Editor responsable: Mg. Lautaro M. Ramírez
Coordinadora Editorial: Abog. María Virginia Perrino
Diseño y Edición: Lic. Florencia Suárez
Link de acceso al Boletín: http://www.orei.jursoc.unlp.edu.ar/images/documentos/boletin_7.pdf
Sunday, December 10, 2017
Boletín Informativo del Observatorio de Relaciones Económicas Internacionales (Año 2, número 7)
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
Boletín Informativo del Observatorio de Relaciones Económicas Internacionales (Año 2, número extraordinario 1)
Editor responsable: Mg. Lautaro M. Ramírez
Coordinadora Editorial: Abog. María Virginia Perrino
Diseño y Edición: Lic. Florencia Suárez
Link de acceso al Boletín: http://www.orei.jursoc.unlp.edu.ar/images/documentos/boletin_ed_omc.pdf
Diseño y Edición: Lic. Florencia Suárez
Link de acceso al Boletín: http://www.orei.jursoc.unlp.edu.ar/images/documentos/boletin_ed_omc.pdf
Sunday, November 26, 2017
Horror y suspenso a su debido tiempo
“Uno se pregunta qué hacían exactamente ahí dentro, ¿verdad? A ver, ¿cómo es que nadie oyó nada durante tantos años? ¿No oían gritos? ¿Ni chillidos? ¿No oían llorar a los niños?”. La respuesta, por más retorcida que pueda ser, tarda en hacerse llegar porque en Maldad, el lanzamiento más reciente de Ediciones B, la prioridad no es en responder incógnitas sino en crear un escenario donde cada certeza es puesta en duda.
El thriller psicológico de Tammy Cohen introduce al lector una serie de puntos de vista que parecen no tener relación alguna entre sí. De hecho, no sólo transcurren en tiempos y espacios diferentes –en Estados Unidos, varias décadas atrás, y en el Reino Unido, en el presente–, sino que también están caracterizadas por perspectivas narrativas distintas: en primera y tercera persona.
Es así que se presenta a la doctora Anne Cater, especialista en psiquiatría, que recuerda un curioso caso que le asignaron cuando era joven: una pequeña llamada Laurie, quien ha visto horrores por culpa de sus padres, y que debe ser diagnosticada. Paralelamente, se agregan las historias de Paula, Sarah, Charlie, Chloe, Ewan y Amira, un grupo de trabajadores de Recursos Humanos cuyo mundo se da vuelta cuando nombran a la exigente Rachel Masters como su nueva jefa.
A pesar de que cada capítulo aporta una nueva visión de los hechos, se podría hablar de dos mundos: el de la joven doctora y la evaluación psiquiátrica, y el de los oficinistas y su crisis laboral –donde la tensión y desconfianza aumenta con el correr de los días– puesto que “en general, eran un grupo que se llevaba bastante bien. Sin embargo, en ese momento, mientras se abría paso entre las mesas de sus compañeros, evitando sus miradas, una pregunta se repetía en un bucle continuo en su cabeza: «¿Has sido tú?»”, piensa uno de los personajes.
Al contar la misma serie de hechos pero desde distintos ángulos, la escritora prioriza poner en contexto a cada uno de los intervinientes, sus sentimientos, su pasado y su potencial capacidad de asesinar. “Imagina que pudiéramos ver el daño en nuestro interior. Imagina que se viera por dentro como el contrabando en los escáneres del aeropuerto. ¿Que se sentiría al pasear por la ciudad con todo a la vista: todo el dolor, todas las traiciones y las cosas que nos restan valor, todos los sueños rotos y los corazones destrozados? ¿Qué se sentiría al ver las personas en que nuestras vidas nos han convertido? Las personas que somos, bajo la piel”, afirma.
En este sentido, se debe decir que Maldad tiene una forma particular de retratar el suspenso: no revela todos los hechos de entrada. Aunque los personajes poseen esa pieza del rompecabezas y saben más que lo que dicen –o piensan–, no dan detalles. A través de frases como “pese a mi educación, mi ambición y mi curiosidad, no estaba preparada. No quería ver lo que los seres humanos éramos capaces de hacerle al prójimo, ni lo que éramos capaces de soportar”, uno va intuyendo lo acontecido que no le es develado. Es así que, contrario a lo que se esperaría de un misterio a resolver, los lectores no van de la mano del protagonista de turno puesto que éste está diez pasos más adelante. Dicho en otras palabras, pareciera que el relato repitiera una y otra vez “todo a su debido tiempo”.
Ejemplos de esto se puede ver en las primeras líneas: se informa que Laurie sobrevivió a la denominada “Casa de los Horrores” pero no se sabe por qué ese hogar era tan espeluznante. En el caso de los oficinistas, su rutina empieza a desencajar con actitudes y hechos aparentemente anónimos que se suman a una serie de mails sospechosos sobre un pasado oscuro de su nueva jefa, así como también accidentes raros que ponen en peligro la vida de varios de ellos.
En este punto, se debe resaltar que, si bien el libro gira alrededor de un misterio principal y otros secundarios, estos últimos son develados a la pasada. Es así cómo la autora construye una novela donde una atmósfera de sospecha e incertidumbre es más importante que las pistas para descubrir quién cometió un crimen y por qué.
Tammy Cohen es el seudónimo de la periodista free lance nigeriana que publica bajo diferentes seudónimos de acuerdo al género en el que incursiona: Tamar Cohen –dramas contemporáneos–, Tammy Cohen –thrillers psicológicos– y Rachel Rhys –misterios históricos–. Luego de crecer y estudiar en el Reino Unido, trabajó en España e Inglaterra, desde donde colaboró para publicaciones como Marie Claire, The Times y The Telegraph. Actualmente, es miembro de Killer Women, un grupo de escritoras de crimen localizadas en Londres.
El thriller psicológico de Tammy Cohen introduce al lector una serie de puntos de vista que parecen no tener relación alguna entre sí. De hecho, no sólo transcurren en tiempos y espacios diferentes –en Estados Unidos, varias décadas atrás, y en el Reino Unido, en el presente–, sino que también están caracterizadas por perspectivas narrativas distintas: en primera y tercera persona.
Es así que se presenta a la doctora Anne Cater, especialista en psiquiatría, que recuerda un curioso caso que le asignaron cuando era joven: una pequeña llamada Laurie, quien ha visto horrores por culpa de sus padres, y que debe ser diagnosticada. Paralelamente, se agregan las historias de Paula, Sarah, Charlie, Chloe, Ewan y Amira, un grupo de trabajadores de Recursos Humanos cuyo mundo se da vuelta cuando nombran a la exigente Rachel Masters como su nueva jefa.
A pesar de que cada capítulo aporta una nueva visión de los hechos, se podría hablar de dos mundos: el de la joven doctora y la evaluación psiquiátrica, y el de los oficinistas y su crisis laboral –donde la tensión y desconfianza aumenta con el correr de los días– puesto que “en general, eran un grupo que se llevaba bastante bien. Sin embargo, en ese momento, mientras se abría paso entre las mesas de sus compañeros, evitando sus miradas, una pregunta se repetía en un bucle continuo en su cabeza: «¿Has sido tú?»”, piensa uno de los personajes.
Al contar la misma serie de hechos pero desde distintos ángulos, la escritora prioriza poner en contexto a cada uno de los intervinientes, sus sentimientos, su pasado y su potencial capacidad de asesinar. “Imagina que pudiéramos ver el daño en nuestro interior. Imagina que se viera por dentro como el contrabando en los escáneres del aeropuerto. ¿Que se sentiría al pasear por la ciudad con todo a la vista: todo el dolor, todas las traiciones y las cosas que nos restan valor, todos los sueños rotos y los corazones destrozados? ¿Qué se sentiría al ver las personas en que nuestras vidas nos han convertido? Las personas que somos, bajo la piel”, afirma.
En este sentido, se debe decir que Maldad tiene una forma particular de retratar el suspenso: no revela todos los hechos de entrada. Aunque los personajes poseen esa pieza del rompecabezas y saben más que lo que dicen –o piensan–, no dan detalles. A través de frases como “pese a mi educación, mi ambición y mi curiosidad, no estaba preparada. No quería ver lo que los seres humanos éramos capaces de hacerle al prójimo, ni lo que éramos capaces de soportar”, uno va intuyendo lo acontecido que no le es develado. Es así que, contrario a lo que se esperaría de un misterio a resolver, los lectores no van de la mano del protagonista de turno puesto que éste está diez pasos más adelante. Dicho en otras palabras, pareciera que el relato repitiera una y otra vez “todo a su debido tiempo”.
Ejemplos de esto se puede ver en las primeras líneas: se informa que Laurie sobrevivió a la denominada “Casa de los Horrores” pero no se sabe por qué ese hogar era tan espeluznante. En el caso de los oficinistas, su rutina empieza a desencajar con actitudes y hechos aparentemente anónimos que se suman a una serie de mails sospechosos sobre un pasado oscuro de su nueva jefa, así como también accidentes raros que ponen en peligro la vida de varios de ellos.
En este punto, se debe resaltar que, si bien el libro gira alrededor de un misterio principal y otros secundarios, estos últimos son develados a la pasada. Es así cómo la autora construye una novela donde una atmósfera de sospecha e incertidumbre es más importante que las pistas para descubrir quién cometió un crimen y por qué.
Tammy Cohen es el seudónimo de la periodista free lance nigeriana que publica bajo diferentes seudónimos de acuerdo al género en el que incursiona: Tamar Cohen –dramas contemporáneos–, Tammy Cohen –thrillers psicológicos– y Rachel Rhys –misterios históricos–. Luego de crecer y estudiar en el Reino Unido, trabajó en España e Inglaterra, desde donde colaboró para publicaciones como Marie Claire, The Times y The Telegraph. Actualmente, es miembro de Killer Women, un grupo de escritoras de crimen localizadas en Londres.
Autora: Tammy Cohen
Editorial: Ediciones B
Precio: $329,00
Cantidad de páginas: 392
Editorial: Ediciones B
Precio: $329,00
Cantidad de páginas: 392
Reseña publicada en el Diario EL DIA: http://www.eldia.com/nota/2017-11-26-9-10-4-horror-y-suspenso-a-su-debido-tiempo-septimo-dia
Sunday, October 22, 2017
Dan Brown: en búsqueda del origen
El académico Robert Langdon vuelve al ruedo y su última aventura sobrevuela preguntas que, a diferencia de las historias que anteceden a la saga, van más allá de la religión y el arte para adentrarse en dudas metafísicas y planteos tecnológicos
Robert Langdon ya es sinónimo de aventura. Además de ser un celebrado académico y una leyenda en el mundo de los símbolos, los códigos, la historia, la religión y el arte, es también el protagonista de Origen, la novela más reciente de Dan Brown.
Tratando de responder las incógnitas a los más famosos misterios universales –“¿De dónde venimos? ¿Adónde vamos?”–, el autor describe a una España con una monarquía inestable e introduce a un “profeta del mundo tecnológico”, Edmond Kirsch, quien afirma saber cuáles son las respuestas a esas preguntas esenciales y que promete revelarlas ante todo el mundo, aún cuando esto signifique poner a todas las creencias existentes en su contra. Porque, como afirma el científico, “la gente de todos los países del mundo se daría cuenta de que, efectivamente, las enseñanzas de todas las religiones tenían una cosa en común. Todas estaban completamente equivocadas”.
Es en este escenario que aparece el profesor Langdon –personaje principal también en Ángeles y Demonios, El código Da Vinci, El símbolo perdido e Inferno–, quien es arrastrado a una peligrosa trama de manera inesperada, conduciéndolo hacia un misterio que debe resolver y que, al mismo tiempo, lo pone como sospechoso y primordial objetivo de un asesino que no sólo es metódico y analista, sino que también encuentra la justificación de su accionar en la búsqueda de un bien mayor. En esta ocasión, la tecnología cobra un rol importante al transformarse en un protagonista más: Langdon no enfrenta su destino de manera solitaria sino que se une a Ambra Vidal, la directora del museo de Guggenheim en Bilbao, y a Winston, una inteligencia artificial o “una especie de Siri pero hasta arriba de esteroides”, según lo define el profesor. Esto se suma a la inclusión de entradas de la –lamentablemente inexistente– web sensacionalista ConspiracyNet.com, que es utilizada para llenar pequeños vacíos de conocimiento y, principalmente, para sintetizar qué es lo que el público sabe hasta el momento a través de la recapitulación de datos anónimos.
Como ya es costumbre para Brown, la acción del relato transcurre en una serie de lugares famosos –Bilbao, Barcelona, Madrid, Budapest–. Asimismo, utiliza los conocimientos de su protagonista para retratar cada uno de los detalles históricos que forman pistas del rompecabezas que intentan armar. Porque Origen plantea una especie de búsqueda del tesoro, donde el premio es una verdad demoledora por la que muchos asesinarían sin pestañear.
A lo largo de 640 páginas, se incorporan imágenes –básicamente símbolos– y el autor transforma a cada dato, por más mínimo que sea, en una significativa pieza capaz de resolver el misterio. También recurre a interesantes cambios de puntos de vista dentro de los mismos capítulos: el escritor da a conocer sentimientos, pensamientos y creencias de los más importantes partícipes de la historia. En este sentido, cabe marcarse que, una vez más, Brown opta por personajes de distintas nacionalidades y arma la verosimilitud de su relato no solo a través de la afirmación que “el arte, la arquitectura, las localizaciones, la ciencia y las organizaciones religiosas que aparecen en esta novela son reales”, sino también desde la introducción de pasajes en los idiomas originales de cada uno –a los cuales les suma una breve traducción–.
Con publicaciones en 56 idiomas y más de 200 millones de copias impresas, los libros de Brown expresan su fascinación por la interacción entre la ciencia y la religión. Gracias a sus novelas, que luego fueron adaptadas al cine –con Tom Hanks interpretando a Robert Langdon–, sus narraciones influyeron positivamente en el interés por las obras de Leonardo Da Vinci, las zonas históricas de Roma y París, las sociedades secretas y los detalles acaso más enigmáticos de la historia cristiana.
Robert Langdon ya es sinónimo de aventura. Además de ser un celebrado académico y una leyenda en el mundo de los símbolos, los códigos, la historia, la religión y el arte, es también el protagonista de Origen, la novela más reciente de Dan Brown.
Tratando de responder las incógnitas a los más famosos misterios universales –“¿De dónde venimos? ¿Adónde vamos?”–, el autor describe a una España con una monarquía inestable e introduce a un “profeta del mundo tecnológico”, Edmond Kirsch, quien afirma saber cuáles son las respuestas a esas preguntas esenciales y que promete revelarlas ante todo el mundo, aún cuando esto signifique poner a todas las creencias existentes en su contra. Porque, como afirma el científico, “la gente de todos los países del mundo se daría cuenta de que, efectivamente, las enseñanzas de todas las religiones tenían una cosa en común. Todas estaban completamente equivocadas”.
Es en este escenario que aparece el profesor Langdon –personaje principal también en Ángeles y Demonios, El código Da Vinci, El símbolo perdido e Inferno–, quien es arrastrado a una peligrosa trama de manera inesperada, conduciéndolo hacia un misterio que debe resolver y que, al mismo tiempo, lo pone como sospechoso y primordial objetivo de un asesino que no sólo es metódico y analista, sino que también encuentra la justificación de su accionar en la búsqueda de un bien mayor. En esta ocasión, la tecnología cobra un rol importante al transformarse en un protagonista más: Langdon no enfrenta su destino de manera solitaria sino que se une a Ambra Vidal, la directora del museo de Guggenheim en Bilbao, y a Winston, una inteligencia artificial o “una especie de Siri pero hasta arriba de esteroides”, según lo define el profesor. Esto se suma a la inclusión de entradas de la –lamentablemente inexistente– web sensacionalista ConspiracyNet.com, que es utilizada para llenar pequeños vacíos de conocimiento y, principalmente, para sintetizar qué es lo que el público sabe hasta el momento a través de la recapitulación de datos anónimos.
Como ya es costumbre para Brown, la acción del relato transcurre en una serie de lugares famosos –Bilbao, Barcelona, Madrid, Budapest–. Asimismo, utiliza los conocimientos de su protagonista para retratar cada uno de los detalles históricos que forman pistas del rompecabezas que intentan armar. Porque Origen plantea una especie de búsqueda del tesoro, donde el premio es una verdad demoledora por la que muchos asesinarían sin pestañear.
A lo largo de 640 páginas, se incorporan imágenes –básicamente símbolos– y el autor transforma a cada dato, por más mínimo que sea, en una significativa pieza capaz de resolver el misterio. También recurre a interesantes cambios de puntos de vista dentro de los mismos capítulos: el escritor da a conocer sentimientos, pensamientos y creencias de los más importantes partícipes de la historia. En este sentido, cabe marcarse que, una vez más, Brown opta por personajes de distintas nacionalidades y arma la verosimilitud de su relato no solo a través de la afirmación que “el arte, la arquitectura, las localizaciones, la ciencia y las organizaciones religiosas que aparecen en esta novela son reales”, sino también desde la introducción de pasajes en los idiomas originales de cada uno –a los cuales les suma una breve traducción–.
Con publicaciones en 56 idiomas y más de 200 millones de copias impresas, los libros de Brown expresan su fascinación por la interacción entre la ciencia y la religión. Gracias a sus novelas, que luego fueron adaptadas al cine –con Tom Hanks interpretando a Robert Langdon–, sus narraciones influyeron positivamente en el interés por las obras de Leonardo Da Vinci, las zonas históricas de Roma y París, las sociedades secretas y los detalles acaso más enigmáticos de la historia cristiana.
Autor: Dan Brown
Editorial: Planeta
Cantidad de páginas: 640
Precio: $550,00
Editorial: Planeta
Cantidad de páginas: 640
Precio: $550,00
Colaboración para el diario EL DIA: http://www.eldia.com/nota/2017-10-22-8-38-27-dan-brown-en-busqueda-del-origen-septimo-dia
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
Boletín Informativo del Observatorio de Relaciones Económicas Internacionales (Año 2, número 6)
Editor responsable: Mg. Lautaro M. Ramírez
Coordinadora Editorial: Abog. María Virginia Perrino
Diseño y Edición: Lic. Florencia Suárez
Link de acceso al Boletín: http://www.orei.jursoc.unlp.edu.ar/images/documentos/boletin_6.pdf
Diseño y Edición: Lic. Florencia Suárez
Link de acceso al Boletín: http://www.orei.jursoc.unlp.edu.ar/images/documentos/boletin_6.pdf
Monday, September 11, 2017
Una bestia y una obsesión entre montañas
“En la guerra se mata. Cazando se mata. Matar es humano, aunque no nos guste admitirlo y sea correcto que se intente evitar en lo posible. Pero lo que se hizo a esos tres pobres chicos en el Bletterbach en el año 85 no fue matar. Fue una carnicería que tenía muy poco de humano.” Eso es todo. Un rumor, unas frases a la pasada, representan lo que Jeremiah Salinger –el protagonista de La sustancia del mal– necesita para comenzar un camino sin vuelta atrás donde se transforma en un investigador que no parará ante nada ni nadie hasta descubrir los detalles más morbosos de una masacre que todo un pueblo aparenta querer ocultar.
Si hay algo de lo que esta novela está segura, es que las ideas y las decisiones tienen consecuencias que pueden cambiar el curso de una vida puesto que nunca se sabe si éstas serán positivas o negativas; ni siquiera a quiénes afectarán. Salinger aprende esta lección de la peor manera: forma parte de un accidente que termina con la vida de un grupo de rescatistas que habían accedido a integrar un documental que él estaba escribiendo. “Quería sufrir. Y quería sufrir porque tenía que hacerlo. ¿Tenía? Claro: me había manchado con el peor de los pecados. Había sobrevivido. Merecía un castigo.”
Y es así que una existencia que gira alrededor de una adorable esposa, una hija precoz y un trabajo de ensueño empieza a complicarse gracias a una “Bestia” interna que ocasiona ataques de pánico, pesadillas, remordimientos y situaciones de ensimismamiento. Esto lleva al protagonista a obsesionarse con un caso sin resolver ocurrido hace más de 30 años en el cual tres jóvenes –provenientes del simpático y tradicional pueblo italiano donde él y su familia viven temporalmente–, habían sido cruelmente asesinados durante una de sus rutinarias excursiones a la montaña.
“Es un hermoso lugar. Pero eso no significa que la muerte sea menos amarga. La muerte es la muerte, y todo lo demás no importa”, afirma el escritor.
Lo primero que llama la atención es la ambientación: situado en el norte de Italia, el relato transcurre rodeado de una naturaleza peligrosa y hasta homicida. A ello se suma una perspectiva en primera persona que logra transmitir sensaciones y pensamientos del protagonista, quien es acompañado por el lector a través de una vorágine de sonidos e imágenes acerca de montañas nevadas y traumas ocasionados por el accidente. A través de palabras precisas, Luca D’Andrea consigue provocar una empatía hacia una persona evidentemente trastornada cuya implacable búsqueda de una respuesta al pasado es la solución para superar los fantasmas del presente. Dicho de otra manera: “preguntar a los muertos para dar respuestas a los vivos.”
Asimismo, cabe señalar que el autor recalca unos detalles por sobre otros puesto que es más importante que se entienda el vértigo que produce una montaña como el Bletterbach a la descripción física de los personajes que intervienen en el relato. Esto está relacionado con las impresiones del narrador, quien invita al lector a seguir su recorrido, a charlar con los lugareños –los cuales no dejan de lado sus raíces alemanas a la hora de hablar– y a visitar hasta las casas más destruidas en busca de pistas.
Es esa misma cualidad –la de acompañar a Salinger por todas sus indagaciones– la que hace de esta novela algo especial: porque D’Andrea no presenta a su héroe como un Sherlock Holmes que deduce la verdad por un tic nervioso de uno de sus sospechosos. Todo lo contrario: volviéndose cada vez más taciturno y encerrado en una catarata de pensamientos y conjeturas, debe enfrentar a un centenar de callejones sin salida que aumentan su inestabilidad mental y familiar, remarcando aún más su posición de forastero en un lugar donde hasta el habitante más bondadoso puede ser un asesino.
Nacido en Bolzano, Italia, Luca D’Andrea fue criado entre montañas e inspirado por la naturaleza alpina. Tras escribir la trilogía juvenil Wunderkind, fue guionista de la serie Mountain Heroes sobre el equipo de rescate alpino sobre el cual basó su primer thriller, La sustancia del mal, el cual está siendo traducido a más de treinta idiomas.
Autor: Luca D’Andrea
Editorial: Alfaguara
Precio: $399
Cantidad de páginas: 472
Colaboración para el diario EL DIA: http://www.eldia.com/nota/2017-9-10-7-47-30-una-bestia-y-una-obsesion-entre-montanas-septimo-dia
Monday, July 3, 2017
Boletín Informativo del Observatorio de Relaciones Económicas Internacionales (Año 2, número 5)
Editor responsable: Mg. Lautaro M. Ramírez
Coordinadora Editorial: Abog. María Virginia Perrino
Diseño y Edición: Lic. Florencia Suárez
Link de acceso al Boletín: http://www.orei.jursoc.unlp.edu.ar/images/documentos/boletin_5.pdf
Coordinadora Editorial: Abog. María Virginia Perrino
Diseño y Edición: Lic. Florencia Suárez
Link de acceso al Boletín: http://www.orei.jursoc.unlp.edu.ar/images/documentos/boletin_5.pdf
Friday, May 12, 2017
Overcoming differences for common procedures
(Article for the newspaper of the Model of the Council of the European Union)
Politics involve debates and setting alliances. Even though most countries’ representatives might not agree in some points, at the end it is usual to find a common ground from where to start to work together. The European Union was formed with that idea: to provide a space of discussion and find what it’s best for every country. In this context, this past week, the Members of the Council of the European Union got together to discuss two of the most important topics in the international agenda: Common Procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection to refugees and the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals for the purpose of employment as seasonal workers.
The Commissioner Anastasia Granito stated that even though the refugee crisis is connected to different areas of the world, it can be said that Europe has the duty to establish “common procedures” and a “common solution” in order to collaborate and cooperate to defend the human being.
After checking that there were 21 members present out of 28, each Minister expressed their concerns and perspectives regarding the Asylum process. There were mainly two positions: the first one asked for common procedures to face a “worldwide problem that cannot be restricted to the European area”. The representative of Germany, Julieta Suárez, remarked the humanitarian part of the crisis, setting the idea of facing the “global and moral challenge” together.
The second group marked that it is dangerous to maintain a policy that keeps affecting different aspects of the European community as they see risks in possible entrance of terrorists.
To conclude, Greece stated that there is no more room for emergency plans as it is time for a long term strategy with “common policies, coordination and cooperation” among the Members.
During this first meeting, six amendments were proposed but only four got approved and will be included in the Directive. These were related to creating a refugee database; a commission of experts to determinate redistribution of refugees; control and protection of the borders and transit areas; and for a prohibition to the refugees for leaving the country processing their asylum request.
The opening speech from the head of the draft about seasonal workers, Francesco Carboni, explained that Europe is facing an “aging challenge” as people are getting older but population is not growing fast enough to cover the “shortage of labor”. According to him, this is a problem that should not be underestimated as it is important to harmonize the system to preserve immigrants’ rights. Afterwards, each Minister presented their country’s perspective. Most of them remarked the idea of keeping an open-door policy and setting common procedures while maintaining a room for manoeuvre. Germany’s Minister set the grounds by saying that legal migration is fundamental for each country for economic development, stating that “Europe has both the capacity and the experience to rise to the challenge”.
On one hand, some Members established that their countries agree with the “need of a common policy” as it is important to give the applicants “the same possibility to work” and also to “avoid economic and social exploitation”. On the other, the rest marked the risk of this type of workers as their employment might be a “way to promote immigration”. In this sense, the Ministers of Luxembourg, Poland and Romania commented their fears about safety, the idea of the workers not going back home “after the end of the permit” and the interest of them not displacing European labor. The United Kingdom, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia and The Netherlands’ representatives also added that, even though they are open to discussion, there is a need of a “more strict legislation” to avoid “temporary stay becoming permanent” while not losing their sovereignties.
All these concerns were debated before the announcement of new amendments related to an obligation for the countries to provide measures to prevent possible abuses and to sanction infringements; the creation of an EU-wide online platform and booklets grouping seasonal workers’ rights in their native language; the supervision and assistance of workers accommodation’s standards to guarantee their well-being. Also, some suggested that there should be a consideration regarding the inclusion of the third-country workers that reside in the country to the Article 2; while others advised to add “the holder is suspected of being a national threat” to Article 9.
At the closure of this edition, the amendments were still being discussed as the Ministers will proceed to vote once finalized the expositions.
The Commissioner Anastasia Granito stated that even though the refugee crisis is connected to different areas of the world, it can be said that Europe has the duty to establish “common procedures” and a “common solution” in order to collaborate and cooperate to defend the human being.
After checking that there were 21 members present out of 28, each Minister expressed their concerns and perspectives regarding the Asylum process. There were mainly two positions: the first one asked for common procedures to face a “worldwide problem that cannot be restricted to the European area”. The representative of Germany, Julieta Suárez, remarked the humanitarian part of the crisis, setting the idea of facing the “global and moral challenge” together.
The second group marked that it is dangerous to maintain a policy that keeps affecting different aspects of the European community as they see risks in possible entrance of terrorists.
To conclude, Greece stated that there is no more room for emergency plans as it is time for a long term strategy with “common policies, coordination and cooperation” among the Members.
During this first meeting, six amendments were proposed but only four got approved and will be included in the Directive. These were related to creating a refugee database; a commission of experts to determinate redistribution of refugees; control and protection of the borders and transit areas; and for a prohibition to the refugees for leaving the country processing their asylum request.
The opening speech from the head of the draft about seasonal workers, Francesco Carboni, explained that Europe is facing an “aging challenge” as people are getting older but population is not growing fast enough to cover the “shortage of labor”. According to him, this is a problem that should not be underestimated as it is important to harmonize the system to preserve immigrants’ rights. Afterwards, each Minister presented their country’s perspective. Most of them remarked the idea of keeping an open-door policy and setting common procedures while maintaining a room for manoeuvre. Germany’s Minister set the grounds by saying that legal migration is fundamental for each country for economic development, stating that “Europe has both the capacity and the experience to rise to the challenge”.
On one hand, some Members established that their countries agree with the “need of a common policy” as it is important to give the applicants “the same possibility to work” and also to “avoid economic and social exploitation”. On the other, the rest marked the risk of this type of workers as their employment might be a “way to promote immigration”. In this sense, the Ministers of Luxembourg, Poland and Romania commented their fears about safety, the idea of the workers not going back home “after the end of the permit” and the interest of them not displacing European labor. The United Kingdom, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia and The Netherlands’ representatives also added that, even though they are open to discussion, there is a need of a “more strict legislation” to avoid “temporary stay becoming permanent” while not losing their sovereignties.
All these concerns were debated before the announcement of new amendments related to an obligation for the countries to provide measures to prevent possible abuses and to sanction infringements; the creation of an EU-wide online platform and booklets grouping seasonal workers’ rights in their native language; the supervision and assistance of workers accommodation’s standards to guarantee their well-being. Also, some suggested that there should be a consideration regarding the inclusion of the third-country workers that reside in the country to the Article 2; while others advised to add “the holder is suspected of being a national threat” to Article 9.
At the closure of this edition, the amendments were still being discussed as the Ministers will proceed to vote once finalized the expositions.
Security vs. economic contribution
(Article for the Model of the Council of the European Union)
Nowadays, immigration is one of the most important topic in the agenda of every European Union country. Not only because of the refugee crisis, but because of plenty social, economic and cultural reasons, great amount of people are moving across borders. The Council of the European Union is not unaware of this delicate matter and for that reason, the Commissioner Francesco Carboni, proposed to the Members to discuss last Wednesday the Directive regarding the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals for the purpose of employment as seasonal workers.
With an opening speech, the head of the draft known as 2014/36/EU, explained that Europe is facing an “aging challenge” as people are getting older but population is not growing fast enough to cover the “shortage of labor”. According to his words, this is a problem that should not be underestimated as it is important to harmonize the system to preserve immigrants’ heath, among other rights. He emphasized the fact that, even though this new Directive is to create rules and common system and policies about legal migration, it also contemplated the idea of national authorities managing their own sovereignties.
Talking to the press, Carboni remarked the “principle of equal treatment” for seasonal workers, making it clear that, even though they are entitled to most of the same rights as the nationals, there are some that will be excluded. From his point of view, “migration cannot be dealt by one state”, he finished.
After the Commissioner intervention, each Minister presented their country’s perspective regarding this topic. Most of them remarked the idea of keeping an open-door policy and setting common procedures while maintaining a room for manoeuvre. Germany’s Minister, Julieta Suárez, set the grounds by saying that legal migration is fundamental for each country for economic development, stating that “Europe has both the capacity and the experience to rise to the challenge”.
Alessandro Foà, the envoy of Austria, established that his country agrees with the “need of a common policy” as it is important to give the applicants “the same possibility to work”. Belgium’s Ludovica Ciarravano also added that, despite their high unemployment, the Directive is necessary to “avoid economic and social exploitation”. Following up, the Minister of Denmark, Chiara Toselli, affirmed Danish’s positive position by saying that they “believe in foreigners’ contribution to the country’s economy”. Finland’s representative also explained the importance of giving seasonal workers the “same rights as local citizens”, opening new opportunities to other people of the world. Latvia focused the attention of the debate on the integration, considering the professionals as a very important resource for each state.
Aris Tufexis, Greece’s Minister, added that one out of four Greeks are without a job so they “cannot guarantee seasonal work”. He also expressed his concern regarding the identification of the people applying for each position.
Bulgaria, on the other side, marked the risk of this type of workers as their employment might be a “way to promote immigration”. In this sense, Giulia Burchi, from Croatia, explained that the Council should consider a quota of working permits, while her pair, Czech Republic’s France Saint-Onge expressed the country’s opposition to the harmonized and collective procedure as they expected to maintain “the right to deny applications […] to protect the Czech population from security issues”.
In the same line, the Ministers of Luxembourg, Poland and Romania commented their fears about safety, the idea of the workers not going back home “after the end of the permit” and the interest of them not displacing European labor. The United Kingdom, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia and The Netherlands’ representatives also added that, even though they are open to discussion, there is a need of a “more strict legislation” to avoid “temporary stay becoming permanent” while not losing their sovereignties.
During this meeting, Czech Republic’s intervention did not go unnoticed: while presenting a motion for moderated caucus, the Minister asked to her colleagues whether they would consider offering “more rights for seasonal workers to make the country more appealing to them”. In response, the delegates of Denmark, Bulgaria, the Netherlands agreed that they should “grant them full integration” to avoid discrimination, but considering that their rights will never be plenty as they won’t have the right to vote, for example. In this aspect, Christopher Wignall from Romania, intervened by saying that it is necessary to “draw a balance between the rights of seasonal workers and illegal workers” as it is mandatory to “ensure [their] rights but also [ensure] that our borders are secured”.
After several discussions regarding different aspects of the Directive –for example, related to the conditions of entry–, the Ministers stated a list of articles that should be considered for amendments. Even though the final propositions will be presented next Friday, the representative of Slovenia said that, with the sponsor of other countries, they will propose to create an European central database with all the job offers to fulfill both the needs of third-countries’ people and the offering nation.
Poland’s Nicolò Rascaglia said that the Article 5 of the Directive –regarding requirements for admission for employment for stays not exceeding 90 days– is “too soft as it doesn’t specify the criteria” and recommended the other Ministers to “pay attention to the fact that the [workers] can leave their job and stay in Europe” so they should make more stricter rules. Greece agreed by adding that they should “insert in the contract the date and way of departure” but the Netherlands warned them that “maybe more specific legislation would create more problems”.
In a final press conference, the Ministers repeated their arguments regarding the needs of their countries for seasonal work but also made a specific point about one of the rights that is very debatable nowadays: family reunification. The German Minister said that they should be realistic regarding this topic while Poland, on his hand, expressed that “it would be crazy” to consider it because it would represent as a burden to the country. Denmark and Greece added that despite they try to “make it as easy as possible to integrate them”, it would be very difficult to invite all the family because of their short period of stay. Bulgaria’s representative marked that it would be a “way to promote immigration”, while the United Kingdom and Belgium said that it is only “important for long term workers”.
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Amendments to international protection (breaking news)
(Article for the Model of the Council of the European Union)
In a new session of the Council of the European Union, the members, after expressing their opinions regarding six amendments related to the common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, proceeded to vote.
The first one, sponsored by Denmark, Austria, Estonia regarding a sovereign authority controlling the border of the European Union received the support from the Minister of Germany, Julieta Suarez, who explained that they believe it to be the “first step to make a common procedure”. Czech Republic’s delegate, France Saint-Onge, opposed the initiative as it would mean “losing the sovereignty of our own borders”. This amendment got rejected.
The proposition related to a shared refugee database suggested by the representatives from Hungary, the Netherlands and Denmark in order to “achieve better cooperation” and combat against “illegal immigrants”, as expressed by Ilaria De Angelis, the Minister of Latvia, passed and will be included in the Directive.
On their side, Greece, Denmark and Slovenia discussed about the creation of a commission of experts to determinate the status of each country and future procedures of redistribution of refugees. This amendment, despite Christopher Wingnall’s –Romania– speech saying that this topic “should be decided by ourselves, not by experts”, also got approved.
Poland, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia worked together with a set of modifications regarding control and protection of the borders and the lands of the Union. Their justification, expressed by the Minister of Poland, Nicolo Rascaglia, was to guarantee not only “the security of the states” but also to prevent potential terrorist attacks and illegal entrance of people.
While the adjustment that included using navy and military forces to assist got rejected; the ones asking for protection for the transit areas because they are considered as the ones that “carry the burden”, and for a prohibition to the refugees for leaving the country processing their asylum request, got approved.
Facing the unprecedented crisis
(Article for the Model of the Council of the European Union)
It is no surprise that every country has their own interests that respond not only to their political party but also to their supporters’ demands. This was clearly reflected in the recent meeting of the Council of the European Union where the members fiercely exposed their points of view regarding the proposal of Anastasia Granito, Commissioner of the Council, about Common Procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection to refugees.
After briefly explaining the Directive, the Commissioner, in dialogue with the Press, stated that even though the crisis involves different areas of the world, it can be said that Europe is leading the field and it is its duty to establish “common procedures” and a “common solution” in order to follow the idea of collaboration and cooperation to the defense of the human being. The idea of the discussion among the Members is relevant as it is the best way to put on the table all the concerns and ideas to help, since all of them “chose to be part of the European Union”, concluded the representative of the Council.
After checking that there were 21 members present out of 28 –being Spain, Sweden, Italy and France the most notorious absents–, each Minister expressed their concerns and perspectives regarding the Asylum process, dividing the opinions in three main groups.
The first one was opened by Alessandro Foà, the Minister of Austria, who expressed his apprehension related to a situation that affects his country very strongly. Following his statement, Belgium –represented by Ludovica Ciarravano and Maria Baratti Rainer– and Croatia –with Giulia Burchi as its delegate–, asked for common procedures to face a “worldwide problem that cannot be restricted to the European area”. Chiara Toselli, from Denmark, Gina del Sorbo, from Finland and Ilara De Angelis, from Latvia have agreed to share the burden but also remarked the possibility to be “more prudent” from now on as the applications for asylum keep growing higher and higher.
In the same position but with a stronger inclination towards the open-door policy, the representative of Germany, Julieta Suárez, remarked the humanitarian part of the crisis, setting the idea of facing the “global and moral challenge” together while the world keeps watching for every decision the European Union makes. Alexander James Ince Sekitoleko Kiggundu, The Netherlands Minister added that finding “common policies” does not mean “more commitment for ones and less for others” but a share responsibility with procedures “more respectful of human rights and strengthening of the European Union external borders”.
But not all were in favor of the new Directive: with a very concerned tone, the Ministers of plenty countries marked that it is dangerous to maintain a policy that keeps affecting different aspects of the European community. Bulgaria’s delegate, Francesco Rotunno, saw risks in possible entrance of terrorists as the “country cannot bear the costs neccesary to manage the crisis alone”. On the other hand, Luca De Benedictis, Minister of Cyprus defined the country’s position as against the Directive considering this as a “great issue involving the European Union”. At this point, also the Czech Republic’s envoy, France Saint-Onge and her pairs, Davide Aulino from Estonia and Loredana Crolla fom Slovakia, expressed their people’s worry about security as they agreed that they have no intention “to be the next” in a terrorist attack.
As a normal procedure of the meeting of the Council, each representative made a short speech before entering in the debate section. During this first part, Vittorio Emanuele Agostinelli, Minister of Hungary made himself very clear as he said “we don’t want a reshuffle of national and European Union competences in these fields” as it should be them who decide who they want to live with. Poland’s Nicolò Rascaglia and Carol Simonetti followed this statement adding their reluctance as “some of the refugees may have bad intentions towards the country that offers help”. Romania’s Minister, Christopher Wignall, finished his position by saying that “a strong, coordinated and prompt response from European institutions is required” as the country consideres that policies are not being implemented equally because the situation where both Romania and Bulgaria “act as a buffer zone between the Union border and the Schengen area cannot be allowed to continue”.
The rest of the Ministers present, Stefano Martì Aguirre from Luxembourg, Aurora Matteocci from Slovenia and Roberto Tedeschi from the United Kingdom, approved the idea of “help the ones that need help” but in an organized way and according to specific rules, putting an emphasis that things are not always simple but it could still be done by common sharing of responsibilities.
After the brief introduction to each country’s perspective, there was a voluntary exposition instance where –once again– the Ministers took their time to continue to expand their ideas about what is best not only for their people but also for the Union. Greece made his point by explaining that there is no more room for emergency plans as it is time for a long term strategy with “common policies, coordination and cooperation” among the Members to integrate the refugees. At this point, also Hungary agreed with dividing the responsibility as their government found the problems in the unprotected –and poorly financed– external borders.
This last topic and others were discussed privately among the representatives of the Member States of the Council, while trying to find common procedures and set amendments to the proposed Directive. In this point, it must be said that even though the final votes will be counted next Wednesday, it was recently informed to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that the modifications/eliminations/incorporations suggested by the countries are as follows:
Sponsors: Denmark, Austria, Estonia
The control of the external border shall be ensured by a sovereign authority of the European Union
that has to be determined. Within two years this amendment shall be put into force.
Sponsors: Hungary, Netherlands, Denmark
The Member States should share all the refugees’ data in the European Union, especially the external border countries, according to the necessity to enhance safety, cooperation and a better identification of refugees.
Sponsors: Greece, Denmark, Slovenia
The Member States establish to create a commission composed by experts that in the next 4 months will elaborate an index as a guideline in order to:
-have a constant overview of the situation in each member state’s refugee issue
-be the guideline for a future common procedure on redistribution
Sponsors: Poland, Czech Republic, Croatia, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia
Member States shall increase the security of the external borders of the Schengen area at points of entries using military and navy forces in assessing asylum applicants to threat applicants in the most humanitarian way and ensuring that every applicants get process through legal procedures.
Member States need to increase the internal control of the Schengen area.
Member States should guarantee the protection of transit-zone EU Member States.
The costs of the increased protection to the border states shall be covered with the EU budget.
Applicants are prohibited from leaving the member states from which their application is being processed.
As many Ministers expressed, there is still work to be done: even though the draft of the first amendments was released and alliances are being made, it is uncertain the result. In a recent press conference, the Hungarian Minister affirmed that he will take this occasion to present his “critics against the European Union”, to change it. As he explained, there are general disconformities with the model, especially with its refugee crisis approach. These next few hours will be crucial for the future of the Directive and, most important, for the future of the people waiting for the European Union to help them.
After briefly explaining the Directive, the Commissioner, in dialogue with the Press, stated that even though the crisis involves different areas of the world, it can be said that Europe is leading the field and it is its duty to establish “common procedures” and a “common solution” in order to follow the idea of collaboration and cooperation to the defense of the human being. The idea of the discussion among the Members is relevant as it is the best way to put on the table all the concerns and ideas to help, since all of them “chose to be part of the European Union”, concluded the representative of the Council.
After checking that there were 21 members present out of 28 –being Spain, Sweden, Italy and France the most notorious absents–, each Minister expressed their concerns and perspectives regarding the Asylum process, dividing the opinions in three main groups.
The first one was opened by Alessandro Foà, the Minister of Austria, who expressed his apprehension related to a situation that affects his country very strongly. Following his statement, Belgium –represented by Ludovica Ciarravano and Maria Baratti Rainer– and Croatia –with Giulia Burchi as its delegate–, asked for common procedures to face a “worldwide problem that cannot be restricted to the European area”. Chiara Toselli, from Denmark, Gina del Sorbo, from Finland and Ilara De Angelis, from Latvia have agreed to share the burden but also remarked the possibility to be “more prudent” from now on as the applications for asylum keep growing higher and higher.
In the same position but with a stronger inclination towards the open-door policy, the representative of Germany, Julieta Suárez, remarked the humanitarian part of the crisis, setting the idea of facing the “global and moral challenge” together while the world keeps watching for every decision the European Union makes. Alexander James Ince Sekitoleko Kiggundu, The Netherlands Minister added that finding “common policies” does not mean “more commitment for ones and less for others” but a share responsibility with procedures “more respectful of human rights and strengthening of the European Union external borders”.
But not all were in favor of the new Directive: with a very concerned tone, the Ministers of plenty countries marked that it is dangerous to maintain a policy that keeps affecting different aspects of the European community. Bulgaria’s delegate, Francesco Rotunno, saw risks in possible entrance of terrorists as the “country cannot bear the costs neccesary to manage the crisis alone”. On the other hand, Luca De Benedictis, Minister of Cyprus defined the country’s position as against the Directive considering this as a “great issue involving the European Union”. At this point, also the Czech Republic’s envoy, France Saint-Onge and her pairs, Davide Aulino from Estonia and Loredana Crolla fom Slovakia, expressed their people’s worry about security as they agreed that they have no intention “to be the next” in a terrorist attack.
As a normal procedure of the meeting of the Council, each representative made a short speech before entering in the debate section. During this first part, Vittorio Emanuele Agostinelli, Minister of Hungary made himself very clear as he said “we don’t want a reshuffle of national and European Union competences in these fields” as it should be them who decide who they want to live with. Poland’s Nicolò Rascaglia and Carol Simonetti followed this statement adding their reluctance as “some of the refugees may have bad intentions towards the country that offers help”. Romania’s Minister, Christopher Wignall, finished his position by saying that “a strong, coordinated and prompt response from European institutions is required” as the country consideres that policies are not being implemented equally because the situation where both Romania and Bulgaria “act as a buffer zone between the Union border and the Schengen area cannot be allowed to continue”.
The rest of the Ministers present, Stefano Martì Aguirre from Luxembourg, Aurora Matteocci from Slovenia and Roberto Tedeschi from the United Kingdom, approved the idea of “help the ones that need help” but in an organized way and according to specific rules, putting an emphasis that things are not always simple but it could still be done by common sharing of responsibilities.
After the brief introduction to each country’s perspective, there was a voluntary exposition instance where –once again– the Ministers took their time to continue to expand their ideas about what is best not only for their people but also for the Union. Greece made his point by explaining that there is no more room for emergency plans as it is time for a long term strategy with “common policies, coordination and cooperation” among the Members to integrate the refugees. At this point, also Hungary agreed with dividing the responsibility as their government found the problems in the unprotected –and poorly financed– external borders.
This last topic and others were discussed privately among the representatives of the Member States of the Council, while trying to find common procedures and set amendments to the proposed Directive. In this point, it must be said that even though the final votes will be counted next Wednesday, it was recently informed to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that the modifications/eliminations/incorporations suggested by the countries are as follows:
Sponsors: Denmark, Austria, Estonia
The control of the external border shall be ensured by a sovereign authority of the European Union
that has to be determined. Within two years this amendment shall be put into force.
Sponsors: Hungary, Netherlands, Denmark
The Member States should share all the refugees’ data in the European Union, especially the external border countries, according to the necessity to enhance safety, cooperation and a better identification of refugees.
Sponsors: Greece, Denmark, Slovenia
The Member States establish to create a commission composed by experts that in the next 4 months will elaborate an index as a guideline in order to:
-have a constant overview of the situation in each member state’s refugee issue
-be the guideline for a future common procedure on redistribution
Sponsors: Poland, Czech Republic, Croatia, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia
Member States shall increase the security of the external borders of the Schengen area at points of entries using military and navy forces in assessing asylum applicants to threat applicants in the most humanitarian way and ensuring that every applicants get process through legal procedures.
Member States need to increase the internal control of the Schengen area.
Member States should guarantee the protection of transit-zone EU Member States.
The costs of the increased protection to the border states shall be covered with the EU budget.
Applicants are prohibited from leaving the member states from which their application is being processed.
As many Ministers expressed, there is still work to be done: even though the draft of the first amendments was released and alliances are being made, it is uncertain the result. In a recent press conference, the Hungarian Minister affirmed that he will take this occasion to present his “critics against the European Union”, to change it. As he explained, there are general disconformities with the model, especially with its refugee crisis approach. These next few hours will be crucial for the future of the Directive and, most important, for the future of the people waiting for the European Union to help them.
Monday, May 8, 2017
Fighting for common interests (breaking news)
(Article for the Model of the Council of the European Union)
In a recent meeting of the Council of the European Union, the
Directive regarding Common Procedures for granting and withdrawing
international protection has begun to be discussed. With no surprises,
each country member maintained its point of view after the Commissioner
expressed the idea of finding a common ground to all the differences in
this new draft.
With 21 members
present out of 28, as expected, the Ministers of Austria, Belgium,
Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Latvia and The Netherlands declared
themselves in favor of working together to face the challenge that the
refugee crisis represents.
But it must be added that were also
many that expressed their concern regarding this topic. The
representative of Bulgaria, for example, said that they shouldn’t “let
the biggest countries decide” what is best for the small ones. To this
perspective, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland,
Romania and Slovakia agreed in ending a situation that “cannot be
allowed to continue”.
The Ministers of Luxemburg, Slovenia and
United Kingdom, for their part, maintained a critical but mostly open
position while they ask for “common policies, coordination and
cooperation” in a long term strategy, leaving behind once and for all
the emergency plans.
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
The purpose of solidarity and fair sharing
(Article for the Model of the Council of the European Union)
According to the Statistisches
Bundesamt, “immigration to Germany was higher than ever before” during the
recent years. In 2015, for example, a total 2,137,000 people immigrated to the
country, representing an increase of 672,000 arrivals, or +46% in comparison to
2014.
With this data, it is possible to
wonder whether the legislation is up to date regarding the arrival and stay of
people who are seeking for asylum in the Republic as it is important for
strengthening Germany’s best interests to have a common policy with the rest of
the members because it is a “constituent part of the European Union’s objective
of establishing progressively an area of freedom, security and justice open to
those who, force by circumstances, legitimately seek protection in the Union”,
as said in the Directive 2013/32/EU.
A recent inform from the
International Monetary Fund exalts that “the new wave of immigration under way
in Germany is rapidly changing: while it initially reflected mainly immigrants
from new EU accession countries and, to a smaller extent, Southern Europe, the
wave now consists to a large extent of asylum seekers from outside of the EU.” The
report also establishes that from 2010 to 2015, the immigration from outside
the EU became higher in comparison to the one within.
In the context where 476,000 asylum
applications were registered in 2015, it is imperative to add that among many
members of the European Union, Germany is one of the most welcoming countries
as the authorities decided to suspend the so-called Dublin Protocol, an
agreement that forces refugees to seek asylum in the first European country in
which they set foot.
Following the purpose of the
country’s willingness to “fulfill its historical and humanitarian obligation to
admit refugees” –as said by the Federal Ministry of the Interior– and the fact
that Germans agree with the idea of transforming into a country of immigrants
(a Bertelsmann Stiftung’s survey specified that 80% of the people said that
their authorities should accept people escaping from political or religious
persecution), the Chancellor Angela Merkel continues to push drafts and
legislations that follows the idea of a strong country available to help the
ones in need.
Despite every effort, the crisis is
far from finishing as every country must collaborate to establish common
procedures for granting –and withdrawing– international protection. It can be
said that Germany is now the face of the well-intended refugee policy but in an
important Union as the European’s one –with all the changes and differences
among their countries’ perspectives–, it must be asked “how long can it hold it
by itself?”
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Challenges and opportunities
(Article for the Model of the Council of the European Union)
It is no news that the European
Union (EU) is struggling in different aspects of its life. After Brexit, the
world is questioning about the future of the integration, specially because
there are uncountable fronts of battle opened that the politicians have to face
every day to make the inhabitants’ life less uncertain.
One of the discussion topics is
related to the increasing immigration: not only because of the refugee crisis
but also because of economics imbalances, many people –particularly young
people– are leaving their home countries to find better job opportunities
abroad. According to a report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development, Germany, is the second destination chosen by immigrants, after
the United States.
Historically speaking, through The
Hague (2004) and The Stockholm, Programmes (2009), the Union is committed to recognize
that legal migration is an important key of advancing economic development as
it can increase “competitiveness and economic vitality”. This gives a role to
the new inhabitants as they are expected to help to build a new landscape for each
country through their permanent or temporal work.
In this perspective, the recent
Directive 2014/36/EU related to seasonal workers set the ground rules for the
Member States. According to the document, this type of employees are the people
that come from a third-country to work for a “limited period of between five
and nine months”.
With expanding differences among the
perspectives, the Union has “develop a common immigration policy aimed at
ensuring, at all stages, the efficient management of migration flows and fair
treatment of third-country nationals staying legally in Member States”. But why?
As the numbers show, in 2015, “the proportion of employees aged 20–64 in the
EU-28 with a contract of limited duration (fixed-term employment) was
11.1 %”, according to the European Commission. With this percentage going
up every year, it is important to guarantee by law employee and employer’s
rights and duties.
As said before, the importance of
Germany cannot be denied. Not only is chosen as a main destination but also has
the most committed open-door policy: Germans and their leaders are mostly in favor
to keep the country available for working immigrants. An important fact is
that, according to the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, “Germany
issued 85.5 percent of all EU Blue Cards that were granted in
2015”.
Source: © BAMF|Source: Eurostat 2015
It is good to remark that, “in the
context of the important demographic challenges that will face the Union in the
future with an increased demand for labour, flexible immigration policies will
make an important contribution to the Union’s economic development and
performance in the long term”, as established in the new Directive. This means
both an opportunity and a challenge as there are still huge differences among
the State Members’ policies –and their inhabitants points of view– that should
be worked on to provide a better perspective for the future of the integration block
that keeps trying to provide answers to major social problems.
Sunday, April 2, 2017
Boletín Informativo del Observatorio de Relaciones Económicas Internacionales (Año 2, número 4)
Editor responsable: Mg. Lautaro M. Ramírez
Coordinadora Editorial: Abog. María Virginia Perrino
Diseño y Edición: Lic. Florencia Suárez
Link de acceso al Boletín: http://www.orei.jursoc.unlp.edu.ar/images/documentos/boletin_4.pdf
Coordinadora Editorial: Abog. María Virginia Perrino
Diseño y Edición: Lic. Florencia Suárez
Link de acceso al Boletín: http://www.orei.jursoc.unlp.edu.ar/images/documentos/boletin_4.pdf
Sunday, March 5, 2017
John Katzenbach: el misterio de una obsesión
“La mayoría de los delitos se olvidan. Todo el mundo sigue con su vida. El delito cae en el olvido. Pero algunos tocan la fibra sensible de la memoria. Son como una llaga que no llega a curarse. Dejan una cicatriz.” Así fue la historia de Tessa Gibson, una adolescente de 13 años que salió de la casa de su amiga y nunca más se supo de ella. Ese, entre otros, es uno de los tantos casos sin resolver que los protagonistas de Personas desconocidas, la novela más reciente de John Katzenbach, deben retomar.
Manteniéndose fiel a su forma de narrar, el escritor retrata a dos miembros de la policía cuyas carreras están en picada: Gabriel “Gabe” Dickinson, con una vida desbarrancada luego de la muerte de su cuñado; y Marta Rodríguez-Johnson, con su trabajo en tela de juicio por accidentalmente matar a su compañero en una redada. En ese punto crítico y antes de echarlos de la fuerza, su jefe decide asignarlos a un área que nadie quiere: el de los casos sin resolver. El problema reside en que “una investigación activa tiene una especie de empuje. Energía. Las piezas encajan como en un rompecabezas. Con aquellos casos había ocurrido lo contrario”.
Es a partir de ese punto en que se empiezan a intercalar –de manera clara y precisa– las acciones y reflexiones de los investigadores, quienes van desentrañando una telaraña de incógnitas que terminan relacionándose con uno de los misterios más importantes de la historia de su pueblo.
Sobre los personajes, cabe destacarse que, además de su nuevo cargo, lo que une a ambos son sus culpas: si bien no fueron responsables de los fallecimientos, el remordimiento los carcome constantemente y les impide un buen desempeño tanto laboral como personal. En este sentido, en la redacción se realizan constantes paralelismos entre cómo se describe cada situación con el pensamiento de cada personaje: tanto para Gabe como para Marta todo es aburrido, deprimente y hasta monótono. Asimismo, debido a sus pasados turbios, ambos personajes tienen pensamientos oscuros –hasta suicidas–, lo que hace que su humor sea bastante negro y contagioso.
Esta situación se mantiene hasta que descubren y se empiezan a obsesionar con “los cuatro tipos muertos” –“Charlie el del Bosque, Larry el corredor matutino, Mark el del coche y Pete el del Apartamento”–, extraños casos del mismo año que fueron archivados por los mismos dos investigadores, detonando una serie de encubrimientos peligrosos, donde más de un involucrado termina amenazado o muerto porque, tal como se dan cuenta, “todo el mundo miente. Solo que algunos mienten con más naturalidad.”
Es importante remarcar que nada de lo que acontece en una novela de Katzenbach es accidental: cada entrevista, cada conversación o encuentro al azar tiene un significado y todo aporta a la indagación principal que busca responder el por qué de cada asesinato. Es por eso que todos los pasos que los investigadores dan, los llevan más cerca del peligro y siempre parecen más las puertas cerradas que las ventanas abiertas debido a que todo genera más incógnitas que respuestas.
De todas formas, el lector cobra una importancia notoria al ser siempre tenido en cuenta para que vaya más adelante que la policía. Siguiendo esa idea, el autor no sólo divide la novela en partes, sino que incluye anotaciones con referencias y capítulos desde las perspectivas de otros personajes, los cuales aportan interesantes impresiones sobre los casos. Asimismo, se invita a generar constantes preguntas, aumentando la tensión debido a las actitudes sospechosas de personas allegadas a los protagonistas. De hecho, en más de una ocasión se llega a la conclusión que Personas desconocidas es una novela que ronda siempre alrededor del pensamiento que “nadie quiere la verdad. Nunca la ha querido nadie. Y nadie la querrá jamás.”
John Katzenbach, quien recientemente fue anunciado como invitado para la 43° Feria Internacional del Libro de Buenos Aires, es un escritor estadounidense instaurado como referente del thriller psicológico. Profesionalmente, se ha dedicado primero al periodismo judicial y luego a la literatura. Tras su gran éxito, muchas de sus novelas han sido adaptadas cinematográficamente con él como guionista.
Autor: John Katzenbach
Editorial: Ediciones B
Cantidad de páginas: 464
Precio: $ 395,00
Colaboración para el diario EL DIA: http://www.eldia.com/nota/2017-3-5-7-37-13-john-katzenbach-el-misterio-de-una-obsesion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)