scholarly journals Introduction: Weathering the Storm?

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-326
Author(s):  
Andreas Grimmel ◽  
Julia Strasheim
Keyword(s):  
Current Trend ◽  
Past Research ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Far Right ◽  
Eu Foreign Policy ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Rise Of China ◽  
Global Peace ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Promoting peace and security in Europe, its neighbourhood, and in the world, is at the heart of how the European Union (EU) understands itself and its global political role. In recent years, however, both the tangible role of the EU in fostering peace beyond its borders and the Union’s famous image as a ‘normative power’ have met substantial challenges. The challenges, which fundamentally alter the context in which the EU supports peace and security, include EU-internal factors, such as democratic backsliding in some member states, electoral success of populist far right parties, or disagreements over migration. They also include external factors, notably the unravelling transatlantic relationship under President Trump or the rise of China in the peace and security domain. This article introduces the special issue ‘Weathering the Storm? The EU as a Global Peace and Security Actor in Turbulent Times’. It first discusses the numerous tests the EU faces in fostering peace beyond its borders, and how past research has evaluated and interpreted the effect of these challenges on EU foreign policy. It then outlines two interrelated shortcomings of past research: an ‘EU navel-gazing’ and focus on how EU policies come into being in Brussels, rather than studying how these policies are implemented ‘on the ground’ – coupled with a lack of interdisciplinary conceptual and empirical debate between peace and conflict research and European Studies. Finally, it discusses how the articles that make up this special issue help to address these shortcomings and how they contribute to the current trend in blurring the lines between domestic and international politics.

scholarly journals The Limits of the EU as a Peace and Security Actor in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

2011 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 45-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meike Froitzheim ◽  
Fredrik Söderbaum ◽  
Ian Taylor
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Test Case ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Organizational Complexity ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
Global Peace ◽  
Security Actor ◽  
The Eu

The European Union (EU) is increasingly aspiring to be a global peace and security actor. Using the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) as a test case to analyse such ambitions, this article reveals that the EU's attempts to build peace and security are severely compromised by its bureaucratic and organizational complexity as well as by its ineffective policies. In fact, the EU's state-centred approach in the DRC has resulted in the EU's inability to deal with 1) the realities of governance in the DRC and 2) the strong trans-border dimensions of the conflict. As a result, the EU continues to lack a coherent strategy for the DRC, despite a large budget. The analysis concludes that the EU is more concerned with establishing a symbolic presence and a form of representation than with achieving specific goals.

scholarly journals Migration issues in the EU’s common foreign and security policy – selected aspects

2021 ◽  
pp. 43-59
Author(s):  
Tomasz Dubowski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
External Action ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Foreign Policy ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Eu

In the discussion on the EU migration policy, it is impossible to evade the issue of the relation between this policy and the EU foreign policy, including EU common foreign and security policy. The subject of this study are selected links between migration issues and the CFSP of the European Union. The presented considerations aim to determine at what levels and in what ways the EU’s migration policy is taken into account in the space of the CFSP as a diplomatic and political (and subject to specific rules and procedures) substrate of the EU’s external action.

scholarly journals Conclusions: What future for the Treaty of Lisbon?

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. e72661
Author(s):  
Ariadna Ripoll
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Political System ◽  
Window Of Opportunity ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Political Union ◽  
Treaty Of Lisbon ◽  
Institutional Structures ◽  
Normative Issues ◽  
The Eu

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.

scholarly journals The EU Eastern Partnership Initiative and Georgia

Politeja ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (5(62)) ◽  
pp. 117-140
Author(s):  
David Darchiashvili ◽  
David Bakradze
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Geographical Area ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The West ◽  
Coercive Diplomacy ◽  
Eastern Partnership ◽  
Eu Foreign Policy ◽  
Long Run ◽  
The Eu

The article views the geographical area between the EU and Russian borders as a battle space of two, drastically different foreign policy and ideological approaches. The authors argue that in the years since the end of the Cold War, a unique surrogate of former clash of liberal and communist worlds emerged, leading to and underpinning current Hybrid Warfare, underway from Ukraine to Georgia. Its roots lay in the Russian interpretation of the Western attitude towards the East as Neo-colonialist. Relying on the income from its vast energy resources, Russia also tries to develop its version of so called “Soft Power”, used by the West in this region. Though in Russian hands, it is coupled with Moscow’s imperial experiences and resentments, and is becoming a mere element in Hybrid or “non-linear” war. Speaking retrospectively, the Eastern Partnership Initiative of the European Union can be seen as a response to Hybrid threats, posed by Russia against its Western and Southern neighbors. But the question is, whether EU foreign policy initiatives towards this area can and will be efficient and sufficient, if continued to be mostly defensive and limited within Soft Power mechanisms and philosophy, while Russia successfully combines those with traditional Hard Power know-how? The authors argue that in the long run, European or Euro-Atlantic Soft Power tool-kits, spreading Human Rightsbased culture farther in the East, will remain unmatched. But in order to prevail over the Russian revisionist policy here and now, the West, and, particularly, the EU need to re-evaluate traditional foreign policy options and come up with a more drastic combination of Soft/Hard Powers by itself. As the Georgian case shows, the European community should more efficiently use Conditionality and Coercive Diplomacy, combined with clearer messages about partners’ membership perspectives.

JUDICIAL AND NON-JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MULTI-LEVEL ADMINISTRATIVE SPACE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

2021 ◽  
pp. 69-80
Author(s):  
A.V. Chetvernina
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
German Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Recognition Systems ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Regulatory Models ◽  
The Eu

The review is based on the publications of a series of articles in a special issue of the German Law Journal (German law journal. 2021. Vol. 22, N 3). It examines the complex of judicial and non-judicial problems that arise in the complex multi-level administrative structure of the EU. The main focus is on mechanisms of horizontal and vertical administrative cooperation, as well as new regulatory models that «generate» transnational administrative acts and mutual recognition systems, as well as multi-level inspection activities carried out to ensure compliance with EU legislation.

Neoliberals against Europe

2019 ◽  
pp. 89-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quinn Slobodian ◽  
Dieter Plehwe
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Debt Crisis ◽  
European Politics ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Far Right ◽  
Explanatory Framework ◽  
European Debt Crisis ◽  
Over Time ◽  
The Eu

Since the advent of the European debt crisis in 2009, it has become common to hear descriptions of the European Union as a neoliberal machine hardwired to enforce austerity and to block projects of redistribution or solidarity. Yet by adopting an explanatory framework associating neoliberalism with supranational organizations like the EU, NAFTA, and the WTO against the so-called populism of its right-wing opponents, many observers have painted themselves into a corner. The problems with a straightforward compound of “neoliberal Europe” became starkly evident with the success of the “leave” vote in the Brexit referendum in 2016. If the EU was neoliberal, were those who called to abandon it the opponents of neoliberalism? If the EU is indeed the “neoliberalism express,” then to disembark was by definition a gesture of refusal against neoliberalism. To make sense of the resurgent phenomenon of the far right in European politics, then, our chapter tracks such continuities over time and avoids misleading dichotomies that pit neoliberal globalism—and neoliberal Europeanism—against an atavistic national populism. The closed-borders libertarianism of nationalist neoliberals like the German AfD is not a rejection of globalism but is a variety of it.

Saving Democracy

2021 ◽  
pp. 280-296
Author(s):  
Robert Niewiadomski ◽  
Dennis Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Current Trend ◽  
Informed Decision Making ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Ripple Effects ◽  
Media Technologies ◽  
Cultural Aspects ◽  
Global Peace ◽  
The U.S

The recent rise of populism around the world, often accompanied by nationalism and isolationism, is a trend that presents a serious threat not only to liberal democracies but also to global peace and security. Populist forces have already shown their influence through the British referendum on membership withdrawal from the European Union and the election of Donald J. Trump as the U.S. President in 2016. These two events alone had ripple effects and were felt by the international community. The causes of populism are being currently revisited. It appears that socioeconomic and cultural aspects are key contributors. Even though the persistent existence of populist elements within societies comes from the very core of the democratic experiment, the current trend in social media technologies allowed demagogues to utilize viral deception on a considerable scale. The authors argue that social media technologies could be employed through e-participation to inhibit populism by bolstering civic empowerment, transparency, progressive inclusiveness, fact-based analysis, and informed decision making.

Poland and the European Union

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ireneusz Paweł Karolewski ◽  
Maciej Wilga
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eastern Bloc ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
Eu Foreign Policy ◽  
Membership Application ◽  
Eu Membership ◽  
Council Presidency ◽  
The Eu

Multifaceted in its character, the relationship between Poland and the European Union is now more than a quarter of a century old. After the breakdown of the Eastern bloc, Poland signed the Association Agreement with the then European Communities in December 1991, which led up to an EU membership application three years later. Not yet a member, the country had some impact on the Union in the Nice Treaty negotiations (2000–2001), as well as on the European Constitutional Convention proceedings (2001–2003). After a successful EU membership referendum in 2003, reflecting a great deal of societal support, Poland, along with nine other newcomers, became a fully-fledged member of the EU. Once within the bloc, Warsaw was at pains to develop a more coherent EU policy, as it often changed its positions between more collaborative approaches and veto threats, but also absolving a successful rotating EU Council presidency in 2011. The country collaborated with other member states in Central and Eastern Europe—in the Visegrád framework and with the older member states—through the Weimar Triangle, for example, however with sometimes mixed results. Poland has prioritized a number of issues in the EU such as the energy sector, security and defense, and the Eastern partnership, the latter focusing on the EU Eastern neighbors, including Ukraine and Belarus. In particular, during the Ukraine-Russia conflict of 2014–2015, Poland was one of most active actors in the EU foreign policy. However, since 2015 Poland has become a subject of controversy within the EU, regarding the rule of law standards that were criticized by the European Commission and Warsaw’s rejection of a relocation scheme in the EU refugee and migrant policy.

Rebuilding trust: sustainability and non-financial reporting and the European Union regulation

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 701-725
Author(s):  
Matteo La Torre ◽  
Svetlana Sabelfeld ◽  
Marita Blomkvist ◽  
John Dumay
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Future Research ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Accounting Systems ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
The Eu

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.

scholarly journals EU Policy in Central Asia

Politeja ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4(73)) ◽  
pp. 29-52
Author(s):  
Kamen Velichkov
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Centripetal Forces ◽  
The Eu

Geography and a preference for regional approaches have an impact on EU foreign policy. From the EU perspective, the countries of Central Asia are classified as “neighbors of EU neighbors.” The EU’s policies assume the existence of strong centripetal forces in the Eurasian heartland, whereas in fact the regionalization is still in the initial stages there. Consequently, EU foreign policy in Central Asia pursues both structural and relational objectives. The specific goals and performance of EU member states add a two-tier dimension to this process. In parallel with other external actors such as Japan, the United States, South Korea, and India, the European Union conducts its dialogue and cooperation with the Central Asian states in a 5+1 format. Compared to the policies of China, Turkey, or Russia, the EU has much more limited influence. It primarily aims to support the independent development of the Central Asian countries, for which some degree of regionalization appears to be a prerequisite.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document