2024-03-29T08:24:39Zhttp://aei.pitt.edu/cgi/oai2
oai:aei.pitt.edu:294
2011-02-15T22:15:07Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706768646F63
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
74797065733D64697363757373696F6E7061706572
50 Jahre Europarat. Der Weg nach einem Europa ohne Trennungslinien = 50 Years of the Council of Europe. The Path toward Europe without Lines of Separation. ZEI Discussion Papers: 1999, C 50
Tarschys, Daniel
Council of Europe
historical development of EC (pre-1986)
[From the Introduction]. 1. Das Grundkonzept der europäischen Zusammenarbeit in Frieden und Freiheit "Nie wieder" hieß die Losung nach den Schrecken des Zweiten Weltkrieges und den Greueltaten totalitärer Machtsysteme. Der absolute Schutz der Würde des Menschen und die Garantie seiner politischen Freiheiten sollten zum allgemeinen Maßstab werden. In seiner Rede an der Universität Zürich im Jahre 1946 hatte Winston Churchill dazu aufgerufen, einen Raum des Friedens, der Freiheit und der Sicherheit für die Gesamtheit der europäischen Völkerfamilie zu schaffen. Die Bildung eines Europarates könnte der erste Schritt in diese Richtung sein. Aber Churchill war sich der damaligen politischen Realitäten bewußt und schränkte ein, daß wahrscheinlich nicht alle Staaten sofort einem solchen Rat beitreten könnten. Nach den Forderungen des Haager Kongresses 1948, die Politik der Einigung Europas zu beginnen, kam es am 5. Mai 1949 in London zur Unterzeichnung des Statuts des Europarates durch zehn europäische Regierungen. Dies war ein ganz entscheidender politischer Akt für die weitere Entwicklung des europäischen Einigungsprozeßes. Ob es sich damals um einen Sieg der Funktionalisten über die Föderalisten, oder der Minimalisten über die Maximalisten gehandelt hat, erscheint aus heutiger Sicht zweitrangig. Das entscheidende war der politische Auftrag, den der Europarat mit auf den Weg bekommen hatte.
1999
Discussion Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/294/1/dp_c50_tarschys.pdf
Tarschys, Daniel (1999) 50 Jahre Europarat. Der Weg nach einem Europa ohne Trennungslinien = 50 Years of the Council of Europe. The Path toward Europe without Lines of Separation. ZEI Discussion Papers: 1999, C 50. [Discussion Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/294/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:1817
2011-02-15T22:20:11Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D45:45303039
7375626A656374733D46:46303430
7375626A656374733D46:46303330
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:636F6E726573
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
7375626A656374733D46:46303431
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
7375626A656374733D46:4647656F72676961
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
European Institutional Models as Instruments of Conflict Resolution in the Divided States of the European Periphery. CEPS Working Document No. 195, July 2003
Coppieters, Bruno
Huysseune, Michel
Emerson, Michael
Tocci, Nathalie
Vahl, Marius.
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
Georgia
OSCE/Helsinki Process/CSCE
Cyprus
Moldova
Serbia/Montenegro (to June 2006)
Council of Europe
conflict resolution/crisis management
[From the Introduction]. This working document is part of a research project for the Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs, the department of the Belgian Federal Government responsible for scientific research. The project is carried out by the Centre for Political Science (POLI) of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel... and the Centre for European Policy Studies... It makes a comparative assessment of the potential for supra-national and international settlement in four secessionist conflicts at the periphery of the EU. It focuses on the potential role that institutional models from the EU and its members can play in the design of solutions to such conflicts – particularly the federation institutions such as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) or the Council of Europe. In all of these cases, conflict settlement may have to be facilitated by the intervention of third party actors. The four cases studied in the POLI-CEPS project are confronted by unresolved secessionist crises: Cyprus...; Montenegro and Serbia...; Moldova...; Abkhazia...
2003-07
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/1817/1/WD195.pdf
Coppieters, Bruno and Huysseune, Michel and Emerson, Michael and Tocci, Nathalie and Vahl, Marius. (2003) European Institutional Models as Instruments of Conflict Resolution in the Divided States of the European Periphery. CEPS Working Document No. 195, July 2003. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/1817/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:2130
2011-02-15T22:21:21Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666676F7665726E616E6365
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303335:737067656E646572706F6C696379
7375626A656374733D46:46303036
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
7375626A656374733D41:41303239
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"Framing women's rights and gender policies in Europe: The Council of Europe and the construction of parity"
Lovecy, Jill.
governance: EU & national level
France
integration theory (see also researching and writing the EU in this section)
Council of Europe
gender policy/equal opportunity
This paper explores issues of policy framing in an era of multi-level governance, focusing on what is an underresearched arena at the European level: the Council of Europe. Adopting a primarily historical institutional approach, it investigates the processes through which the politics of presence came to be constructed in terms of "parity-democracy" and women's democratic citizenship rights through the Council of Europe in the late 1980s and 1990s and notes the usages which have subsequently been made of this claim to parity in France and within the governance arena of the EU.
2001
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/2130/1/002185_1.PDF
Lovecy, Jill. (2001) "Framing women's rights and gender policies in Europe: The Council of Europe and the construction of parity". In: UNSPECIFIED, Madison, Wisconsin. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/2130/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:2655
2011-02-15T22:23:23Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D46:46303036
7375626A656374733D46:46303037
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303039
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:74706A6861706A63636D696D6D6967726174696F6E706F6C696379
7375626A656374733D46:46303135
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"The devolution of immigration regimes in Europe"
Lahav, Gallya
Guiraudon, Virginie.
EU-US
immigration policy
Council of Europe
France
Netherlands
Germany
The ability of European nation-states to control migration and regulate the entry and stay of migrant workers, family members, asylum-seekers and undocumented aliens have been at the forefront of the immigration debate. Some scholars have argued that international human rights and the freedom of circulation required by a global economy and regional markets are the two sides of a liberal regime that undermine the sovereignty of nation-states in this policy area. Others have declared the double closure of territorial sovereignty and national citizenship to be outmoded concepts. This paper inscribes itself in that debate by answering the following questions: 1) To what extent do international legal instruments constrain the actions of national policy-makers?; 2) How have nation-states reacted to international constraints and problems of policy implementation? We focus on European Union and Council of Europe jurisdictions as a critical case of international legal constraints. We examine their jurisprudence with respect to rights of entry and residence and the extent to which national courts have incorporated European norms and European governments take them into account. Focusing on Germany, France, and the Netherlands with comparative reference to the U.S. case, the paper examines ways national policy-makers have responded over the last fifteen years, since the adoption of the Single European Act, and the outset of global economic recession. In evaluating state responses, the paper identifies the devolution of decision-making in monitoring and executive powers upwards to intergovernmental fora, downwards to local authorities (through decentralization), and outwards to non-state actors (in particular, private companies). We argue that this devolution of policy elaboration and implementation is not so much a sign that states are losing control and giving away sovereignty, than an experiment in which principals (nation states) involve agents (supranational, local, private non-state actors) as part of rational calculated attempts to diminish costs. We then assess the extent states have been able to recapture control over migration flows in this way. Finally, we draw upon the case of European migration control to highlight the dynamics of European integration and cooperation.
1997
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/2655/1/002789_1.PDF
Lahav, Gallya and Guiraudon, Virginie. (1997) "The devolution of immigration regimes in Europe". In: UNSPECIFIED, Seattle, WA. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/2655/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:2875
2011-02-15T22:24:19Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303232
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303039
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:4430303268726469
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"Legalizing human rights and democracy: Comparing the EU, OAS and CE"
Hawkins, Darren
Joachim, Jutta.
EU-US
Council of Europe
human rights & democracy initiatives
EU-Latin America
States have increased their international commitments to human rights and democracy norms by legalizing them in prominent regional organizations such as the European Union, the Council of Europe, and the Organization of American States. In these organizations, human rights and democracy norms have become increasingly obligatory through binding legal documents and increasingly precise through the development of new treaties and case law. Additionally, states have delegated substantial oversight authority for human rights and democracy issues to IOs. We explain this development by arguing that interests provide state motives, that decreasing security threats and other events provide opportunities to act, and that preexisting norms help determine which principles will be subject to higher levels of legalization. In particular, states have functional interests in more credible commitments and principled interests in human rights, democratic social groups have interests in binding the hands of more authoritarian groups, and IOs have interests in increasing their authority. We find, however, that systemic opportunities and preexisting norms are more powerful explanations of legalization across multiple cases than those various motives.
2003
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/2875/1/114.pdf
Hawkins, Darren and Joachim, Jutta. (2003) "Legalizing human rights and democracy: Comparing the EU, OAS and CE". In: UNSPECIFIED, Nashville, TN. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/2875/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:3043
2011-02-15T22:25:10Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:4430303130333968756D616E726967687473
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"Freedom of commercial speech in Europe"
Krzemińska, Joanna.
Council of Europe
human rights
[From the Introduction]. To speak about fundamental rights in Europe poses a certain risk of neglecting the complexity of the multiple systems of protection of fundamental rights on the European continent. There are three systems to be taken into account: (1) national constitutions, (2) the Council of Europe’s European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the system of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms established in the European Union/Community. Yet, it does not suffice to discuss these three systems separately. The main difficulty when speaking about fundamental rights in Europe is to reveal and analyse the mutual interactions and links between these systems. This paper examines the status of commercial speech in the context of the protection of rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and in the European Community.
2005
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
text/plain
http://aei.pitt.edu/3043/1/JKrzeminska_EUSA_paper.txt
application/msword
http://aei.pitt.edu/3043/2/JKrzeminska_EUSA_paper.doc
Krzemińska, Joanna. (2005) "Freedom of commercial speech in Europe". In: UNSPECIFIED, Austin, Texas. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/3043/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:3171
2011-02-15T22:25:49Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D45:45303039
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303032
7375626A656374733D46:46303034
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
7375626A656374733D46:46303132
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303335:73706469736372696D696E6174696F6E6D696E6F726974696573
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"The Impact of the Post-Cold War European Minority Rights Regime on Inter-Ethnic Relations in Estonia and Latvia"
Tesser, Lynn M.
Latvia
Estonia
OSCE/Helsinki Process/CSCE
Council of Europe
discrimination/minorities
enlargement
[From the Introduction]. By the mid-1990s, a set of standards concerning minority protections emerged from elite-level dialogue between European states, particularly within the forums provided by international institutions. Developing a post-Cold War minority rights ‘regime’ was thought to be critical, particularly for Western elites, in stemming population flows westwards precipitated by emerging ethnic tensions. Post-Cold War standards have been delineated within key agreements of the two organizations most involved in the development of a new minority rights regime: the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe (COE). These include the OSCE’s 1990 Copenhagen Document and 1991 Geneva Report as well as the COE’s 1995 Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Post-Cold War ‘European’ norms ultimately include the following principles: (1) the notion of identity being an individual’s choice; (2) the idea that ‘individuals belonging to national minorities’ should have unimpeded access to human rights accorded to all individuals; (3) the idea that they must free from state-sponsored discrimination and share equality before the law; (4) the right to maintain and develop minority culture privately and publicly; (5) the right to form contacts with foreigners of the same cultural background; (6) the right to charge their respective governments of violating the above in European-wide forums; and finally responsibility for (7) demonstrating loyalty to the states individuals belonging to national minorities call home.
2005
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/3171/1/Baltics.doc%2D1.doc
Tesser, Lynn M. (2005) "The Impact of the Post-Cold War European Minority Rights Regime on Inter-Ethnic Relations in Estonia and Latvia". In: UNSPECIFIED, Austin, Texas. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/3171/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:7256
2011-02-15T22:47:13Z
7374617475733D696E7072657373
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303439
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:65666167656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D45:494C4F
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303132
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303230
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303035
7375626A656374733D45:45303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303138:656C6D656D706C6F796D656E74756E656D706C6F796D656E74
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303034
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303335:737067656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D45:45303036
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:74706A6861706A63636D696D6D6967726174696F6E706F6C696379
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303330
74797065733D70726F63656564696E6773
Europe: Space of Freedom and Security. MIGRATION AND MOBILITY: ASSETS AND CHALLENGES FOR THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Proceedings of the international colloquium to celebrate Europe Day, held on 4–5 May 2006 in Timisoara, Romania
OECD
regional policy/structural funds
cohesion policy
regionalism, international
development
EU-Central and Eastern Europe
employment/unemployment
general
founding Treaties
immigration policy
ILO
Council of Europe
UN
education policy/vocational training
general
The Jean Monnet European Centre of Excellence and the School of High Comparative European Studies (SISEC), both within the West University of Timisoara, Romania, jointly proposed the launching of the scientific debate on the migration and mobility within the Romanian universities, the academic life and among the policies and decision makers in Romania. The International Colloquium "Migration and Mobility: Assets and Challenges for the Enlargement of the European Union" proposed for 4-5 of May 2006 was part of the SISEC bi-annual project EUROPE: SPACE OF FREEDOM AND SECURITY, dedicated to study of European Affairs, with focus on migration and mobility, in the framework of the European Year of Workers’ Mobility 2006. We invited both renowned experts on migration and mobility, and PhD students interested in this respect. The countries with researchers invited to be part in this event were: Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, India, Italy, Kosovo, Moldova, Romania, The Netherlands and the United States of America.
Editura Universitatii de Vest
Silasi, Grigore
Simina, Ovidiu Laurian.
2006
Conference Proceedings
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/7256/1/SISEC_2006_Brosura.pdf
UNSPECIFIED (2006) Europe: Space of Freedom and Security. MIGRATION AND MOBILITY: ASSETS AND CHALLENGES FOR THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Proceedings of the international colloquium to celebrate Europe Day, held on 4–5 May 2006 in Timisoara, Romania. [Conference Proceedings] (In Press)
http://aei.pitt.edu/7256/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:8175
2011-02-15T22:52:37Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D45:45303039
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303230
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303035
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
7375626A656374733D45:45303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303335:737077656C666172657374617465
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Identity, Societal Security and Regional Integration in Europe. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 7 No. 6 April 2007
Thiel, Markus
OSCE/Helsinki Process/CSCE
regionalism, international
EU-Central and Eastern Europe
welfare state
Council of Europe
NATO
[Introduction]. An observer of current European politics may almost automatically assume that the regional integration process in Europe, led successfully by the European Union (EU) and reinforced by other organizations, has resulted in the weakening of national identities and the pacifying of potential identity-related conflicts in the area. A closer look, however, reveals that the Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) in particular are still being caught in various security dilemmas ranging from the traditional military-related spheres to more subtle yet similarly destructive societal security issues with the potential to produce ethnic conflicts, even civil wars. The explanatory theoretical framework behind ‘societal security’ is fairly new and thus, often underestimated in the relative pacified European and Eurasian regions; yet, it presents a particular challenge to the multiethnic and fragile democracies there. In this paper, I compare the major international organizations present in the field (EU, NATO, OSCE, Council of Europe) and examine if there exists, at a minimum, a normative concern for minority rights and the promotion of societal security and secondly, what kind of institutional mechanisms and responses these organizations developed to attain these goals.
2007-04
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/8175/1/Thiel_IDsocietSec_long07_edi.pdf
Thiel, Markus (2007) Identity, Societal Security and Regional Integration in Europe. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 7 No. 6 April 2007. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/8175/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:8901
2017-12-14T16:24:28Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666676F7665726E616E6365
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666676F7665726E616E6365:70616666676F7665726E616E63657375626E6174696F6E616C726567696F6E616C2F7465727269746F7269616C
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Future Perspectives on Territorial Cooperation in Europe: The EC Regulation on a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation and the Planned Council of Europe Third Protocol to the Madrid Outline Convention concerning Euroregional Co–operation Groupings. EDAP 3/2007
Engl, Alice.
governance: EU & national level
Council of Europe
subnational/regional/territorial
The aim of this paper is to describe, analyze and compare the recent legal developments regarding territorial cooperation that can be observed on the international and supranational level in Europe: the EC Regulation on a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation adopted in 2006, on the one hand, and the planned Third Protocol to the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co–operation between Territorial Communities and Authorities concerning Euroregional Co–operation Groupings of the Council of Europe, on the other hand. Which future perspectives for territorial cooperation in Europe do these two new tools open and what could be the added value of having two (rather similar) instruments? These are just two of the questions standing behind this paper, entitled “Future Perspectives for Territorial Cooperation in Europe”, which–towards its end–will eventually come back to one of the most crucial determinants for the future development of territorial cooperation in Europe, i.e. the attitude of the national states towards CBC and their respective constitutional provisions.
2007
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/8901/1/2007_edap03.pdf
Engl, Alice. (2007) Future Perspectives on Territorial Cooperation in Europe: The EC Regulation on a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation and the Planned Council of Europe Third Protocol to the Madrid Outline Convention concerning Euroregional Co–operation Groupings. EDAP 3/2007. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/8901/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:10818
2011-02-15T23:10:46Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:443030316C61776C6567616C61666661697273
7375626A656374733D46:46303238
7375626A656374733D45:45303130
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
7375626A656374733D46:46303139
74797065733D6F74686572
Safeguarding the Rule of Law in an Enlarged EU: The Cases of Bulgaria and Romania. CEPS Special Report, April 2009
Alegre, Susie
Ivanova, Ivanka
Denis-Smith, Dana.
law & legal affairs-general (includes international law)
Romania
Council of Europe
Bulgaria
UN
This report assesses the needs and options for monitoring and reinforcing the rule of law in an enlarged EU. It looks at the existing mechanisms for monitoring in the EU, the Council of Europe and the UN and identifies the gaps before suggesting solutions. The report includes case studies on Bulgaria and Romania that focus on the ways in which the two most recent member states of the EU have responded to the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism imposed on them at accession while giving an overview of the very different issues faced by each country in the context of the rule of law. These country reports feed into the overall analysis of the need for effective monitoring of the rule of law in the EU in general.
2009-04
Other
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/10818/1/1833.pdf
Alegre, Susie and Ivanova, Ivanka and Denis-Smith, Dana. (2009) Safeguarding the Rule of Law in an Enlarged EU: The Cases of Bulgaria and Romania. CEPS Special Report, April 2009. UNSPECIFIED.
http://aei.pitt.edu/10818/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14452
2017-12-14T16:28:58Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:443030316C61776C6567616C61666661697273
7375626A656374733D45:45303039
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303335:73706469736372696D696E6174696F6E6D696E6F726974696573
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Internazionalizzazione del diritto costituzionale e costituzionalizzazione del diritto internazionale delle differenze. = The internationalization of constitutional law and the constitutionalization of international law: differences. European Diversity and Autonomy Papers. EDAP 2/2009
Palermo, Francesco.
OSCE/Helsinki Process/CSCE
Council of Europe
discrimination/minorities
law & legal affairs-general (includes international law)
Il trattamento giuridico delle differenze ha assistito, negli ultimi anni, alla convergenza di due fenomeni epocali: da un lato la proliferazione degli strumenti internazionali per la protezione delle minoranze etno-nazionali, dall’altro la sfida del pluralismo e le sue ripercussioni giuridiche. Il concomitante effetto di questi due fenomeni ha dato vita a ciò che potrebbe definirsi il nuovo diritto delle differenze, che presenta aspetti per molti versi innovativi rispetto al passato, sia sotto il profilo delle fonti, sia rispetto al modo di operare degli strumenti da queste prodotti. Si tratta di una sfida fondamentale per il giurista, che costringe a confrontarsi con problemi e strumenti parzialmente nuovi. Il presente contributo prova a toccare alcuni degli elementi principali di questa nuova sfida.
2009
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14452/1/2009_edap02.pdf
Palermo, Francesco. (2009) Internazionalizzazione del diritto costituzionale e costituzionalizzazione del diritto internazionale delle differenze. = The internationalization of constitutional law and the constitutionalization of international law: differences. European Diversity and Autonomy Papers. EDAP 2/2009. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/14452/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14499
2011-02-15T23:34:07Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D46:46303334
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: Reform of the Court and of Russian judicial practice? CEPS Commentaries, 10 May 2010
Burkov, Anton.
Russia
Council of Europe
On January 15th of this year, Russia became the last of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe to ratify Protocol 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which will now allow the long-awaited reform of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to begin. This commentary explores two basic questions: Why did Russia not ratify Protocol 14 for such a long time? And why has it now decided to ratify it after four years of delay?
2010-05
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14499/1/May_Burkov_on_Russia_and_the_ECHR.pdf
Burkov, Anton. (2010) Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: Reform of the Court and of Russian judicial practice? CEPS Commentaries, 10 May 2010. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/14499/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:39404
2019-12-10T21:45:30Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D45:45303130
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:4430303268726469
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Reaching for a Calculator or a Mirror? Why the EU Joins International Human Rights Treaties. EU Diplomacy Paper 01/2013
Stiegler, Thomas
human rights & democracy initiatives
Council of Europe
UN
Why does the European Union (EU) join international human rights treaties? This
paper develops motivational profiles pertaining either to a ‘logic of appropriateness’
or a ‘logic of consequentialism’ in order to answer this question. It compares
the EU’s motivations for its recent accession to the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) with those dominating the EU’s nonaccession
to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating
violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention). Based on this
cross-case analysis, I argue that the EU’s accession decisions are best viewed as
cost-benefit calculations and explained by the strength of opposition and the desire
to spread its norms. The EU is only marginally concerned with efforts to construct an
‘appropriate role’, although its accession considerations are positively influenced by
(varying degrees) of an internalized commitment to human rights. The paper aims at
deepening the understanding of the EU’s motivations in the paradigmatic hard case
of accession to international human rights treaties not least to evaluate the EU’s
‘exceptional nature’, facilitate its predictability for stake-holders and contribute to
political and ethical debates surrounding future rites of passage as a global actor.
2013-01
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/39404/2/edp_1%2D2013_stiegler_0.pdf
http://www.coleurope.eu/sites/default/files/research-paper/edp_1-2013_stiegler_0.pdf
Stiegler, Thomas (2013) Reaching for a Calculator or a Mirror? Why the EU Joins International Human Rights Treaties. EU Diplomacy Paper 01/2013. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/39404/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:68584
2019-05-19T19:55:10Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
74797065733D65755F72656C61746564
Critical Tasks Facing Western Europe and the United States in a Period of Change and Transition. Address by Martin J. Hillenbrand, Assistant Secretary for European Affairs. Department of State Bulletin, 7 June, 1971
Hillenbrand, Martin J.
Council of Europe
No abstract.
1971
EU Related
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/68584/1/MAT0001.pdf
Hillenbrand, Martin J. (1971) Critical Tasks Facing Western Europe and the United States in a Period of Change and Transition. Address by Martin J. Hillenbrand, Assistant Secretary for European Affairs. Department of State Bulletin, 7 June, 1971. [EU Related]
http://aei.pitt.edu/68584/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:71761
2016-02-18T02:35:35Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:443030316C61776C6567616C61666661697273
7375626A656374733D46:46303036
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:4430303130333968756D616E726967687473
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
7375626A656374733D46:46303039
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Reasons withheld and insufficient reasoning as due process violations: two cases before the ECHR
Foldes, Stephan
human rights
law & legal affairs-general (includes international law)
Council of Europe
France
Hungary
Two very different cases decided by the European Court of Human Rights illustrate how the non-availability of sufficient reasons, for pre-trial judicial decisions in one case, and for a decision in a civil and administrative matter in the other, can lead to due process violations in terms of Articles 5 or 6 of the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
2016-02-10
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/71761/1/Reasons%2Dwithheld%2D2016.pdf
Foldes, Stephan (2016) Reasons withheld and insufficient reasoning as due process violations: two cases before the ECHR. [Working Paper] (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/71761/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:74889
2016-06-14T13:28:06Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
74797065733D6F74686572
Information Guide: Council of Europe
Cardiff EDC, .
Council of Europe
A guide to information sources on the Council of Europe, with hyperlinks to further sources of information within European Sources Online and on external websites.
2013-10
Other
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/74889/1/Council_Europe.pdf
https://www.europeansources.info/showDoc?ID=1173529
Cardiff EDC, . (2013) Information Guide: Council of Europe. UNSPECIFIED.
http://aei.pitt.edu/74889/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:74890
2016-06-14T13:36:04Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303033
74797065733D6F74686572
Information Guide: Council of the European Union
Cardiff EDC, .
Council of Ministers
Council of Europe
A guide to the Council of the European Union, with hyperlinks to further sources of information within European Sources Online and on external websites.
2013-11
Other
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/74890/1/Council_European_Union.pdf
https://www.europeansources.info/showDoc?ID=1041973
Cardiff EDC, . (2013) Information Guide: Council of the European Union. UNSPECIFIED.
http://aei.pitt.edu/74890/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:89156
2018-03-15T19:49:22Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D46:46303036
7375626A656374733D46:46303037
7375626A656374733D46:46303031
7375626A656374733D45:45303031
7375626A656374733D46:46303039
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:443030316C61776C6567616C61666661697273:443030316C61776C6567616C61666661697273636F6D706E6174696D70
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Comments on the notion of information system in the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, the EU directive, and selected penal codes
Foldes, Stephan
compliance/national implementation
Council of Europe
Austria
France
Germany
Hungary
The penal codes of a number of countries having ratified the Convention on Cybercrime signed in Budapest in 2001, or bound by Directive 2013/40/EU, contain provisions which criminalize certain acts directed at information systems or computer data. The definitions of the concept of "system" provided in the Convention and the Directive are examined in comparison with the corresponding terms and notions used in the penal codes of France, Germany, Austria and Hungary.
2017-08-25
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/msword
http://aei.pitt.edu/89156/1/systems_and_data_2017aug25.docx
Foldes, Stephan (2017) Comments on the notion of information system in the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, the EU directive, and selected penal codes. [Working Paper] (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/89156/