Suchergebnisse

Regions and regionalism are rather flourishing in Europe. But what do regionalism and the expression "Europe of regions" exactly mean? There are three approaches to the question: first, the concept of cross-border interregionality between the Member States of the European Union; second, the effort to make regions the basic building blocks of European integration instead of states; and finally, the objective to introduce a three-tier structure to the European Union which would extend the already existing tiers of the European Union and the Member States with a third one, the territorial units within nation-states. The first approach (interregional cooperation) has long been adopted; the second approach (the vision of Europe made up of regions instead of states) is rather utopian. The third one is subject to fierce debates: a three-tier European Union with European, nation-state and regional levels. Although the form, motives and causes of movements promoting regionalism may vary greatly, 1 their purpose is the same for autonomous, federalist and separatist movements alike: to relativise the existing central nation-state. Thus, advancing European integration has become a natural ally for them as – from their perspective – it meant the disfunctionality of traditional nation-states. A supranational and therefore multinational and multicultural community promises much more room for development than a classic nation-state.

A régiók nem csak a közelmúltban jelentek meg az európai politika színpadán, mint önálló szereplők, tevékenységüket már évtizedek óta jegyzik. Ennek középpontjában mindenekelőtt a régiók határokon átnyúló együttműködése áll, ezt egészítették ki a régiók transznacionális megállapodásaival, amelyek arra szolgáltak, hogy a nemzetállamok kormányaival valamint a nemzetközi szervezetekkel, különösképpen az Európa Tanáccsal és az Európai Közösséggel szemben érdekképviseletüket gyakorolják. Az utóbbi időben a régiók egyre energikusabban és követelőbben hívták fel magukra a figyelmet. Tevékenységük súlypontja jelenleg nyilvánvalóan az EU és az integrációs folyamatokon belül helyezkedik el. A régiók mint az EU-kontextus politikai tényezői igen sokrétű tevékenységet mutatnak fel, amelyek az "Európa régiói" megjelölésben foglalhatók össze. Az elnevezésből, mint sokszor használatos szlogenből azonban hiányzik egy egyértelmű és ugyanakkor közös megegyezéssel alapuló, elfogadott tartalom. Regions appeared as autonomous entities on the European political stage not only in recent years. The activity of regions has been recorded for decades. It focuses above all on the cross-border cooperation of regions, and was supplemented by the trans-national agreements of regions, which served to practice their representation against the governments of nation states as well as international organisations, in particular, the European Council and the European Community. Most recently, regions have drawn attention to their presence more and more and when doing so have found increasing attention. Their centre of activity is now obviously located within the EU and the integration processes. Regions as the political factors of the EU context show a wide range of activities that can be summarized under the label of 'the regions of Europe'. The name, as a frequently used slogan, is lacking a clear and at the same time jointly agreed, accepted content. Regions and regionalism are rather flourishing in Europe. But what do regionalism and the expression Europe of regions exactly mean? There are many approaches to the question, the concept of cross-border interregionality between the Member States of the European Union, or the effort to make regions the basic building blocks of European integration instead of states, and the objective to introduce a three-tier structure to the European Union which would extend the already existing tiers of the European Union and the Member States with a third one, the territorial units within nation states. The first approach has long been adopted, the second approach is rather utopian. The third one is subject to fierce debates: a three-tier European Union with European, nation state and regional levels.

Valamennyi tagállamra azonos szabályok vonatkoztak az európai integráció Maastricht előtti unitárius szerkezetében. Többsebességű integráció lehetséges a Gazdasági és Monetáris Unió rendszerében: különféle kormányzási modellek, bonyolult intézményi feltételek állnak fenn. Milyen változásokat hozhatna az "európai gazdasági kormányzás", illetve a "teljes" gazdasági unió kiépítése az EU intézményi szerkezetében? Hogyan alakulna e körülmények között az euróövezetbe tartozó, illetve az abból kimaradó tagállamok helyzete? Milyen eltérések lehetnek az egyes tagállamok között az uniós szabályok alkalmazásában? Milyen szerepet tölthet be a megerősített együttműködés a tagállamok szűkebb csoportjának mélyebb integrációjában? Hogyan alakulhat a mediterrán periféria, illetve a közép- és kelet-európai "új tagállamok" pozíciója? Többek között a fenti kérdésekre is választ kapunk a kötetben. = All member states were subject to the same rules in the pre-Maastricht unitary structure of European integration. Multi-speed integration is possible in the Economic and Monetary Union system: different governance models, complex institutional conditions. What changes could the construction of a "European economic governance" or a " full" economic union bring to the institutional structure of the EU? How would the situation of Member States in and out of the euro area evolve under these circumstances? What differences might there be between Member States in the application of EU rules? What role could enhanced cooperation play in the deeper integration of a narrower group of Member States? How might the position of the Mediterranean periphery and the "new Member States" of Central and Eastern Europe evolve? Among other things, these questions are answered in this volume.

Pursuant to the First World War, Romania's territory increased, and thus it inherited a complex social, economic, and legal environment different from that of the predecessor states. The Romanian state's response to these challenges is to be found in the political goal of building a homogeneous nation-state. This political agenda has had an impact on all areas of law, not only on legislation but also on the application of the law. The use of essentially ethnically neutral legal instruments of criminal law for state policy purposes can also be seen as an element of exclusionary nationality policy. The Romanian state's actions have thus not only failed to resolve existing internal tensions but have also made the relations between the majority and minorities, as well as the possibility of consolidation impossible for the past century.

The Act XXX of 1868 regulated the public law situation of Croats and Hungarians in a uniquely subdualist way within the Monarchy, and the status quo provided an appropriate basis and guarantees for further development. Another significant step in the settlement of ethnic relations within the Monarchy was Act XLIV of 1868, a law that had an organic relationship with the Compromise Act. Both the Compromise Act and the Nationality Act were defined by the public law conception represented by Ferenc Deák, the essence of which is to focus on the terminology of the unified "political nation" for the Hungarian side, and the position and rights of other national minorities were regulated in relation to it. In Deák's understanding, the concept of the political nation was linked to the idea of the nation-state, which, as a result of domestic political changes after 1875, became increasingly nationalist and upset relations with individual nationalities, including Croats. In the long run, this process led to mutual misunderstandings between the peoples within the Habsburg Monarchy and to an explosion of ethnic and political relations as a result of several unfortunate political factors.