The impact of the European Union visa liberalisation process on the reduction of organised crime and corruption in Kosovo

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 123-139
Author(s):  
Paulina Szeląg

On January 19, 2012, the European Commission (Commission) decided to launch a visa liberalisation dialogue with Kosovo, and on June 14, 2012, it handed over to Kosovo’s government a ‘Roadmap Towards a Visa-free Regime’. This document included 95 requirements that Kosovo had to fulfil. By 2016, the Commission had adopted four reports on progress made by Kosovo in the visa dialogue. In a report issued on May 4, 2016, the EC proposed to the Council of the EU (Council) and the European Parliament (EP) to lift visa requirements on the citizens of Kosovo. The Commission stressed that by the day of the adoption of the proposal by the EP and the Council, Kosovo must have ratified the border/boundary agreement with Montenegro and strengthened its track record in the fight against organised crime and corruption. On July 18, 2018, the Commission confirmed in a report on the progress made by Kosovo in the visa dialogue, that the country had fulfilled the last two requirements included in the roadmap. The aim of this article is to analyse the visa-liberalisation dialogue between the European Union (EU) and Kosovo and whether liberalisation through a visa-free regime with Kosovo had an influence on reducing organised crime and corruption in Kosovo. The article is based on an analysis of primary and secondary sources, as well as statistical data.

Author(s):  
Petr YAKOVLEV

The decision on Britain’s secession from the European Union, taken by the British Parliament and agreed by London and Brussels, divided the Union history into “before” and “after”. Not only will the remaining member states have to “digest” the political, commercial, economic and mental consequences of parting with one of the largest partners. They will also have to create a substantially new algorithm for the functioning of United Europe. On this path, the EU is confronted with many geopolitical and geo-economic challenges, which should be answered by the new leaders of the European Commission, European Council, and European Parliament.


Author(s):  
Neil Parpworth

The aims of this chapter are threefold. It first briefly considers the events that have led to the creation of the European Community (EC) and the European Union (EU). Secondly, it introduces the reader to the principal institutions of the Union: the European Council; the Council of Ministers; the European Commission; the European Parliament; and the Court of Justice of the EU and General Court. The nature and functions of each of these bodies is considered. Thirdly, the chapter indicates, where appropriate, the nature of the institutional reforms which have occurred following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by the member states.


Author(s):  
Neil Parpworth

This chapter has three aims. It first briefly considers the origins of the what is now the European Union (EU). Secondly, it discusses the institutions of the Union, the European Council, the Council of Ministers, the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Court of Justice of the EU and General Court. The nature and functions of these bodies is considered. Thirdly, the chapter indicates the nature of institutional reforms which have occurred following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.


IG ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-100
Author(s):  
Nicolai von Ondarza

The Brexit negotiations constituted unchartered political and institutional territory for the European Union (EU). This analysis shows how a new institutional approach enabled the EU-27 to present an unusually united front. The “Barnier method” is characterised by five elements: a strong political mandate from the European Council, a single EU negotiator based in the European Commission in the person of Michel Barnier, very close coordination with the Member States and the European Parliament, and a high degree of transparency. Lessons can also be drawn from this for the next phase of the Brexit negotiations and the EU’s relations with other third countries.


Author(s):  
Dorota Dakowska

Whether higher education (HE) can be defined as a European Union (EU) policy has been matter of debate. Formally, education is still a domestic prerogative, and in principle, the EU can only support and supplement national governments’ initiatives in the sector. Yet, this official division of tasks has been challenged in many ways over the last decades. First, the history of European integration shows that the European community took an early interest in educational matters. The Treaty of Rome established a community competency on vocational training. Subsequently, the European Commission framed HE and vocational training as two entangled policies. Second, the EU institutions, the member states, and noninstitutional actors have coordinated in innovative ways, through soft governance processes promoted by the Bologna Process and the EU Lisbon—and later Europe 2020—strategy, to impose a European HE governance based on standards and comparison. Third, the study of HE requires going beyond an EU-centric perspective, with international organizations such as the OECD and the Council of Europe cooperating closely with the European Commission. HE has been increasingly shaped by global trends, such as the increased competition between universities. The mechanisms of European HE policy change have elicited academic debates. Three main explanations have been put forward: the power of instruments and standards, the impact of the Commission’s funding schemes, and the influence of interconnected experts, stakeholders and networks. Domestic translations of European recommendations are highly diverse and reveal a gap between formal adaptations and local practices. Twenty years after the Bologna declaration, the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) presents a mixed picture. On the one hand, increased mobility and the growing interconnectedness of academic schemes facilitate the launch of ambitious projects such as the “European universities.” On the other hand, concerns are periodically raised about the growing bureaucratization of the process and the widening gap between the small world of the Brussels stakeholders and everyday academic practices in EHEA participant countries. Paradoxically, smaller and non-EU countries have been more actively involved in advancing the EHEA than large, older EU member states.


IG ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 154-160
Author(s):  
Manuel Müller

The COVID-19 pandemic is not only putting European financial solidarity to the test, but also the common values of the European Union (EU). In Hungary and Poland, the governments are using the situation to undermine democratic principles and expand their own position of power. The EU - once again - is struggling to give an adequate answer. While the European Parliament has clear words, but little options for action, most national governments show a reserved attitude. Similarly, the European Commission has expressed concern, but does not want to take any immediate countermeasures.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Katharina L. Meissner ◽  
Guri Rosén

Abstract As in nearly all European Union (EU) policy areas, scholars have turned to analysing the role of national parliaments, in addition to that of the European Parliament (EP), in trade politics. Yet, there is limited understanding of how the parliamentarians at the two levels interact. This article fills the gap by conceptualizing these interactions as a continuum ranging between cooperation, coexistence and competition. We use this continuum to explore multilevel party interactions in EU trade talks and show how cooperation compels politicization – national parliamentarians mainly interact with their European colleagues in salient matters. However, we argue that the impact of politicization on multilevel relations between parliamentarians in the EP and national parliaments is conditioned by party-level factors. Hence, we account for how and why politicization triggers multilevel party cooperation across parliaments in the EU through ideological orientation, government position and policy preferences and show how this takes place in the case of trade.


Author(s):  
Gert Würtenberger ◽  
Paul van der Kooij ◽  
Bart Kiewiet ◽  
Martin Ekvad

This chapter is about the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), which was created by Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights or the Basic Regulation. It explains the purpose of the implementation and application of the Basic Regulation. It also describes CPVO as an agency of the European Union (EU), which is a body governed by European public law that is distinct from the EU institutions. This chapter describes the resources that led the European Parliament, the EU Council, and the European Commission to launch an inter-institutional dialogue on decentralized agencies in 2009. It points out, as stated in the Basic Regulation, that the decisions of the CPVO will be taken by a committee of three members of its staff.


Author(s):  
Ian Bache ◽  
Simon Bulmer ◽  
Stephen George ◽  
Owen Parker

This chapter focuses on the European Parliament (EP), the one directly elected institution of the European Union. It first provides an overview of the EP’s composition and functions before discussing the struggle for increased powers within the EP. It then considers debates and research on the EP. The focus of contemporary research on the EP include political behaviour and EP elections, the internal politics and organization of the EP, and inter-institutional bargaining between the EP, the European Council, and the European Commission. One theme of the academic debate is the extent to which the EP has become an effective independent actor in the affairs of the EU, and how far it will continue to move in that direction in the future.


Author(s):  
Simon Bulmer ◽  
Owen Parker ◽  
Ian Bache ◽  
Stephen George ◽  
Charlotte Burns

This chapter focuses on the European Parliament (EP), the one directly elected institution of the European Union. It first provides an overview of the EP’s composition and functions, before discussing the struggle for increased powers within the EP. It then considers debates and research on the EP. The focus of contemporary research on the EP includes political behaviour and EP elections, the internal politics and organization of the EP, and inter-institutional bargaining between the EP, the European Council, and the European Commission. One theme of the academic debate is the extent to which the EP has become an effective independent actor in the affairs of the EU.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document