This article aims to investigate the phenomenon of the rule of law promotion exercised by the EU through the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements (DCFTAs). First, the article emphasizes the unique combination of normative and market power the EU uses to diffuse its norms through trade liberalization. Next, it provides an insight into the particularities of the European Neighbourhood Policy as a policy context for the conclusion and implementation of the Association Agreements, including the DCFTAs with Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, as well as the conceptual problematic and scope of the rule of law as a value the EU seeks to externalize. Using the DCFTAs with Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia) as a single group case study of the transparency dimension of the rule of law, the central part of the article analyzes the DCFTAs substantive requirements, directed toward promoting transparency in the partner states (while categorizing the requirements into the most general ones; cooperation-related; and discipline-specific) and the legal mechanisms that make these clauses operational (e.g., the institutional framework of the AAs, gradual approximation and monitoring clauses, and the Dispute Settlement Mechanism). In concluding, the article summarizes the state-of-the-art of the rule of law promotion through the DCFTAs, distinguishes the major challenges the respective phenomenon faces, and emphasizes the prospects for and difficulties of using the DCFTAs as an instrument of rule of law promotion.
Progesterone (P4) is responsible for the main reproduction processes. Concentration of P4 varies widely among different determination methods, and interpretation of these values may be difficult. The objective of the current study was to assess the agreement of three different enzyme immunoassays (ELISA) in relation to radioimmunoassay (RIA) of P4 concentration assessment of beef cow serum samples. Samples were collected randomly considering high (pregnant cows) and low (non-pregnant cows) P4 concentrations. Depending on the P4 assessment method, four groups were created as follows: Group 1 – direct samples assessed by ELISA, Group 2 – extracted samples assessed by ELISA, Group 3 – samples assessed by automated ELISA, and Group 4 – samples assessed by RIA.
The mean progesterone concentration was 4.50 ng/mL, 1.24 ng/mL, 4.07 ng/mL and 4.39 ng/mL from Group 1 to Group 4, respectively. The mean difference (MD) between Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3 individually compared with Group 4 was −0.10 ± 1.24 ng/mL, 3.15 ± 3.58 ng/mL and 0.33 ± 1.42 ng/mL, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the differences (s) was from −0.99 to 0.78 ng/mL, from 0.59 to 5.71 ng/mL, and from −0.69 to 1.34 ng/mL, respectively. The confidence interval for the lower and upper limit of the agreement ranged from −4.12 to −1.05 ng/mL and from 0.84 to 3.91 ng/mL between Group 1 and Group 4, from −8.45 to 0.42 ng/ mL and from 5.88 to 14.75 ng/mL between Group 2 and Group 4, from −4.29 to −0.76 ng/mL, and from 1.41 to 4.94 ng/mL between Group 3 and Group 4.
Our findings show that the best agreement with RIA was observed for Group 1 and Group 3, while the agreement in the extraction method was least accurate.
The article describes the Roman Catholic understanding of the ecumenical dialogue as stated in the Decree on ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council and in further documents of the RC Church. This ecumenical dialogue may be conducted only among Christian Churches and Church Communities as it aims the restoration of full visible unity of Christians.
The dialogue should primarily lead to the common rediscovery of the truth, and never to any kind of establishing the truth, of elaborating it or reaching the compromise. The true dialogue has nothing to do with negotiating the common position, where each party wants to force oneself upon another and to make the less concessions possible. This is because we cannot reduce the requirements of the Gospel to any kind of necessary minimum, a common basis recognized by all the churches and ecclesial communities.
Such a dialogue contains its inner dynamics, its existential dimension. The truth is personal, as Christ himself is the Truth, so the search for unity belongs to the proper essence of being a Christian. So the ecumenical dialogue is “an imperative of Christian conscience” (John Paul II), so it is something that inevitably ought to be taken and accomplished by Christians.
The ecumenical dialogue however is not the goal for itself. Neither it is only mutual recognition of Christian Communities or even common prayer. The common aimis the restoration of full visible unity of divided Churches. On the way of ecumenism we cannot limit to the prayer or the ecumenical dialogue. On the contrary – we should develop all the possible ways of collaboration, because unity of action leads to the full unity of faith. Neither the unity nor uniformity of doctrine or churchly traditions, but only the unity in one faith is the far-reaching goal of the ecumenical dialogue.
The documents of the RC Church give also clear hints how to lead the ecumenical dialogues: the dialoguing parties must be expert in theology, seeking the truth, not a victory, moving from easier topics to the more diffcult ones, trying to use the language free of polemical connotations.
Before the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church didn’t lead any offcial ecumenical dialogue, what didn’t mean the lack of any ecumenical encounters. The first ones, however, were unoffcial and did not engage the offcial Church authority. Widespread engagement in the ecumenical dialogues in the time of popes Paul VI and John Paul II can be justly perceived as a direct fruit of the Second Vatican council and its Decree on ecumenism.
During the decades the commissions of dialogue have already elaborated thousands of pages of common statements and agreed declarations. The Churches must be however aware, that without strong effort of reception of these documents in their midst, the fruits of the dialogues will have no infuence on the reconciliation of Christians in one faith.
Even if there may be some kind of deception because of slowness of ecumenical process, we can be certain that meetings in the dialogue enabled Christians of various Churches an Church Communities to grow towards full, visible unity wanted by our Lord for His disciples.
The article shows that during the forming of grammatical category of gender in Indo-European languages, names of non-living objects and names of those animals whose sex is unimportant for humans were receiving grammatical meanings of gender on the basis of similarity or dissimilarity of designated objects with males or females. Such grammatical metaphors were based on the ideas of different peoples about some minor characteristics of persons of different sex, such as the difference between men and women with higher activity, greater size, strength and independence. By now, the metaphorical motivation of category of gender in the Russian language has survived only in certain nouns. These nouns are interrogative pronouns кто (masc.) ʻwhoʼ and что (neut.) ʻwhatʼ, paired nouns-synonyms, e. g. конь (masc.) ʻstrong horseʼ – лошадь (fem.) ʻordinary horseʼ, generic versions of nouns, e. g. ворон (masc.) ʻravenʼ – ворона (fem.) ʻcrowʼ, and nouns-occasionalisms used in speech oriented to expressiveness and creativity.