			Home About us Contact

Mutual Recognition (mutual + recognition)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Humanities and Social Sciences	80%

Selected Abstracts

The European Commission: The Limits of Centralization and the Perils of Parliamentarization

GOVERNANCE, Issue 3 2002
Giandomenico MajoneArticle first published online: 17 DEC 200
The idea of an inevitable process of centralization in the European Community (EC)/European Union (EU) is a myth. Also, the metaphor of "creeping competences," with its suggestion of a surreptitious but continuous growth of the powers of the Commission, can be misleading. It is true that the functional scope of EC/EU competences has steadily increased, but the nature of new competences has changed dramatically, as may be seen from the evolution of the methods of harmonization. The original emphasis on total harmonization, which gives the Community exclusive competence over a given policy area, has been largely replaced by more flexible but less "communitarian" methods such as optional and minimum harmonization, reference to nonbinding technical standards, and mutual recognition. Finally, the treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam explicitly excluded harmonization for most new competences. Thus, the expansion of the jurisdiction of the EC/EU has not automatically increased the powers of the Commission, but has actually weakened them in several respects. In addition, the progressive parliamentarization of the Commission risks compromising its credibility as an independent regulator, without necessarily enhancing its democratic legitimacy. Since the member states continue to oppose any centralization of regulatory powers, even in areas essential to the functioning of the internal market, the task of implementing Community policies should be entrusted to networks of independent national and European regulators, roughly modeled on the European System of Central Banks. The Commission would coordinate and monitor the activities of these networks in order to ensure the coherence of EC regulatory policies. More generally, it should bring its distinctive competence more clearly into focus by concentrating on the core business of ensuring the development and proper functioning of the single European market. This is a more modest role than that of the kernel of a future government of Europe, but it is essential to the credibility of the integration process and does not overstrain the limited financial and legitimacy resources available to the Commission. [source]

Best Practices to Reduce Migration Pressures

INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION, Issue 3 2002
Philip Martin
Are there best practices to foster economic development, reduce population growth, and protect the environment in source countries of unauthorized migration, in a manner that reduces emigration pressures and redirects migration towards legal channels? This paper outlines cooperative actions that can be undertaken by both source and receiving countries to better manage the movements of people over national borders. There are two broad approaches to foster wanted migration and to reduce unwanted migration. First, maximize migration's payoffs by ensuring that the 3 Rs of recruitment, remittances, and returns foster economic and job growth in emigration areas. Second, make emigration unnecessary by adapting trade, investment and aid policies, and programmes that accelerate economic development and thus make it unnecessary for people to emigrate for jobs and wages. Most of the changes needed for stay,at,home development must occur in emigration areas, but immigration areas can cooperate in the management of immigration, guest workers, and students, as well as in promoting freer trade and investment, and in targeting aid funds. In a globalizing world, selective immigration policies may have important development impacts, as with immigration country policies toward students, and workers in particular occupations, such as nurses and computer programmers, as well as with mutual recognition of occupational licenses and professional credentials. Trade policies affecting migration are also important, such as trade in services and laws regulating contracts between firms in different countries that allow the entry of lower wage workers as part of the contract. opening channels for legal migration can deter irregular migration. [source]

Technical Barriers to Trade in the European Union: Importance for Accession Countries

JCMS: JOURNAL OF COMMON MARKET STUDIES, Issue 2 2001
Paul Brenton
With trade in industrial products between the EU and the countries of central and eastern Europe (CEECs) now essentially free of tariff and non-tariff restrictions, the principal impact of accession to the EU on trade flows will be through access to the single market of the EU. A key element of this will be the removal of technical barriers to trade. In this article we try to highlight the potential importance of technical barriers to trade between the EU and the various CEECs, distinguishing between sectors according to the different approaches to the removal of these barriers in the EU: mutual recognition, detailed harmonization (old approach) and minimum requirements (new approach). We use two sources of information on technical regulations: a sectoral classification from a previous study of the impact of the single market and our own detailed translation of EU product-related directives into the relevant tariff codes. The analysis suggests that the importance of technical barriers varies considerably across the CEECs. The adjustment implications of access to the single market are likely to be greatest for those most advanced in their accession negotiations. [source]

Challenging the Democratic Peace?

PACIFIC FOCUS, Issue 2 2008
Historical Memory, South Korea, the Security Relationship between Japan
The logic of the democratic peace suggests that as two democracies, Japan and South Korea should not have militarized conflicts between them, while mutual recognition of their democratic systems should have a corresponding mutual reassurance effect. On the other hand, historical memories of Japan's colonialization of Korea provide a basis for Koreans to mistrust Japan's disposition, if not its intentions. This article considers whether the 2006 Japanese,Korean dispute over maritime exploration near the disputed Dokdo/Takeshima was a militarized dispute, and whether Japan's status as a democracy has been sufficient to reassure South Korea that Japan does not pose a military threat. The results of this case study will shed light on the question of whether, and if so under what conditions, historically rooted mistrust might trump the causal variables underpinning the democratic peace. [source]

On Compromise and Coercion,

RATIO JURIS, Issue 4 2006
RAPHAEL COHEN-ALMAGOR
When compromise takes place between two or more parties, reciprocity must be present; that is, the concessions are mutual. A relevant distinction is between principled and tactical compromise. A principled compromise refers to a mutual recognition by each side of the other's rights, which leads them to make concessions to enable them to meet on a middle ground. It is genuinely made in good faith and both sides reconcile themselves to the results. On the other hand, the notion of tactical compromise reflects a temporary arrangement reached as a result of constraints related to time. Here, in fact, agents do not give up any of their aims. They do not act in good faith and do not intend to meet their counterpart on a middle ground. Instead, they simply realize that the end could not be achieved at a given point of time, and they aim to reach it stage by stage. The essential component of compromise, namely, mutuality, is lacking. Next, the paper draws a further distinction between internalized coercion and designated coercion. Internalized coercion relates to the system of manipulation to which members of a certain sub-culture are subjected, which prevents them from realizing that they are being coerced to follow a certain conception that denies them basic rights. Designated coercion is individualistic in nature, aimed at a certain individual who rebels against the discriminatory norm. Unlike the internalized coercion it is not concerned with machinery aiming to convince the entire cultural group of an irrefutable truth; instead it is designed to exert pressure on uncertain, "confused" individuals so as to bring them back to their community. Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity. (Neville Chamberlain, "Peace in Our Time", October 3, 1938)** [source]