Recent Publications

Decision Making in the Field of CSDP.

Mattelaer, A. 2012 Rehrl, Jochenand Hans-Bernhard Weisserth. Defence, F. M. O. & Austria, S. O. T. R. O. (eds.). Vienna, p. 57-59 3 p. (Handbook on CSDP: The Common Security and Defence Policy of the European Union (2nd ed.))

Research output: ResearchChapter

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationRehrl, Jochenand Hans-Bernhard Weisserth
EditorsFederal Ministry Of Defence, Sports Of The Republic Of Austria
Place of PublicationVienna
Pages57-59
Number of pages3
StatePublished - 2012

Publication series

NameHandbook on CSDP: The Common Security and Defence Policy of the European Union (2nd ed.)

Reviewing the EU’s Crisis Management Procedures

Mattelaer, A. 2012 In : Studia Diplomatica. 65, p. 31-37 7 p.

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)31-37
Number of pages7
JournalStudia Diplomatica
Volume65
StatePublished - 2012
December 2011
working paper
Selen Sarisoy Guerin

Abstract

In this paper we examine the effect of law on foreign direct investment outflows with a specific interest in the relationship between international investment law and domestic private property laws. Our results indicate that FDI investor is indifferent to host country property rights, hence shareholder protection by law is not a significant determinant of FDI outflows. We argue that FDI, in contrast with other types of capital flows, can effectively mitigate the agency problem through majority ownership and control, hence reduce exposure to ex-post expropriation by the affiliate. On the other hand, FDI investor remains exposed to risk of expropriation by the host government and is strongly sensitive to the enforcement of law in the host country. In contrast with recent literature we conclude that there are no causal relationship between bilateral investment treaties and FDI.

JEL codes: D23; F21; F23; F36

About the author

Dr. Selen Sarisoy Guerin is assistant professor at Vrije Universiteit Brussel and senior researcher at the Institute for European Studies since November 2009. Selen holds a PhD in Economics from Trinity College Dublin. Her research interests include all aspects of EU’s trade policy and foreign direct investment, Turkey’s economic integration, global imbalances and international capital flows. Selen has worked closely with EU institutions, the World Bank and various policy makers in Korea, Canada, the GCC, Taiwan and Southeast Europe, and has published across a broad spectrum of issues including climate change and trade, deposit insurance and international capital flows, investment and political regime.

Alan J. Stomel

Abstract

This paper anticipates the 2012 revision of the European Insolvency Regulation, which is the sole Union legislation on the subject of cross border insolvency proceedings.

The paper first describes the historical background of the Regulation. The salient point of the historical discussion is that the Regulation is the product of forty years of negotiation and arises from a historical context that is no longer applicable to current economic realities, i.e. it provides for liquidation, not reorganization, it doesn’t deal with cross border groups of companies, and it lacks an effective mechanism for transparency and creditor participation.

The paper then reviews the unique hybrid jurisdictional system of concurrent universal and territorial proceedings that the Regulation imposes. It looks at this scheme from a practical viewpoint, i.e. what issues arise with concurrent proceedings in two states, involving the same assets, the same creditors, and the same company.

The paper then focuses on a significant issue raised by the European Court of Justice in the Eurofoods case, i.e. the need to comply with fundamental due process principles that, while not articulated in the Regulation, lie at the core of Union law. Specifically, the paper considers the ramifications of the Court’s holding that “a Member State may refuse to recognize insolvency proceedings opened in another Member State where the decision to open the proceedings was taken in flagrant breach of the fundamental right to be heard.”

In response to the Court’s direction, this paper proposes a package of due process rights, consisting principally of an accessible, efficient and useful insolvency database, the infrastructure of which already exists, but the content and use of which has not yet been developed. As part of a cohesive three part due process package, the paper also proposes the formation of cross border creditors' committees and the establishment of a European Insolvency Administrator. Finally, on the institutional level, this paper proposes that the revision of the Regulation and the development of the insolvency database not only need to be coordinated, but need to be conceptualized, managed and undertaken, not as the separate efforts of diverse institutions, but as a single, unified endeavor.

About the author

Alan Stomel has been an attorney specializing in insolvency for twenty--five years. He began his career as an intern at the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the United States Trustee and has worked at major international law firms before starting his own firm in 1999. He has participated in the reorganization of more than fifty companies under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and has participated in the liquidation of hundreds more. He is quoted in the U.S. Congressional Record as an expert in the bankruptcy of firearms manufacturers and appears prominently in the book Lawyers, Guns and Money, an expose' of the cheap handgun industry in the United States. He received his J.D. degree from Loyola Law School in 1986 and his LL.M. (magna cum laude) in European and International Law from Vrije Universiteit Brusssel in 2011. Currently, he is a Legal Advisor at the European Commission, Justice Directorate

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Edited by: Sebastian Oberthür and Olav Schram Stokke

"Institutional Interaction and complexity are crucial to environmental governance and are quickly becoming dominant themes in the international relations and environmental politics literatures. This book examines international institutional interplay and its consequences, focusing on two important issues: how states and other actors, including the EU, can manage institutional interaction to improve synergy and avoid disruption; and what forces drive the emergence and evolution of institutional complexes, sets of institutions that cogovern particular issue areas. The book, a product of the Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change research project (IDGEC), offers both theoretical and empirical perspectives."

Selen Sarisoy Guerin
Ioannis Stivachtis

Enlargement is one of the most established policies of the EU given the success of the past waves of enlargement. Turkish membership of the EU, after more than forty years in discussion, is today a hot topic that has generated many concerns and challenges at both the EU and in national parliament levels. Since accession talks commenced in October 2005, this significant debate among politicians, policy-makers and academicians has mostly focused on economic and political factors as well as concerns over Turkey’s large and growing population and its questionable record of human rights and democracy. These concerns are closely linked with the potential impact of eventual Turkish membership on EU decision-making as well as the economic costs on the EU budget and EU’s absorptive capacity.

Political concerns over Turkish membership already generated vast literature as well as the economic costs of enlargement for the EU. However, there continues to be a lack of information and understanding regarding the economic costs for Turkey.

This book focuses on the experience of Turkey to date in fulfilling its EU membership requirements and its impact on Turkish economy. It begins by evaluating the economic dimension of the EU-Turkey enlargement negotiations process; it follows by assessing the current strengths and weaknesses of the Turkish candidature by outlining how well Turkey has fared so far and finally, it details the implications of the accession negotiations for various sectors of the Turkish economy.

Amelia Padurariu

Abstract

Starting from the concept of delegation of power in external trade policy, this paper aims to investigate the dynamics surrounding the European Union’s position in international trade negotiations. The analysis centres on the role of the European Commission (the agent), which by means of Treaty-based delegation and as mandated by the Council (the principal) acts as the sole trade negotiator in the international sphere on behalf of the European Union (EU). The broader negotiating process is thus conceptualised as a three-level game, where the Commission holds an intermediary position between the European and international levels and also interacts with the Member States in the Council. After an insight into the European decision-making process for external trade, the paper further analyses the Commission’s role during the multilateral trade negotiations of the Doha Development Round. By applying the principal-agent theory to international trade negotiations in general, and subsequently to the controversial agricultural negotiations, this paper seeks to investigate some of the potential sources of autonomy that the Commission can draw upon while upholding an EU position at the international level, in addition to the “hardball” job of balancing the interests of the Member States with those of World Trade Organisation (WTO) partners. Along these lines, the paper finally aims to contribute to the literature concerning agency autonomy in EU external trade relations but also to provide a better understanding of inter-institutional relations within the EU as they may unfold in practice.

About the author

Amelia Padurariu is a PhD candidate at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB). Her professional experience lies broadly in the area of EU external relations, ranging from matters of European Foreign and Security Policy to socio-economic aspects of world regional integration. She has worked for, amongst others, the Institute for European Studies, the United Nations University and the European Commission’s former Directorate General for Justice, Liberty and Security. Amelia holds Masters degrees in international economic relations and in European politics, from the Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies and the VUB. The views expressed are solely those of the author and may not, in any circumstances, be regarded as stating the position of the institutions for which the author is or has been working. The research leading to this paper has been carried out at the VUB/IES, intermittently, between July 2008 and November 2010.

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Garnet Conference “The EU in International Affairs II”, 22-24 April 2010, Brussels.

Youri Devuyst

Abstract

This paper concentrates on the Nixon-Kissinger view of European political integration. In contrast with the mainstream position of the American Administrations during the 1950s and 1960s, Kissinger was convinced that by encouraging European unity, the United States was in fact creating its own rival. The start of a new system of European foreign policy cooperation in 1970 was seen by Kissinger as a particularly important example of Europe’s attempt to challenge the American hegemony. Kissinger emphasized the need to maintain Western Europe in a subordinate role. Three main lines of action were pursued to keep the development of the European Community under control: maintaining bilateral contacts with key European allies, requesting a seat at the Community's decision-making table, and linking "obedient" European behavior to American military presence in Europe. The legacy of this policy still seems to influence the current American policy on the European Union. The Nixon-Kissinger term was, however, detrimental to rather than conducive of harmonious transatlantic relations. Tendencies to emulate it should therefore be discouraged.

About the Author

Youri Devuyst has been teaching politics and institutions of the European Union at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel since 1994. He has been on the teaching staff of the IES Program on International Legal Cooperation (PILC) since 1997. Devuyst holds a doctorate in Political Science (VUB) and obtained Master’s degrees in International and Comparative Law (VUB) and International Relations (Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies). The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not, in any circumstances, be regarded as stating the position of the institutions for which the author is or has been working.

Melissa Schnyder

Abstract

A growing body of research focuses on the expanding roles of NGOs in global and supranational governance. The research emphasizes the increasing number of participation patterns of NGOs in policymaking and cross-national cooperation. It has produced important insights into the evolving political role of NGOs and their growing involvement in governance. The focus on activities at a transnational level has, however, lead to the virtual exclusion of research on other levels of governance. It has not been possible to tell whether the locus of their political activity is shifting from the national to the transnational environment, or whether it is simply broadening. Missing from the literature is an examination of the variety of cooperative relationships, including those between NGOs, which impact policy involvement across different levels of governance. To bridge this gap, I address two key questions: 1) Is the strategy of cooperation among NGOs a common feature of social movement activity across levels of governance, and if so, what does the structure of cooperation look like? 2) What impact, if any, does cooperation have on the expanding political involvement of NGOS, both within and across levels of governance? Using data from an original survey of migrant and refugee organizations across much of Europe, I test several hypotheses that shed light on these issues. The findings broadly indicate that 1) Cooperation is a widely-used strategy across levels of governance, 2) Cooperation with specific sets of actors increases the likelihood of NGO involvement at different levels of governance. Specifically, cooperation with EU-level actors increases the likelihood of national-level involvement, and 3) NGOs are more likely to extend their involvement across a range of institutions if they cooperate with a broad range of actors.

About the Author

Melissa Schnyder works as a quantitative consultant at Corporate Executive Board. She holds a PhD from Indiana University Bloomington. She worked at the Institute for European Studies as a Fullbright Fellow between September 2005 – April 2006, focusing on the inclusion of migrant interests in the EU and the patterns of political behaviour across levels of governance.

June 2011
working paper
Marie Lamensch

Abstract

Switzerland has for a long time been an important centre of banking services in Europe and beyond. Consequently, the banking sector has become important to Switzerland’s prosperity. This paper focuses on a central reason behind the success of the Swiss banking sector: the institution of banking secrecy, deeply enshrined in the Swiss history and tradition. The rapid development of international markets that eventually gave rise to a “group structuration process” has, however, progressively eroded Swiss banking secrecy. It has had to bend before the duty of transparency within the groups in order not to promote financial criminality through accelerated asset inflows. Switzerland has also had to develop a comprehensive legislative frame to tackle financial criminality, and to enter into international agreements providing for mutual assistance. This process has undoubtedly and irremediably weakened the Swiss banking secrecy. Most importantly, nevertheless, the questionable ethical and socio-economic grounds of this controversial institution could and should also start to erode it from within.

About the Author

Marie Lamensch is member of the Brussel's bar and currently works as a lawyer for Kremer Associés and Clifford Chance (Luxembourg). She previously worked for Simont Braun (Brussels) and as a teaching assistant at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB). She holds a law degree from the ULB and an LL.M degree (Master in International and Comparative Law) from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel’s (VUB) PILC Program, organized under the auspieces of the Institute for European Studies (IES). The views expressed in this paper are purely personal and do not reflect the position of any of the institutions mentioned above.