Науковий журнал
жүктеу/скачать 1.25 Mb.
|
- Бұл бет үшін навигация:
- Н АУКОВИЙ ЖУРНАЛ ЄВРОПЕЙСЬКІ ІСТОРИЧНІ СТУДІЇ
- Європейські історичні студії: науковий журнал. – № 2. – К., 2015. – 272 с. УДК 94 Тематика
- Висвітлюються європейські інтеграційні процеси, зовнішня політика країн Європейського Союзу, євроінтеграція України, європейська історія та міжнародні відносини. Редакційна колегія
- Адреса редакційної колегії
- European historical studies: scientific journal. – № 2. – K., 2015. – 272 p. UDK 94
- Зміст Європейська інтеграція: історія та сучасність Rina Banti
- Алла Киридон
- Андрій
- Богдана
- Актуальні проблеми європейської історії та міжнародних відносин Наталія Городня
- Яна Золотарьова
- Олег Машевський, Валерій
- Larisa Zarichnyak
- Alla Kyrydon
- Bogdana Sypko
- Actual problems of European history and international relations Natalia Horodnya
- Artem Koshelev
- Oleg Mashevskyy, Valeriy Chernyaev
- Європейська інтеграція: історія та сучасність УДК 94(410) Rina Banti
- Development of immigration legislation
| КИЇВСЬКИЙ НАЦІОНАЛЬНИЙ УНІВЕРСИТЕТ ІМЕНІ ТАРАСА ШЕВЧЕНКА
ІСТОРИЧНИЙ ФАКУЛЬТЕТ КАФЕДРА НОВОЇ ТА НОВІТНЬОЇ ІСТОРІЇ ЗАРУБІЖНИХ КРАЇН Н  АУКОВИЙ ЖУРНАЛ
ЄВРОПЕЙСЬКІ ІСТОРИЧНІ СТУДІЇ ЕЛЕКТРОННЕ ВИДАННЯ №2 – 2015 Рекомендовано Вченою радою Київського національного університету імені Тараса Шевченка до поширення через мережу Інтернет (протокол № 3 від 5 жовтня 2015 р.) Європейські історичні студії: науковий журнал. – № 2. – К., 2015. – 272 с. УДК 94 Тематика згідно з галуззю науки «07.00.00 – Історичні науки» відповідно до чинного переліку галузей наук. Висвітлюються європейські інтеграційні процеси, зовнішня політика країн Європейського Союзу, євроінтеграція України, європейська історія та міжнародні відносини. Редакційна колегія Машевський О. П. д-р іст. наук, проф. (КНУ імені Тараса Шевченка) (голова редколегії) Мартинов А. Ю. д-р іст. наук, проф. (Інститут історії України НАНУ) (заступник голови редколегії) Купчик О. Р. к.і.н., доц. (КНУ імені Тараса Шевченка) (заступник голови редколегії) Пількевич В. О. к.і.н., ас. (КНУ імені Тараса Шевченка) (відповідальний секретар) Банті Р. доктор філософії (Історія) (Міністерство освіти Ізраїлю, Єрусалим, Ізраїль) Гасимли М. Джафар огли – д-р іст. наук, проф. (Бакинський Державний Університет, Азербайджан) Добронські А. Ч. д-р габілітований, проф. (Університет м. Білосток, Республіка Польща) Дьомін О. Б. д-р іст. наук, проф. (Одеський національний університет ім. І. Мечникова) Іванов О. Ф. к.і.н., доц. (КНУ імені Тараса Шевченка) Капелюшний В. П. д-р іст. наук, проф. (КНУ імені Тараса Шевченка) Кожокару Л. Д. д-р іст. наук, доц. (Державний університет Молдови, Кишинів, Молдова) Малько В. доктор філософії (Історія) (Каліфорнійський університет, Фресно, США) Миронович Є. д-р габілітований, проф. (Університет м. Білосток, Республіка Польща) Мордвінцев В. М. д-р іст. наук, проф. (КНУ імені Тараса Шевченка) Патриляк І. К. д-р іст. наук, проф. (КНУ імені Тараса Шевченка) Руккас А. О. к.і.н., доц. (КНУ імені Тараса Шевченка) Слюсаренко А. Г. д-р іст. наук, проф., акад. НАПН України (КНУ імені Тараса Шевченка) Ставнюк В. В. д-р іст. наук, проф. (КНУ імені Тараса Шевченка) Хакаміес П. д-р іст. наук, проф. (Університет Турку, Фінляндія) Щербак М. Г. д-р іст. наук, проф. (КНУ імені Тараса Шевченка) Яровий В. І. д-р іст. наук, проф. (КНУ імені Тараса Шевченка)
Бурьян М. С. д-р іст. наук, проф. (ЛНУ ім. Тараса Шевченка) Потєхін О. В. д-р іст. наук, проф., головний науковий співробітник Інституту всесвітньої історії НАН України
01601, Київ, вул. Володимирська, 60, Київський національний університет імені Тараса Шевченка, історичний факультет, кафедра нової та новітньої історії зарубіжних країн Тел. (044) 239 34 24, e-mail: european.historical.studies@gmail.com Сайт журналу: http://www.eustudies.history.univ.kiev.ua Засновник: Київський національний університет імені Тараса Шевченка Видавець: історичний факультет, кафедра нової та новітньої історії зарубіжних країн Періодичність наукового видання – тричі на рік. Recommended by the Academic Council of Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University to spread through the Internet (Protocol № 3 of October 5, 2015) European historical studies: scientific journal. – № 2. – K., 2015. – 272 p. UDK 94 Topics under the branch of science "07.00.00 - Historical sciences" according to the current list of sciences. Highlights European integration process, foreign policy of the European Union, the European integration of Ukraine, European history and international relations. Editorial board Mashevskyy O. P. Sc. D. (History), Professor (Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University) (Chairman of Editorial Board) Martynov A. Y. Sc. D. (History), Professor (Institute of History of Ukraine NASU) (Deputy Chairman of Editorial Board) Kupchik O. R. Ph.D. (History), associate professor (Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University) (Deputy Chairman of Editorial Board) Pilkevich V. O. Ph.D. (History), assistant professor (Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University) (executive secretary) Banti R. Ph.D (History), Ministry of Education of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel) Gasimli M. Jafar oglu Sc. D. (History), Professor (Baku State University, Azerbaijan) Dobronski Charles A. Sc. D. (History), Professor. (University of Bialystok, Poland) Demin O. B. Sc. D. (History), Professor (Odessa Mechnikov National University) Ivanov O. F. Ph.D. (History), associate professor (Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University) Kapelushnyi V. P. Sc. D. (History), Professor (Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University) Cojocaru L. D. Sc. D. (History), associate professor (State University of Moldova, Chisinau, Moldova) Malko W. Ph.D. (History), associate professor (University of California, Fresno, United States) Myronovych E. Sc. D. (History), Professor (University of Bialystok, Poland) Mordvintsev V. M. Sc. D. (History), Professor (Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University) Patryliak I. K. Sc. D. (History), Professor (Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University) Rukkas A. O. Ph.D. (History), associate professor (Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University) Slyusarenko A. G. Sc. D. (History), Professor, Acad. NAPS Ukraine (Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University) Stavnyuk V. V. Sc. D. (History), Professor (Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University) Hakamies P. Sc. D. (History), Professor (University of Turku, Finland) Shcherbak M. G. Sc. D. (History), Professor (Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University) Yaroviy V. I. Sc. D. (History), Professor (Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University) Recommended by Academic Council of the Faculty of History, Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University to spread through the Internet (Protocol number 2 of оctober 22, 2015) Reviewers: Buryan M. S. Sc. D. (History), Professor (Lugansk Taras Shevchenko National University) Potekhin O. V. Sc. D. (History), Professor, Chief Researcher (Institute of World History NASU)
01601, Kyiv, Vladimirska str., 60, Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University, Faculty of History, Department of Modern and Contemporary History of foreign countries Phone: (044) 239 34 24, e-mail: european.historical.studies@gmail.com Web-page: http://www.eustudies.history.univ.kiev.ua Founder: Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University Publisher: Faculty of History, Department of Modern and Contemporary History of Foreign Countries Frequency of scientific journal – three times a year. Зміст Європейська інтеграція: історія та сучасність Rina Banti Thatcher's government immigration policy as an example of national priorities maintenance in view of European Union ..6 Алла Киридон Європейська ідентичність: структурування смислового простору 26 Dmytro Lakishyk The key factors of european caution towards american interventionism 54 Андрій Мартинов «Пан’Європа» Ріхарда Куденхова-Калергі та започаткування процесу європейської інтеграції 69 Євгеній Сафар’янс Австрія у складі Європейського Союзу 92 Богдана Сипко “Європа європейська” у візії Шарля де Голля (за матеріалами фонограм офіційних виступів) ………………………….. ..103 Сергій Толстов Процеси розширення ЄС в історичній ретроспективі ……..118 Вячеслав Ціватий Інституціональний і політико-дипломатичний досвід європейської інтеграції Естонії (1991 – 2015 рр.) 137 Актуальні проблеми європейської історії та міжнародних відносин Наталія Городня Переговори держав Антанти з Українською Народною Республікою в кінці 1917 – на початку 1918 рр. 161
у форматі НБСЄ (1975 – 1985 рр.) 177 Артем Кошелев Легітимізація суб’єктивності історика у європейській та американській постмодерній теорії історичних досліджень 188
й радянські республіки «постімперського простору» у налагодженні офіційних відносин з УСРР (1919 – 1923 рр.) 200
військово-морська співпраця в період Першої світової війни 216 Ірина Татарко Болгарські села Ізмаїльської області УРСР в період колективізації (друга половина 40 – 50-ті рр. ХХ ст.) 231 Larisa Zarichnyak Violence and the UPA Woman: Experiences and Influences 243 Наші автори 268 Вимоги до оформлення статей для публікації в журналі 270 Contents European Integration: Past and Present Rina Banti Thatcher’s government immigration policy as an example of national priorities maintenance in view of European Union 6 Alla Kyrydon European identity: structuring of the semantic space 26 Dmytro Lakishyk The key factors of european caution towards american interventionism 54 Andrey Martynov Pan’ Europe of Richard Kudenhov-Kalergi and establishment of process of european integration 69 Eugene Safar'yans Austria in the European Union 92 Bogdana Sypko “European Europe” by Charles de Gaulle (based on phonograms of official statements) 103 Sergey Tolstov EU enlargement process in historical retrospective 118 Vyacheslav Tsivatiy Institutional, political and diplomatic experience of the european integration of Estonia (1991 – 2015) 137 Actual problems of European history and international relations Natalia Horodnya Antanta nations’ negotiations with Ukrainian People’s Republic in late 1917 – early 1918 161 Yana Zolotaryova US participation discussions on human rights in the CSCE (1975 – 1985) 177 Artem Koshelev The legimitization of the subjectivity of the historian in the European and american postmodern theory of historical research 188 Oleg Kupchik Democratic states and soviet republics of post russian imperial space in establishment of official relations with Soviet Ukraine in 1919 – 1923 200
in the First World War 216 Iryna Tatarko Bulgarian village Izmail region of USSR during collectivization (second half of 40 - 50-ies. XX century) 231 Larisa Zarichnyak Violence and the UPA Woman: Experiences and Influences 243 Information about the authors 268 Європейська інтеграція: історія та сучасність УДК 94(410) Rina Banti Ph. D. (History), Ministry of Education of Israel M. THATCHER'S GOVERNMENT IMMIGRATION POLICY AS AN EXAMPLE OF NATIONAL PRIORITIES MAINTENANCE IN VIEW OF EUROPEAN UNION This article analyses the unique features of M. Thatcher's government approach in the area of national legislation aimed at reduction of colour immigration from former British colonies to the UK in view of the EU general requirements on 'open-door' policy development for the member-states. The article also highlights 'new' measures taken by the Conservatives especially the deportation and the illegal immigration fight directed towards the protection of the British national priorities in spite of the government's obligations in the framework of the EU legislation. Keywords: colour immigration, the British Commonwealth of Nations, citizenship, Conservatives, Great Britain, M. Thatcher, the European Union, 'open-door' policy, illegal immigration, deportation. Britain's experience under M. Thatcher's leadership is remarkable due to its being an EU member-state and recognizing an open-door policy, on the one hand, while restricting the rights of those who entered its borders and, on the other hand, Thatcher managed to refuse those, who had a perfect right to immigrate. V. Bevan, University of Sheffield expert on British law, gives the following definition of 'an open-door policy': «An open-door policy does not mean that aliens are unrestricted in what they can do once admitted or that they are free from the possibility of explosion. Thus, the grant of citizenship may be denied to them or carefully regulated, their economic activities may be circumscribed, e.g. by the payment of extra taxes, the denial of trading licenses, an obligation to train local workers in their business; legal, civic and political rights» [2, p.29–30]. In order to understand particularity of the approach taken by Thatcher's government in terms of colour immigration and the measures taken to prevent former British colonies dark-skinned people from entering the country, we should briefly recall basic legal functions of the European Union, which Britain joined in 1973, dealing with entrance and residence rights, free movement, employment and social benefits. The European Union (EU) is an autonomous and supra-national establishment having uniform and unitary legal norms. Its two basic law regulations are European Union Law based on the Foundation Treaties and National Law based on the EU Constitution which are independent from one another. The Treaty of Rome (1957) defined filling of gaps principles in the subsidiary legislation of the EU member-states. The European Commission functions as a 'watchdog' handling the EU violations. And if necessary, it can bring legal actions to the European Court of Justice, powers of which were allocated to it by the national states to solve issues. Interaction between the Court and local legal systems consists in creating new legal rights and responsibilities which, in their turn, penetrate in their legislative field and influence local legal norms being, in such a way, a powerful stimulus of national sovereignty restriction. It should be noted that despite the Rome Treaty provisions on workers' free movement within the EU member-states (Article 48 and 49), abolishment of any obstacles to free movement of people, goods, services and capital (Article 3) and a ban against any kind of discrimination based on ethnic background (Article 12) [38], rights of individuals weren't granted. These legal regulations just outlined the objectives which should be achieved by certain EU member-states or the time limits within which they should be achieved. The Court of Justice didn't stop the functioning of these obligations, even though it decreed that national states could exclude people going on a premise of public policy, security or health. One way or another, all mentioned above principles could be contested in the national state courts. The Treaty of Rome, Article 48, entitled the workers who already had a job to enter the country. The second provision of Directive 68/360/EEC gave citizens and their families the right to leave their territory in order to engage into a job search and undertake a job on the territory of other EU member-states [38]. British immigration rules restricted this period up to 6 months. Within this period all the EU citizens had to be given a work permission or they were required to leave the country. Thereafter, British Immigration Act of 1988 annulled a demand to leave the country for the EU nationals. Freedom of movement of workers couldn't be realized only through common entrance and residence regulations. Equality of applications meant abolition of obstacles to workers mobility to realize their rights on family reunion as well as measures meant to help a family to integrate in a host country. Article 5 of the Treaty stated that applicants, not being the EU citizens, should be given an assistance in a job search. Direct or indirect discrimination on the ground of a national identity was banned by Article 70 of the Treaty. These principles, stated in the British legislation, were not actively followed both by member-states and by Britain itself. Expenses of new immigration, confirmed in all the EU normative acts, and alleged high social benefits for foreign workers required from the UK to change the situation when receiving individual had to provide for their relatives from non-member states. Development of immigration legislation Starting from the late 40s and till 60s of XX century mass immigration from Asia and Africa to the United Kingdom led to a social tension in a British society. As a protective counter-measure aiming at reduction of colour population, British authorities had to restrict the right for this category of people to enter the «mother country», which they had as ex empire subjects. The Commonwealth Immigrants Acts of 1962 and 1968 became first legislative measures aiming at prevention and reduction of colour immigrants` number from the New Commonwealth. Anti-immigration measures reached their climax on passing of The Immigration Act 1971 which came into effort in 1973 under E. Heath's conservative government, that shared the positions of the right-wing representative – Enoch Powell [22, p.68]. Enoch Powell very often used the term 'Britishness' in order to outline more tightly the frontiers of the identity around the British Isles and disengage Britain from any obligations to colour nationals inherited from the empire. Strongly criticizing the immigration policy of the two ruling parties for a failure to stop colour immigration, Powell, in the words of R. Cohen, "developed the theme of 'an alien wedge', which threatened the notion of legality that had hitherto informed the British national culture" [3, p.77]. Powell succeeded in touching the nerve of popular sentiments among representatives of almost all parties and in having a significant impact on strengthening of a negative attitude of natives towards colour immigrants] 31, p.373–374, 377]. As D. Studlar notes, Powell managed to fuel electors' sentiments and direct their votes to the Conservative Party, which served as a key factor of 1970 general elections victory [32, p.44–64]. Discriminating 'partial' principle of Immigration Act of 1971 dividing citizens into two groups on the ground of skin colour, pursued a hidden goal to stop colour immigration to Britain. This Act gave a right of abode in the country for "partials" – the UK and Commonwealth nationals who had been residents for 5 or more years or gained citizenship through naturalization or registration (it related only to a small qualified number of non-white citizens) as well as to those who became citizens through their background. Almost all individuals from that category were descendants of white British settlers. At the same time, this Act denied that right to «non-patrials», most of which were colour citizens, e. g. were descendants of dark-skinned British colonies residents. Despite such kind of classification, the idea of «partiality» helped to avoid apartheid labels and include a small group on a non-racial ground [16]. Having introduced the status of "non-patrials" from the Commonwealth countries, Immigration Act of 1971 levelled their rights to the rights of alien workers from Germany and other European countries. At that time "non-patrials", the Commonwealth citizens and foreigners could enter Britain on equal terms. None of them had a right to become a resident or bring their family. The Act de jure increased the number of people who could enter Britain without control but, in fact, it related only to those who had close links with the UK, i. e. mostly to citizens of European descent, presence of whom didn't raise any fears [26, p.46– 47]. On January 1st 1973 the Great Britain entered the European Economic Community as an equal member. Once it agreed to recognize free movement of labour principles within the EU, the EU nationals – Germans, Spaniards, Greeks and Italians – were granted a right of free entry to settle there. The position of the United Kingdom in respect of the dark-skinned immigrants, intensively becoming its citizens during the 60s – 70s, differed sharply from the position in respect of the white immigrants from the European countries. I. Spencer notes that weakening of immigration restrictions for 200 million people from the countries with which Britain used to be at war, sparked some public outcry [30, p.144]. The dramatic alternation in immigration issues observed during the second half of the 1970s as well as a conflict on the racial grounds between extreme right-wing and extreme left-wing forces in 1977 gave legitimacy to a demand to introduce a strict control over the colour immigration in Margaret Thatcher's election campaign in 1979. Qualitative difference of 'new' Conservative' position on immigration issues turned on closer associations of the Conservative Party with Powell's ideas. To play with 'Powellism' more openly, taking into account unpredictable outcomes of the politics of the streets and perhaps open racial violence, was unpredictable and even dangerous. Since that moment 'immigration and race' issue became a common topic of new Conservatives' debates. M. Thatcher in her TV interview in January 1978 admitted that she herself firmly linked to that tradition. Referring to the trends in New Commonwealth and Pakistani immigration, she stated: «I think it means that people are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture … the British character has done so much for democracy, for law and done so much throughout the world that if there is any fear that it might be swamped people are going to react and be rather hostile to those coming in» [21]. That was exactly the message that most part of British electors wanted to hear. If previous Immigrants Acts led to cessation of the British Caribbean population immigration based on 'breadwinner' format, then it went about control strengthening over Indian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani spouses and dependants who wanted to join their breadwinners in Britain. Right after the Conservatives came into office, Home Secretary W. Whitelaw proposed on December 4th 1979 to adopt «White Paper on Proposals for Revision of the Immigration Rules», passed later by the House of Commons [15]. New measures restricted the entry of dependants (women and children) of the immigrants from the British Commonwealth of Nations and marriageable young men from the Indian subcontinent. In Whitelaw's opinion those citizens right to entry was the result of British imperialistic legacy [8, cols.253–382; 15]. Labour Party politician Eric Deakins noted in his critical speech that new measures obviously violated Articles 3, 8 and 14 of The European Convention on Human Rights and were of racist, humiliating and inhuman nature since they infringed on rights of Asian women and the elderly. In spite of the fact that the government realized that they could be accused of discrimination and Asian women-immigrants' complains could reach The European Court of Human Rights, new Conservative authorities were firm in their deeds aimed at ultimate stopping of colour immigration. The government officials who realized the immigration policy, were recommended to openly explain the effects of marriage institution abuse by immigrants. At a later time, new Immigration Rules adopted by the British Parliament in 1980 were changed in 1983 in the light of demands of The European Court of Human Rights [9, cols.360–431; 10, cols. 360–375]. Thatcher's government success in the field of immigration consisted in passing The Nationality Act in 1981 which came into force on January 1st 1983 [11; 12]. This Act changed a definition of the British nationality functioning since 1948 in accordance with which all empire nationals could become permanent residents of the UK. Despite the fact that this Act was rather a tool to balance nationality definitions which had to be in line with a developing immigration legislative practice rather than an immigration act, it served for many years as the main act regulating immigration issues. Tough immigration policy followers represented by the ruling Conservative party managed to re-shape British national identity and coordinate it with geographical frontiers of the UK. Thus, the right of former UKC nationals to settlement was dramatically restricted, at the same time, the act enabled the British «partials» from «Old Dominions» (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) to immigrate to Britain and register as British citizens. Usage of such terms as 'blood', 'family' and 'relatives' enabled to differentiate between 'insiders' and 'outsiders' and precisely define the category of people who should have a right of abode. New British nationality definition based on the discriminative grounds enabled the Conservatives to realize their strategic intention to reduce colour immigration stated in Clause 4 of The Conservative Party General Election Manifesto [4]. In 1986, Britain signed the Single European Act (SEA), Article 8a of which stated that the internal market shall comprise «an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty» [37, p.228]. Stephen Wall notes in his memoirs that in Foreign Office workers' opinion this definition didn't guarantee freedom of movement for all EU nationals independent of their looking for a job or not, let alone the Third World citizens living on the EU territory [39, p.70]. Despite the fact that this statement was not legally sustained and merely was of political agreement nature, Britain tried to backstop the security of its internal interests by the following phrasing in the Resolutions-Declaration of the Act: «Nothing in these provisions shall affect the right of Member States to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of controlling immigration from third countries, and to combat terrorism, crime, the traffic in drugs and illicit trading in works of art and antiques» [37, p.1070]. In Geoffrey Howe's opinion (the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary), the outcome of the European summits discussions on this issue which took place on the 2nd-3rd December 1985 could be called satisfactory and the United Kingdom achieved all its goals. In particular he said: «National competence on frontier controls against terrorism, crime, drugs and immigration from outside the Community was not affected. Furthermore, the arrangements (the 'Luxembourg compromise') by which a member state could invoke a very important national interest had not been challenged or changed» [34, p.418]. Nevertheless, the European Commission never shared British position, while the Court of Justice held the common member-states opinion on the commitment to frontier-free travel zone idea, in other words, absence of passport control for EU nationals or Third World nationals who met the requirements for entering the EU member-states at their first visit. This concept was not accepted by Margaret Thatcher. A passport check by immigration service officers was an important impediment for those who tried to violate the law and had to be detained. The UK Home Office understood the real meaning of this position aiming at control maintaining both over international criminals and traffic in drugs and illegal immigration. The Immigration Act passed on May 10th 1988 became another conservative government legislation initiative [18]. This Act annulled the right of New Commonwealth immigrants, settled in Britain before 1973, to bring their families and obliged them to provide evidences of having decent housing facilities and financial ability to support their dependants. In accordance with the new provisions, illegal entry and abode or legal entry but postliminary failure to comply with abode requirements could be legally punished. It only related to colour New Commonwealth citizens while EU citizens were no longer required to leave the country. жүктеу/скачать 1.25 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|