European Union Policies on Lifelong Learning: In-between Competitiveness Enhancement and Social Stability Reinforcement

This study highlights the emergence of lifelong learning as the main strategy in the education and training policy of the European Union (EU). The EU's 'Memorandum on lifelong learning' (indexed at TD/IRD 88.400) states that lifelong learning must become the guiding principle for provision and participation across the 'full continuum of learning contexts'. The study focuses on vocational education and training (VET) as an important facet of this continuum and investigates the role of VET in promoting lifelong learning in England and Germany. Based on the assumption that education and training systems have to address similar core issues in the context of lifelong learning, the six Key Messages (KMs) of the EU's 'Memorandum on lifelong learning', which reflect such core issues, are used as the analytical framework of the study. They are: (1) new basic skills for all; (2) more investment in human resources; (3) innovation in teaching and learning; (4) valuing learning; (5) rethinking guidance and counselling; and (6) bringing learning closer to home. The study examines the emergence of lifelong learning as the central strategy of the EU's education and training policy, tracing its development up to the present day, and focusing on EU policy after the mid-1990s and the current EU concept of lifelong learning and its objectives. It then describes the main patterns of VET in Germany and England using the concept of qualification styles, focusing on initial training but taking into account the whole system. This is followed by an examination of the role of VET in promoting lifelong learning in the two countries, using the six KMs as the analytical framework. The summary reveals that the approaches for promoting lifelong learning as well as perceptions of lifelong learning differ between the two countries. The author locates these findings within the wider context of EU education and training policy, critically examines the EU policy on lifelong learning, and highlights further questions for research. Appendices provide additional information to illustrate specific aspects of some issues.

Defense industrial policy is not an area that normally comes to mind when one thinks of European Union (EU) policies. As will be evident from the following discussion, the EU’s involvement in defense industry matters remains limited. Yet some EU policies do have an effect on European defense firms, and significantly more of an effect today than in 1958 or even 1978. An explanation of why the EU has become involved in this policy area will be the focus of this chapter. EU policies in this sector did not just appear from out of nowhere. In fact, few of these policies were explicitly created with Europe’s defense industry in mind. Most policies were developed for other reasons, but now have a direct effect on the armaments sector. This chapter attempts to answer two questions: ‘What are the EU policies that affect European defense firms?’ and ‘What roles have the three primary institutions within the EU — Council of Ministers, Commission, Parliament — played in bringing defense industry issues onto the EU agenda?’

This article assesses how and to what extent the European Union (EU) uses a security perspective to define and shape its relationship with the developing world. In order to evaluate the EU's development policy and its relations with developing countries we link the concept of ‘security–development nexus’ with the concept of ‘securitization’. The article examines whether securitization can be observed with regard to four dimensions: discourse, policy instruments, policy actions and institutional framework. The analysis demonstrates a securitization of the EU's development policy and its relations with developing countries, particularly in Africa. However, paradoxically, the securitization's extent and nature suggest that the EU can also use it as a way to avoid a more direct involvement in conflict areas.

This Chapter examines the struggles over the ownership of the policy and legislative agenda to cover these European Union (EU) policies for the next five years as enshrined inside the Stockholm Programme. It presents the Stockholm affair by assessing the Commission's Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme and the ways in which the latter diverges from Council's Stockholm Programme. It studies the impact that the Lisbon Treaty has inflicted over the role of the Commission over EU policies on migration, borders and asylum. The chapter concludes by bringing about some reflections as to the extent to which the Lisbon Treaty and the ongoing institutional reshaping around the EU's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) might influence the boundaries and future directions guiding the European legal system on migration, borders and asylum. Keywords: AFSJ; European Union (EU) policies; Lisbon treaty; Stockholm programme

The European Union's policy in the Mediterranean suffers from a gap between its apparent potential to act and its actual performance. This discrepancy can be explained in part by the particular institutional and procedural constraints of the Union's ‘dual’ system of foreign affairs. These constraints make the Union a clearing‐house for national interests rather than a unitary actor, they lead to an in‐built tilt towards economic measures and they create difficulties for its partners in terms of transparency and predictability. Cases such as the implementation of the Euro‐Mediterranean Partnership, the association agreement with Jordan of 1997 and financial co‐operation with Turkey all demonstrate the limitations that the system imposes on the Union's Mediterranean policy decision‐making and implementation.

The European Union (EU) policy of the Zapatero government (2004–8) combined continuity with the Socialist policies of the 1990s with some new additions in the form of a commitment to domestic constitutional reform, including a reference to the EU in the Spanish constitution. The Socialists' EU policy also manifested important continuities with the prior Popular Party governments. The use of a referendum to ratify the EU constitution, though decided by the Socialist government, had a large domestic consensus and fitted easily with Zapatero's republican preferences. Even though change occurred, it is difficult to argue that it represented a second transition.

A critical review of climate change mitigation policies in the EU ——based on vertical, horizontal and policy instrument perspectives

The following article analyses the European Union (EU) policy of the German Social Democrats (SPD) since German unity. Starting from the cross-party European consensus in the early 1990s SPD policy has altered significantly in response to major changes in the ‘policy context’ such as the party's rise from opposition to government, German unification and increasing European integration. Policy change in the SPD has been defined by two dynamics: greater ‘pragmatism’ among a new generation of party leaders that has allowed a ‘freer’ interpretation of German interests; and a gradual prioritisation of EU policy in the party elite that has seen it integrated into a multi-level programme for political governance. The article examines how these changes manifested themselves in SPD policy, focusing on European Economic and Monetary Union and the debate on ‘the future of Europe’.

The EU Response to COVID-19: From Reactive Policies to Strategic Decision-Making.

This article reviews Italy's role in the various phases of the European Union's policy towards the Mediterranean: thead hocpolicy of the 1950s and 1960s, the Global Mediterranean Policy developed in the 1970s, the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership agreed in Barcelona in 1995, the European Neighbourhood Policy signed in 2003, the proposal launched by French president Nicolas Sarkozy in 2006 for a Mediterranean Union. The overall argument is that the various Italian governments have carried out an ambivalent and often reactive policy: on the one hand, they have consistently tried to promote a Mediterranean dimension in the European Union, though without upsetting the United States; on the other hand, they have limited the extension of trade privileges to exports from North Africa. While the end of the Cold War provided a new opportunity for Italy to play a more assertive role in the international arena, the two coalitions that have alternated in power have substantially failed to move the Mediterranean to the centre of Italy's and the European Union's external policy. A partial change of attitude – yet a reactive policy – emerged under the second Prodi Government, when Italy and Spain became close allies in an attempt to counter-balance the new activist policy of Sarkozy.

The evolving land reforms in Ukraine and its recent strides towards EU membership accentuate the critical importance of addressing the circulation of agricultural land. This article analyzes the European Union's policies concerning the formulation and execution of regulations governing the transfer of agricultural land, given its doctrinal and practical significance in the context of Ukraine's transitional phase. This academic article examines the intricate relationship between European Union (EU) legislation and the regulation of land ownership within its member states, with a particular focus on agricultural land. The analysis delves into the legal framework provided by Article 345 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which preserves member states' autonomy in land ownership decisions while emphasizing compliance with the principles of free movement of capital. The article reviews key EU guidelines and directives, such as those concerning land policy design and reform processes, common agricultural policy, and financial regulations, which indirectly impact land transactions and ownership. Additionally, it explores the Union's response to challenges such as land grabbing and concentration of ownership, including guidelines for member states to protect agricultural land from speculative practices and monopolization. Furthermore, the article discusses recent legal precedents, notably the CJEU's ruling on Bulgaria's residency requirement for land acquisition, which highlights the tension between national policy objectives and EU principles. Through an analysis of EU legislation, court decisions, and policy recommendations, this article offers insights into the evolving dynamics of land ownership regulation within the EU, aiming to contribute to a deeper understanding of the balance between capital movement and national sovereignty in land governance.

The article explores the role of the European Union in promoting democracy in Ukraine over the past decade and a half. It looks at both European Union (EU) policy and domestic factors and draws on the relevant experience of the Central and East European countries and the EU's role in their political transformation. The article argues that the EU's impact on Ukraine's democratization has so far been limited due to both the policy of the EU and domestic factors in Ukraine. In the early 1990s the EU chose not to treat Ukraine as one of the Central and East European countries, which determined the subsequent choice of policy instruments and reinforced the ambiguity of Ukraine's orientation. The EU has also failed to make its policy values-based, and a Russia-first policy persisted for a long time. Weak conditionality and socialization are other elements that have characterized the EU's policy towards Ukraine. As far as domestic factors are concerned, political competition was rather weak in Ukraine prior to 2000, and it was only in 2004 that it allowed the change of authority via elections. A lack of elite consensus on both the basic rules of the game and the country's overall orientation is another factor that has weakened the EU's impact on Ukraine's democratization. As long as the EU and democracy are not the only alternatives that Ukraine may consider, the EU's impact will remain limited.

Eighty-six EU policy options for reducing imported deforestation

The article analyses the impact of the Russian-Ukrainian war on the geopolitical transformation of the European Union (EU). It examines the key changes in the EU's security, energy and international relations strategy, as well as the development of its strategic autonomy and role in supporting Ukraine. The study is based on the analysis of scientific sources and political articles related to the EU's foreign policy and security mechanisms. A comparative analysis of the EU's decisions on sanctions, energy security and military assistance to Ukraine is used. Expert assessments of the geopolitical situation and economic consequences of the war are also taken into account. The article contributes to understanding the role of the Russian-Ukrainian war as a catalyst for the EU's political and strategic awakening. In particular, it highlights the development of the EU's strategic autonomy in response to its energy dependence on Russia and the growth of defence cooperation between member states. The author also explores how the war has contributed to the consolidation of European identity and the strengthening of the desire for global leadership in the face of current international challenges. The author notes that the Russian-Ukrainian war has accelerated changes in the EU's approach to foreign and security policy. The EU has strengthened its strategic autonomy, increased economic sanctions against Russia and mobilised resources to support Ukraine. At the same time, the war has shown the need to develop energy resources independent of external suppliers and to increase the EU's internal defence capabilities. Ukraine's integration into the European space has become an important strategic direction of the EU's policy. An important aspect has been the strengthening of European defence cooperation, which demonstrates the EU's desire for greater independence in security matters. Ukraine's integration into the European space is becoming one of the key directions of the EU's foreign policy, which may accelerate the process of Ukraine's accession to the Union in the future. The author also draws attention to the fact that the issue of strengthening the EU's defence capabilities affects the problem of the international security system, which today, as a result of the Russian-Ukrainian war, is undergoing the greatest transformations since the Second World War.

Greece’s membership in the European Union (EU) and EU policies became key issues in the elections that took place during economic crisis, namely the May and June 2012 legislative and the May 2014 European elections. As the crisis was, and continues to be, an extraordinary period for both Greece and the EU as a whole, the key question concerns whether, due to their ongoing impact on national legislation, EU policy developments have affected national party positions during normal times of integration. However, we know little about Greek party preferences for EU involvement in policy-making and whether EU policy developments affected party competition before the crisis. The present article thus studies party positioning in the policy space during the decades prior to the crisis (1993–2006) using an original survey inquiring Greek party politicians about the crucial policy areas of agriculture and migration, as well as foreign and security affairs. The study reveals differences across Greek parties as well as within parties over time and discusses these findings in the context of the broader debate of party (organizational and policy) change in response to European integration. Besides contributing to this scholarly debate—a literature where, thus far, the Greek case is largely absent—this study enhances our understanding of Europeanization effects on Greek party politics.