Recent Publications

Capability Development: The Times They Are a-Changin.

Mattelaer, A., Biscop, S. (ed.) & Fiott, D. (ed.) 2013 Brussels: Egmont Institute. 5 p. (The State of Defence in Europe: State of Emergency?)

Research output: ResearchCommissioned report

Original languageEnglish
Place of PublicationBrussels
PublisherEgmont Institute
Number of pages5
ISBN (Print)978-90-382-2266-0
StatePublished - 2013

Publication series

NameThe State of Defence in Europe: State of Emergency?
Johanna van Vrede

Expanding EU-China institutional cooperation in the energy sector has been matched by a parallel process of stronger economic ties between European and Chinese companies in the renewable energy (RE) sector (particularly wind and photovoltaics). While the foundation of early EU-China institutional relations was based primarily on trade cooperation, international efforts to mitigate climate change and the common challenge of decreasing energy dependence in a sustainable manner brought a new dimension to their partnership in the energy sector in the mid 90s. Although the role of EU-China energy cooperation has grown tremendously in the context of EU external trade policy and EU strategy to boost its energy independence and international climate policy, the potential of civil society collaboration in this partnership has remained rather unexploited. Based on major civil society initiatives in the RE field that have been developed in recent years, this policy brief argues that civil society dialogue between China and EU could be an important driving force in deepening EU-China cooperation on RE and a bridge towards a more sustainable future.

The ongoing review of the EU’s Crisis Management Procedures warrants attention. What passes as an update of an arcane and technical document masks a profoundly political debate concerning what the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) should be about. This policy brief summarises the main proposals and formulates a set of critical reflections. It calls for replacing the bureaucratic scheming with a more forthright political debate, and warns against sacrificing incompatible organisational cultures on the altar of the comprehensive approach. At a time when European security and prosperity trends are increasingly pointing downwards, the EEAS and the member states must look to the future and embrace, rather than resist, change.

Günes Ünüvar

Abstract

Following the inclusion of the Common Commercial Policy in the exclusive competences of the European Union, a handful of policy adjustments have occurred. Among these adjustments, investment protection has been a remarkable one - given its new, exclusive framework and an already established, state-level practice. As the new policy stands, Bilateral Investment Treaties, which had been negotiated and executed by the EU Member States in the pre-Lisbon period, can now only be negotiated and executed by the EU. These prospective ‘EU BITs’, inter alia, aim for an even stronger mechanism for the protection of investors both in the EU and in third states. A strong protection mechanism inevitably calls for a strong Dispute Settlement Mechanism, and the establishment of a DSM may prove to be challenging. The EU currently faces several questions on its path to a tangible and reliable ‘EU BIT’, and arguably the most outstanding one is the question of the DSMs to be incorporated in these new agreements. What are the alternatives of a DSM for these new BITs? Which alternatives are currently utilizable and which ones are not? What are the current problems that the EU face, and how can those problems be tackled? Is the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes an alternative, and if not, why? Following a thorough overview, this paper aims to analyse the DSM alternatives for the EU to be used in the new EU BITs and ultimately provide a solid DSM proposal.

About the author

Günes Ünüvar holds an LL.M. degree in International and European Law from Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium and an LL.B. degree in Law from Bilkent University, Turkey. He currently serves as a researcher at TÜSIAD (Turkish Association of Business and Industry) EU Representative Office. He is also an attorney-at-law, admitted to the Ankara Bar Association in Turkey. His research interests include international investment law, international arbitration, WTO, trade law, environmental law and energy law.


 

November 2012
newsletter



 

The transformation of Germany’s energy sector will further exacerbate current network fluctuations and intensify the need for modifications in Europe’s power system. Cross-border power transfers will have to increase in order to overcome national limitations for absorbing large volumes of intermittent renewables like wind and solar power. In order to establish such an infrastructure on a European scale, the energy transition needs to be guided by an economic approach designed to prevent further fractures in the Internal Electricity Market. Moreover, constructive negotiations with neighbouring countries on market designs and price signals will be important preconditions for a successful energy transition in Europe.

You can also read this Policy Brief online.

EU Special Representatives have been deployed since 1996 in order to contribute to the EU’s crisis management efforts in various crisis regions. As they are not part of the formal hierarchy of the European External Action Service and thus a rather flexible foreign policy instrument at the disposal of the Member States, new special representatives have been appointed in 2011 and 2012. This Policy Brief argues that the representatives’ autonomy must not necessarily lead to ‘clashes of competence’ with the EU’s diplomatic service.

Susan E. Penksa
Roy H. Ginsberg

Does the EU matter in international security? How can the deployment of EU crisis management operations to different regions of the world be explained? What have been their effects on the EU and its member states, on host states and societies, and on other international security providers? The authors identify and explain the drivers of and brakes to EU foreign security action and offer methods of assessment to ascertain influence. On the basis of a comprehensive analysis of EU security operations utilizing extensive primary resources and fieldwork, the authors conclude that the union has become a niche international security provider. However, the Common Security and Defense Policy, like other policy sectors of the EU, will remain a work-in-progress, partly finished, partly effective, and yet of interest to a world that has always expected more of the union than it has been willing to give.

With a foreword by Javier Solana

It is clear that any action to combat climate change must involve extensive efforts in reducing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the energy sector. In the EU, nearly 80% of total GHG emissions come from the energy sector (European Commission, 2011, p. 21). Any credible action within the EU on combating climate change therefore requires deep shifts in the way we produce and use our energy. This paper highlights that renewable energy policies to 2020 are insufficient to meet the EU’s long-term climate policy objectives of reducing GHG emissions by between 80 and 95% by 2050, and thereby aiming to avoid an increase in global temperatures of more than 2°C. Such an ambition would likely require a very high share of renewable energy (in the range of 80 to 100%) in the overall energy mix of the EU, given current uncertainties about the feasibility of potential technological developments (e.g. carbon capture and storage technology).

March 2012
newsletter

Successful PhD for Dr. Sigrid Winkler - Joachim Koops and Peace Building - Eva Gross on Afghanistan - Luis Simon on India - Cluster report on UACES conference - ABS Governance Conference in Norway - IES Lecture Series: Making Malmö Real: EGovernment In The EU - ECPR Conference in Reykjavik - 8th Summer School on the European Decision Making Process - EDU Team launches Wednesday Webinars - Cem Tintin on the move