Systematic Search for Publications

The aim of this note is to establish the legislative position regarding the feeding of fishmeal to ruminants in four countries outside the European Union: Australia, Canada, Japan and the United States.[European Parliament]

The aim of this study is to provide recommendations and guidelines of both a technical and political nature to ensure effective parliamentary oversight of aid provided as budget support. The study, commissioned by the European Parliament, investigated oversight of budget support in Canada, the EC and the European Parliament, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. It researched budget support oversight and how it interfaces with donor agency budget support manages practices to select, approve, monitor and evaluate budget support, and to assess the risks involved. [...] [Alta Fölscher, Ann Bartholomew, Rebecca Carter]

Executive summary
Introduction
I. North America: The origins of the concept of reasonable accommodation
1. United States law
2. Canadian law
II. Council of Europe
1. Religion and belief: the back and forth of the European Court of Human Rights
2. Ethnicity: The Roma as vulnerable group
3. A case-by-case approach
III. European Union
1. A reasonable accommodation duty focused on disability
2. Disability-related "special" characteristics
3. The response of the indirect discrimination device
4. The logic of accommodation is not a new legal phenomenon
IV. Memberstates
1. Religion and belief
1.1 Time off for religious festivals and flexible working hours
1.2 Dietary requirements and slaughtering of animals
1.3 Accommodation of employment or vocational training requirements
1.4 Religious symbols and dress codes
1.5 Other cases
2. Race and ethnic origin
3. Age: Special duties to accommodate young and/or older workers
Conclusion
Bibliography
I. Publications
II. Legislation
III. Case-law

Introduction
I Legal and Social Context
1. The US
2. Canada
3. South Africa
4. India
II Sources of Equality Law
1. Constitutional Sources
2. Statutory Provisions
3. International Law
III Grounds or Protected Characteristics
1. Specifying Grounds
1.1 Constitutional Level
1.2 Statutory Level
2. Intersectionality
IV Coverage
1. Constitutional Level
2. Statutory Level
V Who is Bound?
1. Constitutional Level
2. Statutory Level
VI Definitions of Equality
1. From Formal to Substantive Equality
2. Duty of Accommodation
3. Harassment
VII Affirmative Action
1. USA
2. Canada
3. South Africa
4. India
VIII Justification Defences
Conclusion: A Comparison with EU law
1. Sources of EU Non-discrimination Law
2. Grounds
3. Coverage
4. Scope: Who is Bound?
5. Definitions of Equality, including Defences and Affirmative Action

1 Risk Assessment Methodologies for Critical Infrastructures. Setting the scene
1.1 Introduction
1.2 The policy framework in EU and worldwide
1.2.1 The European programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection (EPCIP)
1.2.2 The US Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP)
1.2.3 National Strategy and Action Plan for Critical Infrastructure Protection in Canada
2 State of the art of Risk Assessment methodologies in EU and worldwide
2.1 Criteria for methodology assessment
2.2 Risk Assessment methodologies: Theoretical Background
2.3 Risk Assessment methodologies in EU and worldwide
2.3.1 Better Infrastructure Risk and Resilience (BIRR)
2.3.2 Protection of Critical Infrastructures - Baseline Protection Concept (BMI)
2.3.3 CARVER2
2.3.4 Critical Infrastructure Modelling Simulation (CIMS)
2.3.5 Critical Infrastructure Protection Decision Support System (CIPDSS)
2.3.6 Critical Infrastructure Protection modelling and Analysis (CIPMA)
2.3.7 CommAspen
2.3.8 COUNTERACT
2.3.9 The DECRIS approach
2.3.10 European Risk Assessment and Contingency Planning Methodologies for Interconnected Energy Networks (EURACOM)
2.3.11 Fast Analysis Infrastructure Tool (FAIT)
2.3.12 Multilayer Infrastructure Network (MIN)
2.3.13 Modular Dynamic Model
2.3.14 Agent-Based Laboratory for Economics (N-ABLE)
2.3.15 Net-Centric Effects-based operations MOdel (NEMO)
2.3.16 Network Security Risk Assessment modelling (NSRAM)
2.3.17 RAMCAP-Plus
2.3.18 Risk and Vulnerability analysis (RVA )
2.3.19 Sandia Risk Assessment Methodology
2.3.20 National Infrastructure Protection Plan Risk Management Framework
2.3.21 Risk Management for Critical Infrastructure Sectors (Canada)
2.4 Gap analysis
References
Summary table of risk assessment methodologies

1 Executive Summary
1.1 Understanding of the situation
1.2 Purpose and scope of stock-taking initiatives
1.3 Project Approach
1.3.1 Data Gathering
1.3.2 Analysis
1.3.3 Synthesis
1.4 Key Insights and Trends
1.4.1 Organizational Model
1.4.2 Strategy & Policy
1.4.3 Methodology & Standards
1.4.4 Public-Private Partnership & International Collaboration
1.4.5 Funding & Human Resources
1.4.6 Training & Exercises
1.4.7 Sector-Specific Key Players & Initiatives
2 Austria
2.1 Summary
2.2 Organisational Model
2.3 Strategy & Policy
2.4 Methodology & Standards
2.5 Public – Private Partnership & International Collaboration
2.6 Funding & Human Resources
2.7 Training & Exercises
2.8 Sector-Specific Key Players & Initiatives
3 Belgium
...
4 Bulgaria
...
5 Cyprus
...
6 Czech Republic
...
7 Denmark
...
8 Estonia
...
9 European Union
...
10 Finland
...
11 France
...
12 Germany
...
13 Greece
..
14 Hungary
..
15 Ireland
...
16 Italy
...
17 Latvia
...
18 Lithuania
...
19 Luxembourg
...
20 Malta21 The Netherlands
...
22 Norway
...
23 Poland
...
24 Portugal
...
25 Romania
...
26 Slovakia
...
27 Slovenia
...
28 Spain
...
29 Sweden
...
30 United Kingdom
...
31 Worldwide CIP Research Report
31.1 R&D ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE EU COUNTRIES
31.1.1 Summary
31.1.2 United States31.1.4 Japan
31.1.5 Brazil
31.1.6 Australia
31.2 Academic forums
32 Annex: Member State Summary Report

With the development towards comprehensive and more sophisticated border control regimes, the problem of protection seekers’ access to EU territory has increasingly come into focus. Disorderly movement is presently the main avenue to safety in the EU, and human smugglers act as important facilitators. Single European states have sought ways out of this dilemma, and pioneered techniques of externalised processing. One of them is the operation of Protected Entry Procedures from the platform of diplomatic representations, allowing a non-national-to approach the potential host state outside its territory with a claim for asylum or other form of international protection, and-to be granted an entry permit in case of a positive response to that claim, be it preliminary or final.Provided they are well-crafted, Protected Entry Procedures could drain parts of the market for human smuggling, attract bona fide refugees who presently opt for the smuggling services and thereby decrease the total number of disorderly arrivals and partially eliminate the problem of returning the rejected caseload. An obvious security advantage for states is to know in advance who wishes to enter their territory. In addition, important synergies with integration and labour immigration policies can be created.[Author vide copyright]

1 Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 Objective of the Study
1.3 Methodology
1.4 Defining Protected Entry Procedures and Related Concepts
1.5 Convergence Areas between Protected Entry Procedures and Other Protection Regimes
2 Processing Asylum Claims Outside the EU: Historical Precedents and Current Debates
2.1 Protection and Evacuation by Embassies during the Holocaust
2.2 Post-War Practices and Debates
...
3 The Legal Dimensions of Protected Entry Procedures
3.1 The Relevance of International, Supranational and Domestic Law
3.2 The Applicability of Protective Norms of International Law
...
3.3 Protected Entry Procedures and the Law of the European Union
4 Modelling Protected Entry Procedures
4.1 Protected Entry Procedures and its Relation to Other Systems of Refugee Protection
...
4.2 Unilateral Approaches or Multilateral Cooperation?
4.3 Inclusiveness and Formalisation
4.4 Filter Elements in Protected Entry Procedures
...
5 Benefits and Drawbacks of Protected Entry Procedures
5.1 Enhanced Control and the Gradual Drainage of the Smuggling Market
5.2 Will Numbers Increase, Decrease or Remain Unaffected?
5.3 Trade-Offs in the Area of Beneficiaries’ Substantive and Procedural Rights
...
5.4 Reception During Procedures and the Rejected Caseload
5.5 Risk and Cost Redistribution
5.6 Potential Synergies with Integration Policies
5.7 Potential Synergies with Labour Immigration Policies
5.8 The Added Value of the EU in Crafting External Processing Regimes
6 Current Systems for Processing Asylum Claims Outside the EU and Selected Host States
6.1 Practice in States Operating Formal Protected Entry Procedures
...
| 6.2 Practice in States Not Operating a Formal Protected Entry Procedure
...
6.3 Practice in Three Non-EU Resettlement Countries
...
7 The Development Potential of External Processing in Europe
7.1 Comparative Overview and Critical Analysis of Existing Solutions...
...
7.2Future Scenarios for Processing Asylum Claims Outside the EU
...
8 Conclusions
Table of Cases
Bibliography