Recent Publications

Ramon Pacheco Pardo
Tongfi Kim
Linde Desmaele
Maximilian Ernst

One year has passed since the historic summit between US President Donald Trump and North KoreanChairman Kim Jong-un on June 12 in Singapore. The summit marked the first meeting between the sittingleaders of both countries. There were also three inter-Korean summits between South Korean President Moon Jae-in and Kim last year; only two had been held before since the end of the Korean War. Twelvemonths after the Singapore summit, however, diplomacy in the Korean Peninsula seems to have stalled following the failure of Trump and Kim to reach an agreement during their February 27-28 summit in Hanoi.

In this context, what do the publics of the US, China, Japan and Russia think about the situation in theKorean Peninsula? After all, these four powers have a keen interest in its geopolitics and Northeast Asia more generally. And public opinion has the potential to influence foreign policy decisions. With this survey, we shed light on the views that the publics of these four countries hold regarding the present and futureof the Korean Peninsula. The focus of the survey is inter-Korean relations, US-North Korea relations and policy towards North Korea.

The survey by Ipsos Mori was carried out in the period from 24th May – 4th June. It involved 1004 interviews in China, 1000 in Japan, 1099 in Russia and 1096 inthe United States, respectively.

South Korea has become the first country in the world to launch commercial 5G services on 3 April. 5G economic benefits are estimated to include worldwide revenues of €225 billion by 2025 and a wealth of job creation. The US, China, South Korea and the EU are economic powerhouses vying to lead the unfolding global 5G market. US and China are strongly positioned in the current telecom market, but their growing 5G competition is spilling over into geopolitical competition. Wary of being swept up in US-China rivalry, the Moon government is banking on building strong 5G market competitiveness and doubling down on the IT sector which represents a critical economic growth engine domestically.

It took almost a decade for the European Union (EU), and the euro area in particular, to recover from the Great Recession. Something that has not fully recovered in the EU, nevertheless, is investment. The current debate about the status of the European economy often points to the need to boost investment. The efforts focus, on one side, on creating better conditions for the business sector to engage in more investment, and, on the other side, on changing the composition of public finances for government budgets to devote a larger share to investment. This policy brief argues that the space available for additional investment is less constrained than usually assumed and that boosting investment today is possible.

Pieter Boussemaere
Jan Cools
Michel De Paepe
Cathy Macharis
Erik Mathijs
Bart Muys
Karel Van Acker
Han Vandevyvere
Arne van Stiphout
Frank Venmans
Kris Verheyen
Pascal Vermeulen
Sara Vicca
Tomas Wyns

This report was developed and written by researchers from diverse disciplines and across different academic and research institutes in Belgium. It is the contribution of these researchers to the call for action under the ‘Sign for My Future’ campaign. It is inspired by the widespread societal call for climate action by ‘youth for climate’ and the coalition of a wide range of societal actors. It also,in particular, responds to the call for the scientific community to actively engage in this debate andwas informed and guided by the latest scientific evidence on anthropogenic climate change and the related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions pathways that stand a significant chance to avoid global average temperature increases of 1.5 ̊C and 2 ̊C compared to pre-industrial levels.

The main goal of this report is to support Belgian policy makers and key stakeholders in the development of a vision and strategy towards achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in Belgium by 2050, while taking into account the impact of consumption inside Belgium leading to emissions outside of our country.

Alexander Mattelaer

On 18 March 2019 the fifth edition of the Belgo-German Conference took place in Brussels. Framed around the inter-related themes of energy, mobility and digitalization, the conference sought to provide a platform for dialogue between political leaders, diplomatic officials, and representatives from the private sector, academia and civil society. This European Policy Brief aims to illuminate the major topics that were discussed at the conference and put these into a wider context. The umbrella theme of connectivity in infrastructure speaks to the common ambition that Belgium and Germany share: propelling the European project forward – even when facing headwinds – by embracing increased economic interdependence.

Tongfi Kim

President Trump is reportedly planning to demand payment from host countries of U.S. troops covering the entire cost of stationing plus 50 percent. Seoul and Tokyo should treat this so-called “Cost Plus 50” as a wake-up call to deal collaboratively with the threats their U.S. alliances are facing. South Korea and Japan need to coordinate their Special Measures Agreement negotiation strategies, not just to save money, but to preserve the long-term viability of U.S. alliances in East Asia. Above all, they must avoid buying U.S. favor at the expense of each other and appeasing U.S. adversaries such as China and Russia.

Raluca Csernatoni
Bruno Oliveira Martins

Policy Brief: Csernatoni, Raluca & Bruno Oliveira Martins (2019) The European Defence Fund: Key Issues and Controversies, PRIO Policy Brief, 3. Oslo: PRIO,

The recently-launched European Defence Fund (EDF) is a ground-breaking investment in the areas of security and defence and holds the potential to fundamentally challenge the nature of the European Union (EU) as a peace project. Proponents of the EDF frame the initiative as crucial to European security in an age of increasing political instability and rapid technological change. As such, the EDF is framed as a much-needed catalyst for scaling up the EU’s defence by conferring strategic autonomy to Europe, and overhauling a lagging European Defence Technological and Industrial Base. To achieve these goals, the EDF stresses the need to optimise strategic value for money by funding cutting-edge research and innovation and by fostering the development of interoperable defence capabilities. However, the EDF also raises important questions about EU’s political priorities, output legitimacy, and security and defence governance.

Raluca Csernatoni

Book Chapter: Csernatoni, Raluca (2019) The EU’s Technological Power: Harnessing Future and Emerging Technologies for European Security. In Baciu CA., Doyle J. (eds) Peace, Security and Defence Cooperation in Post-Brexit Europe. Springer, Cham, DOI:

Raluca Csernatoni

Csernatoni, Raluca (2019) Between rhetoric and practice: technological efficiency and defence cooperation in the European drone sector. Critical Military Studies, DOI:

Nils Meyer-Ohlendorf
Sebastian Oberthür

This Thursday, the European Council will meet in Sibiu, Romania. Not long ago, this meeting was expected to be an important milestone in the Process on the Future of the EU. Some even called this process “the Sibiu Process”. This seems to be a long time ago. Now, expectations are much lower; most expect only a vague outcome, at best. Avoiding controversy is the first order of business – only a few weeks before the elections. But – no matter what the outcome of the meeting in Sibiu will be – the core questions of the Process on the Future of the EU will not go away: how to maintain and develop a strong EU that is capable of helping Member States address problems that they cannot solve alone. This question will stick with us, and it will keep the new Parliament and the new Commission busy.

Read more >>>