scholarly journals Representation in the EU and beyond: one of a kind or not so unique after all?

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Vileyn

In federal polities citizens have multiple public identities: they are addressed as members of the federal polity and as members of a sub-federal polity. Consequently, citizens are represented at the federal level through two channels of democratic representation: federal representation and sub-federal representation. Although this is a crucial element in the set-up of a federal system, the existing literature on representation hardly touches upon this and hence we introduce an approach to systematically compare these channels of representation. In this paper we conceptualize and operationalize the new concepts and apply our approach to democratic representation in 13 federal polities, including the EU, EU member states and non-EU member states. Our analysis shows that the EU has the highest degree of sub-federal representation (i.e. representation of the member states), but also shows that the EU stands not alone among federal polities. Belgium, Canada and Switzerland are clearly characterized by a high level of sub-federal representation as well, while countries such as the US and Australia are much more based upon federal representation. We also show that the variance between the countries can be understood by looking at the systemic features of the states.

Author(s):  
Artur Nowak-Far

AbstractAt present, the European rule of law enforcement framework under Article 7 TEU (RLF) is vulnerable to unguaranteed, discretionary influences of the Member States. This vulnerability arises from its procedural format which requires high thresholds in decision-making with the effect that this procedure is prone to be terminated by the EU Member States likely to be scrutinized under it, if only they collude. Yet, the Framework may prove effective to correct serious breaches against human rights (in the context of ineffective rule of law standards). The European Commission is bound to pursue the RLF effectiveness for the sake of achieving relative uniformity of application of EU law (at large), and making the European Union a credible actor and co-creator of international legal order. The RLF is an important tool for the maintenance of relative stability of human rights and the rule of law in the EU despite natural divergence propensity resulting from the procedural autonomy of the EU Member States. By achieving this stability, the EU achieves significant political weight in international dialogue concerning human rights and the rule of law and preserves a high level of its global credibility in this context. Thus, RLF increases the EU’s effectiveness in promoting the European model of their identification and enforcement.


2014 ◽  
Vol 66 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 35-50
Author(s):  
Nikola Jokanovic

This paper will discuss the economic relations between the European Union and the People?s Republic of China. The introductory part will make an insight into the position of China in the contemporary global economy. The following part of the paper will analyze China-EU trade relations. The topics included will be a general overview of these relations since their establishing in 1975 as well as the European Union?s attitude towards the Chinese WTO membership. The Sino-EU partnership and competition will also be described and it will be followed by an overview of the Sino-EU High Level Economic and Trade Dialogue (HED). The concluding topics in this part of the paper will include Sino-EU trade flows, perceived obstacles to trade and investment as well as recent trade disputes between two trading partners. The third part of the paper will deal with Sino-EU investment flows (with an emphasis on Chinese investments in EU member states). After the introductory remarks concerning the EU investments originating from China, the paper will shed light on particular EU member states which are preferred for Chinese investment as well as the industries in which Chinese companies are willing to invest. The concluding part of this paper will offer possible development of relations between the EU and China in the near future.


2002 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 72-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary O'Mahony

For most of the postwar period both labour and total factor productivity growth in the EU was higher than in the US. The 1990s witnessed a change in this trend with the US experiencing higher growth rates for the first time in decades. This was partly due to the end of catch-up growth as many larger EU Member States had reached US levels by the beginning of the decade with also some evidence of a higher ‘New Economy’ impact in the US. The productivity record of the UK was poor relative to its major European competitors throughout most of the postwar period, although this relative decline appears to have come to an end. This paper presents figures on relative productivity for the total EU and individual Member States in the 1990s. Both postwar convergence and trends in the 1990s are discussed in terms of a number of factors which result in the emergence of differences across European countries. These include the skill composition of the workforce, the rate of introduction of new technology and the institutional environment in which firms operate. The latter include the stability of the macroeconomic environment and aspects of competition and regulation. The paper concludes that trends in productivity largely reflect long-term structural aspects but that EMU membership might have a small favourable effect on UK productivity.


Energies ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (23) ◽  
pp. 6401
Author(s):  
Barbara Fura ◽  
Małgorzata Stec ◽  
Teresa Miś

In this paper, we have analysed the level of advancement in circular economy (CE) in the EU-28 countries. First, we used a synthetic measure to examine CE advancement in EU countries in each of the Eurostat CE distinguished areas, i.e., production and consumption, waste management, secondary raw materials, and competitiveness and innovation. For the empirical analysis, we applied 17 Eurostat indicators to the CE areas. To find the synthetic measure in 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016, we used multidimensional comparative analysis, i.e., a zero unitarisation method. Second, based on the synthetic measures of the CE areas, we created a general synthetic measure of the CE advancement of the EU-28 countries as well as the countries’ rankings. Third, we classified the countries into groups according to their level of advancement in CE, i.e., high level, medium–high level, medium–low level and low level groups. Finally, we applied a similarity measure to evaluate the correlation between obtained rankings in two most extreme moments in the period of analysis (2010, 2016). Our analysis covers all EU member states, as well as “old” and “new” EU countries separately. Our results confirm that highly developed Benelux countries, i.e., Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium, have the highest CE advancement level. Malta, Cyprus, Estonia and Greece are the least advanced in CE practice. Apart from that, on average, there is some progress in CE implementation, significant disproportions between the EU countries were observed, especially among the “new” member states.


Author(s):  
Vadim Voynikov

The free movement of people across internal borders, and the high level of integration between EU member states, demands the development of cooperation in the fight against crime. That is why the EU is empowered to ensure the coordination of activities of member states in the fight against crime. This fight is one of the elements of EU policy in the areas of freedom, security and justice. One of the EU’s anti-crime activities is the harmonization of national criminal law, the main idea of which is to ensure the same level of responsibility for crimes of a cross-border dimension in all EU member states. The article analyzes the legal basis for the harmonization of criminal law within the EU, classifies these activities, shows the features of certain types (modes) of harmonization, as well as shows the place of criminal law harmonization in the EU system of combating crime. The analysis of the definition «EU criminal law» and other concepts relating to legal cooperation in criminal matters within the EU has a special place in this article. Based on an analysis of the positions of a number of researchers, the author comes to the conclusion that the concept of «EU criminal law» is an «umbrella» definition, which is understood as a set of rules relating to the harmonization of criminal law and criminal procedure law. In addition, the paper shows the features of harmonization of criminal law within the most serious types of crimes, such as terrorism, human trafficking, etc. The EU has a competence on the harmonization of national criminal law, but EU institutions are entitled to accept only framework norms that do not have a direct effect needing implementation into national law. At the moment, the EU’s primary Law contains the necessary legal framework for the harmonization of national criminal law. The analysis of this framework allows us to identify three main modes of harmonization of criminal law within the EU: functional (basic) harmonization, annex harmonization, and auxiliary harmonization.


Author(s):  
Sanja Arezina

After the promotion of ?Made in China 2025? initiative and the beginning of US President Donald Trump?s tenure in power, in US and whole world there has been a rising negative attitude towards Chinese presence. The launch of a US-China ?trade war? and the closure of the US market for Chinese direct investment and product coincided with growing discontent of EU member states over the treatment that European companies have had at the Chinese market. As a result, there has been a change of the positive perception of the PR China by the EU member states, that was created mainly by strong inflow of Chinese investments and assistance within the ?One Belt, One Road? initiative, into a negative perception that is now forming policy changes and introduction of protectionist measures towards Chinese direct investments in European market. In this article, the author talks about the different perceptions (positive and negative) that have been formed in the PR China within the EU, the factors that have influenced the change in the perception of EU member countries towards the PR China and the consequences on the dynamics of the development of different policies at EU level. To be able to prove the basic hypothesis that Brussels, unlike the US, still shows some pragmatism by making policy changes moderate enough that the EU can remain loyal to open market principles while preventing these principles from becoming strategic vulnerability, the author uses the structural-functionalist analysis, induction, and deduction.


2018 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 290-304
Author(s):  
Bhaswati Mukherjee

The emerging dynamics between President Trump, NATO and EU promises to constitute a fascinating new narrative of the changing contours of the international order in this millennium. President Trump has completely reversed American policy towards NATO. As a businessman, Trump has made it clear that henceforth US funding and support would be linked to the US getting a ‘good deal’ from its NATO partners. NATO had earlier anchored itself to the benchmark goal that 2% of a country’s GDP should go to defence spending. President Trump is yet to establish close and friendly relations either with NATO Secretary General or leaders of NATO Member States. Trump’s public embrace of autocratic rulers has caused resentment within NATO. On CSDP the earlier European approach was to lean heavily on the Americans to fund NATO. The friction between the goals of NATO and CSDP increased under the Trump Presidency because of Trump’s insistence on burden sharing of resources and funds among NATO Member States. The CSDP and NATO have overlapping mandates which could be complicated in crisis situations. An independent CSDP remains the core issue causing friction. The U.S. and other non EU weapons producing countries (chiefly Norway and soon the U.K.) also believe that CSDP is manipulating the rules of defence procurement in favour of companies based on EU soil. Is the US justified in attacking CSDP? Many EU Member States believe that protecting European defence industries is a small price to pay for ensuring that a NATO under American leadership not get involved in small regional wars, as an example, in Francophone Africa. Brexit is casting a long shadow. EU and NATO would need to realign themselves from a strategic perspective. NATO and the EU need to prepare for a strategic scenario post Brexit. Following Brexit, 80 percent of NATO defence spending will come from non-EU members. This would shift the onus of decision making within NATO away from the EU. One of the greatest challenges for NATO and the EU is America’s new narrative on Iran and North Korea. EU and NATO are slowly waking up to the new reality that there will be no “business as usual”. If NATO’s military deterrence loses its credibility, this will undermine the credibility of both EU and NATO and endanger international peace and security. What could the EU and NATO do next? Are there any “low hanging fruits” that could be picked in the near future? The EU and NATO understand that there can be no ‘business as usual’. The new global narrative on security would depend on how NATO and EU respond to America’s changed narrative. A timely response is the need of the hour.


2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anneliese Baldaccini

AbstractThis article examines the way in which the EU amd its Member States have approached border security issues since the terrorist attacks in the US on 11 September 2001. A key aspect of this approach has been to tighten control of borders and the safety of documents by the use of biometric systems. The new policies on border security and document security are resulting in the mass collection and storage of biometric data in relation to third-country nationals seeking entry into the territory of EU Member States, and in relation to EU nationals within the context of travel and identity documents. These developments are significant as the Union is considering the potential offered by biometrics not only for the effective management of borders but also for the prevention and combating of crime.


2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 435-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasin Kerem Gümüs

AbstractIn October 2007, the European Commission adopted a controversial proposal on the conditions for entry and residence of third-country nationals for highly qualified employment. The Blue Card scheme is intended to provide Member States and European Union (EU) companies with additional “tools” to recruit, retain and better allocate the workers they require, and so to increase the competitiveness of the EU economy through legal immigration and provide the EU with an advantage to compete with the US Green Card. However, the EU Blue Card scheme has been the subject of much controversy among not only EU Member States but also among less developed countries. This article aims to analyze the Blue Card scheme, which was adopted on 25 May 2009 and gives Member States two years to incorporate the new provisions into their domestic legislation. After providing an overview of the scheme, the second part deals with critics of the scheme and national responses of Member States to the scheme. Finally, the third part of the article seeks to answer the question: is the Blue Card scheme the right step in the right direction?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document