DOCSLIB.ORG

Transatlantic Relations – How to Achieve More

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transatlantic Relations – How to Achieve More Transatlantic relations – How to achieve more Jaap Ora Director of Division, 2nd Political Department, MFA Introduction This article will focus on relations between the European Union and the United States. The title refers to transatlantic relations, as this is what the EU-U.S. relationship is generally called in both offi cial and research discourse. In fact, EU-U.S. relations are only one element among the many interconnected links that form the relationship between Europe and North America in its entirety. These links include the security relationship of the North Atlantic Alliance; the co- operation between the EU and the United States, originally economic but increasingly expanding into other areas; the regional dimension where different formats of the U.S. and selected European countries add their value to the overall framework; and bilateral relations between individual European countries and the United States. The scale of transatlantic economic interdependence and the broad notion of security make it necessary to view these links in close connection and also make sure that these formats support each other. Estonia regards these links as essential for the politi- cal, economic and security interests of all participants. In this context, Estonia favours close EU-U.S. co-operation and has promoted its development since its accession to the European Union. The EU-U.S. relationship has in recent years acquired increased prominence and signifi - cance. This increase has taken place not at the expense of the other formats mentioned above, but due to the wider scope of transatlantic co-operation and deepened EU in- tegration, which has allowed the EU-U.S. relationship to acquire more substance and weight. This article, examining the developments of EU-U.S. relations, is divided into two parts. The fi rst half looks at the characteristics of the EU-U.S. relationship and indi- cates measures that can be taken to further reinforce it. The second part examines some challenging areas of EU-U.S. co-operation, which are high priorities for Estonia, to see how they have developed during the last year and what are the future perspectives. 23 2010 ESTONIAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS YEARBOOK Two important institutional relationships As stated above, the countries of Europe and the United States are linked through two important institutional relationships, one involving NATO and the other the European Union. It is often said, notably in recent analyses, that the EU-U.S. relationship is underdeveloped and its full potential has not been utilised. It is understandable that the EU-U.S. co-operation mechanism is less mature than that of NATO. In NATO, the main transatlantic security institution, member states exercise the traditional form of allied co-operation. European countries, the U.S. and Canada sit around one table as equal individual members and make decisions based on a consensus. This means constant close communication between countries on both sides of the Atlantic. The Alliance focuses on a clearly defi ned range of issues. As the matters that the Alliance deals with concern the realm of ultimate security, fast and effi cient decision-making and an expecta- tion of the ability to gather around a joint cause is The EU-U.S. relationship is un- essential. The member states share not only the ex- derdeveloped and its full po- perience of facing a common threat, but also of the tential has not been utilised. successful adaptation to changed circumstances. The EU-U.S. relationship, involving to a great extent the same countries, is remarkably different in many aspects. For a long time, defi ned by the nature of the European Com- munities, it was mainly a trade and economic relationship. This changed in the 1990s, as the EU started to develop closer integration in the security and defence sphere. As the EU is aiming for a common approach to security and defence matters, the notion of security itself is changing. Military defence remains at the core of national security concerns; developments in other areas have increasing implications for security. The EU has signifi cant capabilities in areas that are relevant to the notion of comprehensive security. If the transatlantic partners want to effectively address the consequences of the global economic crises or climate change, the EU-U.S. format is the most appropriate one. In many areas, such as addressing regional crises, combating terrorism or post- confl ict reconstruction, the EU and NATO share responsibilities. Adaptation to new requirements As mentioned above, the scope and signifi cance of the EU-U.S. partnership is increas- ing. The areas where the EU has acquired more responsibility have truly strategic sig- nifi cance. Yet, as several transatlantic observers argue, the EU-U.S. relationship itself is not yet strategic1. In an effort to fi nd ways to adapt the relationship to the current challenges, the processes and politics of EU-U.S. relations are under scrutiny. 1 R.D. Asmus, “New purposes, New Plumbing. Rebuilding the Atlantic Alliance”, Eurasiascapes, Holidays (November/ December) 2008, retrieved 25 November 2009, <http://www.gmfus.org//doc/AsmusAmericanInterest.pdf>; D.S. Hamilton and F.G. Burwell (lead authors), “Shoulder to Shoulder: Forging a Strategic U.S.-EU Partnership”, Johns Hopkins University Center for Transatlantic relations, pg. 9, retrieved 2 December 2009, <http://transatlantic. sais-jhu.edu/bin/c/s/us-eu_report_fi nal.pdf>. 24 TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS – HOW TO ACHIEVE MORE 2010 President Barack Obama meeting with President Toomas Hendrik Ilves in the White House on 15 June 2009. Photo: Pete Souza, White House Regarding the processes and mechanisms, it is im- portant to bear in mind the unique features that The EU calls the U.S. a “stra- make this relationship different from traditional tegic partner”, just as it calls institutional or state-to-state relations. First, in some of its other important in- contrast to NATO, where the transatlantic partners terlocutors. sit around one table, in EU-U.S. relations the part- ners, mostly the same countries, sit on opposite sides of the table. It means that there is no such experience of joint decision-making, and reaching binding agreements is more complicated. Decision-making is time-con- suming as intra-EU decisions have to be approved before the two parties – the EU and U.S. – can compare their positions. The U.S. is formally regarded as any other third country the EU does business with. The unique, qualitatively different nature of the transatlantic relationship is not refl ected in the offi cial arrangements. The EU calls the U.S. a “strategic partner”, just as it calls some of its other important interlocutors. But if, as argued above, the EU-U.S. partnership in all its closeness is actually not yet truly strategic, what should we say about the other partnerships with a similar label? There is no easy way to compensate for this structural issue, and no major change is foreseen in the medium-term perspective. Yet it is possible to re-examine the co- operation mechanisms as they are, and update them according to contemporary needs. EU-U.S. co-operation mechanisms are based on the New Transatlantic Agenda 25 2010 ESTONIAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS YEARBOOK adopted in 1995. It means they have accommodated the changes brought by the Treaty of Maastricht, but not those of the Treaty of Nice, the Lisbon Treaty, or by the enlargement. The scope of co-operation has increased enormously, so it is important to ensure that the co-operation mechanisms, including preparations for the summits and the summits themselves, ministerial meetings, and dialogue at other levels refl ect this change. Another important point is that the EU is not a state actor, and it does not perform tasks similar to In this situation, further strength- those of a state in a similar manner. We recognise ening of EU-U.S. co-operation that further strengthening of the common foreign needs several pillars. and security policy is needed and work to achieve that. Nevertheless, in the foreseeable future policy- making in the EU will remain different from that of a nation state. In terms of process, it is technically easier for the EU and the U.S. to co-operate on areas where member states have delegated their sovereignty fully or in part to the EU. This is refl ected in the institutionally more advanced frameworks, notably in the Transatlantic Economic Council to discuss further co-operation in this sphere or the recently established Energy Council. In the sphere of common foreign and security policy the situation is more sophisticated. At EU-U.S. meetings, the U.S. side can speak for the whole range of foreign policy, while the EU side has to take into account the intergovernmental nature of the common and foreign policy. EU-U.S. co-operation is similar to the character of the EU itself – not always spectacular or outwardly impressive, occasionally slow to take ef- fect, but where in place, deeply rooted and with lasting consequences. In this situation, further strengthening of EU-U.S. co-operation needs several pillars. First, expanding and reinforcing EU common policies and taking more responsibility for global affairs. This is an effort of a general nature which the EU is undertaking nonetheless. It is not an issue specifi c to the EU-U.S. relationship, but general progress in strengthening the EU common foreign and security policy would also be benefi cial in this context. Second, working closer together on areas where the EU already has a strong common policy – co-ordinating actions and working for achieving practical results. And third, further dialogue on fundamental issues – major developments in global security, joint principles, common goals and the means to achieve them.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]