DOCSLIB.ORG

European Policy Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
European Policy Review VOLUME 1 NUMBER 1 2015 EUROPEAN POLICY REVIEW Published by the European Student Tink Tank EUROPEAN POLICY REVIEW Volume 1, Number 1 Tis is the frst edition of the European Policy Review. Te European Policy Review was founded in 2014 by the European Student Tink Tank. Te journal aims to publish academic papers by undergraduate and postgraduate students on topics related to European Union policy. All papers are submitted to an anonymous peer-review pro- cess by graduate and doctoral students. Te journal is to be published annually. EDITORIAL POLICIES ANONYMITY We ask reviewers not to identity themselves to authors, in THE REVIEW PROCESS order to maintain referee confdentiality and to preserve the In order to determine the submitted papers’ suitability for anonymity of the review process. publication, the journal applies the requirements of a pro- cess of peer review. LICENSE TO PUBLISH Tis journal is published under the Creative Commons All submitted papers are read by the editorial team. Only License Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 those papers that seem most likely to meet the quality crite- International (CCBY-NC-ND 4.0). Please cite and use ac- ria and are judged to be of potential interest to our intended cordingly. audience are sent for formal review, typically two reviewers. Reviewers are expected to identify faws or weaknesses, as- sess the work’s novelty and ofer suggestions for improve- DISCLAIMER ment. On the basis of their evaluation, reviewers give ad- Te editorial board cannot be held responsible for errors in vice to the editorial team by choosing from among several information contained in this journal or any consequences possibilities: arising from the use of it; the views and opinions expressed do not necessarily refect those of the editorial board. • Accept unconditionally • Accept conditionally on minor changes • Revise and resubmit EDITORIAL BOARD • Reject Mieke Molthof Editor in Chief Te reviewers each return a peer review form to the edito- Katrien Volleman Editor in Chief rial team. Te editorial team evaluates the reviewers’ com- David Grodzki Editor ments before passing a judgement back to the authors. Next Sander IJmker Editor to providing feedback to the authors, the editorial team ed- Isabelle Langerak Editor its the papers’ content and checks the papers on grammar, Dimitri Michail Perdikoulis Editor spelling and style. Te authors of the papers modify their Remco Zwetsloot Design submission in line with the editors’ comments and send a revised version back to the editor; this process is repeated until the editor is satisfed and the paper is accepted. CONTACT SELECTING PEER REVIEWERS [email protected] Te peer reviewers are selected by the editorial board on the basis of their level of expertise and their ability to perform European Student Tink Tank an impartial review. Reviewers need to be Master’s or PhD Nieuwe Achtergracht 170 (Room 3.18) students with knowledge about the EU and/or the paper 1018 WV Amsterdam, Te Netherlands subject. www.studentthinktank.eu TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EDITOR’S NOTE MIEKE MOLTHOF 3 NORTH-RHINE WESTPHALIA AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS: Talking shop or channel of infuence? The case of a single region inside the Committee of the Regions CHRISTINA FANENBRUCK 17 CREATING A TEMPLATE FOR THE FUTURE: A potential data protection regime between the EU and the US AILEEN BYRNE and LEA PFEFFERLE 24 THE EEAS AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: How formal and informal accountability mechanisms are symbiotic ANTHONY DE BONDT 37 INSTITUTIONALIZED APATHY: The internal European response to the Syrian refugee crisis and the perpetual curse of the Dublin Regulation JULIAN SCHOLTES 49 MANAGEMENT OF DEEP DIVERSITY WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION: The views from European think tanks LUCA BARANI 63 EUROPEANIZING LOBBYING STRATEGIES: Access seeking and agenda setting of domestic interest groups in the EU ANNELOES HOFF 77 THE EFFECTS OF DIRECT EUROPEANIZATION ON SWITZERLAND JOREN SELLESLAGHS European Policy Review (2015), volume 1, number 1, pp. 1 - 2 EDITOR’S NOTE By MIEKE MOLTHOF Te European Student Tink Tank is proud to present the very frst edition of the European Pol- icy Review. Te European Policy Review is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes academic, stu- dent-written papers on a wide range of topics related to European Union policy. In line with the ob- jective of the European Student Tink Tank to provide a platform for discussion amongst students that share an interest in the EU, this journal seeks to involve students in the central and controver- sial debates in European politics. Tis journal therefore not only seeks to bring to the fore students’ perspectives on EU policy, but also aims to target a wide young academic readership. Te European Policy Review has an international and multi-disciplinary character. Te contribu- tors to, and makers of, this journal are students from various countries, with diferent backgrounds and perspectives. Te journal consciously chooses to cover a broad spectrum of topics and to in- corporate multiple disciplines, thereby refecting the numerous angles from which EU policy can be studied and discussed. A team of qualifed editors and peer reviewers has examined all the submitted papers and has made a careful selection on the basis of academic quality and potential contribution to the journal. Te editors and peer reviewers have provided the authors of the selected papers with extensive feed- back. On the basis of those comments, the authors have been able to revise their paper and produce an improved result. Christina Fanenbruck analyzes the signifcance of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) and in- vestigates the infuence of a single region inside the CoR by looking at the case of North Rhine Westphalia. Aileen Byrne and Lea Pfeferle explore data protection regulations within the EU and formulate a new template for the exchange of practices with the United States. Anthony De Bondt explains the various ways of how the European External Action Service (EEAS) is held to account by the European Parliament, and suggests that formal and informal mechanisms complement each other in providing for true accountability. Julian Scholtes analyzes the EU’s response to the Syrian refugee crisis and argues that Europe’s apathy is not the expression of a singular event but rather a refection of a general apathy towards refugees, institutionalized through the Dublin Regulation. Luca Barani presents his research on the views and perceptions of experts working within European think tanks, and highlights what these experts think of the way in which the EU seeks to manage societal diversity. Anneloes Hof writes about the lobbying strategies of domestic interest groups, and seeks to demonstrate that interest groups are becoming increasingly engaged with the Union’s decision-making process because of the ever-growing legislative output the EU generates. Finally, Joren Selleslaghs analyzes the efects of the so-called ‘Europeanisation’ phenomenon on Switzer- land, and refects on the question of whether the approach of seeking bilateral agreements with the EU instead of becoming a full-fedged member is a benefcial strategy. We very much appreciate the time and efort that reviewers and editors have devoted to assessing the papers we sent them. We also thank all authors who have taken the courage to submit their pa- per to the peer review process and deal with others’ criticisms. Finally, special praise must also be 1 Editor’s Note given to those who provided their expertise and energy to the formatting process. By publishing the frst edition of the European Policy Review, we hope to set the tone of a new tradition with many more volumes to come. As we have experienced during the process that pre- ceded the publication of this journal, launching a journal can be challenging and takes a lot of time. Nevertheless, we have also learned from the mistakes we made and the obstacles we had to face. We therefore expect that the publishing process will be continually improved with each subsequent edition of the European Policy Review. We hope you will enjoy reading this journal, and we warmly welcome your comments and suggestions for future editions. 2 European Policy Review (2015), volume 1, number 1, pp. 3 - 16 NORTH RHINE-WESTPHALIA AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Talking shop or channel of infuence? The case of a single region inside the Committee of the Regions By CHRISTINA FANENBRUCK Ever since the creation of the European Union, European-wide legisla- Christina Fanen- bruck is a second tion has had an effect on regional concerns. With the Maastricht Trea- year Master stu- ty, the Committee of the Regions was established in order to provide a dent at Freie Uni- meaningful channel for regional ambassadors. Provided with a consul- versität Berlin. After tative character, the Committee of the Regions was intended as an ad- her Bachelor in Eu- ditional option for regions to take part in the policy-shaping and legis- ropean Studies at Maastricht Universi- lation-making process. This paper demonstrates in two parts that the ty, she now stud- Committee of the Regions arguably has been a success story; especially ies International compared to its older sibling the European Economic and Social Com- Relations in a joint mittee. The first part recaps the institutional history of the Committee Master Programme of the Regions, evaluates the state of the academic debate and argues of three universities in Berlin, Germany. why it is an influential channel for regional concerns. The second part She has a special then turns to the precise influence of one specific region; namely North interest in lobbying Rhine-Westphalia inside the Committee of the Regions. Based on inter- and the effect of views that were conducted with representatives of North Rhine-West- interest representa- phalia, the paper finds that the Committee has been underestimated in tion within legisla- tive processes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Success Story Or a Failure? : Representing the European Integration in the Curricula and Textbooks of Five Countries
    I Inari Sakki A Success Story or a Failure? Representing the European Integration in the Curricula and Textbooks of Five Countries II Social psychological studies 25 Publisher: Social Psychology, Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki Editorial Board: Klaus Helkama, Chair Inga Jasinskaja-Lahti, Editor Karmela Liebkind Anna-Maija Pirttilä-Backman Kari Mikko Vesala Maaret Wager Jukka Lipponen Copyright: Inari Sakki and Unit of Social Psychology University of Helsinki P.O. Box 4 FIN-00014 University of Helsinki I wish to thank the many publishers who have kindly given the permission to use visual material from their textbooks as illustrations of the analysis. All efforts were made to find the copyright holders, but sometimes without success. Thus, I want to apologise for any omissions. ISBN 978-952-10-6423-4 (Print) ISBN 978-952-10-6424-1 (PDF) ISSN 1457-0475 Cover design: Mari Soini Yliopistopaino, Helsinki, 2010 III ABSTRAKTI Euroopan yhdentymisprosessin edetessä ja syventyessä kasvavat myös vaatimukset sen oikeutuksesta. Tästä osoituksena ovat muun muassa viimeaikaiset mediassa käydyt keskustelut EU:n perustuslakiäänestysten seurauksista, kansalaisten EU:ta ja euroa kohtaan osoittamasta ja tuntemasta epäluottamuksesta ja Turkin EU-jäsenyydestä. Taloudelliset ja poliittiset argumentit tiiviimmän yhteistyön puolesta eivät aina riitä kansalaisten tuen saamiseen ja yhdeksi ratkaisuksi on esitetty yhteisen identiteetin etsimistä. Eurooppalaisen identiteetin sanotaan voivan parhaiten muodostua silloin, kun perheen, koulutuksen
    [Show full text]
  • Flash Reports on Labour Law January 2017 Summary and Country Reports
    Flash Report 01/2017 Flash Reports on Labour Law January 2017 Summary and country reports EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Unit B.2 – Working Conditions Flash Report 01/2017 Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 ISBN ABC 12345678 DOI 987654321 © European Union, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Flash Report 01/2017 Country Labour Law Experts Austria Martin Risak Daniela Kroemer Belgium Wilfried Rauws Bulgaria Krassimira Sredkova Croatia Ivana Grgurev Cyprus Nicos Trimikliniotis Czech Republic Nataša Randlová Denmark Natalie Videbaek Munkholm Estonia Gaabriel Tavits Finland Matleena Engblom France Francis Kessler Germany Bernd Waas Greece Costas Papadimitriou Hungary Gyorgy Kiss Ireland Anthony Kerr Italy Edoardo Ales Latvia Kristine Dupate Lithuania Tomas Davulis Luxemburg Jean-Luc Putz Malta Lorna Mifsud Cachia Netherlands Barend Barentsen Poland Leszek Mitrus Portugal José João Abrantes Rita Canas da Silva Romania Raluca Dimitriu Slovakia Robert Schronk Slovenia Polonca Končar Spain Joaquín García-Murcia Iván Antonio Rodríguez Cardo Sweden Andreas Inghammar United Kingdom Catherine Barnard Iceland Inga Björg Hjaltadóttir Liechtenstein Wolfgang Portmann Norway Helga Aune Lill Egeland Flash Report 01/2017 Table of Contents Executive Summary ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Departure from the Schengen Agreement Macroeconomic Impacts on Germany and the Countries of the European Union
    GED Study Departure from the Schengen Agreement Macroeconomic impacts on Germany and the countries of the European Union GED Study Departure from the Schengen Agreement Macroeconomic impacts on Germany and the countries of the European Union Authors Dr. Michael Böhmer, Jan Limbers, Ante Pivac, Heidrun Weinelt Table of contents 1 Background Information 6 2 Methodological approach 7 3 Results 9 4 Further costs of departure from the Schengen Agreement 13 Further economic impact 13 Political impact 14 Social significance 14 5 Conclusion 15 Literature 16 Imprint 18 5 1 Background Information The Schengen Agreement entered into force in 1995 and of checks at EU internal borders, on Germany and other EU today it is comprised of 26 states. This includes all European countries, as well as for the European Union as a whole. The Union members with the exception of the United Kingdom, evaluation period extends to the year 2025. Ireland, Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Croatia, as well as the non-EU countries of Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. The agreement provides for the abolition of the requirement to check persons at internal borders within the Schengen area. The Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement also regulates the standardisation of entry and residency requirements, as well as, the issuing of visas for the entire Schengen area. At the time, police and judicial cooperation measures were also agreed upon, in addition to asylum provisions. In the wake of sharply rising refugee movements into Europe, a partial restoration of border controls has been implemented. European Union countries have seen a significant increase in asylum seekers.
    [Show full text]
  • The EIB COVID-19 Economic Vulnerability Index – an Analysis of Countries Outside the European Union
    2020 THE EIB COVID-19 ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY INDEX 08/2020 – EN 2020 THE EIB COVID-19 ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY INDEX AN ANALYSIS OF COUNTRIES OUTSIDE THE EUROPEAN UNION The EIB COVID-19 Economic Vulnerability Index – An analysis of countries outside the European Union Thematic Study © European Investment Bank, 2020. Authors Emmanouil Davradakis Ricardo Santos Sanne Zwart Barbara Marchitto This is a publication of the European Investment Bank’s Economics Department. The mission of the EIB’s Economics Department is to provide economic analyses and studies to support the Bank in its operations and in its positioning, strategy and policy. The department, a team of 40, is led by Debora Revoltella, Director of Economics. [email protected] www.eib.org/economics The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the European Investment Bank. The European Investment Bank does not endorse, accept or judge the legal status of any territories, boundaries, colours, denominations or information depicted on geographical maps included in its publications. All rights reserved. All questions on rights and licensing should be addressed to [email protected] For further information on the EIB’s activities, please consult our website, www.eib.org. You can also contact [email protected]. Get our e-newsletter at www.eib.org/sign-up Published by the European Investment Bank. Printed on FSC Paper. pdf: QH-03-20-412-EN-N ISBN 978-92-861-4713-5 doi: 10.2867/812925 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO RESILIENCE 3 GLOBAL SUMMARY 5 THE POWER OF A DIVERSE ECONOMY 7 HEALTHCARE AND ECONOMIC SYSTEMS 9 THE EIB COVID-19 VULNERABILITY INDEX 11 ANNEX: TECHNICAL DETAILS 15 INTRODUCTION There is a lot that we do not yet know about the health effects of COVID-19.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Economic Area (Eea), Switzerland and the North
    THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA (EEA), SWITZERLAND AND THE NORTH The European Economic Area (EEA) was set up in 1994 to extend the EU’s provisions on its internal market to the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) countries. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are parties to the EEA. Switzerland is a member of EFTA but does not take part in the EEA. The EU and EEA EFTA partners (Norway and Iceland) are also linked by various ‘northern policies’ and forums which focus on the rapidly evolving northern reaches of Europe and the Arctic region as a whole. LEGAL BASIS For the EEA: Article 217 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Association Agreements). For Switzerland: Insurance Agreement of 1989, Bilateral Agreements I of 1999, Bilateral Agreements II of 2004. THE EEA A. Objectives The purpose of the European Economic Area (EEA) is to extend the EU’s internal market to countries in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA). The current EFTA countries do not wish to join the EU. EU legislation relating to the internal market becomes part of the legislation of the EEA EFTA countries once they have agreed to incorporate it. The administration and management of the EEA is shared between the EU and the EEA EFTA countries in a two-pillar structure. Decisions are taken by joint EEA bodies (the EEA Council, the EEA Joint Committee, the EEA Joint Parliamentary Committee and the EEA Consultative Committee). B. Background In 1992, the then seven members of EFTA negotiated an agreement to allow them to participate in the ambitious project of the European Community’s internal market, launched in 1985 and completed at the end of 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bank of the European Union (Sabine Tissot) the Authors Do Not Accept Responsibility for the 1958-2008 • 1958-2008 • 1958-2008 Translations
    The book is published and printed in Luxembourg by 1958-2008 • 1958-2008 • 1958-2008 1958-2008 • 1958-2008 • 1958-2008 15, rue du Commerce – L-1351 Luxembourg 3 (+352) 48 00 22 -1 5 (+352) 49 59 63 1958-2008 • 1958-2008 • 1958-2008 U [email protected] – www.ic.lu The history of the European Investment Bank cannot would thus mobilise capital to promote the cohesion be dissociated from that of the European project of the European area and modernise the economy. 1958-2008 • 1958-2008 • 1958-2008 The EIB yesterday and today itself or from the stages in its implementation. First These initial objectives have not been abandoned. (cover photographs) broached during the inter-war period, the idea of an 1958-2008 • 1958-2008 • 1958-2008 The Bank’s history symbolised by its institution for the financing of major infrastructure in However, today’s EIB is very different from that which 1958-2008 • 1958-2008 • 1958-2008 successive headquarters’ buildings: Europe resurfaced in 1949 at the time of reconstruction started operating in 1958. The Europe of Six has Mont des Arts in Brussels, and the Marshall Plan, when Maurice Petsche proposed become that of Twenty-Seven; the individual national 1958-2008 • 1958-2008 • 1958-2008 Place de Metz and Boulevard Konrad Adenauer the creation of a European investment bank to the economies have given way to the ‘single market’; there (West and East Buildings) in Luxembourg. Organisation for European Economic Cooperation. has been continuous technological progress, whether 1958-2008 • 1958-2008 • 1958-2008 in industry or financial services; and the concerns of The creation of the Bank was finalised during the European citizens have changed.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing the Protocol 36 Opt
    September 2012 Opting out of EU Criminal law: What is actually involved? Alicia Hinarejos, J.R. Spencer and Steve Peers CELS Working Paper, New Series, No.1 http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/publications/working_papers.php Centre for European Legal Studies • 10 West Road • Cambridge CB3 9DZ Telephone: 01223 330093 • Fax: 01223 330055 • http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Protocol 36 to the Lisbon Treaty gives the UK the right to opt out en bloc of all the police and criminal justice measures adopted under the Treaty of Maastricht ahead of the date when the Court of Justice of the EU at Luxembourg will acquire jurisdiction in relation to them. The government is under pressure to use this opt-out in order to “repatriate criminal justice”. It is rumoured that this opt-out might be offered as a less troublesome alternative to those are calling for a referendum on “pulling out of Europe”. Those who advocate the Protocol 36 opt-out appear to assume that it would completely remove the UK from the sphere of EU influence in matters of criminal justice and that the opt-out could be exercised cost-free. In this Report, both of these assumptions are challenged. It concludes that if the opt-out were exercised the UK would still be bound by a range of new police and criminal justice measures which the UK has opted into after Lisbon. And it also concludes that the measures opted out of would include some – notably the European Arrest Warrant – the loss of which could pose a risk to law and order.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Eu Foreign Policy Architecture
    THE NEW EU FOREIGN POLICY ARCHITECTURE REVIEWING THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE EEAS NIKLAS HELWIG PAUL IVAN HRANT KOSTANYAN CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES (CEPS) BRUSSELS The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is an independent policy research institute in Brussels. Its mission is to produce sound policy research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe. The views expressed in this book are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed to CEPS or any other institution with which they are associated or to the European Union. Niklas Helwig is a Marie Curie Researcher of the EXACT network at the University of Edinburgh and Cologne and focuses on the institutional development of EU foreign policy. He worked for the Centre for European Policy Studies and the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. Paul Ivan is a Romanian diplomat. Previously, he worked as a researcher for the Centre for European Policy Studies, where he focused on EU political and institutional issues and the European External Action Service. Hrant Kostanyan is an associate research fellow at CEPS and a PhD candidate at the Centre for EU Studies at Ghent University. He worked as an external expert for International Alert, based in London, in the Eastern Europe and South Caucasus research project. He also worked as an expert on a European Commission-funded project on the EU’s relations with Russia and the Eastern Partnership at the EU Neighbourhood Info Centre. The authors thank Piotr Maciej Kaczyński for his comments on an earlier draft. ISBN 978-94-6138-262-7 © Copyright 2013, Centre for European Policy Studies and the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of a Common EU Foreign, Security and Defence Policy
    Chronology: The Evolution of a Common EU Foreign, Security and Defence Policy March 1948: Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the UK sign the Brussels Treaty of mutual defence. April 1949: The US, Canada and ten West European countries sign the North Atlantic Treaty . May 1952: The European Defence Community treaty is agreed by the six ECSC member states. It would have created a common European army, and permitted West Germany’s rearmament. In August 1954, the French National Assembly rejects the treaty. October 1954: The Western European Union (WEU) is created on the basis of the Brussels Treaty, and expanded to include Italy and West Germany. West Germany joins NATO. December 1969: At their summit in The Hague , the EC heads of state or government ask the foreign ministers to study ways to achieve progress in political unification. October 1970: The foreign ministers approve the Luxembourg Report , setting up European Political Cooperation. They will meet every six months, to coordinate their positions on international problems and agree common actions. They will be aided by a committee of the directors of political affairs (the Political Committee ). July 1973: The foreign ministers agree to improve EPC procedures in the Copenhagen Report . They will meet at least four times a year; the Political Committee can meet as often as necessary. European Correspondents and working groups will help prepare the Political Committee’s work. The Commission can contribute its views to proceedings. October 1981: Measures approved in the London Report include the crisis consultation mechanism: any three foreign ministers can convene an emergency EPC meeting within 48 hours.
    [Show full text]
  • Speaker Biographies
    2021 High-level Meeting of the Development Cooperation Forum Development cooperation for the Decade of Action: Reduce risk. Enable recovery. Build resilience. (6-7 May 2021, virtual) Speaker biographies . Opening of the 2021 DCF From old debates to a new Decade of Action: the future of development cooperation H.E. Mr. Munir Akram is currently the President of ECOSOC, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations. Ambassador Akram previously served as Pakistan’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York for six years between 2002 and 2008, after serving as Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva for seven years from 1995 to 2002. During his term at the United Nations, Ambassador Munir Akram served twice as President of the Security Council; President of the Economic and Social Council; Chairman of the Group of 77 and China (developing countries), and Facilitator on UN Administrative Reform. Ambassador Akram joined the Foreign Service of Pakistan in 1967, holding various positions in the Foreign Ministry as Additional Foreign Secretary and Director-General dealing with the United Nations. He obtained a Bachelor’s degree in Law and a Master’s degree in Political Science from the University of Karachi. Mr. Liu Zhenmin is the Under Secretary-General for the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Liu was Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of China. Among his various diplomatic assignments, he served as Ambassador and Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations Office at Geneva and Other International Organizations in Switzerland.
    [Show full text]
  • The Schengen Acquis
    The Schengen acquis integrated into the European Union ð 1 May 1999 Notice This booklet, which has been prepared by the General Secretariat of the Council, does not commit either the Community institutions or the governments of the Member States. Please note that only the text that shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities L 239, 22 September 2000, is deemed authentic. For further information, please contact the Information Policy, Transparency and Public Relations Division at the following address: General Secretariat of the Council Rue de la Loi 175 B-1048 Brussels Fax 32 (0)2 285 5332 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: http://ue.eu.int A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int). Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001 ISBN 92-824-1776-X European Communities, 2001 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in Belgium 3 FOREWORD When the Amsterdam Treaty entered into force on 1 May 1999, cooperation measures hitherto in the Schengen framework were integrated into the European Union framework. The Schengen Protocol annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty lays down detailed arrangements for that integration process. An annex to the protocolspecifies what is meant by ‘Schengen acquis’. The decisions and declarations adopted within the Schengen institutional framework by the Executive Committee have never before been published. The GeneralSecretariat of the Councilhas decided to produce for those interested a collection of the Executive Committee decisions and declarations integrated by the Councildecision of 20 May 1999 (1999/435/EC).
    [Show full text]
  • The 2011 Debacle Over Danish Border Control: a Mismatch of Domestic and European Games Malthe Munkøe
    The 2011 Debacle over Danish Border Control: A Mismatch of Domestic and European Games Malthe Munkøe DEPARTMENT OF EU INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND DIPLOMACY STUDIES EU Diplomacy Paper 01 / 2012 Department of EU International Relations and Diplomacy Studies EU Diplomacy Papers 1/2012 The 2011 Debacle over Danish Border Control: A Mismatch of Domestic and European Games Malthe Munkøe © Malthe Munkøe 2012 Dijver 11 | BE-8000 Bruges, Belgium | Tel. +32 (0)50 477 251 | Fax +32 (0)50 477 250 | E-mail [email protected] | www.coleurope.eu/ird Malthe Munkøe About the Author Malthe Munkøe is Consultant at Dansk Erhverv (The Danish Chamber of Commerce), a Danish business confederation. He holds an MA in EU International Relations and Diplomacy Studies (Charles Darwin Promotion 2010) from the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium, and a Master’s degree in Political Science from the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. He has previously published in a number of Danish academic journals and edited book anthologies on the financial crisis and on public sector reforms. Editorial Team: Andrew Bower, Gino Brunswijck, Francesca Fenton, Grzegorz Grobicki, Sieglinde Gstöhl, Vincent Laporte, Jing Men, Raphaël Métais, Charles Thépaut, Claudia Zulaika Escauriaza Dijver 11 | BE-8000 Bruges, Belgium | Tel. +32 (0)50 477 251 | Fax +32 (0)50 477 250 | E-mail [email protected] | www.coleurope.eu/ird Views expressed in the EU Diplomacy Papers are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect positions of either the series editors or the College of Europe. 2 EU Diplomacy Paper 1/2012 Abstract In May 2011 the Danish minority government successfully obtained the support of the Danish People’s Party to carry out a comprehensive pension reform.
    [Show full text]