{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01751927119831815, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.235807860262009, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
European Union Delegations in EU Foreign Policy: A Diplomatic Service of Different Speeds

European institutions to act quickly when the waters of inequality seemed to be rising rapidly. A substantial part of Givens and Evans Case’s research is concerned with the process of transposing the Racial Equality Directive into policy in the three key countries of the European Union. Contrary to expectations, the United Kingdom, forerunner in antiracial and antidiscrimination policy and under the Blair administration an important factor in upgrading the issue to the Europen level, proved to be rather slow in transposing the Directive to the national level. Sadly, by the time all three countries under consideration here, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, had the new institutions in place, they all underwent cutbacks and reorganisations making them virtually powerless again. Legislating Equality shows how difficult it is to bring human rights issues to the European level, and above all to keep it there. The authors succeed very well in documenting the complex interplay of European Parliament, Council, Commission and the national administrations with transnational activism. The how, where and when of the case is well researched; however, I would have liked to know a bit more about the why of it. More attention to the interviews with key players could have infused discursive institutionalism with more agency.