Search

Begin New Search Topic European Union Political Geography United States of America

211. Preemption: How Iran Is Reacting to the Warsaw Summit

Author:
FARAS
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Future for Advanced Research and Studies (FARAS)
Abstract:
Following the announcement of hosting an international summit on February 13 and 14, 2019, Iran has launched a diplomatic offensive against Poland, where one of the conference main elements will be how to respond to the Iranian interventions in the region. In addition, Iran has also begun to take preemptive moves both to send messages to the powers concerned with the repercussions of those interventions and to tout its ability to contain the pressures of US policy. These moves include attempts to pivot to the East, particularly towards some neighboring countries, and hints at its ability to withdraw from the nuclear deal and resume its suspicious program again.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, European Union, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
Europe, Iran, Middle East, Poland, North America, and United States of America

212. US-EU dispute over auto trade could get worse

Author:
Dong Yan and Xu Tingting
Publication Date:
02-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Abstract:
The dispute over auto trade between the United States and the European Union is becoming more heated and uncertain. US President Donald Trump has threatened to slap additional tariffs of 25 percent on autos imported from the EU if the bloc doesn't agree to a trade agreement favorable to the US. Although Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte told CNBC on Monday that there's a lot happening behind the scenes to ensure the US and the EU reach a trade deal, Bloomberg, citing a senior EU official, reported on Friday that the EU is ready to target Caterpillar and Xerox if Trump hits cars.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, European Union, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

213. Berlin’s Preliminary 5G Decision: Limiting Damage and Learning Lessons

Author:
Kaan Sahin and Didi Kirsten Tatlow
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
Abstract:
Despite the security concerns of the US, EU, and Australia, Germany plans not to exclude any telecom equipment vendors, including Chinese companies such as Huawei, from its 5G network. This stance reflects a narrow view of the issue that prioritizes short-term economic interests and fails to uphold national security and democratic values. Widespread criticism, including from within the government, shows that political decision-makers in Germany need a more sophisticated, forward-looking approach to 5G.
Topic:
Security, Science and Technology, European Union, and Internet
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Germany, Australia, North America, and United States of America

214. Can the European Union Save Multilateralism?

Author:
Mikael Barfod
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
Controversies have abounded, including Palestine and Israel within the UN's Human Rights Council, lack of US support for the International Law of the Sea (since 1994), and the International Criminal Court (since 2002). Collectively, the European Union and its Member States remain by far the largest financial contributor to the UN, providing 30% of all contributions to the budget and 31% of peace-keeping activities in addition to substantial contributions towards project-based funding. 4. Some may object that the European Union has been hampered by the lack of a common position among EU Member States on the future of the UN Security Council (UNSC), where two member-states, UK and France, currently have permanent seats and one, Germany, is desperate to get one.
Topic:
International Relations, Cold War, Human Rights, European Union, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
Africa, China, United Kingdom, Europe, Iran, Israel, Asia, France, Germany, and United States of America

215. Swap-Shop: Time for a Deal in Kosovo?

Author:
Louis Sell
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
The overwhelming majority of politically active Kosovo Albanians remain committed to a democratic vision of their country’s future, anchored by eventual membership in the EU and NATO. But many are losing faith in the EU’s institutional structure, which they view as having reneged on a promised to provide them visa-free entry and failing to provide a clear path toward membership. Kosovars retain a strong faith in the US, which they correctly see as primarily responsible for their liberation from Serbian oppression and as their only reliable ally in an increasingly dangerous Balkan environment.
Topic:
Development, Diplomacy, Territorial Disputes, and European Union
Political Geography:
Europe, Kosovo, Serbia, Balkans, United States of America, and European Union

216. Bonn Voyage, Twenty Years After

Author:
Richard Gilbert
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
Moving vans pulling away from the sprawling former embassy of the United States in Bonn, Germany, in the summer of 1999 carried more heavy freight than just office furniture and the paraphernalia of a large embassy in transition. The trucks were laden as much with symbolism as with the residue of files, desks and chairs. As the vans crossed the John F. Kennedy Bridge over the Rhine and pointed north and east toward Berlin, a half century of American diplomacy in Bonn was coming to an end.
Topic:
Cold War, Diplomacy, European Union, and Memoir
Political Geography:
Europe, Germany, North America, and United States of America

217. From Joining to Leaving: Domestic Law’s Role in the International Legal Validity of Treaty Withdrawal

Author:
Hannah Woolaver
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Abstract:
If a state withdraws from a treaty in a manner that violates its own domestic law, will this withdrawal take effect in international law? The decisions to join and withdraw from treaties are both aspects of the state’s treaty-making capacity. Logically, international law must therefore consider the relationship between domestic and international rules on states’ treaty consent both in relation to treaty entry and exit. However, while international law provides a role for domestic legal requirements in the international validity of a state’s consent when joining a treaty, it is silent on this question in relation to treaty withdrawal. Further, there has been little scholarly or judicial consideration of this question. This contribution addresses this gap. Given recent controversies concerning treaty withdrawal – including the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, South Africa’s possible withdrawal from the International Criminal Court, and the threatened US denunciation of the Paris Agreement – and the principles underlying this body of law, it is proposed that the law of treaties should be interpreted so as to develop international legal recognition for domestic rules on treaty withdrawal equivalent to that when states join treaties, such that a manifest violation of domestic law may invalidate a state’s treaty withdrawal in international law.
Topic:
International Law, Treaties and Agreements, European Union, Courts, and State Actors
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, South Africa, and United States of America

218. European Parliament President, Antonio Tajani

Author:
Antonio Tajani
Publication Date:
02-2019
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Columbia University World Leaders Forum
Abstract:
This World Leaders Forum program features an address by European Parliament President Antonio Tajani, titled "United States and Europe Must Stand Together to Better Defend our Shared Values", followed by a question and answer session with the audience.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Migration, European Union, and Economic Growth
Political Geography:
New York, Europe, United States of America, and European Union

219. The Poison Pill: EU defence on US terms?

Author:
Daniel Fiott
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Union Institute for Security Studies
Abstract:
It took two letters. One, sent to Brussels on 1 May 2019 by two US undersecretaries, accused the EU of damaging transatlantic cooperation and hindering US access to Europe’s defence market through the rules it plans to set for the participation of third states in the European Defence Fund (EDF) and Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO). The other, sent to Washington on 16 May 2019 by senior EU officials of equal standing, refuted these claims by showing the objective and transparent way in which the EU had established the EDF and PESCO. Unlike the letter from Washington, which was laced with robust language and questionable accusations, the EU response argued that, even with the introduction of the two initiatives, the European defence market would remain more open than that of the US. The EU institutions also stated that by creating the EDF and PESCO, the Union was showing its collective determination to reduce European capability duplication and enhance interoperability, while also ensuring the competitiveness of Europe’s defence industry. In essence, the EU pointed out that its security and defence initiatives are designed to contribute to transatlantic burden sharing – something the US has been requesting from European allies for some time. While the US welcomes that the Fund allows for the participation of third states, it objects to the fact that recipients and subcontractors supported by the EDF will not be permitted to transfer sensitive information and/or Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) outside of the EU.1 Additionally, the US fears that the unanimity principle governing PESCO could ensure that any future US participation in the initiative could be vetoed by a single EU member state. At the core of Washington’s fears is the idea that EDF and PESCO could lock US firms out of the European market. However, the EU has made it clear that the EDF and PESCO will not alter EU defence procurement rules, lead to EU-owned defence capabilities, affect bilateral defence agreements between the US and individual member states and/or harm NATO defence planning targets and processes. Furthermore, given the US’ own long-standing and legitimate protection of its core defence industrial interests, there is a certain irony to its accusations of the EU because the Union has equally legitimate security interests. Following the exchange of letters between the partners, a number of questions have surfaced. First, despite a sustained campaign of influencing the EU to adopt favourable conditions for the US,2 why has Washington raised tensions with the Union now? Second, given that €13 billion has been earmarked under the EDF, and its own defence budget stood at $650 billion in 2018, why is the US so concerned? With a view to answering these questions, this Brief begins with an analysis of US government data that shows the asymmetry between US and EU defence markets. It then moves on to a discussion about a web of regulations and laws which effectively provides the US government with the discretionary power to control its defence market and technologies. The Brief ends with some reflections on why the US has decided to formally raise objections about the EDF and PESCO now and the deeper reasons underlying American concerns.
Topic:
European Union, Transatlantic Relations, and Defense Industry
Political Geography:
Europe and United States of America

220. From Research to Market:What the EU can learn from the USA?

Author:
Jekaterina Novikova
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute of European Studies (IES), UC Berkeley
Abstract:
The research project “From Research to Market: What the EU can learn from the USA” addresses the gap between the laboratory research and market. I examine how government, universities and private companies facilitate the transition of research results to market in the USA. In the report I present various programs that are available to the researchers and entrepreneurs in the US and invite to consider them for implementation in Europe. I argue that different stages of lab-to-market transfer require different mechanisms that should not be limited to funding but include technology transfer assistance and advice on intellectual property, mentoring by peers and industry mentors and access to the laboratory space and incubators. I conclude that the Bay Area answer to closing the lab-to-market gap is by a combination of support mechanisms that reinforce and complement each other, when implemented simultaneously. I invite to discuss which of the US initiatives and programs described in this report shall be promoted in Europe and at which level.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Governance, European Union, and Research and Development
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America