Have Anglo-Saxon concepts really influenced the development of European qualifications policy?

This paper considers how far Anglo-Saxon conceptions of have influenced European Union vocational education and training policy, especially given the disparate approaches to VET across Europe. Two dominant approaches can be identified: the dual system (exemplified by Germany); and output based models (exemplified by the NVQ ‘English style’). Within the EU itself, the design philosophy of the English output-based model proved in the first instance influential in attempts to develop tools to establish equivalence between vocational qualifications across Europe, resulting in the learning outcomes approach of the European Qualifications Framework, the credit-based model of European VET Credit System and the task-based construction of occupation profiles exemplified by European Skills, Competences and Occupations. The governance model for the English system is, however, predicated on employer demand for ‘skills’ and this does not fit well with the social partnership model encompassing knowledge, skills and competences that is dominant in northern Europe. These contrasting approaches have led to continual modifications to the tools, as these sought to harmonise and reconcile national VET requirements with the original design. A tension is evident in particular between national and regional approaches to vocational education and training, on the one hand, and the policy tools adopted to align European vocational education and training better with the demands of the labour market, including at sectoral level, on the other. This paper explores these tensions and considers the prospects for the successful operation of these tools, paying particular attention to the European Qualifications Framework, European VET Credit System and European Skills, Competences and Occupations tool and the relationships between them and drawing on studies of the construction and furniture industries.

Can the European Union build a bridge over troubled waters? An analysis of the politicised and depoliticised legal approach between the European Union and Cyprus

The Cyprus dispute accurately portrays the evolution of the conflict from ‘warfare to lawfare’ enriched in politics; this research has proven that the Cyprus problem has been and will continue to be one of the most judicialised disputes across the globe. Notwithstanding the ‘normalisation’ of affairs between the two ethno-religious groups on the island since the division in 1974, the Republic of Cyprus’ (RoC) European Union (EU) membership in 2004 failed to catalyse reunification and terminate the legal, political and economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community. So the question is; why is it that the powerful legal order of the EU continuously fails to tame the tiny troublesome island of Cyprus? This is a thesis on the interrelationship of the EU legal order and the Cyprus problem. A literal and depoliticised interpretation of EU law has been maintained throughout the EU’s dealings with Cyprus, hence, pre-accession and post-accession. The research has brought to light that this literal interpretation of EU law vis-à-vis Cyprus has in actual fact deepened the division on the island. Pessimists outnumber optimists so far as resolving this problem is concerned, and rightly so if you look back over the last forty years of failed attempts to do just that, a diplomatic combat zone scattered with the bones of numerous mediators. This thesis will discuss how the decisions of the EU institutions, its Member States and specifically of the European Court of Justice, despite conforming to the EU legal order, have managed to disregard the principle of equality on the divided island and thus prevent the promised upgrade of the status of the Turkish Cypriot community since 2004. Indeed, whether a positive or negative reading of the Union’s position towards the Cyprus problem is adopted, the case remains valid for an organisation based on the rule of law to maintain legitimacy, democracy, clarity and equality to the decisions of its institutions. Overall, the aim of this research is to establish a link between the lack of success of the Union to build a bridge over troubled waters and the right of self-determination of the Turkish Cypriot community. The only way left for the EU to help resolve the Cyprus problem is to aim to broker a deal between the two Cypriot communities which will permit the recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) or at least the ‘Taiwanisation’ of Northern Cyprus. Albeit, there are many studies that address the impact of the EU on the conflict or the RoC, which represents the government that has monopolised EU accession, the argument advanced in this thesis is that despite the alleged Europeanisation of the Turkish Cypriot community, they are habitually disregarded because of the EU’s current legal framework and the Union’s lack of conflict transformation strategy vis-à-vis the island. Since the self-declared TRNC is not recognised and EU law is suspended in northern Cyprus in accordance with Protocol No 10 on Cyprus of the Act of Accession 2003, the Turkish-Cypriots represent an idiomatic partner of Brussels but the relations between the two resemble the experience of EU enlargement: the EU’s relevance to the community has been based on the prospects for EU accession (via reunification) and assistance towards preparation for potential EU integration through financial and technical aid. Undeniably, the pre-accession and postaccession strategy of Brussels in Cyprus has worsened the Cyprus problem and hindered the peace process. The time has come for the international community to formally acknowledge the existence of the TRNC.