DOCSLIB.ORG

Transatlantic Relations: the Usa and Canada

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transatlantic Relations: the Usa and Canada TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS: THE USA AND CANADA The EU, the US and Canada share the values of democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and economic and political freedom, and have overlapping foreign policy and security concerns. Close cooperation and strategic relations with the US and Canada remain a priority for the EU. EU-US FOREIGN POLICY RELATIONS The close cooperation and strategic relations between the European Union and its Member States and the United States are built on common history and a shared set of democratic values. These are key to both partners’ security and prosperity. The EU and the US closely cooperate in a number of foreign policy areas and geographical contexts, such as counter-terrorism, security cooperation, energy cooperation, Russia, Ukraine and the Western Balkans. With the new Biden administration in office since 20 January 2021, new perspectives are opening up, as illustrated in the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of December 2020 on a new transatlantic agenda for global change. This agenda provides an opportunity for a renewed EU-US partnership based on greater engagement, coordination and cooperation in both a multilateral and bilateral context. It will seek to address current foreign affairs and security challenges, such as the global pandemic, economic recession, climate change, trade irritants, the rise of China, the digital transformation and growing technological competition, as well as defend democracy and human rights. INTERPARLIAMENTARY DIALOGUE – THE TRANSATLANTIC LEGISLATORS’ DIALOGUE (TLD) PROCESS Relations between Parliament and the US Congress date back to 1972. The relationship was upgraded and institutionalised with the establishment of the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue (TLD) in 1999. The TLD brings together Members of the European Parliament and members of the US House of Representatives at biannual interparliamentary meetings (IPMs) that alternate between the US and Europe. Both sides regard IPMs as a good forum for positive and constructive collaboration. Legislators attending these meetings exchange views on key political issues of mutual concern, such as trade and economic cooperation, foreign policy challenges, security and defence, and other issues of concern. The importance of transatlantic political dialogue should not be underestimated, given the Congress’s legislative responsibility Fact Sheets on the European Union - 2021 1 www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en and power to authorise US intervention in global crises and shape US participation in global governance institutions. The 83rd and most recent IPM was held in Washington DC in February 2019. Although the COVID-19 pandemic has prevented any IPMs from being held since the 2019 European elections, many informal exchanges have taken place virtually. The next IPM will be scheduled with the 117th Congress as soon as the global health situation allows. The Co-Chairs of the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue, along with the Vice-Chairs of Parliament’s Delegation for relations with the US, the Chairs of the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committees and the Delegation for relations with the People’s Republic of China, issued a Joint Statement in August 2020 highlighting four main objectives for transatlantic cooperation: helping to overcome the acute health crisis; exiting the economic recession quickly; showing transatlantic leadership in the international arena; and collaborating on China and Russia. EU-US ECONOMIC RELATIONS The EU and the US are the world’s major global traders and investors. The EU is the largest economy in the world, representing 25.1% of global GDP and 17% of trade. The US is the second-largest economy, with 21.6% of global GDP and 13.4% of trade. However, the respective share of the bilateral relationship in the total trade of both partners has been falling over the past decade – a trend exacerbated by the economic downturn following the COVID-19 pandemic. The transatlantic trade relationship came under considerable strain under President Trump, when the US imposed unilateral tariffs on steel and aluminium, prompting the EU to retaliate. The Trump administration also threatened the EU with tariffs on car imports, citing alleged national security concerns, and renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to increase US content requirements for automobiles. In July 2020, the US announced tariffs on USD 1.3 billion worth of French goods over a disagreement surrounding the French digital services tax. A central objective of US trade policy under President Trump was the focus on rectifying the US trade deficit in line with the principles of economic nationalism. With the new Biden administration, the EU wishes to work closely with the US to solve bilateral trade irritants through negotiated solutions like in the Airbus/Boeing World Trade Organization (WTO) case, spearhead WTO reform, and establish a new EU-US Trade and Tech Council. In addition, the EU intends to establish a specific dialogue with the US on the responsibility of online platforms and big tech, to work together on fair taxation and market distortions, and to develop a common approach to protecting critical technologies. Artificial intelligence, data flows and cooperation on regulation and standards also form part of the EU’s proposals for a more positive agenda with the new US administration. The 21 August 2020 agreement on tariff reduction (‘lobster deal’) between the US Trade Representative and the EU Trade Commissioner represents a step towards renewed cooperation between the two sides. Parliament endorsed the agreement on 26 November 2020. The Airbus/Boeing civil aircraft dispute is now in its final stretch. Both the EU and the US have been found to be at fault by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body for continuing to provide certain unlawful subsidies to their aircraft manufacturers. Fact Sheets on the European Union - 2021 2 www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en On 2 October 2019, the WTO gave the US permission to levy retaliatory tariffs on up to USD 7.5 billion (EUR 6.8 billion) worth of EU exports. The EU has consistently told the US that it stands ready to cooperate on a fair and balanced solution for the aircraft industry. In the EU’s view, the mutual imposition of sanctions would only inflict damage on businesses and citizens on both sides of the Atlantic, and would harm global trade and the broader aviation industry at a sensitive time. The EU has shared concrete proposals with the US for a new regime on aircraft subsidies and a way forward with regard to existing compliance obligations on both sides. The US was the EU’s primary export destination in 2020, absorbing 18.3% of total EU goods exports (compared with China’s 10.5%). The US ranked second among the EU’s import partners and supplied 11.8% of the EU’s imported goods. EU-US trade in goods 2018-2020 (EUR billion) EU goods EU goods EU balance Year imports from US exports to US (goods) 2018 214.7 351.2 + 136.5 2019 232.6 384.4 + 151.8 2020 202.6 352.9 + 150.3 Source: European Commission, DG TRADE The US is the EU’s main partner for international trade in services. In 2019, it accounted for 20.3% of the EU’s total exports and 24.4% of the EU’s imports of services. The steady growth of the EU’s exports of services to the US continued between 2017 and 2019, as did its services imports from the US. However, since 2016, the balance of trade has shifted to a trade deficit for the EU in services, which currently amounts to EUR 75.3 billion. EU-US trade in services 2017-2020 (EUR billion) EU service EU service EU balance Year imports from US exports to US (services) 2017 193.1 174.1 - 19.0 2018 199.0 184.8 - 14.2 2019 221.5 205.0 - 16.5 2020 246.7 171.4 - 75.3 Source: European Commission, DG TRADE The EU and the US are each other’s largest investors, with total US investment in the EU three times higher than in the whole of Asia. EU investment in the US is around eight times higher than EU investment in India and China combined. In recent years however, there have been some drawbacks, with negative investment flows both from the US into the EU and from the EU into the US in 2018. This resulted in a rebalancing of the EU positive stock balance, which amounted to EUR 158.4 billion in 2019 compared to EUR 260.5 billion in 2018. It could be argued that bilateral direct investment – which is by nature a long-term commitment – is the driving force behind Fact Sheets on the European Union - 2021 3 www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en transatlantic commercial relations. This is reinforced by the fact that trade between parent companies and affiliates in the EU and the US accounts for more than one third of all transatlantic trade. Estimates indicate that EU and US companies operating on one another’s territory provide jobs for more than 14 million people. EU-US bilateral investment stocks (EUR billion) US FDI stocks Year EU FDI stocks in the US Balance in the EU 2018 1 859.1 2 119.6 + 260.5 2019 2 003.1 2 161.5 + 158.4 Source: European Commission, DG TRADE EU-CANADA POLITICAL DIALOGUE Canada is one of the EU’s oldest and closest partners. The collaboration between the EU and Canada, based on shared values, a long history of close cooperation, and strong people-to-people ties, has been considerably strengthened in the last few years. Bilateral relations started in the 1950s on an economic basis and have since evolved into a close strategic partnership.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The U.S. South Caucasus Strategy and Azerbaijan
    THE U.S. SOUTH CAUCASUS STRATEGY AND AZERBAIJAN This article analyzes the evolution of U.S. foreign policy in the South Cauca- sus through three concepts, “soft power”, “hard power” and “smart power” which have been developed under the administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama respectively. The authors also aim to identify how the US strategy towards this region has been perceived in Azerbaijan, which, due to its geographical position, energy resources and geopolitical environment, is one of the “geopolitical pivots of Eurasia”. Inessa Baban & Zaur Shiriyev* * Inessa Baban is a Ph.D candidate in geopolitics at Paris-Sorbonne University of France. She is a former visiting scholar at Center for Strategic Studies under the President of Azerbaijan. Zaur Shiriyev is a foreign policy analyst at the same think tank. The views expressed in this article are entirely personal. 93 VOLUME 9 NUMBER 2 INESSA BABAN & ZAUR SHIRIYEV he U.S. strategy towards the South Caucasus has become one of the most controversial issues of American foreign policy under the Obama administration. Most American experts argue that because of the current priorities of the U.S. government, the South Caucasus region does not get the attention that it merits. Even if they admit that none of U.S.’ interests in the Caucasus “fall under the vital category”1 there is a realization that Washington must reconsider its policy towards this region which matters geopolitically, economically and strategically. The South Caucasus, also referred as Transcaucasia, is located between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, neighboring Central Asia to the east, the Middle East to the south, and Eastern Europe to the west, hence connecting Europe to Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • Transatlantic Relations and Security Governance
    THE TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONSHIP AND THE FUTURE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE ISSN 2281-5252 WORKING PAPER 41 | OCTOBER 2014 Historically, the system designed to ensure largely as a consequence of Europe’s modest international security has its roots in the evo- hard power and lack of strategic cohesion. On lution of the European-centred the contrary, if centripetal dynamics balance of power into the prevail, the Europeans can make transatlantic-promoted use not only of their indi- liberal order. Because vidual assets to address the liberal order functional threats is so depend- such as terrorism ent on Western and regional crises (US) power, but also exploit the emerging Transatlantic Relations the soft power multipolar- potential of the ity undeni- and Security Governance EU, whereby ably poses a US power gains challenge to greater out- it. Yet, even reach and im- the most res- pact. Because US tive among power is still so the non-West- Riccardo Alcaro and strong and the US- ern powers such European partnership as China and Rus- Ondrej Ditrych still enduring, the capac- sia have a stake in its ity of transatlantic relations endurance, meaning that to shape security governance multipolarity is not intrinsically in- has not vanished. Multipolarity has compatible with the liberal order. If centrifu- made the use of that capacity a more compli- gal dynamics prevail, the transatlantic ability cated exercise, but not necessarily a less effec- to shape security governance will diminish, tive one. THIS PROJECT HAS RECEIVED FUNDING FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION’S SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME FOR RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION UNDER GRANT AGREEMENT NO 612782 Transatlantic Relations and Security Governance Riccardo Alcaro and Ondrej Ditrych* EU US Governance International security Multipolarity Introduction “Governance” is a term of recent conceptualisation.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union's Transatlantic Relationship
    The European Union’s Transatlantic Relationship EU Diplomacy Papers 2 / 2006 Günter Burghardt Department of EU International Relations and Diplomacy Studies www.coleurope.eu Department of EU International Relations and Diplomacy Studies EU Diplomacy Papers 2/2006 The European Union's Transatlantic Relationship Günter Burghardt © Günter Burghardt 2006 Dijver 11 | BE-8000 Bruges, Belgium | Tel. +32 (0)50 477 251 | Fax +32 (0)50 477 250 | E-mail [email protected] | www.coleurope.eu/ird Günter Burghardt About the Author Dr. Günter Burghardt served as the European Union’s Ambassador in Washington, DC, from 1999 to 2004. Earlier, he had held positions at the European Commission as Political Director and Director General for External Relations as well as Deputy Chief of Staff of Commission President Jacques Delors. Dr. Burghardt teaches as a guest professor at the College of Europe in Bruges and at the European Institute of the Law Faculty of Ghent University. He joined the transatlantic law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP as a Senior Counsel. Editorial Team: Nike Bönnen, Mathieu Briens, Sieglinde Gstöhl, Dieter Mahncke, Kevin O'Connell Dijver 11 | BE-8000 Bruges, Belgium | Tel. +32 (0)50 477 251 | Fax +32 (0)50 477 250 | E-mail [email protected] | www.coleurope.eu/ird Views expressed in the EU Diplomacy Papers are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect positions of either the series editors or the College of Europe. 2 EU Diplomacy Papers 2/2006 Abstract Since its inception post-World War II, the European unification process has been embedded within a strong transatlantic dimension [Marshall-Plan, Truman/ EisenhowerMonnet, Kennedy/Hallstein].
    [Show full text]
  • EU – US Risk Policy in the European Neighborhood: the Cases of Moldova and Georgia
    EU – US Risk Policy in the European Neighborhood: The cases of Moldova and Georgia Ingo Peters and Jan Bittner Center for Transatlantic Foreign and Security Policy Studies Department of Politics and Social Sciences Freie Universität Berlin [email protected] forthcoming in: Kari Möttöla (ed.), Transatlantic Relations and Global Governance. Washington DC: Johns Hopkins University, SAIS, Center for Transatlantic Relations Introduction 1 1. Risks and Risk Policy in the European Neighborhood 2 1.1 Risks in the Post-Soviet Space 2 The Question of Ethnicity and Citizenship 3 Economic Spaces 3 The Role of Russia 4 1.2 Transatlantic Risk Perception and Risk Policy 4 The EU Approach 5 The US Approach 6 2. Case A: Moldova 7 2.1 The Risks of Weak Statehood 8 Transnistrian Conflict 9 Russian Troops in Transnistria 9 2.2 EU Policy towards Moldova 10 Following a Structure-centered Approach 11 Actor-centered Elements 12 2.3 US Policy towards Moldova – Structure-centered Approach 13 Actor-centered Elements 14 3. Case B: Georgia 15 3.1 The Risks of Weak Statehood 15 Conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia 16 Russian presence in Georgia 17 3.2 EU Policy towards Georgia 18 Structure-centered Approach 18 Actor-centered Elements 19 3.3 The US Policy 20 Actor-centered Elements 21 4. Conclusions 21 Introduction The security environment of the transatlantic community has changed dramatically since the end of the East-West conflict. The main security challenges are no longer the threat of major wars waged by hostile states, but security risks posed by non-state actors.
    [Show full text]
  • EURR 5108 / PSCI 5103 Canada-EU Relations: Summer Module Online Course
    Carleton University Late Summer 2021 Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies Department of Political Science https://carleton.ca/polisci/ EURR 5108 / PSCI 5103 Canada-EU Relations: Summer Module Online course Instructor: Achim Hurrelmann Office Hours: Mondays, 2:00-4:00pm (Zoom, access via Brightspace) Email: [email protected] Twitter: @achimhurrelmann Please note: This online course combines asynchronous and synchronous methods of course delivery. Asynchronous online components (lectures, activities, quizzes) must be completed on Brightspace between July 5 and August 2, 2021. Synchronous online meetings will take place using the Zoom videoconferencing platform between August 3 and August 6, 2021 (10am-12pm and 1-3pm each day). Both parts of the course are mandatory. Course description: This course examines the relations between Canada and the EU, with attention to policy issues affecting the relationship and common policy challenges. After introductory sessions on external policy making in Canada and the EU, it will examine various aspects of the bilateral relationship, including trade, security cooperation, as well as environmental and energy policies. Particular emphasis will be placed on recent developments and debates in Canada-EU relations, such as the (provisional) entry into force and implementation of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA), the impact of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU (“Brexit”), and the COVID-19 pandemic. Guest speakers from Global Affairs Canada and the EU Delegation to Canada will be brought into the seminar. At the end of the course, students will be familiar with the main scholarly debates about external policy making in Canada and the EU.
    [Show full text]
  • Transatlantic Relations, Multilateralism and International Stability ∗
    MARMARA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES • Volume 24 • No: 1 • 2016 43 THE UNITED STATES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION: TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS, MULTILATERALISM AND ∗ INTERNATIONAL STABILITY Meltem MÜFTÜLER-BAÇ∗∗ Damla CİHANGİR-TETİK∗∗∗ Abstract What role does the European integration process play in shaping transatlantic relations, if any? The question brings forth the related issue of whether the EU is able to exercise leadership in fostering changes in the international system and through its relationship with the US. The article provides a literature review on the EU as a foreign policy actor, specifically the extent to which it contributed to changes in the international system along a multipolar pattern. To do so, it looks at the EU’s ability to strengthen multilateralism in international trade and its role in international security. The article’s analysis of the EU and its ability to speak with one unified voice is significant in understanding the EU’s role in Transatlantic relations and its ability to become player on its own right with regard to the US in international politics. Keywords: Transatlantic relations, European integration, EU, international trade, international security, multilateralism ∗ This paper emanates from a European Commission SSH research Grant under its 7th Framework Program: “Transworld: The Transatlantic relationship and the Future of Global Governance”. We would like to thank John Peterson, Michael Smith, Nathalie Tocci, Riccardo Alcaro, Michelle Egan and Maria Green Cowles for their comments and suggestions on earlier
    [Show full text]
  • The Importance of Western Balkans in Transatlantic Relations Transatlantic Relations and the Impact on the Western Balkans by Si
    The Importance of Western Balkans in Transatlantic Relations Transatlantic Relations and the Impact on the Western Balkans By Sinan Geci1 Abstract The transatlantic relations, namely the cooperation between Western European countries and the United States, have made a tremendous impact on the Western Balkan countries and their Euro-Atlantic future. The cooperation and normalization relations among the former Yugoslav republics and democratic reforms within these countries would not have been achieved without the incentives and the direct involvement of both the European Union countries and the United States. A few of the Western Balkan countries (Slovenia and Croatia) have joined the European Union and most of them the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Nonetheless, the full normalization of relations between Serbia and Kosovo and attaining a legally binding agreement seems so close, yet it is too far. The facilitating role of the European Union is crucial, but the involvement of the US role remains vital as the EU has been proven to be inept in imposing agreements in the Western Balkans. Other actors are intermingling with the Euro-Atlantic future of the Western Balkans as well as complicating the relations amongst the countries in the region and the West. Keywords: the Western Balkans, the European Union, NATO, the United States of America, Dayton, Rambouillet, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Russia, Serbia, Turkey. 1 Ph.D. student, Doctoral School of Military Sciences; National University of Public Service; Budapest ; Hungary; e- mail: [email protected] Introduction The Western Balkans2 has been a focus of Western Europe in light of the conflicts for centuries, but in particular, in the late 20th and early 21st century.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Europe at the Crossroads
    Central Europe at the Crossroads What Future Awaits the Region? by Tamás Novák Austrian Marshall Plan Foundation Fellow Center for Transatlantic Relations June 2014 0 Preface Ten years after a number of central and east European states joined the European Union, the region is again in flux, with some countries having weathered some turbulent economic storms and others having to face considerable challenges. New security uncertainties have also arisen, prompting many observers to wonder about the region's future. With this in mind, I recommend this study by Tamás Novák, currently Austrian Marshall Plan Foundation Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University; and Deputy Director of the Institute of World Economics in Budapest. He provides a thorough look at the region's challenges and opportunities, and offers some thoughtful conclusions and recommendations. This study has been prepared as part of a research project supported by the Austrian Marshall Plan Foundation at the Center for Transatlantic Relations. The objective of this analysis is to draw attention to Central Europe’s uncertain future from an economic and geopolitical perspective. We are grateful to the Foundation for its support of our work. Daniel S. Hamilton Austrian Marshall Plan Foundation Professor Executive Director Center for Transatlantic Relations Johns Hopkins University SAIS 0 Table of Contents 1. The Changing Landscape in Central Europe ................................................................ 1 2. A New Framework in Central Europe ........................................................................... 8 3. Catching-up Attempts and Current Strategic Questions ........................................... 16 3.1. Modernization Efforts in Central Europe .................................................................. 17 3.2. Framework for a New (?) Development Model .......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Informacinių Technologijų Taikymas Inovatyviam Žmogiškųjų Išteklių Valdymui: Lietuvos Respublikos Ministerijų Lygmens Analizė
    www.mruni.eu Gintarė PARAŽINSKAITĖ Gintarė Gintarė PARAŽINSKAITĖ DAKTARO DISERTACIJA LYGMENS ANALIZĖ LYGMENS MINISTERIJŲ RESPUBLIKOS LIETUVOS VALDYMUI: IŠTEKLIŲ ŽMOGIŠKŲJŲ INOVATYVIAM TAIKYMAS TECHNOLOGIJŲ INFORMACINIŲ Informacinių technologijų taikymas inovatyviam žmogiškųjų išteklių valdymui: Lietuvos Respublikos ministerijų lygmens analizė ISBN 978-9955-19-692-1 2014 SOCIALINIAI MOKSLAI, VADYBA (03 S) VILNIUS, 2014 MYKOLO ROMERIO UNIVERSITETAS Gintarė Paražinskaitė INFORMACINIŲ TECHNOLOGIJŲ TAIKYMAS INOVATYVIAM ŽMOGIŠKŲJŲ IŠTEKLIŲ VALDYMUI: LIETUVOS RESPUBLIKOS MINISTERIJŲ LYGMENS ANALIZĖ Daktaro disertacija Socialiniai mokslai, vadyba (03 S) Vilnius, 2014 Disertacija rengta 2009–2014 metais Mykolo Romerio universitete. Mokslinis vadovas: prof. dr. Alvydas Baležentis (Mykolo Romerio universitetas, socialiniai mokslai, vadyba – 03 S). ISBN 978-9955-19-692-1 © Mykolo Romerio universitetas, 2014 TURINYS ĮVADAS ..................................................................................................................................................9 1. TARPDISCIPLINIŠKUMAS IR VIENINGO POŽIŪRIO PAIEŠKA INFORMACINIŲ TECHNOLOGIJŲ TAIKYMUI INOVATYVIAM ŽMOGIŠKŲJŲ IŠTEKLIŲ VALDYMUI VIEŠAJAME SEKTORIUJE ......................17 1.1. Žmogiškųjų išteklių valdymo tendencijos ir terminologija ....................................17 1.2. Informacinės technologijos žmogiškųjų išteklių valdyme .....................................25 1.2.1. Informacinių technologijų raida ....................................................................26 1.2.2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of the Transatlantic Partnership Maria G
    THE TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONSHIP AND THE FUTURE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE WORKING PAPER 03 | SEPTEMBER 2012 Despite recent perceptions that the monetary policy, trade, development end of the Cold War deprived policy, amongst others, cau- the transatlantic part- sed hand-wringing in nership of its central Washington and Euro- rationale, succes- pean capitals long sive American before 9/11 and administrations The Evolution of the invasion of have faced Iraq. This is not the challen- to suggest ge of reassu- the Transatlantic that structural ring Europe- change in the an leaders international that they Partnership system, inclu- share com- ding the rise mon interests of the BRICS in the inter- and a shift in national arena. Maria G. Cowles and US interests to- Europeans have Michelle Egan ward Asia, should alternated betwe- be discounted, but en full embrace of US does warrant caution views, voicing limited di- in asserting that the tran- sagreement on certain issues, satlantic relationship is now and occasional episodes of acute discord. transitioning to an unprecedented path. Disagreements over China, nuclear strategy, Transworld is supported by the SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME The Evolution of the Transatlantic Partnership Maria G. Cowles and Michelle Egan* European integration Transatlantic relations NATO Introduction The Transworld project suggests three possible scenarios for the future of transatlantic relations: 1. The transatlantic relationship is drifting apart. 2. The transatlantic relationship is evolving along a pattern of functional cooperation. 3. The transatlantic relationship is transforming towards a different but enduring partnership. The Transworld project calls attention to this era of “global flux” in which transatlantic relations “appear to have lost their bearings.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliographie Courante Partie A
    BIBLIOGRAPHIE COURANTE PARTIE A PUBLICATIONS JURIDIQUES CONCERNANT L'INTÉGRATION EUROPEENNE 2015 Nº 7 Liste de documents catalogués par la Bibliothèque de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne pendant la période du 1er au 31 juillet 2015 (La liste ne comprend pas les notes aux arrêts concernant le droit de l'Union européenne, lesquelles font partie des dossiers constitués par la Direction Recherche et Documentation et qui peuvent être retrouvées également à l'aide de l'ordinateur) *** La reproduction, en partie ou intégrale, de cette "Bibliographie courante" est autorisée à la condition d'en indiquer la source. *** T ABLE D ES MATIERES AAA.0 INTEGRATION EUROPEENNE ............................... 1 AAA.1 - AAA.9 UNION EUROPEENNE (aspects institutionnels et généraux) 6-52 AAA.1 Textes – Documents – Recueils – Répertoires - Chroniques ............................................ 6 AAA.21 CECA – [C(E)E] – CEEA – Manuels Commentaires - Etudes générales ...................................... 6 AAA.25 Genèse et évolution ................................... 7 AAA.26 Structures et aspects économiques, sociaux, politiques et linguistiques ...................................... 8 AAA.29 Relations intracommunautaires (horizontales et verticales) ........................................... 9 AAA.3 Nature juridique ...................................... 10 AAA.40 Structure juridique - Cadre institutionnel ............ 11 AAA.41 Les institutions ...................................... 14 AAA.42 Instances et organes .................................
    [Show full text]
  • Salvaging Transatlantic Relations 113 an Elective Partnership: Salvaging Transatlantic
    An Elective Partnership: Salvaging Transatlantic Relations 113 An Elective Partnership: Salvaging Transatlantic Relations ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ James B. Steinberg When the United States and Britain finally abandoned their efforts to gain Security Council approval for military intervention in Iraq, their leading officials made clear who, in their eyes, was to blame – not Russia, not China, but a NATO ally, France.1 The harsh words were a culmination of six of the most challenging months in the history of the NATO alliance – beginning with Vice-President Cheney’s speech suggesting that the US might use force unilaterally to disarm Iraq and Chancellor Schröder’s decision, in the waning days of the German election, to stake his future on outright opposition to any form of military action against Iraq. Although the unanimous adoption of Resolution 1441 in November 2002 seemed to offer a way out of the deepening rift, by January it was clear that the Alliance was facing its greatest crisis since Suez in 1956. US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld likened Germany to Libya and Cuba for its lack of support and German Foreign Minister angrily retorted with a blunt ‘I am not convinced’ at the NATO annual security-policy gathering in Munich. Of course, there were divisions among European governments as well – eight EU members signed a letter to the Wall Street Journal offering support to the United States (pointedly excluding Germany, France and Belgium) and Prime Ministers Tony Blair and José Maria Aznar stood side by side with President George W. Bush on the eve of the war. But European publics were united – in every European NATO country, in the ‘new’ Europe as well as the ‘old’, huge majorities opposed the war and what appeared to be the most dramatic instance in series of provocative ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ James B.
    [Show full text]