A MAPPING OF EUROPEAN STUDIES EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI: POLITICAL SCIENCE

The primary goal and mandate of this study are to map the development of European Economic Community (EEC), now European Union (EU) studies (EEC/EU) in political science in the United States (US). The discussion of EU studies in the US has been divided into two chapters due to the large quantity of research this field has generated in the US since 1958. This chapter concentrates on the middle and eastern regions of the US where proximity to Europe has promoted interest in European politics and scholarship on European integration and EEC/EU development. There is another chapter focusing primarily on political science studies of the EU in the western US region, and also a chapter on teaching the EU. The chapters on political science scholarship focusing on the EU form part of a larger body of scholarship mapping EU studies around the world

The Transatlantic Divergence in Legal Thought: American Law and Economics vs. German Doctrinalism, The

Law and economics has become an integral part of U.S. legal scholarship and the law school curriculum. Ever since the legal realist movement, scholars mostly view the law from an external perspective. It may be surprising to many in the United States that European legal scholarship has been largely resistant to this development. Law is typically viewed from the inside, that is as an autonomous discipline independent from the other social sciences. Most legal scholarship is doctrinal, meaning that legal scholars employ interpretative methods in order to systematically expose the law and to find out what the law is, frequently even before it is tackled by a court. U.S.-style legal scholarship is often considered very alien, and law and economics in particular often meets outright rejection. In this paper, we attempt to explain this divergence in the academic legal discourse using the reception of law and economics in legal scholarship in German-speaking countries as a case in point. However, we suspect that our approach can be generalized to other parts of Europe because of common roots and similar historical factors that can be identified in many parts of Europe. We propose a two-pronged explanation for why law and economics play an insignificant role in German-speaking countries while the United States has become a stronghold for it. We proceed as follows: Section II describes the rejection of the economic analysis of law in German-speaking countries and gives an overview on explanations that we found in the existing literature. Section III outlines our own hypothesis. Section IV traces the development in the United States, based on the existing literature. It starts with the classical legal thought of the late 19th century and subsequently surveys legal realism and the early development of law and economics since the 1960s. Section V describes the development of legal theory in German-speaking countries. As both legal realism and the Free Law School have pointed out, a doctrinal approach to law is equally prone to exploitation to achieve certain political ends. The current state of the discussion on legal philosophy is relevant to us insofar as it influences the ordinary legal discourse, in particular the predominant forms of legal scholarship. Section VI summarizes the above discussion

Income dynamics and stability in the transition process: General reflections applied to the Czech Republic

--

The European Union’s Multi-Level Cultural Diplomacy vis-à-vis the United States of America. Working Paper Series W-2018/7

This paper examines how, to what extent and why the EU engages in cultural diplomacy vis-à-vis the US. While providing an empirical review of and conceptual reflection on the current state of the EU’s (including key member states’) efforts at employing cultural diplomacy vis-à-vis the US, the paper also strives to explain the forms of this activity. It argues that a multi-level EU cultural diplomacy in the US does exist, but that its potential is currently underused. As could be expected, the EU Delegation to the US seems to be most willing to pursue EU cultural diplomacy, whereas the extent of EU cultural diplomacy at the level of coordinated activities between the EU and the member states, as well as at the member state level remains low. This finding can be explained primarily with a latent competition between member states. While the general motivation to engage in cultural diplomacy can be interest- or value-driven – and is in the case of EU cultural diplomacy vis-à-vis the US arguably both –, it is undeniable that, in a country like the US, the interest-driven soft power competition that is often a key incentive for actors to engage in cultural diplomacy activities at all plays out negatively inside the EU. These findings are corroborated by a brief discussion of the potential acceptance of EU cultural action in the US, which highlights how, despite positive perceptions of European culture as such, the EU is hardly recognized as an actor in the field of culture

TTIP as 21st Century Trade Politics

Trade policy is commonly understood as the product of competition between export-oriented and import-competing interests. The politics that has emerged early in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations, however, reflects a very different cleavage. Transatlantic alliances of transnational firms have emerged as the champions of a far-reaching agreement, while a variety of civic interest groups have formed the principal opposition. This paper contends this distinctive pattern of trade politics is primarily the product of the distinctive degree of interpenetration between the American and European economies. The high-level of interpenetration means that much of transatlantic economic exchange occurs through trade within firms or global value chains or through foreign affiliate sales, which dramatically reducing firm opposition to trade liberalization. The high degree of interpenetration, reflected in generally low tariffs, means that the principle obstacles to trade lie in regulatory differences. Concern about the deregulatory potential of the talks has spurred civic interest engagement. It speculates that misunderstanding the implications of the character of transatlantic economic exchange contributed to the gap between the early expectations of a swift, ambitious deal and more recent assessments of a protracted and limited agreement

Transatlantic security relations since the European security strategy : what role for the EU in its pursuit of strategic autonomy?

Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the support of the European Research Council (grant #203613) for funding the research drawn upon in this article. I am also grateful to the editors of this special issue and to the anonymous referees of the Journal of European Integration for their comments on an earlier draft. Finally, I would like to thank the European University Institute for the award of a Robert Schuman Fellowship, which provided a very congenial atmosphere to complete this article.Peer reviewedPostprin

Global Standard-Setting 2.0: How the WTO Spotlights ISO and Impacts the Transnational Standard-Setting Process

Transnational technical standard-setting has grown in prominence in recent years. The World Trade Organization (WTO) requires the use of international standards but adopts a deferential approach towards international standards. However, practice shows that several international standards are promulgated through opaque and exclusionary processes. In line with this observation, in its recent US—Tuna II ruling, the Appellate Body adopted a more critical stance regarding international standards and the processes that lead to their adoption. Against this backdrop, this article focuses on an analysis of the properties and mechanics of international standard-setting processes within the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), discussing procedural and substantive guarantees regarding transparency, openness, deliberation and participation. As the WTO becomes the de facto arbiter of the legitimacy of international standards, much needed institutional reform in international standard-setting is bound to occur. Arguably, this is bringing a paradigm shift in standardization practices and introduces “global standard-setting 2.0.” Such trend is in line with emerging demands for a more inclusive global legal order