Home > All journals > European Foreign Affairs Review > 29(3) >
$15.00 - Rental (PDF) *
$29.00 - Article (PDF) *
Fulvio Attinà, Marcello Carammia
European Foreign Affairs Review
Volume 29, Issue 3 (2024) pp. 275 – 294
https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2024013
Abstract
The EU’s foreign policy makers are committed to backing the rule-based international order and the creation of international law treaties to tackle global issues. The importance of world framework policies as the foundation of the current world order system that was created after the Second World War is overlooked by the rules-based concept of world order. Based on the High Representative’s strategy papers, this article assesses the views of EU foreign policy makers on world order, multipolarity, and multilateralism to understand the EU’s position in the current transition phase of the world order system. The article also addresses the significance of strategic autonomy as it appears as the core concept of the EU policy towards order transition. The analysis is based on International Relations (IR) scholarship and Complex Systems Theory (CST), which reveals gaps and inconsistencies in current EU views on the changing world order and the necessity to improve our understanding of how the world order transition is evolving.
Keywords
EU foreign and security policy, High Representative strategy papers, World order system, Order transition, World policymaking institutions, Priority collective problems, Framework world policies
Extract
Comparing the approach to the alter ego doctrine in the United States (US) with approaches taken, in the United Kingdom (UK), Canada, Switzerland and Australia reveals that courts in the US, tend to follow a stringent framework based on a set of factors. By contrast, other jurisdictions, undertake a broad ‘control and functions’ analysis. The Gécamines judgment in the UK has, strengthened the presumption of separate status to a greater degree than seen elsewhere. Moreover,, the UK relies on a matching up of liability and immunity, whereas the US appears to be more, concerned with equity in terms of, for example, the foreign state not benefiting unfairly in the US, legal system. These variations are significant given the huge assets concentrated in state-owned, entities and the question of their availability to satisfy debts owed by the state.
Journal of International Arbitration