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
This article analyses the enforcement of intra-EU investor-state awards from a policy-oriented perspective. The article considers that an exclusively doctrinal or formalistic approach to the question leads to a methodological blind spot, which ignores the broader context of these enforcement actions and the policy considerations that arise from them. To overcome that, the article focuses on the reactions of relevant states following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU’s) judgments in Achmea and Komstroy. It explains how, rather than generate backlash, those judgments received widespread support from the EU-Member States, which then took further actions to implement them. Finally, the article considers how, even within the limits of the current enforcement regime, enforcing courts may take into account some policy considerations when determining whether to enforce intra-EU investor-state awards.
Journal of International Arbitration