Master thesis analyzes Serbian EU integration process, reveals the political and economic status of Serbia. It also examines the situation in Serbia in terms of the political, economic criteria and the ability to take on the obligations of membership. Thesis also compares and analyzes Serbia's public polls researches towards EU integration. The first chapter of the Master thesis describes the research of the EU enlargement and integration genesis, describes the process of new member integration process and conditions, also states and anlyses the specific conditions of membership for Western Balkan countries. The second chapter presents full overview of the political conditions of former Yugoslavia, particular emphasis is placed on the process of disintegration of Yugoslavia, and on the failure of EU to prevent the conflicts in the region. The third chapter examines Serbia's political and economic transformation and ability to apply for EU membership. It also analyzes the position of different governments of Serbia on EU integration process. The last chapter analyzes public opinion on EU integration. The last part of the work analyzes specific conditions given from EU which influences public polls.
Master thesis analyzes Serbian EU integration process, reveals the political and economic status of Serbia. It also examines the situation in Serbia in terms of the political, economic criteria and the ability to take on the obligations of membership. Thesis also compares and analyzes Serbia's public polls researches towards EU integration. The first chapter of the Master thesis describes the research of the EU enlargement and integration genesis, describes the process of new member integration process and conditions, also states and anlyses the specific conditions of membership for Western Balkan countries. The second chapter presents full overview of the political conditions of former Yugoslavia, particular emphasis is placed on the process of disintegration of Yugoslavia, and on the failure of EU to prevent the conflicts in the region. The third chapter examines Serbia's political and economic transformation and ability to apply for EU membership. It also analyzes the position of different governments of Serbia on EU integration process. The last chapter analyzes public opinion on EU integration. The last part of the work analyzes specific conditions given from EU which influences public polls.
The system of parallel competence can lead to situations where the same violation of competition rules will be investigated and punished by several national competition authorities one after the other. However, under Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, Member States' competition authorities and courts in some cases are bound to apply article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Since, as already has been stated, this principle is enshrined in Article 4 of Protocol 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, at the beginning of this paper the author overviews the interpretation of the concept of ne bis in idem principle and its scope in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Then in the context of this principle the author analyses the system of parallel competences, established by Regulation 1/2003, highlighting main problems of the system. The paper is completed with the summary of the investigated issues and the main conclusions are presented.
The system of parallel competence can lead to situations where the same violation of competition rules will be investigated and punished by several national competition authorities one after the other. However, under Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, Member States' competition authorities and courts in some cases are bound to apply article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Since, as already has been stated, this principle is enshrined in Article 4 of Protocol 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, at the beginning of this paper the author overviews the interpretation of the concept of ne bis in idem principle and its scope in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Then in the context of this principle the author analyses the system of parallel competences, established by Regulation 1/2003, highlighting main problems of the system. The paper is completed with the summary of the investigated issues and the main conclusions are presented.
Aim of the Master thesis was to evaluate EU energy policy that was implemented up to the present time and to analyze the positions of the main EU energy policy actors, discerning their interests and priorities given to the specific aspects of energy sector. The task set was to determine the factors and conditions that influence the harmonization of economic policy in the EU. Furthermore, to evaluate which of these factors accelerate and which block the integration of common EU energy policy. Liberal intergovernmentalism (LI) approach was chosen for the analysis. As LI supposes, interests of member states are most important in the context of the common energy policy. Member states keep the right of decision for this politics in their competence, as it is concerned with foreign policy of each country. The analysis shows that formally all member states agree with the main principles of EU energy policy. On the other hand most of their actions do not match the official rhetoric. The examples provided in the thesis concerned equivocal position of Germany due to the natural gas pipeline in the Baltic sea, also protectionism of French and Spanish governments and their unwillingness to admit the foreign capital in the national energy sector. Therefore it was concluded that national interests still have priority against the European policies. National governments experience pressure from two other groups of actors that are important in the course of the formulation of national interests. These actors are energy companies and foreign, non-EU, actors. Energy companies face ambiguity towards EU energy policy. On the one hand, common EU energy policy would mean simpler conditions for the businesses and also wider markets. On the other hand, most of these companies are so called "national champions". With the implementation of the main principles of common EU energy policy, such as unbundling of the companies, means loss of their national benefits. Due to these additional new challenges, energy companies support common energy policy in the reserved way. The exemption is companies of the Great Britain that are already working in the highly liberalized market and seeks for the same conditions in all EU member states. As regards foreign policy actors, the most important of them is Russia that tries to weaken the solidarity of member states against energy issues and to further influence EU politics through energy sector. Russia actively promotes bilateral treaties with EU member states this way deepening cleavages among them. Equally important is the indirect influence of Russia through the Gazprom. At the moment, the long termed contracts are signed between Gazprom and Ruhrgas, GDF, ENI. This way energy companies become the active lobbyists of Gazprom interests. Last but not least, highly important are interests and activities of supranational actors – for example European Commission. Although it is one of the most active energy policy initiators, the competence of the European Commission in the energy policy field is limited and is mostly related with its competences in the EU competition policy. Lately European Commission tried to strengthen its position as the supranational actor. Still, European Commission faces opposition from member states, who considers energy policy of strategic importance for them. Moreover, as analysis shows, European Commission at the moment is not eager to confront member states and therefore has missed some opportunities to strengthen its position as independent actor. To sum up, European Commission has set a very ambitious aim to form a common EU energy policy by 2010. Nevertheless, the analysis of the interests of the main actors, concerning energy policy, and main challenges for this policy, in the Master thesis is concluded that it is not likely for the European Commission to fulfill its set goal during three coming year. Energy policy most likely will be implemented gradually in the longer run.
Aim of the Master thesis was to evaluate EU energy policy that was implemented up to the present time and to analyze the positions of the main EU energy policy actors, discerning their interests and priorities given to the specific aspects of energy sector. The task set was to determine the factors and conditions that influence the harmonization of economic policy in the EU. Furthermore, to evaluate which of these factors accelerate and which block the integration of common EU energy policy. Liberal intergovernmentalism (LI) approach was chosen for the analysis. As LI supposes, interests of member states are most important in the context of the common energy policy. Member states keep the right of decision for this politics in their competence, as it is concerned with foreign policy of each country. The analysis shows that formally all member states agree with the main principles of EU energy policy. On the other hand most of their actions do not match the official rhetoric. The examples provided in the thesis concerned equivocal position of Germany due to the natural gas pipeline in the Baltic sea, also protectionism of French and Spanish governments and their unwillingness to admit the foreign capital in the national energy sector. Therefore it was concluded that national interests still have priority against the European policies. National governments experience pressure from two other groups of actors that are important in the course of the formulation of national interests. These actors are energy companies and foreign, non-EU, actors. Energy companies face ambiguity towards EU energy policy. On the one hand, common EU energy policy would mean simpler conditions for the businesses and also wider markets. On the other hand, most of these companies are so called "national champions". With the implementation of the main principles of common EU energy policy, such as unbundling of the companies, means loss of their national benefits. Due to these additional new challenges, energy companies support common energy policy in the reserved way. The exemption is companies of the Great Britain that are already working in the highly liberalized market and seeks for the same conditions in all EU member states. As regards foreign policy actors, the most important of them is Russia that tries to weaken the solidarity of member states against energy issues and to further influence EU politics through energy sector. Russia actively promotes bilateral treaties with EU member states this way deepening cleavages among them. Equally important is the indirect influence of Russia through the Gazprom. At the moment, the long termed contracts are signed between Gazprom and Ruhrgas, GDF, ENI. This way energy companies become the active lobbyists of Gazprom interests. Last but not least, highly important are interests and activities of supranational actors – for example European Commission. Although it is one of the most active energy policy initiators, the competence of the European Commission in the energy policy field is limited and is mostly related with its competences in the EU competition policy. Lately European Commission tried to strengthen its position as the supranational actor. Still, European Commission faces opposition from member states, who considers energy policy of strategic importance for them. Moreover, as analysis shows, European Commission at the moment is not eager to confront member states and therefore has missed some opportunities to strengthen its position as independent actor. To sum up, European Commission has set a very ambitious aim to form a common EU energy policy by 2010. Nevertheless, the analysis of the interests of the main actors, concerning energy policy, and main challenges for this policy, in the Master thesis is concluded that it is not likely for the European Commission to fulfill its set goal during three coming year. Energy policy most likely will be implemented gradually in the longer run.
The presidency of the European Union is poorly studied topic in Lithuania, therefore the identification of the presidency of the European Union value is very important. Evaluation is extremely important in order to achieve effective Lithuanian presidency of the European Union and quality of the presidency country of the European Council's agenda-setting. [.]
The presidency of the European Union is poorly studied topic in Lithuania, therefore the identification of the presidency of the European Union value is very important. Evaluation is extremely important in order to achieve effective Lithuanian presidency of the European Union and quality of the presidency country of the European Council's agenda-setting. [.]
The presidency of the European Union is poorly studied topic in Lithuania, therefore the identification of the presidency of the European Union value is very important. Evaluation is extremely important in order to achieve effective Lithuanian presidency of the European Union and quality of the presidency country of the European Council's agenda-setting. [.]
The presidency of the European Union is poorly studied topic in Lithuania, therefore the identification of the presidency of the European Union value is very important. Evaluation is extremely important in order to achieve effective Lithuanian presidency of the European Union and quality of the presidency country of the European Council's agenda-setting. [.]
The aim of this article is to analyse the role of supranational actors in European neighbourhood space seeking to present the forms and instruments of these institutions getting involved in processes in the neighbourhood. The research was done by analysing the official EU documents, scientific literature, by participating in the debates with the employees and the members of the European Parliament in the European Parliament in October, 2010. The conclusion can be made that both institutions (the Commission and the Parliament) use bilateral and multilateral frameworks for the communication and active engagement with the neighbours. The Commission acts within its official competences (such as negotiations for the action plans, implementation and monitoring processes) and this institution is very important as the expert and evaluator of the progress made in a neighbouring country, but it cannot make the political influence or get involved in internal party disputes in the third countries. But this is a free space for the Parliament activities. The Parliament actively involves itself in the neighbourhood processes by using its "soft power" instruments. Both supranational institutions also are visible within multilateral regional frameworks. The difference between them is that the Parliament creates new frameworks like Parliamentary Assemblies (Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, Euronest) and the Commission gets involved in created regional institutions or frameworks as an. [to full text]
The aim of this article is to analyse the role of supranational actors in European neighbourhood space seeking to present the forms and instruments of these institutions getting involved in processes in the neighbourhood. The research was done by analysing the official EU documents, scientific literature, by participating in the debates with the employees and the members of the European Parliament in the European Parliament in October, 2010. The conclusion can be made that both institutions (the Commission and the Parliament) use bilateral and multilateral frameworks for the communication and active engagement with the neighbours. The Commission acts within its official competences (such as negotiations for the action plans, implementation and monitoring processes) and this institution is very important as the expert and evaluator of the progress made in a neighbouring country, but it cannot make the political influence or get involved in internal party disputes in the third countries. But this is a free space for the Parliament activities. The Parliament actively involves itself in the neighbourhood processes by using its "soft power" instruments. Both supranational institutions also are visible within multilateral regional frameworks. The difference between them is that the Parliament creates new frameworks like Parliamentary Assemblies (Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, Euronest) and the Commission gets involved in created regional institutions or frameworks as an. [to full text]
The aim of this article is to analyse the role of supranational actors in European neighbourhood space seeking to present the forms and instruments of these institutions getting involved in processes in the neighbourhood. The research was done by analysing the official EU documents, scientific literature, by participating in the debates with the employees and the members of the European Parliament in the European Parliament in October, 2010. The conclusion can be made that both institutions (the Commission and the Parliament) use bilateral and multilateral frameworks for the communication and active engagement with the neighbours. The Commission acts within its official competences (such as negotiations for the action plans, implementation and monitoring processes) and this institution is very important as the expert and evaluator of the progress made in a neighbouring country, but it cannot make the political influence or get involved in internal party disputes in the third countries. But this is a free space for the Parliament activities. The Parliament actively involves itself in the neighbourhood processes by using its "soft power" instruments. Both supranational institutions also are visible within multilateral regional frameworks. The difference between them is that the Parliament creates new frameworks like Parliamentary Assemblies (Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, Euronest) and the Commission gets involved in created regional institutions or frameworks as an. [to full text]
The importance of financial flows to and from the EU budget is widely recognized because contributions to the EU budget and payments from it undoubtedly influence not only the expenditures and revenues of the national budget, but also the priorities of national policy and the whole economy of the country. But the level of the EU financial assistance depends mainly on the EU budget structure: its size, main budget financing principles and the priorities Europe has chosen. The structure of the current EU budget was formed in 1987, when the European Commission submitted its different proposals on every category of the EU budget expenditure and its own resources system. Twenty years passed, and Europe has changed dramatically: the number of EU member states increased from 12 to 27, new priorities as well as new problems that which can be solved at the EU level only have appeared. Therefore Europe's policies and their financing need to evolve new priorities. The first public step in the process of the reform of all aspects of EU spending and resources was made in September 2007 by the European Commission through the publication of the Consultation paper on the EU budget reform. The aim of this consultation is to determine the structure and direction of the European Union's spending priorities to meet the challenges of the globalized world in the next decade and beyond. The present EU budget comprises five headings which seem to fully correspond to the priorities of modern Europe because it reflects the main and most up-to-date European policies.
The importance of financial flows to and from the EU budget is widely recognized because contributions to the EU budget and payments from it undoubtedly influence not only the expenditures and revenues of the national budget, but also the priorities of national policy and the whole economy of the country. But the level of the EU financial assistance depends mainly on the EU budget structure: its size, main budget financing principles and the priorities Europe has chosen. The structure of the current EU budget was formed in 1987, when the European Commission submitted its different proposals on every category of the EU budget expenditure and its own resources system. Twenty years passed, and Europe has changed dramatically: the number of EU member states increased from 12 to 27, new priorities as well as new problems that which can be solved at the EU level only have appeared. Therefore Europe's policies and their financing need to evolve new priorities. The first public step in the process of the reform of all aspects of EU spending and resources was made in September 2007 by the European Commission through the publication of the Consultation paper on the EU budget reform. The aim of this consultation is to determine the structure and direction of the European Union's spending priorities to meet the challenges of the globalized world in the next decade and beyond. The present EU budget comprises five headings which seem to fully correspond to the priorities of modern Europe because it reflects the main and most up-to-date European policies.
