The 13th of September marked the 26th anniversary when in front of the White House the “Oslo Accords” were signed. Following two years of difficult negotiations hindered by judicial bureaucracy, mutual mistrust and century old inertial mindsets, the Israeli minister of foreign affairs, Shimon Peres – on behalf of Tel Aviv and Mahmoud Abbas, the current president of the State of Palestine – on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization – signed the so called “Declaration of Principles on a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Arrangements”.

Today we are witnessing the dynamic of a phenomenon that has already taken shape – migration – a phenomenon whose target is primarily Europe. Even if modern history shows Europe as one of the main migrant ”suppliers”, for the last few decades it has become the main destination for the continuous and diverse influx of people who, for reasons that we already know, decided to leave their countries and roam, hoping that the “new European El Dorado” would offer them what they could not have in their countries of origin.

What was expected (especially from the three presidents - Recep Tayyp Erdogan, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin) happened, even sooner than the most optimistic expert evaluations. Exactly two weeks after its launch, the operation ”Peace Spring” in northern Syria, meant to remove the Kurdish ”terrorists” from the northern border between the Syrian Kurdistan and Turkey ended, because ”it was no longer necessary”.

Operation "Peace Spring" in the Northeast of Syria has been commenced with the aim of securing Turkey’s borders by eliminating terrorist elements of PKK/YPG and ISIL and to ensure the safe return of Syrian refugees as well as Syria’s territorial integrity.

Abstract
In this article, we highlight the main vulnerabilities to security and cooperation at the level of the European Union, referring to the stages of (re)defining and delimiting the internal and external borders of the European Union. Our objective is to identify the EU’s main steps regarding the management of internal and external borders, in the context of the migration crisis and the delimitation of the external border of the EU after the production of Brexit. Our analysis highlights the main steps and improvements that have contributed to achieving a security, freedom and justice environment within the Union, but which still needs support from the Member States in order to become stronger.
Keywords: borders, migration crisis, Brexit, European Union

In this article, we highlight the need for a multidisciplinary approach, together with the use of complex tools from the EU and the Member States to combat terrorism and the phenomenon of radicalization in prison. Our aim is to identify the main vulnerabilities to the extension of the two phenomena into a universal prison. Our analysis captures the main risks to the post-detention reintegration process, thus emphasizing the need to individualize the instruments and programs of disengagement and de-radicalization. Referring to the EU’s efforts to combat terrorism, we identify the main shortcomings represented by the lack of a unitary, coherent and transnational approach that would facilitate the exchange of information and expertise between Member States.

The relations between Turkey and the EU have a long history, dating back to the late 1950’s when Turkey first applied for associate membership of the EU (it was then the European Economic Community-EEC) on 31 July 1959.

The 30th of September 2019 marked four years since President Vladimir Putin approved the Russian military intervention in Syria. The decision was officially based on the request of the Syrian government for military assistance against “foreign conspiracies” - mostly Western - that threatened the independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Syria, as well as against “domestic terrorism and Islamist radical Jihad supported by foreign powers and forces”.

Brexit signifies more than the technical complexities of the United Kingdom withdrawing from the European Union: it is an ideological phenomenon, constructed both from within and outside the UK. The present article sets out to map some of the main evolutions possible for Britain and the EU in the context of the Brexit crisis that seems to enter its final stage as the 31stdeadline looms ahead. The analysis focuses also on the morphology of the British political landscape, which experienced some turbulence that propelled observers to question its stability. By anchoring the Brexit crisis into a national intellectual history, and exposing the different strands of British Euro-scepticism, we also set out to shed some light on the forces that drive this race forward. The review of potential developments highlights the chasm between the expectations of the many groups and political sensibilities that Brexit momentarily federated, albeit without offering any substantial formula for a real, lo

With a history equally rich and intensely, almost obsessively evoked in the discourse regarding European unity, our title phrase has a simple yet valuable meaning. It basically refers to the European Union and to all declaratory, legal or pragmatic actions that are adequately and rigorously taken so that this “union” is protected from trivialities, rendered efficient, and perceived in an equal and unbiased manner by all the parties that willingly joined it - the European citizens and the countries they belong to.