Suchergebnisse

In this paper it is reviewed and evaluated the implemented EU' assistance administration system in Turkey Republic. By using neo-functionalism, intergovernmental cooperation and multi-level governance theories is tried to explain Turkey's integration in EU. The beginning of Turkey – EU relations is 1963, when it was made EU – Turkey association treatment, by now to Turkey is given a candidate country status. After declared Turkey as candidate country, EU engaged to provide a financial assistance to Turkey during preparation to the EU membership process. EU provides financial assistance not only to announced candidate countries, but also to potential candidate countries for supporting non-member states to become member to EU, to become more democratic countries which respect and implement human rights, power of law, by providing financial assistance also is trying to solve social-economic problems, to promote development of countries and promote economic market. The financial assistance to candidate and potential candidate countries is provided under Instrument for pre-accession assistance (IPA). From the IPA establishment, the implementation of instrument was gradually decentralized by delegating more and more responsibilities to beneficial countries in this way promoting institutional capacity building. In the candidate countries the assistance is administrated by decentralized implementation method. Only based on subsidiarity and partnership principles EU assistance source reclamation might be effective and to ensure that set goals will be implemented. In this paper is analyzed Turkey government system by seeking to understand better the assistance administration system features. Turkey is described as strongly centralized country where still exist the Ottoman Empire legacy. Central government has strong powers in regard to local government and mostly decisions are made at central administration level. The same features are seen in assistance administration system. Although Turkey created the institution architecture by EU requirements, but the system is evaluated as very centralized, in the system is lack of partnership weak role of regional level institutions. According to made semi-structural interview in the end of paper there is made more detailed evaluation of EU' assistance administration system in Turkey.

Member States of the EU were forced by the circumstances in 2015 to find a mutually acceptable way to stop the uncontrolled flow of alleged refugees and migrants from Turkey as the largest refugee hosting state worldwide to the EU. As a result, 38 Syrian nations have been returned to Turkey as of March 31, 2019, on the basis of the announced EU–Turkey statement because of inadmissibility of their applications for international protection on the basis of recognition of Turkey as a STC. As neither the EU institutions nor Greek determining authorities purposefully evaluated Turkey by the application of the STC criteria, having used pre-defined templates of inadmissibility decisions, this research is aimed at the ascertainment of a possibility of Turkey's designation as a STC on the basis of definitive conclusions regarding Turkey's compliance with each of the criteria enumerated in Article 38(1) of the rAPD. Upon the evaluation of the level of respect for the non-refoulement principle in Turkey and the analysis of its currently functioning asylum system, the present research emphasizes the necessity to suspend the EU–Turkey statement's implementation and stop violations of obligations imposed on Greece and the EU by international agreements, customary international law and EU law.

The paper is devoted to analyze European Union and Turkey debates on human rights. Here the debates are perceived as the scene where both sides put their arguments, positions, values, express intensions. This helps to find out the main reason, why discussion on human rights between European Union and Turkey isn't as fluent as it could be. Debates are analyzed in so called "language games" perspective, which means, that all argumentation here is equated to the move making in the game theory. Going along game theory lines, here we make a presumption, that states as international actors are rational, but their identity and interests are not static. Taking into account ideas of Alexander Wendt, identity and interests are presupposed to be a product of mutual states interaction. Interaction in the paper by itself is supposed to be a game, where the biggest stress is put on rules – knowing the rules of the game, it's possible to understand state intentions and identity elements. In the paper main theme of human rights is parted into two sections that deal with freedom of speech and religious minorities rights. It is supposed that the first topic is debated between European Union and Turkey's Kemalist establishment, and the second – between Union and proislamic movements in Turkey. Such move is made because of the ambivalent Turkish identity. After the First World War established Turkish state, soon it turned into a radical modernization and westernization. This led to the partitioned state identity. Kemalist establishment stresses threat of radical Islamism and Kurdish separatism, and Islamists demand the same rights for Muslims as for all other religious minorities. For this reason Kemalist identity is based on four main principles: nationalism, secularism, state hegemony and modernization. Meanwhile, Islamists stress muslimhood as the core of their identity. In the first debate European Union criticizes Turkey because of sanctions for citizens while they are expressing non-violent opinion on such topics as Armenian genocide, Kurdish question and the legacy of Atatürk. Turkey (Kemalist establishment) gives it's own arguments referring to the aforementioned threats to the state, but these arguments are not taken into account by European Union. For this reason Kemalists assume, that European Union seeks to rebuild Kemalist identity of Turkey. The second debate deals with religious minorities' situation in Turkey. On the one hand, Europe always stresses problems, which face non-Muslim and non-Sunni religious minorities. One the other – Turkey's Islamists, while agreeing with such statements, seek to show problems of Sunni Muslim majority. This part of debate reveals how Muslim identity is excluded out of European human rights concept.

The paper is devoted to analyze European Union and Turkey debates on human rights. Here the debates are perceived as the scene where both sides put their arguments, positions, values, express intensions. This helps to find out the main reason, why discussion on human rights between European Union and Turkey isn't as fluent as it could be. Debates are analyzed in so called "language games" perspective, which means, that all argumentation here is equated to the move making in the game theory. Going along game theory lines, here we make a presumption, that states as international actors are rational, but their identity and interests are not static. Taking into account ideas of Alexander Wendt, identity and interests are presupposed to be a product of mutual states interaction. Interaction in the paper by itself is supposed to be a game, where the biggest stress is put on rules – knowing the rules of the game, it's possible to understand state intentions and identity elements. In the paper main theme of human rights is parted into two sections that deal with freedom of speech and religious minorities rights. It is supposed that the first topic is debated between European Union and Turkey's Kemalist establishment, and the second – between Union and proislamic movements in Turkey. Such move is made because of the ambivalent Turkish identity. After the First World War established Turkish state, soon it turned into a radical modernization and westernization. This led to the partitioned state identity. Kemalist establishment stresses threat of radical Islamism and Kurdish separatism, and Islamists demand the same rights for Muslims as for all other religious minorities. For this reason Kemalist identity is based on four main principles: nationalism, secularism, state hegemony and modernization. Meanwhile, Islamists stress muslimhood as the core of their identity. In the first debate European Union criticizes Turkey because of sanctions for citizens while they are expressing non-violent opinion on such topics as Armenian genocide, Kurdish question and the legacy of Atatürk. Turkey (Kemalist establishment) gives it's own arguments referring to the aforementioned threats to the state, but these arguments are not taken into account by European Union. For this reason Kemalists assume, that European Union seeks to rebuild Kemalist identity of Turkey. The second debate deals with religious minorities' situation in Turkey. On the one hand, Europe always stresses problems, which face non-Muslim and non-Sunni religious minorities. One the other – Turkey's Islamists, while agreeing with such statements, seek to show problems of Sunni Muslim majority. This part of debate reveals how Muslim identity is excluded out of European human rights concept.

Although Turkey has been knocking on the EU's gates for almost four decades, only the echo of that knock was being heard in Lithuania until 2004. After Lithuania joined the EU, the question of Turkish membership in the EU was by design added to the agenda of the Lithuanian government's foreign policy. High-ranking state officials rushed to assure both citizens and the world that Lithuania supports the objectives of Turkey, whereas opposition (rightist) parties expressed concern about the lack of debate on this issue in the Parliament, the government and society in general. The opinion of the society, to which the Lithuanian government had not yet appealed in any way, is not clear yet. Political analysts and journalists writing on this issue tend to demonize Turkey and practically frighten the general public. It seems that a passively negative mood is settling over ordinary citizens, which in the case of referendum can become potential "No's" to the Turkish membership in the Bloc.

Although Turkey has been knocking on the EU's gates for almost four decades, only the echo of that knock was being heard in Lithuania until 2004. After Lithuania joined the EU, the question of Turkish membership in the EU was by design added to the agenda of the Lithuanian government's foreign policy. High-ranking state officials rushed to assure both citizens and the world that Lithuania supports the objectives of Turkey, whereas opposition (rightist) parties expressed concern about the lack of debate on this issue in the Parliament, the government and society in general. The opinion of the society, to which the Lithuanian government had not yet appealed in any way, is not clear yet. Political analysts and journalists writing on this issue tend to demonize Turkey and practically frighten the general public. It seems that a passively negative mood is settling over ordinary citizens, which in the case of referendum can become potential "No's" to the Turkish membership in the Bloc.

Although Turkey has been knocking on the EU's gates for almost four decades, only the echo of that knock was being heard in Lithuania until 2004. After Lithuania joined the EU, the question of Turkish membership in the EU was by design added to the agenda of the Lithuanian government's foreign policy. High-ranking state officials rushed to assure both citizens and the world that Lithuania supports the objectives of Turkey, whereas opposition (rightist) parties expressed concern about the lack of debate on this issue in the Parliament, the government and society in general. The opinion of the society, to which the Lithuanian government had not yet appealed in any way, is not clear yet. Political analysts and journalists writing on this issue tend to demonize Turkey and practically frighten the general public. It seems that a passively negative mood is settling over ordinary citizens, which in the case of referendum can become potential "No's" to the Turkish membership in the Bloc.

Although Turkey has been knocking on the EU's gates for almost four decades, only the echo of that knock was being heard in Lithuania until 2004. After Lithuania joined the EU, the question of Turkish membership in the EU was by design added to the agenda of the Lithuanian government's foreign policy. High-ranking state officials rushed to assure both citizens and the world that Lithuania supports the objectives of Turkey, whereas opposition (rightist) parties expressed concern about the lack of debate on this issue in the Parliament, the government and society in general. The opinion of the society, to which the Lithuanian government had not yet appealed in any way, is not clear yet. Political analysts and journalists writing on this issue tend to demonize Turkey and practically frighten the general public. It seems that a passively negative mood is settling over ordinary citizens, which in the case of referendum can become potential "No's" to the Turkish membership in the Bloc.

Although Turkey has been knocking on the EU's gates for almost four decades, only the echo of that knock was being heard in Lithuania until 2004. After Lithuania joined the EU, the question of Turkish membership in the EU was by design added to the agenda of the Lithuanian government's foreign policy. High-ranking state officials rushed to assure both citizens and the world that Lithuania supports the objectives of Turkey, whereas opposition (rightist) parties expressed concern about the lack of debate on this issue in the Parliament, the government and society in general. The opinion of the society, to which the Lithuanian government had not yet appealed in any way, is not clear yet. Political analysts and journalists writing on this issue tend to demonize Turkey and practically frighten the general public. It seems that a passively negative mood is settling over ordinary citizens, which in the case of referendum can become potential "No's" to the Turkish membership in the Bloc.

Although Turkey has been knocking on the EU's gates for almost four decades, only the echo of that knock was being heard in Lithuania until 2004. After Lithuania joined the EU, the question of Turkish membership in the EU was by design added to the agenda of the Lithuanian government's foreign policy. High-ranking state officials rushed to assure both citizens and the world that Lithuania supports the objectives of Turkey, whereas opposition (rightist) parties expressed concern about the lack of debate on this issue in the Parliament, the government and society in general. The opinion of the society, to which the Lithuanian government had not yet appealed in any way, is not clear yet. Political analysts and journalists writing on this issue tend to demonize Turkey and practically frighten the general public. It seems that a passively negative mood is settling over ordinary citizens, which in the case of referendum can become potential "No's" to the Turkish membership in the Bloc.

Although Turkey has been knocking on the EU's gates for almost four decades, only the echo of that knock was being heard in Lithuania until 2004. After Lithuania joined the EU, the question of Turkish membership in the EU was by design added to the agenda of the Lithuanian government's foreign policy. High-ranking state officials rushed to assure both citizens and the world that Lithuania supports the objectives of Turkey, whereas opposition (rightist) parties expressed concern about the lack of debate on this issue in the Parliament, the government and society in general. The opinion of the society, to which the Lithuanian government had not yet appealed in any way, is not clear yet. Political analysts and journalists writing on this issue tend to demonize Turkey and practically frighten the general public. It seems that a passively negative mood is settling over ordinary citizens, which in the case of referendum can become potential "No's" to the Turkish membership in the Bloc.

Although Turkey has been knocking on the EU's gates for almost four decades, only the echo of that knock was being heard in Lithuania until 2004. After Lithuania joined the EU, the question of Turkish membership in the EU was by design added to the agenda of the Lithuanian government's foreign policy. High-ranking state officials rushed to assure both citizens and the world that Lithuania supports the objectives of Turkey, whereas opposition (rightist) parties expressed concern about the lack of debate on this issue in the Parliament, the government and society in general. The opinion of the society, to which the Lithuanian government had not yet appealed in any way, is not clear yet. Political analysts and journalists writing on this issue tend to demonize Turkey and practically frighten the general public. It seems that a passively negative mood is settling over ordinary citizens, which in the case of referendum can become potential "No's" to the Turkish membership in the Bloc.

Although Turkey has been knocking on the EU's gates for almost four decades, only the echo of that knock was being heard in Lithuania until 2004. After Lithuania joined the EU, the question of Turkish membership in the EU was by design added to the agenda of the Lithuanian government's foreign policy. High-ranking state officials rushed to assure both citizens and the world that Lithuania supports the objectives of Turkey, whereas opposition (rightist) parties expressed concern about the lack of debate on this issue in the Parliament, the government and society in general. The opinion of the society, to which the Lithuanian government had not yet appealed in any way, is not clear yet. Political analysts and journalists writing on this issue tend to demonize Turkey and practically frighten the general public. It seems that a passively negative mood is settling over ordinary citizens, which in the case of referendum can become potential "No's" to the Turkish membership in the Bloc.

Although Turkey has been knocking on the EU's gates for almost four decades, only the echo of that knock was being heard in Lithuania until 2004. After Lithuania joined the EU, the question of Turkish membership in the EU was by design added to the agenda of the Lithuanian government's foreign policy. High-ranking state officials rushed to assure both citizens and the world that Lithuania supports the objectives of Turkey, whereas opposition (rightist) parties expressed concern about the lack of debate on this issue in the Parliament, the government and society in general. The opinion of the society, to which the Lithuanian government had not yet appealed in any way, is not clear yet. Political analysts and journalists writing on this issue tend to demonize Turkey and practically frighten the general public. It seems that a passively negative mood is settling over ordinary citizens, which in the case of referendum can become potential "No's" to the Turkish membership in the Bloc.

Although Turkey has been knocking on the EU's gates for almost four decades, only the echo of that knock was being heard in Lithuania until 2004. After Lithuania joined the EU, the question of Turkish membership in the EU was by design added to the agenda of the Lithuanian government's foreign policy. High-ranking state officials rushed to assure both citizens and the world that Lithuania supports the objectives of Turkey, whereas opposition (rightist) parties expressed concern about the lack of debate on this issue in the Parliament, the government and society in general. The opinion of the society, to which the Lithuanian government had not yet appealed in any way, is not clear yet. Political analysts and journalists writing on this issue tend to demonize Turkey and practically frighten the general public. It seems that a passively negative mood is settling over ordinary citizens, which in the case of referendum can become potential "No's" to the Turkish membership in the Bloc.