The European Union is founded on a set of common principles of democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union. Whereas future Member States are vetted for their compliance with these values before they accede to the Union, no similar method exists to supervise respect of these foundational principles after accession. This gap needs to be filled, since history proved that EU Member State governments’ adherence to foundational EU values cannot be taken for granted. Against this background this article assesses the need and possibilities for the establishment of an EU Scoreboard on EU values; viable strategies and procedures to regularly monitor all Member States’ compliance with the rule of law on an equal and objective basis; and the nature of effective and dissuasive sanction mechanisms foreseen for rule of law violators.
This article analyses the amendments of January 2018 to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance (INR) of 1998, which has raised doubts in light of in ternational law and provoked diplomatic tensions between Poland on one side and Germany, Ukraine, United States of America and Israel on the other. The INR is a national in stitution whose role is, among others, to prosecute perpetrators of in ternational crimes committed between 1917-1990. The article proves that the wording of the amendments is in consistent with in ternational law, as it ignores the principles of in ternational responsibility, definitions of in ternational crimes, and disproportionately limits freedom of expression. In consequence, it cannot be expected that third states will cooperate with Poland in the execution of responsibility for violation of the newly adopted norms.
This article aims to investigate the phenomenon of the rule of law promotion exercised by the EU through the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements (DCFTAs). First, the article emphasizes the unique combination of normative and market power the EU uses to diffuse its norms through trade liberalization. Next, it provides an insight into the particularities of the European Neighbourhood Policy as a policy context for the conclusion and implementation of the Association Agreements, including the DCFTAs with Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, as well as the conceptual problematic and scope of the rule of law as a value the EU seeks to externalize. Using the DCFTAs with Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia) as a single group case study of the transparency dimension of the rule of law, the central part of the article analyzes the DCFTAs substantive requirements, directed toward promoting transparency in the partner states (while categorizing the requirements into the most general ones; cooperation-related; and discipline-specific) and the legal mechanisms that make these clauses operational (e.g., the institutional framework of the AAs, gradual approximation and monitoring clauses, and the Dispute Settlement Mechanism). In concluding, the article summarizes the state-of-the-art of the rule of law promotion through the DCFTAs, distinguishes the major challenges the respective phenomenon faces, and emphasizes the prospects for and difficulties of using the DCFTAs as an instrument of rule of law promotion.
There may be circumstances where academic degrees or the title of professor are obtained deceitfully, i.e. in breach of copyrights or moral principles in science. Dishonesty in scientific research constitutes gross misconduct because it is executed in order to appropriate ideas, findings, collocations and theses of others, without accurate citation of the source. It also entails infringement of intellectual property rights. Scientific misconduct in ethical and legal aspect is explicit. It disqualifies the offender as a scientist. The unlawful act of obtaining an academic degree (Ph.D.) or the title of professor in such a deceitful manner, irrespective of how much time has passed, shall not make the resumption condition fall under the statute of limitations. Thus, it enables the reopening of procedures to deprive the person who deceitfully obtained an academic degree or title of this degree or title.