The EU as a Global Actor in a Multipolar World and Multilateral 2.0 Environment. Egmont Paper No. 36, March 2010

This paper discusses a number of long-term global trends that are likely to affect the ambition of the EU to be a global actor. Being or becoming a global power is indeed not only determined by an internal and voluntary policy of that actor. It also depends on a number of external forces. The first part of this paper will present two ongoing transformations of the world that together are weakening the position of the EU as an aspiring global power. The first trend is a shift in economic gravity from the East to the West. The second trend is a demographic decline in Europe. Both trends make it increasingly difficult for the EU to be a global power. But at the same time one can also identify a number of developments with regard to multilateralism that bear in them opportunities for the EU to increase its influence as a global actor. The second part of this paper focuses on two such trends, the shift to multipolarity and the changes in the multilateral architecture. As for the latter, this paper introduces the notion of 'multilateralism 2.0.' as a metaphor to grasp these changes

Science Diplomacy: New Global Challenges, New Trend

As new challenges such as the critical need for a universal sustainable development agenda confront mankind, science and diplomacy are converging as common tools for trouble-shooting. Science Diplomacy can be seen as a new phenomenon involving the role of science in diplomacy

Towards an EU Strategy for Cultural and Science Diplomacy that is integrated in the wider Foreign and Security Policy

This blog note introduces the Horizon 2020 “European Leadership in Cultural, Science and Innovation Diplomacy” (EL-CSID) research project. It summarises the main ambition and overarching objectives of this three-year EU-funded project

Global Science Diplomacy as a new tool for Global Governance

This paper advocates for the development of a global science diplomacy agenda, consisting of three components: a Science in Global Diplomacy initiative aimed at mobilising the science and technology (S&T) community to carry out research that is relevant for global problems; a Diplomacy for Global Science initiative aimed at facilitating scientific collaborations for dealing with global problems; and a Global Science for Global Diplomacy initiative aimed at developing the institutional nexus between the S&T community and the realm of policy-making at a global level

EL-CSID Policy Brief 4: Science Diplomacy in search of a purpose in the populist era. Institute for European Studies Issue 2018/4, March 2018

Science Diplomacy as a practice has a long past but only a short history. It became a policy concern of Foreign Affairs only recently. This article points to the strengths and weaknesses of Science Diplomacy as a soft power instrument aimed at improving International Relations. It also lists a number of threats coming from populist and protectionist forces that hinder the further development of Science Diplomacy. At the same time, the current situation also bears opportunities such as the potential to develop a scientist-driven Science Diplomacy aimed at safeguarding the values of science and at strengthening the input of science in humanity coping with global problems. This can best be realised by establishing mission-driven networks of state policy-makers, scientists and relevant stakeholders

The EU as a global-regional actor in security and peace: the EU-GRASP final integrative report

This report is a final product of a research project, called EU-GRASP that aimed at a better understanding of the EU’s role in regional and global peace and security issues. Undertaking this was a fascinating and challenging task, especially as the subject matter was, for various reasons, a real moving target

Review essay: Regional Integration, Poverty and Social Policy

Review: 1) K. MALHOTRA, C. BAHADUR, S. JAHAN AND M. KEKLIK, Making Global Trade Work for People. New York: UNDP and Earthscan, 2003. 341 pp. 2) M. SCHIFF AND L.A. WINTERS, Regional Integration and Development. Washington: The World Bank, 2003. 321 pp. 3) D.W. TE VELDE (ed.), Regional Integration and Poverty. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006. 297 pp

Science diplomacy in times of war – to what extent should western countries distance themselves from Russian science?

The response of scientists and science policymakers to the war in Ukraine has been mixed, with different actors calling for varying degrees of engagement and withdrawal from Russian Science. In this cross-post from Frontiers Policy Labs, Eric Piaget, Luk Van Langenhove, and Luc Soete discuss how continued collaboration with Russian research is an important factor in achieving wider western foreign policy goals with Russia

Posicionamiento y autobiografía: el relato de vida

El trabajo que presentamos en esta publicación se inscribe como un capítulo del libro Discourse and Lifespan Identity6, en el que Van Langenhove y Harré exploran los modos en los que los estudios biográficos y el análisis del discurso están relacionados. La idea rectora a examinar es: ¿cuándo y por qué las personas tienden a pensar de sí mismas en tal sentido? Para ello, los autores parten del concepto de posicionamiento para demostrar cómo la identidad personal y la individualidad se manifiestan a través de los distintos modos en los que las personas se involucran en prácticas discursivas al escribir y contar historias de vida. En segundo término, ponen el foco de atención sobre las diferencias entre oralidad y literalidad para distinguir el relato biográfico de las narrativas autobiográficas literarias. Seguidamente, argumentan que la presente ambigüedad del concepto del yo y los conceptos relacionados a individuación, biografía, e identidad emerge de la idea errónea de que la biografía literaria puede ser utilizada como modelo para comprender el relato biográfico. Finalmente, los autores discuten las implicancias de lo anteriormente expuesto para abordar el estudio de los relatos de vida

Requirements for Effective European Union Leadership in Science and Cultural Diplomacy on (Inter) Regionalism in the South

This inception paper expatiates on the conditions that are necessary in determining the effectiveness of the European Union’s (the EU’s) leadership in science and cultural diplomacy (SCD) on regionalism and inter-regionalism in the South. These conditions include willingness, capacity and acceptance. Willingness delineates the scope of the ambition of the EU in SCD. Capacity covers elements that pertain to breadth and depth/ quality and quantity of resources mobilized and available to lead SCD that delivers results. Acceptance refers to the nature of the credibility that the EU is able to command both within and outside the Union respecting its influence to attract followers both amongst Member States of the Union as well as third states, regional and international organizations. The emphasis of the paper is on effectiveness in terms of impact on regionalism and inter-regionalism in the South. Focus is placed on regional and inter-regional processes/ initiatives in Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America