Search results

Abstract. While much has been written about the impact of European Union (EU) regulatory policy, most of the scholarly work is concerned with developments at the European level. Only recently have attempts been made to fill this gap. Although there is a growing number of studies explicitly concerned with the Europeanization of domestic institutions, we still lack consistent and systematic concepts to account for the varying patterns of institutional adjustment across countries and policy sectors. The aim of this article is to provide a more comprehensive framework for explaining the domestic impact of European policy making. We make an analytical distinction between three mechanisms of Europeanization – institutional compliance, changing domestic opportunity structures, and framing domestic beliefs and expectations – each of which requires a distinctive approach in order to explain its domestic impact. We argue that it is the particular type of Europeanization mechanism involved rather than the policy area itself that is the most important factor to be considered when investigating the domestic impact of varying European policies.

While much has been written about the impact of European Union (EU) regulatory policy, most of the scholarly work is concerned with developments at the European level. Only recently have attempts been made to fill this gap. Although there is a growing number of studies explicitly concerned with the Europeanization of domestic institutions, we still lack consistent and systematic concepts to account for the varying patterns of institutional adjustment across countries and policy sectors. The aim of this article is to provide a more comprehensive framework for explaining the domestic impact of European policy making. We make an analytical distinction between three mechanisms of Europeanization - institutional compliance, changing domestic opportunity structures, and framing domestic beliefs and expectations - each of which requires a distinctive approach in order to explain its domestic impact. We argue that it is the particular type of Europeanization mechanism involved rather than the policy area itself that is the most important factor to be considered when investigating the domestic impact of varying European policies. (European Journal of Political Research / FUB)

Chapter 1: Literature Review -- Chapter 2: Methodology -- Chapter 3: Government And Public Policies -- Chapter 4: Funding For Innovation -- Chapter 5: Foreign Direct Investment And Internationalisation -- Chapter 6: Other Systemic Factors -- Chapter 7: Case Study On Artificial Intelligence -- Chapter 8: Global Consequences Of China's Rise In S&T And Recommendations For The European Union.

An increasing number of States has adopted new or revised existing laws that establish foreign direct investment (FDI) screening mechanisms on grounds of national security. Comparing FDI screening in Germany and China as a case study, this article identifies three regulatory hurdles to investors related to such mechanisms, namely unpredictability, procedural uncertainty, and the lack of transparency in practice. Adopting the theory of induced reciprocity, this article argues that these regulatory hurdles could be reduced if symmetry constraint on national FDI screening schemes can be established between sovereign States in an international agreement. To achieve induced reciprocity between the European Union and China regarding FDI screening on grounds of national security, the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment could incorporate certain fundamental principles and regulatory objectives of EU Regulation 2019/452 Establishing a Framework for the Screening of Foreign Direct Investments into the Union as a starting point and a way forward.

The paper provides a review of the current situation in Russian industrial parks and management and investment attraction practices of other countries. Every year the number of industrial parks in Russian regions is increasing, state and legislative support is growing. Despite this fact, the attractiveness of industrial parks in Russia is not so high as the attractiveness of similar structures abroad. Identifying the fundamentals of Russian industrial park management, the author considers three management models: special, independent, and hybrid and believes that the first one is typical for Russia, since domestic industrial parks are dynamically funded under the state budget. However, none of Russian industrial parks does not correspond to the classical management models, which is caused by a number of reasons. Summarizing international practices of the industrial park management, the author concludes that several administration schemes can be applied in this country in order to attract both Russian and international investors. The analysis of the integrated capacity of the industrial park attractiveness enables investors to invest deliberately according to the development program and considering visible problems in this field.

In this article, the authors consider the quality assurance system at the national level. The normative legal acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan contributing to the development of quality assurance at the institutional level are analyzed. The structure of state management of the quality assurance system of higher education is given. The authors show the implementation of the process of external and internal quality assurance in the country. At the same time, the internal quality assurance system is based on the principles of quality assurance and on the policy and standards of internal quality assurance, which are developed by the higher education institution independently, but on the basis of ESG. The design of the national quality assurance model is presented in a three-dimensional image. The basis of the National Model of Quality assurance of Higher Education in Kazakhstan (NMQAHE) is the system of internal quality assurance. The indicator of achievement of academic quality by the internal quality assurance system is the academic reputation of a higher educational institution. The answer to the question is given due to what the successful functioning of the national quality assurance model is achieved.

Recent years have seen a considerable increase in the amount of investment cases against both developing and developed countries. In many of those cases, investors attempted to challenge a number of sensitive and political decisions of States. This trend provoked a discussion of whether it is legitimate to limit a State's regulatory power, even if the measures taken impact on investors' rights and legal expectations. This paper highlights the importance of finding a reasonable and just balance in the protection of a State's sovereign power to regulate and an investor's legitimate expectations and rights against the unreasonable, unexpected, and discriminatory decisions of States. It is argued that the possibility and necessity of finding a common dominator in national legislation and International investment law exists. The aim of this article is to identify the main rules applicable to the limits of a State's regulatory changes impacting on investors' rights and legitimate expectations in investment law and under national legislation. Further, the article analyses whether it is possible to find a just and reasonable balance between the investors' legal expectations and the State's right to regulate by comparing the main differences and similarities between national and investment law and by answering the question of whether it would be possible to harmonise State liability rules on the issue, at least at the conceptual level.

Recent years have seen a considerable increase in the amount of investment cases against both developing and developed countries. In many of those cases, investors attempted to challenge a number of sensitive and political decisions of States. This trend provoked a discussion of whether it is legitimate to limit a State's regulatory power, even if the measures taken impact on investors' rights and legal expectations. This paper highlights the importance of finding a reasonable and just balance in the protection of a State's sovereign power to regulate and an investor's legitimate expectations and rights against the unreasonable, unexpected, and discriminatory decisions of States. It is argued that the possibility and necessity of finding a common dominator in national legislation and International investment law exists. The aim of this article is to identify the main rules applicable to the limits of a State's regulatory changes impacting on investors' rights and legitimate expectations in investment law and under national legislation. Further, the article analyses whether it is possible to find a just and reasonable balance between the investors' legal expectations and the State's right to regulate by comparing the main differences and similarities between national and investment law and by answering the question of whether it would be possible to harmonise State liability rules on the issue, at least at the conceptual level.