Recent Publications

On 29 November 2012, the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) voted overwhelmingly to accord Palestine ‘Non-Member Observer State’ Status in the UN. In the first part of this Policy Brief, the implications of upgrading the status of Palestine with regard to the possible role of the International Criminal Court (ICC) will be assessed. In April 2012, the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC declined to accept jurisdiction for acts committed on the territory of Palestine since 1 July 2002, justifying its decision based on the fact that Palestine had, at the time, only the status of an ‘Observer Entity’ at the UN. Subsequently, it will be analysed if the Palestinian pursuit of its cause before the ICC can be considered as an effective lawfare strategy or rather as a poisoned chalice.

What future for European land power?

Mattelaer, A. 23 Jun 2013 In : European Geostrategy.

Research output: ResearchOther scientific journal contribution

Original languageEnglish
JournalEuropean Geostrategy
StatePublished - 23 Jun 2013

The European Council meeting on 7 and 8 February 2013 attracted an unusual level of attention from media and citizens. For a couple of days, Europe played a more important role in national politics and news. Sensation-frenzied media and excited politicians spouted notions of ‘a battle’, ‘winners’, ‘losers’ or ‘striking deals’, as if Europe had gone back to the time when its military powers still conflicted. After more than 24 hours of intense negotiations, the respective Member States leaders left Brussels with ‘good news’ for their citizens. However, those with more Euro-federalist feelings were left with a sense of non-accomplishment and missed opportunities, not only because the EU budget for the first time in history was set for a net decrease, but also because the European Council’s conclusions did not contain any ground-breaking changes to this system. Nevertheless, the European Parliament (EP) immediately reminded Europe about its role and outlined its conditions for further negotiations. Thus, the supporters of a modern and stronger EU budget still see a chance in the consent procedure and hope to shift the focus of the debate from the juste retour spirit to the consideration of the European common good. Is there still a chance for such a shift? What issues are at stake?

Mark Verheyden
Julia Glidden

How do we ensure that public policy represents the interests of all, rather than a select few? How will we ensure it draws upon the best insights and talents of key stakeholders? The European Commission’s DG CONNECT recently announced the results of its Stakeholder Engagement Survey, which is designed to ‘provide empirical results and feedback about existing practices and signal gaps and challenges for action in the area of stakeholder engagement.’ (Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, Stakeholders Unit D4, 2013, p.4). The survey launched a new round of reflection on the Commission’s relations with its stakeholders by asking respondents to reflect on the way in which they interact with DG CONNECT. The strategic objective is to see how ICTs can be used in novel ways to enhance support for policymaking from stakeholders in the EU. The Stakeholder Engagement Survey makes a start at answering critical questions about use of ICT as a tool to build ‘smarter policy’ as part of DG CONNECT’s wider step toward defining a strategy for stakeholder engagement. This IES Policy Brief welcomes this current work-in-progress, and outlines some of the challenges that may await the European Commission as it seeks to exploit the full potential of ICT in stakeholder engagement. It provides an initial analysis of the results of this first Stakeholder Engagement Survey, and concludes that whilst many things have changed with regards to tools that policymakers can use to elicit input into policymaking, certain challenges have remained very much the same.

The EU’s attempts to adopt an EU-wide instrument on the right to access to legal aid in criminal proceedings have not been successful so far. The important issue was originally part of Measure C of the Roadmap for criminal procedural rights,1 but due to political difficulties legal aid was dropped from the agenda. However, on a different plane agreement was reached on this topic as the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has adopted the world’s first international instrument dedicated to access to legal aid in December 2012.2 This policy brief argues that the EU should carry on in the ‘spirit’ of these recent developments and adopt a directive providing suspects and defendants with ac- cess to legal aid.

Emmanuel Dalle Mulle
Gerben Wedekind
Inge Depoorter
Thomas Sattich
Tomas Maltby

Abstract

In 2009 the European Union (EU) reached a crucial moment in its history, in which the terms Europe and crisis became conjoined: the European sovereign-debt crisis, or Euro-crisis. Yet enlargement remains on the agenda, with the EU’s next enlargement starting on 1st July 2013 with the accession of Croatia, Iceland and FYROM looking set to follow in the near future, and probably other Western Balkan states and possibly Turkey in the long term. Enlargement therefore will soon come back into focus. Focusing on climate and energy security policy, this working paper first reflects upon the impact of the 2004/2007 enlargement on the EU. A reflection on the EU’s recent past with some of the lessons that can be learnt then follows, with a consideration that predictions of decision- and policy-making gridlock were not realised, that newer member states have proved influential, and that prospective member states cannot be expected to be passive nor impotent. The latter part of this paper evaluates the potential prospects and outcomes of these lessons with regard to future enlargement from within (Scotland and Catalonia), and without (Turkey), and the political factors which may dictate whether these possible enlargements are realised.

About the Authors

Emmanuel Dalle Mulle is a PhD candidate and Teaching Assistant in International History and Politics, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva. He is working on a thesis entitled "Nationalism of the Rich: Discourses and Strategies of Separatist Parties in Padania, Catalonia, Scotland and Flanders".

Gerben Wedekind is an expert in EU-enlargement and EU-Turkey affairs. He is currently researching the integration of interest groups from EU Candidate States in EU governance structures as part of his PhD at Ghent University. Moreover, he is a full-time EU Advisor for the Brussels' office of Turkey's major research and business organisations (TuR&Bo).

Inge Depoorter obtained a Master degree in Political Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel in 2007 (cum laude) and a Master degree in 'Comparative and International Politics (European Politics)', Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in 2008. Currently, she is writing a PhD thesis on the impact of the EU enlargement on the EU decision-making process.

Thomas Sattich is Associate Researcher at the Institute for European Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Visiting Researcher at the Brussels office of the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), German Institute for International and Security Affairs. He is writing a PhD thesis on the impact of the EU's Eastern enlargement on European climate and energy politics.

Tomas Maltby is a PhD candidate in the Politics department at the University of Manchester, and a former Visiting Researcher at IES. His research focuses on energy policy, EU enlargement and EU agenda-setting.

Florian Rabitz

Abstract

With the 1995 Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), a centralised rule-system for the international governance of patents was put in place under the general framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Since then, the number of patent–related institutions has increased monotonically on the multilateral, plurilateral and bilateral levels. I will explain this case of institutional change by focusing on the norm–setting activities of both industrialised and developing countries, arguing that both groups constitute internally highly cohesive coalitions in global patent politics, while institutional change occurs when both coalitions engage in those negotiating settings in which they enjoy a comparative advantage over the other coalition. Specific ally, I make the point that industrialised countries’ norm–setting activities take place on the plurilateral and bilateral level, where economic factors can be effectively translated into political outcomes while simultaneously avoiding unacceptably high legitimacy costs; whereas developing countries, on the other hand, use various multilateral United Nations (UN) forums where their claims possess a high degree of legitimacy, but cannot translate into effective political outcomes. The paper concludes with some remarks on how this case yields new insights into ongoing debates in institutionalist International Relations (IR), as pertaining to present discussions on “regime complexity”.

About the author

Florian received a Diploma in political science with economics from the University of Marburg in 2008. After working as a research assistant in the German parliament for 5 months, he joined the IES in late 2009, where he is currently working within the FWO-funded project "Governance through regulatory complexes: the international and European management of genetic resources" together with Justyna Pozarowska and Sebastian Oberthuer. His main research interests relate to institutional dimensions of global environmental governance, and in his thesis he is looking at the role of the EU within the genetic resources institutional complex, which is composed of institutions such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the World Trade Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the World Health Organization. Other interests relate mainly to IR theory and issues of philosophy of science in IR, such as scientific realism, causality and the structure - agency problem.

Hans Hoebeke
The crisis in Mali has brought the Sahel to the centre of international attention. This fragile region not only suffers from longstanding development challenges, but also from an acute security vacuum that has triggered military intervention. Many questions have arisen as a consequence of the crisis. Has the European Union the ability to cope with such a complex and dynamically evolving security environment? How have divergent views on the political roadmap to be adopted, and the lack of resources at the African level, impacted the crisis response? Can the different players involved agree on what are the most pertinent needs and challenges to be addressed? Are they ready for long-term engagement? Can regional organisations effectively collaborate and are they able to successfully integrate different agendas? Following a conference organised by the Institute for European Studies, the Egmont Institute and the Observatoire de l’Afrique on these questions this Policy Brief builds on the findings of the conference and provides an analytical overview of the regional crisis by focusing on the main challenges facing the Sahel, the local and regional dynamics at play and the military and security response.
Daniel Fiott
Katherine Prizeman

ABSTRACT

This paper seeks to delineate some preliminary factors and working methods that could work in favour of establishing a workable international export control regime for dual-use goods and technologies. Drawing on the work initiated by various United Nations initiatives and the Wassenaar Agreement, but specifically looking at the European Union export regime model, this working paper asks if and how a similar model could be adopted at the international level. Far from suggesting that the EU regime should of could be adopted on a global basis or that the regime is full-proof, the authors acknowledge that EU regulations are seen as among the most stringent of frameworks on dual-use goods and technologies available. Accordingly, this paper asks what elements of the EU’s control regime could be of international benefit after the ATT negotiations and how it could be adopted on a more international basis. Indeed, any future ATT control mechanism for dual-use items will have to draw on existing arms transfers and control regimes. It does this through an analysis of the ATT and the current discourse on dual-use goods and technologies in the negotiations, an stocktaking of the strengths and weaknesses of the EU’s export control regime and by asking what elements of the EU’s regime could be utilised for international control mechanisms after a future ATT is negotiated.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Daniel Fiott holds an M.Phil. degree in International Relations from the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom and a B.Sc. degree in International Studies from the Open University, United Kingdom. He currently serves as a doctoral researcher at the Institute for European Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel. His research interests include the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy, European defence-industrial integration and International Relations theory.

Katherine Prizeman holds an M.S. degree in Global Affairs from New York University, United States and a B.A. in International Language/Business and Philosophy from the University of Scranton, United States. She currently serves as the International Coordinator of the Disarmament Programme at Global Action to Prevent War, New York. Her expertise is in conventional arms control, disarmament, the arms trade and she has substantial experience with the United Nations system and global NGO networks.

From April until October 2012, China witnessed a series of public protests against the Japanese purchase of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. Besides providing further evidence of growing Chinese nationalism, this unrest is interesting for other reasons relevant to EU policy. The Beijing leadership, which is traditionally perceived as the only source of foreign policy decisions in China, faces a changing domestic constellation. Domestic opinion increasingly constrains Chinese foreign policy, and it becomes obvious that foreign policy decision-making in Beijing is not insulated from larger social developments. Even if foreign policy decisions in China are still made without direct input from civil society, the influence of social forces on Chinese foreign policies has to be taken seriously. The EU thus might want to reconsider its approach to China: as long as EU concerns about human rights are met with a rather uncompromising attitude by the Chinese political elites, Brussels should double its efforts to reach Chinese civil society.