Trump Is a Disaster for the World. For Europe, He May Be an Opportunity
About a month into Trump's second presidency, the wheels are already coming off. After threats to annex Greenland and Canada, the new US administration has begun direct negotiations with Russia, sidelining both Ukraine and other European leaders. At the Munich Security Conference, Vice President JD Vance stated that Europe's real enemy is internal liberal elites undermining democracy. This situation raises questions about the future of the Transatlantic alliance. Europe might now need to strategize independently, especially after recent US-Russia talks in Ryad, suggesting a potential alignment between the US and Russia.
Trump's Gunboat Diplomacy: EU's Possible Response?
It has been a bit over a week since Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 47th US president. The world is adjusting for a second time to the constant state of uncertainty caused by his actions. Neighbouring countries such as Canada and Mexico have already had to scramble to display their willingness to accommodate whatever policy the US president has in mind, lest they become the target of crippling tariffs. All of a sudden, the very existence of Canada as a sovereign nation seems in doubt, with Trump openly musing about Canada becoming the 51st US state.
KS and KD, on the Jurisdiction of the CJEU within the CFSP: Taking Conferral Seriously?
The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice delivered its judgment on the cases of KS and KD, and Neves 77 Solutions on September 10th, 2024. Both cases addressed the scope of the CJEU’s jurisdiction within the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). In this blog post, I offer some initial impressions and reflections. My main point: the judgment seems paradoxical. The Court stresses its adherence to the principle of conferral, yet by narrowing the jurisdictional carve-out to vague "political or strategic" decisions, it grants itself the authority to determine jurisdiction limits case by case.
Economic Security in Action: Outbound Investment Screening in the US and EU
Investment screening has traditionally focused on protecting national interests by scrutinizing foreign investments coming into a country. However, the focus is now expanding to include outbound investments, as major economies like the US and the EU rethink their global economic strategies in light of national security concerns. This change represents a further move from the post-war focus on economic integration and unrestricted capital movements, towards a paradigm that prioritizes security.
Making Non-binding Agreements in the EU: a Role for the European Parliament?
Last week, I presented a paper at an event organized at City, University of London. The theme was the role of soft law instruments in the EU’s trade policy. In my paper, I explored the role of soft law in the EU’s trade relationship with one particular partner: Canada. Canada is an interesting case because the EU-Canada trade relationship is governed by an ambitious ‘new generation’ trade agreement: the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).
Who Gets to Sign EU International Agreements?
The importance of visibility in international politics cannot be overstated, including in technical realms such as the implementation protocol of the fisheries partnership agreement (FPA) between the European Union and Gabon. This was vividly illustrated in a recent dispute between the Council and the Commission over the authority to sign international agreements on behalf of the EU, culminating in a definitive judgment by the Court of Justice on 9 April 2024. The Court established that the power to sign such agreements, or to appoint someone to do so, is vested exclusively in the European Commission, overturning a decades-long practice where the Council had assumed this role.
The French Senate rejects CETA. What’s next?
On March 21, 2024, a significant development unfolded in the French Senate regarding the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). The Senate opted to reject CETA, prompting a return of the agreement to the National Assembly for further consideration. This move is noteworthy because the National Assembly had initially approved the treaty back in 2019. However, the political landscape within the assembly has undergone substantial changes since then, raising questions about whether it will maintain its initial stance or opt for rejection this time around.
Tightening the Screws: the Commission’s Foreign Investment Screening Proposal
In late January 2024, the Commission launched several initiatives to strengthen the economic security of the EU. Among these initiatives was a proposal to reform the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Screening Regulation, which was adopted in 2019 and began to apply in 2020. In this post, I examine some aspects of the Commission’s proposal. My initial impression is that the Commission aims to guide Member States toward more uniformity in which investments to screen and how to do so, albeit ever so gently.
AG Ćapeta’s Opinion in Neves 77 Solutions: A Political Question Doctrine in EU Law?
In an earlier blog post, I criticized Advocate General Ćapeta’s opinion in KS and KD for its failure to take seriously the principle of conferral and the Treaty text. In this post, I look more closely at AG Ćapeta’s opinion in Neves 77 Solutions, in which she further developed and applied the suggestion she had made in KS and KD that, by adopting Articles 24 TEU and 275 TFEU, the Treaty framers intended to introduce a political question doctrine into EU law. I think it is both unlikely that the Court will embrace the AG’s suggestion and believe it would be undesirable to do so.