Normative and Civilisational Regionalisms: The EU,Russia and their Common Neighbourhoods

The contours of regionalism in a wider Europe are shaped by two dominant actors, the European Union (EU) and Russia, which often have divergent visions of the regional landscapes in a vast area constituting their common neighbourhood. The EU can be characterised as the promoter of normative regionalism, while Russia generates different forms of civilisational regionalism. Russia’s emphasis on the civilisational underpinnings of its regional integration model paves the way for two different strategies: one based on liberal imitation and replication of EU experiences in order to strengthen Russia’s position in the global neoliberal economy, and another grounded in illiberal contestation of the normative premises of the EU with the purpose of devising an ideologised alternative to the liberal West.     

The EU and the Global Order: Contingent Liberalism

Abstract

Politicians, diplomats and analysts commonly assume that commitment to multilateralism and liberal norms is part of the EU’s very DNA. Increasingly, however, the EU’s commitment to the liberal global order is more selective. We demonstrate the shift to a more contingent liberalism by examining the EU’s recent record in relation to four different challenges: international trade; US leadership; Russian actions in the eastern neighbourhood; and security in the Middle East. We speculate on what this may portend for the EU’s self-identity, European interests and the integrity of the prevailing global order.     

Promising more to give less: international disputes between core and periphery around European posted labor, 1955–2018

ABSTRACT

The posting of workers from the European periphery has generated the longest and most tumultuous series of labor disputes in the history of European Integration. On the basis of relevant archives, this article conducts the first historical review of posting rules in the European Union, from the first negotiation in 1955 until the latest directive in 2018. This historical review enables to discard the idea of a neoliberal turn in posting rules from the 1980s onward. It also leads to reject the explanation of disputes by the movement out of the European periphery under posting rules of a Lumpenproletariat insensitive to class struggle. Instead, the article identifies the increasing regulation of the labor market at the expense of posting opportunities since thirty years. It reveals the dominant role played by governments and their invariable support for their workers. It highlights the constant asymmetry of power between core richer countries and the Southern and Eastern periphery of the European Union. Eventually, this article locates the long-term problem in the contradictions between the interests of workers and firms in richer destination countries and the enlargements of the Single Market to poorer countries.     

滥用劳务派遣之反思与规制

《劳动合同法》实施以来,劳务派遣用工量呈井喷之势。劳务派遣迅猛发展的主要表现为劳务派遣的滥用,劳动立法的缺漏、利益的驱动、企业的经济人本性、政府职能的缺位是滥用劳务派遣现象发生的主要原因。滥用劳务派遣极大损害了劳务派遣劳动者利益,破坏了劳务派遣市场秩序,是本次《劳动合同法修正案》处理的主要问题。通过劳务派遣行业准入制度的完善、劳务派遣适用范围的限制、同工同酬权的保障、劳动监察力量加强等多个层面的治理,将劳务派遣控制在合理的适用范围,引导劳务派遣规范化发展,落实劳动关系的和谐稳定。     

The European Union and its energy security challenges: engagement through and with networks

Energy security remains a vital issue for the European Union (EU), even more so in the wake of the events that unfolded in early 2014 in Ukraine. The EU's already fragile position in the international energy arena in terms of security of supply appears to be more uncertain than ever after its umpteenth fallout with its historic energy supplier, Russia. This situation is untenable and calls for swift and decisive action to adequately tackle the issue once and for all. The article looks at the creation of a single EU energy market through the integration of energy networks in the EU. This article then examines various ways to diversify its energy supply, whether through increasing the import of liquefied natural gas or through its relations with the Eurasian Union. It then explores the International Energy Charter as an example of the EU's engagement with transnational policy networks. It concludes that from energy transit, to technology transfer, to investment protection, energy and trade present interplays across various fields. Improvements can be made to the EU trading system to ensure greater energy security and more efficient energy markets.     

Transnational policy networks in the migration field: a challenge for the European Union

The migration policy field is a multilayered and fragmented area still lacking a strong global and European regime. Nonetheless, different initiatives and fora have been promoted in the last decade to increase the international dialogue on migration, with the active participation of non-state actors, and particularly civil society organisations (CSOs). The article reviews selected initiatives undertaken at the UN and European level, whereby institutional representatives engage with CSOs in furthering migration policies. These initiatives and platforms may constitute transnational policy networks (TPNs). It explores signals towards the consolidation of more structured and ‘hard’ forms of participatory policy-making on migration issues, as well as obstacles present in this engagement dynamic. The key question addressed in this study is whether and how European institutions have engaged with the TPNs in the field of migration. The article also explores how some of the TPNs influence institutional policy-making at the EU level.     

Paving the way for farm animal welfare in international relations: an EU–Brazil case study

As a sensitive area in international trade, animal welfare measures have encountered resistance in negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Consequently, alternative avenues have been pursued to reach international trade policy convergence. To further understand the contemporary trade politics of animal welfare, an empirical investigation was conducted on the interplay between European and Brazilian actors in the context of livestock production. By drawing upon diplomatic studies and the global governance literature, this study identifies and analyses initiatives that parallel the WTO approach and through which the development and implementation of mutually acceptable farm animal welfare measures have been pursued. Research findings indicate that a constellation of international non-diplomatic actors are currently engaged in influencing the future development of farm animal welfare measures. Among the initiatives that enable the alignment of European and Brazilian animal welfare policies and practices, there are soft instruments such as knowledge sharing and private standards. The rise of new actors and the use of soft instruments have been, to a certain extent, able to mitigate the tardiness of a WTO consensus regarding the use of animal welfare measures. However, there are concerns that the use of private standards has become a shortcut to circumvent the rigours of the multilateral trading system. This concern deserves a closer look because instead of paving the way, private standards may hamper trade relations which in turn hamper progress in animal welfare matters.     

The unseen hands: Collaborative instrumental leadership in the British renegotiation case

The article contends that an important but overlooked explanation for the European Union's resilience in the past decade in the face of several existential crises has been the informal instrumental leadership roles played by EU institutional actors collaborating with each other. In this article, a theoretical framework is developed that can explain why EU governments, facing a crisis, would choose to informally delegate leadership tasks to a set of EU institutional actors. A three-part mechanism of collaborative instrumental leadership provided by institutions is devised that explains why governments informally delegate leadership tasks to EU institutions, and the effects of this informal delegation. The core of the article is a process-tracing case study that explores how collaborative instrumental leadership actually works. The case selected is the British renegotiation of their terms of membership in 2015–2016. While the case has become more-or-less forgotten because the shock ‘no’ vote in the June 2016 Brexit referendum made its terms moot, the deal included quite exceptional reform proposals in which the EU bent over backwards to accommodate the United Kingdom, perhaps even going beyond the bounds of the EU Treaties themselves in the issue of immigration. Given this, analysing how collaborative instrumental leadership supplied by institutions contributed to producing the ambitious deal can shed light on the processes whereby intractable problems in the EU have been solved in the past decade.     

Institutional reform and public attitudes toward EU decision making

In the face of the discourse about the democratic deficit and declining public support for the European Union (EU), institutionalist scholars have examined the roles of institutions in EU decision making and in particular the implications of the empowered European Parliament. Almost in isolation from this literature, prior research on public attitudes toward the EU has largely adopted utilitarian, identity and informational accounts that focus on individual-level attributes. By combining the insights from the institutional and behavioural literature, this article reports on a novel cross-national conjoint experiment designed to investigate multidimensionality of public attitudes by taking into account the specific roles of institutions and distinct stages in EU decision making. Analysing data from a large-scale experimental survey in 13 EU member states, the findings demonstrate how and to what extent the institutional design of EU decision making shapes public support. In particular, the study finds a general pattern of public consensus about preferred institutional reform regarding powers of proposal, adoption and voting among European citizens in different countries, but notable dissent about sanctioning powers. The results show that utilitarian and partisan considerations matter primarily for the sanctioning dimension in which many respondents in Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark and Sweden prefer national courts to the Court of Justice of the EU.     

商标恶意抢注法律规制路径探究

商标恶意抢注有违诚实信用原则,应予规制。适用我国现行《商标法》规制恶意抢注在注册确权、侵权救济和法律责任承担方面存在局限性;基于《侵权责任法》保护民事权益的范围所限,商标恶意抢注并非均为民事侵权行为,适用《侵权责任法》难以对恶意抢注实施全面规制;以《反不正当竞争法》规制恶意抢注,可对其启用行政调查措施,并通过法律责任承担规定使得恶意抢注人为此承担民事责任和行政责任,但须以竞争关系的存在和构成不正当竞争行为为适用要件,因此存在边界限制。为有效规制恶意抢注,应当结合前述立法的功能定位选择多元化法律规制路径,并从明确恶意抢注商标不予注册、规定未经实际使用的注册商标不得转让、限制恶意抢注商标的请求权方面对我国商标立法以制度完善。