| 1. |
- Almered Olsson, Gunilla, 1951, et al.
(author)
-
Food systems sustainability: For whom and by whom? – An examination of different 'food system change' viewpoints
- 2018
-
In: Development Research Conference 2018: “Rethinking development”, 22–23 August 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden.
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The United Nations identifies the food crisis as one of the primary overarching challenges facing the international community. Different stakeholders in the food system have widely different perspectives and interests, and challenging structural issues, such as the power differentials among them, remain largely unexamined. These challenges make rational discourse among food system actors from different disciplines, sectors and levels difficult. These challenges can often prevent them from working together effectively to find innovative ways to respond to food security challenges. This means that finding solutions to intractable and stuck issues, such as the food crisis often stall, not at implementation, but at the point of problem identification. Food system sustainability means very different things to different food system actors. These differences in no way undermine or discount the work carried out by these players. However, making these differences explicit is an essential activity that would serve to deepen theoretical and normative project outcomes. Would the impact and reach of different food projects differ if these differences were made explicit? The purpose of this initial part of a wider food system research project is not to search for difference or divergence, with the aim of critique, but rather to argue that by making these differences explicit, the overall food system project engagement will be made more robust, more inclusive and more encompassing. This paper starts with some discussion on the different food system perspectives, across scales, regions and sectors but focuses primarily on the design of processes used to understand these divergent and at times contradictory views of what a sustainable food system may be. This paper draws on ongoing work within the Mistra Urban Futures project, using the food system projects in cities as diverse as Cape Town, Manchester, Gothenburg and Kisumu as sites for this enquiry.
|
|
| 2. |
- Andersson, Anna, et al.
(author)
-
Innledning :
- 2018
-
In: Fremmedkrigere. - Oslo : Gyldendal Juridisk. - 9788205502642 ; , s. 9-23
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 3. |
- Schömer, Eva, 1960-, et al.
(author)
-
Jämställdhetens dilemman
- 2003. - 1
-
In: Mer än bara kvinnor och än. - Lund : Studentlitteratur. - 9789144024660 ; , s. 89-118, s. 89-117
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Inghammar, Andreas, 1972-
(author)
-
Empowering National Labour Courts - At Work?
- 2009
-
In: Empowering National Courts in EU Law. - Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies : EO Grafiska AB. - 9789186107093 ; 2009:3, s. 54-76
-
Book chapter (pop. science, debate, etc.)
|
|
| 6. |
- Papadopoulou, Frantzeska, 1977-
(author)
-
Supplementary Protection Certificates : still a grey area?
- 2016
-
In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. - : Oxford University Press. - 1747-1532 .- 1747-1540. ; 11:5, s. 372-381
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) were introduced in 1992, and have since been considered a very valuable tool for the pharmaceutical industry, allowing for market prolongation and compensating for the effective patent protection time lost in the process of market authorization.Over the past five years, numerous Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rulings have attempted to interpret the provisions of EU Regulation 1901/2009 and provide clarity to patent holders as well as generics manufacturers as to the protection requirements and the scope of protection awarded. This article analyses the implication of major CJEU cases concerning the interpretation of Articles 3(a), 3(d) and 1(b) of the Regulation.The article also discusses the interrelation between the EU SPC Regulation, on the one hand, and the Market Authorization Regulation and the Market Authorization Directive, on the other, and compares the EU system with that provided by the USA. An analysis of recent case law reveals that now, some 25 years after the entry into force of the Regulation, the system is still obscure. A serious concern also arises as to whether the system as it stands today is simply inappropriate to the protection of modern pharmaceuticals and whether this is also one of the reasons for the growing volume of case law in the field.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Söderberg, Andreas, et al.
(author)
-
Forensic psychiatric patients’ experiences of participating in administrative court proceedings concerning the continuation of forensic psychiatric care
- 2023
-
In: Frontiers in Psychiatry. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 1664-0640. ; 14
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Introduction: Previous studies show that both staff and patients describe patient participation as a challenge in forensic psychiatry. One reason may be that the forensic psychiatric process is difficult to understand and is experienced as being slow and complex. The proceedings in an administrative court are a core element in forensic psychiatric care as it constitutes the legal authority that legitimizes the deprivation of liberty. A better understanding about how patients experience these proceedings can contribute with important knowledge about how forensic psychiatric care can be understood from a patient perspective. The aim of the study was to describe patients’ lived experiences of participating in oral hearings in an administrative court concerning the continuation of their forensic psychiatric care. Materials and methods: This is a phenomenological study performed in a Swedish context with a total of 20 interviews conducted with a Reflective Lifeworld Research (RLR) approach. Results: The results reveal three themes; A significant, correct but meaningless formality; An imbalance of power within the hearings; and Existential and practical disorientation. Conclusion: The findings show how these court proceedings concerning the continuation of forensic psychiatric care are often experienced as challenging. This is partly due to the care structure in forensic psychiatry and that the purpose of the hearings is difficult to comprehend and is perceived as unjust by patients. Another challenge is of a more existential dimension, where the main character in a hearing is most likely in a situation that would be stressful for anyone. However, the focus on danger can make this experience even more intense. An increased transparency on this legal process along with more discussion and education for both patients and staff is called for based on the results.
|
|
