Suchergebnisse

This paper aims to give a comprehensive picture of the objectives and perspectives behind the creation of the Central European Initiative (CEI). It also analyzes the role of CEI in the political, economic and social transition in the post-Socialist states. The article studies how CEI helped the integration of the Central European countries to the Western institutions, especially to the European Union (EU). The cooperation was founded in 1989 by Austria, Hungary, Italy, and Yugoslavia. It was unique and special in the era, as it had member states from totally different political and economic blocks. There are more approaches to explain the creation of this cooperation. According to the Liberal one, the founder states wished to create a flexible platform for the cooperation of countries from different blocks. This was also a political initiative to overcome on the divisions of bipolarity and the Cold War. The laid down political objectives in the official documents included the values represented by the European institutions. These values were adopted by the post-Socialist states. At the project level, the initiatives of CEI indirectly contributed to the economic and social transition in these countries. CEI and EU progressively built their close relations, and the support of EU integration became the mission of CEI. If we study the EU accessions in the region, we can state, CEI had a successful and important role in bringing closer the post-Socialist states to the EU.

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.

On the whole we can claim that in the last almost sixty years there was a significant change in Croatian-Hungarian trans-border relationships. State-governed cooperation was replaced by project-controlled co-operations under the guidance of local-governments and the civil sphere. Unfortunately, stock and human workforce deficit very often obstructs success. Besides it is a permanent problem in our country that state politics has a great influence on local-government politics. So in a certain euroregion the success of operation highly depends on where the local-governments and civil organization belong to politically and on the leaders' ability to validate their interests. As a result of stock deficit mentioned previously project-based co-operations occurred.1 But these ad hoc project associations are not able and won't even be able to use union sources efficiently and generate any kind of long-term regional development. ; On the whole we can claim that in the last almost sixty years there was a significant change in Croatian-Hungarian trans-border relationships. State-governed cooperation was replaced by project-controlled co-operations under the guidance of local-governments and the civil sphere. Unfortunately, stock and human workforce deficit very often obstructs success. Besides it is a permanent problem in our country that state politics has a great influence on local-government politics. So in a certain euroregion the success of operation highly depends on where the local-governments and civil organization belong to politically and on the leaders' ability to validate their interests. As a result of stock deficit mentioned previously project-based co-operations occurred.1 But these ad hoc project associations are not able and won't even be able to use union sources efficiently and generate any kind of long-term regional development.

This paper explores how Britain's and Colombia's privileged relations with the United States (U.S.) influenced their journey through the European Community (EC) and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). The Anglo–American Special Relationship (AASR) was compatible with British participation in the European Single Market, but not with adherence to creating the EC's common currency, nor with leadership in building a European defence structure autonomous from NATO. Thus, since the start of the Iraq war, Britain played a rather obstructive role in what later was called European Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). The US–Colombia Partnership (USCP), based on a longstanding military association reinforced under Plan Colombia, naturally discouraged any meaningful Colombian participation in UNASUR's South American Security Council (CDS), a regional cooperative security project, promoted by Brazil. Cherished projects of the liberal CAP – such as triangular cooperation (to export Colombian security expertise to Central America with U.S. co-financing and oversight) and NATO partnership – also distracted Colombia's interest from UNASUR, diminishing the latter's relevance collaterally. A role for UNASUR – alongside the Organization of American States (OAS) – in South American security management was compatible with the liberal CAP, but not with the neoconservative CAP. Even a lopsided complementation – such as the one between NATO and the CSDP – proved unviable between the OAS and UNASUR.

Reaffirming the importance of the U.S.-Japan relationship -- Contributing to world peace and global prosperity -- Definitive implementation of the U.S.-Japan security treaty -- Integrating hard power and soft power -- The political necessity for cooperation -- Review of bilateral cooperation on global issues -- The global partnership under the George H.W. Bush administration (1989-1993) -- The common agenda under the Clinton administration (1993-2001) -- Alliance cooperation under the George W. Bush administration (2001 -- present) -- A new framework for enhanced global security -- Promoting regional economic integration: an Asia-Pacific union -- U.S.-Japan free trade agreement -- Main areas for cooperation -- Environment and energy -- Climate change -- Energy-saving societies -- Development and Africa -- Nuclear nonproliferation -- Other possible areas for cooperation.

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.

The adoption of the new multiannual financial framework for the period 2021-2027 is one of the most important questions in the EU nowadays. It always belongs to the most difficult and time-consuming decisions the member states have to make. Such a decision should represent several interest like the net contributor and net beneficiary states' aims, the willingness of the European Commission and the European Parliament to make the cooperation among the countries deeper and to extend the cooperation to new policy areas too. The EU's long term multiannual financial framework (MFF) influences and somehow defines the next years' yearly budget and the benefits the member states can receive from the common budget of the EU as well. The main spending numbers represents the importance of the different policy areas as the EU provides resources for the topics which will be in focus in the next seven years. The decision about the new MMF is more complicated than the earlier ones. As a result of the Brexit there will be a gap in the common budget. As at the beginning of the MFF negotiations the way and the exact date of the Brexit was not clear the whole process became less transparent and predictable. On the other hand, the EU planes to provide significantly more money to new priorities and goals like border security, competitiveness or foreign policy. It means that the two traditional beneficiary policy areas' (the CAP and the Cohesion spending) share should decrease within the common budget. This study examines the effects of this decrease on the CAP 2nd pillar, rural development.

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.

During the Cold War, the Philippines was an indispensable US ally, and this was still basically the case at the turn of the 21st century. However, the inauguration of President Rodrigo Duterte in June 2016 heralded great changes for the international position of the Philippines: a shift towards China and Russia occurred, followed by the emergence of a more balanced foreign policy. The partnership with the US has changed, too: during the Obama administration, the relationship between the two countries became cooler, although the foundations of the alliance were never contested. In the wake of Donald Trump's assumption of office in January 2017, the alliance seems to have become as strong as before, and economic as well as security-military cooperation has continued. The author's aim is to analyze the Philippines' position in the US-led world order from 1945 to the present, as well as the foundations of the United States–Philippines special relationship. After that the main components of Duterte's "independent" foreign policy and the fundamental changes in the Philippines' foreign relations are presented. The analysis focuses on the causes of the conflict at the end of Barack Obama's presidency, followed by the improving partnership during the Trump era and the main geopolitical challenges the alliance has had to face. According to its conclusion the US–Philippines security cooperation will remain strong under Presidents Duterte and Trump due to strategic considerations, which indicate the military alliance is in the interests of both nations.

Introduction: Contexts of Gypsy/Roma identity and history -- On the sources of Gypsy/Roma history -- Who (what) is (was) Hungarian or Gypsy/Roma? -- "Comrades, if you have a heart" : the history of the Gypsy issue, 1945-1961 -- The construction and spread of the state socialist system -- Policy and Gypsies -- Modernization and Gypsy communities -- Disciplinary state -- The impossibility of self-organization -- Minority issue -- Discourses on social policy and equality -- "Life goes on" : the Hungarian party-state and assimilation -- Social policy and the Gypsies -- Wage work -- Housing -- Social system -- Education -- Scientific approaches -- Gypsy images -- The transformation of discourse -- Disciplinary power, disciplinary society -- Police and agents -- "Health supervisors" -- The national minority issue -- National movement -- The "ethnic interpretation" of history -- Roma policy after the regime change -- Minority issue -- Prospects for multiculturalism -- Minority (self-)government? -- Divide at Impera : the opportunities and impossibilities of self-organization -- Movement -- National minority culture, national culture -- Questions of equal treatment and equal opportunity -- Anti-discrimination -- Equal opportunity -- Roma programs -- Education -- Employment -- Social policy and the Roma -- Aid -- Segregation -- Disciplinary society -- The transformation of discourses -- Research methods -- Panopticon : Roma policy, 2010-2015 -- The Hungarian National Cooperation System -- The anti-egalitarian character of the system -- Changing minority legislation -- New social policy? -- Violence -- The shift -- Summary: Decades of exclusion

In his study the author deals with the question of the corporative organization of the young Slovenian state. In the first part of his writing the author presents the theory and development of corporative ideas after WWII. He sums up the main theories of Philippe C. Schmitter and Gerhard Lehmbruch, the two main thinkers of modern corporatism and shows how these theories influenced the development of societal/liberal corporatism. The author introduces the concept of concertation, the new decision-making process of the modern corporative state and differentiates it from the classic pressure politics of liberalism. After the theoretical background in the second part of his study the author gives an introspection into the forms of Slovenian corporative cooperation. First of all, he describes the main organizations of the tripartite political processes: the employers' chambers and associations (e.g. Gospodarska zbornica Slovenije, Trgovinska zbornica Slovenije, Združenje delodajalcev Slovenije) and the employees' unions (e.g. Zveza svobodnih sindikatov Slovenije, Konfedearcija sindikatov Slovenije Pergam, Konfederacija sindikatov 90 Slovenije). At the end of his work he shows the function of the classical corporative forums in Slovenia: the Economic and Social Council (Ekonomsko-socialni svet Slovenije, ESSS) and the National Council (Državni Svet). The author's conclusions are unambiguous: after the successful achievement of independence and freedom, Slovenia managed to create one of the most effective organizational models of modern (societal/liberal) corporatism and uses the process of concertation fruitful for his economic stability and social welfare.

The presentation is a summary of the experiences of régiónál development over a quarter of a century, from the aspect of Hungárián bordér researches. European integration and the unfurling Schengen process changed the relationship of Hungárián régiónál Science and bordér researches in the interpretation of territorial processes. There was a gradual shift of focus by régiónál policies: the so-called "Trianon-syndrome", the analysis of the traditional controlling and restricting functions of State borders was gradually replaced by the analysis of the character of cross-border cooperations. From the point of view of development policy, the tight relationship of régiónál Science and bordér research was founded by the need fór the utilisation of internál and extemal resources, which is the prime motivation of cross-border relations. It is beyond doubt that the use of Hungárián and even more so the EU régiónál supports can effectively serve the moderation of the development disparities of bordér regions, the catching up of the extemal (bordér) peripheries, the "unification" of the spatial structural functions disintegrated by the Peace Treaty of Trianon, the creation and cohesion of a functioning macro-regional economic space in the Carpathian Basin - and all in all the issue of European integration, the improvement of neighbourhood relations.