{"title":"Editorial: Towards Reducing the EU’s Global Deforestation Footprint?","authors":"Gracia Marín Durán","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022036","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44563828","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Arms export control measures are an important tool to defend the universality of human rights, democracy and to prevent conflicts. The European Union (EU) has a long tradition in striving towards these goals.One of the most important outcomes regarding such is the 2008 Council Common Position (CP) defining Common Rules Governing Control of Exports of Military Technology and Equipment Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). This article focuses on the implementation and effectiveness of this CP. In particular, it investigates whether EU countries have applied and enforced human rights principles in arms export practices following the approval of the CP or whether a promarket and pro-export approach have prevailed. In this way, it fills a lack of organic analysis on the impact of the CP. Secondly, for the first time, it compares EU-level regulation impact with that at the global level, in order to assess the ‘net value’ of the EU regulation at the international level also from a diachronic perspective. Lastly, a comparison with the national level offer suggestions for mutual reinforcing. By using quantitative methods, the research aims to offer empirical evidence concerning the EU arms export control regimes and their effectiveness and to contribute to the present debate about the means at the EU’s disposal to defend the universality of human rights and promote democracy. EU Common Foreign and Security Policy, human rights, arms trade, arms exports control and disarmament, normative power, democracy, autocracy, sanctions, arms embargo
{"title":"Article: Arms Transfers and Human Rights: Assessing the Impact and Enforcement of the EU Common Position on Arms Exports in a Multilevel Analysis","authors":"Chiara Bonaiuti","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022035","url":null,"abstract":"Arms export control measures are an important tool to defend the universality of human rights, democracy and to prevent conflicts. The European Union (EU) has a long tradition in striving towards these goals.One of the most important outcomes regarding such is the 2008 Council Common Position (CP) defining Common Rules Governing Control of Exports of Military Technology and Equipment Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). This article focuses on the implementation and effectiveness of this CP. In particular, it investigates whether EU countries have applied and enforced human rights principles in arms export practices following the approval of the CP or whether a promarket and pro-export approach have prevailed. In this way, it fills a lack of organic analysis on the impact of the CP. Secondly, for the first time, it compares EU-level regulation impact with that at the global level, in order to assess the ‘net value’ of the EU regulation at the international level also from a diachronic perspective. Lastly, a comparison with the national level offer suggestions for mutual reinforcing. By using quantitative methods, the research aims to offer empirical evidence concerning the EU arms export control regimes and their effectiveness and to contribute to the present debate about the means at the EU’s disposal to defend the universality of human rights and promote democracy.\u0000EU Common Foreign and Security Policy, human rights, arms trade, arms exports control and disarmament, normative power, democracy, autocracy, sanctions, arms embargo","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46464545","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article presents some theoretical reflections, and one empirical case study, on the contribution of geopolitics to the study of EU foreign policy. The article asks in particular how geopolitics can contribute to causal explanation in foreign policy. First, the article identifies and discusses two problems with a crude, early version of geopolitics: arbitrariness in the measurement of dependent and independent variables, and spurious causation. Second, drawing from concepts developed by rational choice theorists, the article argues that geopolitics can prove insightful in at least two ways. The first way in which geopolitics can establish causal explanations is when it studies how geography provides opportunity to act, that is, options for a political actor. The second way in which geopolitics is useful is that it can establish causality through negation (an event was prevented, or made more difficult, by geographical features). Both ways are illustrated through the example of empires and colonialism and their influence over EU foreign policy. EU foreign policy, Geopolitics, Methodology, Political geography, Empire
{"title":"Article: The Contribution of Geopolitics to the Study of EU Foreign Policy Illustrated Through the Example of Empires and Colonialism","authors":"L. Lonardo","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022031","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents some theoretical reflections, and one empirical case study, on the contribution of geopolitics to the study of EU foreign policy. The article asks in particular how geopolitics can contribute to causal explanation in foreign policy. First, the article identifies and discusses two problems with a crude, early version of geopolitics: arbitrariness in the measurement of dependent and independent variables, and spurious causation. Second, drawing from concepts developed by rational choice theorists, the article argues that geopolitics can prove insightful in at least two ways. The first way in which geopolitics can establish causal explanations is when it studies how geography provides opportunity to act, that is, options for a political actor. The second way in which geopolitics is useful is that it can establish causality through negation (an event was prevented, or made more difficult, by geographical features). Both ways are illustrated through the example of empires and colonialism and their influence over EU foreign policy.\u0000EU foreign policy, Geopolitics, Methodology, Political geography, Empire","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41617346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The European Peace Facility (EPF) is a new mechanism officially established to allow the EU to directly assist partners in military and defence matters. After the Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine, the Council of European Union adopted assistance measures under the EPF financing equipment and supplies for the Ukrainian armed forces, including, for the first time, the provision of lethal equipment. This article firstly presents the legality and compliance of this provision with the law of neutrality under international law on the assumption that providing military support to a state unlawfully attacked might represent a mitigating circumstance – considering the inherent right to self-defence – and a collective countermeasure in response to severe violations of collective obligations. Then, the article discusses international responsibilities arising in case of violations of international law committed with EU-provided weapons: not only Ukraine would be liable, but also the EU and its Member States (MS) could be co-responsible for not having adequately assessed the misuse of the weapons or their diversion. Indeed, the accountability framework would appear tripartite and divided between Ukraine, the recipient state, the EU, the formal sender, and its Member States, who fund the assistance measure through an off-budget fund. European Union, Member States, External Actions, European Peace Facility, Invasion, Sending Weapons, Law of Neutrality, Accountability, Complicity, Intergovernmentalism
{"title":"Accountability for the Misuse of Provided Weapons in the Framework of the New European Peace Facility","authors":"Stefania Rutigliano","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022029","url":null,"abstract":"The European Peace Facility (EPF) is a new mechanism officially established to allow the EU to directly assist partners in military and defence matters. After the Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine, the Council of European Union adopted assistance measures under the EPF financing equipment and supplies for the Ukrainian armed forces, including, for the first time, the provision of lethal equipment. This article firstly presents the legality and compliance of this provision with the law of neutrality under international law on the assumption that providing military support to a state unlawfully attacked might represent a mitigating circumstance – considering the inherent right to self-defence – and a collective countermeasure in response to severe violations of collective obligations. Then, the article discusses international responsibilities arising in case of violations of international law committed with EU-provided weapons: not only Ukraine would be liable, but also the EU and its Member States (MS) could be co-responsible for not having adequately assessed the misuse of the weapons or their diversion. Indeed, the accountability framework would appear tripartite and divided between Ukraine, the recipient state, the EU, the formal sender, and its Member States, who fund the assistance measure through an off-budget fund.\u0000European Union, Member States, External Actions, European Peace Facility, Invasion, Sending Weapons, Law of Neutrality, Accountability, Complicity, Intergovernmentalism","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49190662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
After years of discussions, the European Union’s (EU’s) new development finance architecture finally came into being under the umbrella of the ‘Status Quo Plus’. This article aims to, firstly, bring much-needed clarification in the nebulous landscape of EU development finance; and secondly, gain a more profound understanding of recent changes by examining to what extent they witness change or continuity. Based on a large variety of empirical data and secondary literature, we find that EU development finance has witnessed significant institutional changes while ideological trends are continued. Institutionally, we elaborate on the simplification of instruments, a shift in their accessibility – in favour of national development agencies and private actors whereby the European Investment Bank (EIB) loses its monopoly on commercial guarantees – and a reshuffling of power play in favour of the European Commission and (larger) EU Member States. In terms of policy content and underlying ideology, however, we observe a deepening of the trend towards financialization within EU (development finance) institutions which ties in with the geopoliticization of aid. We conclude that the ‘Plus’ represents institutional change that nevertheless primarily served (intentionally or not) to support a continuing ideological commitment to selling development finance to the market. The conclusions summarize the main findings and formulate suggestions for further research. European Union (EU), development, financialization, geopoliticization, private finance, European Investment Bank (EIB), blending, public development banks
{"title":"The New European Financial Architecture for Development: Change or Continuity?","authors":"J. Orbie, Anissa Bougrea, Mattias Vermeiren","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022026","url":null,"abstract":"After years of discussions, the European Union’s (EU’s) new development finance architecture finally came into being under the umbrella of the ‘Status Quo Plus’. This article aims to, firstly, bring much-needed clarification in the nebulous landscape of EU development finance; and secondly, gain a more profound understanding of recent changes by examining to what extent they witness change or continuity. Based on a large variety of empirical data and secondary literature, we find that EU development finance has witnessed significant institutional changes while ideological trends are continued. Institutionally, we elaborate on the simplification of instruments, a shift in their accessibility – in favour of national development agencies and private actors whereby the European Investment Bank (EIB) loses its monopoly on commercial guarantees – and a reshuffling of power play in favour of the European Commission and (larger) EU Member States. In terms of policy content and underlying ideology, however, we observe a deepening of the trend towards financialization within EU (development finance) institutions which ties in with the geopoliticization of aid. We conclude that the ‘Plus’ represents institutional change that nevertheless primarily served (intentionally or not) to support a continuing ideological commitment to selling development finance to the market. The conclusions summarize the main findings and formulate suggestions for further research.\u0000European Union (EU), development, financialization, geopoliticization, private finance, European Investment Bank (EIB), blending, public development banks","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45634005","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Editorial: Towards Intelligence Cooperation in the EU?","authors":"R. Wessel, Viktor Szép","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022024","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45985862","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article provides a comparative analysis of the European Union’s (EU’s) and China’s approaches to international investment law reform. While the EU has been referred to as a ‘systemic reformer’, which promotes significant institutional reform, China’s emerging model of investment protection remains unclassified. In the first part, this article describes the progressive emergence of China’s investment law regime. It argues that the Chinese model of investment protection may be viewed as an outright tool of foreign economic policy. Accordingly, China’s reform’s approach is a middle ground between systemic and incremental reforms. By contrast, due to its democratic nature, the EU has adopted a value-driven model. In this respect, this article posits that the political science scholarship on democracy may shed a different light on the EU’s institutional approach, and thus enrich the debate on investment law reform. The second part analyses the proposed Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (Proposed CAI) between the EU and China, which has been signed but not ratified. After showing that convergence was achieved on substantive protection, it argues that democratic imperatives explain the EU’s preference for a court system. Nevertheless, non-democracies often do not face the same incentives, which may generate disagreements regarding the dispute settlement design for investment claims. European Union, China, CAI, international investment law, democracy, dispute settlement
本文对欧盟和中国在国际投资法改革方面的做法进行了比较分析。虽然欧盟被称为“系统改革者”，推动了重大的制度改革，但中国新兴的投资保护模式仍未被分类。在第一部分中，本文描述了中国投资法制度的逐步形成。它认为，中国的投资保护模式可能被视为对外经济政策的一种直接工具。因此，中国的改革方式是在系统改革和渐进式改革之间的中间地带。相比之下，由于其民主性质，欧盟采取了一种价值驱动的模式。在这方面，本文认为，关于民主的政治科学研究可能会为欧盟的制度方法提供不同的视角，从而丰富关于投资法改革的辩论。第二部分分析了欧盟与中国之间已签署但尚未批准的全面投资协定(Comprehensive Agreement on Investment，简称CAI)。在证明了在实质性保护上的趋同之后，它认为民主的必要性解释了欧盟对法院系统的偏好。然而，非民主国家往往没有同样的激励，这可能会在投资索赔的争端解决设计方面产生分歧。欧盟，中国，CAI，国际投资法，民主，争端解决
{"title":"Reforming Investment Protection: A Comparative Analysis of the EU and China","authors":"Noah A. Barr","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022025","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides a comparative analysis of the European Union’s (EU’s) and China’s approaches to international investment law reform. While the EU has been referred to as a ‘systemic reformer’, which promotes significant institutional reform, China’s emerging model of investment protection remains unclassified. In the first part, this article describes the progressive emergence of China’s investment law regime. It argues that the Chinese model of investment protection may be viewed as an outright tool of foreign economic policy. Accordingly, China’s reform’s approach is a middle ground between systemic and incremental reforms. By contrast, due to its democratic nature, the EU has adopted a value-driven model. In this respect, this article posits that the political science scholarship on democracy may shed a different light on the EU’s institutional approach, and thus enrich the debate on investment law reform. The second part analyses the proposed Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (Proposed CAI) between the EU and China, which has been signed but not ratified. After showing that convergence was achieved on substantive protection, it argues that democratic imperatives explain the EU’s preference for a court system. Nevertheless, non-democracies often do not face the same incentives, which may generate disagreements regarding the dispute settlement design for investment claims.\u0000European Union, China, CAI, international investment law, democracy, dispute settlement","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48332152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The TCA (EU-UK Trade and Copperation Agreement) establishes a very comprehensive institutional framework with Partnership Council and diverse Committees having partly substantial decision-making powers for the development of the TCA. These considerable public functions prompt legitimacy concerns as to their democratic control, which this article explores in detail. It will be shown that the exercise of public powers by TCA treaty bodies meets with a sobering legal situation regarding democratic control mechanisms over treaty body decision-making at different levels. Thus, from a constitutional perspective, the legal and legitimate transfer of powers requires additional safeguards as to their democratic legitimacy. Solutions for better control of treaty body decisions by parliaments must be developed at several levels simultaneously. EU association agreements, EU trade agreements, treaty bodies, decision-making, democracy, accountability, Trade and Cooperation Agreement
{"title":"Article: The EU UK TCA’s Institutional Framework and Parliamentary Democracy","authors":"W. Weiss","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022033","url":null,"abstract":"The TCA (EU-UK Trade and Copperation Agreement) establishes a very comprehensive institutional framework with Partnership Council and diverse Committees having partly substantial decision-making powers for the development of the TCA. These considerable public functions prompt legitimacy concerns as to their democratic control, which this article explores in detail. It will be shown that the exercise of public powers by TCA treaty bodies meets with a sobering legal situation regarding democratic control mechanisms over treaty body decision-making at different levels. Thus, from a constitutional perspective, the legal and legitimate transfer of powers requires additional safeguards as to their democratic legitimacy. Solutions for better control of treaty body decisions by parliaments must be developed at several levels simultaneously.\u0000EU association agreements, EU trade agreements, treaty bodies, decision-making, democracy, accountability, Trade and Cooperation Agreement","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45652433","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article analyses the political utilization of EU-funded research in support of EU conflict prevention and peacebuilding. By an institutional and empirical analysis, it seeks to assess the extent to which EU-funded research in this ‘high politics’ area is utilized in EU policy-making. The institutional analysis shows a highly complex and path-dependent EU institutional structure for research policymaking, marked by spill-over dynamics and supranational entrepreneurship. The empirical analysis is focussed on Horizon 2020 research projects as the main EU research policy outcomes. The direct political utilization of project results at the EU level is limited and fits the concept of ‘knowledge creep’. EU-funded research projects have contributed indirectly to the development of concepts which are in use in EU policy-making, such as civilian capabilities and gender mainstreaming. Project research outcomes have also been used internally in the scientific domain in terms of accumulation of scientific capital. The empirical results show a very limited level of EU research integration in this cross-sectoral area with clear horizontal differentiation between Western and Eastern Europe. European Union (EU), research utilization, knowledge creep, conflict prevention, peacebuilding, Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)
{"title":"The Political Utilization of EU-Funded Research in EU Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding","authors":"N. Pavlov","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022027","url":null,"abstract":"The article analyses the political utilization of EU-funded research in support of EU conflict prevention and peacebuilding. By an institutional and empirical analysis, it seeks to assess the extent to which EU-funded research in this ‘high politics’ area is utilized in EU policy-making. The institutional analysis shows a highly complex and path-dependent EU institutional structure for research policymaking, marked by spill-over dynamics and supranational entrepreneurship. The empirical analysis is focussed on Horizon 2020 research projects as the main EU research policy outcomes. The direct political utilization of project results at the EU level is limited and fits the concept of ‘knowledge creep’. EU-funded research projects have contributed indirectly to the development of concepts which are in use in EU policy-making, such as civilian capabilities and gender mainstreaming. Project research outcomes have also been used internally in the scientific domain in terms of accumulation of scientific capital. The empirical results show a very limited level of EU research integration in this cross-sectoral area with clear horizontal differentiation between Western and Eastern Europe.\u0000European Union (EU), research utilization, knowledge creep, conflict prevention, peacebuilding, Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45345454","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The European Union (EU) presented its new trade strategy in early 2021. This article assesses whether the strategy constitutes a path-altering development in EU trade policy. Drawing on concepts from Historical Institutionalism the article assesses the presence and influence of the permissive and productive conditions necessary for a critical juncture, meaning a path-altering policy development, to occur. The permissive conditions refer to the external environment, while the productive conditions are internal, referring to ideational (cognitive and normative) and instrumental developments. We find that although the EU responded instrumentally to changes in the international trading system, and a loosening of the liberal international order, the new trade strategy was not accompanied by a complete ideational change. The EU’s normative outlook was little changed in 2021. The conclusion discusses how subsequent changes in the international environment and trade instruments may affect EU trade policy, and whether, over a longer time-period, the new strategy may nonetheless be identified as the start of a critical juncture. European Union, trade policy, geo-economics, strategy, strategic autonomy, critical juncture, permissive conditions, productive conditions
{"title":"Article: Was the European Union’s 2021 Trade Strategy a Critical Juncture?","authors":"Patricia Garcia‐Duran, L. Eliasson","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022037","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union (EU) presented its new trade strategy in early 2021. This article assesses whether the strategy constitutes a path-altering development in EU trade policy. Drawing on concepts from Historical Institutionalism the article assesses the presence and influence of the permissive and productive conditions necessary for a critical juncture, meaning a path-altering policy development, to occur. The permissive conditions refer to the external environment, while the productive conditions are internal, referring to ideational (cognitive and normative) and instrumental developments. We find that although the EU responded instrumentally to changes in the international trading system, and a loosening of the liberal international order, the new trade strategy was not accompanied by a complete ideational change. The EU’s normative outlook was little changed in 2021. The conclusion discusses how subsequent changes in the international environment and trade instruments may affect EU trade policy, and whether, over a longer time-period, the new strategy may nonetheless be identified as the start of a critical juncture.\u0000European Union, trade policy, geo-economics, strategy, strategic autonomy, critical juncture, permissive conditions, productive conditions","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44105009","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：