DOCSLIB.ORG

Milano Paper

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Milano Paper No state can do it alone - Private sector involvement in the civil security provision in Europe 1 Vera-Karin Brazova Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences [email protected] DRAFT VERSION. PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT PERMISSION. COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. 1 The paper was supported by the Specific Research Grant of the Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences Nr. 260 232 1 ABSTRACT Protecting society from devastating disasters is a fundamental function of the modern state. In this respect, the concept of resilience to disasters (and the application thereof) has enjoyed a steep rise in popularity in the civil security policymaking and crisis management over the last years. Most importantly, it stresses the need for a broad involvement of stakeholders in the prevention, mitigation and response efforts. In this respect, however, the European countries differ significantly. While in some countries (such as e.g. the Netherlands), the civil security provision is highly privatized, in other countries the opposite is the case and most of the civil security-related activities rest upon the state. Similarly, the importance of civic organizations' involvement differs significantly. It is the aim of this paper to shed more light on these differences, framing the findings within the security governance approach (Krahmann 2003). Building on the governance framework, the paper identifies and analyzes different dimensions of civil security governance in the European countries. Firstly, the role of the societal engagement, non-profit organizations and profit-oriented organizations in the civil security provision is examined, followed by other dimensions as identified in the literature on resilience and security and disaster management. These concern decentralization of civil security provision, international engagement and the use of the military in civil security operations. Particular attention is paid to the post-communist new member states of the EU. It is examined whether these represent a distinctive group with specific patterns of (rather low) private involvement in the civil security provision or whether more universal patterns apply. To achieve this, a hierarchical cluster analysis is conducted, based on the data gathered within a large-scale collaborative research project (European Commission's FP7 project ANVIL). The paper seeks to answer the following research questions: How does the civil security governance vary in the European countries? And are there any patterns identifiable among these variations? 2 1. INTRODUCTION In the field of security, there has been a clear trend in most societies of citizens expecting good governance, yet with less government. With an increasing pressure on effectiveness, public service functions, including some fields of security, have been increasingly placed in private hands and outsourced through contracting. While public expectations of government performance in ensuring civil security remain high even in the face of a widening spectrum of threats, the resources available to the public authorities are limited (Hamilton et al. 2005). At the operative level, the consequences thereof can be seen in the changing structures of the national civil security systems, such as e.g. the deployment of the military to deal with internal security issues like natural disasters. Concurrently, the geographical scope has broadened to include not only the nation state but also whole regions in the case of transboundary threats or even the world as a whole, as the term "global security" suggests (Daase, 2010: 30-32). Institutional plurality and mixed deliveries of public goods have generally started to gain on importance and to be viewed as an effective strategy enhancing governance capacities (Hefetz et al. 2014, Huitema et al. 2009). While there is a growing acceptance of "governance" based on the "belief that the focus of administrative practice is shifting from hierarchical government toward greater reliance on horizontal, hybridized, and associational forms of governance" (Hill, Lynn 2005: 1), implying a larger inclusion of different atakeholders, the empirical evidence thereof - as it is argued by Hill and Lynn (ibid.) - is limited. So far, the analyses of (civil) security governance have concentrated at the international (EU) level (Krahmann 2003; Kirchner 2006) or - on the contrary - at very narrow and specific topics, such as citizen's involvement in flood risk management through information and communication technologies (Wehn et al. 2015). A comprehensive comparative is lacking so far in the civil security realm. The goal of this article is thus to attempt an empirical explorative analysis regarding governance in the field of civil security. The term civil security refers especially to extraordinary events, including vulnerability reduction, response and recovery measures (Dory 2003). Despite a considerable degree of convergence among the European countries in this area (Hamilton et al. 2005) - especially due to EU Directives, such as the so-called Floods Directive 2 or the Directive on Critical Infrastructures 3, significant differences exist (Lethbridge 2007). Apart from differences in the nature of the prevalent crises and in geographical conditions, cultural underpinnings of disaster preparedness and response are reported to be of a significant importance as well (Gopalakrishnan, Okada 2007). While many comparative studies conducted in this field have typically focused on two countries or regions only (see e.g. Lai 2012; Saban 2013), the aim here is to involve more states into the analysis and thus to discuss patterns of similarities and differences in their civil security governance systems. In particular, the research questions are: How does the civil security governance vary in the European countries? And are there any patterns identifiable among these variations? To 2 2007/60/EC 3 2008/114/EC 3 answer these questions, the paper builds on the data collected within the EU 7th framework project ANVIL ("Analysis of Civil Security Systems in Europe") within which data on civil protection and disaster management systems in 22 European countries were collected. In the first part, general features of civil security governance are outlined. Followingly, based on the literature review, key dimensions of civil security governance are identified and discussed for the European states, based on qualitative analysis of the ANVIL country reports. In the next section, cluster analysis is conducted, based on the previously identified dimensions, using the ANVIL coded datasheets. Finally, results are discussed in the concluding part. 2. CIVIL SECURITY GOVERNANCE The use of the term "governance" varies with respect to the issues covered and levels of analysis applied. In the field of security studies, the concept of "security governance" (Krahmann 2003) has emerged, stressing the shift from centralized security structures towards more fragmented and complex ones. The core of the concept of security governance refers to the fragmentation of authority and resources in security policymaking and implementation among different governmental and non-governmental stakeholders, while the transnational and international relations are increasingly regulated in particular areas (Krahmann 2003b). Security governance is seen as a helpful framework for studying the interactions between a diverse number of actors (Kirchner 2006), yet governance in civil security has not been fully conceptualized as yet. A very emerging - and somewhat similar - concept is here the one of disaster governance (Tierney 2012), however it is still remaining quite fuzzy to grasp and more research on this topic is needed (ibid.). Thus, a "collateral" aim of this paper is to provide such conceptualization - identifying dimensions alongside which the civil security governance could be studied and compared among different countries. From an analytical perspective, based on the review of the literature on security governance, the following aspects are of utmost importance: Firstly, the incentive to cooperate and to engage the private sector in security matters often stems from the growing demands on the provision of security on the one hand; and from the limited resources available for the security provision on the other hand (ibid.). Secondly, according to Krahmann (ibid.), security governance is fragmented among governmental and non-governmental actors. At the same time, some endeavors are marked by a "disjuncture between the enthusiasm (...) and the lack of interest" concerning bureaucratic elites on the one hand and the wider communities on the other hand (Breslin, Higgott, 2000: 345). According to some scholars, "citizens in the former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe (...) participate less in voluntary organizations than their Western counterparts" (Uslaner 2004: 81; see also Petrova, Tarrow 2007; Cottey et al. 2002). This feature, when identified, is often linked with the issue of trust, in line with Putnam's (1993) concept of civic community (ibid.: 82). Yet, as this is commonly ascribed to the developing social capital of these societies (ibid.: 83), the differences might not be as large now as in 2000s. A working hypothesis could thus stand that the civic sector involvement is larger in "western" European countries with longer democratic tradition. 4 Although concerns about privatization have been risen especially in the field of military security with respect to the private military companies (Scahill,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Raphael Bossong, LSE
    Challenge Working Paper July 2007 The politics of subterfuge and EU JHA governance capacity Raphael Bossong, LSE This paper starts out from a puzzle: Why is EU JHA characterized by frustrations and blockades, while it is at the same time one of the most dynamic policy-areas?1 Posed in such general terms, this question is almost impossible to answer: Not only is EU JHA policy2 a highly diverse, but has also seen phases of ambitious agenda-setting contrasted by periods of stagnation.3 Therefore, a convincing answer to the above puzzle would require an extensive historical exposition of this policy area, which is beyond the scope of this paper. Here I only intend to review some general factors that inform EU’s current governance capacity in JHA,4 giving particular emphasis to the problems posed by unanimous decision- making in the Third Pillar.5 This structuralist approach cannot explain any particular instances of EU JHA policy-making on its own,6 but it aims to inform subsequent case studies. The paper proceeds in four steps. In a first part, I will discuss the EU’s structural obstacles to unanimous decision-making from a rationalist perspective. For this purpose I draw heavily on the work of Fritz Scharpf (1997) and Adrianne Héritier (1999) who have introduced many useful insights from comparative politics and policy analysis into EU studies. In the second part, I will survey different strategies for successful policy-making under extensive structural constraints to account for the dynamic development of EU JHA policy in recent years. This overview will be broken down into the classic dimensions of policy, polity and politics.
    [Show full text]
  • NMR Project Proposal
    www.ssoar.info National minority 'regions' in the enlarged European Union: mobilizing for third level politics? Malloy, Tove H. Arbeitspapier / working paper Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Malloy, T. H. (2005). National minority 'regions' in the enlarged European Union: mobilizing for third level politics? (ECMI Working Paper, 24). Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI). https://nbn-resolving.org/ urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-63119 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer Deposit-Lizenz (Keine This document is made available under Deposit Licence (No Weiterverbreitung - keine Bearbeitung) zur Verfügung gestellt. Redistribution - no modifications). We grant a non-exclusive, non- Gewährt wird ein nicht exklusives, nicht übertragbares, transferable, individual and limited right to using this document. persönliches und beschränktes Recht auf Nutzung dieses This document is solely intended for your personal, non- Dokuments. Dieses Dokument ist ausschließlich für commercial use. All of the copies of this documents must retain den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen Gebrauch bestimmt. all copyright information and other information regarding legal Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments müssen alle protection. You are not allowed to alter this document in any Urheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise auf gesetzlichen way, to copy it for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the Schutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses Dokument document in public, to perform, distribute or otherwise use the nicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen Sie document in public. dieses Dokument für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke By using this particular document, you accept the above-stated vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, aufführen, vertreiben oder conditions of use. anderweitig nutzen. Mit der Verwendung dieses Dokuments erkennen Sie die Nutzungsbedingungen an.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2019
    Annual Report 2019 Who we are What we want How we work Table of Contents Foreword ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Climate justice – now! ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Shaping a new energy system ........................................................................................................................ 4 For a responsible infrastructure and raw materials policy ................................................................ 6 Promoting sustainable agriculture and development .......................................................................... 8 Strengthening democracy and human rights .........................................................................................10 Strengthening women’s and LGBTI rights .............................................................................................12 Towards a sustainable and humane migration policy ........................................................................14 For European solidarity in times of crisis ...............................................................................................16 30th anniversary of the Peaceful Revolution – promoting a strong democracy! ...................18 A just society needs intact public spaces .................................................................................................19
    [Show full text]
  • Licensing and Differential Object Marking: the View from Neo-Aramaic Laura Kalin
    Syntax 21:2, June 2018, 112–159 DOI: 10.1111/synt.12153 Licensing and Differential Object Marking: The View from Neo-Aramaic Laura Kalin Abstract. I propose a novel analysis of differential object marking (DOM) that revolves around nominal licensing and, unlike most previous accounts, does not appeal to object visibility (e.g., Danon 2006, Lyutikova & Pereltsvaig 2015), object raising (e.g., Bhatt & Anagnostopoulou 1996, Baker & Vinokurova 2010), or object differentiation or identification (e.g., Aissen 2003, De Hoop & Malchukov 2008). I argue (i) that not all nominals need abstract licensing (following Massam 2001, Danon 2006, Ormazabal & Romero 2013), but also that all nominals have the potential to be licensed, that is, all nominals are visible to case and agreement processes; (ii) that the set of objects that are overtly marked (e.g., by case or agreement) can reveal the set of nominals that require licensing in a language, and (iii) that clauses typically have one obligatory nominal licenser, with secondary licensers merging only when needed for convergence (following Levin & Massam 1985; Bobaljik 1993; Laka 1993, 2000; Rezac 2011). Taken together, I show that variation in the types of nominals that need licensing and the location/identity of obligatory and secondary licensers can derive crosslinguistic differences in case, agreement, and DOM patterns. This unified account simplifies our understanding of nominal licensing within and across languages, as it does not require objects to have special properties as compared to subjects, nor does it fundamentally differentiate DOM languages from non-DOM languages. The motivating data come largely from the Neo-Aramaic language Senaya, which clearly illustrates that certain nominals can occupy a position where abstract licensing is unavailable.
    [Show full text]
  • Islam Councils
    THE MUSLIM QUESTION IN EUROPE Peter O’Brien THE MUSLIM QUESTION IN EUROPE Political Controversies and Public Philosophies TEMPLE UNIVERSITY PRESS Philadelphia • Rome • Tokyo TEMPLE UNIVERSITY PRESS Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122 www.temple.edu/tempress Copyright © 2016 by Temple University—Of Th e Commonwealth System of Higher Education All rights reserved Published 2016 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: O’Brien, Peter, 1960– author. Title: Th e Muslim question in Europe : political controversies and public philosophies / Peter O’Brien. Description: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania : Temple University Press, 2016. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifi ers: LCCN 2015040078| ISBN 9781439912768 (cloth : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781439912775 (paper : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781439912782 (e-book) Subjects: LCSH: Muslims—Europe—Politics and government. | Islam and politics—Europe. Classifi cation: LCC D1056.2.M87 O27 2016 | DDC 305.6/97094—dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015040078 Th e paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992 Printed in the United States of America 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 For Andre, Grady, Hannah, Galen, Kaela, Jake, and Gabriel Contents Acknowledgments ix 1 Introduction: Clashes within Civilization 1 2 Kulturkampf 24 3 Citizenship 65 4 Veil 104 5 Secularism 144 6 Terrorism 199 7 Conclusion: Messy Politics 241 Aft erword 245 References 249 Index 297 Acknowledgments have accumulated many debts in the gestation of this study. Arleen Harri- son superintends an able and amiable cadre of student research assistants I without whose reliable and competent support this book would not have been possible.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Schengen. Internal Border Controls As a Growing
    NO. 44 OCTOBER 2018 Introduction The Future of Schengen Internal Border Controls as a Growing Challenge to the EU and the Nordics Raphael Bossong and Tobias Etzold The free movement of people is considered one of the key achievements of the Euro- pean Union. Even though the Schengen Agreement has survived the most difficult phase of the refugee crisis, it is now under threat again. It is no longer possible to reconcile temporary internal border controls that Germany, France, Austria, Sweden, Denmark and Norway introduced in 2015 with the stipulated deadlines and proce- dures of the Schengen regulation. The common European regime is increasingly at risk due to concerns over narrow domestic policies or that individual countries, in particular Denmark, will exit. Such a potential break would be drastic, especially for the Nordic states where the principle of open internal borders has previously been practiced for decades, but whose recent controls have so far received less attention in the European debate. A compromise is, therefore, urgently required to fully restore the free movement of people in the Schengen area whilst, at the same time, taking greater account of the security interests of the member states. As the main trigger for border controls, Germany has a key role to play here. During the height of the refugee crisis be- This sharply contradicted the principle of a tween autumn 2015 and spring 2016, six borderless North, not least as these actions Schengen member states introduced con- were hardly coordinated with each other. trols at some of their internal European Meanwhile, France was forced to declare borders.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the EU's Added Value in the Area of Terrorism Prevention
    Economics of Security Working Paper Series Raphael Bossong Assessing the EU’s Added Value in the Area of Terrorism Prevention and Violent Radicalisation January 2012 Economics of Security Working Paper 60 This publication is an output of EUSECON, a research project supported by the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme. Economics of Security is an initiative managed by DIW Berlin Economics of Security Working Paper Series Correct citation: Bossong, R. (2012). “Assessing the EU’s Added Value in the Area of Terrorism Prevention and Violent Radicalisation”. Economics of Security Working Paper 60, Berlin: Economics of Security. First published in 2012 © Raphael Bossong 2012 ISSN: 1868-0488 For further information, please contact: Economics of Security, c/o Department of Development and Security, DIW Berlin – German Institute for Economic Research, Mohrenstr. 58, 10117 Berlin, Germany. Tel: +49 (0)30 89 789-277 Email: [email protected] Website: www.economics-of-security.eu Economics of Security is an initiative managed by DIW Berlin Assessing the EU’s added value in the area of terrorism prevention and violent radicalisation Raphael Bossong Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy University of Hamburg [email protected] This paper questions the effectiveness and the prospects of EU efforts to prevent terrorism and violent radicalisation. After the terrorist of attacks of Madrid and London,, member states agreed on a comprehensive strategy to prevent radicalisation and recruitment into terrorism, but simultaneously underlined the limits of EU competences. The European Commission therefore focused on indirect measures, such as research support. Over time, however, both flexible cooperation among a subset of member states and new EU initiatives generated few or biased policy outputs.
    [Show full text]
  • Countering Terrorism and Organized Crime: EU Perspectives Raphael Bossong, Europa University Viadrina, Frankfurt (O.)
    EU-China Security Cooperation: performance and prospects Policy paper series, Summer 2014 Countering Terrorism and Organized Crime: EU Perspectives Raphael Bossong, Europa University Viadrina, Frankfurt (O.) 1. INTRODUCTION Over the last fifteen years, it has been commonplace to view terrorism and organized crime as the most pressing transnational security issues for Europe, while conventional military threats have – at least until recently – been de-emphasized. The 2003 EU Security Strategy argued that “large-scale aggression against any Member State is now improbable. Instead, Europe faces new threats which are more diverse, less visible and less predictable”.1 Yet despite the global repercussions of 9/11, conceptions of appropriate counterterrorist polices strongly diverge between Europe and many other parts of the world. The kinds of terrorist threats faced by China and Europe also share very few similarities. China faces various separatists’ movements that occasionally resort to terrorist attacks, while in Europe serious ethnic-separatist terrorism, as exemplified by ETA or the IRA, has been on the decline. The EU has instead mostly been concerned with Islamic radicals and, to a lesser degree, political right- or left-wing extremists. Chinese attempts to associate ethnic separatists, mainly the Uighurs, with global Islamic terrorism, have not generally been accepted by Western countries. If one adds the long-standing disputes over the status of Tibet and the principle of non-intervention, discussions on terrorism appear to be a potential spoiler of EU-Chinese relations rather than a basis for cooperation. The area of organized crime presents a different picture. The expansion of globalization and deep economic ties between Europe and Asia has been shadowed by the growth and diversification of organized crime groups.
    [Show full text]
  • EU Border Security in a Time of Pandemic. Restoring the Schengen
    www.ssoar.info EU border security in a time of pandemic: restoring the Schengen regime in the face of old conflicts and new requirements for public health Bossong, Raphael Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Stellungnahme / comment Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Bossong, R. (2020). EU border security in a time of pandemic: restoring the Schengen regime in the face of old conflicts and new requirements for public health. (SWP Comment, 28/2020). Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik - SWP- Deutsches Institut für Internationale Politik und Sicherheit. https://doi.org/10.18449/2020C28 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer Deposit-Lizenz (Keine This document is made available under Deposit Licence (No Weiterverbreitung - keine Bearbeitung) zur Verfügung gestellt. Redistribution - no modifications). We grant a non-exclusive, non- Gewährt wird ein nicht exklusives, nicht übertragbares, transferable, individual and limited right to using this document. persönliches und beschränktes Recht auf Nutzung dieses This document is solely intended for your personal, non- Dokuments. Dieses Dokument ist ausschließlich für commercial use. All of the copies of this documents must retain den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen Gebrauch bestimmt. all copyright information and other information regarding legal Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments müssen alle protection. You are not allowed to alter this document in any Urheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise auf gesetzlichen way, to copy it for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the Schutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses Dokument document in public, to perform, distribute or otherwise use the nicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen Sie document in public.
    [Show full text]
  • Zeitenwende | Wendezeiten
    Zeitenwende Wendezeiten Special Edition of the Munich Security Report on German Foreign and Security Policy October 2020 October 2020 Zeitenwende | Wendezeiten Special Edition of the Munich Security Report on German Foreign and Security Policy Tobias Bunde Laura Hartmann Franziska Stärk Randolf Carr Christoph Erber Julia Hammelehle Juliane Kabus With guest contributions by Elbridge Colby, François Heisbourg, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, Andrey Kortunov, Shivshankar Menon, David Miliband, Ana Palacio, Kevin Rudd, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Nathalie Tocci, and Huiyao Wang. Table of Contents Foreword 4 Foreword by former Federal President Joachim Gauck 8 Executive Summary 11 1 Introduction: The Munich Consensus 17 2 Security Situation: Zeitenwende 26 3 Dependencies: Wonderful Together, 50 Vulnerable Together 4 Investments: Instrumental Reasoning 74 5 Public Opinion: Folk Wisdom 106 6 Decision-making Processes: Berlin Disharmonic 144 7 Outlook: Wendezeiten 166 Notes 176 Endnotes 177 List of Figures 203 Image Sources 210 List of Abbreviations 211 Team 214 Acknowledgments 215 Imprint 217 ZEITENWENDE | WENDEZEITEN Foreword Dear Reader, In recent years, the Munich Security Conference (MSC) has highlighted a wide variety of security policy issues at its events in all corners of the world – from Madrid to Minsk, from Tel Aviv to New York, from Abuja Wolfgang Ischinger to Stavanger. In doing so, we focused primarily on international challenges. At our events, however, we were increasingly confronted with questions about Germany’s positions – sometimes with fear and unease about whether Berlin was, for example, taking certain threats seriously enough – but almost always with great expectations of our country. At home, on the other hand, people still regularly underestimate how important our country is now considered to be almost everywhere in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Prosody in Spanish-Portuguese Contact
    Prosody in Spanish-Portuguese Contact Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades der Doktorin der Philosophie bei der Fakultät für Geisteswissenschaften der Universität Hamburg vorgelegt von Elena Kirilova Kireva (Haskovo, Bulgarien) Hamburg, 2016 Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Christoph Gabriel Zweitgutachterin: Prof. Dr. Trudel Meisenburg Datum der Disputation: 15. September 2015 Angenommen von der Fakultät für Geisteswissenschaften der Universität Hamburg am: 16. September 2015 Veröffentlicht mit Genehmigung der Fakultät für Geisteswissenschaften der Universität Hamburg am: 01. September 2016 To my grandparents Elenka Petkova and Yordan Petkov i Abstract The contact varieties Olivenza Portuguese and Olivenza Spanish, spoken in the border area between Extremadura (Spain) and Alto Alentejo (Portugal), have long been disregarded in research on both intonation and speech rhythm. The present work aims to fill this gap by in- vestigating the intonation and the speech rhythm of Olivenza Portuguese spoken by bilingual speakers and of Olivenza Spanish spoken by monolingual speakers and by offering a detailed description of the intonational and rhythmic patterns of these two contact varieties. Such a description contributes, first, to a better knowledge of the varieties spoken in the Romance space, second, to a documentation of a dying variety, namely Olivenza Portuguese, and third, to a better understanding of how prosodic systems in language contact situations change. To achieve the goals presented above, semi-spontaneous speech recorded from ten bi- lingual speakers of Olivenza Portuguese and ten monolingual speakers of Olivenza Spanish was examined. The material analyzed with respect to both intonation and speech rhythm in- cludes neutral and biased declaratives, neutral and biased yes-no questions, neutral and biased wh-questions, echo questions, and imperatives.
    [Show full text]
  • 24Th European Police Congress 14Th–15Th September 2021, Berlin
    24th European Police Congress 14th–15th September 2021, Berlin Europe in crisis mode: Legitimacy – Leadership – Equipment www.european-police.eu.de Organized by Main Program Tuesday, 14th September 2021 08:45 hrs Welcome to the 24th European Police Congress R. Uwe Proll, Editor-in-Chief and Publisher, Behörden Spiegel ü 09:00 hrs Opening Session Andreas Geisel, Senator for the Interior and Sport Berlin ü Hans-Georg Engelke, State Secretary at the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community ü Karl Nehammer, Federal Minister of the Interior, Republic of Austria ü Luis Carrilho, Director Police Division / United Nations Police Advisor ü 10:30 hrs Incident Management and Crisis Response - Harnessing Potential Andreas Kleinknecht, Senior Director of the Public Sector division, Member of the executive board of Microsoft Deutschland ü 11:00 hrs Coffee Break 11:45 Hrs Panel Session 1 1A Border security in Europe 1B Cybercrime – phenomena and challenges 1C Safe equipment for the police 1D Dying on Europe‘s streets - how much longer? 1E From the infrastructure to the end device: secure mobile 1F From the collection of digital traces to the evaluation of data communication 1G AI: technology for security authorities 13:15 hrs Lunch Parallel to the main program (14:45 - 15:35 hrs) 14:40 hrs Policing during and after the crisis Automated unmanned aerial systems Impulse Chair: Prof Dr Wilhelm Schmidbauer, Chief Constable, Bavarian State Ministry ü Heinz-Dieter Meier, Director Federal Police (rtd.) ü of the Interior, for Sport and Integration Speakers: Discussion Matthias Gronstedt, Managing Director, HHLA Sky ü 15:00 hrs R.
    [Show full text]