This paper analyses the information sources members of the Dutch Lower House base their questions on with regard to EU affairs in the period 1995-2013. Knowledge of the type of information sources to base questions on is vital for determining what the conditions are under which members of national parliaments can scrutinize the decisions taken by the national government at the EU level. The involvement of national parliaments in EU affairs is according to many scholars a necessary condition for closing the democratic deficit of the European Union, especially when the turnout in elections for the European Parliament remains low and for national parliaments remains stable and relatively high. An original dataset is constructed including all sets of written parliamentary questions on EU affairs asked by Dutch MPs in the period 1995-2013, categorized by different types of information sources on which the question is based. These different categories of information sources are regressed with a variable measuring the Treaty changes impacting on the intensity of contact between MPs of different national parliaments and several variables measuring the characteristics of Dutch MPs and their parties. The findings indicate that Dutch MPs base their written questions primarily on coverage on EU affairs by national newspapers. Moreover, MPs are more likely to use sources rooted in a national context for asking questions when they are a member of a party with a negative attitude towards European integration. These findings imply that parliamentary control via written questions over the decisions of the national executive at the EU level can be strengthened by increasing national media coverage on EU affairs, allowing the EU public sphere to develop further in the future.

This paper studies how scientists appear as news sources in Flemish television news. The focus lies on (1) which political scientists serve as news source, (2) how they are portrayed, and (3) whether their appearances in the news differ from those of scientists from other disciplines. By means of a content analysis over a three-year period (July 2011 – June 2014), the paper shows that political scientists mainly appear in the news to comment upon topical events. Items featuring scientists from other disciplines – other human sciences and especially natural sciences – are more often related to scientific research. Political scientists use other arguments than natural scientists, whose contributions contain less own opinions, and more concrete data and figures, and human scientists (including political scientists) are less often interviewed in a research environment. In the concluding section, the potential consequences of these media appearances for political science as a discipline are discussed.

Left-libertarianism is a marginal theory in the debate on social justice. In this article, I argue that this peripheral status is a mistake. The two basic principles of left-libertarianism, the full self-ownership principle and an egalitarian interpretation of the worldownership principle, are sufficiently attractive and sound for the theory to be taken seriously. I introduce the two principles, explain their attractiveness and argue for their plausibility by contrasting them to the right-libertarian theory of Robert Nozick and the liberal egalitarian theory of John Rawls. I conclude that left-libertarianism has some considerable advantages over both those theories.