欧盟转向“战略自治”:政策行动的余地和冲突点

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Armin Steinbach
{"title":"欧盟转向“战略自治”:政策行动的余地和冲突点","authors":"Armin Steinbach","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chad048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In a world marked by intensifying geopolitical rivalries, supply chain vulnerabilities and disruptive technological change, ensuring ‘strategic autonomy’ is now an avowed goal of numerous European Union (EU) policy initiatives. This article seeks to facilitate an assessment of this ‘policy turn’ by developing a taxonomy of associated objectives and by illuminating points of conformance and conflict with EU and international law. The EU Treaties offer a robust legal basis for a stronger-values orientation in external relations, for policies designed to rebalance reciprocity in pursuit of geo-economic ambition and for the pursuit of technological leadership within the EU Treaties’ level-playing-field legal foundation. Yet there is a thin line to collisions with international (trade and investment) law, notably where value prioritization, technological preferences or geopolitical concerns are tantamount to discrimination or invite protectionist policy choices. Employment of coercive tools in a unilateral fashion questions the legal default of multilateralism and openness. Persistent strategic diversity within the Union hinders ‘institutional autonomy’, particularly where unanimity voting makes intergovernmentalism the predominant mode of cooperation. The findings shed light on how the evolving geopolitical environment leads to a recalibration of EU external relations between protection and openness, independence and interdependence, unilateralism and multilateralism and power and rules.","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":"51 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The EU’s Turn to ‘Strategic Autonomy’: Leeway for Policy Action and Points of Conflict\",\"authors\":\"Armin Steinbach\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ejil/chad048\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In a world marked by intensifying geopolitical rivalries, supply chain vulnerabilities and disruptive technological change, ensuring ‘strategic autonomy’ is now an avowed goal of numerous European Union (EU) policy initiatives. This article seeks to facilitate an assessment of this ‘policy turn’ by developing a taxonomy of associated objectives and by illuminating points of conformance and conflict with EU and international law. The EU Treaties offer a robust legal basis for a stronger-values orientation in external relations, for policies designed to rebalance reciprocity in pursuit of geo-economic ambition and for the pursuit of technological leadership within the EU Treaties’ level-playing-field legal foundation. Yet there is a thin line to collisions with international (trade and investment) law, notably where value prioritization, technological preferences or geopolitical concerns are tantamount to discrimination or invite protectionist policy choices. Employment of coercive tools in a unilateral fashion questions the legal default of multilateralism and openness. Persistent strategic diversity within the Union hinders ‘institutional autonomy’, particularly where unanimity voting makes intergovernmentalism the predominant mode of cooperation. The findings shed light on how the evolving geopolitical environment leads to a recalibration of EU external relations between protection and openness, independence and interdependence, unilateralism and multilateralism and power and rules.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of International Law\",\"volume\":\"51 \",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chad048\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chad048","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在一个以地缘政治竞争加剧、供应链脆弱性和破坏性技术变革为特征的世界里,确保“战略自主”现在是欧盟(EU)众多政策举措的公开目标。本文旨在通过制定相关目标的分类,并通过阐明与欧盟和国际法的一致性和冲突点,促进对这一“政策转向”的评估。欧盟条约为对外关系中更强的价值取向、旨在重新平衡互惠以追求地缘经济野心的政策以及在欧盟条约的公平竞争环境法律基础内追求技术领先地位提供了强有力的法律基础。然而,与国际(贸易和投资)法律发生冲突的可能性很小,尤其是在价值优先、技术偏好或地缘政治担忧等同于歧视或招致保护主义政策选择的情况下。以单边方式使用强制手段是对多边主义和开放的法律默认的质疑。欧盟内部持续的战略多样性阻碍了“机构自治”,特别是在一致投票使政府间主义成为主要合作模式的情况下。研究结果揭示了不断变化的地缘政治环境如何导致欧盟在保护与开放、独立与相互依存、单边主义与多边主义、权力与规则之间重新调整对外关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The EU’s Turn to ‘Strategic Autonomy’: Leeway for Policy Action and Points of Conflict
Abstract In a world marked by intensifying geopolitical rivalries, supply chain vulnerabilities and disruptive technological change, ensuring ‘strategic autonomy’ is now an avowed goal of numerous European Union (EU) policy initiatives. This article seeks to facilitate an assessment of this ‘policy turn’ by developing a taxonomy of associated objectives and by illuminating points of conformance and conflict with EU and international law. The EU Treaties offer a robust legal basis for a stronger-values orientation in external relations, for policies designed to rebalance reciprocity in pursuit of geo-economic ambition and for the pursuit of technological leadership within the EU Treaties’ level-playing-field legal foundation. Yet there is a thin line to collisions with international (trade and investment) law, notably where value prioritization, technological preferences or geopolitical concerns are tantamount to discrimination or invite protectionist policy choices. Employment of coercive tools in a unilateral fashion questions the legal default of multilateralism and openness. Persistent strategic diversity within the Union hinders ‘institutional autonomy’, particularly where unanimity voting makes intergovernmentalism the predominant mode of cooperation. The findings shed light on how the evolving geopolitical environment leads to a recalibration of EU external relations between protection and openness, independence and interdependence, unilateralism and multilateralism and power and rules.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: The European Journal of International Law is firmly established as one of the world"s leading journals in its field. With its distinctive combination of theoretical and practical approaches to the issues of international law, the journal offers readers a unique opportunity to stay in touch with the latest developments in this rapidly evolving area. Each issue of the EJIL provides a forum for the exploration of the conceptual and theoretical dimensions of international law as well as for up-to-date analysis of topical issues. Additionally, it is the only journal to provide systematic coverage of the relationship between international law and the law of the European Union and its Member States.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信