Suchergebnisse

Ik schrijf deze column aan de vooravond van de verkiezingen voor het Europees Parlement. Mijn verwachting is dat vooral partijen die sceptisch staan tegenover de Europese integratie en eenwording als winnaar uit de bus zullen komen. U kunt als lezer van het juninummer mijn verwachting direct staven aan de verkiezingsuitslag. Die euroscepsis begrijp ik. De grootste fouten die Brussel heeft gemaakt zijn het toelaten van Griekenland en wellicht ook nog enkele andere Zuid-Europese landen tot de eurozone en het sinds 2004 welhaast ongebreideld uitbreiden van de Europese Unie van 15 naar 28 lidstaten. Maar dit zijn vooral ook politieke vraagstukken waar ik het in deze column niet over wil hebben.

International migration is a consequence of globalisation and part of a transnational trend which permanently influences communities, cultural interaction and socio-economic governance in developed and developing states (Harris 2009:4). According to Solomon (1996:1) one out of every hundred and fourteen people in the world can be regarded as displaced. Angenendt (2008:1) is of the opinion that the reasons for illegal immigration in particular can be universally linked to the attempt to fl ee from political violence and oppression or a lack of economic prospects in the country of origin. In the European Union (EU) the largest group of immigrants, for example, come from Turkey, Morocco, Albania and Serbia (A common immigration policy 2008:4). In the United States of America (USA) illegal immigrants and non-established minorities are mostly from Mexico, Cuba and other South American states. In South Africa the abovementioned groups mainly come from Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Swaziland (Whitman 2000:19). Migration is a multidimensional and complex concept relating to a variety of interpretations and meanings. For the purposes of this article the research will be narrowed down to illegal immigration and insufficient integration and marginalisation of non-established minorities in South Africa and the European Union (with a brief reference to the Netherlands as a case study). The key concepts can be summarised as follows: a) Non-established minorities: Smit (2009:8) views non-established minorities as individuals or a group that enter a receiver state legally or illegally. These individuals or groups find it difficult to integrate on social, cultural and economic levels in the receiver state. Non- established minorities tend to live in groups, develop their own community structures and tend to retain their own language, culture and religion. This means that they are unable to integrate into the structure and culture of the society that they have entered. They therefore tend to function and live in isolation. In many respects their traditions and way of life are being viewed as strange and regarded with suspicion. The consequence is that non-established minorities are often subjected to socio-economic marginalisation and even discrimination; b) Illegal immigration: In brief terms an illegal or undocumented immigrant can be described as a person that enters a state without formal permission. An illegal immigrant therefore enters a state outside the legislative migration framework of that state. Illegal immigration usually takes place through people-trafficking organisations, overstaying on a tourist or study visa or forging a visa (Offe 2011:4). The South African government has recently launched initiatives to improve immigration control and limit illegal immigration from other African states. In broad terms these initiatives consist of the redeployment of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) on the South African borders, as well as improved internal processing arrangements and deportation procedures. In the light of the foregoing actions, this article undertakes a holistic comparative analysis of the immigration and non-established minority challenges facing the EU and the way in which illegal immigration is managed in South Africa. The primary assumption is that there are managerial shortcomings and certain lessons to be learnt from the EU experience. It is the main objective of this article to highlight these lessons. Firstly, the article focuses on the impact of moral obligations as an important rationale for the extent of, and manner in which the South African authorities currently manage illegal immigration and the problem of non-established minority groups. Here an emphasis is placed on crime, unemployment and xenophobia as perceived consequences of illegal immigration. Secondly, as the main focus, the article is narrowed down to the perception of, and manner in which illegal immigration and non-established minorities are currently being dealt with within the EU. In this regard there is a specific emphasis on the perception of the national interest of individual states as rationale behind the management of illegal immigration and non-established minorities in the EU. This comparison serves as a guideline to identify the challenges that must be overcome by the South African authorities and provide recommendations for relevant policy formulation and the implementation thereof. ; http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0041-47512011000200003&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en

Perception of in-group discrimination among immigrants in 14 member states of the European Union .Drawing on the second and third wave of the European Social Survey, we analyse the perception of in-group discrimination of 7034 immigrants from 177 different countries of origin in
14 European Union countries. In addition to testing the effects of individual factors, such as education, religion, and migration history, we estimate the effects of macro-characteristics of both origin and destination countries. We distinguish four dimensions of explanations: immigration,
religion, economic circumstances and immigration policies. The influence of adherence to Eastern Orthodox, Jewish and non-Christian religions on perceived in-group discrimination is significant, and cannot be explained by characteristics of the origin or destination countries. The migration
history of these groups is also relevant for the perceived discrimination: immigrants who are citizens of the country of their destination, who speak the majority language at home and who are married to a native perceive in-group discrimination less often. There are strong effects of the macro-characteristics
of the country of origin. Immigrants from poorer origin countries perceive in-group discrimination more often. There are also a significant effects of immigration policies of the country of destination: easy access to long term residence, more relaxed rules for family reunion, no special policy
or a more easy entrance to the labour-market for immigrants and a higher level of job protection decreases perceived in-group discrimination among immigrants.

In this paper, written with Prof. Marta Pertegás Sender, we give an overview of the achievements made within the EU in securing the mutual recognition and enforcement of court decisions issued in employment disputes. Particular attention is given to the special regime of employment disputes under the 1968 Brussels Convention and the Regulation 44/2001.

"This unique collection of data includes concise definitions and explanations relating to all aspects of the European Union. It explains the terminology surrounding the EU and outlines the roles and significance of the institutions, member countries, foreign relations, programmes and policies, treaties and personalities. It contains over 1,000 clear and succinct definitions and explains acronyms and abbreviations, which are arranged alphabetically and fully cross-referenced. The book has been fully updated to include details of the elections to the European Parliament and the appointment of the new European Commission in 2014, together with other important revisions."

While there are many textbooks about the European Union (EU), Clive Archer covers the essential elements of the EU clearly and concisely, outlining the key debates and issues it faces today.

Met het referendum over de Europese Grondwet in 2005 ontwaakte het parlement uit de Europese droom. Dat de Nederlandse bevolking daarin 'nee' zei tegen de grondwet was voor de voorstanders van Europese integratie een tegenslag, maar wel één die onvermijdelijk en noodzakelijk was. Dat concludeert historica Jieskje Hollander op basis van haar proefschrift The incoming tide. Dutch reactions to the Constitutionalisation of Europe (1948-2005) waarop zij op 4 juli promoveert aan de Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Hollander sprak onder meer met een aantal betrokken ministers. Na oprichting van de Europese Gemeenschap van Kolen en Staal (EGKS) in 1952 streefden tot 2005 alle Nederlandse kabinetten naar steeds verdergaande Europese integratie. Door een grondwetswijziging in 1953 kwam fundamenteel parlementair debat daar nauwelijks aan te pas, ook niet toen het parlement zelf steeds meer vraagtekens zette bij de noodzaak en wenselijkheid van al deze stappen. Hollander: 'Het besluit om in 2005 een referendum te organiseren kwam voort uit oprechte bezorgdheid over de steun voor Europa bij de bevolking, die decennia lang buiten dit proces gehouden was. Maar het was ook een uiterst redmiddel van de Tweede Kamer zelf om grip te krijgen op een proces dat zich steeds meer los van haar controle leek te ontwikkelen. Het was een bittere pil dat de meerderheid tegen stemde, want het parlement was in meerderheid vóór en had nou juist zijn best gedaan om Europa toegankelijker te maken voor de burger.' Doctrine Als een van de grondleggers van de EGKS en voorvechter van verdere eenwording, bouwde Nederland aan een reputatie van trouwe bondgenoot in het proces van Europese integratie. Hollander: 'Die houding komt voort uit de oeroude Nederlandse doctrine dat wij te klein zijn om ons alleen te redden, en dus bondgenootschappen nodig hebben. Die overtuiging ging zo diep dat in 1953 een grondwetswijziging werd ingevoerd die de regering een vergaand mandaat gaf om Europese verdragen te sluiten, zelfs als die op gespannen voet stonden met onze eigen Grondwet. Sindsdien ging de regering voort onder het motto: "Wie A zegt moet ook B zeggen". Het point of no return was dus eigenlijk al in 1953 gepasseerd.' Sceptisch Hollander stelt vast dat een aantal partijen, zoals de CPN en de kleine christelijke partijen, altijd al sceptisch stond tegenover dat mandaat en dat vanaf 1986 de kritiek steeds breder gedragen werd in het parlement. Maar het besluitvormingsproces ten aanzien van Europese verdragen was op die kritische houding niet ingericht. Hollander: 'De moeite die de Kamers met het Europese beleid hadden groeide in de jaren daarna alleen maar. Vanuit dat perspectief was het niet vreemd dat het Nederlandse besluitvormingsproces over Europese verdragen steeds meer omstreden werd en uitmondde in een referendum.' Tunnelvisie Het 'nee' tegen de Europese Grondwet mag dan door velen als politieke tegenslag zijn beleefd, volgens Hollander was het per saldo een blessing in disguise. 'Het is goed geweest dat in Nederland de boel werd opgefrist. Het heeft de politiek uit die tunnelvisie gehaald waarin discussieloos voortschrijden in Europa als iets vanzelfsprekends werd beschouwd. Eindelijk kunnen wetenschap en politiek weer vragen opwerpen over bijvoorbeeld onze soevereiniteit en of en hoe deze af te bakenen. Vragen die passen bij een volwassen relatie tussen de Europese Unie en haar lidstaten. Overigens: het referendum heeft er nog steeds niet toe geleid dat de bewuste grondwetswijziging uit 1953 is terug gedraaid en dat zie ik voorlopig ook niet gebeuren.' Primaire bronnen Hollander onderzocht als eerste vele primaire bronnen over de Europese besluitvorming, zoals de handelingen van de Eerste en Tweede Kamer, aangevuld met interviews met onder meer direct betrokken ministers. 'De meeste geschiedschrijving hierover is uitgegaan van het perspectief van belangrijke mannen die onderhandelden over verdragen, dus het perspectief van de regering en haar diplomatieke dienst. Maar ik heb juist gekeken naar de reacties daarop in het parlement.'

Political Science; European Union

Political Science; European Union - Dit paper onderzoekt de vraag waarom de euro alleen ex post factum betwist werd. De serie WRR-webpublicaties omvat studies die in het kader van de werkzaamheden van de WRR tot stand zijn gekomen. De verantwoordelijkheid voor de inhoud en de ingenomen standpunten berust bij de auteurs.

The right of asylum is rooted in the history of mankind (religious right of asylum (sanctuary)) and since the beginning of the modern State it has been rooted in the sovereignty of the State itself (the right of territorial asylum). The State retains the right to grant its protection to certain non-nationals or stateless persons, as a consequence of its territorial sovereignty, once the conditions laid down by the State have been complied with. In principle, it is the sovereign State itself which decides in which circumstances a person deserves such protection.1 Refugee status, on the other hand, is a concept which arose in international law in the 20th century and is defined through international agreements. It protects certain persons, especially when they have had to flee from the countries of their nationality or their habitual residence owing to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons which concern their race, nationality, membership in a particular social group or their political opinions.2 Despite the underlying humanitarian principles, there is no doubt that the granting of asylum is intimately connected with politics at all levels.3 Therefore the term political asylum is also used. As far as refugee status is concerned, the treaty instruments are the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (further referred to as the 1951 Geneva Convention)4 and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (further referred to as the 1967 New York Protocol).5 Although there are references to asylum in the Preamble to the 1951 Geneva Convention, the granting of asylum (i.e. granting of full and lasting protection) is not dealt with further in the text of this convention or the 1967 New York Protocol.6 The 1951 Geneva Convention was originally drafted to deal with the displacement of people as a result of the Second World War. It restricted the definition of refugees to those whose fear of persecution arose from events occurring in Europe before 1 January 1951. The 1967 New York Protocol removed the time restriction and promoted a gradual removal of the geographical restriction. However, the definition of refugee was not changed.