European Union

Germany's foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel has floated the idea of a step-by-step lifting of the EU sanctions on Russia should a UN-monitored ceasefire be established in eastern Ukraine. In the meantime the EU has tightened the reins on Ukraine and is holding back on financial aid for Kiev on the grounds that it hasn't fulfilled the terms. Commentators of the countries in question examine the situation.

Three Hungarian parties called for more autonomy in Romania on Monday. Observers note with interest that aside from two Transylvanian parties the established UDMR with seats in the national parliament has also joined the initiative. Is this just a PR stunt or a serious political programme?

Clumsy flirting isn't a crime, 100 prominent French women including actress Catherine Deneuve have posited. In a commentary piece for Le Monde they criticise the MeToo campaign, saying it has created a climate of denunciation, fuels hatred of men and works against sexual freedom. The heated debate over the MeToo campaign continues.

The National Unity Party (UBP) won the parliamentary elections in Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus on Sunday, garnering 36.5 percent of the vote. The party wants closer ties between the internationally unrecognised Republic of Northern Cyprus and Turkey. Consequently its victory is perceived as a further setback for attempts to reunify Cyprus.

Plenary session in Strasbourg

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

It’s not often I recommend a bot to follow, but I find that HaveWeLeft is a useful daily reminder: https://twitter.com/HaveWeLeft/status/951008276761726979

In all the talk of Brexit and transitions and new relationships, it’s easy to forget that the UK remains a full member state of the EU and will continue to be so for at least another 14 months.

My personal reminder of this was taking part in a radio phone-in the morning after the referendum, listening to a woman in tears because we were still members and the £350m/year for the NHS has just turned out to be a mirage. I can only wonder how she feels now.

But why mention all this? You’re all clever people and you know that this is the case.

But it’s easy to get caught up. Witness the enduring appeal of #DespiteBrexit on Twitter, where pro-Brexit types post news of the continued strength of the British economy. Much as it’s a corrective to the Project Fear rhetoric of the referendum campaign, it does miss the point that ‘Brexit’ (in the narrow sense of the UK leaving the EU) is yet to come: take it as an extended example of confirmation bias.

In such difficult waters, there is often a tendency to batten down the hatches, especially when one doesn’t feel that there’s a whole lot of trust out there: if ‘they’ aren’t going to engage with you, why should you engage with ‘them’? As a result, a lot of people are pursuing their own project, often to the exclusion of raising their eyes and looking about.

All this was brought home this week by the leaked letter from David Davis to Theresa May, complaining that the EU wasn’t respecting the UK’s rights as a member state and that by preparing for a ‘no-deal’ outcome to Article 50 it wasn’t acting in good faith.

The latter point was rightly swatted away by the Commission, who drily noted that, faced with a British government that repeatedly talked of ‘no deal being better than a bad deal’, it was only sensible to prepare for just such an eventuality.

But the former point has something more to it.

On the one hand, it is undoubtedly clear that the British government has not given its continuing membership as much attention as it should. With UKREP moving from the FCO to DExEU, it has become more of a local clearing house for Article 50 work than a Brussels base for shaping EU legislation and agendas. British negotiators in standard EU forums have self-marginalised themselves, not standing in the way of consensus among the EU27.

But it’s also the case that the EU27 (and the institutions) have pressed on with legislative agendas without the UK. The opening of negotiations on the next financial framework this week is the clearest example yet, as the EU seeks to set out its finances without the UK (and – it hopes – the rebate mechanism).

While there appears to be very little doubt that the UK will leave in March 2019, it was clear from June 2016 that this was likely to happen. And as a member state, referrals to the Court of Justice remain an option or British nationals that consider their rights to have been infringed. Moreover, if transition does end up with a ‘membership minus‘ model, then that right will continue for some time to follow.

All of which is to remind us that Brexit is a process, not an event, and that its consequences will play out over a very long period to come.

As another bot I recommend to you might say: https://twitter.com/infinite_scream/status/654141729285648384

The post Despite Brexit not happening yet appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

L’Union européenne et la paix, L’invention d’un modèle européen de gestion des conflits sous la direction de Anne Bazin, Charles Tenenbaum, Coll. Relations Internationales, SciencePo, Les Presses, 2017

Le livre intitulé „L’Union européenne et la paix. L’invention d’un modèle européen de gestion des conflits” est un travail collectif de dix auteurs sous la rédaction d’Anne Bazin et Charles Tetenbaum. Les deux co-auteurs sont des maitres de conférence en science politique a Sciences Po Lille et les chercheurs au Centre d’études et de recherches administratives, politiques et sociales (CERAPS, Université de Lille 2).
Anne Bazin dans sa recherche se concentre autour des questions liées a la politique étrangère de l’UE. Charles Tenenbaum s’interesse à la thématique des médiations internationales et résolution des conflits et de multilatéralisme.

Ce livre d’une manière scientifique et méthodique dessine une analyse approfondie et détaillée de la politique de la construction de la paix par l’UE après la guerre froide. Cet Union qui, en 2012 reçoit le prix Nobel de la Paix.

Il démontre quelles sont les logiques politiques et les changements dynamiques institutionnels qui accompagnent dans le temps la création et l’évolution d’un modèle européen de gestion des crises.

L’Union européenne apparait comme un acteur majeur de la paix et de la résolution des conflits au coté des autres organisations internationales comme Organisation des Nations Unis et Organisation de Sécurité et de Coopération en Europe.

La structure du livre, accompagnée par une introduction d’Anne Bazin et de Charles Tenenbaum se compose de deux partis et se compose de 9 chapitres. Dans la première partie nous trouvons les propos théorique, concernant la création et le fonctionnement des politiques de la gestion des crises de l’UE. La deuxième partie décrit les exemples concrets d’implémentation des différents instruments et de stratégies de la politique étrangère et de sécurité: le Proche Orient, la Somalie et le Caucase afin de mieux démontrer les initiatives de la paix de l’UE dans le terrain.

Chaque chapitre est écrit par un autre chercheur venant des différents universités, pas seulement européens (Science Po Lille, Science Po Grenoble, Cardiff University, Université Hebraique de Jerusalem, College d’Europe de Bruges, Université d’Amsterdam).

Dans l’introduction les auteurs souhaitent souligner l’importance de comprendre l’évolution institutionnelle et politique de la gestion des crises made in Europe. Le premier chapitre démontre l’évolution institutionnelle des mécanismes européens dans une perspective historique et sociologique. Dans le deuxième chapitre les auteurs présentent les acteurs majeurs et les pratiques d’implantation de l paix par les institutions de l’UE. Dans le troisième chapitre l’auteur décrit les actions menées par l’Union a cote des autres institutions internationales qui s’activent dans le domaine des missions pacifiques et de gestion de crise. Dans le quatrième chapitre nous avons une analyse de la manière de laquelle sont analysées les programmes de démocratisation dans la stratégique globale de la politique de l’Union notamment la gestion de crise. Chapitre cinq présente une chronologie très détaillée de la création de la politique extérieure de l’UE. Il se divise en quatre parties:
- l'évolution normative,
- la mise en place de la politique de gestion de crises de l’UE,
- le niveau institutionnel,
- les exemples des missions de paix menées par l’Union (Croatie, Bosnie, Kosovo; Afghanistan, Libye; Tchétchénie, Georgie, Ukraine).
Le chapitre six présente l’évolution de médiation comme un des instruments pacifique de la gestion de crise par l’UE. Les trois derniers chapitres décrivent les exemples exacts de l’engagement de lUE dans la construction et du maintien de la paix dans le monde : le conflit Israélo-Palestinien, la Somalie et le Caucase.

Cet ouvrage présente des normes, des pratiques ainsi que des acteurs de l’UE selon une démarche de sociologie des relations internationales:
- les enquêtes sociologiques approfondies,
- les entretiens avec des praticiens, des experts et des diplomates qui participent dans ce processus directement.
Les auteurs soulignent que l’UE développe depuis la fin de la guerre froide les divers instruments de sa politique étrangère:
◦ la gestion des crises,
◦ la prévention,
◦ la médiation,
◦ la réconciliation,
◦ la démocratisation,
◦ des droits de l’homme.
En effet, elle souhaite avoir un rôle majeur dans la pacification des zones de conflit dans le monde.

Les auteurs souhaitent montrer comment grâce aux divers outils de la sociologie et de la science politique, la politique étrangère de l’UE et ses actions extérieurs évoluent. Ils mettent l’accent sur les stratégies alternatives de résolution des conflits développés par l’UE au cours des années.

Il convient de souligner que l’UE et sa politique étrangère sont montrées dans une optique multilatérale, internationale, en comparaison aux autres organisations intergouvernementales, universelles ou régionales qui possèdent déjà depuis plus longtemps les instruments de gestion des crises. En effet, toutes ses organisations participent dans l’organisation du monde.

L’histoire de la politique extérieure de l’UE est animé par l’objectif de mettre les Européens a contribution dans la résolution des conflits. En effet, selon les auteurs, l’UE souhaite devenir conflict manager global.

De la lecture de ce lire découle deux conclusions :
1. la diplomatie européenne sur le niveau régional et mondial reste historiquement liée à la pacification des conflits grâce aux plusieurs modèles de médiations : le soutien financier aux ONG, des expertises externes, le soutien des partenaires,
2. la faiblesse, l’incohérence des moyens entretenus et le manque d’un soutien politique mènent à une baisse d’influence progressive à l’échelle mondiale et à une baisse de la capacité d’intervention de l’UE.
D’ou besoin d’évolution des instruments, de mécanismes et d’institutions spécialisés afin de redéfinir la nouvelle politique de la paix de l’Union.

Il convient de souligner les valeurs scientifiques et même didactiques de cet oeuvre. Malgré son style très technique, qui semble momentanément rude, cette lecture mène à une réflection et un jugement critique envers la politique de l’UE.

*
Chronologie - politique de la paix de l’UE:

NORMES-THEORIE
1. Maastricht - chapitre 5- PESC
1. résolution de conflit
2. missions de Petersberg (UEO) : maintien de la paix, missions humanitaires, gestion de crise, rétablissement de la paix
2. Amsterdam - maintien de la paix, missions de forces de combat
3. St.Malo 1998 - capacités militaires (parallèlement - institutionnalisation de la politique européenne de sécurité et de défense
4. Göteborg 2001 - prévention des conflits = un des principaux objectifs des relations extérieurs de l’UE
5. Stratégie européenne de secouriste - équilibre civili-militaire dans la gestion des crises

PRATIQUE
• 34 missions lances - dans le cadre de la politique européenne de sécurité et de défense entre 2003-2015 (16 achevés, 18 en cours début 2015)
• deux tiers de ces missions ont un caractère civile (coopération police/justice, renforcement de l’Etat de droit)
• taille modeste - qqn dizaines/centaines d’agent.

INSTITUTIONS
• Parlement eu. - groupes de médiation - évolution vers une prévention de conflit et une médiation
• Création de l’Institut européen de la paix (IEP) à l’initiative de la Suède et de la Finlande
▪ médiation européenne de la paix européenne
▪ diplomatie informelle
▪ politisation des enjeux lies a la médiation des conflits (différents intérêts des pays membres de l’UE)

ETUDES DE CAS
Processus Israélo-Palestinien
- jeux d’intérêts des pays membres de l’UE; production normative croissante de l’UE et pas de stratégie politique clairement définie ; par conséquent - une baisse d’influence progressive de l’UE, incohérence entre les normes promues et la capacité d’intervention de l’UE; financement de l’UE majeur (poids financier)

écrit par dr Kinga Torbicka, chercheuse associée de l`Institut Europa Varietas

Tag: Kinga Torbickagestion civile des crisesCSDP

DRAFT REPORT on violation of the rights of indigenous peoples in the world, including land grabbing
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Francisco Assis

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

 

University of Bergamo. Source: HERe research http://www.here-research.it/it/

Davide Donina

In recent decades, science studies have increasingly recognized that single academic disciplines are ill equipped to address complex problems that modern societies and science face (Nature 2015). Accordingly, interdisciplinarity has become a hot topic and a buzzword in the policy discourse for science and higher education. Yet, translating policy discourse into policy design and governance arrangements is not straightforward. Regarding interdisciplinarity, scholars showed that so far the discourse on interdisciplinarity conflicts with the persistence or even reinforcement of modes of governance that almost exclusively rely on rigid discipline-based classification systems.

As a matter of fact, it is the interaction of several policy instruments and governance domains that is crucial for achieving any policy goal. Therefore, in a recent article ‘Inconsistencies in the Governance of Interdisciplinarity: The Case of the Italian Higher Education System’, co-authored with Marco Seeber and Stefano Paleari (Donina et al. 2017), we took a comprehensive view on the governance of the Italian higher education system, and how this relates to the interdisciplinary target. Such perspective is particularly relevant in higher education systems like continental European ones where steering mainly occurs via laws and regulations developed by the governments and state-dependent agencies (Bleiklie and Michelsen 2013; Capano 2014; Donina et al. 2015). We examined whether the policy portfolio creates or hinders the conditions that favour interdisciplinarity by exploring the potential presence of different types of inconsistency –namely ambiguity, conflict, and incompatibility- between elements of the same policy instrument, between different policy instruments in the same governance domain, and between different governance domains. We considered four governance domains: i) universities’ internal organization, ii) institutional research assessment exercise, iii) doctoral education, and iv) academic recruitment/careers.

 

Interdisciplinarity: Between rhetoric and practice

The idea of dividing knowledge into discrete categories dates back to Plato and Aristotle. Nowadays, academic disciplines are the commonly accepted classification system for the production, communication, acquisition, dissemination, and validation of knowledge. However, disciplines could also create cognitive boundaries, which affect the organization and production of new knowledge by limiting research practices and their scope, and institutionalizing knowledge fragmentation. 

For this reason, there has been a rise of interdisciplinarity rhetoric, which implies the integration of knowledge, methods, concepts, and theories in order to create a holistic view and common understanding of complex problems. 

However, melding disciplines presents challenges. Science policy literature highlights barriers and disincentives that prevent researchers from engaging in interdisciplinary research. First, there are organizational barriers that arise from the organization around departments that promote disciplinary knowledge and reward scholars mainly for the outcomes within their home discipline. Second, research evaluation procedures are typically organized around disciplines. Third, doctoral courses are mostly embedded within a well-defined discipline, thus not fostering the development of the integration skills regarded essential to effectiveness in real-world problem solving. Finally, academic labour market values less interdisciplinarity since hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions are controlled by disciplinary departments and disciplinary professional associations, thus discouraging researchers from moving into interdisciplinary endeavours, particularly during early academic career stages. In sum, interdisciplinarity tends to be hindered by established governance arrangements in different domains.

 

Interdisciplinarity in the Italian policy design

Our analysis shows that elements promoting interdisciplinarity have been introduced in Italy, but the disciplinary rationale is still prevalent and, overall, dominates Italian higher education system governance. Therefore, inconsistencies are recognizable. 

Conflict and/or Ambiguity between laws, ministerial decrees, and evaluation agency guidelines emerge within every governance domain. Inconsistencies are evident also among governance domains. In example, the regulation of doctoral programmes is the most strongly oriented to interdisciplinarity, but Ph.D. graduates must cope with the fact that their research outcomes will be assessed predominantly from the viewpoint of a single discipline, while calls for new hires are made by disciplinarily homogenous departments and within disciplinary recruitment sectors. Thus, deviating from the disciplinary interests may reduce (national) career prospects. Another inconsistency among governance domains emerges among evaluation procedures, since the same research output can be evaluated differently for individual career purposes and institutional research assessment. 

As a result, the interdisciplinary target is hindered by different types of inconsistencies between both policy elements, instruments, and governance domains.

 

Practical way to nudge interdisciplinarity

The use of a disciplinary taxonomy to regulate curricula, organizational structures, research assessment, and careers, reinforce each other and represent a resilient disciplinary ‘iron-cage’ that is unlikely to melt soon. Reducing some of the inconsistencies and the creation of parallel structures and processes that emancipate from strict disciplinary principles can represent a realistic and pragmatic way to nudge interdisciplinarity in the short term. In example, the removal of the obligation of departments’ disciplinary homogeneity, the establishment of problem-oriented organizational structures, and the introduction of innovative recruitment procedures open to interdisciplinary profiles (such as cluster hiring and co-funded dual appointments; Sà 2008) alongside the disciplinary ones would benefit the interdisciplinary target. Clearly, similar innovations alone would not solve the problem of the governance of interdisciplinarity, unless the other governance domains are properly redesigned in line with our key message, namely that consistency in the policy portfolio is crucial in order to nudge interdisciplinary in practice.

 

Davide Donina is a post-doc Research Fellow at Cisalpino Institute for Comparative Studies in Europe-Higher Education Research group (CCSE-HERe) where he undertakes research on Higher Education Policy and Governance, particularly on the Italian HE sector, and at Department of Management, Information and Production Engineering, University of Bergamo (Italy), where he teaches Corporate management and Corporate finance. His recent articles are published on Higher Education Policy, Tertiary Education and Management, Journal of Technology Transfer, Small Business Economics, Science and Public Policy.

 

References

Bleiklie, I., & Michelsen, S. (2013) ‘Comparing HE policies in Europe’, Higher Education, 65/1: 113-33.

Capano, G. (2014). The re-regulation of the Italian university system through quality assurance. A mechanistic perspective. Policy and Society 33(3), 199-213.

Donina, D., Meoli, M., & Paleari, S. (2015) ‘Higher Education Reform in Italy: Tightening Regulation Instead of Steering at a Distance’, Higher Education Policy, 28/2: 215-34.

Donina D., Seeber, M., & Paleari, S. (2017) ‘Inconsistencies in the Governance of Interdisciplinarity: The Case of the Italian Higher Education System’, Science and Public Policy, 44(6), 865-875.

Nature (2015) ‘Why Interdisciplinarity Research Matters’, Nature, 525/7569: 305.

Sà, C. (2008) ‘“Interdisciplinary Strategies” in U.S. research universities’, Higher Education, 55/5: 537-52.

The post Inconsistencies in the Governance of Interdisciplinarity: Lessons from the Italian Higher Education System appeared first on Ideas on Europe.