Search

The concept of European strategic autonomy (ESA) in the energy field gained particular traction after the Russian invasion of Ukraine showed the extent and risks of fossil energy dependency on autocratic regimes. Fossil dependency on undemocratic and unstable petrostates is a critical weakness that increase the European Union's (EUs) vulnerability and limit its capacity to act. This liability stretches beyond the dependency on Russia since the EU imports from many other countries that are undemocratic and heavily reliant on oil and gas revenues. Increasing new sources of renewable energy helps to address this issue, but also brings new dependencies, namely on critical raw materials (CRMs) whose value chains are largely in Chinese hands. This paper argues that the EU should nevertheless continue to reduce its fossil dependencies on petrostates and consider more pro-actively how to manage the energy relationship with them. Simultaneously, in the area of CRMs it needs to expand its partnerships, recycling capacities and research and development (R&D) into diversification into alternative materials for green energy technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00756.x Byline: MARTIJN L.P. GROENLEER (1), LOUISE G. VAN SCHAIK (2) Abstract: Abstract In this article we examine the relationship between the institutional set-up of the EU foreign policy-making process and the international actorness of the EU in two particular cases: the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol. Whereas in both cases policy-making is organized along intergovernmental lines, the EU has shown a relatively high degree of international actorness. We argue that this is the combined result of the considerable congruence of EU Member States' initial preferences and the social interactions between EU Member States, third countries and non-state actors, through which preferences converged even further over time. Author Affiliation: (1)Delft University (2)Netherlands Institute of International Relations 'Clingendael' Article note: Martijn L.P. Groenleer, Assistant Professor, Delft University, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, PO Box 5015, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands, Tel + 31 15 278 3433, email: m.l.p.groenleer@tudelft.nl

This article explores the European Union's (EU) role and position on global health, including its role in the World Health Organization (WHO), and the impact of the Lisbon Treaty. Struggles over the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty potentially undermine the EU's ability to speak with one voice and its effectiveness. EU influence is determined by the remit of the EU (defined by competences outlined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, TFEU), as well as the specific rules and procedures of international institutions. Based on empirical research, we considered the role of the EU in global health, via policy and policy coherence across the EU when it came to health matters (including the WHO reform) and through EU representation within multilateral fora. We conclude that the EU is a significant player in global health. It has established global health policy and played a leadership role in negotiating international health agreements. It has had a coordinated voice at the WHO, whilst being less cohesive in other multilateral health fora. Effectiveness of EU representation at the WHO was affected by a number of factors, including Member State's (MS) trust in EU representation and reluctance to cede competence on health matters, lack of EU flexibility in negotiations, lengthy EU coordination processes, MS vying for influence within the EU, and MS rather than EU engagement in behind the scenes and 'soft power' diplomacy. Vertical and horizontal integration within and across the EU also determined EU influence within international organizations. The Lisbon Treaty also had limited impact due to MS and others' concerns about the EU acting on institutional matters. The results are considered in light of the role that global health plays within foreign policy, the multitude of global health actors and prior theory and research on the EU's role in multilateral governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution examines the driving factors behind the European Union's activism in global climate politics since the mid-1990s. Two alternatives are considered: norms and interests. Norms underlying the EU's stance include its belief in multilateralism, sustainable development and the precautionary principle. Interests comprise economic opportunities and the climate change-security nexus. It is argued here that the normative orientation has dominated the EU's 'leading by example' strategy in global negotiations. In Copenhagen, it yielded little influence as it was insufficiently geared towards the context of the negotiations. This challenges the notion of 'normative power' Europe and makes a review of the Union's external climate policy necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A summary of the author's book "EU Effectiveness and Unity in Multilateral Negotiations: More than the Sum of its Parts?" is presented.