7PQ site
Apr 122013

Transworld Paper No.20

by Nelli Babayan

This paper analyses US approach to human rights and democracy promotion to track the adjustments it has undergone in the last decade. In addition, by focusing on such landmark events as the 9/11 terrorist attacks, changes in the presidency and the Arab Spring, the paper aims to reveal possible patterns in these adjustments. Showing that discursive and practical adjustments to US approach to human rights and democracy promotion have followed from the 9/11 attacks and presidential changes, the paper argues that US policies are likely to be more susceptible to internal, rather than external, developments.


Apr 102013

Transworld Paper No.19

by Lee A. Bygrave

The paper analyses similarities and differences between US and European regulatory policy in the field of data privacy. It shows that US regulation in the field is not uniformly weaker than European regulation. It also argues that while European policy preferences in the field have been more globally influential than US preferences, the latter have also shaped the outcomes of the former, resulting in a transatlantic co-production of norms.


Apr 082013

Transworld Paper No.18

by Nelli Babayan and Alessandra Viviani

This paper reviews the EU’s conceptualizations of human rights and democracy promotion and its relevant policies to trace adjustments and their possible patterns. Concentrating on policy developments after the 2004 enlargement, scheduled policy reviews, the establishment of new policies, and the Arab Spring, the paper aims to show whether the EU has altered its strategies following internal or external developments. The paper suggests that adjustments have been more pronounced after external shocks, while the EU has not been inclined to adjust its approach when extending its democracy promotion to other regions.


Apr 082013

Transworld Paper No.17

by Kati Kulovesi and Marise Cremona

While the European Union (EU) seeks to play an active role in global environmental governance, its special nature as an international actor has important implications for its external environmental policies and its participation in international environmental cooperation. The Union may act only when there is a legal basis for such action in its founding Treaties. The Union’s external competence is therefore affected by the internal division of powers between the EU and its member states in a particular field. Under most multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), the Union participates alongside its member states, with complex implications for both EU and international law. The duty of loyal cooperation and the principle of unity of the Union’s international representation have important implications for the EU and its member states, requiring the formation of common positions in decision-making structures established by MEAs and limiting the scope of the member states’ independent international action. The issue of who speaks for the EU and its member states has also become a matter of contention. This sometimes difficult legal and political internal dynamic, while arising out of obligations of unity, can have negative consequences for the EU’s international environmental action.