Motives, Roles, Effectiveness and the Future of the EU as an International Mediator

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 319-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arne Niemann ◽  
Toni Haastrup ◽  
Julian Bergmann

AbstractThis article concludes this special issue on the European Union as international mediator that set out to advance our theoretical and empirical knowledge aboutEUmediation. Providing a comprehensive reflection ofEUmediation activities and the diverse settings where they take place, this concluding article identifies some connection points between the articles and discusses their findings on the motives/drivers, roles/strategies, effectiveness and institutional capacities ofEUmediation. It discusses the implications of these findings for policymaking, focusing on the conditions forEUmediation effectiveness, the advantages of the multi-layered nature ofEUmediation and the need for flexible adaptation of mediation strategies. Finally, the article sets the scene for future research endeavors onEUmediation by identifying three future research avenues that focus on the politics, domestic effects and comparative advantage of theEUas international mediator.

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 701-725
Author(s):  
Matteo La Torre ◽  
Svetlana Sabelfeld ◽  
Marita Blomkvist ◽  
John Dumay

Purpose This paper introduces the special issue “Rebuilding trust: Sustainability and non-financial reporting, and the European Union regulation”. Inspired by the studies published in the special issue, this study aims to examine the concept of accountability within the context of the European Union (EU) Directive on non-financial disclosure (hereafter the EU Directive) to offer a critique and a novel perspective for future research into mandatory non-financial reporting (NFR) and to advance future practice and policy. Design/methodology/approach The authors review the papers published in this special issue and other contemporary studies on the topic of NFR and the EU Directive. Findings Accountability is a fundamental concept for building trust in the corporate reporting context and emerges as a common topic linking contemporary studies on the EU Directive. While the EU Directive acknowledges the role of accountability in the reporting practice, this study argues that regulation and practice on NFR needs to move away from an accounting-based conception of accountability to promote accountability-based accounting practices (Dillard and Vinnari, 2019). By analysing the links between trust, accountability and accounting and reporting, the authors claim the need to examine and rethink the inscription of interests into non-financial information (NFI) and its materiality. Hence, this study encourages research and practice to broaden mandatory NFR practice over the traditional boundaries of accountability, reporting and formal accounting systems. Research limitations/implications Considering the challenges posed by the COVID-19 crisis, this study calls for further research to investigate the dialogical accountability underpinning NFR in practice to avoid the trap of focusing on accounting changes regardless of accountability. The authors advocate that what is needed is more timely NFI that develops a dialogue between companies, investors, national regulators, the EU and civil society, not more untimely standalone reporting that has most likely lost its relevance and materiality by the time it is issued to users. Originality/value By highlighting accountability issues in the context of mandatory NFR and its linkages with trust, this study lays out a case for moving the focus of research and practice from accounting-based regulations towards accountability-driven accounting change.


HortScience ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Halil Fidan

A missing component of existing research on Turkey's citrus products is examination of their revealed comparative advantage (RCA). Such information would enable a comparison of Turkey and EU-15 countries in regard to citrus sector competitiveness. Therefore, this study calculates the RCA for citrus products and explores their competitiveness as well as components of their competitive performance. RCAs for citrus trade performances of both EU-15 countries and Turkey are examined, and the sources of export performance and competitiveness are newly presented. The results indicate that the principle of comparative advantage is a useful tool for understanding the future of citrus agriculture in EU-15 countries and Turkey. In line with the assumption that the dynamics of comparative advantage have become increasingly transparent as citrus markets have become less fettered by government trade, this study uses an RCA index to investigate the patterns of comparative advantage in the EU-15 countries and Turkey in regard to citrus exports. Since the beginning of the Entry Price System in the European Union in 1995, significant changes in citrus export performance have occurred. The RCA index of the Turkish citrus sector within EU-15 countries (RCAe) shows that Greece, Spain, Italy, and Portugal are Turkey's main competitors. The RCAe index and relative trade advantage index indicate that Turkey's competitive power is greater than those of Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal in lemon/limes and grapefruit exports.


Author(s):  
S. Pogorelskaya

The article describes the transformation of German policy towards the European Union after the reunification of Germany, German proposals to overcome the Euro crisis of 2010–2011 and the future role of Germany in the EU.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 174
Author(s):  
Oleh Predmestnikov ◽  
Vitaliy Gumenyuk

The policy of Ukraine for the establishment and development of relations with the European Union began in 1993, was carried out all the years of Ukraine’s existence, and received intensive deepening with the beginning of the formation of an international treaty – the Association Agreement, which includes a list of legal, social, economic, and technical regulations, and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), in 2014 and its final signing in 2017. Political and economic objectives of the Agreement are of fundamental importance to the future of both Ukraine and the whole European region. The political goal is to implement European standards on the territory of Ukraine. This implies the introduction of fundamental European values, namely democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights and the standards of the European security system. The Agreement does not foresee membership in the European Union, however, does not exclude such an opportunity in the future. The economic goal is to help to modernize the Ukrainian economy by expanding trade volumes with the EU and other countries, as well as reforming economic regulation mechanisms in line with the best European practices. Subject to the improvement of the business climate, Ukraine will become attractive for foreign and domestic investment for further production for export to the EU and other markets of the world. Harmonization of standards and European regulations has become a much more important process than the fulfilment of strictly technical requirements and underlies the introduction of effective governance without corruption. In the process of harmonization of interaction, an adaptive institutional mechanism was formed (the highest level – annual Summits; the key coordinator is the Association Council, consisting of members of the Council of the European Union and members of the European Commission, and members of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine; the level of operational coordination – the Association Parliamentary Committee, which includes members of the European Parliament, representatives of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and the Civil Society Platform; in order to coordinate processes on the territory of Ukraine, the Ukrainian government has introduced a few supervisory committees and commissions). The harmonization of the economic aspect of the mechanism has been determined in solving issues of openness of markets for duty-free import from Ukraine in April 2014, obtaining a visa-free regime with the EU, abolishing export-import tariffs, implementing European technical standards for food safety, phytosanitary norms, competition policy, service provision, and public procurement policy. The issues of further deepening of relations include a review of the terms for the introduction of regulations and legislative provisions before their actual implementation, stabilization of financial and economic processes in the country, and further development of democratic values and social institutions.


2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. e72661
Author(s):  
Ariadna Ripoll

This conclusion to the special issue reflects on the evolution of European integration since the early 1990s in order to better understand the contested origins of the Treaty of Lisbon and the consequences the latter have had for the EU’s political system. It considers the various contributions of the special issue and shows how the Treaty emerged in an era of shifting cleavages, disputed steps towards a more political Union and rising populism. This legacy has led to more polarisation and politicisation – a phenomenon that the Treaty of Lisbon struggles to encapsulate and conciliate with the culture of consensus and compromise inherent to its institutional structures. As a result, we observe a bias towards policy stability – and even failure – that affects the legitimacy and democratic standards of the European Union. In a context of polycrisis, the difficulty to find compromises – especially in highly normative issues – leads to the de-politicisation of the EU and reinforces the gap between EU institutions and its citizens. The COVID-19 pandemic is a window of opportunity for the EU, in which to choose between integration and disintegration; between values and inaction.


Author(s):  
N. Arbatova

The focal point of the article is the future of the European Union that has been challenged by the deepest systemic crisis in its history. The world economic and financial crisis became merely a catalyst for those problems that had existed earlier and had not been addressed properly by the EU leadership. The author argues that the EU crisis can be overcome only by new common efforts of its member-states and new integrationist projects.


Author(s):  
Federico Fabbrini

This chapter analyses the European Union during Brexit, explaining how the EU institutions and Member States reacted to the UK’s decision to leave the EU. It outlines how they went about this in the course of the withdrawal negotiations. The EU institutions and Member States managed to adopt a very united stance vis-à-vis a withdrawing state, establishing effective institutional mechanisms and succeeding in imposing their strategic preferences in the negotiations with the UK. Nevertheless, the EU was also absorbed during Brexit by internal preparations to face both the scenario of a ‘hard Brexit’—the UK leaving the EU with no deal—and of a ‘no Brexit’—with the UK subsequently delaying exit and extending its EU membership. Finally, during Brexit the EU increasingly started working as a union of 27 Member States—the EU27—which in this format opened a debate on the future of Europe and developed new policy initiatives, especially in the field of defence and military cooperation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-154
Author(s):  
Ines Kersan-Škabić

The heterogeneity of economic performances in the EU member states is one of the main reasons for the existence of a “core-periphery” relationship. The goal of this research is to examine various economic indicators to reveal possible divisions between the EU members. This issue emphasized the contribution of rich “core” countries to the imbalances in poorer “peripheral” EU members. By applying cluster methodology and considering the most recent data, two groups of countries were identified, the first comprising 11 countries that form the “centre” or the “core”, and the rest of the EU forming the “periphery”. Considering differences between these countries is necessary and justified for discussions about the future development of the EU that will involve differences between member states.


2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (50) ◽  
pp. 33-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Lehmann

It is common today, even in the European media, to treat the current crisis of the European Union almost exclusively as an economic crisis. The present article pretends to show that such a focus is not only wrong but is indeed dangerous for the future development of the European Union as a whole. The article will argue that the present economic crisis simply aggravated – and a lot – a crisis of legitimacy through which the European Union has been passing for some time. Showing that the anti-European tendencies which are spreading throughout the countries of the continent threaten the very future of the European project, the article will make suggestion on reforms for the future development of the EU, alerting to the necessity to finally elaborate once again a coherent argument for the continuation of the European integration process which puts the European population at the heart of the political process instead of just austerity.


Author(s):  
Brigid Laffan

Debate on the future of the European Union (EU) never abates because the Union is a polity characterized by considerable change in its internal and external environment. Scenarios are an important tool in mapping possible futures for the Union as they bring underlying trends into focus. Four scenarios on the future of the EU are presented: disintegration, piecemeal adjustment, functional federalism, and a United States of Europe. The political and policy battle concerning the future of the Union is between scenario piecemeal adjustment, the dominant response to the crisis and to events on Europe’s borders, and functional federalism, defined as more integration but in defined fields. Piecemeal adjustment represents a Union that muddles through, incremental reform, whereas functional federalism represents a Union that garners sufficient political capacity to be more strategic in particular functional areas. Systemic disintegration is regarded as unlikely, but partial disintegration may occur because of the exit of the United Kingdom, challenges to a number of EU regimes, and the threats to the Union’s normative order from some member states. A united states of Europe, is highly unlikely as the member states are not in favor of transforming the Union into a state-like federation. The degree of contestation about the future of the EU precludes a transformation of the system at this juncture. Three intervening factors will have a major impact on the future of the EU: the profound changes in the global environment, turbulent politics in the member states, and the Franco-German relationship as a source of leadership in the Union.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document