Ongoing Pristina – Belgrade Talks: from Decentralization to Regional Cooperation and Future Perspectives. EDAP 04/2012, 2012

On 17 February 2008, Kosovo declared independence, ending its nine years unresolved status. The principal goal was, and remains, the need to involve different communities in the state structures. The new state, which aims to fulfil all the obligations set by the Ahtisaari plan, is trying to complete the decentralization process the implementation of which continuous to face obstacles in the two main communities: the Serbs and the Albanians. This article discusses matters related to community acceptance of the decentralization process, the functioning of the parallel structures, the situation in North Kosovo and the on - going talks between Pristina and Belgrade. The article provides evidences that while the implementation of the decentralization process is the best possibility for Kosovo, it must not follow only an ethnic line.

A Roadmap to Enhanced Regional Energy Policy: Cooperation in South East Europe. CEPS Special Report, No. 134/April 2016

Regional Energy Policy Cooperation has now gained political traction in the EU as a tool to advance the EU’s energy objectives. Cooperation and coordination is meant to facilitate the convergence of markets and policies, so while the creation of one EU Internal Energy Market remains the goal, regional cooperation is the tool with which to achieve that goal. Cooperation could become the stepping-stone towards the completion of the Internal Energy Market within the European 2030 climate and energy framework and beyond.

Transnational Globalization & Regional Governance. CES Germany & Europe Working Papers, No. 06.2, July 1996

Since the end of the 1980s, international relations has experienced a resurgence of regionalism in Europe (Single Market, Maastricht) and the Americas (NAFTA, MERCOSUR). Why did regional economic cooperation gain mo­ mentum? Theoretical approaches have proved the relevance of institutions, intergovernmental bargains, and na­ tional interest formation for the emergence of cooperation, but fall short in explaining why new cooperative moves happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s and not earlier. This paper argues that the simultaneous con­vergence of interests favoring regional organization of states was stimulated by transnational globalization. Since the early 1980s, states had to adapt to the pressures from transnational globalization, from actors and systems which are not shaped by national territories and interests, and which undermined traditional national economic policy and domestic coalitions. Under the new circumstances, joint regional governance on specific policy areas became an attractive option to respond to new constraints. With the conceptualization of transnational globalization as an explanatory factor for regional cooperation this paper does not dismiss other approaches, but rather attempts to complement the research agenda by shedding light on a crucial-but often neglected-aspect of international relations.

Paper Tiger or Game-Changer? Challenges of and Opportunities for EU Engagement with the Eurasian Economic Union. Bruges Regional Integration & Global Governance Papers (BRIGG) 1/2015.

The Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) started work on 1 January 2015. Considered as Russia’s response to the EU’s Eastern Partnership (EaP), it has been almost ignored in Brussels. However, with the Ukraine crisis and the deteriorating relations with Moscow, some European leaders have begun to reconsider Putin’s proposal for a region-to-region engagement. This paper tries to analyse under which conditions this could represent a long-term solution for a new European order. First, it is argued that the EEU is still far from being a credible international interlocutor. Second, Russia’s commitment to international trade rules and liberalization is questioned, whereas its geopolitical objectives seem predominant. EU engagement with the EEU in Ukraine would mean, in the short term, legitimizing Russia’s vision of a ‘bipolar Europe’ divided in spheres of influence. In the long run, prospects for inter-regional cooperation remain open, but the way to go is long and full of obstacles.

Review of the Economic Development in the Western Balkan States. OSW STUDIES No. 19, 2005-08-10

Foreword. Ten years after the end of the armed conflict, the Western Balkans1 are still being considered as the “land of the unsuccessful policies”. Enormous financial and technical assistance transferred by the International Community has not managed to meet the goals of integrating the region within itself as well as within the European markets. Explanation for this can be found in the consequences of the war and the remnants of the socialist state. The complexity of current institutional/ political arrangements combined with the limited willingness of the regional actors to introduce and implement much of the needed reforms have additionally contributed to the current state of affairs. The economy and politics in the region intertwine to an extent as probably in none of the other post-communist states. Therefore, the paper presents the recent economic performance of the Western Balkan countries in the light of their limited institutional development and lack of efficient regional cooperation. The paper discusses the importance of foreign direct investments’ inflow for the economic growth of the “latecomer” states and presents major drawbacks which limit the influx of the foreign capital to the region. It presents private sector activity and regional cooperation programmes. It discusses the role of the International Community with the main focus on the activities of the European Union. The EU is examined not only as the main aid donor but more importantly as a foreign trade partner. Furthermore, it analyses the impact of the presence of the International Community and their strategies towards the region with the special attention to the EU. Finally, it presents recommendations for the improvement of the economic performance in light of the enhanced political cooperation between the EU and the region.

Has the European ICT sector a chance to be competitive? Bruges European Economic Policy (BEEP) Briefing 14/2006

In this paper we try to present the main trends of evolution of the ICT sector. Its dynamics, supported by a constant technical progress in ICs, compounded with “non convexities” such as network effects and high sunk costs, may either lead to a Schumpeter Mark I or Schumpeter Mark II competition regime. This means that in some segments, the market will be more competitive (Mark I), while in other it will be more monopolistic (Mark II). But a key trend is also the so called “convergence”. But digitization makes it cost effective to integrate different communications, information processing and entertainment systems and devices. Hence, Schumpeter Mark II grows at the core where software production dominates, while Schumpeter Mark I is established at the periphery. In this context, the European ICT industry is potentially smashed between two forces: the cost advantages of Asian countries on one hand, the inventiveness and dynamism of the US industry on the other hand. The way out of this very difficult situation is to create in Europe the conditions of restoring knowledge accumulation in a key sub-sector of ICT, that is software production. To do this, Europe can rely on its tradition of cooperation and knowledge sharing and on a set of institutions that have shown their ability to stimulate inter-regional cooperation. By concentrating on an ambitious project of open source software production in embarked systems and domestic networks, Europe could reach several objectives: to make freely accessible an essential facility, to stimulate competition, to help reaching the Lisbon objectives and to restore the European competitiveness in ICT.

Bringing South Caucasus Closer to Europe: Achievements and Challenges in ENP Implantation. Natolin Research Paper 03/March 2011

While the initial Commission Communication on Wider Europe (March 2003) did not include Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan in the forthcoming policy for the EU’s new neighbourhood, the Southern Caucasus region has now gained considerable attention in the framework of the ENP and beyond, not least because of security considerations. The ENP undoubtedly represents a step forward in the EU’s policy towards Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, yet its implementation highlights major differences between the three countries and important weaknesses in all three of them. The Eastern Partnership addresses some of these weaknesses and it also significantly strengthens the EU’s offer to South Caucasus countries, which is now fully in line with the perspectives proposed to the Western NIS. The paper highlights five main conclusions and recommendations: • Political, economic, social and diplomatic developments in the South Caucasus in the 2000's highlight both diverging trends and the persistence of tensions between the three countries. They also have different aspirations vis-à-vis the EU and different records in ENP implementation. The EU should therefore mainly rely upon an individual approach towards each country. • While bilateral relations should form the basis of the EU's approach, most of the challenges faced by Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan are not confined to national borders and require regional solutions. This applies primarily, but not exclusively, to the unresolved conflicts. The EU should promote targeted regional cooperation including, inter alia, confidence-building measures to address indirectly the protracted conflicts and measures supporting drivers of change, which play a critical role in the confidence-building process; • Under the ENP, especially since the opening of negotiations for association agreements and with the perspective of DCFTA, trade-related issues, market and regulatory reform have become prominent in the EU's relations with all three Caucasus countries. At the same time, the priorities identified when the ENP was launched, i.e. good governance and the rule of law, still correspond to major challenges in the South Caucasus. The EU should more clearly prioritise good governance and the rule of law as the basis of both the ENP and successful reforms; • In all partner countries (but even more so in the South Caucasus), ENP implementation has been adversely affected by poor administrative capacities and weak institutional coordination. The EU should increasingly focus on institutional reform/capacity building in its support to partner countries and ensure that the link between the ENP and domestic reform processes is strengthened; • In the South Caucasus the EU has recently concentrated on a few assistance tools such as budget support, Twinning and TAIEX. While these instruments undoubtedly bring an added value, they should be better combined with tools allowing for greater flexibility and targeting non-governmental actors, e.g. EIDHR/NSA.

Energy in the Eastern Mediterranean: promise or peril? Egmont Paper No. 65, May 2014

From the Introduction. In order to address the different challenges and opportunities on energy cooperation in the Eastern Mediterranean Region and Levant Basin, EGMONT – The Royal Institute for International Relations of Belgium – together with the Atlantic Council, and supported by H. E. Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs Didier Reynders, opened an expert dialogue in 2013 in order to look at how the management of the new energy resources could act as a vector of cooperation instead of conflict between the concerned countries. The activities have targeted finding new possibilities for cooperation on political and security challenges, energy infrastructure development, the regulatory and legal framework, environmental concerns, and bilateral and regional structures, in a manner that enhances stability and security in the region, increases European energy security, contributes to rather than hinders a comprehensive Cyprus settlement, and promotes wider regional cooperation.

China on Central-Eastern Europe: ‘16+1’ as seen from Beijing. OSW COMMENTARY NUMBER 166/15.04.2015

From the Introduction. In 2012, China approached the countries of Central-Eastern Europe (CEE) with a proposal concerning regional cooperation in the ‘16+1’ formula. According to Chinese analysts, the rationale behind this breakthrough decision was Beijing’s acknowledgment of the growing importance of the region’s states within the European Union as well as a partial elimination of the ideological differences which had hamstrung cooperation in previous years. It seems that the eurozone crisis may be perceived as the reason for the CEE states’ increased interest in developing their cooperation with China. These circumstances have opened a ‘window of opportunity’ which Beijing has decided to exploit to create a kind of bridgehead in the region which it could later use in its further economic expansion in Europe. Apart from opening the CEE region up for investments, the ‘16+1’ format was intended to facilitate the shaping of relations between China and the EU and to become a tool in building a positive image for China. Chinese experts agree that after three years of functioning, the ‘16+1’ regional cooperation format has helped Beijing achieve its goals only to a limited extent. The major obstacles have included: the immense diversification of the region, barriers related to EU law, insufficient expertise on the part of Chinese companies, the asymmetry of economic needs on both sides, and no willingness within the region itself to develop cooperation. Regardless of the limited effectiveness of activities carried out so far, China has continued its ‘16+1’ initiative. This continuation and the progressing institutionalisation of cooperation in the ‘16+1’ format have often seemed superficial. China has been using this multi-party formula to improve its long-term bilateral relations with selected states in the region and thereby to create a basis for Beijing’s political and economic presence in Central-Eastern Europe.