The EU–India strategic partnership: neither very strategic,nor much of a partnership

While formally labelled as ‘strategic’, the European Union (EU)–India partnership is more often than not described as ‘lukewarm’ and ‘reluctant’. Thus, by process-tracing the EU–India relationship, this article reveals the significance of 1999 as a crucial point that has urged both Brussels and New Delhi to significantly alter both their outlook on global life and on each other. The bilateral relationship will be shown to be a story of two actors aspiring to global prominence, who—to their mutual frustration—find themselves consigned and constrained to play a leading role only in their respective neighbourhoods. The bilateral relationship seems only to reinforce this marginalization in global affairs, as neither of the strategic partners considers the other significant enough to develop meaningful relations with them.     

Transatlantic investor protection as a threat to democracy: the potency and limits of an emotive frame*

Abstract

A campaign by civil society organizations (CSOs) turned a relatively obscure area of international economic law—investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS)—into the focus of opposition to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and later the European Union (EU)–Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). This article analyses how CSOs impacted on the EU’s position, while highlighting the limitations of their influence. Combining insights from constructivist International Political Economy literature with scholarship emphasizing the importance of emotions in advocacy framing, I contend that CSOs were able to create a polysemic ‘injustice frame’. The characterization of transatlantic ISDS as a threat to democracy and the rule of law aroused anger, while being ambiguous enough to garner widespread support. The ambiguity of CSOs’ advocacy frame and the concreteness of its target, however, were also the frame’s Achilles heel. These aspects provided space for the European Commission to reform a specific element of the agreement and thereby repair the latter’s overall legitimacy. The Commission’s counter-frame emphasized the reform’s democratic credentials by representing TTIP as an opportunity to move ISDS towards a system of ‘public law’. While this reframing failed to satisfy most opposition, it placated pivotal actors and allowed the Commission to move forward.     

The international dimension of democratization: testing the parsimonious approach

This article examines the importance of the international context on regime change. It provides evidence that geographic proximity to the European Union (EU) does not result in the spread of democracy. In contrast, communication and cooperation between EU actors and sub-national regions contributes significantly to the development of democracy in these regions. Considering the role of EU projects, investments and trade in regime transition—measured through indicators of civil society, political openness, freedom of speech and economic liberalization—this article demonstrates that international context may have a positive influence on the diffusion of democracy at a regional, sub-national level. This finding has substantial implications for the literature on international relations and globalization studies. It suggests that the emergence of ‘new’ regions through communication and cooperation takes place through two seemingly contradictory but mutually reinforcing processes: regionalization (territorial disintegration/federalization) and integration (through communication and cooperation).     

Global Economic Governance between China and the EU: the case of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

The recent establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the initiative launched by the People’s Republic of China in 2013 underpins Beijing’s intensions to promote its own narrative about global economic governance (GEG) as well as China’s readiness to play a far more proactive role at the international level. In the age of global power shifting and with 14 EU member-states part of the AIIB, the European Union (EU) necessitates to engage further with China, in particular, within the context of multilateral institutions. This article analyses the impact of China’s evolving global governance policies on the EU. China’s and EU’s approaches to the reform of global governance present both differences and similarities, yet, the article highlights EU’s needs to make sense to what extent China’s growing ascent in the realm of global governance is reshaping world’s regional and global architectures vis-à-vis financial multilateral cooperation.     

Europe’s engagement with China: shifting Chinese views of the EU and the EU-China relationship

This article discusses the dramatic recent shifts in Chinese policy perspectives on the European Union (EU) and on EU-China relations. Whereas for more than a decade, policy makers and Europe specialists in China had regarded the EU as an exemplar of regional integration and as a promising new ‘pole’ in the global order, a recent survey shows that today, in the wake of the Eurozone crisis, the refugee crisis, and the ‘Brexit’ referendum, many perceive the EU as a troubled actor unfit to deal with the existential challenges confronting it, let alone play a credible leadership role beyond its own borders. Despite this, Beijing’s ambitious international agenda at a time of increasing global uncertainty guarantees China’s ever-growing stake in building a reliable, long-term partnership with the EU, even though recent Chinese diplomatic and economic initiatives are gravitating toward the Union’s periphery, targeting subregional groupings of Member States along Europe’s re-emerging, traditional fault lines. Based on the research findings presented in this paper, the authors argue that the EU and the Member States need to rethink the basic assumptions underlying their China policies in the so-called ‘New Era’ and explore new approaches of engagement that match these shifting perceptions, policies and political realities.     

The EU’s Asia: renegotiating boundaries, renegotiating norms

The global financial crisis and the shift of economic strength to a rising Asia have ushered in European introspection and allusions to the decline of the European Union (EU). The EU’s ambitions to have a normative impact in the world have been called into question. The seven articles in this guest-edited issue explore processes of change relating to geopolitical definitions, regional actorness, interregionalism, and normative power within the framework of EU–Asia relations. This introduction contextualises the themes taken up in the different articles. It considers important divides in the recent history of Europe–Asia relations and outlines key transformations in the global environment, before critically reflecting on the significance of normative power for Europe.     

The breakdown of the EU’s strategic partnership with Russia: from strategic patience towards a strategic failure

This article investigates the evolution of the European Union (EU)–Russia relationship to understand whether Russia’s violations of Ukraine’s territorial integrity in 2014 destroyed the EU–Russia strategic partnership. It uncovers fundamental differences in three key sectors—security, trade and energy—and regarding the broader design of their contractual relationship. Despite the appearance to the contrary, their relationship was never a well-functioning ‘partnership of choice’. Structural asymmetries contradictory approaches to and fundamentally different understandings of the role and utility of their relationship affected the EU–Russia relationship from the very beginning. The widening gaps were not addressed nor were the differences of the two actors acknowledged, let alone overcome. The confrontation over Ukraine was therefore not the cause but rather a symptom of deeply rooted problems. The blame for talking past each other and engaging in a marriage of convenience, rather than a real partnership, falls on both the EU and the Russian leadership.     

The External Dimension of EU Counter-Terrorism Relations: Competences,Interests, and Institutions

Some very significant policy developments indicate “supranationalisation processes” of EU external relations in counter-terrorism, even in its most significant relationship with the USA. This means that, increasingly, the USA is willing to work with Europe through its institutionalised forum—the European Union. Thus, the EU achieves certain recognition on the world stage in areas previously completely unsuspected—the “high politics” of counter-terrorism. This supranationalisation process proceeds in two stages. Firstly, the construction of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) pools a significant amount of national sovereignty at the level of the EU through the establishment of internal EU competences. As a side effect, however, it also constructs an institutionalised structure for external actors, such as the U.S., to deal with. Through dealing within this institutional setting, member states' interests become defined in such a way that increasingly they construct a “European” interest related to counter-terrorism.     

The European Union and Latin America: ‘Transformative power Europe’ versus the realities of economic interests

Relations between the European Union (EU) and regional subgroups in Latin America (Mercosur, the Andean Community and Central America) are clear examples of ‘pure interregionalism’ and provide evidence of the EU's active promotion of regional integration. Within the context of these cases, this article explores what type of international power the EU wields, how interregionalism is embedded in that power, and how it is deployed. Combining strands of literature on EU–Latin American relations, interregionalism, EU external policy and power provides a framework within which interregionalism can be understood as an important normative and practical tool for the EU's external power projection. Drawing on official documentation and interviews with key individuals, the paper highlights the EU's articulation of power in interregional relations and reflects upon its mixed success. It concludes that, while imperial qualities and aspirations can be observed in the EU's penchant for interregionalism, the transformative power of the EU remains limited.     

Culture,knowledge and diplomacy in contemporary EU–China relations—reflections on the legacies of Matteo Ricci

The worlds that Matteo Ricci lived in—early modern Europe, Ming China and the pre-Westphalian international order—are vastly different from the world of the 21^st century, when accelerated globalization binds China and Europe together as never before and when global international society is moving decisively beyond Westphalia. How much are the legacies of Matteo Ricci still relevant, 400 years on, to enriching the relationship between China and Europe in the 21^st century? This paper starts with a brief overview of the civilizational encounters between China and Europe and the unfolding of their turbulent and often troubled relationship over the last four centuries of wars, collapse of empires, internal convulsions, nation-state building, scientific and industrial revolutions and great economic transformations. Against this historical narrative is the discussion of Matteo Ricci as a cultural agent, a knowledge broker and a practitioner of public diplomacy in fostering Sino–European relations in its nascent years. The paper argues that even in an increasingly globalized world, Matteo Ricci’s conception of culture, his wisdom about the power of knowledge and his practice of people-to-people diplomacy remain valuable in informing both China and the EU, two aspiring global players, in their search for a viable China–EU strategic partnership.     

Parliamentary assertion and deep integration: the European parliament in the CETA and TTIP negotiations1

Abstract

Scholars have long viewed parliamentarians as parochial actors having little interest, or incentive to engage, in international diplomacy. Yet, parliaments have recently taken on a very active role in various international negotiations. This article explores the role of the European Parliament (EP) in the European Union (EU)–Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the EU–United States Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations. Drawing on classic institutionalist insights, it develops the concept of parliamentary assertion and explores its usefulness through a combination of comparative and process-tracing analyses. The conclusions are threefold: (1) the EP has asserted its power in international trade matters beyond the simple power of consent; (2) the EP’s search for legitimacy in the EU polity is driving this phenomenon; and (3) this phenomenon is significant beyond the current CETA and TTIP negotiations.     

European perspectives towards the rise of Asia: contextualising the debate

To what extent can we speak of a distinctively ‘European’ security approach towards the Asia-Pacific region? In order to address that timely question, this article examines how Britain, France, Germany and the European Union (EU) are framing their evolving security roles in the Asia-Pacific region, and how those individual perspectives intersect with each other. The article identifies a number of important common features in Europe’s approaches towards security in the Asia-Pacific, namely the tendency of most European actors to emphasize the economic and diplomatic nature of their contribution to regional security, their promotion of regional multilateral security fora, their rejection of the notion that China’s rise is inherently challenging for regional and global security, and their willingness to signal their differences towards Washington’s emphasis on military power and alliance-based approach. However, and despite the existence of common traits, individual European actors show different degrees of closeness vis-à-vis the US and China and feature different perspectives regarding which security relationships they should prioritize in the region (if any), or the appropriate balance between diplomacy and security and defence cooperation. Such divergences prevent Europeans from developing a coherent security profile in the region and preclude us from speaking of a distinctively European security approach towards the Asia-Pacific.     

‘Great power’ intervention in African armed conflicts

This paper asks why the United States (US), China and the European Union (EU) have intervened in a number of armed conflicts in Africa in the twenty-first century. Scrutiny and comparison of the motivations and interests of the three non-African actors in intervening in African crises are assumed to contribute to understanding the changing geopolitical environment and the current conditions for conflict management in Africa. The focus is not on trade and aid. The paper launches the hypothesis that the explanations why the US, China and the EU have intervened are basically identical. In spite of different evaluations of the specific crisis situations, the interventions have been about taking care of the ‘national interest’ of each of the three non-African actors. National interest is defined as either ‘hard core’ (security) or ‘core’ concerns (security and economic wealth).     

The EU,Russia and the potential for dialogue – different readings of the crisis in Ukraine

Recent developments in European security have shown the growing need for a better understanding of the security dynamics on the European continent. This article presents an analysis of differing Russian and European perceptions of European security in general, and concerning the crisis in Ukraine in particular. As much of the literature on these issues has been normatively driven, we aim to provide an impartial presentation and analysis of the dominant Russian and EU discourses. This we see as essential for investigating the potential for constructive dialogue between Russia and the EU. If simplistic assumptions about the motivations and intentions of other actors take hold in the public debate and policy analyses, the main actors may be drawn into a logic that is ultimately dangerous or counterproductive. With this article we offer a modest contribution towards discouraging such a development in Russia–EU relations. After presenting an analysis of the differing EU and Russian perceptions, we discuss the potential for dialogue between such different worldviews, and reflect on potential implications for European security. As the article shows, there are tendencies of a certain adjustment in the Union’s approach that may make a partial rapprochement between the two sides more likely.     

Norm shifting from EMP to ENP: the EU as a norm entrepreneur in the south?

This article focuses on the normative dimensions of European Union (EU) policy on the Mediterranean which, it is argued, give rise to a number of dilemmas and challenges. First, it scrutinizes the core raison d'être behind the EU's regionalist strategy within the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP) context. Second, since it purportedly supplements the EMP, the article examines the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and its associated normative bilateral basis. In doing so, the article attempts to raise a number of broad questions about the nature, purpose and underlying logic of regional integration, the role of norms in international relations, and the changing nature of foreign policy. It is argued that EU endeavours at enhanced relations with southern partners point to the pursuit of a dual strategy: the identification of the EU as a ‘normative power’, on the one hand, and the attainment of political and economic interests, on the other. The challenges of this pursuit may in turn explain some of the main dilemmas facing EU–Mediterranean relations.     

Can human rights conditionality reduce repression? Examining the European Union’s economic agreements

The insertion of human rights commitments into international economic agreements is now a widespread practice. We argue that the effect of such commitments depends on the degree of leverage held by one partner over the other. In a comprehensive analysis of the European Union’s (EU’s) relations with developing countries, we find that human rights clauses are conditionally effective; they are associated with improved political freedom and physical integrity rights only in countries that are more heavily dependent on EU aid. An in-depth look at the EU’s enforcement of its human rights clause in the African-Caribbean-Pacific (ACP) group reveals that the Union most often responds to violations of political rights—particularly coups and flawed elections—and that enforcement is indeed a more powerful catalyst for change in highly aid-dependent states. Alternative explanations—that the impact of the human rights clause depends on legalization, the country’s strategic importance, NGO activity, or domestic institutions—find little support.     

Desecuritisation as a soft power strategy: the Belt and Road Initiative,European fragmentation and China’s normative influence in Central-Eastern Europe

While much discussion centres on economic properties and political challenges of implementing the China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), few studies investigate the subtle connections between the narratives of the BRI and the political transformations in the regions en route of the project. Through a critique of the Copenhagen School’s theory of securitisation, this paper brings together the analysis of Chinese, Central-Eastern European (CEE) and the core EU governments’ ideas and perceptions of the BRI and assesses what they mean for the future of the European Union’s political and normative cohesion. This paper argues that the China-deployed desecuritised narratives of the BRI constitute an important soft power strategy of China in its engagement in Europe. The article illustrates how these desecuritised narratives are utilised and co-produced actively by countries of CEE with a political aim of negotiating their domestic interests with the EU’s institutions, making the process of desecuritisation neither apolitical nor benign. As China-promoted desecuritisation is used instrumentally by the regional actors to present China as an economic, political and normative alternative to the EU, the article contributes to the understanding of China’s desecuritisation as a soft power strategy, which is both forged through ‘negative’ language (Callahan, Politics 35(3–4):216–229, 2015) and is ‘contingent’ upon recipient audiences (Kavalski, Coop Confl 48(2):247–267, 2013). As a result, new regional dynamics emerge in the EU, which are driven by the populist turn and growing demand for Chinese investments in the European periphery, which China skilfully utilises through narratives of desecuritisation in order to boost its soft power strategy in the region.

     

Interregional relations and legitimacy in global governance: the EU in ASEM

This article explores the ramifications of the European Union’s (EU) internal legitimacy debate for its external relations. It applies the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) as a case study to examine the EU’s attempts to promote legitimacy in global governance, more specifically in interregional institutions. The article’s theoretical framework draws from the EU’s legitimacy debate. It identifies three key sources of legitimacy, namely, (i) input legitimacy or democratic control and accountability, (ii) output legitimacy or performance and achievement of core purposes, and (iii) the degree of common identity as externalised through collective representation and the articulation of shared norms and values. The empirical analysis thereafter leads to three observations. First, the EU’s presence has contributed to an increased democratic involvement by ASEM’s different stakeholders including parliaments and civil society. Second, purely from an institutional legitimacy perspective ASEM achieves its purpose as a forum to ‘constructively engage’ with Asian countries and address issues relating to global governance. Third, ASEM reveals the EU’s dual identity as an intergovernmental grouping and an organisation with a gradually increasing capacity of collective representation. However, the advancement of the EU’s normative objectives through ASEM has been problematic, leading to a more interest-based and pragmatic policy path. The article concludes that the EU’s legitimacy debate has had a bearing on relations with Asia and, in particular, with ASEM. Importantly, and given the EU’s setbacks, some elements of the ‘EU’s way’ have proven successful in promoting democratic notions of legitimacy beyond the state.     

Small states and the ‘throughput’ legitimacy of international organizations

Abstract

The unequal participation of member states in international organizations (IOs) undermines IOs’ legitimacy as global actors. Existing scholarship typically makes this assessment by referencing a combination of input—the interests IOs serve—and output—the decisions they take. This scholarship does not, however, pay enough attention to how IOs have responded to these concerns. We argue that IOs have used the participation of small states—whose membership most studies typically ignore—as an important means of generating what Vivian Schmidt calls ‘throughput’ legitimacy for their operations. We organize our analysis of ‘throughput’ legitimacy in IOs around four institutional mechanisms—(1) agenda setting; (2) leadership (s)election; (3) management and operation; and (4) service delivery—in which all states seek to exert influence. What emerges is an account of IOs seeking to balance ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’ by way of ‘throughputs’. We conclude by arguing for an expanded focus on the means by which IOs generate ‘throughput’ legitimacy in future research.     

Supporters’ responses to contested trade negotiations: the European Commission’s rhetoric on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership*

Abstract

Negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) commenced in 2013, and soon became the most controversial bilateral trade agreement negotiations ever attempted by the European Union (EU). When trying to understand the escalating debate over the proposed agreement, most analyses have highlighted opposition to the deal, especially from civil society organizations. However, a full understanding of the debate surrounding TTIP requires analysis of supporters’ responses, as these changed in response to strategies used by opponents of the agreement. This article uses a novel approach in trade policy scholarship—rhetorical analysis—to focus on the European Commission Trade Directorate’s response to contestation over TTIP. Drawing on work on the ‘rhetoric of reaction’, this article identifies the rhetorical strategies used by EU trade commissioners from 2013 to 2016. It outlines the evolution of the rhetoric and accompanying changes in process and policy, providing insights on the impact of TTIP politicization on the guiding principles of the EU’s trade policy.