Suchergebnisse

In the context of the Liberal International Order crisis amplified bythe Trump Administration's America First doctrine and a retreat ofmultilateralism, President Macron was emboldened to carry further hisvision for a Sovereign Europe (Europe-Puissance) capable of ensuringits own strategic autonomy and acting as an independent actor onthe international stage. However, President Macron faces the task ofarticulating a coherent way of achieving this goal, especially givingGermany's reluctance to accept any changes in the postwar defensestatus quo, and East-Central European anxieties regarding a possibleRussian rapprochement pursued by the French president. Early inhis presidency, Macron proposed his Grand Design for a concentricand multi-speed Europe with different stages of integration, anddifferent levels of functioning, a plan which was met with a degree ofunwillingness from East-Central European capitals.

This article demonstrates the new innovative approach to the significant legal and political correlations and is been written in the form of Presidential political speech analysis, which foresees the deep synthesis and knowledge of legislative provisions, reflections on national sovereignty, ecological transition, climate change and European Union legislation.

The concept of "European digital sovereignty" does not seem to fit well with the global nature of digitalisation, but a closer look at the phenomenon reveals why this term makes sense. First of all, digitalisation is not a process antithetical to territorialisation, contrary to the logic of states or incompatible with the defence of the interests of the European Union, especially at a time when the digital space has become a geostrategic battlefield between countries and, above all, different models. The proposal advocated here consists of understanding this term not only as an ad intra protection but also as a capacity to assert the European model of digitisation on a global scale.

This paper aims to give a new perspective on the issue of sovereignty in the European context. In this context, we argue that the EU can contribute to increase Member States sovereignty. Many academic circles have advocated that the EU limits State's sovereignty. This is why we intend to present a new approach to sovereignty in the European context. In order to present our argument we will discuss and debate the concept of sovereignty, both in the internal and external dimensions, which are associated with the concept of power. Then we will check if European states have the necessary means that enables them to project their power. We'll also argue that there are real limitations, in current capabilities, and in resources availability needed to develop them in the future. We'll also present the concept of politics of scale, arguing that we can apply this concept to develop state's capabilities, which allow the necessary power projection, which enhances state's sovereignty. This found that pooling and sharing will increase EU member states sovereignty, since it will allow a greater ability to project power, which is essential to support the external dimension of sovereignty. Thus, through a process of sharing and pooling member states will have the ability to defend their interests on a global scale, a level of intervention that will be denied if they choose to pursue individually. We also conclude that the current economic crisis may be used has a catalyst to deepen these mechanisms.

THE DEBATE ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY AND LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY HAS BECOME MORE PRONOUNCED SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT AND THE SINGLE MARKET PROGRAM. THIS ARTICLE, HOWEVER, INSTEAD OF ENGAGING IN A DEBATE POLARIZED AROUND ABSTRACT CONCEPTS SUCH AS SOVEREIGNTY AND FEDERALISM, WILL FOCUS UPON THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF ACCELERATION OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. IT DESCRIBES THE DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT WITHIN THE EC, HOW THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY MIGHT BE DEVELOPED, AND ADVOCATES IMPROVED PROCEDURES FOR DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY.

By definition sovereign, States find themselves inescapably in a situation of permanent competition. Moreover, given that an inherent quality of sovereignty is to exclude obeying whomever else, nobody, neither individuals nor institutions can arbitrate between them. This being the case, in the international arena power becomes the one and only currency. It seems basic even to each State's survival: in this endless competition, the sustainability of each depends on the capacity to maintain a sufficient level of power.
(Badie, 2018, p.44 translated by the author)
What is ... needed is reflecting on new ways of adapting politics and democracy to the unique and universal world of networks...
(Balligand and Maquart, 1990, p.219 translated by the author)

The above quotes relate to the ambivalence of its members towards the European Union construct. Wishing to remain sovereign, they simultaneously acknowledge that they have to adapt to a new world. So, they conclude treaties which give the Union specific powers. Unable to unilaterally give itself powers, or 'competences' in EU jargon, their Union is therefore 'intergovernmental'. If it were able to assume powers on its own, it would be like a federal state. As such, the Union could exercise some degree of 'territoriality', or control over its borders. As it is, it cannot.

The Colonization of North America by Europeans raised fundamental issues about the status and rights of the original inhabitants of this continent. Were the Indian and Inuit peoples sovereign nations, with territorial rights equivalent to those of the European sovereigns in the so-called Old World? Did they have rights to the soil on a par with those of landowners in Britain, France, or Spain? If they were sovereign nations with territorial or land rights, what impact did European colonization have on them? Even today, these questions have not been completely resolved. In Canada, for example, as recently as 1997 the Supreme Court left open the question of whether the Indian and Inuit peoples have an inherent right of self-government that survived European colonization. At the same time, the Court decided that those peoples do have a right of exclusive use and occupation of their traditional lands, if they can prove they were in exclusive occupation of them at the time of assertion of European sovereignty. This means that the question of when sovereignty was acquired can have profound contemporary significance for the Indian and Inuit peoples of Canada. In the United States, these issues were addressed by the Supreme Court in the 1820s and 1830s. However, the discussion in this article will show that these early decisions are often misinterpreted or ignored in the context of acquisition of European sovereignty. All too often, it is assumed that the European nations were able to acquire sovereignty over the territories of the Indian and Inuit nations without their consent, and without actually taking possession and establishing effective control. This article will challenge this assumption, and reassess the manner and time of acquisition of European sovereignty in North America, by focusing on the geographical region of the Northern Plains. Copyright Journal of the West ©2000, reprinted with permission of ABC-CLIO.

By definition sovereign, States find themselves inescapably in a situation of permanent competition. Moreover, given that an inherent quality of sovereignty is to exclude obeying whomever else, nobody, neither individuals nor institutions can arbitrate between them. This being the case, in the international arena power becomes the one and only currency. It seems basic even to each State's survival: in this endless competition, the sustainability of each depends on the capacity to maintain a sufficient level of power. (Badie, 2018, p.44 translated by the author) What is . needed is reflecting on new ways of adapting politics and democracy to the unique and universal world of networks. (Balligand and Maquart, 1990, p.219 translated by the author) The above quotes relate to the ambivalence of its members towards the European Union construct. Wishing to remain sovereign, they simultaneously acknowledge that they have to adapt to a new world. So, they conclude treaties which give the Union specific powers. Unable to unilaterally give itself powers, or 'competences' in EU jargon, their Union is therefore 'intergovernmental'. If it were able to assume powers on its own, it would be like a federal state. As such, the Union could exercise some degree of 'territoriality', or control over its borders. As it is, it cannot.

Reviews the history of the ECSC and EEC, demonstrating how the issue of sovereignty was initially muddled by the Luxembourg compromise. Asks whether the European Parliament can ensure accountability and argues that as a result of a lack of citizen participation, a democratic deficit exists. Examines how this might be redressed. (SJK)