Interinstitutional Agreements Research Articles

History of Clinical Education in Physical Therapy in the United States

Clinical education has been an integral part of the preparation of physical therapists from the inception of educational programs to train reconstruction aides until the current curricula to prepare Doctors of Physical Therapy. In this historical review of clinical education, the structure and format of the clinical education component of professional physical therapist education curricula are presented. The number of clinical education sites and characteristics of clinical education faculty for the past half century will be described, as will developments in methods used for the assessment of student performance. Descriptions of some of the major developments in clinical education are provided, including interinstitutional agreements, roles for clinical education faculty, professional development for the clinical instructor, clinical education consortia, clinical site selection, clinical education research, and conferences. Factors anticipated to have an effect on the future of clinical education in physical therapist educational programs are also discussed.

Bargaining and Distribution of Power in the Eu's Conciliation Committee

The European Union (EU) has moved towards bicameralism, making the procedure its most important mechanism for decision making. To gauge if European Parliament (EP) and Council of Ministers (CM) are equally powerful codecision makers, understanding of the final stage of the procedure - bargaining in the Conciliation Committee - is crucial. Here, EP and CM are assumed to have spatial preferences determined by their respective internal decision mechanisms. Applying bargaining theory to predict interinstitutional agreements in the Conciliation Committee, it turns out that although institutionally the Council and the Parliament are seemingly in a symmetric position, CM has significantly greater influence on EU legislation.

The European Parliament and Comitology: On the Road to Nowhere?

Abstract: The European Parliament has generally been deeply distrustful of the comitology system, primarily on the grounds that it allows the national administrations to undermine its supervisory role in the area of implementing legislation. Parliament has therefore sought to use the political, budgetary and jurisdictional means at its disposal to counteract the spread of comitology, or at least to promote the less intrusive forms of committee procedure. These initiatives have not, for the most part, been wholly successful; neither the interinstitutional agreements nor Parliament's arguments before the Court of Justice have produced the results it had hoped for. Parliament has been able, however, to use its Maastricht powers to influence the choice of committee procedure included in legislation adopted under codecision, and its budgetary tactics have forced the Commission to rationalise somewhat the annual expenditure on committees of all kinds and to bring a modicum of transparency into their operation. The imminence of the intergovernmental conference led to a suspension of hostilities towards the end of 1996.

I. Constitutional Aspects

Although these last two years have been relatively quiet in terms of institutional developments, a number of important inter-institutional agreements have been negotiated in order to facilitate the working of some of the powers granted by the Maastricht Treaty, while some other powers were used for the first time: the European Ombudsman has issued his first report, the European Parliament has set up two Committees of Inquiry. Lastly, the European Court of Justice delivered an important opinion as regards the European Convention on Human Rights.

Interinstitutional Agreements: The Phenomenon and its New Dynamics after Maastricht

Interinstitutional Agreements: The Phenomenon and its New Dynamics after Maastricht

Inter-Institutional Agreements Designed to Extend Existing Facilities for International Commercial Arbitration

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Biennial Conference

This paper will examine the impact the last enlargements and treaty change have had on the European Parliament and the EU’s system of legislative procedures. The paper assesses the dynamics of the European Parliament in operating according to a set of parliamentary functions. The overall question is, how the EP performs in adopting European legislation and in controlling the Union’s quasi-executive branches. Do the rules provided by treaties, inter-institutional agreements and similar bases matter for the EP as a „multifunctional organization” (Judge/Earnshaw 2003: 24) and how do they matter for the repartition of workload within the European Parliament? In analysing the European Parliament’s practice during the past 1994-1999, 1999-2004, and 2004-2009 legislatures, I propose to investigate the parliamentary implementation of the treaties and treaty amendments. In other terms, I explore the „real use” of the different „constitutional offers” at hand. Constitutional offers are defined as the EU’s treaty provisions and subsequent inter- and intra-institutional agreements that build on so-calles “grey areas” of the treaties, a dynamic and evolving set of opportunity structures that provide parliamentarians with opportunity structures to participate in the EU’s policy making process. I thus conceive the EU’s primary law ‐ the treaties and similar constitutional acts like inter-institutional agreements - as subsequent propositions to the EU institutions and the Member States for joint decision making and for delegating powers from one level to another. Evidently, the Union’s constitutional bases do not „dictate” a clear nomenclature of procedures, actors to be involved and policy fields to be applied (Hofmann 2003). Instead, the institutions have to choose ‐ by application of one or more legal bases. In other words, different constitutionalised procedural blueprints and inter-institutional rules „compete” for application.

A New Field of Survey: Inter-Institutional Agreements in Higher Education

<i>A New Field of Survey</i>: Inter-Institutional Agreements in Higher Education

Inter-Institutional Agreements in Higher Education

Inter-Institutional Agreements in Higher Education

Inter-Institutional Agreements in Higher Education

Inter-Institutional Agreements in Higher Education