Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 13

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Role of the European Parliament in the Process of Multi-level Governance: The Case of the West Balkans States

100%
Staszczyk A.
Athenaeum. Polskie Studia Politologiczne
|
2014
|
vol. 44
136-150
PL
Artykuł porusza problem roli, jaką odgrywa PE w procesie wielopoziomowego zarządzania na przykładzie polityki rozszerzania UE o kraje Bałkanów Zachodnich. Wskutek rozwoju procesu integracji europejskiej, skutkującego transferem kompetencji decyzyjnych ze szczebla krajowego na ponadnarodowy, doszło do utraty przez państwo narodowe monopolistycznej pozycji w europejskim procesie decyzyjnym. Pozwoliło to na ukształtowanie się w ramach UE wielopoziomowego systemu politycznego. W ramach tego systemu funkcjonuje model wielopoziomowego zarządzania, którego PE stał się istotnym podmiotem. W artykule ukazano znaczącą rolę PE jako ponadnarodowego ośrodka decyzji, który poprzez posiadanie określonych kompetencji (wyrażanie zgody na przyjęcie państwa do UE, wyrażanie zgody na zawarcie kluczowych dla procesu integracji umów międzynarodowych, uprawnienia budżetowe, współdecydowanie o kształcie prawa UE w ramach zwykłej procedury ustawodawczej) w sposób istotny kształtuje politykę UE wobec państw bałkańskich. Wyjaśnienie funkcjonowania tej polityki i jej skutków autor publikacji oparł na koncepcji wielopoziomowego zarządzania, która w artykule jest przedmiotem pogłębionej analizy.
EN
This article addresses the problem of the EP’s role in the process of multi-level governance illustrated with the example of EU expansion policy through the accession of the West Balkan states. As an effect of the European integration process, resulting in the transfer of decision-making competences from the state level to the transnational level, nation-states have lost their monopolistic position in the European decision-making process. This has enabled the formation of multi-level political system within the EU. Within the system, there is a multi-level governance model, with the EP as its crucial element. This article reveals an important role of the EP as a transnational decision-making centre, which with its specific competences (giving consent to the accession of a country to the EU, giving consent to sign international agreements crucial for the integration process, budget rights, co-decisions on the form of the EU law with an ordinary law making procedure) considerably forms the policy of the EU in relation to the Balkan countries. The explanation of the policy’s functioning and its outcomes are based on the concept of multi-level governance, which is analyzed herein in depth.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Stanowisko Parlamentu Europejskiego wobec Wspólnej Polityki Bezpieczeństwa i Obrony rozszerzonej UE

100%
Staszczyk A.
Rocznik Integracji Europejskiej
|
2014
|
issue 8
185-196
PL
Artykuł przedstawia stanowisko Parlamentu Europejskiego (PE) wobec rozwoju i najważniejszych priorytetów WPBiO UE po jej rozszerzeniu w 2004 r. na Wschód. Kwestie wchodzące w zakres WPBiO nie należą do tradycyjnych obszarów integracji, gdyż dotyczą problematyki bezpieczeństwa i obrony stanowiącej istotę suwerenności państwa narodowego pozostającego do dnia dzisiejszego najważniejszym podmiotem w procesie integracji europejskiej. Ma to zasadniczy wpływ na funkcjonowanie WPBiO, która wciąż pozostaje polityką, w ramach której dominują międzyrządowe mechanizmy współpracy. Powoduje to, że rola PE w kształtowaniu WPBiO jest ograniczona i sprowadza się przede wszystkim do wyrażania zawartych w rezolucjach niewiążących opinii. Jednakże przyjmowane przez PE rezolucje w sprawie WPBiO mimo, że nie wiążą pod względem prawnym mają swoją istotną wagę polityczną. Wynika to z faktu bycia przez PE jedyną ponadnarodową instytucją unijną mającą demokratyczną legitymację i mogącą sobie rościć prawo do sprawowania parlamentarnej kontroli nad WPBiO. Istotą stanowiska PE wobec WPBiO jest domaganie się włączenia mechanizmów ponadnarodowych do obszaru tej polityki, co zagwarantowałoby jej uwspólnotowienie w przyszłości. Jednakże postulowana przez PE budowa jednolitej wspólnotowej polityki bezpieczeństwa i obrony może zostać zrealizowana tylko poprzez przekształcenie UE w strukturę o znamionach federacji.
3
Content available remote

Spójność jako podstawowa przesłanka polityki regionalnej UE. Wyzwania dla Polski.

100%
Staszczyk A.
Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego ACTA POLITICA
|
2012
|
issue 25
PL
W artykule autor analizuje skalę wyzwań stojących przed Polską w kontekście absorpcji środków europejskich przyznanych naszemu krajowi w ramach polityki spójności. Autor stawia tezę, że cel polityki spójności UE, czyli zapewnienie Wspólnocie zrównoważonego rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego oraz powstanie innowacyjnego społeczeństwa opartego na wiedzy, nie będzie zrealizowany bez ekonomicznego sukcesu Polski, którego urzeczywistnienie wymaga optymalnego wykorzystania środków finansowych przyznanych w ramach polityki spójności oraz podjęcia szeregu reform dostosowujących polską gospodarkę jak i społeczeństwo do standardów obowiązujących w wysokorozwiniętych krajach UE.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Stanowisko Parlamentu Europejskiego wobec problemu proliferacji broni masowego rażenia i terroryzmu międzynarodowego

100%
Staszczyk A.
Przegląd Strategiczny
|
2016
|
issue 9
211-222
PL
The paper presents the stance of the European Parliament (EP) on the gravest threats to the security of the EU, in particular, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the issue of international terrorism. Prevention of these threats lies predominantly within the competence of EU member states and its intergovernmental bodies. Such situation is implied by the fact that these issues fall within the scope of EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) within which intergovernmental collaboration mechanisms play a dominant role. This means that the EP’s role in the shaping of EU’s policy on the prevention of weapons of mass destruction proliferation and international terrorism is limited and basically confined to the expression of non-binding opinions in its resolutions. However, relevant resolutions passed by the EP, though not binding in legal terms, have political significance and allow the EP, in contrast to other EU’s institutions, to articulate its position in an unequivocal and clear way. This is possible since the EP is the only supranational EU institution that has democratic legitimacy and can claim the right to exercise parliamentary control over the EU’s policy with respect to the prevention of the gravest threats to European security. This is particularly vivid as it comes to the fight against terrorism which is also the subject of interest for the common space of freedom, security and justice which employs intragovernmental collaboration mechanisms.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The position of the European Parliament on the European Union's Energy Security Policy

100%
Staszczyk A.
Reality of Politics
|
2018
|
issue 9
112-122
EN
Ensuring the energy security is currently one of the EU’s top priorities. The EU energy policy, after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, is regulated by Article 194 TFEU, which guarantees a solid legal basis for European Union actions in this area on the basis of the Community method. The European Parliament, within the scope of its Community competences, as a participant in the decision-making process, contributes to shaping the face of the EU energy policy. Furthermore, by adopting nonlegislative resolutions, the EP expresses its position on the most crucial issues included in this policy and has an indirect influence on its shape. The aim of this article is the analysis of the content of these resolutions and presentation of the EP’s opinion on the challenges facing the EU in the field of energy. It should be highlighted that the European Parliament is the EU body with a strong emphasis on a supranational approach to energy security. The European Parliament prefers the view that all Member States, in a spirit of solidarity, must take actions to guarantee the EU’s common energy security. In favour of a common, integrated European energy market, the EP puts great emphasis on the necessity to implement ambitious climate policy objectives within its framework, the key element of which is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Position of European Parliament on the Migrant Crisis in Europe

100%
Staszczyk A.
Reality of Politics
|
2016
|
issue 7
183-194
EN
The migrant crisis in Europe, which reached its zenith in 2015, made EU politicians realize the urgent need for a more effective migration policy that would rely more on supranational cooperation. Absence of this policy triggers migrant influx to Europe, in particular of unqualified labour force, and enhances illegal migration from which organized criminal groups profit enormously. Moreover, uncontrolled migration processes give rise to a number of social, economic, political and cultural problems all across the EU, and thus nurture the Eurosceptic mood. This leads to societal negation of the European integration project and provides fertile soil to the spread of radicalism and xenophobia. The aim of the study is to capture the position of European Parliament on recent migrant crisis. The Parliament, a democratically legitimate body, which claims the right to represent European societies, advocates adoption of systemic EU approach to migration which should be based on the respect of human rights and creation of legal migration pathways for refugees and workers needed by Europe. The solution of the present migrant crisis is sought by the EP in moving towards a common, comprehensive European immigration policy and enhanced solidarity of EU member states in response to increased influx of refugees from conflict zones.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Dispute over European Union and Eurozone Crisis in the Light of Selected Theories of European Integration

100%
Staszczyk A.
Reality of Politics
|
2014
|
issue 5
81-94
EN
The study tackles the issue of applying respective theories of European integration to explain the processes occurring in the EU, and in particular, in the debt-wrecked eurozone. In the author’s view, the eurozone crisis revived the dispute over the shape of EU. On one hand, it is the supranational neofunctionalism and on the other, state-centric intergovernmentalism views clashing with one another. The author believes that the key theory that successfully explains the member states’ behavior in face of eurozone crisis is the intergovernmentalism theory. It assumes the primacy of nation-state and its interests in the process of European integration. This is particularly apparent in the time of crisis when supranational mechanisms typical of neofunctionalist theory serve solely the purpose of legitimizing national interests of the economically strongest EU members.
8
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The European Parliament in view of the development of the EU Security and Defence Policy after the Lisbon Treaty

100%
Staszczyk A.
Reality of Politics
|
2018
|
issue 9
123-136
EN
This article analyses the position of the European Parliament on the priorities for the development of the EU Common Security and Defence Policy. The issues covered by this policy after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty remained the domain of intergovernmental cooperation mechanisms. Despite the changes made to the Lisbon Treaty to unify the Union’s external relations by removing its pillars and expanding CSDP tasks, the role of the EP in its creation has not increased in line with its expectations. In accordance with the provisions of the TEU, decisions on the operation of the CSDP shall be adopted by the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or from a Member State. As a result of such Treaty arrangements, the EP is unable to play such a role in the area of CSDP that would correspond to the importance of this body in the EU’s institutional system. Therefore, the main instrument for the implementation of the EP policy in the area of CSDP remain resolutions in which this body calls for the inclusion of transnational cooperation mechanisms in it. By expressing its position in resolutions, the EP advocates for the development of a strong, unified CSDP based on defined European security interests, as well as the development of a pan-European approach to the issues covered by this policy.
9
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Position of European Parliament in Relation to the Association Process of the South Caucasus Countries with the EU

100%
Staszczyk A.
Reality of Politics
|
2013
|
issue 4
208-221
EN
This article analyses the position of European Parliament (EP) in the question of the lasting from 2010 association process of the South Caucasus countries with the EU. The process is aimed at the establishment of close, extensive political and economic cooperation of the countries with the EU. The author stresses the importance attached by EP to the association negotiations, which according to the Parliament should have a crucial impact on the democratization process in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia. It should be underlined that the development of democracy in those EU’s partner countries is of special interest to EP, which in recognition of their geopolitical importance with its numerous resolutions requires making closer relations with them and even providing the countries with a potential European perspective (Georgia). However the more extensive cooperation of the EU with the countries is made dependent by EP on the incorporation by Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia of the values defined as European (democracy, rule of law, protection of human rights etc.). That is why so important for EP are the questions of human rights observance, observance of the rules of democracy and law, including transparency and fairness of the processes in the countries. In case of violating rules constituting foundations for democratic and lawful country’s functioning, EP responds in a determined way and usually takes un unambiguous stand quite often contrasting with more “weighted” opinions of other Union institutions.
10
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

European Parliament Position on EU Cyber Security and Defense Policy

100%
Staszczyk A.
Reality of Politics
|
2019
|
issue 10
122-133
EN
Ensuring cyber security in scope of cyber defense is currently among the top priorities of the EU Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). Matters included in scope of cyber defense are a competence of the Member States and cooperation at EU level in this area is governed by decisions of the EU Council based on unanimity. This means that the European Parliament (EP) in the field of cyber defens acts only as an opinion-forming body expressing its position through the adoption of non-legislative resolutions. The aim of the article is to analyze the content of these resolutions and present the EP’s opinion on the challenges facing the EU in the field of cyber defense. It should be stressed that the EP is the EU body that strongly emphasizes the need for a common EU approach to these issues. Given that the area of cyber defence is subject to intergovernmental cooperation mechanisms, the EP considers that the EU needs to develop not only cooperation and coordination mechanisms at the level of its institutions, but also to take action to enhance the EU’s capability to counter cyber threats. These significant cyber defense capabilities should be essential elements of the CSDP and of the development of the European Defense Union, as it is becoming increasingly difficult to counter cyber attacks for the Member State level alone. The role of the CSDP should be to ensure that the EU, in cooperation with NATO, has an autonomous strategic capability to act in the field of cyber defense.
11
Content available remote

Polityka regionalna Unii Europejskiej a współpraca transgraniczna Polski i Niemiec

100%
Staszczyk A.
Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego ACTA POLITICA
|
2013
|
issue 26
55-70
EN
The aim of this article is to analyze the issue of European Union’s financial support for cross border cooperation of Poland and Germany. This cooperation is the main component of European Territorial Cooperation, that is composing distinct target of cohesion policy. On the Polish-German border cooperation is mostly taking form of the euroregional cooperation. On the Polish-German borderland this cooperation, in comparison to other territories close to border, is the most developed and creates the best effects, bringing together both societies. Cross border cooperation on the Polish-German border fits into the European Union’s regional policy, what allows funding through cross border operational programmes.
PL
Artykuł porusza kwestie wsparcia finansowego ze strony UE dla współpracy transgranicznej Polski i Niemiec. Współpraca ta jest najważniejszym komponentem Europejskiej Współpracy Terytorialnej, stanowiącej w perspektywie finansowej 2007-2013 odrębny cel polityki spójności UE. Na granicy polsko – niemieckiej współpraca transgraniczna przybiera przede wszystkim formę współpracy euro regionalnej . Na pograniczu polsko – niemieckim współpraca ta w porównaniu z innymi obszarami granicznymi jest najbardziej zaawansowana i przynosi najlepsze efekty, zbliżając do siebie obydwie społeczności. Współpraca trans graniczna na pograniczu polsko – niemieckim wpisuje się w ramy polityki regionalnej UE, co pozwala na jej finansowanie w ramach transgranicznych programów operacyjnych. Autor w swoim artykule zaznacza również, że współpraca transgraniczna wpisuje się w obecne w UE tendencje regionalistyczne, będące konsekwencją zyskiwania na popularności koncepcji „Europy Regionów”.
12
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Stanowisko Parlamentu Europejskiego wobec Partnerstwa Wschodniego

100%
Staszczyk A.
Rocznik Integracji Europejskiej
|
2015
|
issue 9
229-240
EN
This paper presents the attitude of the European Parliament to those issues that fall within the scope of interest of the Eastern Partnership. In the analysis of this attitude, the author stresses the significant role the EP has played in developing EU Eastern policy, in particular as concerns the promotion of democratic ideas and values within the scope of this policy. It should be emphasised that the EP is exceptionally interested in the advancement of democracy in East European partner countries, whose geopolitical significance the EP appreciates, frequently calling for the tightening of relations with these countries, and even opening European prospects to them. The deepening of cooperation between the EU and East European countries is conditioned by the EP by their adoption of what is called European values (i.e. democracy, rule of law, protection of human rights, etc.). Acting as the ‘guard of democracy,’ the EP is an institution of political influence which allows it to shape Eastern policy in ways that go beyond the formal rights vested in it by the treaties.
13
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Unia Europejska jako instytucja bezpieczeństwa. Analiza systemowa

100%
Staszczyk A.
Acta Politica Polonica
|
2016
|
vol. 35
|
issue 1
21-34
EN
The paper analyses the role of the EU as a security institution and explores the issue of EU’s role in the shaping of the post-Cold War European security system. The system is characterised by a heterogeneous structure and high development dynamics. One of the key components of European security architecture is the European Union. By developing a number of policies which constitute the instruments of external security management, the EU has built the capacity, resources, institutions and procedures, as well as identified the goals and threats, which is why it can be analysed in terms of a security system. The EU’s fundamental security policy is the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). It is primarily based on intergovernmental cooperation mechanisms, yet it does not establish a common European defence capability. However, it allows the EU to implement crisis management operations and acts as a stabilizer of peace and security on both the global and regional level. The character of the CSDP is largely determined by the nature of the EU’s security system, which is predominantly focused on the elimination of external non-military threats. The above means that the EU does not constitute a common defence system which would offer the so-called hard security guarantees, but rather aims to shape the security environment in alignment with the values it proclaims by favouring the use of the so-called soft power instruments.
PL
Artykuł analizuje rolę UE jako instytucji bezpieczeństwa i porusza problem wpływu UE na kształtowanie postzimnowojennego systemu bezpieczeństwa europejskiego. System ten charakteryzuje się pluralistyczną strukturą i dużą dynamiką rozwoju. Jednym z kluczowych elementów europejskiej architektury bezpieczeństwa jest UE. Rozwijając szereg polityk stanowiących instrumenty zewnętrznego zarządzania bezpieczeństwem, UE zbudowała zdolności, zasoby, instytucje i procedury, a także określiła cele i zagrożenia pozwalające analizować ją w kategoriach systemu bezpieczeństwa. Najważniejszą polityką stanowiącą fundament rozwoju systemu bezpieczeństwa UE jest Wspólna Polityka Bezpieczeństwa i Obrony (WPBiO). Polityka ta mimo nazwy sugerującej uwspólnotowienie funkcjonuje przede wszystkim w oparciu o mechanizmy współpracy międzyrządowej i nie ustanawia również wspólnej obrony w ramach UE. Pozwala ona jednak UE realizować operacje zarządzania kryzysowego i pełnić rolę stabilizatora pokoju i bezpieczeństwa zarówno w wymiarze globalnym jak i regionalnym. Kształt WPBiO determinuje w dużym stopniu charakter systemu bezpieczeństwa UE, który nastawiony jest przede wszystkim na eliminowanie zagrożeń o charakterze niemilitarnym pochodzących z zewnątrz. Oznacza to, że UE nie stanowi systemu zbiorowej obrony oferującego tzw. twarde gwarancje bezpieczeństwa, ale raczej stara się stosując instrumenty tzw. miękkiej siły kształtować środowisko bezpieczeństwa zgodnie z preferowanymi przez siebie wartościami.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.