Un Possible encaix de l’Euroregió Pirineus-Mediterrània en la figura de l’Agrupació Europea de Cooperació Territorial

Avui dia parlar de l’Euroregió i de les seves capacitats per optimitzar el nivell de cooperació no és estrany al mon del dret, però no sempre ha estat així. Ha calgut l’experiència positiva de diverses entitats regionals i locals d’arreu d’Europa per començar a reconèixer la importància d’aquest fenomen. Les regions europees havien iniciat diverses actuacions, algunes d'elles als inicis dels seixanta, amb l'objectiu de desenvolupar interessos comuns tractant que les fronteres estatals no suposessin una barrera insuperable. Estructures tal com l'Associació de Regions Frontereres Europees (ARFE), creada el 1969, o les accions dutes a terme per entitats territorials del denominat Arc Alpí (ARGE-ALP, ALPE-ADRIA i COTRAO) van constituir uns dels primers exemples de col·laboració permanent en el continent europeu. Així doncs, si bé a partir dels anys setanta (per posar una data orientativa) s’estengué la col·laboració d’entitats regionals i locals europees no va ser fins a la dècada dels noranta quan aquesta es va consolidar, sobretot pel llançament de les iniciatives comunitàries INTERREG que suposaren un recolzament econòmic a les actuacions empreses des dels seus organismes de cooperació

España en Europa - Europa en España (1986-2006)

Aquesta publicació té per objectiu oferir un balanç dels primers vint anys des de l'adhesió d'Espanya a l'Europa comunitària en termes de «europeïtzació», una formulació que és objecte de creixent atenció per part dels estudiosos del procés d'integració europea. Per això s'analitzen tant la incidència d'Espanya a la Unió Europea com la d'aquesta en el sistema institucional, els processos polítics i les polítiques públiques espanyoles. El resultat reflecteix el grau creixent de simbiosi que, amb alguns matisos, s'ha anat generant entre ambdós nivells al llarg d'aquests anys.

EU's democracy promotion policy in the Mediterranean: Squaring the stability – democracy circle?

Why does the EU have an ambiguous and inconsistent democracy promotion (DP) policy towards the Mediterranean countries? This paper argues that the EU´s DP is determined by a crucial conflict of interests conceptualised as a stability – democracy dilemma. The EU has been attempting to promote democracy, but without risking the current stability and in connivance with incumbent autocratic regimes. In view of this dilemma, the four main characteristics of the EU´s DP promotion are explored, namely: gradualism, a strong notion of partnership-building, a narrow definition of civil society, and a strong belief in economic liberalisation. A fifth feature, relation of the EU with moderate Islamists, is analysed in the paper as it represents the most striking illustration of its contradictions. The paper concludes by arguing that the definition of a clear DP by the EU that considered engagement with moderate Islamists would represent a major step towards squaring its stability – democracy circle.

Coherencia y Política de Cooperación para el Desarrollo de la Unión Europea

En la actualidad resulta complicado encontrar algún documento (legislación, artículo académico o demanda proveniente de las ONG's) en que los términos coherencia y cooperación para el desarrollo no aparezcan relacionados. Sin embargo ésta concurrencia no era común hasta que a principios de la década de los noventa tanto el Comité de Ayuda al Desarrollo de la OCDE como la Unión Europea incluyeron la coherencia como una de las directrices de las políticas de cooperación para el desarrollo. Precisamente la Unión, y sus diferentes políticas de acción exterior, han sido el objeto de análisis predilecto de aquellos que han tratado de examinar la coherencia. Indudablemente la obligación jurídica, contenida en los artículos C y 130V del Tratado de Maastricht,2 así como el proceso político europeo, complejo y fragmentado, han supuesto un fructífero caldo de cultivo para estos estudios. No obstante irrupciones tan violentas tienen sus costes, descontando algunas notables excepciones3 diversos análisis se desarrollaron sin haber realizado una previa, y necesaria, clarificación del concepto. El previsible resultado ha sido la pluralidad de análisis aplicados a una pluralidad de coherencias. A fin de superar este escollo inicial la primera sección del presente trabajo tratará de definir y establecer una tipología de los análisis de coherencia, es decir ¿Qué es exactamente coherencia? ¿Cómo podemos aplicar este concepto al análisis de políticas?. Posteriormente repasaré los recientes cambios en la política de cooperación para el desarrollo, entre los cuales destaca la inclusión, de forma generalizada, de la coherencia entre las prioridades de los donantes. La cuarta sección tiene como objeto la aplicación de la tipología de coherencia a la política de cooperación para el desarrollo de la Unión Europea. Para finalizar trataré de extraer algunas conclusiones

The Decision on Turkish EU accession in December 2002: The logic of anarchy, collective action problems and rhetorical action

Studies of the EU accession of the East and Central European Countries have stressed the importance of neo-liberal institutionalism as an explanation for Member State preferences. In this paper it is argued that Member States’ preferences over Turkish EU accession are better explained by power politics and neo-realism. It seems therefore that Turkey’s way to the EU follows another path than the East and Central Countries. Turkish accession raises the question of the EU’s role in a uni-polar world order – whether the EU should develop into an independent actor on the world stage or not. However, when it comes to the interaction among the Member States in order to decide on when to open accession negotiations with Turkey the constitutive values of the EU seriously modify the outcome that pure power politics would have let to.

The New EU’s External Action: A significant step forward towards the EU’s single voice?ction problems and rhetorical action

The aim of this paper is to analyse the main agreements on the EU’s External Action agreed within the European Convention and the IGC taking into account why, how and who reached the consensus on them. In other words, this paper will explore the principles followed in order to improve the instruments of the EU’s External Action such as authority, coherence, visibility, efficiency and credibility.

La Amenaza terrorista: ¿Un nuevo desafío para la seguridad europea?

En este documento, la lucha contra el terrorismo aparece como una prioridad y Europa contempla la posibilidad de utilizar en su caso respuestas contundentes2, introduciendo de esta forma un cambio sustancial en la forma de concebir las estrategias antiterroristas siguiendo los pasos de Estados Unidos.

The Voting Practice of the Fifteen in the UN General Assembly: Convergence and Divergence

The EU has, since the early days of the Community, had the ambition to speak with ‘a single voice’ in international fora, in particular in the United Nations’ General Assembly. This aspiration, which has become more pronounced since the inauguration of the CFSP, has not always been easy to achieve due to domestic or international level factors affecting the EU member states. However, in the last decade there has been a dramatic increase in convergence in the Fifteen’s voting record. This paper contemplates the underlying reasons for such a convergence

Quo vadis OMC? Escenarios post-Cancún y reflexión europea

Este estudio tiene como objetivo plantear lo ocurrido en Cancún a partir de los temas que debían tratarse, comprobar el desencuentro que se produjo en la Conferencia, que no se limitó a uno de los capítulos que debían negociarse, y tras los escenarios de futuro que se crearon valorar el análisis y toma de posición que ha efectuado la Comisión Europea.

Tres comicios y un islote: Europa hacia el Magreb en el año 2002

Presenta un análisis comparado de las reacciones europeas ante las elecciones en el Magreb y ante la crisis del islote de Perejil con el objetivo de entrever el complejo y no siempre coherente proceso de toma de decisiones en el seno de la UE.

The European Union Perception of Cuba: From Frustation to Irritation

On Friday May 16, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba summoned the newly-appointed charged’affairs of the European Commission in Havana and announced the withdrawal of the application procedure for membership in the Cotonou Agreement of the Africa, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries, and in fact renouncing to benefit from European development aid.1 In a blistering note published in the Granma official newspaper of the Cuban Communist Party, the government blamed the EU Commission for exerting undue pressure, its alleged alignment with the policies of the United States, and censure for the measures taken by Cuba during the previous weeks.2 In reality, Cuba avoided an embarrasin flat rejection for its application. This was the anti-climatic ending for a long process that can be traced back to the end of the Cold War, in a context where Cuba has been testing alternative grounds to substitute for the overwhelming protection of the Soviet Union

II Cumbre UE-ALC: un encuentro sin estrategia

El proceso de asociación estratégica birregional entre la Unión Europea y América Latina y el Caribe es un ejemplo claro de un intento de cooperación encuadrado en la óptica del neoliberalismo institucional, tanto en su forma –el establecimiento de un mecanismo de acercamiento entre dos regiones del mundo- como en su contenido, manifiesto en el amplio y variado temario plasmado en los acuerdos del Compromiso de Madrid. Sin embargo, si se abordan los resultados del encuentro desde esta misma óptica encontramos que en la Cumbre se desaprovechó una oportunidad de afianzar las relaciones entre ambas regiones, poniendo en riesgo el soft power que ejerce la UE respecto a ALC, a raíz de la decepción de las administraciones latinoamericanas en función de la satisfacción de sus demandas, que ha sido baja.

The CFSP/ESDP, Parliamentary Accountability, and the ´Future of Europe´ Convention debate

This paper examines the importance that the current Convention on the Future of Europe is giving (or not) to the question of democratic accountability in European foreign and defence policy. As all European Union (EU) member states are parliamentary democracies1, and as there is a European Parliament (EP) which also covers CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy) and ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy2) matters, I will concentrate on parliamentary accountability rather than democratic accountability more widely defined. Where appropriate, I will also refer to the work of other transnational parliamentary bodies such as the North Atlantic Assembly or NAA (NATO´s Parliamentary Assembly) or the Western European Union (WEU) Parliamentary Assembly3. The article will consist of three sections. First, I will briefly put the question under study within its wider context (section 1). Then, I will examine the current level of parliamentary accountability in CFSP and defence matters (section 2). Finally, I will consider the current Convention debate and assess how much attention is being given to the question of accountability in foreign and defence policies (section 3). This study basically argues that, once again, there is very little interest in an issue that should be considered as vital for the future democratic development of a European foreign and defence policy. It is important to note however that this paper does not cover the wider debate about how to democratise and make the EU more transparent and closer to its citizens. It concentrates on its Second Pillar because its claim is that very little if any attention is being given to this question

The Role of Parliaments in European foreign policy

This book addresses the debate on the democratic deficit of European foreign and defence policies. This debate revolves around two dimensions. The first one has to do with the accountability of CFSP institutions. Is the current degree of parliamentary oversight of these policies the most appropriate? Has the disengagement of national parliaments regarding European foreign policy been counterbalanced by giving sufficient powers to the European Parliament? And, regarding the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), are national parliaments effectively controlling it? The second dimension of the debate is related to the wider question of whether the European Parliament is capable of legitimising EU policy outcomes. In the absence of a Europe-wide demos and of a true party system, what interests do Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) represent when dealing with foreign policy issues? Are there transnational cleavages in foreign policy or are they mainly national? Furthermore, is the European Parliament developing a transnational, autonomous stance on foreign policy issues, different from that of the Council or the Commission? The present volume is the result of the 2nd Meeting of the FORNET Working Group on “Evolution and Accountability of CFSP Institutions” organised by the Observatory of European Foreign Policy (Research line of the Institut Universitari d’Estudis Europeus), which took place in Barcelona, the 4 and 5 March 2005.

An Instrumental analysis of the European Union´s capability to act in conflict response

Since its origins, the European Union has striven to be an actor on the International scene and a place in conflict Management. Yet the EU’s lack of activity cannot be justified by a mere lack of capacities. The EU counts with numerous political, economic, and, since 2003, civil and military instruments that should allow it to precede a comprehensive conflict response. This publication consists of a description of these instruments and an analysis of the final use that the Union makes of them in the different stages of a conflict. Examples will show us the EU’s main weakness in providing a comprehensive and timely response when a conflict breaks out.