<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Scientific works (starting from 1873) of famous economists and political philosophers based on theoretical/philosophical considerations about the preconditions of changes on world economy of scope stipulate the inclusive analysis of factors which possibly influence the challenges of society and economy in the 21st century. It is very modern to claim that manifestation of globalisation is the origin of all changes. The European Commission states that about one-fifth of the increase in the economies of EU countries over the past 50 years depends on integration of the world economy, that is, globalisation. Taking this into account, the article presents theoretical considerations about the possible impact of globalisation on Europe’s economic development. Three scientific problems are raised: Does globalisation affect economic growth and how could this process be managed? Which are the derivatives of globalisation that influence positive changes in a country’s economy? Is it possible to eliminate or diminish the effect of the more negative aspects of globalisation? Among the research methods used in the article are theoretical comparative analysis of the scientific works, and analysis of legal documents as well as strategies and practical papers in this field. The article also presents three tasks: to systematise arguments presented in existing scientific works (theories) as well as in EU initiatives considering the phenomenon of globalisation, to highlight the tendencies in Europe’s economic development that are associated with globalisation, and to present recommendations for managing the influence of globalisation to the development of EU’s economy. The article presents systematised arguments of published scientific works (theories) as well as EU initiatives considering the phenomenon of globalisation. The impact, positive as well as negative, of globalisation on the development of economy is highlighted and the criteria for the manifestation of globalisation is systematised. This instrument could be used to assess the impact of globalisation on economic development </abstract>

Theoretical Considerations about the Possible Impact of Globalisation on Europe’s Economic Development

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The European Union (EU) has faced not only the international financial crisis, but also the European banking and the sovereign debt crisis. A lack of efficient regulations and supervision were a serious cause of recent developments. As a reaction, the EU finally implemented a framework covering both micro- and macro-prudential policies. Measures such as the new capital requirements, the deposit guarantee schemes, the green paper on shadow banking and, most importantly, the new approach for a macro-prudential supervision are headed towards crisis prevention. However, the challenge is to define regulations enhancing financial stability, which, at the same time, do not prevent institutions from generating reasonable financial risks and do not reduce growth. In that regard, the presented measures still have deficits which have to be faced. Furthermore, coordination between various authorities and the European Commission remains another challenge.</abstract>

Financial and Banking Regulation and Supervision within the EU

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">This study focuses on the relation between the Committee of the Regions (CoR), an advisory institution of the European Union defined as the political assembly of holders of a regional or local electoral mandate serving the cause of European integration, and the democratic deficit, understood as the effective ways of citizens’ participation in the institutional decision making. The work hypothesis is that the CoR, in spite of being mostly unknown to citizens, could be an effective tool for tackling the democratic deficit. Through qualitative interviews and surveys at different levels, the article analyzes the current situation and the potential opportunities of the CoR in its relation with citizens.</abstract>

The Committee of the Regions: A Springboard for the Citizens

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Debates about the democratic legitimacy of the European Union (EU) have been prevalent amongst scholars since its beginning. Students have analysed the legitimacy of the EU in terms of various normative criteria. But how is the EU legitimated in individual Member States and more so in an economic and sovereignty crisis when loyalties are particularly tested? The current study sheds light on it, scrutinising the conceptions associated with the EU in a country case of Estonia. Discourse analysis is used as a methodological tool to analyse the political discourse in printed media. The results indicate that the legitimation of the EU is derived from its output-oriented strategies, seeing the EU largely in instrumental terms.</abstract>

The European Union in the Estonian Public Discourse

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">This paper focuses on the public diplomacy (PD) practices of the EU-a supranational regional organisation confronted with two distinct challenges. First, the EU aims to reform its external action in order to become a global power and leader in the changing multipolar world. Second, it purports to fight the ongoing economic crisis that not only weakens the actual global capabilities of the EU, but damages its international image and reputation as a power and a leader. The paper assumes the potential of EU PD tools in meeting these challenges and tests this assumption in one case study of international public opinion on the EU in its immediate neighbourhood (Ukraine). Importantly, the study confronts an additional challenge: EU PD is described in the relevant literature to be a disjointed, under-resourced and overlooked policy area.</abstract>

National Centre for Research on Europe, University of Canterbury Kirkwood Village KD04, Christchurch, New Zealand

Department of International Relations, Tallinn University of Technology Akadeemia tee 3, Tallinn 12618, Estonia

The EU in the Eyes of Ukrainian General Public: Potential for EU Public Diplomacy?

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Explaining the withdrawal of his signature from the Estonian- Russian Border Agreement, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov announced on June 27, 2005 that “they in the EU might have succumbed to the temptation of telling us to ratify it […] on your side also, with some interpretations attached, so that the treaty can enter into force. To stop the EU from falling into this temptation, we have withdrawn our signature. There will be no treaty”. Thus, Moscow actually punished the European Union, which seems logical as with regard to geopolitics and geostrategy, the border negotiations were held in the buffer zone between the European Union and Russia. In 2004-2005 Russia held simultaneous and also interconnected border negotiations with Japan, China, Kazakhstan, Latvia and Estonia, with agreements eventually signed only with China and Kazakhstan. Failures with Japan, Latvia and Estonia derived from Moscow’s position to keep all gains of World War II. At the same time Russia had related all its foreign affairs with the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II held in Russia, which was curiously used by the young Georgian leader Mikheil Saakashvili, whose quick and clear manoeuvres approved by the West turned the ordinary Rimland country Georgia into a classic geopolitical pivot. And all this was done at the expense of Russia’s influence. The highlight of the process was Saakashvili’s statement that he will come to Moscow on May 9th only if Russia agrees to withdraw its military bases from Georgia. The Kremlin considered it best to agree, however, as the European Council aside the US, uniting the problems of Estonia, Latvia and the non-EU member Georgia, also began to praise the latter for overcoming Russia, Moscow decided to punish the nearest available EU member in the given situation by withdrawing its signature from the Russian-Estonian border treaty.</abstract>

Geopolitics Taking the Signature from the Russian-Estonian Border Treaty (2005)

BOOK REVIEWS: Ramiro Troitiño, David. European Integration: Building Europe

BOOK REVIEWS: Ludvig, Zsuzsa (ed.) Eurasian Challenges: Partnerships with Russia and Other Issues of the Post-Soviet Area

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 13 (2023): Issue 2 (December 2023)

Volume 13 (2023): Issue 1 (June 2023)

Volume 12 (2022): Issue 2 (December 2022)

Volume 12 (2022): Issue 1 (May 2022)

Volume 11 (2021): Issue 2 (September 2021)

Volume 11 (2021): Issue 1 (May 2021)

Volume 10 (2020): Issue 3 (December 2020)

Volume 10 (2020): Issue 2 (September 2020)

Volume 10 (2020): Issue 1 (June 2020)

Volume 9 (2019): Issue 4 (December 2019)

Volume 9 (2019): Issue 3 (September 2019)

Volume 9 (2019): Issue 2 (September 2019)

Volume 9 (2019): Issue 1 (June 2019)

Volume 8 (2018): Issue 2 (September 2018)

Volume 8 (2018): Issue 1 (June 2018)

Volume 7 (2017): Issue 2 (October 2017)

Volume 7 (2017): Issue 1 (June 2017)

Volume 6 (2016): Issue 2 (October 2016)

Volume 6 (2016): Issue 1 (February 2016)

Volume 5 (2015): Issue 2 (October 2015)

Volume 5 (2015): Issue 1 (February 2015)

Volume 4 (2014): Issue 2 (October 2014)

Volume 4 (2014): Issue 1 (June 2014)

Volume 3 (2013): Issue 3 (December 2013)

Volume 3 (2013): Issue 2 (October 2013)

Volume 3 (2013): Issue 1 (June 2013)

TalTech Journal of European Studies

 TalTech Journal of European Studies (abbreviation TJES) is a semiannual international peer-reviewed research journal (formerly known as the Baltic Journal of European Studies and Proceedings of the Institue for European Studies) with an international editorial office and extensive international editorial board. The journal is abstracted in SCOPUS, Web of Science (Emerging Sources Citation Index) and other relevant databases. Since 2020, the scope of the journal is related to digitalisation and technology implementation and their impact in the social, legal, political, economic and cultural domains in the European Union and its Member States. We kindly encourage members of the academic community to contribute to our journal. Papers submitted to the forthcoming issues will be reviewed by eminent scholars in the particular field under strict supervision of the international editorial board. Special issues    TJES 2022 Special Issue on Technology Governance will be guest edited by Dr Nikita SW Chiu (University College Dublin Innovation Academy). See the Call for Papers.  BJES 2013 Vol. 3 Issue 3 was guest co-edited by Natalia Chaban and Martin Holland (University of Canterbury, New Zealand)  BJES 2014 Vol. 4 Issue 2 was prepared in cooperation with Latvian European Community Studies Association (LECSA)  BJES 2017 Vol. 7 Issue 2 has been supported by the European Commission’s Jean Monnet Module “Digital Single Market as a New Core of European Union Studies”, project reference number 587255-EPP-1-2017-1-EE-EPPJMO-MODULE.   BJES 2018 Vol. 8 Issues 1 and 2 have been supported by the project ‘Digital Single Market as a Key Element in EU-oriented Georgian Higher Education’ (no. 155-2016-A), funded by the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the framework of Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid.      Why submit  TJES is an effective channel of academic dissemination as it is widely read and distributed through Baltic and European research networks and libraries and read by policy makers as well.  Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. 