scholarly journals Sailing the seven seas

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 204-216
Author(s):  
Gijsbert Vonk
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
Member States ◽  
Bilateral Agreements ◽  
Global Standards ◽  
The Social ◽  
Security Relations ◽  
Alternative Approaches ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Eu

The purpose of this final contribution is to offer a broad schematic overview of ‘mechanisms’ that can be used to strengthen the social security protection of persons moving in and out of the EU. Seven mechanisms have been selected for discussion: national unilateral standards, EU unilateral standards, bilateral agreements, EU coordination of bilateral agreements, EU third country agreements, multilateral co-operation and global standards. The existence of this plethora of mechanisms, each with its own merits and shortcomings, casts a shadow over the possibility of a uniform EU regime for external social security relations. Any attempt to introduce such an approach can immediately be contradicted by alternative approaches and mechanisms which can be used both by the EU and by the individual Member States. It is suggested that more coherence in external EU social security coordination can perhaps be found in a conceptual way, by layering the seven mechanisms in a logical manner.

scholarly journals Member States’ social security agreements with India

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-187
Author(s):  
Pauline Melin
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Bilateral Agreements ◽  
Country Case Study ◽  
The Eu

In a 2012 Communication, the European Commission described the current approach to social security coordination with third countries as ‘patchy’. The European Commission proposed to address that patchiness by developing a common EU approach to social security coordination with third countries whereby the Member States would cooperate more with each other when concluding bilateral agreements with third countries. This article aims to explore the policy agenda of the European Commission in that field by conducting a comparative legal analysis of the Member States’ bilateral agreements with India. The idea behind the comparative legal analysis is to determine whether (1) there are common grounds between the Member States’ approaches, and (2) based on these common grounds, it is possible to suggest a common EU approach. India is taken as a third-country case study due to its labour migration and investment potential for the European Union. In addition, there are currently 12 Member State bilateral agreements with India and no instrument at the EU level on social security coordination with India. Therefore, there is a potential need for a common EU approach to social security coordination with India. Based on the comparative legal analysis of the Member States’ bilateral agreements with India, this article ends by outlining the content of a potential future common EU approach.

scholarly journals National approaches of EU Member States in concluding bilateral social security agreements with third countries

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-161
Author(s):  
Bernard Spiegel
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Member States ◽  
Bilateral Agreements ◽  
Common Features ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Exchange Of Information ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Security Agreements

For EU Member States like Austria, the EU Regulations on the coordination of social security schemes are the focus of academic and political attention. They deal with many cases and are usually very complex. They are supervised by the European Commission and the CJEU. Compared to these EU rules, bilateral agreements with third countries are treated as step-children. They do not get the academic and political attention they deserve, taking into account their importance in practice. They have common features compared to the EU rules, but there are also remarkable differences in the texts and their interpretation. The differences sometimes lead to practical problems of application and interpretation in the EU Member States. Based on Austrian experiences, all these aspects are elaborated in this article. Enhanced cooperation and exchange of information between the EU Member States in the future could help to improve the negotiating position of these countries and also guarantee greater esteem for the bilateral agreements.

Analysis of the Dutch Crisis Response System in the Context of the Common European Union Resilience

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-64
Author(s):  
Chris van Duuren ◽  
Tomasz Zwęgliński
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
System Development ◽  
Crisis Response ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
Civil Protection ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Future Challenges ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Eu

The increasing integrity of the European Union member states is more and more regarding the security and civil protection aspects. On the other hand the priority in responsibility for the safety and security is still in the domain of the sovereign states. It means that the individual states of the EU are responsible for designing and managing their own security and civil protection systems. However, the integration processes within the EU trigger a significant need for an increase of common understanding of the individual member states’ philosophies, approaches and systems utilized in the domain of security and civil protection. Only then if we understand how the others work, we are able to assist them in a crisis or disaster. Therefore, it is highly important to share and understand each other’s systems between member states. The article presents the Dutch approach to national risk assessment as well as organizational aspects of internal security system applied in the Netherlands. It also suggest the future challenges which are at the near horizon of the system development.

Income inequality in the EU: how do member states contribute?

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 450-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christos Papatheodorou ◽  
Dimitris Pavlopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Social Protection ◽  
Decomposition Analysis ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Income Disparities ◽  
The Social ◽  
Macroeconomic Indicators ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Total Inequality ◽  
The Eu

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse the structure of overall inequality in the EU-15 by investigating the extent to which total inequality is attributed to inequality between or within the individual countries. Also, the paper examines whether the contribution of between-country and within-country components changed in the period between 1996 to 2008, before the outbreak of the economic crisis. Design/methodology/approach – The paper applies a decomposition analysis by population subgroup utilizing micro-data from the ECHP and EU-SILC surveys. A number of inequality indices are employed to capture the different aspects of inequality and test the robustness of the results. Findings – The analysis shows that the between-countries differences account only for a small part of overall inequality in the EU-15. Furthermore, the contribution of the between county component to total inequality has shrunk dramatically during the examined period. The overall EU inequality has been affected disproportionally by income disparities at the various parts of the income distribution in different countries. Practical implications – Policies aiming to reduce inequality within each country would be far more effective in reducing overall inequality in the EU than policies targeting to reduce only disparities between member states. Originality/value – The findings question the effectiveness of EU policy priorities to decrease inequality that have mainly focused on reducing cross-country and/or regions differences regarding certain macroeconomic indicators such as per-capita income (or GDP). The evidence suggests that the social protection system provides a useful tool in explaining the differences in inequality between countries and their contribution to overall EU inequality.

scholarly journals ПРОСУНУТА СПІВПРАЦЯ, ДИФЕРЕНЦІАЦІЯ І СУБСИДІАРНІСТЬ В ПРАВОВІЙ ОСНОВІ ІННОВАЦІЙНОГО РЕГУЛЮВАННЯ В КРАЇНАХ — ЧЛЕНАХ ЄС

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 283-293
Author(s):  
М. Д. Василенко
Keyword(s):  
Individual Member ◽  
Innovative Development ◽  
Freedom Of Choice ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Eu

Стаття присвячена розгляду, яким чином посилена співпраця, диференціація та суб-сидіарність впливають на інноваційний розвиток окремих країн-членів та ЄС в цілому. Доведено, що в ЄС існує свобода обрання кожною країною засобів і форм реалізації узгодження власного інноваційного права з правом Союзу. В ЄС і країнах-членах ство­рюються умови для зміцнення інноваційного наддержавного і національного законодав­ства з гнучким використанням просунутої співпраці, диференціації і субсидіарності для максимальної ефективності коштів сторін, які витрачаються на реалізацію інноваційних програм і підтримку інноваційних структур.   In the paper it is shown, how the advanced cooperation, the differentiation and subsidiarity impact on the innovative development of the individual member states and the EU as a whole. It is proved that in the EU there is a freedom of choice for each state of the means and forms of realization of harmonization of their own innovative law with law of the Union. In the EU and member states there were created the conditions for strengthening the innovative legislation on the suprastate and national levels with the flexible use of advanced cooperation, differentiation and subsidiarity in order to maximize the effectiveness of monetary funds of the parties, spent on the implementation of the innovative programs and support of the innovative structures.

scholarly journals Social Security Coverage for Workers in Selected EU Countries

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (334) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Piechota
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Common Mechanism ◽  
Common Source ◽  
Specific Work ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Funding Sources ◽  
Social Risks ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Eu

A worker is someone who does specific work for another person and is paid for it. In 2014, the employment rate in the EU member states was 64.9%. This means that a large percentage of people are exposed to the so‑called social risks, such as death, old age, accidents (including at work) or sickness (including occupational diseases). These risks are not only a concern for workers, who might lose their ability to work, partially or completely, but also affect other household members, such as spouses, children or parents, who might lose their breadwinner. There is no common mechanism in the EU member states to protect workers from any of those risks materialising. The purpose of this article is to identify the funding sources of social security coverage for workers, the kinds of risks covered, and the benefits offered. To do that, a comparison was drawn of various social security schemes in selected EU member states, based on the available literature and materials. The comparison shows that there is no common mechanism in the EU member states to protect workers should any of the social risks materialise, and that social security contributions are a common source of funding benefit payments.

Social Investment as a Policy Platform

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Vandenbroucke
Keyword(s):  
Social World ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Social Investment ◽  
Education Spending ◽  
Overlapping Consensus ◽  
Member States ◽  
Policy Perspective ◽  
The Social ◽  
Broad Consensus ◽  
The Eu

This contribution argues for a truly reciprocal social investment pact for Europe: member states should be committed to policies that respond to the need for social investment; simultaneously, member states’ efforts in this direction—notably efforts by those in a difficult budgetary context—should be supported in a tangible way. Social investment is a policy perspective that should be based on a broad consensus between people who may entertain certain disagreements regarding the level of their empirical and/or normative understanding of the social world. For that reason, the expression of an ‘overlapping consensus’ is used for delineating social investment advocacy. Data on education spending show that we are far removed from a social investment perspective at the European Union (EU) level. This underscores the fact that social investment advocates need to clearly consider the role the EU has to play in social investment progress.

Critical Analysis of the Zero Risk Weight Privilege for European Sovereign Debt in Light of Art. 124 TFEU

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Hauser
Keyword(s):  
Financial Institutions ◽  
Sovereign Debt ◽  
Banking System ◽  
Financial System ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Capital Adequacy ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Credit Institutions

AbstractThe zero risk weight privilege for European sovereign debt in the current capital adequacy requirements for credit institutions incentivises credit institutions to acquire and hold sovereign debt. However, it also poses a significant risk to the stability of the banking system and thus the financial system as a whole. It is argued that this privilege should not only be abolished due to the risk it entails but that it is also non conformant with EU primary law. Art. 124 TFEU prohibits privileged access of the EU and Member States' public sector to financial institutions except for prudential considerations. The protective purpose of Art. 124 TFEU to ensure sound budgetary policies by subjecting public borrowing to the same rules as borrowing by other market participants is thwarted by the uniform zero risk weight privilege. Further, as this privilege does not take into account the varying creditworthiness of the individual Member States it does not promote the soundness of financial institutions so as to strengthen the soundness of the financial system as whole, but rather endangers systemic stability. The zero risk weight privilege is therefore not based on prudential considerations and hence violates Art. 124 TFEU.

scholarly journals The European Union's policy on human rights and Chinese sovereignism: The case of Xinjiang

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-86
Author(s):  
Dragan Trailovic
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
The Other ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The One ◽  
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region ◽  
Rights Issues ◽  
The Eu

The article explores the European Union's approach to human rights issues in China through the processes of bilateral and multilateral dialogue on human rights between the EU and the People's Republic of China, on the one hand. On the other hand, the paper deals with the analysis of the EU's human rights policy in the specific case of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which is examined through normative and political activities of the EU, its institutions and individual member states. Besides, the paper examines China's response to the European Union's human rights approaches, in general, but also when it comes to the specific case of UAR Xinjiang. ?his is done through a review of China's discourse and behaviour within the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue framework, but also at the UN level and within the framework of bilateral relations with individual member states. The paper aims to show whether and how the characteristics of the EU's general approach to human rights in China are reflected in the individual case of Xinjiang. Particular attention shall be given to the differentiation of member states in terms of their approach to human rights issues in China, which is conditioned by the discrepancy between their political values, normative interests and ideational factors, on the one hand, and material factors and economic interests, on the other. Also, the paper aims to show the important features of the different views of the European Union and the Chinese state on the very role of Human Rights Dialogue, as well as their different understandings of the concept of human rights itself. The study concluded that the characteristics of the Union's general approach to human rights in China, as well as the different perceptions of human rights issues between China and the EU, were manifested in the same way in the case of UAR Xinjiang.

SOCIAL WELFARE OF MIGRANT WORKERS IN THE EU: COMPARATIVE MODELS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LEGAL INTEGRATION SYSTEM OF THE EAEU STATES

2021 ◽  
pp. 115-124
Author(s):  
Dmitry V. Agashev ◽  
◽  
Sergey G. Trifonov ◽  
Kristine V. Trifonova ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Policy ◽  
Social Welfare ◽  
Migrant Workers ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Current State ◽  
The Social ◽  
Security Relations ◽  
Legal Space ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Eu

The article assesses the EU legal system as a unique institutional unit and highlights its features. It deals with the comparative legal aspects of the regulation of the social welfare of migrant workers in the EU and the EAEU. Attention is paid to the study of legislation on social welfare for migrant workers in the EU, as well as the possibility of realizing the experi-ence accumulated within the EAEU. It is emphasized that the use of comparative models con-cerning the social welfare of migrant workers in the EU and the EAEU can be productive, taking into account the analysis of the state and dynamics of the EU's legal policy in its historical development. The authors have analyzed the historical stages reflecting the difference within the EU approaches to the regulation of social welfare relations for migrant workers. The emphasis is on the role of EU administrative institutions, which provide a balancing approach to the key principles and social policy settings, due to the desire to eliminate distortions and possible conflicts between the norms of states. At the same time, EU members have the competence within the existing common standards of financial security obligations to expand the estab-lished standards and this makes the EU's social policy geographically differentiated. It is noted that the allied states, formed on trade and economic grounds, such as the EU and the EAEU, are characterized by an objective desire for a single legal space, with the uni-fication of approaches on the social welfare of migrant workers throughout the Union. Never-theless, in complex interstate unions, it is impossible to abandon the principle of multi-level regulation of social and security relations, and in this sense, the situation in the EU and the EAEU is quite similar. The current state of EU law in terms of regulating the relations under consideration largely preserves national legal regimes, and each of them, through its special legal means, determines a different amount of social rights of migrant workers. In the context of the EAEU, a similar approach should not be considered productive, since it does not contribute to the goals of this interstate association, defined by Article 4 of the Treaty on its creation. Therefore, within the framework of the EAEU, it is advisable to fix as early as possible the uniform standards in the area of social welfare of migrant workers, estab-lishing a relatively narrow range of powers of the member states of the Union.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document