Suchergebnisse

Annotation

"Based on empirical studies of European energy and environmental policies, this book suggests that, in combination, these two policy fields form a consensus in the EU which might also become the basis for a new European ideology, namely European 'sustainabilism'. It asks why an environmental conscience has grown since the late 1960s in the industrialised world and shows that whilst there is undeniable environmental degradation during this time, and that a European environmental conscience has mainly developed through successive steps of European integration in energy policy. In this connection between energy and the environmental we find one driver for European integration and indeed European identity. If sustainabilism should become a European ideology, it will substantially influence the way future Europeans will live. This book will be of key interest to scholars and students of European Studies, International Relations, Political Science, History, Economics, Sustainability Studies, Environmental and Energy Policies in Europe"--

'The restoration of the Baltic states' independence, back in 1991, brought about a number of political and legal challenges. The presence of large non-titular communities in Estonia and Latvia has proven to be the most pressing of these. Notwithstanding the fact that the European Commission already in 1997 concluded that 'on the whole the rights of the Russian-speaking minorities are observed and safeguarded', the legal status of these living relics of the Soviet period remains controversial. A resolution of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, adopted on 13 June 2002, criticised the protection of national minorities in Estonia. In the lead-up to the December 2003 parliamentary elections, the Russian Duma adopted a resolution 'on gross violations of human and minority rights in the Republic of Latvia'. Dmitry Rogozin, chairman of the Parliamentarian Committee on International Relations, announced that Russia should consider the weapon of economic sanctions to put pressure on the Baltic state, which he described as 'a land of hooligans' where 'Nazis have come to power'. Whereas these statements have to be situated within the context of the ongoing election campaign, the remarks of Alvaro Gil-Robles, European Council Commissioner for Human Rights, are to be taken more serious. During his visit to Riga in October 2003, the High Commissioner criticized the lack of citizenship for more than twenty per cent of Latvia's population and recommended the granting of voting rights to non-citizens in municipal elections. On the other hand, Günter Verheugen, EU Commissioner responsible for enlargement, declared that Latvia fulfils all the criteria in the field of societal integration and has complied with all international requirements regarding its ethnic minorities. The striking differences between the statements of the Council of Europe and European Union representatives contribute to the existing ambiguity surrounding the legal status of Estonia's and Latvia's Russian-speaking and often stateless minorities. This issue is of particular importance in the light of these countries' accession to the EU on 1 May 2004. The question remains whether this new situation will bring changes to the legal status of the Russian-speaking population in general and the noncitizens in particular. This paper tries to trace the origins of the existing problems, taking into account the Baltic states' specific historical and constitutional framework. In addition, it tries to evaluate the relevant EU legislation in order to define the rights of non-citizens in an enlarged EU.' (excerpt)

This book uses comparative economic analysis to provide a common conceptual framework for all current European Union member states. Based on empirical investigation, the author identifies the Nordic, North-western, Mediterranean, and Central and Eastern models of capitalism on the threshold of the 2008 global financial and economic crisis. The chapters also examine the resulting institutional responses to the crisis and the methods of crisis management adopted by each member state. The analysis reveals that the crisis has not triggered radical institutional change but, instead, highlighted deep institutional differences not between the old and new member states, but between the Nordic, North-western, Mediterranean, and Central and Eastern European countries. These institutional differences are so significant that they require the rethinking of European integration theory.

This report has attempted to review the development of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) dialogue forum and the future of Asia-Europe relations more generally. This area of studies is well underdeveloped, making both the research and the writing of this paper challenging and rewarding. As Asia and Europe are becoming key players in the new multipolar world order, ASEM will undoubtedly emerge as a major organisation. Indeed, ASEM is the only inter-regional forum of its kind. Its broad agenda includes global political and economical issues as well as social development and cultural understanding between the two regions. Discussion between the 4 7 members however remains informal and non-binding. Nevertheless, after 14 years of informal dialogue, the ASEM framework is at a turning point. Demands for concrete projects and cooperation are on the rise. Future developments of the process should consider the following recommendations. • Evolution to a trans-regional architecture in order to preserve each member states' sovereignty and national interests. In this framework, nations would be more likely to find a compromise and to cooperate with one another. • Institutionalisation of the ASEM process with the establishment of 'small secretariats'. These institutions are essential for agenda-setting and coordination of discussion during summits. It would also give ASEM a physical representation and help member states to move toward community-building. • Development of a comprehensive communication campaign to increase ASEM's visibility. On a global level, promotion of the ASEM within international institutions and national parliaments to increase awareness of the process. From a local perspective, organisation of joint public events, between the ASEF and Institutes of International Affairs, universities and other civil societies organisations, or between the AEBF and the business sector throughout Europe and Asia, would contribute to a stronger feeling of ownership. These recommendations suggest ways to improve mechanisms of the ASEM process that could help to dispel mistrust between its members and disorganisation of dialogue. If ASEM achieves coherence of its institutions and processes, ASEM would become the major contributor to community-building and constructive cooperation between Asia and Europe.

The main objective of this article is to analyze the importance of digital transformation and the funds provided by way of the Next Generation EU (NGEU) plan, taking into account the Spanish case. Through the working hypothesis, it was established that the Iberian country has a wide margin for improvement in the context of digitalization. Likewise, that NGEU forms a key impulse for the recovery from the crisis caused by Covid-19, as well as for the implementation of new digital technologies in Spain. The use of the Digital Economy and Society Index, developed by the European Commission, has allowed us to carry out empirical research. The evaluation of the current situation and the progress of Spain in the field of analysis, as well as the putting it in perspective regarding the rest of the Member States, have been undertaken. Moreover, the Eurostat database has been employed, in addition to the estimations of the Spanish executive exposed through the Digital Agenda 2025, to examine investment in R&D and intangible assets and try to assess the importance of the EU recovery fund for Spain's development and progress in the digitization framework. Finally, the hypothesis and the objectives have been achieved.

"It's a cacophony. It's ridiculous". This is how an EU diplomat described the flow of EU statements following the outbreak of the war between Israel and Hamas. The divergent reactions reveal the existence of institutional tensions about the Union's external representation, which undermine the coherence and credibility of the EU's external action. The war between Israel and Hamas concerns issues of foreign and security policy. Whether one likes it or not, this is an area where the Commission has a more limited role – also with respect to external representation. A certain restraint or, at the very least, closer coordination with the Member States and the European External Action Service could have been expected.

It is no exaggeration to describe the relationship between the European Union and international arbitration as the most dramatic confrontation between two international legal regimes seen in a great many years. International law scholars commonly lament the "fragmentation" of international law, i.e., the co-existence of multiple international legal regimes whose competences overlap and whose policies may differ, resulting in a degree of regulatory disorder. However, seldom do these regimes actually "collide." By contrast, the two international regimes in which we are interested this evening international arbitration and the European Union may be described, without hyperbole, as on a collision course. Arguably, the collision has already occurred. The emergence of hostilities on this scale in recent years came about as something of a surprise to me. At Columbia and elsewhere, I have taught EU law and international arbitration law concurrently in different courses, of course for more decades than I care to count. Over that period, I have written and spoken about the EU and international arbitration as separate and distinct enterprises. Rarely did teaching, writing or speaking of one necessitate, or even prompt, discussion of the other.