refugee law that took place in Barcelona. In the spirit of intergenerational academic exchange, students, young researchers, and established experts engage in interdisciplinary discussions on fundamental questions of migration law and migration policy, which have become more virulent than ever since the refugee protection crisis of 2015. European, human rights and international law aspects are supplemented by national perspectives from Belgium, Bulgaria, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The entire project sees itself as a laboratory for the exchange of ideas on how modern migration societies can orient themselves towards a sustainable future. With contributions by Claudia Candelmo, Carmine Conte, Francisco Javier Donaire Villa, Arolda Elbasani, Leonard Amaru Feil, Francesco Luigi Gatta, Chad Heimrich, Markus Kotzur, Annalisa Morticelli, David Moya, Claudia Pretto, Andrea Romano, David Fernandez Rojo, Senada Šelo Šabić, Valentina Savazzi, Ülkü Sezgi Sözen and Catharina Ziebritzki.
{"title":"The External Dimension of EU Migration and Asylum Policies","authors":"F. Longo, Iole Fontana","doi":"10.5771/9783845298375","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845298375","url":null,"abstract":"refugee law that took place in Barcelona. In the spirit of intergenerational academic exchange, students, young researchers, and established experts engage in interdisciplinary discussions on fundamental questions of migration law and migration policy, which have become more virulent than ever since the refugee protection crisis of 2015. European, human rights and international law aspects are supplemented by national perspectives from Belgium, Bulgaria, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The entire project sees itself as a laboratory for the exchange of ideas on how modern migration societies can orient themselves towards a sustainable future. \u0000With contributions by\u0000Claudia Candelmo, Carmine Conte, Francisco Javier Donaire Villa, Arolda Elbasani, Leonard Amaru Feil, Francesco Luigi Gatta, Chad Heimrich, Markus Kotzur, Annalisa Morticelli, David Moya, Claudia Pretto, Andrea Romano, David Fernandez Rojo, Senada Šelo Šabić, Valentina Savazzi, Ülkü Sezgi Sözen and Catharina Ziebritzki.","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":"49135742","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}
It is usually considered that EU-Belarus contractual relations are almost non-existent due to the lack of an overarching agreement between the parties. This article argues that the EU-Belarus contractual relations, despite their apparent absence, consist of a complex system of legal instruments. The article identifies three main intrinsic characteristics of the EU-Belarus bilateral framework: quasi-institutionalization of the political dialogue as well as preponderance of unilateral ‘soft’ instruments and sector-specific cooperation. This quasi-legal framework has concrete implications for the (limited) toolbox available for the EU to respond to the migrant crisis at its borders with Belarus. In addition to EU internal measures to counter migrant smuggling, the partial suspension of the Visa Facilitation Agreement and the upgrading of the EU restrictive measures emerged as two available legal avenues for the EU’s action with respect to Belarus. Belarus, Eastern Partnership, PCA, legal framework, ENP, Readmission Agreement, Visa Facilitation Agreement, Customs cooperation
{"title":"‘Code of Absence’: EU-Belarus Legal Framework","authors":"Y. Miadzvetskaya","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022018","url":null,"abstract":"It is usually considered that EU-Belarus contractual relations are almost non-existent due to the lack of an overarching agreement between the parties. This article argues that the EU-Belarus contractual relations, despite their apparent absence, consist of a complex system of legal instruments. The article identifies three main intrinsic characteristics of the EU-Belarus bilateral framework: quasi-institutionalization of the political dialogue as well as preponderance of unilateral ‘soft’ instruments and sector-specific cooperation. This quasi-legal framework has concrete implications for the (limited) toolbox available for the EU to respond to the migrant crisis at its borders with Belarus. In addition to EU internal measures to counter migrant smuggling, the partial suspension of the Visa Facilitation Agreement and the upgrading of the EU restrictive measures emerged as two available legal avenues for the EU’s action with respect to Belarus.\u0000Belarus, Eastern Partnership, PCA, legal framework, ENP, Readmission Agreement, Visa Facilitation Agreement, Customs cooperation","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44927412","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}
EU accession conditionality is expected to be an incentive for third countries to apply EU energy rules. However, looking at the latest Energy Community (EnC) Implementation Report (2021), Ukraine, then a non-candidate country, performed better than the candidate country of Serbia in liberalizing its energy sector. Adopting the EU external governance approach, this article investigates whether this result depends on the EU’s bargaining power or, rather, on the domestic cost-benefit calculation of implementing the EnC acquis. While applying this legislation proves to be quite costly for both Serbia and Ukraine, the EU’s bargaining power turns out to have opposite effects in the two cases. This has increased in Ukraine as a result of the deterioration of relations between Moscow and Kiev, thus leading to an increasingly implementation of the EnC acquis. Conversely, the EU’s bargaining power has decreased in Serbia due to Russia’s significant presence in the country’s energy sector, which is a major obstacle to the implementation of the EnC legislation. A significant level of EU bargaining power has therefore the potential to reverse the impact of domestic factors, leading to a reconsideration of the role that international energy dynamics play in accession conditionality. Finally, conclusions are drawn on how the EnC can benefit from this finding and improve its effectiveness. Energy Community, EU external governance, Energy governance, Accession conditionality, Ukraine, Serbia
{"title":"EU Accession Conditionality and Compliance with the Energy Community Treaty: A Missing Link","authors":"M. Lelli","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022017","url":null,"abstract":"EU accession conditionality is expected to be an incentive for third countries to apply EU energy rules. However, looking at the latest Energy Community (EnC) Implementation Report (2021), Ukraine, then a non-candidate country, performed better than the candidate country of Serbia in liberalizing its energy sector. Adopting the EU external governance approach, this article investigates whether this result depends on the EU’s bargaining power or, rather, on the domestic cost-benefit calculation of implementing the EnC acquis. While applying this legislation proves to be quite costly for both Serbia and Ukraine, the EU’s bargaining power turns out to have opposite effects in the two cases. This has increased in Ukraine as a result of the deterioration of relations between Moscow and Kiev, thus leading to an increasingly implementation of the EnC acquis. Conversely, the EU’s bargaining power has decreased in Serbia due to Russia’s significant presence in the country’s energy sector, which is a major obstacle to the implementation of the EnC legislation. A significant level of EU bargaining power has therefore the potential to reverse the impact of domestic factors, leading to a reconsideration of the role that international energy dynamics play in accession conditionality. Finally, conclusions are drawn on how the EnC can benefit from this finding and improve its effectiveness. Energy Community, EU external governance, Energy governance, Accession conditionality, Ukraine, Serbia","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42500588","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 EU has been using its trade power to exert influence in other areas by including non-trade issues (NTIs) in its trade agreements with third countries. One such NTI is the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) non-proliferation clause. We study how the WMD non-proliferation clause affected countries’ WMD non-proliferation behaviour. Our results demonstrate that the nonproliferation clause is effective in case of bilateral trade agreements, but not in case of regional trade agreements. The results demonstrate that the EU can use its trade power to exert influence in other areas, but that the extent of such power is limited. EU, WMD non-proliferation clause, NTIs, Trade Agreements, Conditionality
{"title":"The WMD Non-proliferation Clause in EU Trade Agreements","authors":"Ilja Donkervoort, M. Onderco","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022020","url":null,"abstract":"The EU has been using its trade power to exert influence in other areas by including non-trade issues (NTIs) in its trade agreements with third countries. One such NTI is the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) non-proliferation clause. We study how the WMD non-proliferation clause affected countries’ WMD non-proliferation behaviour. Our results demonstrate that the nonproliferation clause is effective in case of bilateral trade agreements, but not in case of regional trade agreements. The results demonstrate that the EU can use its trade power to exert influence in other areas, but that the extent of such power is limited.\u0000EU, WMD non-proliferation clause, NTIs, Trade Agreements, Conditionality","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44210374","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 calls into question the picture that is often uncritically depicted around the European Parliament (EP) and civil society as newly empowered actors and consistent advocates of citizens’ interests in EU trade negotiations. The contribution of the article is twofold. First, it provides a comparative and empirical account of the mobilization of the EP and civil society across the negotiations of the new generation EU trade agreements. It shows that a common thread has been an erratic engagement, along the lines of politicization: the EP has only been vocal in response to civil society mobilization; and civil society mobilization in turn has been inconsistent, even though some contested issues were common to all trade negotiations. Second, the article sheds light on improvements in democratic treaty-making practices that emerged as a result of the mobilization of the EP and civil society. While drawing some lessons on EU trade law-making going forward, the article calls for a more modest appraisal of the legacy of these newly emerged democratic practices. EU trade negotiations, international treaty-making, European Parliament, civil society, mobilization, CETA, TTIP, EU-Singapore FTA, EU-Japan EPA
{"title":"The European Parliament and Civil Society in EU Trade Negotiations: The Untold Story of an Erratic Engagement","authors":"I. Mancini","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022021","url":null,"abstract":"The article calls into question the picture that is often uncritically depicted around the European Parliament (EP) and civil society as newly empowered actors and consistent advocates of citizens’ interests in EU trade negotiations. The contribution of the article is twofold. First, it provides a comparative and empirical account of the mobilization of the EP and civil society across the negotiations of the new generation EU trade agreements. It shows that a common thread has been an erratic engagement, along the lines of politicization: the EP has only been vocal in response to civil society mobilization; and civil society mobilization in turn has been inconsistent, even though some contested issues were common to all trade negotiations. Second, the article sheds light on improvements in democratic treaty-making practices that emerged as a result of the mobilization of the EP and civil society. While drawing some lessons on EU trade law-making going forward, the article calls for a more modest appraisal of the legacy of these newly emerged democratic practices.\u0000EU trade negotiations, international treaty-making, European Parliament, civil society, mobilization, CETA, TTIP, EU-Singapore FTA, EU-Japan EPA","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49358382","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 investigates why Georgian and Moldovan think-tanks have not emulated effective forms of advocacy in relations with the EU that their Ukrainian counterparts have established, namely a liaison office in Brussels. The reason is not the cost but rather the presence of alternative communication channels, high-level personal contacts and think-tanks’ focus on organizational survival. Better connectivity and new means of communication make the presence of a Brussels hub less crucial for regional think-tanks. Our research shows that there is often limited collaboration amongst think-tanks at the national level, which negatively affects opportunities for transnational advocacy of Eastern Partnership (EaP) think-tanks in relations with EU institutions. Eastern Partnership, European Union, think-tanks, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, transnational advocacy
{"title":"Why Are Success Stories Not Copied? Emulating Advocacy Strategies Amongst Eastern Partnership Think-Tanks","authors":"A. Strelkov, V. Samokhvalov","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022019","url":null,"abstract":"The article investigates why Georgian and Moldovan think-tanks have not emulated effective forms of advocacy in relations with the EU that their Ukrainian counterparts have established, namely a liaison office in Brussels. The reason is not the cost but rather the presence of alternative communication channels, high-level personal contacts and think-tanks’ focus on organizational survival. Better connectivity and new means of communication make the presence of a Brussels hub less crucial for regional think-tanks. Our research shows that there is often limited collaboration amongst think-tanks at the national level, which negatively affects opportunities for transnational advocacy of Eastern Partnership (EaP) think-tanks in relations with EU institutions.\u0000Eastern Partnership, European Union, think-tanks, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, transnational advocacy","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42503446","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}
An increased emphasis on gender equality in the EU’s foreign and security policy could potentially pave the way for a Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP) for the EU. Analysing the perceptions of Sweden’s FFP in newspapers of eleven EU Member States, this article contributes to the literature on norm enhancement – advancing the depth and scope of the existing norms in an area – as well as to the discussion on Member States’ views of FFP and the potential for introducing a FFP into EU foreign policy. Studying salience, (in)coherence and legitimacy of Sweden’s FFP in newspapers, the results demonstrate that FFP is most frequently reported in like-minded countries, and least reported in Member States with conservative views on gender equality. There is also a dividing line between left-leaning and right-leaning newspapers, with the former reporting considerably more and being more positive towards Sweden’s FFP. The relative lack of interest in Sweden’s FFP in some Member States, as well as the critique from especially right-leaning newspapers, suggest that a FFP for the EU is not likely to come about in a near future. Feminist Foreign Policy, European Union, Sweden, external perceptions, norms, media analysis
{"title":"Inspiration or Provocation?: Sweden’s Feminist Foreign Policy in National Newspapers in EU Member States","authors":"M. Sundström","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022023","url":null,"abstract":"An increased emphasis on gender equality in the EU’s foreign and security policy could potentially pave the way for a Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP) for the EU. Analysing the perceptions of Sweden’s FFP in newspapers of eleven EU Member States, this article contributes to the literature on norm enhancement – advancing the depth and scope of the existing norms in an area – as well as to the discussion on Member States’ views of FFP and the potential for introducing a FFP into EU foreign policy. Studying salience, (in)coherence and legitimacy of Sweden’s FFP in newspapers, the results demonstrate that FFP is most frequently reported in like-minded countries, and least reported in Member States with conservative views on gender equality. There is also a dividing line between left-leaning and right-leaning newspapers, with the former reporting considerably more and being more positive towards Sweden’s FFP. The relative lack of interest in Sweden’s FFP in some Member States, as well as the critique from especially right-leaning newspapers, suggest that a FFP for the EU is not likely to come about in a near future.\u0000Feminist Foreign Policy, European Union, Sweden, external perceptions, norms, media analysis","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49537458","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 EU has differentiated legal relationships with its nearest geographical neighbours. Arguably, none is more unique than that of the EU with the Vatican City State (VCS) (and by extension, the Holy See). Between the parties is a mere ‘monetary agreement’ that facilitates the official use of the single currency in the territory. It is the only bilateral legal commitment that the parties have undertaken. Yet, this apparent simplicity masks a deeper reality. In fact, the monetary agreement currently in place, which replaced a prior monetary agreement, has now de facto put in an institutional framework on the legal relations of the EU with the Vatican City State and Holy See, with a Joint Committee to govern monetary arrangements, and an obligation to implement, in its own way, many aspects of EU financial regulation. The monetary agreement also provides for jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union to settle disputes arising therefrom. This article contextualizes and analyses the legal relations of the EU with the Vatican City State and Holy See, and argues that more embedded legal relations in the future will be inevitable, leading beyond a mere monetary agreement, but one leading to the adopting of a more sophisticated international agreement. EU, Vatican City, Holy See, Monetary agreement, EU acquis
{"title":"The Legal Relations of the European Union with the Vatican City State and Holy See","authors":"G. Butler","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022022","url":null,"abstract":"The EU has differentiated legal relationships with its nearest geographical neighbours. Arguably, none is more unique than that of the EU with the Vatican City State (VCS) (and by extension, the Holy See). Between the parties is a mere ‘monetary agreement’ that facilitates the official use of the single currency in the territory. It is the only bilateral legal commitment that the parties have undertaken. Yet, this apparent simplicity masks a deeper reality. In fact, the monetary agreement currently in place, which replaced a prior monetary agreement, has now de facto put in an institutional framework on the legal relations of the EU with the Vatican City State and Holy See, with a Joint Committee to govern monetary arrangements, and an obligation to implement, in its own way, many aspects of EU financial regulation. The monetary agreement also provides for jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union to settle disputes arising therefrom. This article contextualizes and analyses the legal relations of the EU with the Vatican City State and Holy See, and argues that more embedded legal relations in the future will be inevitable, leading beyond a mere monetary agreement, but one leading to the adopting of a more sophisticated international agreement.\u0000EU, Vatican City, Holy See, Monetary agreement, EU acquis","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44724088","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: The Birth of a Geopolitical EU","authors":"S. Blockmans","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022016","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43795347","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}
Conflict prevention has formed an integral part of the European Union’s (EU’s) Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) since the early 2000s, with investments in civilian peacebuilding and conflict prevention competences suiting well with the Union’s ‘civilian’ or ‘normative’ power role. The transforming international order is, however, changing the strategic environment also for the Union’s and its Member States’ conflict prevention and peacebuilding efforts. This article analyses the implications of the evolving strategic autonomy debate for the EU’s role conception and concrete action in the realm of conflict prevention. While the search for a more capable EU in security and defence does not automatically counter the Union’s selfconception as a conflict preventor and peacebuilder, it does appear to introduce meaningful shifts in the core objectives and values guiding its external action in conflict situations. An analysis of the EU’s rhetoric and concrete uses of its institutional conflict prevention and peacebuilding tools in recent years in Africa suggests a growing centralization of security and geopolitical considerations at the expense of the core ethos of conflict prevention. EU, Conflict prevention, Strategic autonomy, CFSP- Arica, Instrument contributing to stability and peace (IcSP)
{"title":"Preventing What for Whom?: EU Conflict Prevention Efforts in Pursuit of Autonomy","authors":"Katariina Mustasilta","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022011","url":null,"abstract":"Conflict prevention has formed an integral part of the European Union’s (EU’s) Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) since the early 2000s, with investments in civilian peacebuilding and conflict prevention competences suiting well with the Union’s ‘civilian’ or ‘normative’ power role. The transforming international order is, however, changing the strategic environment also for the Union’s and its Member States’ conflict prevention and peacebuilding efforts. This article analyses the implications of the evolving strategic autonomy debate for the EU’s role conception and concrete action in the realm of conflict prevention. While the search for a more capable EU in security and defence does not automatically counter the Union’s selfconception as a conflict preventor and peacebuilder, it does appear to introduce meaningful shifts in the core objectives and values guiding its external action in conflict situations. An analysis of the EU’s rhetoric and concrete uses of its institutional conflict prevention and peacebuilding tools in recent years in Africa suggests a growing centralization of security and geopolitical considerations at the expense of the core ethos of conflict prevention.\u0000EU, Conflict prevention, Strategic autonomy, CFSP- Arica, Instrument contributing to stability and peace (IcSP)","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46913733","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：