No abstract

During the last decades the map of Europe has changed considerably. New claims for independent statehood were brought forward and demanded for recognition. These claims had to be answered by the European Union and its member states. This article evolves around the idea that state recognition is as much a matter of politics as it is of law. It starts from the assumption that 'who we are defines what we see', claiming, that EUropean identity, the images the EU and the member states hold about themselves, shape the mental maps they hold of territories and space. Building on this identity a geopolitical imaginary is formed, which can be defined as ideas, allowing actors to ascribe meaning to territories, establish order in a seemingly chaotic world by means of classification and categorisation and allow to develop strategies for action. The geopolitical imaginary of EUrope contains the vision, that if all states were more like EUrope itself, the world would be a better place: a world determined not by power and coercion, but by rules, norms and values; with conflict mechanisms, not based on the rule of the strongest, but the rule of law; stability, created through common rules, negotiation and economic prosperity; and a determination not to let 'blunt power-politics' prevail. This imaginary shapes the way in which Europe makes meaning of claims for statehood and decides which claims to recognise as legitimate. The different elements of the imaginary sometimes contradict each other: law may have to take the back seat in the quest for stability or justice. Law is open to creative interpretations to allow the 'right' claims for recognition to prevail and the 'wrong' ones to be rejected The tool of recognition is caught between legal arguments and political considerations, between normative visions and pragmatic possibilities.

This article looks at forest policy as empirical case study of European integration. By applying different theoretical lenses of European integration approaches (neo-functionalism, liberal intergovernmentalism, three institutionalist approaches and constructivism), it seeks to explain and understand the integration of forest policy in the European Union during the policy’s emergence (1958 to 1960s), expansion (1970 to late 1990s) and stabilization period (late 1990s to now). The findings clearly show that, to a certain extent, all European integration theories have their merits for the analysis. However, none of the employed integration theories alone can explain all the relevant aspects of the broader developments in EU forest policy. No individual theory can help explain why forest policy developed only incrementally and why it has been weakly institutionalized. This article, therefore, argues to combine them so as to establish a clearer picture of the driving factors and constraints. As each of the grand theories has its weak spots, it is further argued that scholars of European studies should work across a broader theoretical spectrum as only this would allow light to be shed on blind spots in empirical investigation over longer time periods.

The importance of the paper is provided by the fact that multilingualism being one of the most important characteristics of the contemporary society envisages the study of two and more foreign languages at non-language higher education institutions. The present research aims to examine and reveal grammatical difficulties the students face while learning English as the first foreign language and Spanish and German as the second ones. The difficulties learners experience are mostly connected with interlanguage interference, in particular, Russian students' grammar interference. The methods used to achieve the goal focus on the analytical review of the contemporary research of the issue under study, the survey of the participants of the teaching experiment, and the method of mathematical statistics. The paper presents the findings of the experiment held by the Department of Foreign Languages at Law Institute of RUDN University (Peoples' Friendship University of Russia). The findings of the research can be used in teaching foreign languages for specific purposes in higher education institutions and as a ground for further development of the issue.

Since Ukraine became a sovereign State in 1991 it has had to ght serious economic, social and legal problems. The 'borderland' Ukraine had to nd its way out of the shadow of 'big brother' Russia and develop its own national identity. But also for Russia it was hard to accept an independent Ukrainian State. The peninsula of Crimea stands as a symbol for the dif cult situation Ukraine faces between the 'East' and the 'West', for the economic troubles, for the dif culties of transformation and for a variety of homemade problems, such as corruption and the acceptance of its own statehood. But it is also a symbol for the con icts between different ethnic groups and their quest for self-determination. Since 1991 the history of Crimea has been that of a ght by the Russian population of the peninsula for self-determination. It was also a ght of the Crimean Tatars to return to the land they see as their homeland, which they were forced to leave in 1944. The rst part of this article will therefore start out with a summary of the Crimean history, which will give an impression of how the situation on Crimea could develop into such a deep crisis such as emerged especially between 1991-1995. It will also take a closer look into the relationship between Russia and Ukraine after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its impact on the Crimean con ict. The second part draws upon international concepts of self-determination, including internal selfdetermination and autonomy and the design of Crimean autonomy in the Ukrainian constitution and legislation. This will be summed up through a critical approach towards Crimean autonomy within Ukraine. Although the relation between Russia and Ukraine will be a main aspect of this paper, it will not go into detail of the partition of the Black Sea Fleet. It is important to note, that Russia clearly connected the question of the status of Crimea and Sevastopol to the arrangements on the eet. 1 * The author studied law, political science and Russian at the University of Salzburg and Vienna. From 1998 to 1999 she worked as legal expert for the Ukrainian-European Policy and Legal Advice Centre (UEPLAC) in Kiev/Ukraine. At the moment she contributes to the European Union funded project for the 'Elimination of discrimination and the promotion of tolerance in Moscow' as a legal expert.