scholarly journals Polish Education After the EU Accession

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-32
Author(s):  
Eugeniusz Suwiński

Abstract The aim of the paper is to present changes undergone by the Polish education system after the accession to the European Union. In the article the changes are collated together with the main and distinctive trends which had existed in Europe before the accession and the ones that were introduced subsequently. The article shows that the tendency to unify the member states’ education systems is non-existent in the European Union. It also points out that the importance attached to education by the EU member states has not been as considerable as the importance given to economy. The paper is divided into two main parts. The main objective of the first part is to describe the decision-making process in the member states (as far as the common education policy is concerned) and its result, which was the report stating that education was considered to be a peculiar area of social politics and as such required separate arrangements and decisions. Therefore, there are neither specific procedures nor integration requirements for the associated and associating countries. However, as far as Poland is concerned, during the accession process the country was obliged to meet the expected standards, in particular the standards in the reform of the education structure and curriculum. The second part of the paper comprises the analysis of Polish activity in the following fields: –– lowering the age of the compulsory education commencement, –– reforming the structure of the education system and curriculum, –– practising teaching profession. The article further elaborates at length on the significant factor in the process of democratization of education, which is parents’ involvement in the functioning of a school.

Author(s):  
D. Potapov

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.


Author(s):  
Jelena Dzankic

Most European Union (EU) Member States participate in the common visa regime, even though there is no common visa policy applicable to all of them. The visa policy explored here covers the Schengen Area (including EU Member States and other countries, as well as EU countries that are still outside the Schengen). The Schengen Area does not include two EU Member States—the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland—that have opted out from the EU’s visa policies and operate a common travel area between them. Furthermore, the common visa policy in the EU is related to the issuance of short-term visas, while visas of longer duration and residence permits remain in the national domain. Against this background, the visa policy of the EU has four relevant aspects. First, the gradual evolution of the Schengen Area has been driven not only by political developments within the EU and its Member States, but also by broader global developments (e.g., the fall of communism). Second, the consolidation of the internal and external aspects of the visa policy in the EU took place through the growth of the Schengen acquis. Third, visa liberalization has become one of the most powerful tools for policy diffusion beyond the EU’s borders. Finally, securitization of migration has had a strong impact on the EU’s visa policy, particularly in the domains of information exchange and police cooperation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 46-49
Author(s):  
S.M. Hretsa

The article is devoted to the study of the range of responsibilities of man and citizen in Ukraine and the European Union, the formation of an approach to their classification. The following range of human responsibilities in the EU have been identified: equality between women and men in terms of pay; non-discrimination; respect for human dignity; receiving compulsory education; completion of compulsory school education. The following range of responsibilities of an EU citizen has been identified: to perform military service in relation to one of the EU member states; to be registered as conscripts in one of the EU member states. Such a range of human responsibilities has been established in Ukraine (strict observance of the Constitution of Ukraine and laws of Ukraine; non-encroachment on the rights and freedoms, honor and dignity of others; responsibilities in marriage and family; parents are obliged to maintain children until they reach adulthood adult children are obliged to take care of their disabled parents; to obtain a complete general secondary education; not to harm nature, cultural heritage; to compensate for damages; to pay taxes and fees in the manner and amount prescribed by law) and the duties of a citizen of Ukraine (protection of the Fatherland, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine; respect for the state symbols of Ukraine). According to these criteria, the responsibilities of man and citizen are classified into the following groups: criterion "subject": 1) human responsibilities; 2) responsibilities of a citizen; by the criterion of "form of implementation": 1) individual; 2) collective; by the criterion of "content": 1) economic; 2) social; 3) cultural; 4) political; 5) others; according to the criterion of "source" of consolidation: 1) enshrined in the founding treaties of the EU; 2) enshrined in international (additional) EU agreements with international organizations and other countries; 3) enshrined in regulations, directives, recommendations; conclusions; 4) contained in the decision of the Court of Justice, the conclusions of the Court of Justice; 5) contained in the national legislation of the EU member states, third countries; 6) according to the criterion of the circle of subjects in relation to which they are assigned: 1) in relation to other people; 2) in relation to the world community; 3) in relation to future generations.


2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-76
Author(s):  
Gediminas Valantiejus

Abstract The Common Commercial Policy is the essential basis of the European Union (hereinafter - the EU), which, in particular, is a free trade area between the 28 Member States with a common external customs tariff and a common foreign trade policy as well as common trade rules with the third countries. Implementation of this policy is characterized by the fact that it is based on an exclusive competence of the EU, which after the Treaty of Lisbon (2009) became even more apparent. Therefore the countries of the EU should follow the same legal principles and rules in the regulation of their foreign trade, that is to apply the uniform EU rules on the calculation of customs duties and determination of the customs origin of goods, customs valuation and tariff classification of goods (Common Customs Tariff). However, implementation of these provisions is always experiencing stress due to the different interests of the EU Member States and the different national practices, especially when the administration of customs duties is actually implemented only at the level of individual EU Member States. Therefore the aim of the article is to assess the implementation of the EU’s CCP from the perspective of the EU Member State (Lithuania) and to describe existing discrepancies which may serve as an obstacle for the development of common regulatory regime for import customs duties in the EU or hinder its main economic goals in international trade. Analysis of relevant scientific problems is mainly based on the comparative method (comparison of the practice of the national courts in the Republic of Lithuania and the Court of Justice of the European Union in disputes related to the functioning of the EU's customs union) and generalization of professional experience (national and EU judicial practice). The research leads to the conclusion that a uniform implementation of Common Commercial Policy and the Common Customs Tariff, as its main element, is not fully ensured on the practical level from the perspective of certain Member States (i.e. Lithuania).


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 3462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Artiom Volkov ◽  
Tomas Balezentis ◽  
Mangirdas Morkunas ◽  
Dalia Streimikiene

The European Union (EU) is an integrated alliance of equally treated Member States sharing mutual values, legal principles and markets. Close cooperation, deep integration and convergence are the major priorities for the EU. Anyway, these principles are not always reflected in the EU-wide policies which are implemented through financial support mechanisms. The direct payments financial support mechanism under the Common Agricultural Policy, the main instrument for promoting convergence in development of Member States’ agricultural sectors and rural sustainability, faces critique for failing to meet its objectives. One of the major deficiencies of the direct payments scheme is that it allocates more resources to already developed agricultural sectors of the older Member States and less resources to developing ones thus increasing the divergence among the Member States. The aim of this paper is to suggest new mechanisms for direct payment funds redistribution across the EU Member States which are based on the methodological principles that would more precisely correspond to the aims of convergence, transparency and fair redistribution. The results show that, regardless of the method chosen (to support more or less effective agricultural sectors of EU Member States), the proposed methodology lowers differences in direct payment rates among the EU Member States by two-fold. This ensures correspondence to the goal of convergence within the EU.


2012 ◽  
Vol 49 (No. 2) ◽  
pp. 71-79
Author(s):  
S. Tangermann

Inclusion of the countries in Central Europe (CECs) in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union raises a large number of issues, not the least in the context of the accession negotiations among the current EU member states and the newcomers. However, in the process of enlargement, negotiations will also be necessary with other countries. This is because both the EU and the accession candidates have commitments in the WTO and inclusion of the CECs in the CAP may affect the nature of these commitments, as well as the ability of the enlarged Union to honour them. The paper deals with the fundamental problems in connection with presented themes.


2020 ◽  
pp. 97-105
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Kusztykiewicz-Fedurek

Political security is very often considered through the prism of individual states. In the scholar literature in-depth analyses of this kind of security are rarely encountered in the context of international entities that these countries integrate. The purpose of this article is to draw attention to key aspects of political security in the European Union (EU) Member States. The EU as a supranational organisation, gathering Member States first, ensures the stability of the EU as a whole, and secondly, it ensures that Member States respect common values and principles. Additionally, the EU institutions focus on ensuring the proper functioning of the Eurozone (also called officially “euro area” in EU regulations). Actions that may have a negative impact on the level of the EU’s political security include the boycott of establishing new institutions conducive to the peaceful coexistence and development of states. These threats seem to have a significant impact on the situation in the EU in the face of the proposed (and not accepted by Member States not belonging to the Eurogroup) Eurozone reforms concerning, inter alia, appointment of the Minister of Economy and Finance and the creation of a new institution - the European Monetary Fund.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dmytro S. Melnyk ◽  
Oleg A. Parfylo ◽  
Oleksii V. Butenko ◽  
Olena V. Tykhonova ◽  
Volodymyr O. Zarosylo

Purpose The experience of most European Union (EU) Member States has demonstrated effective anti-corruption practices, making the EU one of the leaders in this field, which can be used as an example to learn from in the field of anti-corruption. The purpose of this study is to analyze and identify the main features of anti-corruption legislation and strategies to prevent corruption at the national and supranational levels of the EU. Design/methodology/approach The following methods were used in the work: discourse and content analysis, method of system analysis, method of induction and deduction, historical-legal method, formal-legal method, comparative-legal method and others. Using the historical and legal method, the evolution of the formation of anti-corruption regulation at the supranational level was revealed. The comparative law method helped to compare the practices of the Member States of the EU in the field of anti-corruption regulation. The formal-legal method is used for generalization, classification and systematization of research results, as well as for the correct presentation of these results. Findings The main results, prospects for further research and the value of the material. The paper offers a critical review of key EU legal instruments on corruption, from the first initiatives taken in the mid-1990s to recent years. Originality/value In addition, the article analyzes the relevant anti-corruption legislation in the EU member states that are in the top 10 countries with the lowest level of corruption, namely: Denmark, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg.


2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Hadjigeorgiou ◽  
Elpidoforos S. Soteriades ◽  
Anastasios Philalithis ◽  
Anna Psaroulaki ◽  
Yiannis Tselentis ◽  
...  

This paper is a comparative survey of the National Food Safety Systems (NFSS) of the European Union (EU) Member-States (MS) and the Central EU level. The main organizational structures of the NFSS, their legal frameworks, their responsibilities, their experiences, and challenges relating to food safety are discussed. Growing concerns about food safety have led the EU itself, its MS and non-EU countries, which are EU trade-partners, to review and modify their food safety systems. Our study suggests that the EU and 22 out of 27 Member States (MS) have reorganized their NFSS by establishing a single food safety authority or a similar organization on the national or central level. In addition, the study analyzes different approaches towards the establishment of such agencies. Areas where marked differences in approaches were seen included the division of responsibilities for risk assessment (RA), risk management (RM), and risk communication (RC). We found that in 12 Member States, all three areas of activity (RA, RM, and RC) are kept together, whereas in 10 Member States, risk management is functionally or institutionally separate from risk assessment and risk communication. No single ideal model for others to follow for the organization of a food safety authority was observed; however, revised NFSS, either in EU member states or at the EU central level, may be more effective from the previous arrangements, because they provide central supervision, give priority to food control programs, and maintain comprehensive risk analysis as part of their activities.


2021 ◽  
Vol 900 (1) ◽  
pp. 012035
Author(s):  
P Polko

Abstract The European Green Deal (EGD) is a set of policy initiatives by the European Union with the overarching and ambitious aim of making Europe climate neutral in 2050. Being world’s first ‘climate-neutral bloc’ and fulfilling other goals extending to many different sectors, including construction, biodiversity, energy, transport, food and others has also an impact on different sectors of security. The implementation of the tasks set out in the EGD requires taking into account the necessity of sustainability in reaching the goals, including not violating sectoral security in the EU Member States. Nexus approach might be useful in the processes of finding and implementation of particular solutions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document