scholarly journals Policy Measures for the Diaspora during the COVID-19 Crisis: The Case of Cyprus

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 13
Author(s):  
Angeliki Konstantinidou ◽  
Daniela Vintila
Keyword(s):  
Crisis Management ◽  
Traditional Approach ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Member States ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Institutional Cooperation ◽  
Policy Measures ◽  
National Governments ◽  
The Eu

The COVID-19 pandemic constitutes an unprecedented challenge for policy-makers worldwide. The coronavirus outbreak has rapidly put into question states’ preparedness for crisis management, while also raising particular concerns on how national governments assist their citizens abroad in situation of distress. This Policy Brief tackles the issue of governmental responsiveness to the diaspora in a context of pandemic alert. In doing so, we focus on the case of Cyprus, one of the EU Member States with the largest share of citizens residing abroad. Drawing on official documents publicly released by different Cypriot authorities, we map the different initiatives adopted by the Cypriot Government in the attempt to assist its diaspora during the pandemic. Our analysis shows that, in line with its traditional approach towards non-residents citizens, Cyprus has adopted a rather pro-active stance vis-à-vis its population abroad. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, several initiatives have been put forward by ministerial actors, often via inter-institutional cooperation, aiming to mobilise resources that could meet diaspora’ needs. However, the Government’s engagement with the diaspora during this crisis has remained rather selective. Most policy measures primarily aimed to provide support to Cypriots in specific (mainly European) destination countries, while also targeting particularly vulnerable groups of individuals stuck abroad during the pandemic.

EU Migration Policy: Evolving Ideas of Responsibility and Protection

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Haddad
Keyword(s):  
Forced Migration ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Eu

AbstractWhile humanitarian intervention in cases of state instability remains a disputed concept in international law, there is consensus in the international community over the need to provide protection to refugees, one of the corollaries of such instability. Using the European Union (EU) as a case study, this article takes a policy perspective to examine competing conceptions of both 'responsibility' and 'protection' among EU Member States. Responsibility can be seen either as the duty to move refugees around the EU such that each Member State takes its fair share, or the duty to assist those Member States who receive the highest numbers of migrants due to geography by way of practical and financial help. Similarly, protection can imply that which the EU offers within its boundaries, encompassed within the Common European Asylum System, or something broader that looks at where people are coming from and seeks to work with countries of origin and transit to provide protection outside the Union and tackle the causes of forced migration. Whether one or both of these concepts comes to dominate policy discourse over the long-term, the challenge will be to ensure an uncompromised understanding of protection among policy-makers.

Informal counterterrorism arrangements in Europe: Beauty by variety or duplicity by abundance?

2012 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 495-518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oldrich Bures
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Member States ◽  
Equal Footing ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Relative Independence ◽  
Common Goals ◽  
National Governments ◽  
The Eu

Most existing analyses of counterterrorism cooperation among EU Member States have focused on the formal EU agencies and institutions, which may be regarded as direct vertical extensions of political and executive power in the EU Member States. When it comes to practical cooperation, however, it appears that national security agencies in Europe often prefer to utilize horizontal non-EU counterterrorism arrangements. Because of their flexibility and relative independence from national governments, as well as their ability to include a broader range of participants on equal footing, it is generally assumed that these informal arrangements are more suitable for achieving common goals than their more formal and hierarchical EU counterparts. This article argues that the informal non-EU arrangements also suffer from a number of distinct shortcomings. This, in turn, questions the wisdom of the post-9/11 response to terrorism by putting yet more formal EU bodies and/or informal arrangements on the already crowded map of security bodies in Europe.

scholarly journals The European Union and China Foreign Direct Investment Cooperation in the Context of the Belt and Road Initiative

2020 ◽  
pp. 76-93
Author(s):  
D. Potapov
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Belt And Road Initiative ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Belt And Road ◽  
The Common ◽  
National Governments ◽  
The Belt And Road ◽  
The Eu

The article analyses the foreign direct investment cooperation between the European Union and the People’s Republic of China under the Belt and Road Initiative. The initiative is proposed by China and is aimed at developing cross-regional transport and logistics infrastructure connecting China with South-East, South and Central Asia, the Middle East, East Africa and Europe. The author examines the history of the initiative and its assessments by international organizations (e.g. the World Bank and the ESCAP UN) and investigates the structure and statistics of the EU-China investment relations, basing on the examples of the most important China’s investment partners (including France, Italy, Germany and the Vishegrad Group countries). The discrepancy between the conditions for the EU and the Chinese investors is highlighted. The author defines and characterizes the major models of the Belt and Road projects’ development, which are used by China in cooperation with the EU Member States. The EU investors in China face restrictions imposed by the national regulation of foreign investments. In particular, the external investors do not have access to the sectors crucially important for national interest and security (e.g. high-tech sectors and mass media). At the same time, Chinese investors’ access to the EU financial markets is not limited, allowing them to become important shareholders in the EU companies and to transfer technologies. It raises concerns within national governments and the European Union itself. The national governments are establishing and adopting screening mechanisms for foreign direct investments and additional regulations to control important sectors and enterprises. At the same time, the EU Member States are developing a common view on the prospects and mechanisms of cooperation with China under the Belt and Road initiative. The EU countries have not yet reached a consensus upon the Belt and Road initiative and the prospects of the EU participation in it, so the author focuses on the strategies of the examined countries. Germany is calling for a common position for all the EU member states and advocates for using the EU-based mechanisms and platforms for cooperation with China. Such demands are also connected with the promotion of a common EU investment screening mechanism in order to protect the Member States’ interests and security. Italy is deepening its cooperation with China through bilateral mechanisms, mainly based on a memorandum of understanding with China on the Belt and Road initiative. France, on the one hand, shares the common interest with Germany regarding the need for the common EU policy towards the Chinese initiative, but on the other hand, the country is deploying new projects with China. The Visegrad Group states are forging their ties with China through bilateral and multilateral cooperation mechanisms and they are interested in the growth of Chinese investment inflows. This undermines the unanimity of policy towards China and the Belt and Road.

scholarly journals Environmental, social and governance disclosures in Europe

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 224-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Anthony Camilleri
Keyword(s):  
Emission Trading ◽  
Pollution Prevention ◽  
Annual Reports ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Trading Scheme ◽  
National Governments ◽  
The Eu

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the European Union’s (EU) latest regulatory principles for environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosures. It explains how some of the EU’s member states are ratifying the EU Commission’s directives on ESG reporting by introducing intelligent, substantive and reflexive regulations. Design/methodology/approach – Following a review of EU publications and relevant theoretical underpinnings, this paper reports on the EU member states’ national policies for ESG reporting and disclosures. Findings – The EU has recently revised a number of tools and instruments for the reporting of financial and non-financial information, including the EU’s modernisation directive, the EU’s directive on the disclosure of non-financial and diversity information, the EU Energy Efficiency Directive, the European pollutant release and transfer register, the EU emission trading scheme, the integrated pollution prevention and control directive, among others. Practical implications – Although all member states are transposing these new EU directives, to date, there are no specific requirements in relation to the type of non-financial indicators that can be included in annual reports. Moreover, there is a need for further empirical evidence that analyse how these regulations may (or may not) affect government entities and big corporations. Social implications – Several EU countries are integrating reporting frameworks that require the engagement of relevant stakeholders (including shareholders) to foster a constructive environment that may lead to continuous improvements in ESG disclosures. Originality/value – EU countries are opting for a mix of voluntary and mandatory measures that improve ESG disclosures in their respective jurisdictions. This contribution indicates that there is scope for national governments to give further guidance to civil society and corporate business to comply with the latest EU developments in ESG reporting. When European entities respond to regulatory pressures, they are also addressing ESG and economic deficits for the benefit of all stakeholders.

scholarly journals Mutual Learning in Cancer Control Policy Implementation: Interviews With Local Policy Makers

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
L Bakker ◽  
R Kiasuwa Mbengi
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Control ◽  
Control Policy ◽  
Member States ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Mutual Learning ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Learning Platform ◽  
Depth Interviews ◽  
Implementation Experience ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Many policy recommendations in the field of cancer control are developed at the EU level, but insights on the practical implementation are lacking. However, European Member States encounter similar barriers when implementing and could learn from each other. Our aim is to facilitate this, through a mutual learning platform, developed in the framework of the EU Joint Action on Cancer Control, iPAAC. A first step is to collect examples of implementation experience in the field of prevention, screening, diagnose and treatment, organisation of care and cancer information systems and to identify the key contextual features of the country (legal framework, healthcare systems, etc.). Therefore, in-depth interviews with national policy makers, administrators and experts of 20 EU Member States are carried out. A second step is to translate their experiences into factsheets, which will the core of the mutual learning platform. Two types of examples of experiences came up: firstly, implementation plans or frameworks and secondly, practical solutions to implementation challenges. These last relate to different barriers encountered: the industry lobbies; stakeholder’s involvement; avoid and tackle social inequalities; evaluation of programs; introduction and financing of innovations, digitalization, organization of the health care system, etc. The results also include a series of reported challenges for which further policy support or knowledge is needed. The results clearly show that similar challenges exist and are solved in different EU countries. Through translating the examples of implementation experience into factsheets, countries can learn from each other. Besides the factsheets, the mutual learning platform will provide contextual features which allow and support translation into the local context. Key messages By conducting in-depth interviews with health policy makers, common challenges in the implementation of cancer control policy, as well as solutions to overcome them, came up across EU Member States. Through the provision of concrete examples on how to overcome implementation barriers, we facilitate mutual learning between the EU Countries to improve cancer control and benefit to public health.

scholarly journals THE INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF THE COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY (CSDP) OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: STRUCTURE AND MECHANICS

2016 ◽  
pp. 190-198
Author(s):  
M. S. Fedorov
Keyword(s):  
Crisis Management ◽  
Veto Power ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Security ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Common ◽  
Institutional System ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Common Security

The article deals with the system of EU's functional units responsible for conducting crisis management within the framework of the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). It analyses their structure and particular features. The author puts forward three main factors, which affected the shape of this system. First, it is the exclusively intergovernmental nature of the CSDP and the veto-power of EU member states in this field. Second, the EU-US and the EU-NATO relations have also influenced the shape of the CSDP organizational structures. On the one hand, the Alliance has served as an example of a successful security organization for the European integration strategists. On the other, Washington has always sought to embed the European security and defense integration into NATO and to control it. Third, the CSDP institutional system embodies a specific approach towards crisis management, elaborated by the EU - a combination of both military and civil instruments of peacemaking (the so-called "civil-military synergy"). Thus, there are two chains of units within the CSDP, designed for planning and conducting military operations and civil missions respectively. Having analyzed political and operational units of the CSDP the author concludes that, overall, the created institutional system is well-suited to the ambitions of the EU in the field of crisis management. However, the EU member states cannot use the potential of this system to the full because of the political differences that divide them.

scholarly journals Intergovernmentalism: Old, Liberal, and New

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Verdun
Keyword(s):  
European Integration ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Liberal Intergovernmentalism ◽  
Migration Crisis ◽  
National Governments ◽  
The Eu

European integration theories help us understand the actors and mechanisms that drive European integration. Traditionally, European integration scholars used grand theories of integration to explain why integration progresses or stands still. Born out of assumptions that are prevalent in realist international relations theories, intergovernmentalism was first developed as a theory in opposition to neofunctionalism. In a nutshell, intergovernmentalism argues that states (i.e., national governments or state leaders), based on national interests, determine the outcome of integration. Intergovernmentalism was seen as a plausible explanatory perspective during the 1970s and 1980s, when the integration process seemed to have stalled. Despite the fact that it could not explain many of the gradual incremental changes or informal politics, intergovernmentalism—as did various other approaches—gained renewed popularity in the 1990s, following the launch of liberal intergovernmentalism. During that decade, the study of European integration was burgeoning, triggered in part by the aim to complete the single market and the signing of the Maastricht Treaty that launched the European Union (EU). Intergovernmentalism also often received considerable pushback from researchers who were unconvinced by its core predictions. Attempts to relaunch intergovernmentalism were made in the 2010s, in response to the observation that EU member states played a prominent role in dealing with the various crises that the EU was confronted with at that time, such as the financial crisis and the migration crisis. Although intergovernmentalism is unable —and is not suited—to explain all aspects of European integration, scholars revert to intergovernmentalism as a theoretical approach in particular when examining the role of member states in European politics. Outside the EU, in the international arena (such as the United Nations), intergovernmentalism is also observed when studying various forums in which member states come together to bargain over particular collective outcomes in an intergovernmental setting.

BIOECONOMY DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL BASED ON MORE EFFICIENT LAND USE IN THE EU

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina PILVERE ◽  
Aleksejs NIPERS ◽  
Bartosz MICKIEWICZ
Keyword(s):  
Green Growth ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Growing Stock ◽  
Europe 2020 ◽  
Europe 2020 Strategy ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
Key Industries ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Production Resource

Europe 2020 Strategy highlights bioeconomy as a key element for smart and green growth in Europe. Bioeconomy in this case includes agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and pulp and paper production, parts of chemical, biotechnological and energy industries and plays an important role in the EU’s economy. The growth of key industries of bioeconomy – agriculture and forestry – highly depends on an efficient and productive use of land as a production resource. The overall aim of this paper is to evaluate opportunities for development of the main sectors of bioeconomy (agriculture and forestry) in the EU based on the available resources of land. To achieve this aim, several methods were used – monographic, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, statistical analysis methods. The findings show that it is possible to improve the use of land in the EU Member States. If all the Member States reached the average EU level, agricultural products worth EUR 77 bln would be annually additionally produced, which is 19 % more than in 2014, and an extra 5 billion m3 volume of forest growing stock would be gained, which is 20 % more than in 2010.

THE STANDARD OF LIVING OF HOUSEHOLDS IN POLAND COMPARED TO OTHER EU MEMBER STATES

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 634-638
Author(s):  
Joanna Szwacka Mokrzycka
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Economic Condition ◽  
Standard Of Living ◽  
Consumption Expenditure ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Financial Condition ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Structure Of Consumption ◽  
The Eu

The objective of this article is to present the standard of living of households in Poland in comparison with other EU member states. The starting point for analysis was the economic condition of Poland against the background of other EU member states. The next step consisted of assessment of the standard of living of inhabitants of individual EU member states on the basis of financial condition of households and the structure of consumption expenditure. It was found that the differences within the EU in terms of economic development and the standard of living of households still remain substantial.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document