European Administrative Reform and Agencies

administrative adaptation; agency theory; institutions

Regional integration through dispute settlement:The European Union experience

Dispute settlement mechanisms have considerably advanced the European integration process. This paper aims to scrutinise the main legislative provisions and structure of the dispute settlement mechanisms in the European Union. It discusses the two different types of dispute settlement judicial and alternative as well as some mechanisms that have been designed to prevent disputes from arising. It is submitted that the current EU model of dispute settlement does not offer ideal solutions but could serve as a learning process for other integration processes such as the Andean Community and the recently created South American Community of Nations

Acknowledgements

This working paper publishes all papers written by students within the framework of thisproject between 2010 and 2014. It shows the diversity of topics studied and highlightsdifficulties with which regulators, in particular the EU are struggling in their attempt tocome to grip with uncertain risks in relation to innovation and trade.We would like to thank first all students for their dedication to the research and theirhard work. We would also like to thank all teachers in this course who joined us in this eventover the past years: Tessa Fox, Marijke Hermans, Frederic Bouder, Denise Prévost and MariaWeimer. We also would like to thank the external experts who with their knowledge andexpertise enriched the research carried out and underlined the importance of this kind ofinterdisciplinary research, Ragnar Löfstedt (King’s College, Centre for Risk Management),Ruth Mampuys (Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification (COGEM)) and Annickde Vries (Rathenau institute).Last but not least, we are very grateful to Tania Isacu (student trainee at the MaastrichtCentre for European Law) and Marcel Hoß (master student European Law School at theFaculty of Law) for all their help with the collection and the formatting of the papers

Induced defences in marine and freshwater phytoplankton: a review

Many organisms have developed defences to avoid predation by species at higher trophic levels. The capability of primary producers to defend themselves against herbivores affects their own survival, can modulate the strength of trophic cascades and changes rates of competitive exclusion in aquatic communities. Algal species are highly flexible in their morphology, growth form, biochemical composition and production of toxic and deterrent compounds. Several of these variable traits in phytoplankton have been interpreted as defence mechanisms against grazing. Zooplankton feed with differing success on various phytoplankton species, depending primarily on size, shape, cell wall structure and the production of toxins and deterrents. Chemical cues associated with (i) mechanical damage, (ii) herbivore presence and (iii) grazing are the main factors triggering induced defences in both marine and freshwater phytoplankton, but most studies have failed to disentangle the exact mechanism( s) governing defence induction in any particular species. Induced defences in phytoplankton include changes in morphology (e.g. the formation of spines, colonies and thicker cell walls), biochemistry (such as production of toxins, repellents) and in life history characteristics (formation of cysts, reduced recruitment rate). Our categorization of inducible defences in terms of the responsible induction mechanism provides guidance for future work, as hardly any of the available studies on marine or freshwater plankton have performed all the treatments that are required to pinpoint the actual cue(s) for induction. We discuss the ecology of inducible defences in marine and freshwater phytoplankton with a special focus on the mechanisms of induction, the types of defences, their costs and benefits, and their consequences at the community level

Impact of user involvement on design students’ motivation and self-confidence

Involvement of users in the design process is generally viewed favourably, both within academia and industry. Their involvement can be seen as a strategy for designers to clarify their design task and reduce uncertainties in the design process. Simultaneously, there is a lack of understanding about the impact that user involvement has on students and how they experience doing so. This paper reports on a study where students were asked to self-report their motivation and self-confidence throughout a design exercise, stretching 11 days, with surveys repeating daily. Additionally, students were asked to indicate which-if any-strategies of user involvement they used every day. We find that students self-reported motivation did not change statistically significantly, while self-confidence did change. However, in neither case did student's involvement of end-users impact how motivated or self-confident they were. We discuss our results in relation to existing research on method use in general and user involvement in particular and conclude with some suggestions for future work

Prototyping for non-designers : reflecting on the use of interactive prototyping tools

Scientists and designers show different problem-solving strategies. Where scientists generally adopt a strategy of analysis; designers are more inclined to solve a problem by synthesis. Instead of striving for a deep understanding and analysis of the problem, a designer tackles a problem by quickly generating a satisfactory solution. Prototyping is one of the tools for designers to conceptualise and realise new product solutions. Fifteen students in their final year at the university following Political and Communication Sciences received an introduction to the programs Makey Makey and Scratch. All participants had little to no experience with programming and prototyping. The reflections on the workshop are described from a teacher and students' point of view through qualitative interviews and a post survey. Results shine a light on the level of enjoyment, satisfaction and barriers of the students about the new learned tools. We conclude that interactive prototyping for non-designers is valuable and other non-design disciplines can quickly integrate such tools