Suchergebnisse

This report introduced the proceedings of a symposium session that was devoted to an examination of the subjects of European Union citizenship, fundamental rights and Title VI (third pillar) Treaty on the European Union (TEU) in the context of the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. There are strong links between these three important issues and other sessions of the symposium, in particular 'Elaboration of a fundamental treaty' (Session 1) and 'Democratization of the European Union' (Session 2). However, these three subjects were considered to be deserving of independent treatment given their widely perceived importance for the future of the Union. The report is followed by notes from the discussion, a summary of conclusions drawn during the session, and a list of other participants and their papers.

This paper shall investigate the trade integration between Turkey and the EU. The plan of the book is as follows. At first the historical background of the development concerning the trade relations between the two parties is conveyed. This includes the period from first association to implementing a customs union (CU) between Turkey and the European Union (EU) and to deeper integration abolishing barriers of trade until today. Subsequently an evaluation of the influence of the customs union follows in chapter 3 which constitutes the main part of the paper. Hereby the analysis is divided into the short-term static and long-term dynamic effects of the CU with the EU that Turkey entered on 1st January 1996. To analyze the static effects this paper adopts Viner's traditional approach, by comparing the trade creation effects with the trade diversion effects resulting from the removal of trade restrictions for Turkey and the EU as a whole. Thus, the predominant economical theory applied in this paper is the neoclassical customs union theory. This theory was chosen because it still is the predominant and widely recognized theory in analyzing trade data providing a variety of tools. Within the neoclassical theory Ricardo as well as Heckscher-Ohlin play an important role as a tool of analysis. In the relevant passages in the text the most important theoretical principles will be explained with the help of the Turkish example. At the limits of the neoclassical theories the new trade theory is supposed to help out especially where the assumptions of the neoclassical theory limit further analysis. It is the purpose of this paper to analyze the question how the trade liberalization in form of the CU between Turkey and the EU influences the development of Turkish welfare, specialization in different sectors, economies of scale, competitiveness, technological transfer and direct foreign investment. In some parts of the paper the analysis also refers to some effects for the EU, but main emphasis shall clearly be laid upon the effects on the Turkish economy. For the analysis foreign trade data is used which was compiled by the Turkish Undersecretariat of the Prime Ministry for Foreign Trade, the Prime Ministry Undersecretariat of Treasury, the Turkish Statistical Institute and Eurostat. The analysis concentrates on the development within the last years, because not many studies were written in the 21st century or using data from this period. The last subitem within chapter 3 allows a glance at the possibility of further integration taking monetary integration as an example. Last but not least chapter 4 will summarize the findings of the previous sections which will lead to a final estimation of the effects of the CU on Turkey and the EU.

This book introduces ten key terms for analysing grand strategy and shows how the world's great powers - the United States, China, Russia and the European Union (EU) - shape their strategic decisions today and shows how the choices made will determine the course of world politics in the first half of the 21st century.

Brexit and its influence toward the EU and Asia -- Brexit and the EU Reconstruction -- Failed Promise of Institutionalization? Brexit and EU Integration -- Should Brexit be a positive step for EU political integration? -- What remains after Brexit? -- Brexit, EU Crisis and Reorganization of Regional Integration in Asia -- Crisis or Opportunity? European Integration and Party Politics -- Hopes and Fears Amidst Polarization Pre-and Post Brexit -- RCEP versus TPP with the Trump Administration in the USA -- Recovery of Sovereignty and Regional Integration in the EU and Asia after Brexit -- European Diplomacy after Brexit and its implications for the Asia Pacific -- EU-Brexit and ASEAN Legal frameworks for regional integration -- European Governance after the Brexit Shock: The Japanese Perspective -- Non-indexation of UK pensions: Should this be a pre-condition for a trade treaty? -- Business as Usual? Hong Kong European Union Relations in the light of Brexit and Mainlandization -- Traveling on Rough Seats: Trancing images of Post- Brexit EU in Russia -- Shifting Frames: External & Internatl Media Frames: External & Internal Media -- The European Union and Brexit crisis management -- The influence of Brexit on the UK's Arms Trade Policy and Arms Embargo in China.

The article focuses on the transformation of the European Union's policy in the South Caucasus after the NagornoKarabakh war of 2020. Before the war, the foreign and security policy in the region had depended on the OSCE Minsk Group, Georgia's role in the Russian-Georgian confrontation, and the Eastern Partnership program for the South Caucasus. After Azerbaijan won the Nagorno-Karabakh war with Turkey's support, the previous line of policy stopped being effective. It failed to unite the countries of the South Caucasus, to remove the Russian Federation from the region, and to make the European Union a real mediator in the conflict zone. The democratization of the local political regimes also failed, despite the proEuropean position of Georgia and the velvet revolution in Armenia. As a result of the Armenian-Azerbaijani war of 2020, Russian and Turkish troops entered the South Caucasus, and Russia, Turkey, and Iran started acting as peace mediators. The European Union failed to strengthen the role of the OSCE Minsk Group and the mechanisms of the Eastern Partnership in the region. Ever since 2020, it has been trying to develop a common policy for all ethnic and inter-confessional conflicts in the postSoviet space. The European Union keeps failing in its competition and partnership with Russia, while Turkey is getting more active and independent in the region. Thus, the European Union will have to develop a new model of influence in the South Caucasus and the whole post-Soviet space. In the current global confrontation, it is very important to find an international actor able and willing to interact with all parties. The European Union seems to be the one, and its actions in resolving regional conflicts require a detailed research. ; Статья посвящена трансформации политики Европейского союза на Южном Кавказе после карабахской войны 2020 г. Военная победа Азербайджана, одержанная при турецкой поддержке, привела к тому, что линия общей внешней политики и политики безопасности в регионе (основанная на участии в Минской группе ОБСЕ по армяноазербайджанскому конфликту, поддержке Грузии в российско-грузинском конфликте, программе «Восточного партнерства» для всех стран Южного Кавказа) оказалась малоэффективной. Не удалось выстроить модель сближения между странами Южного Кавказа, вытеснить из региона Российскую Федерацию, стать реальным посредником в конфликтных зонах. Даже процесс демократизации политических режимов в полной мере не получился ни в одной из стран региона, несмотря на однозначно проевропейскую позицию Грузии и «бархатную» революцию в Армении. Армяно-азербайджанская война 2020 г. привела к появлению российских и турецких войск на Южном Кавказе, миротворческому процессу, основанному на активном посредничестве России, Турции и Ирана. Попытки ЕС усилить роль Минской группы ОБСЕ и механизмов «Восточного партнерства» пока не дают никаких результатов, кроме дипломатических. Принципиальными проблемами для всего комплекса европейской политики с 2020 г. являются формирование общей политики в отношении всех этноконфессиональных конфликтов на постсоветском пространстве, конкуренция и партнерство в этих вопросах с Россией, усиление активности и самостоятельности в данных вопросах Турции. Таким образом, Европейскому союзу предстоит выработать новую модель влияния на Южном Кавказе и постсоветском пространстве в целом. В условиях складывающегося глобального противостояния очень важны те международные факторы, которые способны и готовы взаимодействовать со всеми сторонами. Европейский союз представляется именно таким фактором, что требует активного изучения его действий в решении региональных конфликтов.

Introduction : Latinoizing American politics -- Latino demographic transformation -- The development of Latino ethnicity -- Institutionalizing Latino political ethnicity -- Recent trends in national origin differences -- The Americanization of Latino political behavior and policy preferences -- Conclusion : Americanizing Latino politics -- The 2018 National Survey of Latinos in the Era of Trump.

Abstract Latin America is the most violent region in the world. Yet, decades of political and financial investment by the international community have not had the desired results. Using the work of the European Union in the Northern Triangle of Central America as a case study, this article asks what explains this failure. Utilizing the conceptual framework of Complexity and Human System Dynamics, it argues that current policies actually entrench the pattern of conditions which lead to, and sustain, violence. It shows how, by reconceptualizing this problem using the concepts of Complexity, policies could be made more effective and sustainable.

Decision makers do not act in a policy vacuum. As they develop their programs, they are aware of and influenced by available historical examples. If we look closely at the European Commission's education policy (measures as well as discourses), we notice the existence of similarities in the strategies that it deploys in this field and dynamics deployed much earlier by states engaged in nation building (that is, the redefinition of peoples' spatial representation of their community of belonging; the creation of a framework of shared values; and the process of "detemporalization-naturalization"). This observation leads us to believe that if the European Commission decided to become involved in the field of education at an early stage in the integration process, it was not only -- as most people believe -- to ensure an effective implementation of the Common Market in 1957 or the Single Market in 1987. Rather, through its education policy, the Commission also hoped to create and foster an EU identity that the founding fathers and subsequent "Europeans" considered necessary for achieving their goals of creating "an ever closer union.". Adapted from the source document.