Resolution 2300 (Council of Eur. Parl. Assembly)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 487-494
Author(s):  
David Lewis
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
The Eu

This Resolution was adopted in October 2019 following a report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. It has to be seen in the context of previous Council of Europe activity on this topic as well as the European Union (EU) Directive on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. The content of the EU Directive was agreed earlier in 2019 and EU Member States are obliged to transpose it into national legislation by December 2021.

scholarly journals Contradictions in Frontex Operations: the Push-back

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 85-92
Author(s):  
Gábor Kemény ◽  
Michal Vít
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Influencing Factors ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Organisational Structure ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

The aim of the paper is to introduce the legal misfits between the standards of human rights as stated by the European Union and the Council of Europe and practical day to day experience related to EU member states. For this purpose, the article focuses on political and legal assessment of the so-called pushbacks at the Greek-Turkish external border and introduces the influencing factors, such as the various interpretation of the legislation, differences in the organisational structure and values. Authors concluded that these factors are endangering the fulfilment of the fundamental rights and the efficiency of the border protection thus the security of the EU and its member states.

scholarly journals The Rule of Law Framework in the European Union: Its Rationale, Origins, Role and International Ramifications

2021 ◽  
pp. 305-331
Author(s):  
Artur Nowak-Far
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Eu

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.

scholarly journals Regulatory and Legal Enforcement of Cyber Security in Countries of the European Union: The Experience of Germany and France

Teisė ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 121 ◽  
pp. 135-147
Author(s):  
Sviatoslav Kavyn ◽  
Ivan Bratsuk ◽  
Anatoliy Lytvynenko
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Information Security ◽  
National Security ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Vector System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

This article is devoted to the study of information security in the EU member states, in particular Germany and France, in the context of the analysis of their national legislation, state, national programs and regulations. Particular attention is paid to the study of the features of regulatory and legal security of information security of Germany and France in the context of the study of their national legislation in terms of economic security as an inherent component of national security. In the course of this study the peculiarities of the functioning of the institutional and legal mechanism of cyber defense in the context of the multi-vector system of international security and legal regulation of international cooperation are analyzed. The article substantiates the expediency of developing an integrated, coordinated information policy of the EU member states in order to unify approaches to information security.At the same time, the current realities of European Union policy require comprehensive research in the context of ensuring national interests, developing effective mechanisms for protecting the information space, and legal mechanisms for shaping the economic system as a strategic factor of national security. Accordingly, the approaches to information security adopted in the European Union are currently not unified due to the geopolitical specifics of the EU’s countries. Therefore, the research, evaluation, and implementation of the positive experience of Germany and France in this area, according to the authors, is important in building the information security system of the European Union in the context of reliable protection against cyber threats.

scholarly journals Improving the Regulatory Framework for Countering Extremism in the European Union (Case Study of Finland)

2021 ◽  
pp. 89-102
Author(s):  
P. S. Dolgoshein
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Violent Extremism ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Eu

INTRODUCTION. The article, using the example of the Republic of Finland, analyzes the activities of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as the EU) to improve the legal regulation of countering extremism. The influence of the EU on the tackling against extremism and radicalism in the Republic of Finland is examined. The role of the EU in countering global threats, the position of Finland in relation to international co- operation in countering extremism and radicalism is assessed. The methods used in Finland to counter violent extremism are being studied.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article examines the conceptual documents of the UN, EU and Finland; Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, an action plan to prevent violent extremism, Commission Staff Working Paper; Comprehensive assessment of the EU security policy; Message from the Commission to the European Parliament, European Council Ninth report on progress towards an effective and genuine Security Union; Finland's response to OHCHR's request for information on how the protection and promotion of human rights contribute to preventing and combating violent extremism; Finland's Chairmanship Program for the Sustainable Europe Sustainable Future program; Decision of the Commission on the creation of the Expert Group of the HighLevel Commission on Radicalization, Report of the Council of Europe Committee on Counter-Terrorism, Anti-Terrorism Profiles Finland, Report of the Government of Finland on human rights for 2014; decisions of the Expert Group of the High-Level Commission on Radicalization; Human Rights Council materials.RESEARCH RESULTS. The author puts forward the thesis that the measures used to counter violent extremism depend on the needs of Member States and require the development of various approaches, depending on specific circumstances. In the addition, there is a common interest in EU member states in further expanding the exchange of experience and close cooperation between various national actors at the pan-European and international levels to counter extremism and radicalism. These measures require the development of new regulatory measures, including international ones. The author believes it is possible and interesting, using the example of the Republic of Finland, to study the level of interaction and cooperation between the Member States and the European Union in the field of im- proving the legal regulation of countering extremism, as well as the measures used in Finland to prevent and combat violent extremism.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. In EU Member States, the European Union plays a key role in shaping international cooperation, which includes strengthening the existing governance system and, when necessary, reforming the existing system for preventing and countering violent extremism, subject to the fundamental principles of the United Nations. The Republic of Finland fully supports the efforts of the international community to prevent and counter extremism, through the development of international anti-extremism instruments to help states collectively combat this threat. The educational system of Finland can successfully form the fundamental foundations for countering violent extremism.

Institute of Licensing of Economic Activities in the EU Countries: Lessons for Ukraine

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 1839
Author(s):  
Olena R. ZELDINA ◽  
Yevheniia V. AVERIANOVA
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

The article examines the licensing systems of economic activity, which are enshrined in the national legislation of such countries of the European Union as Germany, Great Britain and Poland. The authors identify the situation inherent in licensing systems of the above-mentioned EU member states and substantiates the expediency of using these provisions in further reforming of the licensing system of economic activity in Ukraine. The legislation of the European Union aimed at regulating the implementation of certain activities across the whole of the EU, and legislation relating to rules for the mutual recognition of permits and qualifications of specialists in EU member states was analyzed.

scholarly journals The EU Regulatory Competition in Asylum Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-30
Author(s):  
Denard Veshi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Regulatory Competition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Asylum Law ◽  
Subsidiarity Principle ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis paper deals with the principle of subsidiarity in asylum law. It exposes some of the most important ‘push’ factors that have been considered by the European Union (EU) as arguments for the centralisation of asylum law. Through the application of an economic approach, this text examines the need for harmonization of asylum standards to reach the goal established in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. An economic methodology is used to investigate the application of the subsidiarity principle by considering some of the most important economic criteria for both centralisation and decentralisation, and by applying the findings to the asylum law. Specifically, this paper considers the Tiebout model, the problem of the ‘race to the bottom’, the reduction of transaction costs, and the importance of the protection of refugee human rights. These theories are commonly used in the cases of a specific issue with a transboundary nature, which produces [negative] international externalities. In addition, they reflect the significance of equal conditions within the EU Member States as well as the role of the EU as a sui generis organisation protecting human rights. It should be noted that this paper does not deal with the basic normative question of whether or not refugees deserve protection, but it aims to expose the advantages and disadvantages of an EU asylum policy. In its conclusion, the paper discusses the advantages of a centralised EU policy that also allows, within certain conditions, some type of competition between the Member States.

Political aspects of security of the European Union Member States

2020 ◽  
pp. 97-105
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Kusztykiewicz-Fedurek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Political Security ◽  
New Institutions ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
The Eu

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.

The EU's Economic Cooperation with North Korea: The Possibility as a Useful Tool to Complement Korea-US Cooperation

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jong-Sue Lee
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Korean Peninsula ◽  
North Korea ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Position ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The North ◽  
The Eu

North Korea conducted 2nd nuclear test on May 25, 2009. It made a vicious circle and continued military tension on the Korean Peninsula. North Korea regime got a question on the effectiveness of the six party talks and ‘security-economy exchange model’. In addition, the North Korea probably disappointed about the North Korea issue has been excluded from the Obama administration's policy position. So the dialogue or relationship recovery with the United States and North Korea through six-party talks or bilateral talks will be difficult for the time being. This paper examines the EU policy on North Korea. Based on the results, analyzes the EU is likely to act as a balancer on the Korean Peninsula. Through the procedure of deepening and expanding the economic and political unification, the EU utilizes their cooperative policies towards North Korea as an ideal opportunity to realize their internal value and to confirm the commonness within the EU members. The acceleration of the EU's unification, however, began to focus on human rights, and this made their official relationship worse. Yet, the EU is continuously providing food as wells as humanitarian and technological support to North Korea regardless of the ongoing nuclear and human rights issues in North Korea. Also, the number of multinational corporations investing in North Korea for the purpose of preoccupying resources and key industries at an individual nation's level has been increasing. The European Union has unique structure which should follow the way of solving the problem of member states like subsidiary principle. It appears to conflict between normative power of the European Union and strategic interests on member states. This paper examines if the European Union is useful tool to complement Korea-US cooperation in the near future.

Beyond Visibility, Rights, and Citizenship: Critical Notes on Sexual Politics in the European Union Christian Klesse

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Klesse
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Movements ◽  
Sexual Minorities ◽  
Sexual Politics ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
New Member States ◽  
Lesbian And Gay ◽  
The Eu

The accession of ten new member states has opened up new political and discursive spaces for challenging homo-, bi-, and transphobia in the new member states and the European Union (EU) as a whole. There has been widely felt sense of hope that the accession will ultimately increase the possibilities of political action, result in democratisation, and better the political conditions for sexual minorities to fight discrimination and struggle for equal treatment before the law (ILGA Europe 2001, Vadstrup 2002, Pereira 2002, Neumann 2004, ILGA 2004, Stonewall 2004). Such sentiments were also expressed in the call-for-papers for the Conference ‘Europe without Homophobia. Queer-in(g) Communities’ that took place from May 24 to May 26, 2004 at Wroclaw in Poland, for which I wrote the first draft of this paper. Participants were asked to reflect upon ‘how we can contribute to making sexual minorities in the European Community visible, heard, safe, and equal before the law’ and to ‘investigate the practical ways (including legal actions, information campaigns, political participation, etc.) of achieving the bold vision suggested in the title: Europe without homophobia’ (Organizing Committee 2004). Human rights groups and lesbian and gay organisations both in the (prospective) new and the already existing member states sensed that access to funding by EU bodies and the ability to address political and/or legal institutions of the EU (and/or the Council of Europe) opened up ‘new space’ for political activism and enabled access to a new range of political discourses and strategies (cf. Stychin 2003). Already many years before accession, human rights organisations and lesbian and gay campaigning groups started to utilise the transformative potential of this prospective economic-political and socio-legal change for campaigns against human rights abuse and legal discrimination on the grounds of gender and sexuality in states applying for accession. ILGA Europe, for example, emphasised that accession should be made dependent on the applying states complying to the high human rights standard that the EU is supposed to stand for. Due to the uneven power structure between the institutions of the EU and the states applying for membership, the logic and rhetoric of ‘enlargement’ structured the negotiations about accession. The power imbalances at the heart of the process are further indicated by the fact that accession is frequently discussed in the scientific literature in the terminology of ‘Europeanization’ (cf. Schimmelfenning and Sedelmeier 2005a). In this context, ‘Europeanization’ signifies ‘integration’ into the economic organisations and politico-legal institutions of the EU, a process that, according to Schimmelfenning and Sedelmeier, can be characterised as ‘a massive export of EU rules’ (2005b: 221). Because accession has been such a recent moment in history, research on the effects of the EU enlargement on the national polities of the new or prospective member states is still scarce. In particular, sexual politics has remained an under-researched topic (for an exception, see Stychin 2003). However, there is sufficient reason to speculate that accession will significantly affect the discourses and strategies of social movements struggling around sexuality and gender in the new member states. Even if it cannot be predicted at this stage, how political actors and social movements will respond and position themselves with regard to these newly emerging ‘political opportunity structures’ (Kriesi et al. 1995), the evolving institutional, economic, and discursive context will without any doubt impact on their politics.

Practice of the member states of the European Union in the field of anti-corruption regulation

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
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
System Analysis ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Content Analysis Method ◽  
The Eu

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document