L'Union européenne face aux BRICS dans la gouvernance mondiale: Une réponse efficace? = The European Union facing the BRICS countries in world governance: an effective response? Bruges Regional Integration & Global Governance Paper 2/2014

Le présent travail se concentre sur deux principaux acteurs du monde en évolution, l'Union européenne (UE) et l'ensemble des pays BRICS, et le défi que posent collectivement ces derniers à la première sur la base de leurs poids économique et politique accrus dans le cadre de la gouvernance mondiale. On fait valoir que la doctrine d’un « multilatéralisme efficace » décrivant la position de l’UE sur la gouvernance mondiale est de plus en plus remise en cause par les BRICS dont l’approche repose sur un autre principe : celui d’un « multilatéralisme relationnel ». Afin de pouvoir analyser comment l’UE réagit à la confiance et la cohérence croissante des BRICS dans les instances internationales, ce travail examine la réponse de l’UE dans trois domaines de la gouvernance mondiale que sont le commerce, le changement climatique et la sécurité internationale. Ceci permet d’évaluer dans quelle mesure les différentes institutions européennes mettent en œuvre ce que ce travail qualifie de « réponse efficace » à la montée en puissance des BRICS. Au terme de l’analyse, cette étude s’attache à souligner que la réaction des institutions de l’UE à l'influence grandissante des BRICS sur la scène internationale ne peut être considérée comme efficace que dans le domaine du changement climatique

The EU Global Strategy: from effective multilateralism to global governance that works? Egmont Security Policy Brief No. 76 July 2016

Delivering effective global governance is amongst the five priorities of the European Union Global Strategy (EUGS). After its modest success in promoting its ‘effective multilateralism’ doctrine and rendering the world like itself, the European Union (EU)’s approach to global governance has now been somewhat overhauled. The Union remains idealist in promoting universal regimes with binding rules to be endorsed by the United Nations, but much more pragmatic in achieving this outcome. Effective multilateralism is now the end, not the means

The European Union and the China-led transformation of global economic governance. Egmont Paper 85, June 2016

From the Introduction. Since the inception of the Bretton Woods system in 1945, major fields of global economic governance have been essentially associated with a single international organisation or arrangement. Trade was governed by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and later the World Trade Organisation (WTO), whereas the International Monetary Fund has been a key point of reference in finance and monetary issues and the World Bank1 played a similar role in development policy. A common characteristic of these institutions is that they were set up in the wake of World War II, and the distribution of influence among their members was, for the most part, reflective of mid-twentieth-century balance-of-power considerations. While these long-term institutional arrangements remain cemented, world affairs constantly change, raising the risk of a glaring mismatch between the way in which power is shared in these international institutions and the realities of global politics

The BRICS’ New Development Bank and the EU’s options. College of Europe Policy Brief #7.16, April 2016

Executive Summary > Global economic governance is currently undergoing a significant transformation led by China and its emerging economy partners. > China’s increased activism on the global stage rests on the reform of established organisations, the design of parallel institutions, the revitalisation of neglected frameworks and the creation of novel networks. > One example of the creation of a new institution concerns the New Development Bank, which is set to complement the World Bank’s efforts, but may also dilute the very standards in development finance that the EU has long championed. > After an initial focus of two years on Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa (BRICS), the Bank will co-opt new members. > After failing to show a united front vis-à-vis the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB), EU member states should now seize the opportunity to respond strategically to a new global institution created by non-traditional powers

The Global Strategy – reinvigorating the EU’s multilateral agenda?. Security Policy Brief No. 69, March 2016

The EU’s effective multilateralism doctrine is hardly a defining characteristic of the international system of today. While established multilateral structures are far from reflective of the realities of the twenty-first century, multilateral practices remain dominant in most parts of the world. Multilateralism, however, carries a different meaning to different actors. Emerging powers have become increasingly assertive in promoting their own multilateral approach and now set the pace in international affairs. The EU remains, nonetheless, well-placed to respond to this challenge through a revision of its multilateral agenda

EU-China co-operation in global governance: going beyond the conceptual gap. Egmont Paper 92, April 2017

From the Introduction. The European Union (EU) and China are both central actors in international affairs, collectively accounting for almost 40% (in current market prices) of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP).1 While addressing the key global challenges of the 21st century increasingly requires an entente between these two actors, their relationship is often plagued by conflicting interests. Whether or not the EU will grant market economy status to China still looms largely in the trade relations of the two; the EU is still yet to lift its arms embargo on China; and they also differ in climate action responsibilities, to name a few

The Belt and Road Initiative – the ASEAN Perspective. Egmont Security Policy Brief No. 107, March 2019

It has been more than five years now that Chinese President Xi Jinping first referred to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), or One Belt One Road as it was called at the time, during his visits to Kazakhstan and Indonesia in September 2013. Since then, the project has generated extensive intellectual curiosity among academics around the world, while policy-makers have sought to come up with the best possible policy response to reap the possible benefits of China’s grand strategy, which involves infrastructure development and investments to boost connectivity between Asia, Europe and Africa. The European Union (EU), for example, presented The European Way to Connectivity – A New Strategy on How to Better Connect Europe and Asia last September, in which the EU sets out the parameters under which in intends to engage in boosting connectivity between Europe and Asia. The strategy is by no means a rival to the BRI, but rather a reaffirmation of the EU’s own approach when it comes to connectivity projects. But Europe is not the only part of the world that is closely watching the evolution of China’s grand scheme. So does Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian countries (ASEAN), which is the focus of this policy brief. If observers argue that the BRI has created dividing lines between the EU member states, this is even more so among ASEAN countries

The EU in the AIIB: taming China’s influence from within. Egmont Security Policy Brief No. 86 May 2017

With the recent approval of the membership request of Belgium, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Ireland and Romania, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) will soon count 20 EU countries among its members. But how could the EU make the most of this presence in the bank? Apart from direct business opportunities for its private sector, there are strategic, long-term considerations too. It will be imperative that the EU exploit the link between the AIIB and the Belt and Road Initiative and ensure that the bank’s functioning remains consistent with EU development standards through a carefully co-ordinated voice within the institution

The European Investment Bank: an overlooked (f)actor in EU external action? Egmont Paper 94, June 2017

This Egmont paper aims to 1) explore the extent to which the EIB already delivers, through its operations outside the Union, on the priorities guiding EU external action and 2) to identify ways in which the potential of the EIB as a multiplier of EU external action could be exploited in a better manner. The paper concludes with recommendations aimed at maximising the potential contribution of the EIB as an integral part of the overall EU toolbox for external action

ASEAN UNDER SINGAPORE'S CHAIRMANSHIP. Egmont Report, 9 February 2018

Singapore formally assumed the role of ASEAN chair from the Philippines on 1 January 2018. Considering the frequent use of the phrase 'resilience and innovation', the overarching sentiment suggests that Singapore seeks to promote a unified ASEAN, upholding the regional order to better deal with internal instability and emerging security challenges, while tapping new ways to manage and exploit digital technologies and forging ahead with regional economic integration