The trajectory of European integration has never been smooth or linear. Rather it is subject to fits and starts and periods of crises and convergence. This paper analyses the legacies of the multiple crises that the EU and Europe have faced since 2008/09; it then situates this in the context of the ties and tensions that characterise European integration, before turning to the final argument that Europe’s Union has an important ‘window of opportunity’ over the next five years to set itself on a more stable trajectory. Talk of the EU’s demise and disintegration was premature in 2016. It remains essential to the fabric and future well-being of this small continent in a world of major shifts and shocks. One of the benefits of both Brexit and Trump is that pro-EU sections of society have woken up to what is at stake and are fighting back.
The transition from an economic community to a community of values is at the heart of the evolution of the European integration project. While recognizing that the Maastricht Treaty （1993） ushered in the start of a new phase of integration, and the Lisbon Treaty （2009） represents the de jure constitutionalization of a specific set of EU values, this article argues that that shift continues to remain incomplete.
As part of this evolution, the Lisbon Treaty also referred to “the religious organizations”, and religion in general as part of this community of values, for the first time while simultaneously ensuring that the principle of secularism remains firmly embedded as a key ingredient of a community of values. Thus, while the recognition of religion marked a significant moment, the fact that religious groups are deemed part of civil society, on an equal basis with all other organizations subject to the rule of law at the European level, continues to highlight the significance of secularism. Thus, this clearly means that developments do not represent any kind of return to the days of antiquity where religious organizations enjoyed a privileged status as they sought to build a community of faith. Simultaneously, the EU has also sought to stay away from hinting at any particular type of unified secular system, for example, French laïcité, multilaterarism, state church, etc.
Despite all these interesting and important developments, questions about how the EU has reacted to exogenous events such as Turkey and the Arab Spring and endogenous events tied to Poland and Hungary’s illiberal turn remain given that Article 2 （TEU） talks about the importance of ‘…freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities…’.
In order to herald the arrival of a consolidated community of values, it would appear that the gap between the legal text and the political and social reality needs to be bridged. The challenges ahead, not least when it comes to defending human rights or democracy, remain significant.
There is a common insistence that widening income disparities in the U. K. and U. S was the main factor for the national referendum of Brexit in June of 2016 and Mr. Trump’s victory in the presidential election in November of 2016. In fact, according to OECD and IMF surveys, the Gini Coefficients of major advanced nations including member states of the EU, one important index to measure disparity, have been rising in the past decades. Can we say that the Single Market program has promoted income inequality in the EU?
Traditional trade theories insist that, thanks to trade liberalization by the Single Market measures in the EU, comparatively high-income countries may specialize in capital/research intensive industries, while relatively low-income countries may specialize in labor-intensive industries, thus exchanging their goods and services. As a result of this reorganization of production processes, high skilled workforces in high-income countries are able to enjoy high incomes, while low-skilled workforce in high-income countries suffer from lower income, as they face competition with imports from low-income countries.
Furthermore, according to new-new trade theories, multinational enterprises which export their goods and services may enjoy more profits than domestic firms which sell their goods and services only in their domestic markets. As a result, wages in multinational firms tend to rise, while those in domestic firms remain unchanged, which promotes income inequality.
Moreover, an imperfect Single Market, caused by incomplete tax harmonization, may increase income disparity, as multinational enterprises may have chances to avoid tax burden by using their pan-European networks while domestic firms have little chances to do so. Thus, people who work for Multinationals are able to enjoy relatively high-wages while people who work for domestic firms cannot.
Widening income inequality may have negative impacts on economic growth, because lower income may reduce education opportunity. Therefore, income redistribution policy may be imperative for the future of the EU.
The EU has uninterruptedly faced the euro crisis, the asylum and migration crisis, and the Brexit crisis in the last ten years. Through examining EU measures responding to the former two crises, this article argues that some legal phenomena found in the context of these crises have potential to give substantial impact upon the current state of the EU legal order. In the first place, in the field of measures for the euro crisis, EU law measures are combined with international law instruments concluded among the Member States. In particular, the Fiscal Treaty is intermingled with and almost inseparable from EU law. Such mixture casts some doubt upon the essential distinction between international law and EU law. In the second place, in the field of measures for the asylum and migration crisis, some of the Member States in the Eastern and Central Europe such as Hungary and Poland have refused to implement the so-called relocation decisions. Their continuous challenges are contrary to the uniform application of EU law and may reduce the high effectiveness of EU law which distinguishes EU law from ordinary international law. Furthermore, recent constitutional situations in Hungary and Poland seems to demonstrate that they no longer commonly share fundamental values, in particular the rule of law and respect for human rights with other Member States, because they do not protect the independence of their judiciary. Their own specific understanding of these values may well undermine the fundamental foundation of EU law. From the beginning of the 1990s, many scholars have recognized the constitutionalization of EU law. Taking the above phenomena into consideration, however, we may now have to think about another discourse to explain future legal order in the EU. This is because it may be that we are now facing a moment that EU law is being transformed.
The Banking Union is a framework composed of “Single Supervisory Mechanism （SSM）”, “Single Resolution Mechanism （SRM）” and “Deposit Guarantee Scheme （DGS）” and aims at strengthening regulation, observation and governance in the European financial sector. In the case that a bank goes into bankruptcy, it will be saved, without using public finance, between stockholders and creditors under the framework of banking union. Moreover, European Union （EU） integrates the responsibility of observation into the European Central Bank （ECB） and expects that ECB will be able to timely intervene banking system in member countries so that it can stop spreading financial crisis.
On the other hand, European financial system is diversified and regional oriented in nature, reflecting its history, culture and policies. For example, in Germany, Landesbank/Sparkasse system, which is like a public bank owned by local government, and cooperative banks, which have close relationship with local businesses, has a larger share and influence. In France, large financial institutions such as Credit Agricole, BPCE group and Credit Mutuele, which are owned partly by public entity, make it possible to be both commercialization and localization at the same time by owning numerous small local banks under their umbrellas. In the Netherlands and Finland, which are economically successful in Euro zone, cooperative banks such as RaboBank and OP Group have also larger share and could keep sound banking even during European debt crisis. However, In Spain and Italy, which owns about 1/3 of bad loans in whole Euro zone, cooperative and saving banks also have larger share in their financial systems but it is criticized that its governance is one of major reasons causing financial crisis.
Purpose of this paper is to overview how de-centralized financial system like saving banks and cooperative banks, which have larger influence in European countries, are overcoming the financial crisis in major European countries and to analyze and discuss effectiveness of both banking union and stability of regional financial system, emphasizing its importance as a stabilizer of money circulation in regional economy.
This paper also tries to show the soundness of regional financial system during European debt crisis with recent business performance of cooperative banks which have decentralized financial structure and to complement precedent papers by indicating that characteristic of financial structure have some relationships with degree of financial crisis through comparing the characteristics of four major Euro countries such as Germany, France, Spain and Italy. （395 words）
This paper aims to clarify and partially solve what tasks ongoing EMU has actually confronted since its establishment, mainly focusing on clarifying asymmetric transmission effects of an united Eurosystem’s monetary policy and on finding conditions of establishing value convergence among EMU and/or EU.
Research design of this paper bases on both theoretical innovations （Control Engineering to achieve convergence） and empirically verifiable methods （Panel Fixed VARSARAR model: Panel Fixed Effects Vector AutoRegressive and Spatial AutoRegressive with Additional AutoRegressive Error Model）, which enables us to discuss EMU’s convergence tasks quantitatively.
Accordingly, this paper consists of two parts. One is a verification part of EMU’s interrelated transmission effects of monetary policy, which clarifies how we can explain its asymmetric effects among EMU utilizing direct transmission and spatial indirect effects. Asymmetric effects of an united monetary policy have stemmed from idiosyncrasy of economic structures, spatial spillovers of its economic policy and human-made institutional spatial customs governing EMU and Euro among within and occasionally without EMU member states. This paper verifies whether inclusive theory of monetary policy explains variations of real and interrelated EMU’s convergent criterion indicators by which monetary channels have affected HICP and fiscal resilience by such as Quantitative Easing and Fiscal Theory of the Price Level （FTPL） channels.
The other is a part of establishment conditions of multibody-made convergence system through control by human utilizing methods of Control Engineering or state-space model, which enables us to lead EMU from divergence toward convergence of European values. This paper also discusses how to procced EMU’s policy convergence by human-made innovations through diagonalization of both direct and indirect matrix through introduction of single-peakedness or stratification of national priority issues among EMU members or Euro, which means that EMU’s or EU’s convergence of values needs some form of stratification without fail.
The results of this paper are as follows: VARSARAR model implies that indirect spatial lags which seem to represent crisis-driven fragility and distance-based neglectedness as core-periphery structures within the EU, and among-countries-linked financial contagion in Europe that are possibly but not completely verified as background reasons of distance-based European spatial lags, have actually large effects on inflation and fiscal position during crisis, and have also less effects on them after mitigation of the European crisis.
Also, Control Engineering implies that One Europe necessarily requires stratification of member states’ sovereignty or euro in order to proceed and establish convergence of European view of values, say EMU and Euro.
In recent decades, human rights law has assumed increasing relevance to international refugee law, including defining the eligibility for refugees. Although refugee law and human rights law developed separately to establish different protection frameworks, these two laws apparently overlap in that human rights violations can lead to becoming a refugee, and refugees have human rights. While widely acknowledged as a necessity of the human rights-based approach to refugees, there has been a long debate on how to use and incorporate human rights law into international refugee law. The EU has endorsed the approach of incorporating human rights law into international refugee law in the Asylum Qualification Directive （QD）, by introducing two forms of international protection: refugee status under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status Refugees and its 1967 Protocol （Refugee Convention） and subsidiary protection status under mainly the European Convention of Human Rights （ECHR） and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This article examines how human rights law interplays with international refugee law in the QD （Directive 2011/95/EU）, referring to the commentaries of the QD and the Refugee Convention, and the relevant cases from the Court of ECHR and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Firstly it explains the QD relationship to the Refugee Convention and human rights treaties. Secondly, it takes up Article 9 of the QD as a substantive example of how these two laws interplay in the refugee qualification, since the element of acts of persecution is the core qualification of refugees, which is not stipulated in the Refugee Convention but in Article 9 where details of acts of well-founded fear of persecution using the human rights are indexed. This article concludes by pointing out what the implications in effect or meaning of defining refugees by human rights law are in the EU asylum law, and how the possibility of enhancing the concept of ‘right of asylum’ could be derived, depending on how far human rights law could be incorporated in the qualification of refugees: the success of which would support the current theory of international refugee law perceived as reconstructing refugee law as a part of human rights law.
Since the founding the EU has aimed to achieve economic progress by free movement of goods, persons, services and capital. Services are crucial to EU economy.
Gambling was originally regulated inside the Member States （MS） and it was not until 21st century did remote gambling begin to flourish. The EU Court of Justice （ECJ） has admitted lotteries and online gambling as services, observing the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services.
Germany has been governed federally and the federal constitutional court has given a sentence in 1970 that the casino law was the one of public security and the German state governments （States） had the right of casino licensing. Since then the German gambling has been regulated mainly by the States. In 2004 Interstate Lottery Treaty gave the States the monopoly of lottery and sports betting. EU commission declares that there is no sector-specific EU legislation for gambling and ECJ has confirmed that gambling is an economic activity where restrictions imposed need to comply with the internal market rules. According to the 2010 ECJ decision the States had to revise Interstate Gambling Treaty in line with EU laws, which means the decision banned enforcement of sports betting regulations and demanded revised Interstate Gambling Treaty. But the clauses of the Treaty to be revised aren’t always clear and operators are inclined to understand the decision wider than the States and could try to get favorable Commission procedures or ECJ decisions, which will make the German judicial situation unstable.
ECJ delivers preliminary rulings and EU commission makes policies but the negative health and social impacts must be removed by MS. European Parliament resolution of 2012 should be adopted because it has considered the principle of subsidiarity that without harmonization it is MS to determine according to its own scale of values, what is required to protect the interests in question. Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights establishes EU’s obligation to protect human health and TFEU Article 169 obliges the EU to ensure a high level of consumer protection. Human health, consumer protection, anti-money laundering and sports integrity cannot be achieved only by the internal market rules. The resolutions of European Parliament should get to be respected with the policies of EU Commission and the ECJ decisions, which could give better agreement between the EU and MS.
Since the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1975, the EU and China have been deepening and expanding their relationship by building a wide range of institutional framework between them. This article analyses how those two powers have been developing their relationship from a viewpoint of institutionalisation of EU-China relations, particularly in the following 3 dimensions: ⑴ their legal foundations （e.g. treaties, agreements or joint declarations）, ⑵ building multi-level （from leaders to officials） and multi-sectoral （from political and economic to cultural） dialogues and ⑶ relationship defined as “comprehensive strategic partnership.”
First, about legal basis for EU-China relations, they initially started economic and commercial relationship by signing trade agreements （in 1978 and updated in 1985）, and then gradually expanded their practical cooperation for more technical issues by concluding agreements of science and technology （in 1998）, maritime transportation （in 2002）, and customs cooperation （in 2004）, etc. They are now negotiating for an investment agreement by which they would seek for further development of economic and commercial ties such as a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement （DCFTA） in the future.
Second, about bilateral dialogue framework, since the EU and China created the Joint Committee in 1979 as the first regular dialogue about economic and commercial issues at the level of officials, they developed the dialogue framework by launching ministerial dialogues of diplomatic and commercial affairs in 1984 and also establishing sectoral dialogues of technical issues in the 1990s. Now they have institutionalised the dialogue framework called “3 pillars” architecture in which there are 3 high-level dialogues （political, economic and cultural） at the commissioners level, under the annual summit meeting by the leaders, and about 50 sectoral dialogues under those pillars.
Third, about EU-China partnership, since they defined their relationship as “comprehensive partnership” in 1998 and upgraded it in 2003, they regard each other as a “comprehensive strategic partner” with which they can offer a wide range of cooperation for important issues not only in the bilateral level （such as trade and human rights） but also in the regional （e.g. immigrants and counter-piracy operations） and global levels （such as non-proliferation and environment） in the multi-polar world.
The unifying theme of this book is the nature of separation and integration of the EU and its new members from Eastern Europe. Although they rejoined Europe after the conclusion of the Cold War, they still found a barrier between them and the original members of the EU. Professor Haba calls the barrier a dividing line. It is usually used among nations and peoples, but what Haba calls the “dividing line” ultimately means separating “us” from “you”. It contains both physical and psychological divisions. The return of Eastern Europe to Europe produced a new dividing line and new problems in the EU. Following the principles of human rights, liberty and diversity, the EU has positively received immigrants and created an excellent system allowing the free movements of individuals within the EU. Yet, native workers of the host countries often lose their jobs because new immigrants will work for lower wages. Some of these often hate newcomers and run to xenophobia and nationalism. On the other hand, some second-or third generation members of immigrant families are disillusioned with discrimination in the host countries. The influence of exclusion becomes stronger and the voice of inclusion weakens. The EU seems to be falling in disruption. Haba stresses the importance of the attitude of inclusion and coexistence, diversity and tolerance. The question is, however, how do people possibly attain and maintain that frame of mind? Haba shows the contact zone theory of cultural anthropology as a possibility. This theory was discussed at the International Conference on Minority Races or Groups held at Aszód in Hungary, on 25-27 of August 2004. Haba attended the conference and discovered the theory. Contact Zone is the term applied to social places and spaces where diverse cultures and races meet and attempt to coexist and cooperate with each other. This concept also applies to frontiers, those border areas once considered to be conflict zone. Frontiers are, in fact, where the coexistence of peoples of different races and religions occurs, according to the cultural anthropologists at the conference. Haba stresses that the contact zone theory is not the theory of sollen, but based on the historical sein in the long term. People of different races and religions have continued to coexist, cooperate and harmonize with each other at the frontiers. Haba inspires us to learn about and to study this kind of “historical facts of daily lives”. I appreciate those words and I highly value this book.