The Mercosur in the midst of the crisis

Since 2016, the four States Parties to the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) - Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay - are experiencing internal political and economic crises that cannot be understood without observing the South American regional context. With the pandemic of the new coronavirus, the crisis also took on a health dimension, whose repercussions in 2021 made the celebration of the bloc's thirty years a moment of reflection on the effectiveness of the integration process, due to the absence of territorial management that addresses the Mercosur needs. The purpose of this text is to discuss the measures adopted in the context of Mercosur in the face of the current pandemic, economic and political crisis. The methodology used for the elaboration of the text included a bibliographic review on the regional integration process in Mercosur and the analysis of news about the situation and the measures adopted to contain the effects of the crisis in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.

Intermediary Liability in the EU Digital Common Market

The European Union is committed to its transition towards climate neutrality and digital leadership, and synergies to be created in the EU Digital Common Market provide ample opportunities to achieve these goals: While from an economic perspective, the maximisation of market opportunities and the creation of a globally competitive digital economy are desirable, the transition must be technologically and ecologically sustainable and additionally compatible with established EU consumer protection standards. The latter is especially relevant in terms of the liability of online intermediaries for digital services, taking into account the rapid transformation of the digital architecture and the emergence of new major digital platforms for sales and services. This chapter, which is based on the Bachelor thesis handed in by Sander Sagar and supervised by Thomas Hoffmann for graduation at TalTech Law School, Tallinn University of Technology, intends to elucidate how the transition towards a common digital market is legally established in practice using as an example the adoption of the intermediaries’ liability regime to a digitalized environment from the E-Commerce Directive to the Digital Services Act.

A Common Market Problem Becomes More Common: the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010

<p>As part of a wider process of economic integration and the move towards a single integrated economic market, Australia and New Zealand entered into bi-lateral treaty in 2008 in order to resolve existing issues with the reciprocal enforcement of civil judgment which had arisen between the two countries. Labelled the “Christchurch Agreement” this treaty was incorporated by both countries into their domestic law in 2010 and now governs the allocation of disputes between Australia and New Zealand, where the parties are located within the common market of Australia and New Zealand and inter-state enforcement of civil judgments more generally. The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) and (NZ) (“TTPA”), will arguably provide significant benefits by reducing barriers to trade and improving the economic prosperity of both countries. However it is argued that, similar to other common market reciprocal enforcement schemes (such as the Brussels Model in the European Union), Australia and New Zealand failed to consider the impact of the outer world problem. The outer world problem is a recurring theme in common market arrangements, and results from a failure to provide generic proportionate jurisdictional test for cases involving foreign defendants sued in a common market state. The result is excessive jurisdictional rules within a particular state can potentially result in proceedings being retained where there is a strong argument the dispute is more closely connected with another forum. The resulting judgment (should judgment in the plaintiff’s favour be granted), can then be quickly enforced throughout the common market (specifically New Zealand) to the disadvantage of the defendant. The outer world problem is clearly present under the TTPA scheme, beginning in Australia and cumulating in enforcement of the judgment in New Zealand. It remains present even in the case of international commercial contract disputes. This is unfair and discriminatory towards foreign defendants, and arguably justifies reform, or at least discussion and justification of this approach.</p>

A Common Market Problem Becomes More Common: the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010

<p>As part of a wider process of economic integration and the move towards a single integrated economic market, Australia and New Zealand entered into bi-lateral treaty in 2008 in order to resolve existing issues with the reciprocal enforcement of civil judgment which had arisen between the two countries. Labelled the “Christchurch Agreement” this treaty was incorporated by both countries into their domestic law in 2010 and now governs the allocation of disputes between Australia and New Zealand, where the parties are located within the common market of Australia and New Zealand and inter-state enforcement of civil judgments more generally. The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) and (NZ) (“TTPA”), will arguably provide significant benefits by reducing barriers to trade and improving the economic prosperity of both countries. However it is argued that, similar to other common market reciprocal enforcement schemes (such as the Brussels Model in the European Union), Australia and New Zealand failed to consider the impact of the outer world problem. The outer world problem is a recurring theme in common market arrangements, and results from a failure to provide generic proportionate jurisdictional test for cases involving foreign defendants sued in a common market state. The result is excessive jurisdictional rules within a particular state can potentially result in proceedings being retained where there is a strong argument the dispute is more closely connected with another forum. The resulting judgment (should judgment in the plaintiff’s favour be granted), can then be quickly enforced throughout the common market (specifically New Zealand) to the disadvantage of the defendant. The outer world problem is clearly present under the TTPA scheme, beginning in Australia and cumulating in enforcement of the judgment in New Zealand. It remains present even in the case of international commercial contract disputes. This is unfair and discriminatory towards foreign defendants, and arguably justifies reform, or at least discussion and justification of this approach.</p>

The EU’s cybersecurity: a strategic narrative of a cyber power or a confusing policy for a local common market?

In the last decade, cybersecurity has swiftly turned into a strategic issue and became an important horizontal policy area in the EU, which is treated in this article as one of the four contemporary political empires. These days, the policy arguably encompasses both internal and external aspects, often making it difficult to assess the level of its actual effectiveness as well as outreach. Initially, the EU’s introverted vision on the issue drove the policy to focus on cyber resilience and strategic autonomy. Evidently, the EU’s strategic narrative that could assist it in leading the process of creating an open, free, stable and secure cyberspace in the digital decade, in the context of international security, is emerging. Thus, this contribution is to test the argument that the EU, utilizing an imperial paradigm (consciously or not), is gradually becoming a global steering power in cybersecurity. In this article, firstly, we identify and examine the process of formation of the EU’s narratives about (its) cyber power. Secondly, we establish a discussion framework to highlight the methodological relevance of the imperial paradigm, cyber power Europe and Strategic Narrative Theory for a multidisciplinary debate on global geo-strategic redesign, in which the EU takes part. Thirdly, we look into bilateral and multilateral forums and processes that deal with cybersecurity and in which the EU participates, in order to understand more specifically how the EU is projecting its cyber-power narratives internationally and how cybersecurity-associated challenges impact current dynamics in other policy domains in the field of international relations. Recibido: 20 noviembre 2020Aceptado: 18 mayo 2021

EU-BREXIT-CEE-UKRAINE: EUROPE’S HEALTHIER FUTURE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC LEADERSHIP

The horrors of WWII changed history and created a better Europe based on a Common market as an essential signal of unity among the EU member states. Now generations have grown up in peace and growing prosperity. However, a decade ago, ECB/EU had to overcome the EU-euro-financial crisis and now Brexit. In addition, Covid19 crisis brings many pressing problems, as the Coronavirus pandemic is likely to result in Europe/Germany’s largest economic downturn in the last seven decades. Loss of prosperity, des-integration in the European Union could escalate further. Even in academic and scientific institutions and in European research networks difficulties are relevant. Can we overcome Brexit / Corona and create a healthy Europe that is a global socioeconomic leader? Based on our Cultural Heritage across Europe we must look further than Brexit, and even more seek solutions to the Ukrainian conflict.