Recent Publications

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.

The Politico-Military Dynamics of European Crisis Response Operations

Mattelaer, A. 2013 Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 232 p. (Planning, Friction, Strategy)

Research output: ResearchBook

Original languageEnglish
Place of PublicationBasingstoke
PublisherPalgrave Macmillan
Number of pages232
ISBN (Print)978-1-137-01259-3
StatePublished - 2013

Publication series

NamePlanning, Friction, Strategy

The Empty Promise of Comprehensive Planning in EU Crisis Management

Mattelaer, A. 2013 In : European Foreign Affairs Review. 18, p. 125-146 22 p.

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)125-146
Number of pages22
JournalEuropean Foreign Affairs Review
Volume18
StatePublished - 2013

The Sahel Crisis: Where do European and African Perspectives Meet?

Mattelaer, A. 2013 Unknown. (IES Policy Brief 2013/02.)

Research output: ResearchOther report

Original languageEnglish
PublisherUnknown
StatePublished - 2013

Publication series

NameIES Policy Brief 2013/02.
Original languageDutch
Specialist publicationDe Morgen
StatePublished - 2013

The joint design of European-led operations

Mattelaer, A. 2013 In : Politics and Strategy: the Survival Editors' Blog, 15 July.

Research output: ResearchOther scientific journal contribution

Original languageEnglish
JournalPolitics and Strategy: the Survival Editors' Blog, 15 July
StatePublished - 2013

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.