How Policies Shape Foreign Direct Investment from Latin America to the European Union

2014 ◽  
pp. 155-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Clifton ◽  
Daniel Díaz-Fuentes ◽  
Julio Revuelta
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
The European Union

OPINION 2/15 OF THE CJEU: DELINEATING THE SCOPE OF THE NEW EU COMPETENCE IN FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT

2018 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-32
Author(s):  
Rumiana Yotova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

ON 16 May 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its Opinion 2/15 concerning the competence of the EU to conclude the Free Trade Agreement with Singapore (EUSFTA) (ECLI:EU:C:2017:376). The Opinion was requested by the Commission which argued, with the support of the European Parliament (EP), that the EU had exclusive competence to conclude the EUSFTA. The Council and 25 of the Member States countered that the EUSFTA should be concluded as a mixed agreement – that is, by the EU and each of its members – because some of its provisions fell under the shared competence of the organisation or the competence of the Member States alone.

scholarly journals Foreign Direct Investment Between Asian Developing Countries and the EU Member States: The Role of Integration Processes

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-23
Author(s):  
Janina Witkowska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
East Asia ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Western Asia ◽  
The Eu

This article discusses the conditions surrounding the flow of foreign direct investment (FDI) between the developing countries of Asia (East Asia, South-East Asia, Southern Asia, and Western Asia) and the countries with membership in the European Union (EU), including the so-called ‘new’ Member States (EU12). At the intra-regional and inter-regional levels, the flow is especially affected by the world economic crisis, which has effected changes in the positions of the analyzed countries on a global scale. The integration processes taking place in the EU also significantly affect the intensity of FDI flow within the group, while the processes taking place in the developing countries of Asia are not yet sufficiently enough advanced to significantly affect the flow of FDI. Inter-regional FDI flows take place between the subject regions and sub-regions. The observed phenomenon of emerging Asian net exporters of capital in the form of FDI to the European Union may be strengthened by the process of Asian integration. For the new EU Member States the developing Asian countries may constitute an alternative source of capital in the crisis conditions.

Tiptoeing the Line Between National Security and Protectionism: A Comparative Approach to Foreign Direct Investment Screening in the United States and European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (02) ◽  
pp. 105-117
Author(s):  
Jason Jacobs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
National Security ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
The U.S

AbstractWeaponization of state-backed, foreign investments by China is an emerging national security threat in the United States and the European Union. The U.S. and E.U. have espoused similar policy goals—to address the threat without closing their markets to foreign direct investment—while fostering increased cooperation between allied partners in screening transactions.On the surface, the recent, China-specific measures taken by the U.S. and the investment screening framework adopted by the E.U. appear reflective of an alignment of those policy goals. Indeed, many commentators have suggested that is exactly what is happening. However, closer examination reveals a stark divergence. The U.S. has a robust screening mechanism that has evolved into a weapon of economic warfare. The E.U. meanwhile, remains a patchwork of conflicting—or nonexistent—national regulations overlaid by a comparatively toothless investment screening framework.There is a tendency to attribute this divergence to structural differences between the United States and European Union. This in-depth comparison of U.S. and E.U. investment screening mechanisms exposes a split that goes beyond application and into actual policy. This revelation should temper expectations that the E.U. is equipping itself to block transactions that are of concern to the U.S.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document