2008. vol. 3. No. 3

B. Zhelezov, Deputy Vice-Rector of the State University – Higher School of Economics, MBA, PhD in Political Science

The paper is focused on the processes of reforming and modernization of the EU higher education area through the analysis of the extent and impact of higher education curricular reform across Europe. The analysis is based on the results from the international study implemented by the request of the European Commission and Directorate-General for Education and Culture of the European Commission in 2006. The major objective of the study was to gain more insight into curriculum reform developments at the level of five selected study areas to evaluate progress made and to try to discover “what works”. The five study areas were medicine, law, engineering, teacher training and history. The general objectives of the study are the following: What is the general national picture regarding curricular reform, notably with respect to the five study areas and what evidence is available on their impact? What is the state of the art of reform in the five study areas at the level of the higher education institutions? What are the impacts of the reforms? What are references of good performance in terms of the impacts?

V. Zuev, Head of Chair of  International economic organizations and European integration of the SU-HSE World Economics and International Affairs Faculty

The paper describes the principle of the EU decision-making process as a unique mechanism of the European integration. The latter is of fundamental importance for the overall European Union structure functioning. Author reviews main achievements recently made by EU in the area of development and improvement of the EU decision-making mechanism. The EU decision-making process and its different structural elements can be applied to a range of fields such as economy and policy, science and education, and even to the everyday communication interpersonal practices. The paper reveals the main procedures and stages of the EU policy-making process aimed to meet interests of different countries with a different political weight. Focusing on the main functions and responsibilities of the European Council and Parliament and European Commission author illustrates his thoughts and conclusions with a variety of examples of policy-making process across European Union.

Olga Perfilieva, Deputy-Director of the Center for Cooperation with OECD (OECD-HSE Partnership Centre), International Organizations Research Institute, State University - Higher School of Economics. Post-graduate Studies (PhD) in Sociology

The paper presents the key results from the monitoring of the implementation of the EU programme “Education & Training 2010” during the last two-year period. It examines the main aspects of the programme implementation on the overall European as well as on the national level. It summarizes further political steps and perspectives to be implemented for the future European education and training system development before and after 2010. 

As the final 2008 joint progress report shows the most part the EU member countries could provide positive results from the later two-year period of the EU programme implementation. While the progress achieved by different countries in separate programme’s strands as experts noted doesn’t prove the overall positive changes across Europe and must be strengthened in future.

The paper attempts to address the following questions: What programme’s strands enjoyed most positive results and had been developed better during the time period considered? And which of them are remained insufficiently developed? How effective were the national political steps of different countries? What is the national context for the EU programme “Education & Training 2010” main goals delivery and implementation? As well as how reachable the priority for the lifelong learning development in Europe can be? And how it is possible to provide the favorable conditions to deliver lifelong learning for knowledge, creativity and innovation in Europe?

E. Panova, Russian Academy of Public Service under the President of the Russian Federation, post-graduate student

Counterfeiting and piracy have reached intolerable proportions in the world. The economic and social well-being of each country is at risk. Development of the criminal industry has changed society vision of the threat and further strengthened a role of Customs services throughout the world in struggle against this 21st-century crime. In this connection in 2006 the World customs organization (WCO) has lead the first analysis of seizures of counterfeit goods on a worldwide scale.

During last 10 years the WCO has made a vigorous effort to protect intellectual property rights in partnership with other international organizations and representatives of a private sector. The only effective riposte to counterfeiting as to 21st-century crime is targeted and concerted international action.

The tendencies revealed by WCO within the analysis are important for the decision of two basic problems of struggle against distribution of counterfeit goods: search of adequate measures used by countries and informing interested parties on the situation.