The EU is MERCOSUR’s largest trade partner. It is the biggest foreign investor in the region. Besides that, the EU trade relationship with Latin America has been seen as controversial and as contributive to a series of problems in the... more
The EU is MERCOSUR’s largest trade partner. It is the biggest foreign investor in the region. Besides that, the EU trade relationship with Latin America has been seen as controversial and as contributive to a series of problems in the region, such as social conflicts, and environmental degradation. Still, the EU and Mercosur have recently relaunched negotiations on a free trade agreement. In the face of such circumstances, we question why a normative actor such as the EU, which bases its relations and agreements often in terms of human rights and sustainability, would still show such a keen interest in seeing the conclusion of a FTA with Mercosur even in the midst of a backlash in these fundamental issues? We look at the case of Brazil and its newly elected president who has downplayed the relevance of human rights and environmental protection - traditional key issues under the EU conditionality umbrella. We assess NGO reports in contrast with the textual proposal of the free trade agreement in order to find congruencies and discrepancies. We argue that in international trade agreements, when economic interests conflict with human rights and environmental issues, the latter tend to be overlooked. However, conditionality does serve the purpose of norm-spreading, especially in cases when these norms are being downplayed or expressly denied, as it is in the current case of Brazil.
Research Interests:
Aliaksei Kazharski and Clarissa do Nascimento Tabosa in their text further zoom in on the concept of securitization, which has become one of the most popular approaches to analyze interactions between political and security processes,... more
Aliaksei Kazharski and Clarissa do Nascimento Tabosa in their text further zoom in on the concept of securitization, which has become one of the most popular approaches to analyze interactions between political and security processes, especially within national contexts. This approach builds on the constructivist position claiming that security threats do not exist ‘out there’ objectively, but need to be socially constructed to be perceived as threats.
Realizing this allows analysts to study how and when something is
securitized, who conducts the process with what aims and whether the
securitization is successful (something is accepted as a threat) or not. Some of the most relevant examples of securitization discussed in the chapter are the bilateral securitization of each other between the Soviet Union and Capitalist West, as well as securitization of Russia in more recent years, or securitization of refugees in the Visegrad countries
Realizing this allows analysts to study how and when something is
securitized, who conducts the process with what aims and whether the
securitization is successful (something is accepted as a threat) or not. Some of the most relevant examples of securitization discussed in the chapter are the bilateral securitization of each other between the Soviet Union and Capitalist West, as well as securitization of Russia in more recent years, or securitization of refugees in the Visegrad countries
Research Interests:
Since the Treaty of Amsterdam, European Union member states have committed to developing a common European asylum and migration policy. While some argue this means states are losing their ability to exercise control over (im)migration,... more
Since the Treaty of Amsterdam, European Union member states have committed to developing a common European asylum and migration policy. While some argue this means states are losing their ability to exercise control over (im)migration, others argue this transfer of power is rather a reassertion of states’ sovereignty. Under the latter assumption, states are reaffirming their power of control by choosing to pool sovereignty to the Union level while, at the same time, fulfilling national interest (material, security) by avoiding internal legal and political constraints associated to immigration policies. Traditionally, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, and Hungary have been seen as policy-takers, pooling sovereignty to the Union level, and internally transforming their laws and policies – a consequence of their efforts to meet accession criteria earlier on. However, in the apex of the migration and refugee crisis, in 2015, these countries promptly showed their lack of commitment to the principle of solidarity and burden sharing and opposed to the mandatory relocation system put in place by the Union. Is this an indication these countries are moving from being “policy-takers” to become “policy- makers” in the EU? This paper addresses this question. By looking at mechanisms of policy diffusion and to the measures taken by these countries, I suggest that we must be cautious when talking about policy change because these countries are too legally and institutionally constrained in order to become policy-makers on their own or as a group.