Enlargement and the Council of Ministers

Drawing on unique documents that have not yet been introduced into scientific use, the article reviews the activities of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs in training its agencies for probable border war with China. A series of events was conducted by Shchelokov, Minister of the Internal Affairs of the USSR, in order to strengthen the regional internal affairs agencies. It included introduction of a list of ‘advanced alert,’ ‘special period,’ and ‘covert mobilization’ signals, accompanied by a list of mandatory positions. The article focuses on the work of internal affairs agencies in the Far East border areas and the Khabarovsk special secondary school of militia of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR in particular, all of which hurried to fine-tune public order and state security maintenance, evacuation of the population and the internal affairs bodies in case of onset of the Special Period. Significantly, the Khabarovsk special secondary school of militia of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR was to become not just a base for accelerated training of officers, but also a military reserve in case of enemy assault. It also was to enforce public order in case of mass riots. The manpower strength of the school allowed to form a battalion of 3 rifle companies. The author underscores that all measures implemented by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR were carried out in close cooperation with the KGB under the Council of Ministers of the USSR and its regional agencies. Training for Special Period was multifaceted, it included propaganda support via mass media, control over radio-broadcasting in the territories bordering China, camouflage of installations at the expense of the forest fund, mobilization by rail and road transport, etc.

Download Full-text

The Russian Revolution of 1905: The Workers' Movement and the Formation of Bolshevism and Menshevism. By Solomon M. Schwarz. Translated by Gertrude Vakar. [The History of Menshevism. Hoover Institution Publications, The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace.] (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1967. Pp. xxii, 361. $8.95.) and Prologue to Revolution: Notes of A. N. Iakhontov on the Secret Meetings of the Council of Ministers, 1915. By Michael Cherniavsky. [Russian Civilization Series.] (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall. 1967. Pp. 249. Cloth $5.95, paper $2.95.)

The American Historical Review ◽

10.1086/ahr/73.2.546 ◽

1967 ◽

Keyword(s):

Russian Revolution ◽

University Of Chicago ◽

Hoover Institution ◽

History Of ◽

Council Of Ministers ◽

University Of Chicago Press

Download Full-text

Technical or political? The working groups of the EU Council of Ministers

Journal of European Public Policy ◽

10.1080/13501760500160102 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 12 (4) ◽

pp. 609-623 ◽

Cited By ~ 51

Author(s):

Eves Fouilleux ◽

Jacques de Maillard ◽

Andy Smith

Keyword(s):

Working Groups ◽

Council Of Ministers ◽

The Eu

Download Full-text

In the committee of standards, measures, and measuring devices of the council of ministers of the USSR

Measurement Techniques ◽

10.1007/bf00994835 ◽

1969 ◽

Vol 12 (9) ◽

pp. 1305-1308

Keyword(s):

Measuring Devices ◽

Council Of Ministers

Download Full-text

Delegation, Comitology, and the Separation of Powers in the European Union

International Organization ◽

10.1162/002081802760199881 ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 56 (3) ◽

pp. 551-574 ◽

Cited By ~ 29

Author(s):

Alexander Ballmann ◽

David Epstein ◽

Sharyn O'Halloran

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Policy Implementation ◽

Separation Of Powers ◽

Policy Outcomes ◽

Theoretic Model ◽

The European Union ◽

Considerable Controversy ◽

Game Theoretic ◽

Council Of Ministers ◽

The Eu

Although relatively unknown outside of Europe, comitology committees are an object of considerable controversy in the European Union (EU). Controversy stems from their pivotal role in overseeing policy implementation authority delegated from the Council of Ministers (Council) to the European Commission (Commission). In this article, we employ a game-theoretic model to analyze the influence of these, committees on policy outcomes. Our analysis provides three important insights. First, we show that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, comitology committees move outcomes toward the Commission's preferred policies rather than the Council's. Second, we demonstrate that the possibility of a Council veto may also move outcomes away from Council members' policy preferences and toward the Commission's. Third, the 1999 changes to the comitology procedures, designed to enhance the Commission's autonomy in policymaking, may have had the exact opposite effect. Paradoxically, we conclude that comitology serves to enhance the Commission's role in policy implementation and thereby strengthens the separation of powers within the EU.

Download Full-text

Whither Lomé? The Mid-Term Review and the Decline of Partnership

The Journal of Modern African Studies ◽

10.1017/s0022278x00055579 ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 34 (3) ◽

pp. 503-518 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Gordon Crawford

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

The European Union ◽

Mutual Respect ◽

European Development Fund ◽

Development Fund ◽

African Caribbean ◽

European Development ◽

Centre Piece ◽

Council Of Ministers ◽

Ongoing Dialogue

The signing in Mauritius on 4 November 1995 of the amended fourth Lomé Convention, the aid and trade co-operation agreement between the European Union (EU) and the ACP Group of 70 African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries, brought the Mid-Term Review to its formal completion after protracted negotiations. Established in 1975, Lomé has long been the centre-piece of EU development assistance. In quantitative terms, the European Development Fund, the financial instrument of Lomé, has comprised the largest single portion of EU aid, averaging almost 45 per cent of all disbursements in recent years.1 Qualitatively, Lomé has been regarded as a model of North—South cooperation, mainly due to three special features: it was founded on the principles of equality, mutual respect, and interdependence; it is a legally binding contract negotiated between two sets of countries; and it involves ongoing dialogue through three joint institutions, the ACP—EU Council of Ministers, the Committee of Ambassadors, and the ‘parliamentary’ Joint Assembly.

Download Full-text