To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The two crises in this chapter share three main characteristics. They involve territorial (border) conflict that relates to the independence of Ukraine (or, relatedly, the breakup of the Soviet Union), feature an East–West tension, and (as of this writing) do not escalate to a war among the major states. In 2014, after Ukraine attempted to move closer to Europe (i.e., it contemplated an EU agreement and the pro-Russian government fell), Putin annexed Crimea to secure the long-held naval base there. Although done forcefully, there were no military fatalities. In 2022, amidst a fear that Ukraine was again moving closer to Europe (i.e., it looked to be closer to joining NATO and its government became less pro-Russian), Russia invaded Ukraine. It failed to take Kyiv, even though it heavily bombed Ukraine. Russia then withdrew to the east, where a majority of Russian speakers had sought to separate from Ukraine. The United States and the European Union gave weapons and aid that expanded as the war continued. Deaths mounted on both sides. The Russians successfully created a land bridge from the Donbas to Crimea. After his election, Trump attempted to negotiate a settlement that would end the war.
Starting from the evolution of the protection of human rights on the internet, the first part of this chapter analyses the proposals for new digital human rights and the methodology of their creation in different forums such as the Council of Europe and European Union as well as related processes in the United Nations Human Rights Council. The second part focuses on the challenges related to the rapid developments in artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, for the protection of human rights and regulatory efforts by the Council of Europe, in particular its Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law adopted in 2024 and the Artificial Intelligence Act of the European Union dating from the same year. Both instruments are analysed for their potential to protect human and fundamental rights in particular through new digital human rights. The contribution finds possible complementarity between the two regulatory approaches. Giving several examples, it concludes that there is an ongoing process of the concretisation of new digital human rights, which are mainly but not exclusively based on existing human rights.
Existing studies of EU foreign policy often contrast its normative and geopolitical ambitions while overlooking its colonial entanglements. Although recent scholarship has interrogated the Union’s neo-imperial tendencies, the structuring role of race in external relations remains underexplored. This article introduces the concept of the “Mediterranean colour line” to capture how the EU’s relationship with its Southern Neighbourhood has consistently cast the region as politically marginal, economically extractable, and epistemically devalued. These hierarchies are not incidental: they are central to the reproduction of capitalism within racialized global orders. The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) provides a key site to examine these dynamics. Through a critical discourse analysis of the 2021 New Agenda for the Mediterranean, the article shows how colonial logics are retooled in the language of reform, resilience, and partnership. By focusing on digital transition and green growth—domains rarely read through race—the analysis demonstrates how racial capitalist governance persists precisely where its effects are most obscured.
Chapter 2 portrays the changing legal landscape addressing the legality – or lack thereof – of the cross-border movement and trade of cultural property. It starts by identifying the key features of legal divergence across national legal systems, concerning both private law and public law aspects, and discusses how this disparity poses a challenge for dealing not only with past actions but also with the current features of the global market for cultural objects. It then provides an overview of the evolution of international institutions and legal norms related to cultural property, such as the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property,
1 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, Nov. 14, 1970, 823 U.N.T.S. 231
. which focuses on public international law, and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects,
2 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, June 24, 1995, 2421 U.N.T.S. 457
. which introduces a key dimension of private international law. This chapter demonstrates how new legal avenues are being pursued to address the gaps created by the traditional system of international conventions, specifically through the introduction of criminal law and law enforcement measures, including regional and bilateral collaborations. It highlights, respectively, the role of the European Union and bilateral mechanisms to which U.S. federal and state agencies are a party. The chapter then introduces how “legalistic ethical reasoning” may operate in scenarios where hard-law claims are unavailable, such as in cases involving cultural property dispossessed during the Nazi era.
The European Union (EU) is currently overhauling its pharmaceutical regulations, seeking to mature a single market for medicines as part of a ‘European Health Union’. We reflect on the interactions between regulations and markets in these reforms and investigate what this single market for medicines may mean in practice. We note how the proposed reforms aim to ensure equitable access to innovative treatments, yet at the same time, tie this access directly to regulatory exclusivities, limiting price competition. The reforms also do not seek full pricing transparency: prices will remain largely opaque and be set at the national levels rather than created through market exchange and open competition at the EU level. The envisioned single market for medicines thus remains a market that operates without direct reference to price − a situation not addressed head-on by the proposed reforms.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine catalysed a shift in the security and defence policies of the European Union (EU) and its member states. Notably, the deployment of the European Peace Facility (EPF) to finance lethal military materiel for Ukraine has been described as a gamechanger for the EU. This article explores to what extent and how the policy shift regarding the EPF signals broader evolution in EU strategic agency. Contributing to the study of European strategic cultures, the article investigates dynamics of change and convergence in the strategic discourses of the EU and selected member states regarding the EPF amid the exogenous shock and policy shift. Specifically, the article first traces the evolution of the EU’s strategic narrative and its use of the EPF before and after the invasion. Second, drawing on interview data, it analyses four member states’ approaches to this instrument. The findings point to a changed strategic narrative and an evolving practice regarding EU military assistance, highlighting the EU institutions’ initiative-making power in crisis. While the member states continue to use the EPF for varying purposes, the joint experience of using the tool contributed to shifting national perspectives and growing consensus on the utility of EU security agency.
Climate policy remains inadequate even among leaders like the European Union. This is largely due to opposition from fossil fuel producers and heavy industrial sectors that are existentially threatened by decarbonisation. The rise of green industrial policy promises to advance climate policy by reducing this opposition and mobilising corporate supporters. But can climate policy strategies actually shift the balance of interest group mobilisation among expected winners and losers simply by using different policy instruments? I theorise that policy strategies (de)mobilise corporate interests through regulatory targeting. Corporations directly targeted by a proposed policy are more likely to lobby because of policy-specific informational advantages and more certain and immediate impacts. Compared to traditional climate policies that impose direct costs on fossil fuels, green industrial policies should therefore demobilise high-carbon firms and mobilise their low-carbon counterparts. I collect and code novel data on all corporate responses to online consultations in European Union climate and energy policy from 2017 to 2022. Dyadic regression analyses confirm that low-carbon sectors lobby mostly on green industrial policies while high-carbon sectors mobilise more around traditional climate policies, and that stakeholders are more likely to lobby when directly targeted by policies. These results document that climate policies can indeed determine climate politics, a finding that has implications for other policy areas characterised by business conflict and for interest group scholarship more broadly.
Antimicrobial resistance is a multidisciplinary issue that has been high in the global agenda since the 2015 WHO Global Action Plan (GAP) and the 2016 UNGA Declaration. The Quadripartite Coalition has set up a consolidated global governance structure to coordinate AMR responses, including a Global Leaders Group, an Independent Panel of Experts and a stakeholders’ platform. At the national level, countries have set up more or less formal mechanisms to coordinate AMR management, develop and implement National Action Plans.
This chapter will draw on these pilot experiences to identify options for broader One Health governance and regulation. The chapter will examine global and regional governance and regulation of AMR – focusing on the EU as a case study – to explore possible applications to other priority areas such as zoonotic diseases.
The adoption of the Deforestation-free Products Regulation represents a significant step forward in the protection of forests, both in the EU and in non-EU countries. In particular, it aims at minimising the risk of deforestation and forest degradation associated with products that contain, have been fed with, or have been made using certain commodities (cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, soya, and wood). Environmental protection is achieved through provisions affecting the placing and making available of and export from the EU market of the relevant products, including a due diligence framework to ensure that such commodities are deforestation-free and legal under the law of the country of origin. While the Regulation has a clear environmental goal, it could also be seen as an operationalisation of the One Health approach as it tackles several drivers of environmental degradation (land-use change, biodiversity decline, and GHG emissions/climate change). In particular, this Regulation makes for a noteworthy case study in light of its extraterritorial reach, and it is examined in view of the unacknowledged ramifications for the One Health.
This chapter explores the integration of the One Health (OH) approach into the European Union’s agri-food legal and policy framework, focusing on the 2023–2027 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It does so within the broader context of the European Green Deal and its Farm to Fork Strategy, which aim to steer the EU toward sustainable agri-food systems. OH has gained global prominence, especially among intergovernmental organizations, but its implementation in the context of agri-food policy and legislation remains limited, even though the transition to sustainable agri-food systems is one of the most critical challenges of our time, and one of the most complex issues that would benefit from a holistic approach to health.
The chapter traces the evolution of OH in EU policy, from its origins in antimicrobial resistance to its potential role in advancing sustainability. It evaluates the extent to which OH principles are reflected in the CAP Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, by analysing its objectives, conditionality systems, and incentives related to sustainable agricultural practices.
The analysis concludes that, although the CAP incorporates various OH-related measures, such as provisions concerning animal welfare and biodiversity, it does not adopt OH as a unifying legal or policy basis. In fact, the integration of OH remains fragmented and superficial, hindered by conflicting policy objectives, inconsistent implementation, and a lack of legal clarity. For OH to truly serve as a guiding principle in EU agri-food law, it must be embedded through coherent legal tools, cross-sectoral coordination and inclusive governance mechanisms.
This paper critically examines the (legal) implications and synergies between One Health and the UN Animal Welfare Nexus Resolution. Firstly, it elucidates the emergence of the UN Animal Welfare Nexus Resolution, which is mainly a result of a strong collaboration between several African nations. Secondly, this chapter explores intersections between One Health and the UN Animal Welfare Nexus Resolution, elaborating on key issues such as the global animal welfare gap, the lack of UN institutionalisation and the need to surpass the environment–animal dichotomy. In the penultimate section, a state of play on the implementation status of the Nexus Resolution will be covered. The overall aim of this paper is to contribute to the ongoing discourse on global health by highlighting the intricate relationship between One Health and animal welfare governance. It underscores the importance of holistic and interdisciplinary approaches to address complex health challenges, while also recognizing the intrinsic value of animals in achieving sustainable development goals and ensuring the well-being of present and future generations.
The recent turn to market activism is transforming the politics around the state and capitalism, while significantly restructuring markets. We focus on one important but understudied element in this development: the securitization of market competition in the European Union. We argue that European political actors are strategically using specific narratives to construct competition policies in a new way, one that implicates the geopolitical standing of the EU and its national security. This contrasts with the longstanding view of EU competition policy as existing in a separate sphere, disembedded from politics, where market efficiency is paramount. To empirically capture this change, we undertake a systematic analysis of DG Competition Annual Reports, using a language-analysis schema over the decade from 2013 to 2023. Our findings demonstrate that this securitization strategy has been consistently increasing over time in the EU, evidenced in the rhetorical use of crises, the linking of markets to a larger set of issues and policy goals, the invocation of geopolitical pressures, and the framing of a need for the consolidation of EU power. We note, however, that this policy turn towards securitization of economic policy brings substantial political tensions given the EU’s limited democratic accountability.
In 2013, President Xi Jinping announced the ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), aimed at positioning China at the forefront of the global economy. Central to the BRI is the pursuit of energy security—a long-standing priority linked to diplomacy and essential for China’s continued growth. To meet its rising energy needs, China has launched numerous infrastructure development projects, with energy playing a key role within the broader BRI framework. Similarly, since the oil crisis of the 1970s, the European Union (EU) has prioritised energy security through investments in alternative energy sources and resource diversification. This article explores the shared interests of these two economic powers in securing and investing in alternative energy. It focuses on a central question: how might the BRI align with the EU’s Neighborhood Policy to strengthen energy independence across Eurasia and generate mutual benefit? This analysis examines both the challenges and the opportunities for collaboration and synergy.
This chapter explores the interconnections between European colonialism and European integration, in particular in the creation of the single market. It examines the emergence of regional (EU) social and labour law against the backdrop of decolonization, arguing that the EU market integration project, and the ability to embed that market in the ‘social’, owe much to the ‘racial capitalism’ of European colonial dominance over the territory and resources of other regions. Exploring the temporal and the spatial dimensions of EU integration, a key argument of the chapter is that there has been no clean break between the colonial past of the constituent Member States of the EU, and the neocolonial present of the European project. This ongoing legacy can be seen in the ways in which the development of the EU’s social dimension, or ‘social regionalism’, influences and constrains the policy space available for another regionalism project, the African Union, to develop its own version of social regionalism.
This article advances research on ‘collective securitisation’ by theorising how ostensibly separate securitisation processes within different international organisations (IOs) interact and shape each other’s policy outcomes. Focusing on climate change adaptation within the United Nations (UN) and European Union (EU), the study uses an extensive database of documents (1972–2023) and interviews with officials to trace these dynamics. The analysis reveals that the UN initially securitised climate change through a risk-oriented approach emphasising long-term risk management, subsequently influencing the EU’s adaptation policies. Conversely, the EU intermittently reintroduced threat-based framing into the UN, highlighting recursive interactions between these organisations. Findings suggest key moments of cross-organisational influence, notably during the audience acceptance and policy output stages. By incorporating insights from transnational policy learning and norm diffusion, the paper theorises precisely how and when these interactions occur, enriching the analytical framework of Collective Securitisation. This article contributes to understanding how international organisations’ securitisation processes interact and shape climate adaptation policies, emphasising the nuanced interplay between threat-based and risk-based logics.
The international solidarity principle is a crucial legal norm of international society. It helps guide state conduct and facilitate cooperation among international actors to respond to global challenges and uphold human rights. The European Union (EU) and its Member States have argued that their bilateral agreements with non-EU countries to prevent irregular migration to Europe is a demonstration of international solidarity that fulfils their obligations to asylum seekers and refugees. However, the EU’s interpretation of international solidarity in these arrangements has been contested. This article argues that the EU has strategically interpreted the international solidarity principle to fit in with, and complement, its migration deterrence policy framework. It posits that the EU’s interpretation abuses the international solidarity principle as it aims to separate the solidarity principle from the realisation of human rights, thereby hurting, instead of benefitting, asylum seekers and refugees. This article makes an important contribution to understanding how the solidarity principle is interpreted between EU and non-EU partners, and the intimate connection between solidarity and the realisation of human rights. More importantly, it demonstrates how the interpretation and evasion of the international solidarity principle has been shaped by, and shaped to fit, the EU’s migration externalisation policy framework.
Equitable access to medicines is vital for people with disabilities to receive effective, affordable, and quality treatment, helping preserve functionality, prevent further disability, and promote social and economic inclusion. This paper explores the specific medicine needs of people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), focusing on the European Union’s (EU) extraterritorial legal obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). As the first regional international organization to accede to a UN human rights treaty, the EU offers a unique case for examining how international legal commitments extend beyond its borders. The paper outlines a legal framework based on the CRPD to assess the EU’s responsibilities for ensuring access to medicines globally. This framework is applied to two case studies: the EU’s internal joint COVID-19 vaccine procurement strategy and its external BioNTainer initiative for vaccine production in Africa under Team Europe. The analysis finds that the EU falls short of its CRPD obligations, particularly in areas of technology transfer and intellectual property sharing, which are essential for equitable global vaccine access. The paper concludes that the EU’s current actions do not fulfill its human rights commitments to people with disabilities in LMICs.
Recent times have been hard for global governance, not least for formal intergovernmental organizations (FIGOs). Given changing conditions and their inability to adapt, many observers argue that FIGOs are drifting and losing ground to low-cost institutions (LCIs). We argue that this widespread perception is incomplete and that it dismisses too quickly the durability of FIGOs. We begin by pointing out that not all FIGOs are drifting and that some may even thrive amid transnational crises and power shifts. We then highlight the possibility that in a densely institutionalized global environment, states can substitute one FIGO for another. Thus, even as one FIGO is drifting, other FIGOs, rather than or alongside LCIs, can take the mantle. We identify and exemplify three key motivations for FIGO substitution: overcoming gridlock, enhancing ideological alignment, and policy laundering. During crises and power shifts, some members might paralyze a FIGO, leading to gridlock and prompting other members to cooperate in another FIGO. Power shifts and crises can also motivate dissatisfied FIGO members to pursue parallel activities in a FIGO that better fits their ideological outlook. Policy laundering occurs when members use one FIGO over another to signal political intent. We conclude by exploring the normative implications of FIGO substitution.
This chapter assesses the effects of intra-industry trade on lobbying in the EU. It includes the results of analysis of an original dataset of EU-based lobbying over several trade agreements. First, the chapter briefly discusses the nature of trade policy in the EU, and then surveys the literature on the politics of trade in Europe, with a focus on the state of our knowledge about the character of political coalitions and the involvement of industry associations and individual firms in the trade policymaking process. Second, the chapter discusses the role of intra-industry trade in the EU and presents an argument about the way that IIT has eroded the ability of European industry associations to lobby jointly over trade policy. Third, the chapter introduces the dataset used to assess the argument and discusses the quantitative analysis and results. The results support the theory developed in this book and demonstrate that IIT affects societal coalitions across diverse institutional contexts.
Economists have modelled the economic rationale for intra-industry trade, yet political scientists largely have neglected it until recently. Every Firm for Itself explores how dramatic shifts in the way countries trade have radically changed trade politics in the US and EU. It explores how electorally minded policymakers respond to heavy lobbying by powerful corporations and provide trade policies that further advantage these large firms. It explains puzzling empirical phenomena such as the rise of individual firm lobbying, the decline of broad trade coalitions, the decline of labor union activity in trade politics, and the rising public backlash to globalization due to trade politics becoming increasingly dominated by large firms. With an approach that connects economics and politics, this book shows how contemporary trading patterns among rich countries undermine longstanding coalitions and industry associations that once successfully represented large and small firms alike.