A New Start for the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice? Setting of Priorities for the New European Commission. CEPS Commentary, 23 September 2014

The nomination of a First Vice-President (Frans Timmermans) in charge of rule of law and the EU Charter of Fundamental is one of the more far-reaching innovations contained in the new institutional shape of the Juncker Commission. This CEPS Commentary by Sergio Carrera and Elspeth Guild welcomes the fact that a new fundamental rights and rule of law First Vice-President will exercise a coordination and advisory role over the other two JHA Commissioners – Věra Jourová, responsible for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality (DG Justice); and Dimitris Avramopoulos, responsible for Migration and Home Affairs (DG Home Affairs), but expresses a note caution whether this new role and triangular relationship can be made to work effectively in practice.

The future of the area of freedom, security and justice. Addressing mobility, protection and effectiveness in the long run. EPC Discussion Paper, 23 January 2014

With the Stockholm Programme coming to an end in 2014, the “Brussels Community” is increasing agitated with a recurring question: what will replace the Stockholm Programme? Paradoxically, this uncertainty is fuelled by the existence of a new and clear Treaty provision – Article 68 TFEU – which states “The European Council shall define the strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice”. Clear in its wording, this provision may lead to different understandings and unclear implications in practice. In order to provide more clarity, the European Policy Centre (EPC) set up a Task Force to reflect on the impact of this provision and more generally the future of the area of freedom, security and justice after 2014. Results of this process are reflected in this discussion paper which addresses the process and content regarding the definition of future strategic guidelines.

Freedom of religion in Turkey - The Alevi issue. EPC Commentary, 24 January 2014

Freedom of religion is a fundamental right that must be protected and respected by states. While Turkey has taken important steps in advancing religious freedoms over the last decade, a number of challenges remain. Turkey’s Alevi Community continues to face serious problems in terms of being officially recognised by the state and in practicing their religion. While Turkey is officially a secular country, Sunni Islam is the unofficial state religion. Despite Ankara being a signatory of several international conventions and treaties that guarantee fundamental freedoms for all, key fundamental rights of Alevis remain ignored by the state. Last September, hopes were raised that a new “democratisation package” would include steps to further their freedoms but it failed to do so, with the government announcing that a ‘special’ Alevi reform package would be unveiled by the end of 2013. This did not happen.

Freedom of movement of persons - the building block of European growth. CHALLENGE EUROPE Issue 22 - Challenges and new beginnings: Priorities for the EU's new leadership, September 2014.

The European integration project is founded on values and principles which are simple, equal, and advantageous for all. Freedom of movement of persons is one of the main cornerstones of EU success. It is a fundamental, cherished right of EU citizens. Thanks to this liberty, European citizenship is real, concrete and attractive. Moreover, it spurs economic growth and technological development. But because freedom of movement has become an obvious feature of our day-to-day lives, some of us tend to underestimate its consequences. Important recent developments mean that we must renew our commitment to defend this building-block of a Europe whole and free.

The press and freedom of speech in Ukraine ahead of parliamentary elections. OSW Commentary No. 90, 2012-09-20

The independence of the mass media has been regularly restricted over the past two years in Ukraine. Following a period of relative freedom in 2005–2010, the scope of direct and indirect government control of the press has increased, cancelling out the achievements of the Orange Revolution in this area. The press in Ukraine is less and less able to perform its role as watchdog on the government and politicians and as a reliable source of information on the situation in the country to the public. This is mainly due to: (1) the concentration of the most important mass media in the hands of Ukraine’s most powerful oligarchs, whose business interests depend on the government; (2) the use of the press as instruments in political and business competition; (3) the ruling class’s subordination of the institutions which supervise the press; (4) repression used against media critical of the government and (5) the lack of an independent public broadcasting corporation. As a consequence, the press has hardly any impact on the political processes taking place ahead of the parliamentary election scheduled for 28 October. This is also an effect of a passiveness present in the Ukrainian public, who are tired of politics and are focused on social issues. Cases of abuse or corruption scandals revealed by the press do not provoke any response from the public and are rarely investigated by the public prosecution authorities. The more popular a given medium is, the more strongly it is controlled by the government. At present, television has to be recognised as the least reliable of the mass media. In turn, Internet news journals are characterised by the greatest pluralism but also have more limited accessibility. The political conditions in which the mass media operate in Ukraine lead to various forms of pathology. The most serious of them are censorship by the owners and self-censorship performed by journalists, and a great share of political advertorials. As the parliamentary election is approaching, the pathologies of the Ukrainian media market have been showing up with greater intensity.

The European Council’s Guidelines for the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice 2020: Subverting the ‘Lisbonisation’ of Justice and Home Affairs? CEPS Essay No. 13, 14 July 2014

In its Conclusions of 26-27 June 2014, the European Council has adopted the new “Strategic Guidelines for Legislative and Operational Planning for the coming years within the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ)”. These Guidelines reveal a pre-Lisbon Treaty mindset among the EU member states and the Justice and Home Affairs Council. This essay argues that the Guidelines are mainly driven by the interests and agendas of national Ministries of Interior and Justice and are only “strategic” to the extent that they aim at first, re-injecting ‘intergovernmentalism’ or bringing back the old EU Third Pillar ways of working to the new EU institutional setting of the AFSJ and second, at sidelining the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and rule of law in the AFSJ. The paper argues that the European Council Guidelines seek to prevent the advances in Justice and Home Affairs cooperation as envisaged in the Treaty of Lisbon, particularly its emphasis on supranational democratic, legal and judicial accountability. As a consequence of this move to ‘de-Lisbonise’ JHA cooperation, fundamental rights and rule of law-related initiatives will be neglected and the interest of the individual will be displaced from the centre of gravity in the coming AFSJ 2020 policy agenda.

Strategic knowledge serendipity and arbitrage & intellectual venture capitalists: An emerging breed of knowledge entrepreneurs; and Part II: Global and Local (GloCal) knowledge logistics for innovation and competitiveness. ACES Working Papers, August 2009

Strategic Knowledge: While entrepreneurship may occur as a natural result of personal drive, it occurs most often, most robustly and is most sustainable in an environment designed to encourage it. Potential entrepreneurs become active entrepreneurs when the conditions are most supportive of their commercial opportunities and their business thus helping channel the two key qualities they exhibit as individuals obsessed maniacs and clairvoyant oracles (Carayannis, GWU Lectures, 2000-2005) and (Carayannis et at, 2003a) towards the generation of sustainable wealth. So far, entrepreneurial scholars who turn into intellectual venture capitalists by founding knowledge-driven companies remain one of the least explored specie in the territory of entrepreneurship. GloCal: The increasing engagement of firms within global knowledge and production networks and their ability to source knowledge globally as well as locally (GloCally), for the development of innovation capacities will shape the future of UK's knowledge resources and its role in the global economy. Practices such as off-shoring R&D activities are widely adopted, creating challenging, and not very well understood, issues related to cross-country and inter-firm knowledge and technology flows. We seek to address the internationalisation and networking of research and innovation activities, including the roles and strategies of enterprises, universities, research centres, governments in a cross-country and inter-sectoral way, to assess the impact and the implications for sustaining and enhancing the competitiveness of UK firms and other British knowledge producers and users.

To Promote the Progress: Why Do States Create New Intellectual Property Rights? ACES Working Papers, August 2012

The question I seek to answer is not about explaining support or resistance to the globalization or harmonization of IP rights. Rather, I am interested in new IP rights: what happened to cause a certain intangible to change from something that was not considered intellectual property to something that was considered intellectual property? Explaining the globalization or harmonization of already-existing IP rights is an important task, but fundamentally different than explaining why some things became intellectual property in the first place.