Abstract The redesign of data protection in the police and judicial area is intended to create uniformity at the European level for the citizens of EU Member States. This scientific article analyses the subject of data protection in law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The focus is primarily on the existing provisions and the latest developments of the EU with regard to Directive (EU) 2016/680 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA. The international level with regard to data protection in the police and judicial area and possible changes due to the developments in data protection under European law are also examined in more detail.
{"title":"Data Protection in Law Enforcement and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters","authors":"Rastislav Funta, Peter Ondria","doi":"10.2478/bjes-2021-0019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2021-0019","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The redesign of data protection in the police and judicial area is intended to create uniformity at the European level for the citizens of EU Member States. This scientific article analyses the subject of data protection in law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The focus is primarily on the existing provisions and the latest developments of the EU with regard to Directive (EU) 2016/680 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA. The international level with regard to data protection in the police and judicial area and possible changes due to the developments in data protection under European law are also examined in more detail.","PeriodicalId":29836,"journal":{"name":"TalTech Journal of European Studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"148 - 166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41317349","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Digitalisation is a challenge from the regulatory point of view. Competition law, as a special type of regulation, is no exception to this. The article explores the risks of digitalisation, especially the ones related to the enhanced use of pricing algorithms. In theory, pricing algorithms are not easily assessed from the perspective of competition law, let alone its application in practice. The prohibition of anticompetitive agreements (pursuant to Article 101 of the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)) is applied with certain difficulty to agreements created by using pricing algorithms. This is an unfortunate situation, as horizontal agreements represent one of the worst infringements of EU competition law, including price cartels or bid rigging. Apart from presenting a theoretical background, the article dives into the practice of the Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic (AMO) in order to assess which practical issues the AMO might face when applying the theoretical concepts. In sum, the article asks from a theoretical perspective which issues of competition law have been introduced (or deepened) by the enhanced digitalisation, looking in particular to pricing algorithms. On top of that, the article explores the issues which may be encountered in practice, taking the Slovak jurisdiction as the example. The willingness and feasibility of the AMO to enforce digital issues such as pricing algorithms is assessed based on the previous acts of the AMO as well as the new Act on Protection of Competition, adopted by the Slovak parliament on 11 May 2021.
{"title":"Enhanced Digitalisation and Competition Law Enforcement in Slovakia","authors":"M. Patakyová","doi":"10.2478/bjes-2021-0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2021-0016","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Digitalisation is a challenge from the regulatory point of view. Competition law, as a special type of regulation, is no exception to this. The article explores the risks of digitalisation, especially the ones related to the enhanced use of pricing algorithms. In theory, pricing algorithms are not easily assessed from the perspective of competition law, let alone its application in practice. The prohibition of anticompetitive agreements (pursuant to Article 101 of the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)) is applied with certain difficulty to agreements created by using pricing algorithms. This is an unfortunate situation, as horizontal agreements represent one of the worst infringements of EU competition law, including price cartels or bid rigging. Apart from presenting a theoretical background, the article dives into the practice of the Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic (AMO) in order to assess which practical issues the AMO might face when applying the theoretical concepts. In sum, the article asks from a theoretical perspective which issues of competition law have been introduced (or deepened) by the enhanced digitalisation, looking in particular to pricing algorithms. On top of that, the article explores the issues which may be encountered in practice, taking the Slovak jurisdiction as the example. The willingness and feasibility of the AMO to enforce digital issues such as pricing algorithms is assessed based on the previous acts of the AMO as well as the new Act on Protection of Competition, adopted by the Slovak parliament on 11 May 2021.","PeriodicalId":29836,"journal":{"name":"TalTech Journal of European Studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"83 - 101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46151308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Some recent views question the concept of sovereignty (especially the sovereignty of states), arguing that sovereignty is to be abandoned as a historical concept, because it existed in the world of the Westphalian system (created after 1648), where states were the major players, centers of power and objects of interest. Instead, we suggest that sovereignty should be perceived again as a “supreme power” (summa potestas), meaning a return to the pre-Bodinian concept of sovereignty and perceive it as a “power to exert control”. With regard to cyberspace, this does not mean direct control of all entities in the cyberspace, but only those that provide services which are perceived as “essential” or “critical” for the security and interests of the state. That is actually the approach taken with regard to ensuring the safety of 5G networks—through control imposed on the network operators, as required by the respective EU legislation and the EU Toolbox on 5G Networks specifically.
{"title":"5G and Digital Sovereignty of the EU: The Slovak Way","authors":"Tomáš Gábriš, Ondrej Hamuľák","doi":"10.2478/bjes-2021-0013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2021-0013","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Some recent views question the concept of sovereignty (especially the sovereignty of states), arguing that sovereignty is to be abandoned as a historical concept, because it existed in the world of the Westphalian system (created after 1648), where states were the major players, centers of power and objects of interest. Instead, we suggest that sovereignty should be perceived again as a “supreme power” (summa potestas), meaning a return to the pre-Bodinian concept of sovereignty and perceive it as a “power to exert control”. With regard to cyberspace, this does not mean direct control of all entities in the cyberspace, but only those that provide services which are perceived as “essential” or “critical” for the security and interests of the state. That is actually the approach taken with regard to ensuring the safety of 5G networks—through control imposed on the network operators, as required by the respective EU legislation and the EU Toolbox on 5G Networks specifically.","PeriodicalId":29836,"journal":{"name":"TalTech Journal of European Studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"25 - 47"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47994206","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The research problem of this article focuses on how the public support system in Estonia can help small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to acquire and commercialise their intellectual property rights (IPR) in a sustainable and legally permissible manner. The study aims to analyse and determine which specific public support measures are needed by SMEs for acquiring and commercialising IPR and how to design such public support within the legal boundaries set under European Union (EU) laws. The theoretical framework used in this study is built around the social system as defined by Parsons. The 4S Model (based on scope, scale, skill and social networking) derived by researchers from the said social system is considered. Further, 19 key attributes were devised by the authors in conjunction with the role of motivation to form a revised framework. The analysis employs qualitative research methods. To apply the framework of social systems theory, the authors used semi-structured interviews as a method to study the public support measures required by Estonian stakeholders. This was also analysed in the framework of EU State aid law, which poses both restrictions and exemptions. This research presents several desired support measures. Although the public support systems for acquiring and commercialising IPR by SMEs are restrained by legal frameworks within the EU, the analysis of the relevant laws and cases shows that State aid for RDI purposes is legally permissible within the EU, depending on the state’s willingness and availability of funds.
{"title":"The Legal Implications of Public Support Policies Targeting Research, Development and Innovation in the European Union","authors":"P. Dutt, Katrin Nyman-Metcalf","doi":"10.2478/bjes-2021-0017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2021-0017","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The research problem of this article focuses on how the public support system in Estonia can help small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to acquire and commercialise their intellectual property rights (IPR) in a sustainable and legally permissible manner. The study aims to analyse and determine which specific public support measures are needed by SMEs for acquiring and commercialising IPR and how to design such public support within the legal boundaries set under European Union (EU) laws. The theoretical framework used in this study is built around the social system as defined by Parsons. The 4S Model (based on scope, scale, skill and social networking) derived by researchers from the said social system is considered. Further, 19 key attributes were devised by the authors in conjunction with the role of motivation to form a revised framework. The analysis employs qualitative research methods. To apply the framework of social systems theory, the authors used semi-structured interviews as a method to study the public support measures required by Estonian stakeholders. This was also analysed in the framework of EU State aid law, which poses both restrictions and exemptions. This research presents several desired support measures. Although the public support systems for acquiring and commercialising IPR by SMEs are restrained by legal frameworks within the EU, the analysis of the relevant laws and cases shows that State aid for RDI purposes is legally permissible within the EU, depending on the state’s willingness and availability of funds.","PeriodicalId":29836,"journal":{"name":"TalTech Journal of European Studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"102 - 129"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43486203","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Viktorija Skvarciany, D. Jurevičienė, Rima Žitkienė, Indrė Lapinskaitė, Ugnė Dudė
Abstract The article aims to propose a different approach to assessing smart cities which combines some commonly used indicators with several new ones in line with the concept of sustainability. The aspect of sustainable development as an essential driver for the smart city and the combination of indicators for sustainable and smart city concepts have been analysed fragmentarily so far. There are many different approaches to evaluate the indicators of city smartness; however, very little attention is paid to the analysis of the reciprocal importance of the indicators. Ten indicators representing a smart city were selected that would be keep in line all the three pillars of sustainability—environmental, social, and economic. An expert survey was conducted to assign the weights of indicators using the pairwise comparison approach. The results were processed by utilising the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP), which reduces the subjectivity in the experts’ answers. The presented approach differs from the ones commonly used and while it does not cover a wide range of usual indicators, it proposes some new ideas for further research. Some represent cities to attract young and intelligent citizens, others relate to comfortable and safe living conditions and the environmental situation. The results revealed that the most vital smartness indicators are foreign direct investments, pollutant emission, and the share of people registered as unemployed among the working-age population. These indicators cannot be easily identified as ones representing a smart city, but rather as indicators representing investment and environmental, sustainable aspects. Hence, finding a balance between the indicators related to sustainable and smart city is what highlights the need for further research.
{"title":"A Different Approach to the Evaluation of Smart Cities’ Indicators","authors":"Viktorija Skvarciany, D. Jurevičienė, Rima Žitkienė, Indrė Lapinskaitė, Ugnė Dudė","doi":"10.2478/bjes-2021-0018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2021-0018","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article aims to propose a different approach to assessing smart cities which combines some commonly used indicators with several new ones in line with the concept of sustainability. The aspect of sustainable development as an essential driver for the smart city and the combination of indicators for sustainable and smart city concepts have been analysed fragmentarily so far. There are many different approaches to evaluate the indicators of city smartness; however, very little attention is paid to the analysis of the reciprocal importance of the indicators. Ten indicators representing a smart city were selected that would be keep in line all the three pillars of sustainability—environmental, social, and economic. An expert survey was conducted to assign the weights of indicators using the pairwise comparison approach. The results were processed by utilising the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP), which reduces the subjectivity in the experts’ answers. The presented approach differs from the ones commonly used and while it does not cover a wide range of usual indicators, it proposes some new ideas for further research. Some represent cities to attract young and intelligent citizens, others relate to comfortable and safe living conditions and the environmental situation. The results revealed that the most vital smartness indicators are foreign direct investments, pollutant emission, and the share of people registered as unemployed among the working-age population. These indicators cannot be easily identified as ones representing a smart city, but rather as indicators representing investment and environmental, sustainable aspects. Hence, finding a balance between the indicators related to sustainable and smart city is what highlights the need for further research.","PeriodicalId":29836,"journal":{"name":"TalTech Journal of European Studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"130 - 147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48870826","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract On 18 November 1918, the independent Republic of Latvia was declared in an extremely complicated international and domestic environment—the First World War was still going on, empires were collapsing, and ethnically and ideologically diverse military troops were fighting within the boundaries of Latvian territory. Despite the historical context of a previously tense relationship between Latvians and other ethnic groups, representatives of all minorities fought next to Latvians against the enemies of the Latvian state. Up until 11 August 1920, when the Peace Treaty with the Soviet Russia was signed, the prospects of de jure recognition of the newly established state were blurred; yet, the defeat of the White forces in the Russian Civil War opened the long awaited “window of opportunity”, as a result of which Latvia managed to achieve its international recognition on 26 January 1921. More than seventy years later, on 4 May 1990, when the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Supreme Council of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR), the international and domestic situation was no less complicated. Latvia was forcefully incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1940 and became part of it, yet the economic and political deterioration of the Soviet Union, the national awakening in the Baltic States and other Soviet republics alongside the fall of the Berlin Wall gave momentum for the regime to change. On 21 August 1991, after the barricades and bloody clashes with the Soviet Special Purpose Police Units (OMON) in Riga on January and the failed coup d’état in Moscow in August, Latvia’s independence once again became a reality. In the events of the 1990s, the memories of 1918 and Latvia’s independence in the period between the two world wars were crucial. It is manifested by the fact that Latvian statehood in 1991 was not established anew but restored. Acknowledging the importance of history on contemporary identification and policy-making, this article aims to provide an insight into the history of 1917–1922 and its resonance in the contemporary situation. Using the methodology of literature analysis and historical process-tracing it will reveal the complicated process of the state’s formation and recognition in the period of 1917–1922, paying particular attention to the role of the minorities and diplomatic efforts. It will also uncover the resonance of the events of 1918–1922 in the 1990s, when Latvia’s independence from the Soviet Union was declared, focusing in particular on aspects defining the statehood of Latvia and its citizenship. In this part, it will be argued that the history of 1917–1922 was brought back when the statehood of Latvia was concerned, while overshadowed by fifty years of the Soviet occupation, when the citizenship issue was on the agenda. Indeed, not only ethnic Latvians but also minorities living in Latvia played a decisive role in the efforts of restoring Latvia’s independence. However, as a result of the
{"title":"The Emergence and Restoration of the State: Latvia in 1918 and 1990","authors":"Andrejs Gusachenko, Vineta Kleinberga","doi":"10.2478/bjes-2021-0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2021-0005","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract On 18 November 1918, the independent Republic of Latvia was declared in an extremely complicated international and domestic environment—the First World War was still going on, empires were collapsing, and ethnically and ideologically diverse military troops were fighting within the boundaries of Latvian territory. Despite the historical context of a previously tense relationship between Latvians and other ethnic groups, representatives of all minorities fought next to Latvians against the enemies of the Latvian state. Up until 11 August 1920, when the Peace Treaty with the Soviet Russia was signed, the prospects of de jure recognition of the newly established state were blurred; yet, the defeat of the White forces in the Russian Civil War opened the long awaited “window of opportunity”, as a result of which Latvia managed to achieve its international recognition on 26 January 1921. More than seventy years later, on 4 May 1990, when the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Supreme Council of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR), the international and domestic situation was no less complicated. Latvia was forcefully incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1940 and became part of it, yet the economic and political deterioration of the Soviet Union, the national awakening in the Baltic States and other Soviet republics alongside the fall of the Berlin Wall gave momentum for the regime to change. On 21 August 1991, after the barricades and bloody clashes with the Soviet Special Purpose Police Units (OMON) in Riga on January and the failed coup d’état in Moscow in August, Latvia’s independence once again became a reality. In the events of the 1990s, the memories of 1918 and Latvia’s independence in the period between the two world wars were crucial. It is manifested by the fact that Latvian statehood in 1991 was not established anew but restored. Acknowledging the importance of history on contemporary identification and policy-making, this article aims to provide an insight into the history of 1917–1922 and its resonance in the contemporary situation. Using the methodology of literature analysis and historical process-tracing it will reveal the complicated process of the state’s formation and recognition in the period of 1917–1922, paying particular attention to the role of the minorities and diplomatic efforts. It will also uncover the resonance of the events of 1918–1922 in the 1990s, when Latvia’s independence from the Soviet Union was declared, focusing in particular on aspects defining the statehood of Latvia and its citizenship. In this part, it will be argued that the history of 1917–1922 was brought back when the statehood of Latvia was concerned, while overshadowed by fifty years of the Soviet occupation, when the citizenship issue was on the agenda. Indeed, not only ethnic Latvians but also minorities living in Latvia played a decisive role in the efforts of restoring Latvia’s independence. However, as a result of the ","PeriodicalId":29836,"journal":{"name":"TalTech Journal of European Studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"55 - 78"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41560458","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract After World War I, many borders in Europe were redrawn, especially in the northeast and southeast of Germany. Almost all political forces in Germany strived to restore the prewar German borders, especially towards Poland. Even Poland’s very existence was denied by many German political forces. The Baltic States were less important for Germany in this respect. Here the relationship with the Baltic Germans and trade relations prevailed. The independence of these states was in the eyes of German elite subordinated to the relations with Russia. The article presents this pattern of German policy until the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922.
{"title":"The Emergence of New States in Eastern Europe after World War I: The German Impact","authors":"K. Ziemer","doi":"10.2478/bjes-2021-0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2021-0007","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract After World War I, many borders in Europe were redrawn, especially in the northeast and southeast of Germany. Almost all political forces in Germany strived to restore the prewar German borders, especially towards Poland. Even Poland’s very existence was denied by many German political forces. The Baltic States were less important for Germany in this respect. Here the relationship with the Baltic Germans and trade relations prevailed. The independence of these states was in the eyes of German elite subordinated to the relations with Russia. The article presents this pattern of German policy until the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922.","PeriodicalId":29836,"journal":{"name":"TalTech Journal of European Studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"93 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44569239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The year of 1918 was a crucial point in the history of Europe. Its importance does not only stem from the end of World War I, but also from the establishment of new states. Eastern Europe was particularly an arena where many new states emerged after the dissolution of tsarist Russia. The abovementioned process was correlated with the outcome of World War I (the defeat of the Central Powers on the Western Front and their victory on the Eastern Front against the tsarist Russia resulting in imposing their protectorate over Eastern Europe) but simultaneously it was influenced by the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution originating from a structural crisis of Russia. The legacy of nation-building processes, taking place in the period of 1917–1921 in the European part of the tsarist Russia— even when some of the states did not manage to survive— occupies a key role in the historical memories of those countries. The importance of this legacy originates from the fact that these states often constituted the most progressive nation-building efforts in the world. The wider context of these developments and the important interlinkages existing between them are very often unfamiliar to many Europeans today. Despite that, the state-building attempts, undertaken in Eastern Europe between 1917 and 1921, had a huge impact on the trajectory of European history. Contextualising this particular academic enquiry with the events of 1918 and benefiting from methodological advantages of process tracing, our project represents an attempt to restore (or, if necessary, build from scratch) a communicational system for sending a historical message to a wider Europe. A century after, while celebrating the Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Polish truly big anniversaries in 2017–2018, Europeans have already forgotten how interconnected and interlinked the 1918-bound events had been and by how much those events had affected the entire European continent as well as the international system.
{"title":"The Emergence of New States in Eastern Europe in 1918—Lessons for All of Europe","authors":"Adam Balcer","doi":"10.2478/bjes-2021-0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2021-0001","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The year of 1918 was a crucial point in the history of Europe. Its importance does not only stem from the end of World War I, but also from the establishment of new states. Eastern Europe was particularly an arena where many new states emerged after the dissolution of tsarist Russia. The abovementioned process was correlated with the outcome of World War I (the defeat of the Central Powers on the Western Front and their victory on the Eastern Front against the tsarist Russia resulting in imposing their protectorate over Eastern Europe) but simultaneously it was influenced by the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution originating from a structural crisis of Russia. The legacy of nation-building processes, taking place in the period of 1917–1921 in the European part of the tsarist Russia— even when some of the states did not manage to survive— occupies a key role in the historical memories of those countries. The importance of this legacy originates from the fact that these states often constituted the most progressive nation-building efforts in the world. The wider context of these developments and the important interlinkages existing between them are very often unfamiliar to many Europeans today. Despite that, the state-building attempts, undertaken in Eastern Europe between 1917 and 1921, had a huge impact on the trajectory of European history. Contextualising this particular academic enquiry with the events of 1918 and benefiting from methodological advantages of process tracing, our project represents an attempt to restore (or, if necessary, build from scratch) a communicational system for sending a historical message to a wider Europe. A century after, while celebrating the Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Polish truly big anniversaries in 2017–2018, Europeans have already forgotten how interconnected and interlinked the 1918-bound events had been and by how much those events had affected the entire European continent as well as the international system.","PeriodicalId":29836,"journal":{"name":"TalTech Journal of European Studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"3 - 9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49124531","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The article discusses the attitude of the USA towards the newborn independent Baltic States in 1918–1922 using the most devastated of them—Latvia—as an example. Relations between Latvia and the United States in 1918–1922 reflect Latvia’s intense foreign policy efforts to ensure its political and social development through relations with one of the world’s most influential and powerful economies in spite of the United States’ reserved behavior. In addition, this unique era in Latvia and the Baltic States as a whole (influenced by the Soviet Russian and German factors, war and its aftermath, and the ethnically diverse and complicated social situation) illustrates the specifics of US policy towards Eastern Europe and Russia.
{"title":"The Attitude of the United States to the Baltic Region in 1918–1922: The Example of Latvia","authors":"Ē. Jēkabsons","doi":"10.2478/bjes-2021-0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2021-0006","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article discusses the attitude of the USA towards the newborn independent Baltic States in 1918–1922 using the most devastated of them—Latvia—as an example. Relations between Latvia and the United States in 1918–1922 reflect Latvia’s intense foreign policy efforts to ensure its political and social development through relations with one of the world’s most influential and powerful economies in spite of the United States’ reserved behavior. In addition, this unique era in Latvia and the Baltic States as a whole (influenced by the Soviet Russian and German factors, war and its aftermath, and the ethnically diverse and complicated social situation) illustrates the specifics of US policy towards Eastern Europe and Russia.","PeriodicalId":29836,"journal":{"name":"TalTech Journal of European Studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"79 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42717887","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In advancement of interpretable machine learning (IML), this research proposes local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME) as a new visualization technique in a novel informative way to analyze the foreign direct investment (FDI) inflow. This article examines the determinants of FDI inflow through IML with a supervised learning method to analyze the foreign investment determinants in Hungary by using an open-source artificial intelligence H2O platform. This author used three ML algorithms—general linear model (GML), gradient boosting machine (GBM), and random forest (RF) classifier—to analyze the FDI inflow from 2001 to 2018. The result of this study shows that in all three classifiers GBM performs better to analyze FDI inflow determinants. The variable value of production in a region is the most influenced determinant to the inflow of FDI in Hungarian regions. Explanatory visualizations are presented from the analyzed dataset, which leads to their use in decision-making.
{"title":"Interpretable Machine-Learning Approach in Estimating FDI Inflow: Visualization of ML Models with LIME and H2O","authors":"Devesh Singh","doi":"10.2478/bjes-2021-0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2021-0009","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In advancement of interpretable machine learning (IML), this research proposes local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME) as a new visualization technique in a novel informative way to analyze the foreign direct investment (FDI) inflow. This article examines the determinants of FDI inflow through IML with a supervised learning method to analyze the foreign investment determinants in Hungary by using an open-source artificial intelligence H2O platform. This author used three ML algorithms—general linear model (GML), gradient boosting machine (GBM), and random forest (RF) classifier—to analyze the FDI inflow from 2001 to 2018. The result of this study shows that in all three classifiers GBM performs better to analyze FDI inflow determinants. The variable value of production in a region is the most influenced determinant to the inflow of FDI in Hungarian regions. Explanatory visualizations are presented from the analyzed dataset, which leads to their use in decision-making.","PeriodicalId":29836,"journal":{"name":"TalTech Journal of European Studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"133 - 152"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41884212","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：