Search

This article offers a comparative assessment of the current roles of the European Union (EU) in the governance of the Global Spaces − the atmosphere, the high seas, the poles, outer space, and cyberspace. It does so from a twofold perspective: first, it compares the EU's capacity to act and roles across the Global Spaces, drawing on actorness and role theory. Second, to contextualize the EU's roles, it contrasts them with those of the United States, China and Russia. The findings show that the EU is still in the process of calibrating its roles in the governance of most of these Global Spaces. It is primarily a norm defender, which distinguishes its external action from the more competitive approaches of other major powers. The EU's recent attempt to become more strategic has, for now, led to a gap between its role conception and performance, largely due to its limited actorness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution examines how the roles of the European Union (EU) in the governance of the atmosphere – the global ozone and climate regimes – as a contested Global Space have evolved over time. To do so, it first combines theoretical considerations regarding foreign policy roles and global justice. It then traces EU role conceptions and role performance in these regimes from their inception until today. The article argues that, as the two regimes have matured, the EU has increasingly been adopting the role of a 'spacifier', pursuing a substantive justice position dedicated to fully protecting the atmosphere ('leaving the space in peace') while actively striving to reconcile other actors' positions. This role embodies the EU's simultaneous quest for embracing the European Green Deal's socio-ecological transformation agenda while becoming a geopolitical actor. It can be interpreted as an expression of 'principled pragmatism' under the conditions of the Anthropocene. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union (EU) has increasingly become a foreign policy actor in its own right, sparking the emergence of EU External Action Studies (EU EAS). Although this thriving field at the intersection of EU Studies and International Relations has gradually matured, the interaction of EU EAS with Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) has so far remained limited. This contribution discusses whether concepts and approaches from EU EAS hold valuable theoretical insights for FPA, and how these could be exploited. It argues that there is a largely untapped potential for cross-fertilization between the two fields. This claim is illustrated with several examples as well as two short instructive cases that show how the approach to studying the EU's "external effectiveness" helps addressing FPA's blind spot regarding foreign policy impacts, and how the critical agenda on "decentering" EU external action directs much-needed attention to the "foreign" in FPA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change has turned the Arctic simultaneously into an environmentally highly fragile space and a region offering manifold economic opportunities. The notion of 'Arctic Paradox' aptly captures the trade-off between environmental protection needs and economic prospects. We investigate how the European Union has positioned itself regarding this Paradox by asking to what extent its Arctic policy discourse integrates environmental concerns. Analysis involving the main strategies of EU institutions, and the EU's Arctic and major non-Arctic members finds three co-existing coalitions with differing visions of environmental policy integration in the Arctic. The aggregate EU discourse on the Arctic is currently 'green by omission', that is, by explicitly avoiding a clear stance on the trade-off embodied in the 'Arctic Paradox'. We attempt to explain this, and conclude by discussing the likelihood of the EU developing a genuinely environment-oriented Arctic policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite its increasing importance for European integration, there remains a lack of scholarly attention to the growth of EU external action in originally internal policy areas. This article advances a comprehensive framework for understanding and explaining the emergence of EU external engagement in such areas. It combines insights from two sets of literatures: the EU external relations literature offers useful concepts – particularly 'actorness' – as building blocks for explanatory purposes, while the public policy literature provides relevant insights regarding policy entrepreneurship and agenda-setting. The article contends that EU external engagement results from a favourable interplay between an external 'opportunity' and the EU's 'presence' in a given domain, which is identified and capitalized upon by a set of policy entrepreneurs, who are driven by interest-based and/or ideational motives. To evaluate the salience of the framework, the article applies it across several policy areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on the diplomatic relations between China, India and the EU in the development of the international climate regime. It analyses whether and to what extent multiple bilateralism, that is, bilateral relations that are embedded into a broader multilateral negotiation setting in a way that any actor - in its bilateral relations with one actor - takes account of its bilateral relations with other (key) actors, has been a strategy employed by each of the three players. Comparing their positions and behavior during the periods leading up to the 2009 Copenhagen and 2015 Paris climate summits, it provides clear evidence of a shift to multiple bilateralism, particularly in the cases of China and the European Union. This strategic turn contributed positively to the adoption of the Paris Agreement. The choice for multiple bilateralism is explained with reference to internal and external driving forces. The article concludes by arguing that multiple bilateralism - involving China, India, the EU and other key emitters - holds the potential to develop into a networked form of co-leadership that can effectively advance the implementation of the Paris Agreement despite US disengagement from the global climate regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This introductory article to the special issue on major powers in shared neighbourhoods sets the scenery by introducing the research objectives, situating them in the relevant academic context with references to the literatures on great power dynamics, regionalism and foreign policy analysis. It presents a conceptual framework for the study of ‘major powers’, understood as regional leaders, and their different forms of interaction in shared neighbourhoods, before providing an overview of the key insights of the individual contributions. The article concludes by identifying the main factors explaining the shape of the relationship between major powers in their shared region and outlining a research agenda on comparative neighbourhood policy studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the prospects for joint leadership by the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) in an evolving multipolar world. Arguing that multipolarity leads to a highly differentiated global system, it conceptualizes global order as negotiated order revolving around issue-specific global governance arrangements subject to constant negotiation processes. In this context, transatlantic leadership depends not only on a US and EU willingness to lead individually and collectively, but especially on their capacity to define joint purposes and mobilize followers in issue areas relevant to global order. To test whether the two parties fulfil these conditions, the article first engages in a discourse analysis comparing US and EU leadership ambitions and visions of world order as expressed in their global strategies. US and EU rhetoric is subsequently compared to their (inter)action in the major global policy domain of climate change, focusing on the negotiations of the 2015 Paris Agreement. The article finds that opportunities for US-EU leadership generally exist, but that sustained future leadership will depend on renewed commitments and tend to be, rather than cross-cutting and relatively stable as during the Cold War, issue-specific and contingent, necessitating regular negotiation with other major global forces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the relations between the different layers of government in Belgium with regard to a typical multi-level issue, i.e. climate change. It addresses the question to which degree the characteristics of Belgian federalism shape those intergovernmental relations. Three major characteristics are identified: the constitutionally ‘dual’ but de facto ‘cooperative’ federalism, the Europeanization of competences and of relations, and the executive and politicized character of federalism. The impact of those characteristics are studied with regard to crucial cases in recent decision-making on (i) domestic climate change policy in Belgium and on (ii) the position and representation of Belgium in the international climate change debate. It is observed that intergovernmental relations on climate change are to a high degree institutionalized. That is the consequence of the fragmentation in many of the competence areas important for climate change (e.g. environment, energy, transport). The different cooperation mechanisms are based on consensus, as a consequence of the principle of no hierarchy between the two levels of government. Since climate change is a highly sensitive issue involving important interests, consensus-based decision-making has led to lengthy and difficult discussions. In the complex Belgian setting, the EU is often the number one reason to bring the different governments around the same table. Intergovernmental relations on climate change policy in Belgium are triggered by formal requests by the EU to take a stance or deliver certain policy outputs on specific issues. Yet international requirements and deadlines are unable to break domestic gridlock due to political stalemates. Intergovernmental relations are completely controlled by political parties and ministerial cabinets. That becomes problematic in a context of political asymmetry, where the distinct levels of government are ruled by different coalitions. In the case of climate change, the opposition between conservative and progressive climate goals has meant that Belgium was unable to take a stance in recent debates, and it increases the probability of policy failures. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article offers information on the European Union external policy before and after the Lisbon treaty. It states that environmental issues, like climate change and energy security, where defined as adequacy of supply at a reasonable price. It mentions that the attempt for forming a coherent EU external approach on natural gas arose when collapse of the Soviet Union prompted the opening up of new energy markets in former Republics.