scholarly journals Threats to multilateralism and the future of the EU-Canada Strategic Partnership: A view from Canada

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoine Rayroux
Keyword(s):  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
The Us ◽  
True Meaning ◽  
The Future ◽  
Working Together ◽  
Hybrid Threats ◽  
The Eu

Current threats to the international multilateral order affect the EU and Canada to a fundamental degree. While this is an observation that transpires in most contributions to this special issue, this conclusion adds to the reflection by making three observations that we should bear in mind when trying to reflect on the future of the EU-Canada strategic partnership: first, the partnership will depend on the ability of both parties to build on the latter’s recent institutionalization; second, it remains to be seen whether the US’ retreat from multilateralism will prove surmountable for EU and Canada; and third, the partnership will only acquire true meaning if the EU and Canada succeed in working together on a series of crucial issues that require a multilateral effort – such as the environment and hybrid threats.

scholarly journals PECULIARITIES OF THE US-EU RELATIONS: EVOLUTION AND PROSPECTS

2016 ◽  
pp. 153-174
Author(s):  
D. Lakishyk
Keyword(s):  
World Politics ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Global State ◽  
Multilateral Negotiation ◽  
Global Context ◽  
Global Issues ◽  
Transatlantic Cooperation ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Eu

It is argued that the US-European relations, regardless of the position of the US as a single global state, are based on the principles of interdependence. Conflicts that arise on specific issues are not of strategic and decisive character. They cannot provoke fundamental conflict, primarily because of similar values and targets in the conduct of foreign policy. Changing the status of the EU “traditional ally” into the status of “essential partner” is caused by the need to clearly define European interests in transatlantic cooperation. Relations between the EU and the US are based on protecting the interests and priorities of each party, in addition to the policy of compromise. Now the format of transatlantic cooperation is multilateral, negotiation basis of US foreign practices is combined with cooperation with the EU, confirming the practical transition of Washington to renovation of collective action. Filling the US-European relations with “global context” changes transatlantic partnership both in content and in form. The US and EU continue to be among the leaders in world politics that get additional opportunities for development and implementation of a common position on many global issues thanks to strategic partnership.

scholarly journals China and the Future of the International Tax Regime

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reuven Avi-Yonah ◽  
Haiyan Xu
Keyword(s):  
Great Recession ◽  
Tax Avoidance ◽  
Profit Shifting ◽  
The Great Recession ◽  
Single Tax ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
The Future ◽  
International Tax ◽  
The Eu

The International tax regime (ITR) has been transformed after the Great Recession of 2008–2009. The G20/Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project (2013–2015) has fundamentally changed the ITR, giving new life to the single tax principle (income should be taxed once, i.e., no double taxation and no double non taxation). Reaction to BEPS has varied dramatically between the EU and the US, the two largest markets in the world. In the EU BEPS is taken very seriously, as shown for example by the new Anti-Tax Avoidance Directives that implement the single tax principle. In the US BEPS is almost invisible; while the US model tax treaty has been amended to incorporate it the US has refused to sign the Multilateral Instrument to implement BEPS in its treaties and the only other BEPS action that the US has taken is country by country reporting. It thus appears that the future of BEPS and the ITR depends on whether the EU or the US view prevails, i.e., whether multinationals can be forced to pay significant tax on the 160–240 billion that are currently not taxed annually because of BEPS. While US multinationals as well as EU multinationals are exposed to the EU ATAD and related measures while operating in Europe, they are less subject to EU anti BEPS measures elsewhere in the world. It therefore is crucial to assess the reaction to BEPS in the other large economy that was involved in its development, namely China. This article attempts to assess China’s reaction to BEPS based on Chinese sources. It shows that China takes BEPS seriously. Therefore, given the reactions of China (as well as India, which is even more aggressive than China for example in taxing the digital economy) it seems likely that eventually the EU view of BEPS will prevail and US based multinationals will eventually be forced to pay tax on the over 100 billion they shift offshore each year.

scholarly journals Macedonia – nowe wyzwania i trudne kompromisy (2016−2019)

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 205-226
Author(s):  
Irena Stawowy-Kawka
Keyword(s):  
The European Union ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Future ◽  
Internal Relations ◽  
Albanian Population ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
Venice Commission ◽  
Language Law ◽  
The Eu

Macedonia – New Challenges and Difficult Compromises (2016−2019) After the SDSM (Socijaldemokratski sojuz na Makedonija – Social Democratic Union of Macedonia) took over the government in 2017, the party proposed reforms which, although fundamental for the future of the country, were difficult to accept by the majority of Macedonian society. Nevertheless, SDSM’s policy, approved and monitored by the European Union and the US, was to lead to Macedonia joining NATO and EU structures in the near future. It should also be noted that both the US and the EU are strategic partners of the Republic, which actively support the processes taking place there. Having signed the agreement with Greece, on 17 June 2018 the Republic of Macedonia changed its official name. After the entry into force of the amendments to the Constitution and ratification of the Greek-Macedonian bilateral agreement by both parties, the country adopted the name of the Republic of North Macedonia (mac. Република Серверна Македонија). In February 2019, just after the parliaments of North Macedonia and Greece ratified the Prespa Agreement, the accession process of North Macedonia to NATO began. The condition for accession was the consent of the parliaments of all members of the Alliance for enlargement. Immediately after such approval, on 27 March 2020, the decision on membership was announced in Brussels by its chairman, Jens Stoltenberg. Macedonia’s relations with Bulgaria and Serbia have also changed, and the Albanians have been granted further privileges and rights in this country – in the opinion of the Macedonians it is very difficult to accept and implement. The escalation of nationalist sentiment in the country’s internal relations is important, caused not only by foreign policy but also by concessions to the Albanians. The Law on the Use of Languages, also known as the ‘language law’, criticized not only by the Macedonian scientific elite, but also by the Venice Commission, which sees certain threats to Macedonia in granting such extensive rights to the Albanian population, strengthens the opposition. On 26 March 2020, the EU gave its consent to start accession negotiations with Albania and the Republic of North Macedonia. Negotiations with Bulgaria are ongoing and it will be difficult to find a compromise. The biggest challenge for the government will be to convince the public that it is in the interest of its citizens to make compromises with both Greeks and Albanians and in the future with Bulgarians. In this case, the EU position will be very important, both in relation to the Albanian and Bulgarian demands.

Transatlantic Regulatory Interdependence, Law and Governance: The Evolving Roles of the EU and US Legislatures

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 334-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davor JANČIĆ
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
Legislative Action ◽  
Us Congress ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Early Warning Mechanism ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article analyses the roles of the European Parliament and the US Congress in addressing regulatory interdependencies arising in the EU–US strategic partnership. It examines their international actorness as a potential remedy for the problems of democratic participation, executive dominance, and opaqueness in the shaping of transatlantic relations. It shows that legislatures significantly contribute to regulatory discrepancies and trade disputes and that the adverse consequences thereof justify more intensiveex antecooperation between them. The analysis conducts two groups of case studies to demonstrate how the EP and Congress influence law and policy in areas of transatlantic regulatory and foreign policy divergence. The first group of case studies analyses parliamentary involvement in the making of international agreements (TTIP and ACTA). The second group of case studies inspects legislative action with extraterritorial effects (US Helms–Burton and Sarbanes–Oxley Acts). The article argues that the EP and Congress have so far frequently acted against the spirit of the strategic partnership in ways that are injurious to the interests of the other side, and discusses whether an interparliamentary early warning mechanism could reduce legislative and political frictions and increase the coherence of transatlantic lawmaking.

scholarly journals The road not taken: The EU as strategic American partner and a balancer to a rising China

European View ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-88
Author(s):  
Nathan Shepura
Keyword(s):  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Foreseeable Future ◽  
Potential Conflict ◽  
Unique Challenge ◽  
The Road ◽  
The Us ◽  
Rising China ◽  
American Partner ◽  
Economic Ties ◽  
The Eu

In the context of an increasingly competitive US–China rivalry, the intensity of which is unlikely to diminish in the foreseeable future, the EU finds itself with a unique challenge and a unique opportunity. It must reaffirm and assert its commitment to a strategic partnership with the US, foremost through increasing its cooperation with NATO and through a recommitment to forging ever-closer economic ties. The EU must also continue to offer bold, creative alternatives to a new bipolar global framework. In particular, these should emphasise the EU’s multilateral ties with partners around the world, as an important balance to potential conflict between the US and China.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document