Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2002. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 256-265). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (doctoral)--Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, 2005 / Includes bibliographical references (p. 127-137).

Thesis (M.A. in National Security Affairs)--Naval Postgraduate School, June 2005. / Thesis Advisor(s): Donald Abenheim, John Leslie. Includes bibliographical references (p. 67-73). Also available online.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Universität Vechta, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [370]-380) and index.

The rule of law is declared to be a foundational and guiding value of the European Union in Article 2 Treaty on European Union. The European Commission claims to be the 'guardian of the rule of law', and the concept has been determinative in judgments in the Court of Justice of the EU. However, the EU has not defined what exactly is meant by 'the rule of law'. This leads to the question: how can the EU claim to be guided by the rule of law, 'common to all Member States', but not provide an account of what that means in practice? To determine such an account, I examine contemporary accounts of the rule of law and identify the specific nature of the EU. I conclude that while the rule of law is a shared value across legal systems, distinct accounts develop within, and adapt to, each one. I advance an EU-centric account of the rule of law (EUCA) which is apt for the EU legal order. I advocate the value of EUCA first in abstract by providing reasons for why it is to the benefit of the EU Institutions, the Member States and individuals to endorse EUCA compliance. I then show the practical use of EUCA as a source of legitimacy from the perspective of Member States and individuals in the context of issues of contemporary and pressing concern in the areas of international trade, corporate taxation and the criminal law. I seek to bridge the gap between a theoretical account of the rule of law apt for the EU legal order, and the practical guidance it can provide in the resolution of crisis issues. I conclude on the essential importance of guarding, strengthening, and enhancing the rule of law throughout the EU, not just as a means of resolution in times of crisis, but as a guarantee of the future of the European Union.

This study is based upon ethnographic research conducted in County Donegal, the most northerly county in the Republic of Ireland, between January 1997 and January 1998. It is focused upon three "development communities" in the county: development professionals, voluntary activists working for area based community groups, and elected members of Donegal County Council. The primary aim of the study is to examine the social basis for the fragmentary nature of development activity in Donegal, in view of the new European Union-sponsored local development initiatives which have been implemented in Ireland during the past decade. It is argued that the way in which each of the three groups experience, talk about, understand and reify development elements which together provide the framework for their respective development discourses- can be interpreted most profitably in light of social factors. An extended case-study approach is used throughout, in order to provide a detailed exploration of the contrasting social environments in which the development process occurs in the county. In chapter one, a theoretical framework is established which takes as its cue the ideas of a number of development anthropologists working in non-European contexts, and, in drawing from this literature, the concept of II discourses of development" is introduced as an overall paradigm in which the empirical data are interpreted. Chapter two introduces Donegal as a place, concentrating on some of the historical events which have given rise to contemporary patterns of social organisation. Chapter three outlines the history of EU-sponsored development activity in Ireland, highlighting the distinctive nature of the EU's "bottom-up" model and providing the background for the principal empirical chapters which follow. In chapters four to seven, the contrasting social environments within which each "development community" operates are examined in detail. Particular attention is paid to the role of discourse in providing criteria for inclusion/ exclusion, and in disrupting the processes of communication within the development sector of the county as a whole. The study also has a number of secondary aims. Most notably, it seeks to extend the theoretical scope of Irish anthropology and the anthropology of the European Union by exploring the changing relationship between the locale and wider structures and influences in terms of the application of the EU's model of development in Donegal. Additionally, the final chapter includes a tentative assessment of the relevance of the data for policy prescription, in light of the recent government initiative to reform the local government system and the future of local development in Ireland.

No description available.

The treatment of international commercial arbitration in the EU judicial area has been intensely debated, particularly in relation to the scope of the arbitration exclusion contained in the 'Brussels I Regime,' the three EU Brussels instruments on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The original Brussels Convention was replaced by the Brussels I Regulation, which was in turn replaced by the Brussels I Recast, the current EU legislative framework on jurisdiction. Arbitration was excluded from the scope of the Brussels Convention by virtue of Art 1(4), and the same arbitration exclusion is retained in Art 1(2)(d) of the Brussels I Regulation and the Brussels I Recast. Yet, the interaction of commercial arbitration with the Brussels I Regime in the EU remains controversial despite the arbitration exclusion. The controversy is largely based on the unregulated interface between commercial arbitration and the Brussels I Regime, which is created by the fact that neither the Brussels I Regime nor the New York Convention provide mechanisms to properly address the situation in which matters that are ordinarily addressed in international commercial arbitration may also fall within the material scope of the Brussels I Regime. It follows that international commercial arbitration based on the New York Convention and international commercial litigation based on the Brussels I Regime may interact in the process of the arbitral tribunals and courts of Member States exercising jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters, as both instruments in any such interaction each require respect and obedience, but do not otherwise regulate their potential conflict, this can lead to an undesirable degree of uncertainty between the two regimes. The Brussels I Recast contains a new Recital 12 that provides greater clarity in relation to the scope of the arbitration exclusion in Art 1(2)(d). However, the Recital does not entirely resolve all the questions concerning the arbitration/litigation interface. Therefore, in view of the remaining problems which the Brussels I Recast did not specifically address, it is suggested in this thesis that: (1) the wording of the Treaties relating to the exclusive external competence of the EU should be made clearer; (2) specific rules that will allow the Member State court with jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regime the possibility of staying the litigation at the request of the arbitral tribunal should be included in the future revision of the Brussels I Regime. The proposed solution would not undermine the operation of the New York Convention; neither would it create exclusive external competence of the EU in aspects of international commercial arbitration, which is the main political concern of some Member States with regard to partially including arbitration within the scope of the Brussels I Regime.

Although organizations and researchers have long pointed to the impact of migration on the development of countries of origin, one can hardly deny the bright spotlight and the rapid resurgence within policy debates, that the migration-development nexus enjoys over recent years. European politicians, inter-governmental organizations and academics alike un-equivocally point out that migration if managed appropriately, could bring the proverbial ‘win-win-win’ result for migrants themselves, sending, and receiving countries. So much so that, circular migration is being advocated as the solution to the migration challenges facing the European Union (EU) today. However, at a closer look, the evidence found is contradictory at best and largely depends on how development is defined and the breadth with which remittances are measured. Thus, this paper seeks for greater knowledge of this contemporary movement of persons, without which the EU will continue to develop policies and recommendations that may sat-isfy their member states, but not their intended audience. Starting with the Gastarbeiter programmes of the 1960-70s and concluding with the recent EU Blue Card initiative, this paper will conclude that the overall contribution of migrants to development is dependent on a scheme’s ability to a) encourage ‘return of innovation’ and b) broaden its outlook on non-financial remittances. Using the International Organization for Migration’s (IOM) Migration for Development in Africa (MIDA) Italy-Ghana/Senegal programme, and based on Ionescu’s four point criteria for successful circular migration policy, this paper will evaluate the MIDA Italy framework and suggest means by which its successes could be magnified. / Arts, Faculty of / Central Eastern Northern European Studies, Department of / Graduate

The legal framework for genetically modified crops in Europe is based on the precautionary principle, differing fundamentally from the US system. Where the EU created a complex set of strict rules for dealing with genetically modified crops, the United States continue to view GM crops to be just as safe as conventional crops. This philosophical difference led to one of the most complicated disputes in front of the World Trade Organization. It turned to be ineffective, however, to pressure the EU through the World Trade Organization's dispute settlement. However, it is the current internal conflict between EU member states and the European Commission regarding the authorization procedure for GM crops and the economic ramifications of the zero tolerance policy of unapproved crops on the European livestock industry that might finally bring about change in the European framework.