The study aims to better understand which challenges and possibilities there are for increasing more sustainable and healthy food (i.e. food sovereignty) within the school food sector in different geographical places in Sweden, and how schools and other relevant actors can lead the way towards more sustainable food systems. This has been examined through a case study of the EU-funded SchoolFood4Change (SF4C) project, with a special focus on the two participating municipalities in Sweden: Umeå kommun and Malmö Stad. The method chosen is qualitative semi-structured interviews, which have been conducted with several key actors connected to the school food sector and the SF4C project. It includes procurers, project managers, food producers, and school chefs. The result showed that there are both possibilities and challenges when it comes to developing more sustainable food systems. Possibilities include, for example, a chance for new forms of collaboration between sectors, and an opportunity for everyone involved to gain more knowledge and understanding of the food we eat. Challenges on the other hand include time limitations, lack of communication, and economic problems for organic small-scale farmers. Further, there are differences between Umeå and Malmö that affect their ability to create sustainable school food systems. For example, they are located in different hardiness zones, and the structure of the project groups differs. Lastly, each actor plays a significant role in creating sustainable food systems.

yes / This paper focuses on why shared sovereignty in general has been problematic and why the political economy of liberal peace has had limited impacts on poverty and the role of crime in Southeast Europe. The analysis begins with shared sovereignty and its relevance to economic development. The paper then outlines the discouraging economic situation evidenced by documentation and fieldwork. I then ask the question `how do people cope?¿, and try to answer this with reference to the labour market and the non-observable economy. The argument is that economy of survival has been both a negotiation with, and resistance to, economic policies introduced from outside. Finally, the paper contemplates political economy approaches that emphasise production and employment creation.

[pt] Nesta dissertação, proponho reformular o conceito de soberania através de uma atitude de diagnóstica política. Para articular esta linha alternativa de investigação, sugiro que o trabalho de Georges Bataille sobre soberania e a crítica de Immanuel Kant quanto aos limites da representação política partilham da problemática da política moderna de subjetividade, de modo que permanecem especialmente relevantes para o nosso presente. A análise prossegue através de leituras de críticas à política internacional preocupadas com questões de mudança política. Jens Bartelson, Martti Koskenniemi e Nicholas Onuf nos fornecem análises sofisticadas sobre a relação entre política e direito nos processos produtivos dos limites da modernidade política. Por fim, acompanho os movimentos diagnósticos presentes nestes textos até o limite que os possibilita. Concluo argumentando que a natureza deste limite exige uma ligeira mudança na sua problematização, caso contrário corremos o risco de perder nuanças importantes na forma como autoridade política autoriza a si própria sob a condições contemporâneas que informam of problema da soberania. / [en] In this dissertation, I propose to re-cast the concept of sovereignty through a political diagnostic attitude. In order to articulate this alternative line of inquire, I suggest that Georges Bataille s work on sovereignty and Immanuel Kant s critique of the limits of political representation share the problematic of modern political subjectivity in ways that remain poignantly relevant to our present. The analysis proceeds through close textual readings of critiques of international politics concerned with questions of political change. Jens Bartelson, Martti Koskenniemi and Nicholas Onuf provide us with sophisticate analyses about the relationship between politics and law in the knowledgeable production of the limits of political modernity. Lastly, I follow the diagnostic movements present in those texts up to the limit that enables them. I conclude by arguing that the nature of this limit demands a slight shift in problematization, otherwise we risk missing important nuances in how political authority authorizes itself under the contemporary conditions that inform the problem of sovereignty.

In K-12 education, student voice is not often considered when establishing curriculum, addressing school policy, or creating a climate that reflects culturally inclusive teaching practices. Across education systems serving Indigenous communities within the United States, the voices of youth as a form of contribution are silenced, which echoes further attempts towards the erasure of the existence of these communities. The context of the study highlighted various strengths through their traditions, languages, and cultural teachings. While Indigenous communities exist globally, this study centered on Indigenous communities from the North American continent, specifically those Native to the Hawaiian Islands. To learn about the lived experiences of Indigenous youth’s strengths embedded in cultural assets, the following research questions guided this qualitative study: 1) What wisdom and cultural practices do Indigenous youth carry with them into schools? and 2) In what ways can educators support youth voice through culturally sustaining and revitalizing pedagogical practices? This research leveraged Yosso’s (2005) Community Cultural Wealth framework and McCarty and Leeʻs (2014) Culturally Sustaining and Revitalizing Pedagogy to highlight diverse forms of capital embedded within Indigenous youth. Analysis revealed significant themes related to various forms of cultural wisdom and knowledge in that embody the circle of reciprocity, community, Indigenous forms of artistry, and advocacy. Recommendations for integrating culturally sustainable and revitalizing pedagogical practices are provided for school administrators and educators.

[pt] O caso de Svalbard é ilustrativo da performatividade da Noruega para assegurar a sua soberania no Ártico face à Rússia, tanto em nível bilateral como em duas instâncias multilaterais da política mundial: OTAN e CNUMAD. A insularidade e a distância do arquipélago em relação à Noruega continental, juntamente com a peculiaridade do seu estatuto jurídico, situam essas ilhas em uma encruzilhada vulnerável entre as especulações da Rússia sobre as respostas da OTAN em uma crise (Wither, 2018, p. 28) e as contestações sobre o estatuto das águas extraterritoriais de Svalbard, por um lado, e a performatividade da soberania da Noruega, por outro. A desconstrução factual desta soberania recorre à apresentação dos seguintes dilemas: as disputas marítimas implicadas na incerteza jurídica para a área circundante do arquipélago, a evolução de um percurso democrático local em Svalbard, e a desativação das operações mineiras norueguesas. Todas essas questões parecem relacionar-se entre si, e o imbróglio global das reivindicações contestadas da Noruega de uma plataforma continental contígua em torno do arquipélago condiciona a equação paradoxal que compreende a dupla face da Noruega entre um fornecedor de petróleo e gás e um amigo do ambiente. A deterioração da posição norueguesa de construção de pontes entre o Ocidente e a Rússia por meio da OTAN, face a um dilema de segurança recrudescente, causa uma tensão adicional na performatividade da soberania da Noruega. Ao avaliar a forma como esses acontecimentos se relacionam com a performatividade da soberania da Noruega, a presente investigação pretende traçar subjetividades e percepções de narrativas discursivas que constroem representações, com base no pressuposto de que existem instabilidades da performatividade da soberania norueguesa sob o ponto de vista das suas práticas de segurança e ambientais em relação a Svalbard. Procura-se problematizar essas instabilidades, bem como situar essa análise com base na história conceitual da constituição contextualizada do significado de um vocabulário político chave na Noruega para estes contextos, que é a soberania. A tese é construída sobre a literatura existente que escrutiniza o próprio conceito de soberania como dependente de contexto e de objetivo. O presente estudo baseia-se, portanto, no argumento segundo o qual a performance da Noruega enquanto estado soberano é importante para afirmar a sua soberania por meio da performatividade, tendo em conta as suas políticas e práticas paradoxais. Essa performatividade ganha relevância acrescida face a esses dilemas, na medida em que eles dependem de um resolução política - e não meramente técnica. Nesse sentido, ao conjugar a literatura sobre performatividade com o pós-estruturalismo, é possível evidenciar narrativas e práticas discursivas não só na co-constituição entre discurso, política externa e identidade, mas, em última análise, os mecanismos por meio dos quais a soberania é validada via performatividade, e os modos como essa performatividade se imbrica com práticas discursivas também co-constitutivas da identidade e da política externa. / [en] The case of Svalbard is illustrative of Norway s performativity to ascertain its sovereignty in the Arctic in face of Russia, both bilaterally and in two multilateral instances of world politics: NATO and UNCLOS. The insularity and distance of the archipelago from mainland Norway coupled with the peculiarity of its juridical status situate those islands in a vulnerable crossroads between Russia s speculations over NATO s responses in a crisis (Wither, 2018, p. 28) besides contestations over the status of Svalbard s extraterritorial waters, on the one hand, and Norway s performativity of sovereignty, on the other hand. The factual deconstruction of this sovereignty resorts to the presentation of the following conundrums: the maritime disputes entailed in the legal uncertainty for the area surrounding the archipelago, the evolution of a local democratic course in Svalbard, and the deactivation of Norwegian mining operations. All conundrums seem to relate with one another, and the overarching imbroglio of Norway s contested claims of a contiguous continental shelf around the archipelago conditions the paradoxical equation comprising Norway s double-edged self between an oil and gas supplier and a friend of the environment. The deterioration of Norway s bridge-building stance between the West and Russia via NATO in face of a mounting security dilemma causes extra strain on Norway s performativity of sovereignty. By assessing how those events relate to Norway s performativity of sovereignty, the present research aims at tracing subjectivities and insights of discursive narratives that construct representations, departing from the assumption that there are instabilities of the Norwegian performativity of sovereignty from the standpoint of its security and environment practises in relation with Svalbard. It seeks to problematise these instabilities as well as to situate this analysis based on the conceptual history of the contextualised constitution of meaning of a key political vocabulary in Norway for these contexts, which is sovereignty. It builds on extant literature that scrutinises the very concept of sovereignty as contingent upon context and purpose. The present study therefore bases itself on the argument according to which Norway s performances of statehood are important to assert its sovereignty in view of its paradoxical policies and practices. Norway s performativity of sovereignty gains extra relevance in face of those conundrums insofar as they depend on a political - and not sheerly technical - settlement. In that sense, by combining the literature on performativity with post-structuralism, it is possible to evince narratives and discursive practices not only in the co-constitution among discourse, foreign policy and identity, but ultimately the mechanisms through which sovereignty is validated via performativity and the ways this performativity is imbued with discursive practices also co-constituting identity and foreign policy.

The 1980s witnessed a judicial “rights revolution” in Canada characterized by the Supreme Court of Canada striking down both federal and provincial legislation which violated the rights guaranteed by the 1982 Charter of Rights. The lack of a similar judicial “rights revolution” in the wake of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights has largely been attributed to the structural difference between the two instruments with the latter – as a “mere” statute of the federal parliament – providing little more than a canon of construction and (unlike the Charter) not empowering the courts to engage in judicial review of legislation. Yet this view contrasts starkly with how the Bill was portrayed by the Diefenbaker government, which argued that it provided for judicial review and would “prevail” over other federal legislation. Many modern scholars have dismissed the idea that the Bill could prevail over other federal statutes as being incompatible with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. That is, a bill of rights could only prevail over legislation if incorporated into the British North America Act. As such, they argue that the Diefenbaker government could not have intended the Bill of Rights to operate as anything more than a canon of construction. However, such a view ignores the turbulence in constitutional thinking on parliamentary sovereignty in the 1930s through 1960s provoked by the Statute of Westminster. This era produced the doctrine of “self-embracing” sovereignty – in contrast to traditional “Dicey” sovereignty – where parliament could limit itself through “ordinary” legislation. The effective author of the Canadian Bill of Rights, Elmer Driedger, was an adherent of this doctrine as well as an advocate of a “purposive” approach to statutory interpretation. Driedger, thus, drafted the Bill based upon the doctrine of self-embracing sovereignty and believed it would enjoy a “purposive” interpretation by the courts, with the Bill designed to be as effective at guaranteeing rights as the Statute of Westminster was at liberating Canada from Imperial legislation.

The 1980s witnessed a judicial “rights revolution” in Canada characterized by the Supreme Court of Canada striking down both federal and provincial legislation which violated the rights guaranteed by the 1982 Charter of Rights. The lack of a similar judicial “rights revolution” in the wake of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights has largely been attributed to the structural difference between the two instruments with the latter – as a “mere” statute of the federal parliament – providing little more than a canon of construction and (unlike the Charter) not empowering the courts to engage in judicial review of legislation. Yet this view contrasts starkly with how the Bill was portrayed by the Diefenbaker government, which argued that it provided for judicial review and would “prevail” over other federal legislation. Many modern scholars have dismissed the idea that the Bill could prevail over other federal statutes as being incompatible with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. That is, a bill of rights could only prevail over legislation if incorporated into the British North America Act. As such, they argue that the Diefenbaker government could not have intended the Bill of Rights to operate as anything more than a canon of construction. However, such a view ignores the turbulence in constitutional thinking on parliamentary sovereignty in the 1930s through 1960s provoked by the Statute of Westminster. This era produced the doctrine of “self-embracing” sovereignty – in contrast to traditional “Dicey” sovereignty – where parliament could limit itself through “ordinary” legislation. The effective author of the Canadian Bill of Rights, Elmer Driedger, was an adherent of this doctrine as well as an advocate of a “purposive” approach to statutory interpretation. Driedger, thus, drafted the Bill based upon the doctrine of self-embracing sovereignty and believed it would enjoy a “purposive” interpretation by the courts, with the Bill designed to be as effective at guaranteeing rights as the Statute of Westminster was at liberating Canada from Imperial legislation.

As a classical scholar and prominent founding father, James Wilson was at once statesman, judge, and political thinker, who read Cicero as an example worthy of emulation and as a philosopher whose theory could be applied to his own age. Classical reception studies have focused on questions of liberty, civic virtue, and constitutionalism in the American founding, and historians have also noted Wilson’s importance in American history and thought. Wilson’s direct engagement with Cicero’s works, however, and their significance in the formulation of his own philosophy has been long overlooked. My thesis argues that Wilson’s viewpoint was largely based on his readings of Cicero and can only be properly understood within this context. In the first two chapters of my thesis I demonstrate that Wilson not only possessed a wide-ranging knowledge of the classics in general, but also that he borrowed from Cicero’s writings and directly engaged with the texts themselves. Building upon this foundation, chapters three and four examine Cicero’s perspective on popular sovereignty and civic virtue, situate Wilson’s interpretations within contemporary discussions of Roman politics, and analyse the main ways in which he adapts Cicero’s arguments to his own era. Wilson retains a broader faith in the common people than seen in Cicero’s opinions, and he abstracts from Cicero a doctrine of sovereignty as an indivisible principle that is absent in the text; nevertheless, Cicero’s conception of a legitimate state and his insistence on the role of the people provided the foundation for Wilson’s thought and ultimately for his legitimization of the American Revolution. At the same time, like Cicero, Wilson views the stability of the state as resting in the personal virtue of the individual. While his enlightenment philosophy imparts optimism to his conception of the good citizen, his definition of virtue closely follows that of Cicero. As the final chapter of my thesis concludes, their individual interpretations of these theories of popular consent and virtue were instrumental in forming Cicero’s and Wilson’s justifications of civil disobedience.

The 1980s witnessed a judicial “rights revolution” in Canada characterized by the Supreme Court of Canada striking down both federal and provincial legislation which violated the rights guaranteed by the 1982 Charter of Rights. The lack of a similar judicial “rights revolution” in the wake of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights has largely been attributed to the structural difference between the two instruments with the latter – as a “mere” statute of the federal parliament – providing little more than a canon of construction and (unlike the Charter) not empowering the courts to engage in judicial review of legislation. Yet this view contrasts starkly with how the Bill was portrayed by the Diefenbaker government, which argued that it provided for judicial review and would “prevail” over other federal legislation. Many modern scholars have dismissed the idea that the Bill could prevail over other federal statutes as being incompatible with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. That is, a bill of rights could only prevail over legislation if incorporated into the British North America Act. As such, they argue that the Diefenbaker government could not have intended the Bill of Rights to operate as anything more than a canon of construction. However, such a view ignores the turbulence in constitutional thinking on parliamentary sovereignty in the 1930s through 1960s provoked by the Statute of Westminster. This era produced the doctrine of “self-embracing” sovereignty – in contrast to traditional “Dicey” sovereignty – where parliament could limit itself through “ordinary” legislation. The effective author of the Canadian Bill of Rights, Elmer Driedger, was an adherent of this doctrine as well as an advocate of a “purposive” approach to statutory interpretation. Driedger, thus, drafted the Bill based upon the doctrine of self-embracing sovereignty and believed it would enjoy a “purposive” interpretation by the courts, with the Bill designed to be as effective at guaranteeing rights as the Statute of Westminster was at liberating Canada from Imperial legislation.

The 1980s witnessed a judicial “rights revolution” in Canada characterized by the Supreme Court of Canada striking down both federal and provincial legislation which violated the rights guaranteed by the 1982 Charter of Rights. The lack of a similar judicial “rights revolution” in the wake of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights has largely been attributed to the structural difference between the two instruments with the latter – as a “mere” statute of the federal parliament – providing little more than a canon of construction and (unlike the Charter) not empowering the courts to engage in judicial review of legislation. Yet this view contrasts starkly with how the Bill was portrayed by the Diefenbaker government, which argued that it provided for judicial review and would “prevail” over other federal legislation. Many modern scholars have dismissed the idea that the Bill could prevail over other federal statutes as being incompatible with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. That is, a bill of rights could only prevail over legislation if incorporated into the British North America Act. As such, they argue that the Diefenbaker government could not have intended the Bill of Rights to operate as anything more than a canon of construction. However, such a view ignores the turbulence in constitutional thinking on parliamentary sovereignty in the 1930s through 1960s provoked by the Statute of Westminster. This era produced the doctrine of “self-embracing” sovereignty – in contrast to traditional “Dicey” sovereignty – where parliament could limit itself through “ordinary” legislation. The effective author of the Canadian Bill of Rights, Elmer Driedger, was an adherent of this doctrine as well as an advocate of a “purposive” approach to statutory interpretation. Driedger, thus, drafted the Bill based upon the doctrine of self-embracing sovereignty and believed it would enjoy a “purposive” interpretation by the courts, with the Bill designed to be as effective at guaranteeing rights as the Statute of Westminster was at liberating Canada from Imperial legislation.