DOCSLIB.ORG

The State of Regionalism in Europe an AER Report Part II

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The State of Regionalism in Europe an AER Report Part II The State of Regionalism in Europe An AER Report Part II: How do Regions look like in Europe? An overview for the 47 Member States of the Council of Europe June 2010 The publisher: The Assembly of European Regions (AER) is the largest independent network of regions in wider Europe. Bringing together more than 270 regions from 33 countries and 16 interregional organisations, AER is the political voice of its members and a forum for interregional co-operation. Further information under: www.aer.eu Director of publication: Agnès Ciccarone Chief editor: Regine Kramer Assistant editors: Gabriel Callsen, Martina Viktorinova External contributors: - Valentina Guerra, Doctorate student in Contemporary History, Robert Schumann University, Strasbourg (F), AER press and communication officer - Pascal Goergen, diplomatic representative of Bruxelles-Capitale to the European Union Printed: Groupe CAR Impression numérique (www.car.fr) Published: in 2 languages (English / French) for the first part, 1 language (English) for the second part. Reproduction authorized with mention of the source AER General Secretariat 6, rue Oberlin F- 67000 Strasbourg Tel.: +33 3 88 22 07 07 Fax: +33 3 88 75 67 19 E-mail: [email protected] Strasbourg, June 2010 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgment/ Words of thanks ......................................................................................5 Disclaimer ...............................................................................................................................5 1. Guidelines on how to read the country reports ..............................................................6 2. Country reports ..................................................................................................................7 ALBANIA ..............................................................................................................................7 ANDORRA .........................................................................................................................10 ARMENIA ...........................................................................................................................12 AUSTRIA* ..........................................................................................................................14 AZERBAIJAN .....................................................................................................................21 BELGIUM* ..........................................................................................................................24 BOSNIA and HERZEGOVINA* ..........................................................................................31 BULGARIA .........................................................................................................................36 CROATIA ...........................................................................................................................38 CYPRUS ............................................................................................................................41 CZECH REPUBLIC* ..........................................................................................................43 DENMARK .........................................................................................................................48 ESTONIA ...........................................................................................................................51 FINLAND ............................................................................................................................54 FRANCE* ...........................................................................................................................57 The Former Yugoslav Republic of MACEDONIA ...............................................................64 GEORGIA ..........................................................................................................................68 GERMANY* ........................................................................................................................71 GREECE* ...........................................................................................................................79 HUNGARY .........................................................................................................................86 ICELAND ............................................................................................................................91 IRELAND ............................................................................................................................93 ITALY .................................................................................................................................97 LATVIA .............................................................................................................................102 LIECHTENSTEIN .............................................................................................................105 LITHUANIA ......................................................................................................................107 LUXEMBOURG ................................................................................................................110 MALTA .............................................................................................................................112 MOLDOVA .......................................................................................................................114 MONACO .........................................................................................................................117 MONTENEGRO ...............................................................................................................119 NETHERLANDS ..............................................................................................................121 3 NORWAY .........................................................................................................................124 POLAND* .........................................................................................................................127 PORTUGAL* ....................................................................................................................133 ROMANIA* .......................................................................................................................139 RUSSIAN FEDERATION ..................................................................................................146 SAN MARINO ...................................................................................................................150 SERBIA* ...........................................................................................................................152 SLOVAK REPUBLIC* .......................................................................................................157 SLOVENIA .......................................................................................................................164 SPAIN* .............................................................................................................................166 SWEDEN* ........................................................................................................................173 SWITZERLAND ................................................................................................................177 TURKEY* .........................................................................................................................180 UKRAINE ..........................................................................................................................184 UNITED KINGDOM* ........................................................................................................186 Annexes ..............................................................................................................................190 Annex 1: AER Declaration on Regionalism in Europe .....................................................190 Annex 2: Regions in European countries – Synopsis tables ...........................................197 Annex 3: AER Tabula regionum Europae .........................................................................247 Annex 4: Indicative bibliography and useful links and contacts .......................................248 List of acronyms .................................................................................................................254 *: Reports with interviews of regional politicians, MEPs or experts 4 Acknowledgment/ Words of thanks We would like to thank the Regions’ Presidents who took the time to answer our questions and provided us with their views on Regions in Europe and the advantages of being an AER member. We also thank the MEPs and experts from various countries who also accepted to provide us with their testimonies on the key role played by Regions in today’s Europe. Last but not least, many thanks to the regional officers, who checked our country reports, and to the representatives of national governments who helped us in our updating activities. Disclaimer To prepare each country report, the AER Secretariat used various sources, mentioned in Annex 4. The majority of the country reports was submitted to a two-level system of control: on the one hand, the AER General Secretariat asked for Member Regions in the country to check the accuracy of the information provided. On
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Halifax Regional Municipality Settlement Pattern and Form with Service Cost Analysis
    Regional Planning – Halifax Regional Municipality Settlement Pattern and Form with Service Cost Analysis April 2005 Table of Contents Introduction 2 Summary 3 Methodology Residential Patterns 10 Residential Patterns 11 Summary Table 12 Pattern A – Rural – 2+ Acre Lots 13 Pattern B – Rural – 1+ Acre Lots 14 Pattern C – Suburban Low Density 15 Pattern D – Urban Low Density 16 Pattern E – Suburban Mid Density 17 Pattern F – Urban Mid Density 18 Pattern G – Urban High Density 19 Pattern H – Rural Cluster Appendices and Conclusion 20 Appendix A – Pattern Attributes 21 Appendix B – Unit Costs of Services 22 Appendix C – Summary of Estimated Costs 24 Conclusion | 1 Regional Planning – Halifax Regional Municipality Introduction Summary Halifax Regional Municipality is in the process of developing a 25-year Regional Plan and is proposing specific policies on how and where it should grow. In a sense, one might think of HRM as a growing "family" looking at options for its future "home". And when looking for a new home, it is important to know that the one you're looking at, or thinking of building, is affordable. HRM's Cost of Servicing study allows us to better understand the cost implications of different patterns of growth. This booklet will show the findings of the Cost of Servicing study applied to sample settlement patterns that are typical to HRM. Although, not all of the factors influencing costs, such as the effects of specific locations, have been included, trends are emerg- ing that should support discussions of the relative, incremental costs of the different styles of "rooms" (neigh- bourhoods) that make up HRM's "home".
    [Show full text]
  • Pathways to Regional Sustainability: Best Practices for Wisconsin's
    Pathways to Regional Sustainability Best Practices for Wisconsin’s Capital Region June 2014 Cover photo credits (from left to right): Peter Gorman; Madison Magazine; Matthew Chakmakian Suggested citation: LaGro, J. 2014. Pathways to Regional Sustainability: Best Practices for Wisconsin’s Capital Region. Madison, Wisconsin: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Contact information: James LaGro, Jr., Ph.D. Professor, Department of Urban and Regional Planning University of Wisconsin-Madison 925 Bascom Mall, Madison, WI 53706-1317 [email protected] Pathways to Regional Sustainability: Best Practices for Wisconsin’s Capital Region page i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Background research for this report was conducted by the University of Wisconsin-Madison students in Planning for Regional Sustainability (URPL 590). Students in this summer course were: Jeffrey Dhein-Schuldt, Jonathan Fok, Troy Maggied, Jenna Mattison, Andrea McMillan, Joshua Rogers, Daniel Ruggiero, Jody Schimek, and Ben Vondra. The Capital Area Regional Planning Commission (CARPC) staff, Kamran Mesbah, Steve Steinhoff, Bridgit Van Belleghem, Dan McAuliffe, and Jason Granberg supported this effort in multiple ways. Special thanks go to Kamran Mesbah, Deputy Director of CARPC, and Steve Steinhoff, project manager for the Capital Region Sustainable Communities (CRSC) Initiative. This report also benefitted from many discussions with the CRSC Steering Committee and other consortium members, including Jordan Bingham, Curt Brink, Martha Cranley, Brian Grady, Ed Kinney, Edward Lee, Jesse Lerner, Jim Lorman, Michael Mucha, Todd Violante, Bill Schaefer, and Gary Werner. Stephanie Shull and Scott Bernstein, from the Center for Neighborhood Technologies in Chicago, also helped to inform this work. DISCLAIMER An award from the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Annual Report
    Girls Incorporated® of the Greater Capital Region 2012 Annual Report I 962 Albany St., Schenectady NY 12307 301 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12206 518 / 374 – 9800 www.girlsinccapitalregion.org Inspiring ALL girls to be strong, smart, and bold!SM 2012 Annual Report Girls Inc. of the Greater Capital Region The Girls Inc. Mission Girls Incorporated® is committed to a vision of empowered girls and an equitable society. Through life-changing programs and experiences that help girls navigate gender, economic, and social barriers, Girls Inc. inspires all girls to be strong, smart, and bold.sm Research-based informal education programs encourage girls to take risks and master physical, intellectual, and emotional challenges. Curricula is delivered by trained, mentoring professionals and addresses the areas of culture and heritage, health and sexuality, leadership and community action, career and life planning, sports and adventure, and self-reliance and life skills. In a positive, all-girl environment, girls ages 5 to 18 are equipped to: achieve academically lead healthy and physically active lives manage money navigate media messages discover an interest in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) careers With our free after-school programs in both our Albany and Schenectady sites, the Summer Fun day camp program, all-day activities during school vacation weeks, community outreach programs, including Girls’ Summit and GE Technology Day and Job Shadow Day, and other programs including Eureka!®, our agency served a total of 11,407 girls in 2012. 2012 Annual Report Girls Inc. of the Greater Capital Region A Year of Transition In April, as the organization celebrated its milestone anniversary of serving girls in the Capital Region for 75 years, the Board of Directors was searching for a new Executive Director.
    [Show full text]
  • From an Autonomous Province to a Habsburg Principality
    FROM AN AUTONOMOUS PROVINCE TO A HABSBURG PRINCIPALITY. THE LEGISLATIVE ROLE OF THE TRANSYLVANIAN DIET DURING THE 18TH CENTURY Gelu Fodor* Keywords: Werböczy, Tripartitum, constitution, Diet, Pragmatic Sanction, legislative system Cuvinte cheie: Werböczy, Tripartitum, constituţie, dietă, Pragmatica Sancţiune, sistem legislativ Introductory considerations Our approach aims to shed light on the evolution of the Transylvanian constitution and constitutionalism after the incorporation of the Principality of Transylvania within the administrative structures of the Habsburg Empire, the upper chronological limit being the provisions the Diet issued in 1791. In order to achieve this goal, we intend to examine all the aspects that contributed decisively to shaping the constitutional realities in the Principality, focusing in particular on the institutional and legislative role of the Diet, as a representative authority for the nobility in its relationship with the Habsburg sovereigns. The conquest of Transylvania by the Habsburgs gradually brought about major changes as regards the law-making institutions, and some of these changes were made with the direct involvement of the Diet. The central aspect on which we shall dwell and which, in our opinion, was the quintessence of the entire legislative process unfolding throughout the 18th century, revolved around the articles of law enacted by the Diet of 1744 and, respectively, of the Diet of 1791. By analysing their specific provisions, we shall attempt to highlight the changes that took place in the constitutional structure of the Principality up until the turn of the 19th century. Another point of interest for our study revolves around what certain historians regard as the very foundation of the Transylvanian political system, namely the Constitutions of Transylvania: Werböczy’s Tripartitum, Aprobatae Constitutiones and Compilatae Constitutiones.
    [Show full text]
  • Pomorskie Voivodeship Development Strategy 2020
    Annex no. 1 to Resolution no. 458/XXII/12 Of the Sejmik of Pomorskie Voivodeship of 24th September 2012 on adoption of Pomorskie Voivodeship Development Strategy 2020 Pomorskie Voivodeship Development Strategy 2020 GDAŃSK 2012 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. OUTPUT SITUATION ………………………………………………………… 6 II. SCENARIOS AND VISION OF DEVELOPMENT ………………………… 18 THE PRINCIPLES OF STRATEGY AND ROLE OF THE SELF- III. 24 GOVERNMENT OF THE VOIVODESHIP ………..………………………… IV. CHALLENGES AND OBJECTIVES …………………………………………… 28 V. IMPLEMENTATION SYSTEM ………………………………………………… 65 3 4 The shape of the Pomorskie Voivodeship Development Strategy 2020 is determined by 8 assumptions: 1. The strategy is a tool for creating development targeting available financial and regulatory instruments. 2. The strategy covers only those issues on which the Self-Government of Pomorskie Voivodeship and its partners in the region have a real impact. 3. The strategy does not include purely local issues unless there is a close relationship between the local needs and potentials of the region and regional interest, or when the local deficits significantly restrict the development opportunities. 4. The strategy does not focus on issues of a routine character, belonging to the realm of the current operation and performing the duties and responsibilities of legal entities operating in the region. 5. The strategy is selective and focused on defining the objectives and courses of action reflecting the strategic choices made. 6. The strategy sets targets amenable to verification and establishment of commitments to specific actions and effects. 7. The strategy outlines the criteria for identifying projects forming part of its implementation. 8. The strategy takes into account the specific conditions for development of different parts of the voivodeship, indicating that not all development challenges are the same everywhere in their nature and seriousness.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017-02 Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement
    ORDINANCE 2017-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF LOWER ALLEN, 1997 AT CHAPTER 23 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION, BY CREATING A NEW ARTICLE XIII, AUTHORIZING THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO ENTER INTO A MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CAPITAL REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AND ITS MEMBER MUNICIPALITIES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BUILDING CODE DEPARTMENT FOR BUILDING CODE INSPECTIONS AND PLAN REVIEWS. BE IT ENACTED AND ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, (“Board”) and it is hereby enacted and ordained by the authority of the same as follows: SECTION 1: SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the Capital Region Council of Governments’ Building Code Department Ordinance. SECTION 2: LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND APPLICABILITY The background of this Ordinance and the legislative intention of the Board in enacting it are as follows: A. The Township of Lower Allen is a Municipality of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. B. The Capital Region Council of Governments is a consortium of Central Pennsylvania Municipalities. C. The Act of December 19, 1996, P.L. 1158, No. 177, referred to as the Intergovernmental Cooperation Law , 53 Pa. C.S. §2301, et seq. provides that two or more Municipalities may jointly cooperate in the exercise or in the performance of their respective governmental functions, powers or responsibilities. D. The Pennsylvania First Class Township Code authorizes Townships to enter into joint Municipal Agreements with other political subdivisions and member organizations, in making a joint purchase of services or to perform governmental powers and duties.
    [Show full text]
  • Development Prospects of Tourist Passenger Shipping in the Polish Part of the Vistula Lagoon
    sustainability Article Development Prospects of Tourist Passenger Shipping in the Polish Part of the Vistula Lagoon Krystian Puzdrakiewicz * and Marcin Połom * Division of Regional Development, Faculty of Oceanography and Geography, University of Gda´nsk, 80-309 Gda´nsk,Poland * Correspondence: [email protected] (K.P.); [email protected] (M.P.) Abstract: The Vistula Lagoon is a cross-border area with high natural values and a developing market of tourist services. Passenger shipping is an important part of local tourism, but ship owners are insufficiently involved in planning processes and their views on creating shipping development are underrepresented. The article aims to compare the vision of the development of passenger shipping in the Polish part of the Vistula Lagoon between local governments creating the spatial policy and ship owners offering transport services. We have made an attempt to verify the development prospects. The collation of these visions was based primarily on the qualitative analysis of the content of planning and strategic documents (desk research method) and a survey conducted among all six ship owners. Thanks to the comparative analysis, it was possible to show similarities and differences and to indicate recommendations. The paper presents review of the available literature on the subject, thanks to which the research area was identified as unique in Europe. On the one hand, it is a valuable natural area, which is an important tourist destination, on the other hand, there are organizational and infrastructural limitations in meeting the needs of tourists. Then, field research was conducted, unpublished materials were collected, and surveys were conducted with the Citation: Puzdrakiewicz, K.; Połom, M.
    [Show full text]
  • Samorząd Terytorialny W Pigułce System Samorządu W Polsce • GŁÓWNA MISJA: Planowanie I Wspieranie Rozwoju Regionu M.In
    Samorząd terytorialny w pigułce System samorządu w Polsce • GŁÓWNA MISJA: planowanie i wspieranie rozwoju regionu m.in. poprzez wykorzystanie funduszy Województwo europejskich • ORGANY: sejmik województwa (wybieralny, zarząd województwa z marszałkiem na czele • GŁÓWNA MISJA: zapewnienie usług publicznych, których skala przekracza możliwości gminy, np. ochrona zdrowia, szkoły ponadgimnazjalne, Powiat bezpieczeństwo publiczne • ORGANY: rada powiatu (wybieralna), zarząd powiatu ze starostą na czele • GŁÓWNA MISJA: zapewnienie podstawowych usług publicznych – samorząd „pierwszego kontaktu” Gmina • ORGANY: rada gminy i wójt, burmistrz, prezydent miasta (organy wybieralne) Na czym polega Gmina jako podstawowa jednostka samorządu terytorialnego odpowiada za wszystkie misja gminy? sprawy o zasięgu lokalnym, które – zgodnie z założeniami ustawy o samorządzie > gminnym – mogą się przysłużyć „zaspokojeniu zbiorowych potrzeb wspólnoty”. Nawet jeśli prawo wyraźnie nie nakazuje gminom podejmowania określonych działań czy rozwiązywania konkretnych problemów, władze gminy nie mogą tego traktować jako wymówki dla swojej bierności. Gmina powinna aktywnie rozwiązywać problemy mieszkańców! Zgodnie z art. 1 ust. 1 ustawy o samorządzie gminnym oraz art. 16 ust. 1 Konstytucji RP mieszkańcy gminy tworzą z mocy prawa wspólnotę samorządową. Celem działań podejmowanych przez gminę powinno być zaspokajanie konkretnych potrzeb danej wspólnoty samorządowej. Na czym polega Powiat został utworzony, aby zarządzać usługami publicznymi, z którymi nie misja powiatu? poradziłyby sobie gminy, szczególnie mniejsze. Dlatego też powiat ponosi > odpowiedzialność za zarządzanie szpitalami, prowadzenie szkół ponadgimnazjalnych, urzędów pracy czy sprawy geodezji. Warto przy tym pamiętać, że wszystkie szczeble samorządu są od siebie niezależne, i tak np. powiat nie jest nadrzędny w stosunku do gmin. Na czym polega Najważniejszym zadaniem województwa jest wspieranie rozwoju całego regionu. misja województwa? W tym celu sejmik przyjmuje strategie opisujące plany rozwoju województwa.
    [Show full text]
  • City-County Consolidation in St. Louis: an Analysis
    Missouri Policy Journal | Number 8 (Spring/Summer 2019) | 35 City-County Consolidation in St. Louis: An Analysis United States over the past fifty years. These consol- Joshua Hall, PhD idation attempts, and the findings of the scholars that West Virginia University have studied them, can give policymakers some in- Josh Matti, PhD Candidate sight into opportunities for improvement in regional governance and potential pitfalls to avoid. As authors West Virginia University of two recent papers on city-county consolidation, we employ our understanding of the literature, combined 1. Introduction with our own original research, to provide citizens and policymakers of St. Louis County with insights The county of St. Louis is one of the most politically and lessons from the academic literature on city- fragmented in the United States. According to Better county consolidation. Together,1 a group in favor of municipal reform in St. Louis County, the county contains ninety municipal We proceed as follows. We begin by summarizing the governments, fifty-seven police departments, eighty- theoretical arguments in favor of consolidation in one municipal courts, and forty-three fire districts. Section 2, followed by the theoretical arguments This political fragmentation has been argued to lead against consolidation in Section 3. Where possible we to a number of problems, including wasteful compe- try to link discussion from the academic literature to tition among local governments, inefficient duplica- arguments made regarding the situation in St. Louis. tion of services, an inability to coordinate efforts Section 4 discusses the empirical literature on city- geared towards regional growth, and a disparity in county consolidation.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Prosperity Initiative
    USAID/GEORGIA DO2: Inclusive and Sustainable Economic Growth October 1, 2011 – September 31, 2012 Gagra Municipal (regional) Infrastructure Development (MID) ABKHAZIA # Municipality Region Project Title Gudauta Rehabilitation of Roads 1 Mtskheta 3.852 km; 11 streets : Mtskheta- : Mtanee Rehabilitation of Roads SOKHUMI : : 1$Mestia : 2 Dushet 2.240 km; 7 streets :: : ::: Rehabilitation of Pushkin Gulripshi : 3 Gori street 0.92 km : Chazhashi B l a c k S e a :%, Rehabilitaion of Gorijvari : 4 Gori Shida Kartli road 1.45 km : Lentekhi Rehabilitation of Nationwide Projects: Ochamchire SAMEGRELO- 5 Kareli Sagholasheni-Dvani 12 km : Highway - DCA Basisbank ZEMO SVANETI RACHA-LECHKHUMI rehabilitaiosn Roads in Oni Etseri - DCA Bank Republic Lia*#*# 6 Oni 2.452 km, 5 streets *#Sachino : KVEMO SVANETI Stepantsminda - DCA Alliance Group 1$ Gali *#Mukhuri Tsageri Shatili %, Racha- *#1$ Tsalenjikha Abari Rehabilitation of Headwork Khvanchkara #0#0 Lechkhumi - DCA Crystal Obuji*#*# *#Khabume # 7 Oni of Drinking Water on Oni for Nakipu 0 Likheti 3 400 individuals - Black Sea Regional Transmission ZUGDIDI1$ *# Chkhorotsku1$*# ]^!( Oni Planning Project (Phase 2) Chitatskaro 1$!( Letsurtsume Bareuli #0 - Georgia Education Management Project (EMP) Akhalkhibula AMBROLAURI %,Tsaishi ]^!( *#Lesichine Martvili - Georgia Primary Education Project (G-Pried) MTSKHETA- Khamiskuri%, Kheta Shua*#Zana 1$ - GNEWRC Partnership Program %, Khorshi Perevi SOUTH MTIANETI Khobi *# *#Eki Khoni Tskaltubo Khresili Tkibuli#0 #0 - HICD Plus #0 ]^1$ OSSETIA 1$ 1$!( Menji *#Dzveli
    [Show full text]
  • List of Subjects, Admission of New Subjects Article 66
    Chapter 3. Federative Arrangement (Articles 65–79) 457 Chapter 3. Federative Arrangement See also Art.5 Federative arrangement Article 65: List of subjects, admission of new subjects Art.65.1. The composition of the RF comprises the following RF subjects: the Republic Adygeia (Adygeia), the Republic Altai, the Republic Bashkortostan, the Republic Buriatia, the Republic Dagestan, the Republic Ingushetia, the Kabarda-Balkar Republic, the Republic Kalmykia, the Karachai-Cherkess Republic, the Republic Karelia, the Republic Komi, the Republic Mari El, the Republic Mordovia, the Republic Sakha (Iakutia), the Republic North Ossetia- Alania, the Republic Tatarstan (Tatarstan), the Republic Tyva, the Udmurt Republic, the Republic Khakasia, the Chechen Republic, and the Chuvash Republic-Chuvashia; Altai Territory, Krasnodar Territory, Krasnoiarsk Territory, Primor’e Territory, Stavropol’ Territory, and Khabarovsk Territory; Amur Province, Arkhangel’sk Province, Astrakhan’ Province, Belgorod Province, Briansk Province, Vladimir Province, Volgograd Province, Vologda Province, Voronezh Province, Ivanovo Province, Irkutsk Province, Kaliningrad Province, Kaluga Province, Kamchatka Province, Kemerovo Province, Kirov Province, Kostroma Province, Kurgan Province, Kursk Province, Leningrad Province, Lipetsk Province, Magadan Province, Moscow Province, Murmansk Province, Nizhnii Novgorod Province, Novgorod Province, Novosibirsk Province, Omsk Province, Orenburg Province, Orel Province, Penza Province, Perm’ Province, Pskov Province, Rostov Province, Riazan’
    [Show full text]
  • The United Nations' Political Aversion to the European Microstates
    UN-WELCOME: The United Nations’ Political Aversion to the European Microstates -- A Thesis -- Submitted to the University of Michigan, in partial fulfillment for the degree of HONORS BACHELOR OF ARTS Department Of Political Science Stephen R. Snyder MARCH 2010 “Elephants… hate the mouse worst of living creatures, and if they see one merely touch the fodder placed in their stall they refuse it with disgust.” -Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia, 77 AD Acknowledgments Though only one name can appear on the author’s line, there are many people whose support and help made this thesis possible and without whom, I would be nowhere. First, I must thank my family. As a child, my mother and father would try to stump me with a difficult math and geography question before tucking me into bed each night (and a few times they succeeded!). Thank you for giving birth to my fascination in all things international. Without you, none of this would have been possible. Second, I must thank a set of distinguished professors. Professor Mika LaVaque-Manty, thank you for giving me a chance to prove myself, even though I was a sophomore and studying abroad did not fit with the traditional path of thesis writers; thank you again for encouraging us all to think outside the box. My adviser, Professor Jenna Bednar, thank you for your enthusiastic interest in my thesis and having the vision to see what needed to be accentuated to pull a strong thesis out from the weeds. Professor Andrei Markovits, thank you for your commitment to your students’ work; I still believe in those words of the Moroccan scholar and will always appreciate your frank advice.
    [Show full text]