Suchergebnisse

This paper is published simultaneously by the European University Institute as a School of Transnational Governance Report. ; The EU may not be a superpower but it holds a 'power surplus' when it comes to the trade-regulatory nexus. The strategic challenges posed by the deployment of this power surplus are the subject of this paper, which argues that in order to be a responsible regulatory power and positively influence the multilateral agenda, the EU needs to develop a coherent overall approach to the external dimension of its regulatory policies. In this spirit, and in most cases, the EU would be ill advised to project itself as a model or to seek to 'weaponise' its regulatory powers in pursuit of unrelated foreign policy goals. Instead, it should wield this power to enhance the regulatory compatibility between its own and others' jurisdictions through cooperation rather than relying on the passive market-based influence of the so-called Brussels effect. This is simply a way to be faithful to its core defining philosophy of legal empathy. The CEPS Policy Insight by authors Ignacio Garcia Bercero and Kalypso Nicolaides offers a typology of different forms of external EU regulatory impact, a discussion of the risks of either underuse or overuse of the regulatory power surplus, and considers the 'good global governance' model implied by a principled geopolitical role. It moves on to discuss a unifying conceptual framework to encompass this approach, under the umbrella of 'managed mutual recognition' as the operationalisation of legal empathy. It concludes with six specific suggestions as to how the EU can best exercise its regulatory power through a closer integration of trade and regulatory policies. ; Introduction -- Cooperation as residual: the global impact of EU regulatory policies -- The EU's regulatory power surplus: how should it be used? -- An integrated approach to managed mutual recognition: legal empathy and the regulatory compatibility paradigm -- Recommendations: globalising legal empathy -- Postscript

The aim in this contribution is to amplify the call, articulated across a range of disciplines relevant to international politics, for a paradigm shift that decentres the study and practice of Europe's international relations. Such a perspective is necessary both to make sense of our multipolar order and to reconstitute European agency in a non-European world. The analytical categories proposed in this article for a decentring agenda – provincialization, engagement and reconstruction(s) – can help to navigate the nexus of the empirical and the normative in such a decentring process. Applying the decentring logic to the EU's own foundational narrative, the authors suggest that, only by acknowledging the inflections of colonialism in the EU project itself, can the Union reinvent its normative power in the 21st century.

Nicolaïdis and Nicolaïdis ask in this concluding paper: Why has a project with such auspicious beginnings, such worthy intentions failed to develop peace-making practices, increasingly exhibited inconsistencies and dilemmas, and proven unable to provide a framework for the negotiation of a security partnership? Authors of the other papers in this series give numerous clues to the contradictions that have characterized the Barcelona Process since its inception and the current challenges facing it. Above all, instead of seeing structural realities – the economic, political, social, cultural gap between Europe and the Arab world – progressively addressed through EMP institutions, geopolitical realities and developments have intruded to heighten these gaps and asymmetries. Moreover, Europe's self-perception as a regional power increasingly colludes with its effort to protect itself against the fundamentalist threat under the growing political sway of right wing politics. The Arab regimes' continued objective to avoid social-political destabilisation through external legitimacy while minimizing structural reform has generally been abated; and the necessity for all actors to take into account the growing presence of the US, its actions, initiatives and representations in the post 9/11 era, have further marginalized the EMP.

After much deliberation, member governments of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) agreed to pursue a new regime for international trade in services as part of the Uruguay Round negotiations begun in 1986. The talks have produced a draft agreement—the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)—which, if ratified, could have important implications for the world economy. But when the question of trade in services first arose, most governments did not understand the issues or know whether a multilateral agreement would be to their advantage. If anything, their existing national interests and institutions seemed contrary to the goal of liberalizing trade in services. This article argues that an epistemic community of services experts played a crucial role in clarifying and framing the complex issue of trade in services and placing it on the global agenda. Through their analyses of the services issues and their interactions with policymakers, the epistemic community members were able to convince governments that international services transactions had common trade properties and that the liberalization of services through removal of nontariff barriers was potentially advantageous to developing as well as developed countries. In addition to fostering international negotiations within the GATT forum and helping states redefine their interests, the community members were instrumental in specifying a range of policy options to be considered. However, once governments understood their interests and domestic constituencies were mobilized, their policy choices were influenced more by power and bargaining dynamics than by continuing, direct epistemic community influence.