DÜNYA İLİŞKİLERİNDE AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ - Deneme Sınavı - 7

In the Maastricht Treaty the first incarnation of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) established that “The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States, whose systems of government are founded on the principles of democracy.” The Treaty also confirms the Union’s respect for fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).

The EU’s accession criteria (the “Copenhagen criteria”) were later established during the 1993 meeting of the European Council in Copenhagen:

Stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.

Leading European scholars of law and political science have tracked the development of various mechanisms and processes at the EU level to promote and protect the fundamental values of the EU.

In 2014, both the EU Commission and the Council introduced two new mechanisms. The Commission adopted a Rule of Law Framework and the Council undertook to organize an annual Rule of Law Dialogue among the Member States. The mechanism, or Framework, complements existing mechanisms, particularly the preventive and sanction procedures and the EU Commission’s infringement procedures.

In 2010, France expelled almost a thousand ethnic Romani back to Romania and Bulgaria, where they were citizens. The action was controversial in the EU and Commissioner Reding threatened to launch infringement procedures against the French government for what she considered forced expulsion. Although Bulgarians and Romanians, as EU citizens, had the right to enter France without a visa, they must still according to French immigration rules have a work permit or residence permit to stay longer than three months. The EU Commission regarded the French actions as collective measures based on ethnicity and consequently in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Commission issued a formal notice to France, in which it demanded full implementation of the Directive.

The prime example in this respect is Poland. The relationship to the EU has become increasingly strained since the conservative Law and Justice Party won a majority in the Polish parliament in October 2015, primarily due to several legislative measures taken and proposed on constitutional matters.

A protective mechanism that does not work or is impossible to use can harm the value it was created to protect.

The value of respect for “human dignity” corresponds verbatim to Article 1 of the Charter, just as the value of “liberty” corresponds to Article 6. The value of “equality” corresponds to Title III, Articles 20–26. The value of “democracy” has no perfect equivalent among the rights, although Article 39, “Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament” and Article 40 “Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections” are key components of democracy. However, the EU Charter says nothing about the value of the “rule of law” be broken down into various individual rights but is rather a fundamental rule among the various branches of government. Finally, as regards the sixth value, “respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities,” seeking its equivalent in the particulars of the Charter becomes something of a tautological exercise. The value of respect for “human dignity” corresponds verbatim to Article 1 of the Charter, just as the value of “liberty” corresponds to Article 6. The value of “equality” corresponds to Title III, Articles 20–26. The value of “democracy” has no perfect equivalent among the rights, although Article 39, “Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament” and Article 40 “Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections” are key components of democracy. However, the EU Charter says nothing about the value of the “rule of law” be broken down into various individual rights but is rather a fundamental rule among the various branches of government. Finally, as regards the sixth value, “respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities,” seeking its equivalent in the particulars of the Charter becomes something of a tautological exercise.

Several measures have been suggested to strengthen EU’s capacity to act. Some of these proposed measures would require amendment of the Treaty and should perhaps therefore be regarded more as general reflections. These include a proposed obligatory exit, that makes it possible to “expel” a Member State that systematically and repeatedly breaches the EU values. Another suggestion would be to make an amendment to the EU Charter, so that all fundamental rights become directly applicable in the Member States, instead of only when EU law is concerned. It carries the weakness of strengthening the opportunity to act upon breaches in isolated cases. Under this proposal, in a situation where human rights are being systematically abused in a Member State, that country’s national courts could invite EU bodies to review and deliberate on the compatibility of national measures and the fundamental values of the treaty. The idea of a new watchdog body, a kind of “Copenhagen Commission” tasked with monitoring respect for the Article 2 values, has also been raised.

If the efforts of the EU to protect the Union’s values are to have any hope of success, the Union must act in step with external forces that are working to promote the same values.

Just how many people are in flight globally and have been forced to leave their homes due to armed conflict is uncertain. The UN estimates that about 65 million people have been displaced globally and the outlook for quickly improving the situation is dire.

Many EU countries that have received relatively high numbers of refugees can be defined as welfare states but vary in terms of distribution policy ambitions and scope of social protection.

Some people consider migration the solution to some of the challenges of the welfare state, such as aging populations and their associated challenges, as well as a source of renewal and innovative processes.

Social debate in Europe has also been affected, and some pundits consider migration a threat not only to the survival of the welfare state, but the very survival of the nation state and fundamental European values. Others consider migration the solution to some of the challenges of the welfare state, such as aging populations and their associated challenges, as well as a source of renewal and innovative processes.

Rapid integration thus lightens the economic costs that are undoubtedly generated in the short term. At the same time, successful integration can produce economic opportunities, such as eliminating labor shortages and skills provision problems.

During the postwar period and up to the 1970s and 1980s, immigration to Sweden was dominated by labor force immigration. It is noteworthy that asylum and family reunification immigration is larger than labor force immigration, a situation that was exacerbated in 2015 in particular.

It is noteworthy that asylum and family reunification immigration is larger than labor force immigration, a situation that was exacerbated in 2015 in particular. Refugee immigrants thus constitute a large group of all immigrants who come to Europe.

There are several arguments based on economic theory for how labor force migration can impact an economy. In the short-run perspective, there may be upward pressure on unemployment and downward pressure on real wages.

The large percentage of migrants with low educational attainment is thus a challenge for EU. Many lack the skills required to gain a foothold in the European labor market and this is the primary cause of low employment among immigrants.

There is basically consensus among scholars that human capital is the most important factor for individuals to successfully establish themselves at the labor market.