scholarly journals Are traditional minority languages a bench marking for the rights of migrant languages in the European Union?

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 40-60
Author(s):  
Christopher Houtkamp ◽  
László Marácz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Minority Languages ◽  
Language Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Linguistic Rights ◽  
The Status ◽  
The One

In this paper a normative position will be defended. We will argue that minimal territorial minority language rights formulated in terms of the personality principle referring to traditional minority languages granted in the framework of the European Union (EU) are a benchmark for non-territorial linguistic rights. Although territorial minority languages should be granted collective rights this is in large parts of Europe not the case. Especially in the Central and Eastern European Member States language rights granted to territorial languages are assigned on the basis of personal language rights. Our argumentation will be elaborated on the basis of a comparative approach discussing the status of a traditional territorial language in Romania, more in particular Hungarian spoken in the Szeklerland area with the one of migrant languages in the Netherlands, more in particular Turkish. In accordance with the language hierarchy implying that territorial languages have a higher status than non-territorial languages both in the EUs and Member States’ language regimes nonterritorial linguistic rights will be realized as personal rights in the first place. Hence, the use of non-territorial minority languages is conditioned much as the use of territorial minority languages in the national Member States. So, the best possible scenario for mobile minority languages is to be recognized as a personal right and receive full support from the states where they are spoken. It is true that learning the host language would make inclusion of migrant language speakers into the host society smoother and securing a better position on the labour market. This should however be done without striving for full assimilation of the speakers of migrant languages for this would violate the linguistic rights of migrants to speak and cultivate one’s own heritage language, violate the EUs linguistic diversity policy, and is against the advantages provided by linguistic capital in the sense of BOURDIEU (1991).

Language rights in the European Union and the Treaty of Lisbon

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo D. Faingold
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Minority Languages ◽  
Language Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Treaty Of Lisbon ◽  
Linguistic Rights ◽  
Language Legislation ◽  
Pluralistic Approach ◽  
The Eu

This paper examines the linguistic obligations of the European Union and the language rights of its citizens as stated in the Treaty of Lisbon. As with the 2004 draft of the EU Constitution, the Treaty fails to address the language rights of minorities, including those seeking to secede from their own countries (e.g., Catalonia, Scotland) in their quest for political, cultural, and linguistic rights. De jure language rights for speakers of minority languages and a more pluralistic approach to language legislation are deemed necessary in the EU.

Variable Geometry or Concentric Circles: Patterns for the European Union

1997 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Usher
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The Other ◽  
Variable Geometry ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Community Institutions ◽  
European Court ◽  
Private Citizens ◽  
The One

Once upon a time, a Professor of European Institutions, at least if a lawyer by training, could simply assert that the European Communities are based on the rule of law, that they create institutions with autonomous powers, which are able to issue legislation binding as law throughout every member State of the Community, and that they create courts which have power to exercise judicial control over a complex network of relationships between the Community institutions, the member States and private citizens. While these statements are still true, however, they must now be laced in a rather more complex context. Furthermore, there is a contrast between on the one hand the intensification (to borrow a word from the Common Agricultural Policy) of certain fundamenta s of the EC legal order in the recent case law of the European Court, and on the other hand attempts by member States to escape this through non-EC forms of cooperation in the framework of the European Union, the development of the idea that not all the rules of the EC Treaty apply to all the member States, and the entry by the majority of the member States into a separate Treaty, the Schengen Agreement, dealing with matters which might be thought to fall under the EC Treaty or the Home Affairs and Justice pillar of the Treaty on European Union—all of which might generically be referred to as variable geometry. In the other direction, it may be observed that large amounts of substantive

Caught Between National and Supranational Values: Limitations to Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters as Part of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice within the European Union

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-72
Author(s):  
Olivia den Hollander
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Third ◽  
The One ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

AbstractCurrently, the European Union is based on both supranational (first pillar) and international (second and third pillar) law. The third pillar signifies police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and although formally based on international law, it has been under increasing "supranational pressure" by the developments in the "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice". This Area is focused on a set of common values and principles closely tied to those of the single market and its four "freedoms". The main argument of this article is that the legal framework of the third pillar is an impediment to judicial cooperation in criminal matters in general, and to the coordination of conflicts of jurisdiction and the principle of ne bis in idem in particular. The legal framework of the third pillar finds itself in the middle of an identity crisis, since it can neither be identified as a traditional intergovernmental, nor as a supranational institutional framework. Criminal law is a politically sensitive matter, which on the one hand explains why the EU member states are reluctant to submit their powers over the issue to the European level and on the other hand, it implies that if the EU member states really want to cooperate on such an intensive level, they will have to submit some of their powers in order to strengthen EU constitutional law. The article suggests a reform of the third pillar through the method of "communitization", which is exactly what will happen in case the EU Reform Treaty will enter into force. This would offer the ingredients for a true international community in which the ambitious agenda of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice can realise its aim of a common set of values and principles which supersedes those of each of the member states individually.

scholarly journals The EU-Eastern Partnership Countries: Association Agreements and Transdisciplinarity in Studies, Training and Research

2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-149
Author(s):  
Tatyana Muravska ◽  
Alexandre Berlin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
Eastern Partnership ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eastern Partnership Countries ◽  
European Union Studies ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The European Union (EU) signed Association Agreements on 27 June 2014 with Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine. The Association Agreement (AA) is the EU’s main instrument to bring the countries in the Eastern Partnership (EaP) closer to EU standards and norms. For the citizens of the EaP countries to benefit from these agreements, a more in-depth knowledge of the EU and the EU Member States is required to be reflected in a comparative approach to European Union studies. We examine these implications on the need to expand and adapt, the content and approach to research and teaching European Union studies, with the transdisciplinary approach becoming increasingly dominant, becoming a modern tool for research in social sciences. This contribution aims to offer insight into the implementation of transdisciplinarity in the methodology of education and research as it is determined by current increasing global challenges. This approach should serve as a means of integrating a number of main goals as part of learning, teaching and research processes: strengthening employability of young people and preparing them for citizenship. We discuss the need for modernizing European studies in the EU Member States that could serve as an example for the EU Eastern Partnership countries. We conclude that the theoretical approach to European and related studies of other disciplines and their practical implications should always be transdisciplinary in nature and benefit from direct in-situ exposure and should be fully integrated in university curricula

scholarly journals Conditions for Initiating the Procedure of Poland’s Withdrawal from the European Union

2020 ◽  
pp. 215-226
Author(s):  
Cezary Trosiak
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Parliamentary Elections ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Sequence Of Events ◽  
European Institutions ◽  
The One ◽  
Polish Government

Polexit is a concept that emerged in the political science discourse when the United Kingdom held a referendum on its continued membership of the European Union on June 26, 2016. The article analyzes the reasons which facilitate a discussion on the withdrawal of Poland from the European Union. On the one hand, this results from disputes on the direction of the evolution of the European project between ‘old’ and ‘new’ member states. On the other, its intensity is affected by the dynamics of the dispute between the Polish government and the European Commission on the state of the rule of law in Poland. For supporters of a change in relations between European institutions and member states, the European parliamentary elections offered an opportunity of starting a discussion on the change of treaties. However, due to the fact that proponents of treaty changes failed to win the appropriate number of seats, the vision of an EU of ‘two speeds’ is becoming realistic. This may mark the beginning of a sequence of events concluded with a referendum on the withdrawal of Poland from the European Union.

scholarly journals THE CONCEPT OF “THIRD SAFE COUNTRY” IN THE EUROPEAN UNION LAW

2018 ◽  
pp. 90-98
Author(s):  
N. Mushak
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Political Group ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Eu

The article investigates the concept of "safe third country" in the law of the European Union. The article analyzes a number of international legal instruments that define the content of the concept of "safe third country". The research provides the definition of "safe third country". In particular, the safe third country should be determined as the country whose territory a person is crossing through the territory of the state where such person is seeking for the asylum, with the ability of that person to apply for asylum and use proper and relevant procedures. In fact, the concept of "safe third country" is applied by the EU Member States only when it is safe to guarantee that foreigners will be able to use the fair asylum procedures on the territory through they passed, and such persons shall be provided the effective protection of their rights. The article also determines the cases of the concept application by the EU Member States. In particular, the competent authorities of the EU Member States are confident that the third country the following aspects should be guaranted: the life and liberty of the applicant are not at risk due to race, religion, nationality, membership to a particular social or political group; the principle of prohibition of expulsion under the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, 1951 shall be observed; the principle of prohibition of expulsion in case of violation of the right to be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment envisaged by international law is been respected; there is the possibility to apply for a refugee status and to receive protection under the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees 1951.

scholarly journals ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE PROGRAMS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 978-985
Author(s):  
Ana Maria Zorlescu ◽  
Stelian Baraitareanu ◽  
Doina Danes
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Antimicrobial Resistance ◽  
One Health ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
Animal Health ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Animal Populations ◽  
The One

INTRODUCTION: Antimicrobial resistance is one of the topical issues that is part of the “One Health” concept with implications for animal health, human health, and even environmental “health”. At the European Commission (EC) level, legislation has been issued for the monitoring of antimicrobial resistance and these rules are applicable by each Member State (MS). For the proper implementation of the above legislation, audits are carried out in Member States that have developed programs on antimicrobial resistance that go beyond the EC's requests.OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was the analysis of existing data reports, legislation and recommendations on antimicrobial resistance through which surveillance and monitoring is carried out in the European Union (EU).  METHODS: The audit reports issued between 2015 and 2017 by the Food Veterinary Office (FVO), as well as the articles and studies issued by the EC through the antimicrobial resistance institutes were analysed.RESULTS: The FVO conducted audits to “evaluate the monitoring and reporting of antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and commensal bacteria in certain food-producing animal populations and food” in 12 MS, and audits to “gather information on the prudent use of antimicrobials in animals” in 8 MS. These are countries that have very well implemented the EC's requests and included the “One Health” perspective in antimicrobial resistance programs. Some Member States have risk management strategies for reducing antimicrobial resistance for more than 20 years. They have carried out research projects on antimicrobial resistance. There is an action plan on antimicrobial resistance at the EC level, but their implementation and understanding up to the level of all actors involved in this issue varies from MS to MS. Antimicrobial resistance in the animal population is a topical issue, notoriety among the actors involved, as well as an interdisciplinary problem with indirect results. The same principle of antimicrobial resistance in animals is applicable to humans and the environment as such, this problem can be embedded in the concept of “One Health”. The overall objective of the MS is to generate knowledge and tools to “combat” antimicrobial resistance in animals, humans and even the environment.CONCLUSION: As a conclusion, in order to improve and optimize antimicrobial resistance programs, a “good practice guide” can be achieved by MS with extensive experience in this area, to be used by MS with a more precarious application and over time to harmonize antimicrobial resistance programs within the EU.

scholarly journals COVID-19 AND EUROPEAN UNION – THE ANSWER TO THE HEALTH CRISIS AS A WAY FOR RESUMING THE PROCESS OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 66-116
Author(s):  
Stelio Mangiameli
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Economic Consequences ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
European Institutions ◽  
The Face ◽  
The One ◽  
Economic And Financial Crisis

The essay starts from a comparison in the European Union between the economic and financial crisis of 2009 and the health crisis of 2020, due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In particular, the scarce capacity of Member States and European institutions to carry out the recovery of the economic European condition and transformation of the European government system after the 2009 crisis, despite the indications of the Commission's Blueprint (of 2012) and of the Report of the five presidents (of 2015). On the other hand, in the face of the health crisis, the reaction of the European institutions seemed more decisive with the creation of various instruments to combat the economic consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic. These include in particular the Recovery fund - Next Generation EU, linked to the 2021-2027 MFF. The reaction to the pandemic shows the possibilities of the European Union to create a community of States in solidarity and with its own identity also in the international scenario. However, it is by no means certain that this idea can prevail over the one that sees the European Union as simply a free trade organization between the Member States. The decisions that will be taken in the Conference on the future of Europe between 2021 and 2022 appear to be decided to define the evolution of the European Union.

Energy Transition in the European Union and its Member States: Interpreting Federal Competence Allocation in the Light of the Paris Agreement

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Michael Fehling
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Energy Transition ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Majority Voting ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Innovation Research ◽  
Ordinary Legislative Procedure ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Energy transition in the European Union (EU) and its Member States involves questions of federalism, which are subject to various perspectives. The distribution of powers cannot be properly understood using classical legal methodology alone because Articles 192 to 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) contain too many ambiguous political compromises. On the one hand, Article 192(1) TFEU (on the environment) and Article 194(1) and (2)(1) TFEU (on energy) enable EU legislation on energy transition through the ordinary legislative procedure, including majority voting in the European Parliament and the Council. On the other hand, there are significant textual limits for EU action in neighbouring provisions with a ‘sovereignty exception’ for the Member States in both Article 192(2) and Article 194(2)(2) TFEU. This article argues that, in the light of the Paris Agreement, the allocation of competences between the EU and its Member States should, in case of doubt, be understood in such a way that effective climate protection becomes possible. Because under Article 191(1) TFEU the EU is to promote measures at the international level to combat climate change, such an international law-friendly interpretation is part of a legitimate teleological approach. Economic theories of federalism and innovation research in the social sciences help us to understand which aspects of economic or innovation theory can promote effectiveness in this respect. It is necessary to interpret the distribution of competences in a dynamic way, thereby slightly shifting the limits of interpretation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document