Suchergebnisse

The article analyzes the state and motives for the development of green energy in the European Union. The level and pace of improvement in the field of renewable energy in Ukraine has been found out. The critical consequences of Russian aggression for the Ukrainian energy sector have been described. Prospects and risks for Ukraine, shaped by European trends and problems in the field of energy, have been identified. The role of Ukraine's involvement in the European Green Deal, Horizon 2020, EU4Energy and INOGATE programs has been considered. The negative impact of Europe's energy dependence on the Russian Federation has been emphasized, and the way to overcome such a challenge has been outlined. The main components of the REPowerEU plan and the 2022 EU Strategy for an EU external energy engagement, where it is stated that the EU's short-term goal is to neutralize Putin's influence, which he uses due to the presence of significant energy resources, have been highlighted. The predicted changes in the energy landscape caused by the transition of the EU and Ukraine to renewable energy sources have been analyzed. A conclusion about the ambiguity of the impact of green energy processes and EU "green" policy for Ukraine, which needs to be regulated together with the European Union, has been made.

This paper examines the degree of socioeconomic related inequalities in mathematics achievement for students from the European Union and presents some possible sources for the exhibited differences between countries. We applied a methodology which has been used in health economics literature namely by Wagstaff et al. (1991) and Kakwani et al. (1997). We selected parental highest level of education as a proxy for students' socioeconomic background. Results confirm a significant inequality in achievement favouring the higher socioeconomic groups in all countries. Germany has the greatest socioeconomic related mathematics achievement inequality, followed by Greece, Great Britain and Portugal. Sweden, by contrast, is the country where the socioeconomic related inequality in PISA maths scores seems to be lower. The paper also decomposes the inequality index into the contributions of some socioeconomic factors. Socioeconomic inequality has a sizeable contribution for socioeconomic related inequality in mathematic achievement in very country. Cross-country comparison shows that in some countries, such as Belgium, Denmark or Great Britain, the impact of socioeconomic background on students' achievement appears to be more important to determine the "excess" of socioeconomic related inequality in mathematics achievement than the inequality in the distribution of the socioeconomic variable. In other group of countries, that includes Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain, it is the inequality in the distribution of the socioeconomic variable itself that mainly explains the "excess" of socioeconomic related inequality in mathematics achievement. Portugal is a striking case exhibiting poor mathematic score, a high level of socioeconomic inequality and a high level of socioeconomic related inequality in students' performance. Moreover, the inequality in family books possession is also a strong predictor for inequality in students' math achievement. ; Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia ...

ABSTRACTThe concepts of technology and its transfer gained importance after the globalisation of the world economy. Technology and knowledge are the main drivers of economy today. Therefore, the regulation of technology transfer throughout the world became a crucial issue. In exploring the issue of technology transfer, the concept of innovation comes to the forefront. Namely, innovation offers new goods, new services or new production processes and triggers dynamism and growth of the economy. Two important areas of law play a crucial role in the exploration of innovation. These are firstly intellectual property rights (IPRs) and secondly competition law. IPRs provide incentives for innovative efforts and their dissemination and commercialisation by establishing enforceable property rights for the creators and producers of new and useful products, more efficient processes and original works of expression. Competition law promotes innovation and consumer welfare by prohibiting certain actions that may harm competition. Although, both IPRs and competition law are directed towards the same purposes of promoting innovation and consumer welfare, their different ways of achieving their objectives puts them in opposition as well. The regulation of technology transfer is a way of balancing these interests. Therefore the question that is explored in this study is what level of IP protection is sufficient to create a substantial incentive to innovate, without creating rights to exclude so broad as to impair competition. The aim of this study is to explore the subject of technology transfer and its regulation, with a scope covering mainly the law in the European Union (EU) and in Turkey. First the concept of innovation is explored. The purposes of IPRs and competition law are explained and their relationships with innovation are elaborated. Then the conflicting issues of IPRs and competition law are demonstrated, by references to the EU law on this subject. Before exploration of the regulation of technology transfer, the concept of technology transfer and the differences of the developed countries and developing countries are given in order to understand the standpoint of Turkey with respect to technology transfer and its formation. The technology transfer regulations and the experiences in their shaping in the EU are illustrated. Before elaborating the situation in Turkey, policy suggestions on how to absorb the transferred technology are given. The legal situation in Turkey is illustrated by referring to various opinions on the subject and to the relevant existing laws and cases. ÖZETTeknoloji ve teknoloji transferi kavramları dünya ekonomisinin globalleşmesinden sonra son derece önem kazanmıştır. Bugünün ekonomisini teknoloji ve bilgi yapılandırmaktadır. Bu yüzden tüm dünyada teknoloji transferinin regülasyonu önem kazanmıştır. Teknoloji transferi konusu irdelenirken, teknolojik yenilik (inovasyon) kavramı öne çıkmaktadır. Zira, teknolojik yenilikler dah iyi ve yeni mal ve hizmet sunulmasını, daha iyi ve yeni süreçlerin geliştirilmesini sağlayarak, ekonomiye dinamizm getirir ve ekonomik büyümeye katkıda bulunur. Teknolojik yenilikten bahsettiğimizde, iki önemli hukuk alanı rol oynamaktadır. Bunlardan birincisi fikri ve sınai mülkiyet hakları (FSMH) hukuku, diğeri ise rekabet hukukudur. FSMH, sahibine özel haklar tanıyarak teknolojik yeniliklerin oluşumunu ve bunların yayılmasını teşvik eder. Rekabet hukuku ise pazarda rekabeti bozan her türlü fiili engelleyerek, rekabetin sağlıklı işleyişşini kontrol eder ve böylelikle tüketiciye yarar sağlar. FSMH ve rekabet hukukunun amaçları teknolojik yeniliklerin teşviki ve böylelikle tüketiciye yarar sağlamaları konusunda birleşmektedir. Ancak bu amaçlarını gerçekleştirirken farklı yollar kullanıyor olmaları onları karşı karşıya da getirebilmektedir. Teknoloji transferinin regülasyonunun amacı bu farklılıkları dengede tutmaktır. Bu yüzden önümüzdeki çalışmada incelenen konu FSMH'nın, pazardaki rekabetin engellenmesine izin verilmeden, hangi seviyede korunabilir olması gerektiğidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı teknoloji transferi ve regülasyonunu irdelemektir. Çalışmanın kapsamı Avrupa Birliği (AB) ve Türkiye'dir. Öncelikle teknojik yenilik kavramı üzerinde durulmaktadır. FSMH hukuku ve rekabet hukukunun amacı ve bu hukuk dallarının teknolojik yenilikle olan ilişkilerine açıklık getirilmektedir. Daha sonra bu iki hukuk dalının çatıştığı noktalar, konuyla ilgili AB hukukundaki değerlendirmelere değinilerek gösterilmektedir. AB hukukundaki teknoloji transferi regülasyonlarına geçilmeden önce Türkiye'nin teknoloji transferi regülasyonu konusundaki konumu ve buna göre yapılması gereken çalışmalara ışık tutmak amacıyla, teknoloji transferi kavramı ve bunun gelişmiş ülkeler ve gelişmekte olan ülkelerdeki farklılıkları üzerinde durulmaktadır. AB hukukundaki teknoloji transferi regülasyonları, bunların oluşumları ve değerlendirmeleri gösterilmektedir. Türkiye'deki durum irdelenmeden önce, gelişmekte olan ülkelerde teknoloji transferinin nasıl adapte edilmesi gerektiği konusuna değinilmektedir. Türkiye'deki hukuki durum farklı görüşlere, kanunlara ve bu konudaki davalara yer verilerek incelenmiştir.

This article examines how the EU regulates the rights of migrants as a matter of regional-level governance, and with what implications. To expose the differential logics behind the governance of migrant statuses by the EU, we compare the regulation of 12 legal categories of migrants, across three dimensions of rights: civil, economic, and social. We find that while asylum seekers are unequivocally subject to the most conditional regulation of rights, at the other end of the hierarchy, EU citizens' rights are subject to caveats and ambiguity. The allocation of diverse statuses to migrants privileges different kinds of rights for different categories of migrants, and does not construct clear hierarchies of rights or statuses. This complex stratification of migrant rights highlights the important role of EU-level regulation in generating a migrant rights regime, with substantive implications for migrants entering and living in the European Union.Spanish
Este artículo examina cómo la Unión Europea (EU) regula los derechos de los migrantes como una cuestión de gobernanza a nivel regional, y sus consecuencias. Para exponer las lógicas diferenciales detrás de la gobernabilidad de los estatus migratorios de la UE, los autores comparan la regulación de doce categorías legales de migrantes, a través de tres dimensiones de derechos: civiles, económicos y sociales. Un notable hallazgo es que mientras los solicitantes de asilo son inequívocamente sujetos a la regulación más condicional de sus derechos, en el otro extremo de la jerarquía, el estatus de los derechos de los ciudadanos de la UE está supeditado a advertencias y ambigüedad. Para otras categorías de migrantes reguladas por la UE no se observaron jerarquías claras en ninguna de las dimensiones de los derechos, y la asignación de diversos estatutos a los inmigrantes es tal que instituye una compleja estratificación que privilegia diferentes tipos de derechos para las diferentes categorías de migrantes. La emergente estratificación compleja de los derechos de los migrantes en la gobernanza europea, tiene implicaciones más amplias para los derechos de los migrantes dada su articulación con la normatividad coexistente de los Estados miembros. French
Cet article examine comment l'UE réglemente les droits des migrants à l'échelle régionale et ce que cela implique. Afin d'exposer les logiques différentielles qui se situent derrière la gouvernance des statuts des migrants par l'UE, nous souhaitons ici comparer la réglementation de douze catégories légales de migrants, à travers trois dimensions des droits de l'homme: civils, économiques et sociaux. Nous constatons que les demandeurs d'asile sont sans conteste soumis à la réglementation la plus conditionnelle des droits l'homme tandis que, de l'autre côté de l'échelle, les droits de l'homme des citoyens de l'UE font l'objet de circonspection et d'ambiguïté. Pour ce qui est des autres catégories de migrants réglementées par l'UE, on n'observe de hiérarchies précises dans aucune des dimensions des droits de l'homme et la répartition des divers statuts de migrants représente une stratification complexe dans laquelle sont privilégiés les différents types de droits pour les différentes catégories de migrants. Cette stratification complexe des droits des migrants souligne le rôle important que joue la gouvernance de l'Union européenne dans la conception d'un régime des droits des migrants et les implications significatives qu'elle a sur les migrants qui entrent et vivent dans l'Union Européenne.

Constitutionalization - the creation of a formal 'constitution' for the European Union - has been seen as a response to the eastern enlargement, on the basis of the three main functions of constitutions: the organizational function, the stabilization function and the legitimating function. However, functional arguments are not sufficient for explaining the constitutionalization of the EU as a response to this enlargement. An alternative explanation refers to the behaviour of the large member states acting in their own self-interest to shift the power relations in the EU in their favour. Using conventions as the method of bringing this about has served both to legitimize and to conceal this motivation. This factor in the evolution of the European Union carries implications for the countries that aspire to become EU members. Adapted from the source document.

In December 2001, the Laeken European Council adopted a set of commonly agreed and defined indicators for social inclusion. These should play a central role in monitoring the performance of Member States in making progress towards the key EU objectives in this area set by the Nice European Council in 2000, and represent a major step forward in the development of EU social policy. This article reviews the scientific and political basis on which the indicators were selected, and the implications for the future development of policy-making in Europe. It describes the key features of the indicators and some of the ways in which they can be developed. Finally, it investigates some important issues that need to be addressed when setting quantitative targets in the context of the social inclusion process.

This paper considers the effects on current pensioner incomes of reforms designed to improve the long-term sustainability of public pension systems in the European Union. We use EUROMOD to simulate a set of common illustrative reforms for four countries selected on the basis of their diverse pension systems and patterns of poverty among the elderly: Denmark, Germany, Italy and the UK. The variations in fiscal and distributive effects on the one hand suggest that different paths for reform are necessary in order to achieve common objectives across countries, and on the other provide indications of the appropriate directions for reform in each case.

Inside the European Parliament political groups reveal levels of voting cohesion similar to that we observe in national parliaments. Faced with a conflict of interests between their national party and their European group, members of the European Parliament (MEPs) surprisingly often prioritize the latter principal over the former. In this article, I argue that domestic-level parliamentary scrutiny can have a tremendous impact on MEPs' loyalties. Using data on the voting behaviour of German and Czech MEPs, I find that, under scrutiny, MEPs from governing parties are significantly more likely to vote against the instructions of their group leadership. The effect of domestic-level scrutiny on MEPs from opposition parties is weaker and depends on the dossier's political salience. These results provide further support for the strategic use of parliamentary scrutiny in European Union politics.