate, palliative care and other healthcare factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article comments on the European Union (EU) Commission Communication promoting international academic cooperation amid geopolitical tension and polarization in 2021. The commission acknowledged the need to cooperate to improve research and innovation value chains in the document. It explains the implication of the reference to European values in the Communication. Also mentioned are the use of ambiguous terms in the document such as open strategic autonomy and rules-based cooperation.