2019 Vol. 11 №2

In this article, we study the political and legal model currently used by Norway in its Northern counties. This work is a part of comprehensive research supported by the Russian Science Foundation. Our study aims to provide a historical perspective to the model of Nor­way’s national ethnic policy in the Northern counties by identifying the operational capabili­ties and assessing the efficiency of these models amid increasing migration flows and changes in the country’s socio-economic environment. The methods we use in this multidisciplinary study are situated at the interface of national and international law, political science, history, and sociology. They include the comparative historical method (the dynamics of ethno-political processes), the systemic method (ethic policy in the framework of target-based pro­gramme management), the comparative law method (a comparison of national legal systems and international contractual standards), the value and norm-driven method (ethnic policy viewed through the prism of public good), institutional method (the role of political institu­tions), and the secondary analysis of sociological data. We also rely on qualitative methods, namely, the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data on ethnic diasporas living in the North of Norway. As a result, we establish that the Kingdom of Norway has a unified ap­proach to national ethnic policy, which rests on self-confessed multiculturalism. However, different ethnic political models are applied in the case of certain ethnic groups. Today, against the background of declared state multiculturalism and integration, the models of ac­culturation and non-violent assimilation are both operational in Norway. There are sporadic expressions of nationalism and voluntary segregation. We conclude that, despite a unified approach to ethnic policy and despite Norway’s political and legal achievements in the pro­tection of indigenous peoples’ rights, the country’s government carries out a differentiated ‘hybrid’ ethnic policy towards ethnic groups living on its territory. The growing infighting between the right and the left parties in the Storting translates into unpopular and spur-of-the-moment political decisions as regards inter-ethnic relations.

The 2015 migration crisis significantly affected the EU’s area of freedom, security, and justice and challenged the cohesion and solidarity of the European Union. Although the crisis is past its peak, it is not over yet: problems and challenges associated with it persist. One of them is the lack of a common approach among member states to the implementation of the principle of solidarity in the EU area of immigration and asylum. This work aims to consider the legal and political aspects of the implementation of the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility in the area of immigration and asylum. This study relies on the works of Russian and international experts in European integration and European law and on the analysis of EU regulations. There are two dimensions to the implementation of the princi­ple of solidarity: the political and legal ones. The legal perspective provides certain clarity to the issue. According to the European Court of Justice, this principle is binding: it is capable of imposing the legal obligation of solidarity. However, as to the political perspective, mem­ber states have not been able to reach compromise. Although it is possible to introduce a permanent relocation mechanism using qualified majority voting, the Council usually seeks consensus. In this situation, the goal of the EU is not to ensure the right decision but rather to create conditions for it to be implemented by all the member states.

The Kaliningrad region stands out for its history and geographical location. In the post-war period, the region was completely repopulated. People from many parts of Russia and other republics of the former USSR were recruited to develop the new territory. Although demographic processes and migration in the Kaliningrad region have been studied in detail, we believe that census and micro-census data can significantly advance the current knowledge of this unique region. This holds true for the data relating to the results of pre-survey migration. This approach differs markedly from traditional migration studies in Rus­sia, which rely on migration flow data, in both data sources and migration criteria employed. Our study uses the place of birth data from the 1989, 2002, and 2010 censuses and the 1994 and 2015 microcensuses. We conclude that the proportions of residents born locally and in post-Soviet Asian countries have been increasing in recent decades. At the same time, the contribution of the natives of Belarus and Ukraine to the region's population is rapidly de­clining, largely due to the change of generations having a different migration history.