Search

The lack of formal regional security institutions and the persistence of national border controls seems to indicate that in North America, unlike Europe, a truly post-national approach to territorial security has failed to materialise. Recent policy experiments with territorial security in the USA, Canada and Mexico, however, are not as removed from their transatlantic counterparts as is often claimed. This paper contends that a kind of practical continentalism underlies the governance of territorial security on both sides of the Atlantic. This system of governance has not completely displaced the state-centric model upon which the modern approach to territorial security is based. It has, however, reformulated some of its core principles, resulting in a more complex and regionalised model of territorial security. To illustrate this argument, this paper first presents the key principles underlying the approach to territorial security that has emerged in North America after 9/11, highlighting the parallels with the European experience. It then considers some of this approach's most relevant policy applications and compares them to initiatives proposed on the other side of the Atlantic. This paper concludes by exploring possible future scenarios characterising relations between North America and Europe over territorial security, and, in particular, the prospect for further transatlantic convergence in this policy field. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article will analyse factors which, since the end of last century, have made interregional relations very important to understand the world geopolitical and economic order. Interregional relations are defined as those which pertain to relations between regions or between a given state and a given region, or within a megaregion. This evolution results from: the growing demand in the emerging economies and the interaction among them, a new framework of interregional economic relations, and the development of new commercial channels. Finally, this paper will introduce the different articled included in this issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The global freight distribution system has been impacted by convergence in terms of technology, infrastructure, modes and terminals. Still, in spite of strong converging forces, it can be argued that logistical practices are far from being uniform. This paper analyses the regionalism in freight transport systems by providing a comparative analysis of gateway logistics practices in North America and Europe. It is demonstrated that Europe and North America are not walking the same paths when it comes to the configuration of transport and logistics networks, via operational decisions and the setting of a regulatory framework. The attributes of gateways, corridors, hinterlands, regulation, governance, value chains and labor provide an analytical framework to understand the regionalism of freight distribution in the North American and European contexts, as well as anywhere else. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The emergence of inland ports took place in several regions around the world, notably where the growth of inland freight distribution required a massification of flows. Yet, there is no definitive consensus about how such inland facilities should be labeled, with terms such as dry ports being advocated. It is suggested in the paper that the term inland port is a more appropriate construct since it considers terminal activities as well as the crucial logistics activities taking place in co-location or in proximity of inland terminals. This perspective requires the investigation of how transport and supply chain functions and the various actors involved in their setting and operations are taking shape in inland ports. Case studies pertaining to European and North American inland ports are presented. Although inland ports are planned, set and operated by a wide variety of actors, ranging from public to private interests, transport and supply chain functions tend to label them as satellite terminals, load centers or transmodal centers. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Between 1920 and 1940, fertility dropped below replacement level in many Western countries. In today's scholarly literature, the drop is usually explained as a temporary reaction to the exceptional conditions of the inter-war period. This paper confronts that interpretation with the interpretations offered by scholars writing between the wars. According to leading demographers of the time, low fertility was due not to war or economic crisis, but rather to processes that now tend to be associated with the Second Demographic Transition, including secularization, individualization, rising consumerism, and women's emancipation. Since these were seen as structural features of modernization, most inter-war scholars argued that subreplacement fertility would remain an obstinate feature of modern society for an extended period of time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing number of bioethicists, policy-makers, legal scholars, patient groups, and other critically involved parties in North America and Europe recently have started calling for a new ethical principle to gather participants into clinical and genetics research. While long-prevailing regimes of consent have held that people participate in the research process out of `altruism' (and hence do not merit more than nominal payment for their participation), the increasingly visible profits accruing to bioscience researchers, companies, and universities suggest that this research contract is producing a stark asymmetry. A move is afoot, therefore, to develop a principle of benefit-sharing through which to guarantee some form of returns to research subjects. This paper tracks some of the implications of the rise of this new ethic, tracing its travels from the world of bioprospecting to clinical and genetics research, and exploring how and why benefit-sharing matters to Latourian notions of science as politics. What might it mean, both for bioscience and for our ideas about politics and publics more generally, to think of research not just as a mode of ‘speaking for’, in Latourian terms, but as a mode of giving back? I argue that in shifting the problem from one of dialogue to one of distribution, benefit-sharing proposals are also implicated in the constitution of the biosciences' publics in new ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]