Suchergebnisse

The fundamental distinction between us and them (insiders and outsiders), characteristic of the process whereby we shape our identities, is universal and timeless. It is already present in the first family-tribal communities, providing the basis for the most typical social divisions, and then later for political divisions. From a modern, contemporary perspective, identity has taken on a special significance as it now extends far beyond the boundaries of local communities, becoming part of the consciousness of large social structures, i.e. of national communities. ; Udostępnienie publikacji Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego finansowane w ramach projektu "Doskonałość naukowa kluczem do doskonałości kształcenia". Projekt realizowany jest ze środków Europejskiego Funduszu Społecznego w ramach Programu Operacyjnego Wiedza Edukacja Rozwój; nr umowy: POWER.03.05.00-00-Z092/17-00.

This paper investigates the salience of and the position on Differentiated integration (DI) for the Austrian government. The analysis is based on both an analysis of government programmes, programmatic government speeches and parliamentary debates between 2004 and 2019/20. It shows that DI is overall not a salient issue in Austria, at least with regard to general DI concepts and models. Specific instances of DI were, of course, subjects of intense debates but, with very few exceptions such as the financial transaction tax as an instance of enhanced cooperation, rarely discussed with specific reference to DI. Overall, most Austrian parties are also not generally in favour of DI, quite the opposite. The dominant vision of the EU is that of a community of closely cooperating Member States with the same rights and responsibilities where opt-outs are seen as cherry picking. Only one party has forcefully supported the development of a core Europe, namely the right-wing populist Bündnis Zukunft Österreich (Alliance for the Future of Austria, BZÖ). In this case, however, DI is mainly regarded as a means to exclude groups of Member States (especially the financially more vulnerable or net recipients) from areas of integration.

"Differentiated Integration and European Union Politics" published on by Oxford University Press.

It has become increasingly difficult to unite all member states behind policies that some of them consider desirable or necessary to further EU integration. Differentiated integration may be a solution for this, but also may complicate decision-making. This by raising national constitutional obstacles that have to be cleared in addition to those encountered in the 'ordinary' or at least the 'most obvious' decision-making procedure, which is, depending on the subject matter, decision-making by all member states inside the EU legal order, or the conclusion of an EU (Amendment) Treaty. There are only very few additional national constitutional obstacles to differentiated integration inside the EU legal order. As regards differentiated integration outside the EU legal order, via treaties, two categories should be distinguished. The first consists of treaties which regulate subject matter which could have been regulated in secondary EU law. If we compare the national process of treaty conclusion to the EU decision-making process, the additional national constitutional obstacles are manifold. They differ from one-member state to another and may range from approval by parliament or by referendum, via constitutional amendments, to ratification. The second subcategory consists of treaties which regulate subject matter for which no competence exists at the EU level. Instead of transferring the lacking competence to the EU by way of an EU (Amendment) Treaty, member states can opt for an ordinary treaty. If we compare the national constitutional obstacles faced by these to similar obstacles faced by EU (Amendment) Treaties, no additional national constitutional obstacles have been detected. ; This Paper is part of the InDivEU project which has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 822304. The content of this document represents only the views of the InDivEU consortium and is its sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.

The aim of this article is to discuss the contribution of the theory of differentiated integration to understanding Bologna as an instrument for building up the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), and to learn from that analysis what can be used to enrich the theory of differentiated integration. The analysis uses secondary data to grasp the national and the institutional appropriation of the Bologna process and to identify the dimensions that characterise the type of differentiated integration promoted by Bologna. The analysis underlines the role of national and institutional factors to understand how the EHEA, from its inception and its evolution, is a project of differentiated integration stemming from the translation of policy into action.