Search

You searched for: Publishing Institution Finnish Institute of International Affairs Remove constraint Publishing Institution: Finnish Institute of International Affairs Political Geography Europe Remove constraint Political Geography: Europe Topic Foreign Policy Remove constraint Topic: Foreign Policy
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Author: Teemu Palosaari
  • Publication Date: 12-2013
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Finnish Institute of International Affairs
  • Abstract: Finland joined the European Union in the first wave of post-Cold War enlargement in 1995. All the applicants – including the neutral countries, Austria, Finland and Sweden – had to accept and be able to implement the Union's common foreign and security policy. !is criterion was implicitly aimed at the aforementioned neutral applicants. Before the accession, the Commission deemed that Finland's policy of neutrality – "or what is left of it" as the report put it – could pose problems for the Union: "in respect of the common foreign and security policy, the question arises to what extent Finland, which, as an armed neutral, has always laid great emphasis on the capability of defending the national territory, can fully share some of its objectives, such as the safeguarding of the independence and security of the Union (Article J.4)".
  • Topic: Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy
  • Political Geography: Europe
  • Author: Juha Käpylä, Harri Mikkola
  • Publication Date: 08-2013
  • Content Type: Policy Brief
  • Institution: Finnish Institute of International Affairs
  • Abstract: With exciting economic opportunities and serious environmental challenges, the Arctic is transforming and re-emerging as a geopolitically important region. Major global players within and without the Arctic are paying greater attention to the region. While Russia is a traditional Arctic state with significant economic and security interests in the region, China, the US and the EU have also expressed their Arctic interests more explicitly. They are keen to tap into the economic potential and have a say in the way the region becomes accessed, exploited and governed. As a result, the Arctic is no longer a spatially or administratively confined region, but is instead taking its new form in the midst of contemporary global politics. The globalization and economization of the Arctic will most likely downplay environmentalism and reduce the relative influence of the indigenous people and small Arctic states in Arctic affairs. Arctic governance is also likely to turn more complex and complicated as the economic and political stakes are raised.
  • Topic: Security, Foreign Policy, Climate Change, Development, International Trade and Finance, Oil, Natural Resources
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States, China, Europe
  • Author: Diarmuid Torney
  • Publication Date: 10-2013
  • Content Type: Policy Brief
  • Institution: Finnish Institute of International Affairs
  • Abstract: The EU has long played an important role in international climate governance, but changing relations of global power and governance are leading some to question the continued centrality of the EU in this area. For some, these changes were crystallized in the European experience at the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009. The shifting sands of contemporary climate politics make it all the more important for the EU to make the most of its diplomatic resources and capacities.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Climate Change, Diplomacy, Energy Policy
  • Political Geography: Europe
  • Author: Tuomas Iso-Markku
  • Publication Date: 11-2013
  • Content Type: Policy Brief
  • Institution: Finnish Institute of International Affairs
  • Abstract: The decision to place security and defence policy on the agenda of the December European Council and the intensive pre-summit preparations have given renewed impetus to this policy area and raised the level of expectations ahead of the meeting. While there is now widespread agreement among the member states on the main challenges facing the EU in the area of security and defence, conflicting political and economic interests still exist and continue to hamper the Union's efforts. The December summit is unlikely to engage in a major strategic debate, but it will discuss steps to improve the implementation of the Union's security and defence policy, to enhance cooperation in the area of capabilities, and to support the European defence industry. A major novelty is the European Commission's stronger involvement, which remains controversial, however. The most crucial task for the EU heads of state and government is to translate the momentum created by the pre-summit process into a lasting commitment on the part of all actors involved, by putting forward binding timelines, specific targets and concrete follow-up projects.
  • Topic: Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation
  • Political Geography: Europe
  • Author: Piotr Maciej Kaczyński
  • Publication Date: 09-2011
  • Content Type: Policy Brief
  • Institution: Finnish Institute of International Affairs
  • Abstract: In the area of external affairs, the Treaty of Lisbon has introduced a number of innovations into the functioning of the European Union. The initial phase of these innovations was in 2010 when two parallel processes took place. First, the set-up of the European External Action Service (EEAS) was negotiated and subsequently implemented. Second, a number of developments have taken place in the sphere of the EU's external representation. Soon after December 2009, when the new treaty entered into force, it became clear that it was wide open to interpretation. Since most actors continued to interpret the treaty provisions in their favour, the EU had to engage in difficult negotiations on several occasions. In fact, the new treaty impacts not only EU relations with third states and within international organizations, it also has a significant impact on the member states' relations with third states as well as on their representation within international organizations.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Regional Cooperation, Treaties and Agreements
  • Political Geography: Europe
  • Author: Janne Salminen
  • Publication Date: 11-2011
  • Content Type: Policy Brief
  • Institution: Finnish Institute of International Affairs
  • Abstract: From the legal point of view, the most important change ushered in by the Treaty of Lisbon concerns the scope of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union. This was widened due to the dismantling of the pillar structure. As a general rule, the jurisdiction of the European Courts now covers previous third pillar matters as well, namely criminal law and police co-operation. The dismantling of the pillar structure did not, however, affect the Common Foreign and Security Policy. The Union Courts still do not have jurisdiction in this area. This rule has two important exceptions. Although the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice is communitarised and more coherent than before, the previous limits in its territorial scope, namely the opt-outs of the UK, Ireland and Denmark, did not disappear, so limits in the Courts' jurisdiction remain. The Treaty of Lisbon amendments did not change the fundamentals of the judicial doctrines, such as the direct effect and primacy of European Union law. Importantly, the application of these doctrines was widened instead, owing to the depillarisation. The Treaty of Lisbon amendments meant that the decisions of the European Council and European Union bodies, offices and agencies can be reviewed under the preliminary ruling procedure. The Treaty of Lisbon changed the much-debated criteria for the standing of non-privileged applicants in actions to review the legality of the European Union acts.
  • Topic: Security, Foreign Policy, Treaties and Agreements, Law
  • Political Geography: United Kingdom, Europe, Denmark, Lisbon, Ireland
  • Author: Juha Jokela
  • Publication Date: 12-2011
  • Content Type: Policy Brief
  • Institution: Finnish Institute of International Affairs
  • Abstract: Europe and the EU have played an influential role in the development and decision-making of the Group of Twenty (G-20). Europe's influence in shaping the developments in the group and, more broadly, in global governance is, however, declining. The G-20 Summit in Cannes provided Europe with an opportunity to re-assert its leadership. Its aspirations were, however, overshadowed by internal divisions heightened by the deepening European sovereign debt crisis. Even prior to the current crisis, the increasing global competition and decrease in standing turned EU members inward-looking. Instead of a further Europeanization of foreign policy and external relations, many have observed a tendency to re-nationalize European policy-making. This tendency will make it increasingly difficult for Europe to secure its standing and adapt to the on going transition of the world's economic and political power. Europe should reinvigorate its commitment to a joint external action as a matter of priority. The key question for Europe is whether it will manage to Europeanize the G-20 and gear it towards the multilateral principles which lie at the heart of European integration; or whether we will see the opposite process, namely a 'G-ization' of the EU in the sense of major(European)powers dominating increasingly informal European and global decision-making. It is in Europe's interests to further institutionalize the G-20 and tie it to the formal multilateral architecture of the world economy and politics.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Development, Economics, International Trade and Finance, Governance
  • Political Geography: Europe
  • Author: Glenn R. Gassen
  • Publication Date: 05-2010
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Finnish Institute of International Affairs
  • Abstract: Since Paavo Lipponen left the Prime Minister's Office in 2003, Finland's relationship with Germany seems to have grown more distant. While Lipponen had a markedly pro-German attitude, the present government has adopted a more sober and pragmatic approach. But does this change in rhetoric indicate a different approach? A decade ago, it seemed self-evident that for Finland, Germany was considered “as an important – if not the most important – partner in Europe.”1But what importance does Germany hold for Finland today?
  • Topic: International Relations, Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations
  • Political Geography: Europe, Finland, Germany
  • Author: Mikael Mattlin
  • Publication Date: 09-2010
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: Finnish Institute of International Affairs
  • Abstract: A vigorous debate is raging on the EU's normative roles in the global context. The EU actively promotes its political values outside of the Union, especially with regard to prospective accession countries. Yet, a normative foreign policy approach encounters considerable challenges when confronted with major powers, such as China and Russia that do not always share the political values promoted by the EU. Attempts at pursuing a normative policy towards these countries often come across as unserious or half-hearted. This paper discusses EU normative policy towards China, identifying loss of the moral high ground, conflicting interests of EU members and lack of leverage towards China as the three main factors hampering it. The paper argues that instead of a half-hearted offensive normative approach towards China, the EU may be better off with a more determined policy of defensive normativity. More broadly, the EU faces a stark choice between its desire to be a Normative Power and its wish to be a Great Power.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations
  • Political Geography: Russia, China, Europe
  • Author: Timo Behr, Aaretti Siitonen, Johanna Nykänen
  • Publication Date: 03-2010
  • Content Type: Policy Brief
  • Institution: Finnish Institute of International Affairs
  • Abstract: With the Lisbon Treaty finally ratified, EU attention has now shifted towards the arduous task of implementing the treaty reforms. Central amongst these is a complete overhaul of the existing structures of EU foreign policy-making, providing the EU with a new "double-hatted" foreign policy chief—in the person of Catherine Ashton—and creating the European External Action Service (EEAS). Conceived as the EU's own diplomatic corps, the EEAS has been lauded as a "once in a generation opportunity" that will endow Europe with a greater voice and more influence in international affairs. But setting up the EEAS is proving more difficult than anticipated, with different European actors squabbling over composition and structure of the new institution. This should come as little surprise, given that the precise shape and detailed functions of the EEAS were all left to be negotiated during the implementation phase. Moreover, settling these issues entails more than just some fine-tuning of the EU's institutional structures: it requires a wholesale re-writing of the ground rules of European diplomacy. What is at stake in this process is not only how and by whom EU foreign policy is being made, but the nature and direction of European diplomacy itself.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Affairs
  • Political Geography: Europe, Lisbon