Ideas on Europe Blog

A small meeting room in the European External Action Service is an unlikely place to get goosebumps. Yet, this happened time and time again as I spoke to European Union (EU) officials about the ground-breaking decision to deploy the European Peace Facility (EPF) to support Ukraine’s military response against Russia’s full-scale invasion during a cold February weekend in 2022. They all recall the gravitas of the moment: High Representative Borrell’s famous “Just add a zero” line that allowed the EPF budget to be multiplied by ten, the ground-breaking decision to deploy it to provide lethal equipment, and the momentous feeling of unity between Member States – a Union that, for once, rose up to the stakes of the moment.

Yet, the goosebumps are a momentary experience, and quickly go away as the conversation shifts to the months and years that followed. The tone gets more sour and frustrated. From a powerful innovation signifying European resolve, since 2024, the EPF has been completely blocked by the assertiveness of Hungarian vetoes. The officials I interview often use this as an example to show me that, although we tend to see the EU’s reaction to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine as an ideal case of unity, consensus is not part of the equation at all.

How and why, then, has internal disagreement not impeded a common response in support of Ukraine? The conventional wisdom – that EU foreign policy action requires unanimity – cannot explain this.

My PhD starts from a different premise. Full agreement is a lot to ask of a group of twenty-seven Member States bound together by a sprawling institutional architecture and a multiplicity of tools, but torn apart by diverging interests and strategic cultures. In a decision-making machinery still dominated by unanimity, collective action does not require the elimination of disagreement by channelling twenty-seven voices into one. It requires organising twenty-seven voices into patterns of complementarity rather than contradiction.

These are the theoretical propositions I carried with me back and forth in my Eurostar journeys from London to Brussels since January 2026, when I began my fieldwork, generously supported by the UACES PhD Fieldwork Scholarship.

What I Am Finding: Complementarity, Not Unity 

The central conceptual move emerging from my research is a shift away from thinking about EU unity as the enabling factor of common external action to thinking about complementarity.

The dominant framing treats EU unity and consensus as necessary conditions for EU presence on the global stage: either it ‘speaks with one voice’ or it fragments into competing national positions. A holistic analysis of those cases that are considered closest to ideal types in this binary – Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the Gaza conflict – reveals something this dichotomy cannot capture.

By taking into account the multiplicity of actions across the Union’s multi-actor, multi-method, multi-level system of foreign policy, one starts seeing a different picture. It is the management of conflict and disagreement – not consensus – that enables EU external action, which can exist in multiple forms short of unity. What matters is not whether agreement can be found in the Council, but whether EU institutions and Member States act, in practice, to fill the gaps left by one another.

The EU’s multi-centred architecture – its multiple voices – does not merely constrain action, but provides avenues through which action can be routed around blockages at any given level. The European Peace Facility is a particularly successful and evident example of this: where disagreement existed, and common competencies lacked to support the provision of lethal equipment to Ukraine, the Commission provided EU financing through off-budget mechanisms, Member States delivered weapons bilaterally, and the EEAS coordinated. Each maintained its distinctive organisational approach, but these were structured to complement each other. No preference convergence or further integration occurred, but institutional innovations and procedural flexibility organised these differences productively.

I propose complementarity as the concept to capture this: the degree to which EU institutions and Member States reinforce rather than contradict each other at political, strategic, and operational levels. Complementarity is not coherence or uniformity: it allows for differentiated contributions, sequenced actions, and division of labour across a spectrum. What matters is not the institutional design of decision-making, but its outcome in practice, and whether actors reinforce, supplement, or contradict one another.

What Complementarity Reveals

 This concept helps to start theorising three more and more explicit developments in EU foreign policy into a single framework. These are typically analysed in isolation or misread as signs of dysfunction. Rather, I argue that they are all part of the same phenomenon whereby the EU assumes different patterns of complementarity as the outcome of internal conflict management.

The first concerns the simultaneous rise of Commission assertiveness and Member State coalitions. The European Commission increasingly deploys its own instruments – SAFE, Readiness 2030 – to provide frameworks for action in areas where unanimity in CFSP/CSDP cannot be reached. At the same time, Member States form informal ‘coalitions of the willing’ to tackle urgent problems outside the constraints of unanimity. These are usually analysed as two distinct trends, and the latter is often read as a sign of fragmentation. Yet, I argue that they are symptoms of complementarity in action: efforts of separate actors to enable or strengthen the collective effort.

The second development concerns the increasing visibility of Commission instruments in the making and shaping of EU external action. The existing debate has long equated EU foreign policy with its most visible intergovernmental surface – Council conclusions, statements, declarations. These are either voted on by unanimity or fail to come into existence. But a more holistic view that understands Community and Member State instruments and external competencies as part of the same system of foreign policy, a different picture emerges. Political, strategic, and operational coordination do not always move in tandem: Community tools can be effectively deployed at the operational level even when political consensus is absent. What appears as “disunity” at one level does not necessarily mean the EU is failing to act, or vice versa. It is precisely in these intermediate configurations – visible through a complementary view – that some of the most undertheorised dynamics of EU foreign policy reside.

Third, these configurations are not static. Complementarity is better understood as a process than a state – something that is constructed, sustained, and that can erode. The EU’s response to Ukraine illustrates this vividly: the rapid construction of a coherent response in the weeks following February 2022 gradually became more pluralistic over time – regardless of the sustained existential threat to European security. Changes external configuration of the EU – whether it speaks with one voice or it is characterised by coalitions of the willing and Commission-led workarounds – are often read as predictive signs of the trajectory of EU foreign policy integration. My argument is that this is the wrong frame entirely. These are not steps forward, backwards, or sideways on an integration spectrum that can tell us whether the EU is advancing unevenly, retreating, or finding a differentiated middle path. They are pragmatic, adaptive responses to the specific configuration of external constraints and internal costs the EU faces at a given moment. The EU is not on a linear trajectory; rather, a kaleidoscopic, shape-shifting polity in which coalitions form and reform around specific issues, and where the relevant question is not the degree of integration but the pattern of alignment.

Bridging Theory and Practice: Fieldwork in the Brussels Bubble

The core of my fieldwork consists of elite interviews with practitioners across the EU’s foreign policy ecosystem: officials from the EEAS, the Commission, the Council Secretariat, and Member States. The interviews seek to unveil not the achievement of unanimity as described by the treaties, but the daily, often improvised work of finding éscamotages, creative solutions, and producing collective action under pressure.

Brussels is a bubble that rewards presence. Many of these conversations would not have happened over Zoom. The willingness to speak candidly about politically charged dynamics – particularly about why coordination breaks down and how dissent is absorbed rather than resolved – depends enormously on trust built face to face. The informal chats after the recorded interview, the run-ins around Schuman or To Meli, the introductions passed along by a colleague: these are the understated elements that make research beyond the diplomatic narrative possible. I still have much to do: the human component of interviews requires time – digging into the EUWhoIsWho to identify interlocutors, waiting for answers (which often never come), and finding an appropriate time in the interviewees’ busy schedules. This means: I am still deeply in the process – widening my reach to Member State officials in Permanent Representations and select national capitals.

The UACES PhD Fieldwork Scholarship is essential to sustaining this presence. The scholarship supported my travel and living costs, allowing me to conduct a far richer set of interviews than would otherwise have been feasible. I am deeply grateful to UACES for this support, and for the broader role the association plays in enabling early-career researchers to undertake empirically grounded work.

Looking Ahead

The broader ambition is to equip scholars and practitioners with a framework that makes sense of recent developments in EU foreign policy while relieving them of the unrealistic expectation of consistent unity and the frustration of apparent weakness. The EU is not a unitary state. It cannot always ‘speak with one voice’. But it can and does act – sometimes with remarkable coordination, sometimes in productive pluralism, and sometimes in disarray. Understanding why it takes these different forms can offer insights into how this adaptive quality could become a strength rather than a source of anxiety in an increasingly volatile international order.

The post Conflict Is Underrated: From Unity to Complementarity in EU Foreign Policy appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Although I am currently immersed in the London local elections — speaking with residents, listening to concerns, and experiencing democracy at its most immediate level — I didn’t want to miss the chance to reflect on Hungary’s 12 April vote. I have analysed Hungarian politics for many years, and this election is among the most consequential in the country’s modern history. Balancing local campaigning with international analysis has been a reminder that democratic practice is both local and global, intimate and structural.

Tibor Illyés/EPA

Hungary will hold a parliamentary election on 12 April that many observers describe as the most significant in the country’s modern political history. After 16 years of uninterrupted rule by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz–KDNP alliance, a new political force has emerged to challenge the government’s dominance. The TISZA party, led by former Fidesz insider Péter Magyar, has rapidly reshaped the political landscape and introduced a degree of uncertainty not seen since 2010.

The stakes extend far beyond the composition of the next government. The election will influence Hungary’s economic direction, its approach to the rule of law, and its geopolitical positioning between the European Union and Russia. For many voters, the contest has become a referendum on the political model Orbán has built over the past decade and a half — a model critics describe as “illiberal democracy” and supporters defend as a sovereign alternative to Western liberalism.

How the system works

Hungary is a parliamentary republic with a unicameral National Assembly of 199 members. The PM is elected by a majority of the National Assembly members. The electoral system combines single‑member districts with proportional representation: 106 MPs are elected through first‑past‑the‑post constituencies, while the remaining 93 seats are allocated through national party lists.

Parties must cross a 5% threshold to enter parliament via the national list, although alliances face higher thresholds. A distinctive feature of the system is the “surplus votes” mechanism, which adds unused votes from winning constituency candidates to their party’s national list total. Analysts note that this tends to favour the largest party.

Recent amendments have also redrawn constituency boundaries. Budapest, where opposition parties have traditionally performed strongly, now has fewer seats, while surrounding areas that lean toward Fidesz have gained representation. These changes have prompted debate about the neutrality of the redistricting process.

The political actors 

Orbán’s Fidesz–KDNP alliance is seeking a fifth consecutive term, campaigning on themes of stability, national sovereignty and peace. The prime minister presents himself as the only leader capable of shielding Hungary from external pressures, whether from the EU, NATO or what he characterises as a “pro‑war lobby”.

Péter Magyar, left, of the Tisza Party, and Viktor Orbán from Fidesz, addressing rallies during the campaign (Balint Szentgallay and Akos Stiller via Getty Images)

The main challenger is TISZA, founded in 2024 and led by Péter Magyar. Once a high‑ranking diplomat within the Fidesz system, Magyar broke with the government and has since accused it of systemic corruption and institutional capture. TISZA positions itself as conservative, pro‑European and broadly inclusive, aiming to attract voters across ideological lines.

Other parties remain part of the landscape, though with reduced visibility. The Democratic Coalition, led by Klára Dobrev, continues to advocate for a full restoration of liberal democratic norms and closer alignment with the EU. To the right of Fidesz, the Our Homeland Movement appeals to nationalist voters dissatisfied with the government’s direction. Several traditional opposition parties — including Momentum, the Socialists and Dialogue — have withdrawn from the race to avoid splitting the anti‑government vote, effectively consolidating support behind TISZA.

The issues shaping the campaign

Foreign policy has dominated the campaign, particularly the war in Ukraine. Fidesz has framed the election as a choice between “peace or war”, arguing that the opposition and EU institutions favour escalation. The government emphasises continued cooperation with Russia, especially in the energy sector. TISZA condemns the invasion but has taken a cautious approach to questions of military involvement.

Hungary’s relationship with the EU is another central issue. Approximately €18 billion in EU funds remain frozen due to concerns about corruption and the rule of law. TISZA has pledged to implement the reforms required to unlock these funds, while Fidesz portrays EU pressure as interference in national sovereignty.

Economic concerns are also prominent. Voters face rising living costs, stagnant wages and deteriorating public services, particularly in education and healthcare. Opposition parties highlight the wealth accumulated by business figures close to Fidesz as evidence of systemic corruption. The government points to wage growth and family support schemes as signs of economic resilience.

U.S. Vice President JD Vance shakes hands with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán Tuesday in Budapest. (Denes Erdos / Associated Press)

The campaign has also been marked by allegations of external influence. Reports of Russian‑linked disinformation networks and the increasing use of AI‑generated political content have raised concerns about the information environment. A visit by US Vice President JD Vance in support of Orbán has further underscored the international attention surrounding the election.

What could happen after the vote

A party or alliance needs 100 seats to form a government. A two‑thirds majority — 133 seats — grants the power to amend the constitution and change “cardinal laws”, which govern key areas such as the judiciary, media regulation and electoral rules.

If TISZA were to win a simple majority but fall short of two‑thirds, it could form a government but would face structural constraints, as many institutional reforms require supermajority support. If no party reaches 100 seats, coalition negotiations would be necessary. Analysts note that Fidesz and the Our Homeland Movement share ideological overlaps, though no formal commitments have been made.

Depending on the margin, observers have also discussed the possibility of legal challenges or disputes over certification. These scenarios reflect the high stakes and polarisation surrounding the election rather than predictions about the outcome.

What to watch on election day

 Turnout will be closely monitored, particularly among younger voters who have been highly mobilised during the campaign. The urban–rural divide remains a defining feature of Hungarian politics: while TISZA is expected to perform strongly in Budapest, Fidesz retains deep support in rural areas, where constituency results often determine the overall balance of power.

The performance of smaller parties will also matter. Whether groups such as the Democratic Coalition or the Our Homeland Movement cross the 5% threshold will influence the distribution of list seats. Diaspora votes — particularly mail‑in ballots from ethnic Hungarians abroad — have historically provided several additional seats to Fidesz. Analysts are also watching the role of AI‑generated content and disinformation in the final hours of the campaign.

Why this election matters

The April 12 election is a watershed moment that will decide whether Hungary continues its trajectory as an “electoral autocracy” or returns toward a liberal democratic path within the European Union. The outcome will redefine Hungary’s relationship with Brussels and Kyiv, potentially removing a persistent “spoiler” to EU policy or further entrenching an illiberal vanguard in the heart of Europe. Regardless of the winner, the next government will face the daunting task of navigating an entrenched legal framework and a deeply polarized society.

The post Explainer: Your Guide to Hungary’s Election on 12 April appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Photo: Green Circuit Board by Miguel Á. Padriñán, available from https://www.pexels.com/photo/green-circuit-board-343457/

Cristina Pinna

Over the past decade, research security has moved from a technical concern discussed among specialists to a central issue in European research policy. What began as a debate about protecting sensitive technologies has expanded into a broader question about how knowledge should be governed in a changing geopolitical environment. Today, it shapes funding rules, international cooperation, and the everyday practices of universities across Europe, becoming part of a broader effort to govern knowledge flows amid geopolitical uncertainty and perceived vulnerability. It reflects a wider shift in how the European Union (EU) understands openness, collaboration, and risk.

In my ongoing research on EU research security and international academic cooperation (Pinna, 2024; Cai, Pinna and van der Wende, 2025; Pinna, 2025), I examine how this shift reflects more than a response to specific threats and is linked to the EU’s broader geopolitical repositioning and to the growing recognition that research and innovation are strategic domains. Policy debates increasingly frame scientific cooperation in terms of resilience, technological sovereignty, and economic security (European Commission 2025b) and are linked to the EU’s broader geopolitical repositioning and to the growing recognition that research and innovation are strategic domains. 

 

From openness to managed interdependence

For much of the early 2000s, EU research policy rested on the assumption that international openness was inherently beneficial. The development of the European Research Area (ERA), successive Framework Programmes, and mobility initiatives reflected a paradigm in which universities were encouraged to internationalise, compete globally, and integrate into the knowledge economy. International cooperation was tied to a neoliberal logic of competitiveness and excellence, where openness was seen as necessary for growth and scientific leadership. 

Over time, this consensus began to change. Advances in dual-use technologies, the strategic importance of innovation, and geopolitical rivalry led policymakers to reconsider the risks of unrestricted collaboration. Scientific cooperation is now seen not only as a driver of competitiveness, but also as a source of vulnerability. Concerns about knowledge transfer, foreign interference, and asymmetric dependencies have moved to the centre of policy debates, especially in strategic technologies. Where the previous decade emphasised internationalisation as an economic imperative, the current one increasingly frames it through a security logic concerned with exposure, dependence, and risk.

These developments are particularly visible in EU–China academic relations. Earlier narratives emphasised partnership and mutual benefit, whereas recent debates refer to reciprocity, risk awareness, and strategic dependencies (Cai, Pinna, and van der Wende 2025). Cooperation continues, but under more cautious and conditional terms. 

Recent EU initiatives reflect this recalibration. The Council Recommendation on Enhancing Research Security defines research security as the need to anticipate and manage risks related to unwanted knowledge transfer, malign influence on research, and violations of academic integrity or EU values (European Commission 2024a). Research security, therefore, goes beyond protecting technologies and includes safeguarding the conditions under which research remains open and trustworthy.  The White Paper on dual-use R&D further highlights the overlap between civilian innovation and security concerns (European Commission 2024b). Together, these documents signal a move from unconditional openness to managed internationalisation.

 

Security embedded in everyday research governance

This transformation has not taken the form of sudden restrictions. Instead, security concerns have been integrated into existing procedures.

Rather than imposing strict prohibitions, the EU mainly relies on regulatory and coordinative tools. Funding rules, due-diligence requirements, export controls, and risk assessments increasingly shape research cooperation. Recent Commission initiatives provide guidance and coordination tools for Member States (European Commission 2025a).

Because education and research remain largely national competencies, the implementation of research security is shaped by the relationship between the EU and its Member States. EU institutions set the direction, but Member States, funding agencies, universities, and researchers implement it. In this sense, research security develops through a multi-level governance system in which responsibilities are distributed rather than centrally imposed (Pinna 2024). Translating research security into practice is uneven across governance levels, with divergent narratives creating uncertainty for implementers and making the process more contested than official policy language suggests (Rüland et al. 2025).

 

A broader geopolitical context

The growing prominence of research security is closely connected to the EU’s wider geopolitical agenda. Since the late 2010s, EU policy has emphasised resilience, strategic autonomy, and reducing critical dependencies. Research and innovation are no longer seen only as drivers of growth, but as areas linked to security, competitiveness, and systemic vulnerability (European Commission 2025b).

This shift reflects not only the pursuit of power, but also growing concern about vulnerability within open research systems. Policymakers worry that openness may expose critical technologies, create dependencies, or allow foreign influence in sensitive areas. These concerns have led to new policy instruments in “like-minded” countries such as the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Australia, where governments introduced guidelines to help universities manage geopolitical risks in international collaboration (Shih, Chubb, and Cooney-O’Donoghue 2025). Comparative work also shows that in both Germany and the United States, research security is reshaping scientific cooperation under geopolitical pressure, though through different governance traditions (Rüffin et al. 2025).

The EU response remains distinctive. Rather than relying on direct restrictions, it mainly uses coordination, recommendations, and regulatory frameworks. Cooperation remains central, but with greater attention to exposure, dependence, and strategic capabilities. Research security, therefore, reflects an attempt to govern interdependence rather than abandon openness.

 

Changing language, changing expectations

This transformation is also visible in policy language. Over the past decade, EU documents have moved from the vocabulary of openness and global exchange to terms such as responsible internationalisation, de-risking, and strategic autonomy. These changes reflect shifting narratives about how openness should be organised. 

Earlier frameworks stressed partnership and mobility, whereas recent documents emphasise risk awareness, due diligence, and institutional responsibility. The Council Recommendation on research security places risk assessment and safeguards within normal research governance (European Commission 2024a).  Openness is no longer taken for granted but must be actively managed.

This shift is often summarised in the principle that cooperation should be “as open as possible, as closed as necessary.” Initially used in technical contexts, this expression now captures a broader change in how international collaboration is understood. It reflects the attempt to preserve openness while recognising its risks.

This shift in language is particularly visible in EU–China academic relations. Earlier narratives centred on partnership and exchange, while more recent debates increasingly refer to risk management, strategic dependencies, and the protection of sensitive knowledge (Cai, Pinna, and van der Wende 2025; Pinna 2024). These changes reorganise expectations across the research system, redistributing responsibility among universities, funding agencies, and individual researchers.

 

Concluding reflections

Research security has become a defining feature of EU research policy. What began as concern about sensitive technologies has evolved into a broader effort to reconsider how knowledge circulates in an increasingly contested global environment. 

The shift is visible both in policy instruments and in the language of international cooperation. Terms such as responsible internationalisation, strategic autonomy, and de-risking reflect a shift from openness as the default to a more cautious organisation of international cooperation.

For the EU, this reflects an effort to remain open while reducing vulnerabilities. For universities and researchers, collaboration continues but with stronger expectations of responsibility and risk awareness.  Understanding this shift is essential for navigating European research governance. Research security is not simply a constraint on cooperation, but an attempt to redefine how international collaboration can continue in a more uncertain and contested world.

 

Dr. Cristina Pinna is a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow at the Department of International Relations and International Organization, University of Groningen, the Netherlands. Her research examines China’s global engagement, with particular interest in EU–China relations, the geopolitics of infrastructure and science and technology. She previously worked at the United Nations Development Programme in Beijing and has held research and teaching roles in Italy, Netherlands, Canada and China. She has launched a research group (Geo)Politics of the Global Science System – gloknos.

 

References

Cai, Yuzhuo, Cristina Pinna, and Marijk van der Wende, eds. 2025. Rethinking EU–China higher education cooperation in a complex and changing global environment. Special issue, Journal of Studies in International Education 29(2): 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/10283153251316930 

European Commission. 2024a. Council recommendation on enhancing research security. COM(2024) 26 final. Brussels.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=COM:2024:26:FIN 

European Commission. 2024b. White paper on options for enhancing support for research and development involving technologies with dual-use potential. Brussels.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52024DC0027 

European Commission. 2025a. Commission announces new measures to strengthen research security. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 28 October. Brussels. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-and-innovation-news/commission-announces-new-measures-strengthen-research-security-2025-10-28_en

European Commission. 2025b. Strategic Autonomy and European Economic and Research Security. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-research-and-innovation/europe-world/international-cooperation/strategic-autonomy-and-european-economic-and-research-security_en

Pinna, Cristina. 2024. Navigating knowledge and research security in EU–China academic relations: The case of Hungary, Italy, and the Netherlands. Journal of Studies in International Education 29(2): 319–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/10283153241307970 

Pinna, Cristina. 2025. Comparative Perspective In EU Context: Policies And Instruments In Relevant EU Countries. In van der Wende M., et al. (eds.) Changing perspectives: towards conditions for sustainable EU-China collaboration in academic cooperation and R&D. Published by the China Knowledge Network (CKN). https://www.chinakennisnetwerk.nl/publications/changing-perspectives-towardsconditions-sustainable-eu-china-academic-collaboration  

Rüffin, Nicolas V., Katharina C. Cramer, Maximilian Mayer, and Philip J. Nock. 2025.
“Research Security’ in Germany and the United States: Shifting Governance of Scientific Collaboration Under Geopolitical Pressure. Global Policy, advance online publication, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.70103

Rüland, Anna-Lena,  Rüffin, Nicolas V., Wang, Ruowei and Mauduit, Jean-Christophe. 2025.
“The Implementation of Research Security Policies in Germany: Exploring Policy Narratives across Governance Levels.” European Security, advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2025.2591708

Shih, Tommy, Chubb, Andrew  and  Cooney-O’Donoghue, Diarmuid. 2025. Processing the geopolitics of global science: Emerging national-level advisory structures. Journal of Studies in International Education 29(2): 300–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/10283153241307971

The post Research Security and the EU’s Geopolitical Turn: Governing Knowledge in a Changing World appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

By Dimitris Bouris (University of Amsterdam), Saul Kenny (Article 109), Hanna L. Mühlenhoff (University of Amsterdam)

In our recent article for JCMS we set out to queer the European Union Foreign and Security Policy.

But what does this mean?

Queer, once a slur, is now a popular term that captures the variety of sexual orientations and gender identities. Rooted in decolonial, black feminist as well as cultural studies, queer theory uses sexuality and gender identity as an entry point to tackle taken-for-granted concepts across literature, politics, law, and international relations.

We applied queer theory to EU foreign and security policy, specifically ‘queering’ the EU’s implementation of Women, Peace and Security (WPS) – a UN-mandated agenda that aims to consider the specific needs of women and girls in conflict. We focused on three queer concepts: invisibilities, heteronormativity, and binaries.

A (brief) overview of queer theory and its place in European Studies

To be queer is to be fluid; queer theory is therefore a framework that can be tricky to pin down. Its roots can, however, be traced to the post-structural turn in the 1980s and 1990s thanks to the work of Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, and Eve Sedgwick as well as the wider LGBTIQA+ movement. Its development is linked to feminism, post-colonialism, and constructivism. And while it overlaps with LGBT Studies, it is at times in tension with it.

Petrus Liu offers a starting point:

“Queer theory challenges categories we take for granted as self-obvious, natural, or immutable… Queer theory is, moreover, a kind of doing, a form of socially conscious intervention that calls into question the blind spots of heteronormative and cisnormative worldviews.”

Queer scholars interpret and apply the theory in different ways, but we support Kath Brown and Catherine J. Nash’s suggestion that it “can be any form of research” that “highlights the instability of taken-for-granted meanings and resulting power relations”.

As we outline in our article, the EU is increasingly examined by various critical theories (most notably postcolonial and feminist theories). And while our research is the first applications of queer theory to the EU’s foreign and security policy, it builds on a rich body of queer literature that exists on the wider WPS agenda, humanitarian responses, development, human rights law, and the fight against the far-right, amongst others. Below, we try to unpack some key concepts of queer scholarship.

Invisibilities

Queer scholarship “focuses on the (in)visibility of queer representations in international politics”, as we write in our paper. This erasure has real-world implications for queer people.

We found that LGBTIQA+ people are absent in the EU’s implementation of WPS. This means they are doubly persecuted; the violence they are subject to is not recognised and so they are excluded from access to legal, health, and other services.

This erasure affects all queer people. On one hand, WPS was designed to protect women and girls – yet it ignores the experience of lesbian and trans women. On the other hand, research increasingly highlights how sexual and gender-based violence does not only affect women; because of gendered hierarchies, men and boys are “feminised” or “homosexualised” in conflict. This process of violent humiliation is often directed at queer men and gender minorities, which is why WPS is often seen to be an avenue to integrate protections for the wider LGBTIQ+ community.

The failure to include references to LGBTIQA+ people is therefore a missed opportunity.

Heteronormativity

Queer theory examines heteronormative and cis-gendered structures. In the EU’s implementation of WPS, we found that all relationships are assumed to be heterosexual. The possibility that couples could be same-sex (or that families could have a single parent, for that matter) is not considered.

But by examining heteronormativity, queer research goes deeper: it attempts to analyse why there are patriarchal (im)balances of power and how they manifest.

Queer theory posits that heteronormativity is upheld by a range of masculinities and femininities, which are expressed in individuals regardless of their gender. It is the “hegemonic masculinity” that defines what is socially expected and is in opposition to “weaker” and “feminine” Others. This violent, patriarchal hegemonic masculinity leads to, and legitimises, acts of violence against LGBTIQA+ people in conflict.

Binaries

Queer scholarship builds on its efforts to deconstruct male/female or gay/straight binaries by doing the same with Either/Or binaries across mainstream politics.

For example, it analyses West/rest, war/peace, foreign/domestic and concludes that they simplify complicated terms and erase the nuance around them. Often, this promotes a xenophobic world view: Josep Borrell’s (the then EU High Representative) now infamous statement “Europe is a garden” and “the rest of the world is a jungle” is an example of this.

As we write in our paper, tackling these binaries helps us appreciate how violence against queer people is:

“Palimpsestic; it does not commence with conflict, nor does it end with the brokering of a ceasefire, the signing of a peace agreement or in the latter stages of peacebuilding. The violence queer persons suffer in conflict-related situations is not an aberration but an extension of that which they face in times of peace.”

Future uses of queer theory: an “open mesh of possibilities”

Queer theory is an “open mesh of possibilities”. This allows us to adapt the framework, use it in parallel with work that examines coloniality, race, disability, and class, as well as find allyship with other post-colonial or critical theories.

That being said, there are queer scholars who would disagree with this, instead positing that queer scholarship should remain on the fringes and not engage with mainstream policies at risk of it being instrumentalised. We recognise this tension but believe queer theory must be driven by a curiosity to engage; its insights are too important to be left on the sidelines.

At a time of increasing pressure on queer research and rights, we hope that others will use queer approaches to interrogate and analyse EU external policies – and encourage researchers to do so.

Doing so helps question the taken-for-granted structures and practises in these policies (what is considered “normal”), revealing the resulting power hierarchies around sexuality and gender identity and also shedding light on those who have been marginalised. In turn, this can contribute to the construction of alternative, more inclusive and irenic, policies and practices.

Dimitris Bouris (he/him) is an Associate Professor and Jean Monnet Chair at the Department of Political Science at the University of Amsterdam. He is also an Associate Editor ofEuropean Security journal and a Visiting Professor at the College of Europe (Natolin). Dimitris’ research focuses lies at the intersection of International Relations (IR theory, peace and state-building, contested states, security sector reform, conflict resolution, diplomacy), EU Studies (EU External Relations, EU security, CSDP, EU foreign Policy) and Middle East and North Africa area studies. He recently co-edited together with Nora Fisher-Onar and Daniela Huber a special issue in JCMS entitled “Towards Allyship in Diversity? Critical Perspectives on the European Union’s Global Role”. In addition to the article discussed in this blog post, recent publications also include an article on the Interrelationship between Gender and European Union Foreign Policy and an article on the performance of Transnistria’s statehood by its political elites

Saul Kenny is the Communication Manager at Article 109, an international coalition of civil society organisations mobilising to review the Charter of the United Nations to make multilateralism better equipped for the 21st century. Before Article 109, Saul worked at the European Commission in support of Horizon Europe. Saul co-authored the paper discussed in this blog after completing his master’s thesis, which analysed policies the EU could adopt to protect LGBTIQA+ people during conflict. Saul has also written about cuts to aid budgets and Europe’s role in a shifting world order.

Hanna L. Mühlenhoff is a Senior Lecturer in European Studies at the University of Amsterdam. She is interested in questions of security, militarism and civil society activism in the European Union and Europe more broadly, including in the context of the UN Women, Peace and Security Agenda and Feminist Foreign Policies. In addition to the publication discussed in this blog post, she recently published a queer analysis of the EU’s Strategic Compass in the Journal of International Relations and Development, and a co-authored chapter on gender (in)justice in von der Leyen’s geopolitical turn.

The post Queering the EU’s Foreign Policy and external relations: What does this mean and why does it matter? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

By Agnese Pacciardi (School of Global Studies, University of Sussex)

In June 2026, the European Union’s Pact on Migration and Asylum will enter into force. The Pact explicitly recognises the role of civil society organisations and NGOs in EU migration management, acknowledging their practical expertise, especially in working in contexts that are outside the EU. In recent years, EU migration governance has increasingly relied on partnerships with third countries, where border control, development cooperation, and humanitarian assistance overlap. Instruments such as the European Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF) and the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) show how development funding is increasingly used to support migration management beyond EU borders. In this context, NGOs operating in countries of origin and transit have become central actors in how these policies are carried out on the ground. Much has been written about NGO criticism of EU migration policy over the past decade. Far less attention has been paid to how NGOs actually engage with these policies in practice. What does it actually mean for an organization committed to humanitarian principles to deliver EU-funded programmes inside the EU’s migration machine? My research answers this question by looking at how NGOs in Libya navigate funding pressures, ethical dilemmas, and complex local realities while delivering humanitarian and development assistance in a context heavily shaped by migration control objectives.

Libya and EU Externalisation Strategy

Libya sits at the centre of EU externalisation efforts. Since 2017, the Italy-Libya Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has funded Libya’s Coast Guard to intercept migrants at sea and return them to detention centres where abuse, forced labour, and torture are widely documented. Research and reports have also documented NGO involvement in alleviating the suffering of migrants in some detention centres, raising questions about whether such engagement is compatible with their humanitarian mandate. This coupling of migration control with development and humanitarian aid is not incidental but is structural, as it is openly acknowledged in Article 2 of the MoU itself.

In this context, NGOs in Libya work in an environment shaped by both urgent humanitarian needs and migration control policies. In my research I show how they navigate this terrain through two seemingly distinct but actually overlapping approaches. The first is what I call “pragmatic developmentalism”: accepting EU funding despite reservations about its political objectives, and focusing on delivering essential services and addressing urgent needs. This approach may involve engaging with local authorities and navigating informal power structures, but it remains oriented towards concrete outcomes for communities. The second is “principled humanitarianism”: an ethics-driven approach in which humanitarian imperatives take precedence over other objectives. This emphasises neutrality, impartiality, and the obligation to provide assistance based on need. In practice, it is based on the belief that NGOs can preserve spaces in which humanitarian action can operate independently of the political agendas that shape its funding context.

The RSSD Project: Where Development Meets Migration Management

The EU-funded Recovery, Stability and Socio-Economic Development (RSSD) project offers a concrete illustration of these dynamics. Targeting municipalities along migration routes in Libya, the project stabilises communities and supports local health systems, such as restoring health centres, delivering medical supplies, and training local staff. While these are developmental outcomes, practitioners themselves recognise that the project operates within a wider strategy aimed at discouraging onward movement towards Europe.

Interviews with NGO workers reveal the two overlapping logics at work. On one hand, they  accept EU funding to deliver essential services, despite some political reservations about the EU migration agenda. On the other they seem preoccupied with maintaining what they describe as ethical “red lines.” What emerges from their accounts is that the tension between pragmatism and principle is not simply an individual ethical dilemma. It may reflect a structural feature of contemporary migration governance itself. NGOs are not only making difficult choices, they are part of the mechanism through which migration policies are implemented on the ground. By delivering services within containment-oriented strategies, NGOs can simultaneously alleviate immediate harm and contribute to stabilising those same strategies. Many practitioners openly acknowledge this ambivalence. One NGO worker describes the tension in stark terms as “whitewashing”, suggesting that the humanitarian framing of their projects can serve to mask a much less humanitarian political agenda. As such NGOs operating within these frameworks are key actors through which migration policies take shape in practice.

Looking Ahead: NGOs and the Future of EU Migration Governance

While the extent to which NGOs manage to maintain independence and stay neutral remains up to debate, the interaction between pragmatic developmentalism and principled humanitarianism shows that NGOs are not simply passive implementers of EU policy. They interpret, adapt, and sometimes push back against EU objectives while continuing to deliver essential services on the ground. At the same time, their work can also indirectly support EU agendas. By framing migration through development and humanitarian action, EU external migration policies can appear more technical and less political, while part of the responsibility for their implementation is carried out by NGOs.

As the EU continues to expand its externalisation strategy, including discussions around “safe third country” arrangements and the delegation of asylum processing, the role of NGOs in transit countries is likely to grow. Understanding their work beyond the simple view of NGOs as either critics of EU policies or their enforcers is crucial for policymakers and civil society actors. It highlights the tensions that arise when migration governance is outsourced, and shows that migration policy is shaped not only by states and institutions, but also by the everyday decisions and principles of the organisations working on the ground.

Agnese Pacciardi is Research Fellow at the School of Global Studies, University of Sussex. Her work focuses on borders, mobility, and security through critical lenses. In her research, she primarily delves into European border security, humanitarianism and development cooperation in North and West Africa, exploring the impacts and implications of these policies on the communities they affect from feminist and decolonial perspectives.

The post When Development Policy Becomes Migration Policy: Side Effect or by Design? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

On 24 February 2026 3-4.30pm GMT, EUHealthGov hosted the launch of a Symposium entitled ‘Public Health, Markets, and Law’ published recently in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics of the American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics, and guest-edited by Dr Mina Hosseini and Professor Imelda Maher (both UCD).

The role of markets in public health, and the frameworks provided by law to regulate and support these, generate wide-ranging questions. Acknowledging the existence of markets in public health, and the diverse aspects of law which come into play, means that discussions which respond to these can be enriched.

The guest-editors highlighted the contextual relevance of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as Dr Mina Hosseini’s COMPHACRISIS project in shaping discussions and analysis which has culminated in this Symposium. Professor Imelda Maher highlighted three themes uniting the Symposium papers: time, the State, and interest, particularly the public interest.

The webinar organised the papers into three thematic sections: pharmaceuticals and access to medicines, pandemic responses, and competition policy.

Pharmaceuticals and access to medicines

Professor Susi Geiger (UCD) examined the temporalities of current pharmaceutical markets with a view to devising a set of principles and practices to break with these and outline a social contract for a new (temporal) political economy of pharmaceuticals.

Dr Pramiti Parwani (Warwick) engaged with the question of what institutional dynamics catalyze European external regulatory impact on pharmaceutical governance in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), focusing on the technocratic outreach beyond European borders of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the European Patent Office (EPO).

Dr Katrina Perehudoff (Amsterdam) explored the specific needs of people with disabilities in LMICs, focusing on the EU’s extraterritorial legal obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

Pandemic responses

Professor Aisling McMahon (Maynooth) used the role of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in global access to vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic to argue that key aspects of the current institutional system align towards delivering individualistic state/ regional/ rightsholders priorities in the use of IPRs over pandemic health technologies.

Dr Mina Hosseini (UCD) reviewed the European Commission’s centralized procurement approach for vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic to identify critical challenges and propose a novel Fairness, Accountability, Competition Law, Ethics of Innovation, and Resilience (FACER) framework as a tool for EU policymakers to enhance vaccine strategy and equity in future health crises.

Competition policy

Dr Carmen de Vivero de Porras and Dr Enrique Sanjuán y Muñoz (Málaga and Málaga) examined the Spanish Competition Authority’s judgment in sanctioning the North American pharmaceutical company Merck Sharp & Dohme for abuse of a dominant position in order to delimit the difference between the legitimate and abusive exercise of the right to effective judicial protection.

Dr Łukasz Grzejdziak (Strathclyde) highlighted the emergence of a distinct, sector-specific notion of economic activity (“undertaking”) in the context of services delivered within public healthcare systems which risks generating significant distortions of competition in mixed public/private healthcare systems such as Poland.

Dr Mary Guy (TCD) juxtaposed the CJEU’s judgment in Casa Regina Apostolorum with the treatment of public hospitals in Commission decisions regarding state aid and services of general economic interest (SGEI), finding not only that two levels of analysis can emerge depending on Member State input, but also that the requirement for cross-border effects on trade may also prove as decisive as an economic activity in deciding whether EU (as distinct from national) competition law applies.

****

You can find the full webinar recording here.

The full Symposium is available here.

The post Summary: “Public Health, Markets, and Law” – A Symposium in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

I am honored to have received the UACES scholarship to support my fieldwork in Brussels. As a doctoral candidate at KCL, my research focuses on how tech companies contest securitization processes after being labelled as national security threats. Exploring tech companies’ contestation of these security claims aims to ask a bigger question of how tech companies can shape public discourses on what cybersecurity is and embed these discourses through institutional practices and material objects, including industrial standards and regulations. It was a privilege to conduct a research trip to Brussels with the generous support of the UACES PhD Field Scholarships, without which I could not have been able to collect data in person.

This scholarship has supported my two-week stay in Brussels. The award was spent on return flights to Brussels and accommodation fees. This fieldwork trip forms an integral part of my PhD research, as it allowed me to participate in an in-person forum hosted by my researched tech company in Brussels. Moreover, I was affiliated as a visiting doctoral student at Law, Science, Technology & Society (LSTS) of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB). During my visiting scholarship, I presented my research and discussion with the LSTS community, which enriched my thinking.

 

Ethnography, networking, and unlock other opportunities

During my two-week stay in Brussels, I took part in marketing events hosted by tech companies. This in-person fieldwork trip enables me to conduct participant observation and connect with potential interviewees for arranging future interviews. Without this scholarship, I would not have been able to spend sufficient time in Brussels to collect data. Taking this fieldwork trip is beyond switching the interviewing mode from online to offline. It means that I could obtain data that is not publicly available in London and get insights from the field by being immersed in industry knowledge. The event participation and discussion with the forum participants allowed me to gain insights into how tech companies comply with industrial standards and regulations. The operation and governance of technology is like a black box, which is not well-known to the public because of business secrecy and complex technical design. It is still impossible to figure out every detail of how the system operates, even though I have participated in some events hosted by the companies. However, this fieldwork trip has allowed me to be exposed to industrial knowledge relevant to my research. I am now in the write-up period of my PhD research. I further realize how the support of this scholarship has enriched my empirical analysis and helped me to strengthen my argument. One particular highlight is that I encountered another industrial event participation opportunity when I analyzed the fieldwork notes. As a result, I was awarded a scholarship to participate in another cybersecurity industry event.

In addition to conducting ethnographic research, I was affiliated with the LSTS Research Group of VUB, where I could present my work, conduct data analysis, and write up my research. During my visiting scholarship, I was supervised by Professor Rocco Bellanova. We had two supervision meetings discussing my drafts, which were helpful for me to crystallize my thinking and restructure my empirical analysis. I was kindly offered the opportunity to present my work at the LSTS doctoral seminar and participate in the LSTS Annual Research Day. It is a precious learning opportunity for me to present my work-in-progress and have discussions with scholars conducting interdisciplinary research on similar research topics. Not only can I receive valuable feedback, but I can also reflect on how my research can engage with scholarship from other disciplines on similar research topics. Although my stay at LSTS was limited, I was fortunate to meet a supportive community there, with whom I keep in touch by meeting at conferences and having online discussions.

 

Understanding the broader context of the research

On my way home, I felt so fulfilled. The support of the UACES scholarship made it possible for me to stay longer in Brussels. This allowed me to contextualize my research topic by immersing myself in the hub of drafting EU digital regulations. When I now read literature on EU digital sovereignty or the Brussels Effect, it feels so resonant. The resonances prompted me to reflect more deeply on how digital technology is framed to legitimize the ways it should be governed. Such framings not only influenced the process of regulation-making but also reshape our socio-political everyday life —for example, through urban design practices that may become aligned with these framings. I am grateful for the generous support of the UACES PhD fieldwork scholarship. This scholarship undoubtedly supported my doctoral research and future academic development.

The post A UACES-funded fieldwork trip exploring big tech companies’ roles in translating what cybersecurity is appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

I took this photo during my fieldwork in Budapest in January 2023. It is the dark entrance hall of the Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE) Faculty of Humanities building. Despite being mid-term, the space is empty and unlit because the university was forced to shut the campus for in-person classes and transition to online education due to an inability to afford heating costs.

Zahra Jafarova

In the shifting landscape of European higher education, neoliberal reforms used to be celebrated as tools for financial efficiency and institutional autonomy. But how does such a market-oriented framework function when it is instrumentalized by a regime drifting away from democracy towards authoritarianism? In Hungary, the transformation of the university system stands out as a flagship project of the Orbán administration, serving as a critical case study in how neoliberal mechanisms can be systematically repurposed to reshape the boundaries of academic freedom.

 

In my article recently published in Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, I utilize the concept of soft authoritarianism to theorize how neoliberal mechanisms are utilized for controlling universities. Drawing on 25 qualitative interviews conducted in Hungary and Austria, this study explores three central mechanisms: (1) governance change that shifts decision-making to private foundations, (2) creating parallel institutions for research and teaching, and (3) selective coercion to signal the punitive capacity of the government. Together, these dynamics produce a system of neoliberal precarity, where academic freedom is not eliminated through open repression, but disciplined through establishment of structural insecurity.

 

Governance Reforms (Modellváltás) 

A crucial mechanism of this transformation is the “model change” reforms that were presented by the government as a step toward greater institutional autonomy (Kováts, 2023). Since 2018, 75% of public universities in Hungary have been transformed, transferring decision-making power within universities from academic senates to boards of private foundations (Pimenta & Rónay, 2022) that own the universities. 

 

As a result of model change, private foundation boards became decision-making bodies controlling budgets, hiring practices, and strategic priorities. The regime achieved indirect control by planting politically loyal individuals, including high-profile government ministers and regime-aligned business elites to these boards. Often these board members hold lifetime appointments ensuring conservative control regardless of future political changes. 

 

Model-changed universities lost their public institution status; faculty were stripped of their public service status and the protections of tenure. The regime introduced contract-based employment where job security is contingent on neoliberal metrics such as publication outputs and grant acquisition. This structural insecurity now functions as a tool of discipline; by forcing faculty to focus on financial survival, the regime successfully diverts attention away from politically sensitive studies.

 

The Rise of Parallel Institutions for Ideological Dominance 

While the model change allowed the regime to capture existing public universities from within, it simultaneously sought to bypass traditional academic spaces by building and heavily investing in a parallel infrastructure of ideologically aligned institutions (Dillabough & Peto, 2024) to expand the regime-friendly ideological knowledge production in Hungary. Central to this infrastructure are institutions such as the National University of Public Service (UPS) and Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC). The establishment of UPS ensured that the recruitment and educational programs of public servants are structured to serve the ruling party. Similarly, MCC has become a centre for regime-aligned intellectuals and political lobbying that were tasked to legitimize the regime’s ideological projects. In contrast to neoliberal logic, where resource allocation is justified by fair and open competition, these institutions are funded far beyond competitive necessity. For example, in 2020, MCC’s endowment of approximately €1.3 billion represents more funding than the entire public higher education system in Hungary (Kovacs-Angel, 2021).

 

In addition to these educational institutions, the government has established several ideologically aligned research centres, such as the Veritas Historical Research Institute, the Centre for Fundamental Rights and others. These centres produce scholarship in fields that the regime has special interest ideologically, such as national history, minority rights, and judicial independence (Trencsényi, 2021). By channelling research funding into these centres the regime ensures that sensitive topics are studied mainly within their ideological narratives, while counter-narratives are marginalized. This creates a system where knowledge production is steered through financial tools rather than open censorship, excluding openly targeted fields.

 

When Soft Authoritarianism Fails

While the soft aspect of  transformation relies on repurposed neoliberal mechanisms, the authoritarian nature of the regime is revealed when these indirect methods prove insufficient, for example in the case of the forced relocation of Central European University (CEU), intervention into resistance at the University of Theatre and Film Arts (SZFE) (Jafarova & Buckner, 2024), and the elimination of programs in sociology, social anthropology, and gender studies. These actions signal a clear punitive capacity, demonstrating that the regime is willing to deploy legal and administrative coercion to establish control of academic spaces.

 

The Cost of Academic Freedom

The soft authoritarian reforms in Hungary have created a stratified academic environment where academic freedom comes at a cost. Universities that avoided the model change reforms maintained better conditions for academic freedom due to governance structures remaining free from direct political interference. However, these institutions remain chronically underfunded, forcing faculty to work under precarious financial conditions and even forcing universities to shut down campuses for in-person classes due to an inability to afford heating costs. 

 

Conversely, model-changed universities offer significantly higher salaries, but this financial advantage comes at the expense of academic freedom, as faculty lost their tenure and are now evaluated by neoliberal metrics that set indirect limitations to exercise freedom in research, teaching, and expression. In this new system, the most advantageous positions are occupied by scholars of parallel institutions and research centres; faculty here enjoy stable careers and secured funding, yet this emerging academic elite is driven by ideological conformity and regime expectations. Ultimately, these reforms have fundamentally transformed the Hungarian higher education system into a mechanism that reshaped knowledge production, narrowing the space for diverse scholarship and effectively taming academic freedom through structural insecurity and neoliberal precarity.

 

Hungary provides an alarming example of how governments can repurpose neoliberal mechanisms to utilize university campuses as ideologically safe spaces. This study reveals that soft authoritarianism does not require the elimination of dissent; instead, it utilizes structural insecurity to fragment the academic community and weaken collective solidarity. By redirecting funding through seemingly objective neoliberal metrics, the regime can gatekeep sensitive research areas like national history studies without resorting to open repression.

 

Zahra Jafarova is a Research Associate at the Centre for the Study of Canadian & International Higher Education at the University of Toronto, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (Canada). She recently defended her PhD in Higher Education, which examined how historical, political, and institutional forces shape academic freedom. Her research focuses on the policy and politics of higher education, with an emphasis on academic freedom and university autonomy. Her research has been published in Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, Globalisation, Societies and Education, and the Comparative Education Review. 

 

Bibliography

Dillabough, J. A., & Peto, A. (2024, May 4). New deceptions: How illiberalism is hijacking the university. University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20240501143215958

Jafarova, Z., & Buckner, E. (2024). Tweeting the academic resistance in Turkey and Hungary: From cultural crisis to defending the nation. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 0(0), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2024.2385549 

Kovacs-Angel, M. (2021, March 29). Százmilliárdokat adott a kormány a NER elitképzőjének, már látszik, hogy hová folyik tovább a pénz. 24.Hu. https://24.hu/fn/gazdasag/2021/03/29/mathias-corvinus-collegium-mcc-balasy-gyula-kommunikacio/ 

Kováts, G. (2023). University Governance Reform in an Illiberal Democracy: Public Interest Trusts in Hungary. In Accelerating the Future of Higher Education (pp. 186–204). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004680371_012 

Pimenta, C. L. R., & Rónay, Z. (2022). Governance models of Hungarian higher education: From Humboldtian to State-controlled model. Rivista Di Storia Dell’Educazione, 9(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.36253/rse-12335 

Trencsényi, B. (2021, April 26). Notes from the Underground: Academic Freedom, (Un)Civil Society, and “Kulturkampf” in Hungary [Billet]. TRAFO – Blog for Transregional Research. https://trafo.hypotheses.org/27529

The post Soft Authoritarian Transformation of Higher Education in Hungary: Taming Academic Freedom with Neoliberal Precarity appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

This piece was originally published on the UK in a Changing Europe site.

 

It’s something of a truism to say that Brexit is a process, not an event, but nowhere is this more evident than in the UK’s continuing difficulties in managing the pieces of legislation it adopted during its time as a member state of the European Union (EU).

As we close in on a decade since the 2016 referendum, it is apparent that there is still no final and definitive list of that legislation, nor clarity about what should be done with it all. With multiple negotiations in train on renewed cooperation between the UK and the EU, that will raise increasing problems for both sides.

Following withdrawal, the then-Conservative government largely turned its back on things European; partly because of the Covid-19 pandemic and partly because of the intense discomfort the issue had wrecked within the party over the previous decade. But one area that continued to pop its head up was Retained EU Law (REUL) – assorted Statutory Instruments, primary and secondary EU legislation, case law and more which the UK adopted as a member state, and copied over as ‘assimilated’ UK law during the Brexit process.

Business Secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, introduced legislation in September 2022 which would see all REUL expire by default at the end of 2023 under a ‘sunset clause’, except in cases where ministers actively chose to retain or reform specific pieces. That legislation, which was to become the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act, was intended to mark a definitive break with REUL and a restoration of British sovereignty.

However, it very quickly became apparent that there was no clear record on what that might cover, which made it impossible to know whether it served any useful function or whether revocation might cause unanticipated consequences for either domestic or international obligations. With much push-back from legal scholars, businesses and other groups, as well as backbench rebellions, the final Act took a much more limited approach, abandoning the sunset clause and instead revoking only 600 items of REUL, while instigating a process for identification and review of everything else.

This process centres on a database – the REUL dashboard – which details every known item of REUL and case of reform. It has just had its regular six-monthly update, to list some 6,925 items, alongside regular reports to Parliament on progress.

The latest update is the eight substantive revision of the database from its original 2,417 items in January 2023 and marks approximately two years since the last step-change in the overall picture. Back in early 2024, over 1,700 new items were added, following the completion of a new scoping exercise across Whitehall.

Since that point, a further 168 items have joined the list, including 14 in the most recent period. This discovery includes EU decisions similar to those that have been on the Dashboard for years, and domestic legislation nearly 30 years old, highlighting the difficulty of ensuring a comprehensive coverage.

But such top line figures, which are the lead indicator on the Dashboard, mask a second kind of problem; namely that the data isn’t as robust as you might expect, or as is needed for this entire exercise to have meaning.

The database still contains several items that are there as queries as to their possible inclusion. Such cases have occurred before – for instance the removal of initial entries about the effect of several articles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.

There are also instances where multiple references to specific provisions of an item have been rolled into a single entry, as with the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which started as four separate elements.

However, more common has been a one-off entry that appears to be within scope of the REUL Act, but then seems to disappear. To pick one example, the January 2023 list mentions Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/631, which appears to have been revoked in 2020, but then disappears from the database entirely. While this might be understandable as something pre-dating the exercise, it is noticeable that the previous item in the database, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/63, was similarly repealed in 2023, but still remains present.

Different again is the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The January 2023 entry clearly indicates its role in implementing an EU Council Decision that was subsequently listed in the database, but which makes no reference back to the Act. While these might be treated as a package, the lack of complete cross-linkage makes it very hard to know what item has what status.

In total, while there are 6,925 entries in the current Dashboard, it is possible to identify approximately 7,500 unique entries across the period since the first release. Some 600 items that appeared at some point in the past (often more than once) are absent from the Dashboard today.

Such inconsistencies are a function of the complexity of the UK’s membership of the EU. Some 40 years of incorporating a large volume of legislation – often through secondary instruments – with no immediate need to keep comprehensive and exhaustive records has left an almost impossible task for those in the Department of Business and Trade who run the Dashboard.

However, given that the programme of reviewing Assimilated EU Law appears continues under the Labour government, with 22 amendments and 19 repeals in the last six months, the need for clear, consistent and accessible data remains as high as ever.

At the same time, the demand on resources within the civil service to conduct such reviews also represents an opportunity cost, especially at a time when the government is embarking on multiple negotiations to pull the UK closer towards the EU in legislation-rich topics such as sanitary and phytosanitary standards and emissions trading.

Absent a clear strategic objective, there is a risk that officials spend time reviewing, amending or repealing REUL which they will soon have to be reinstate or amend once again: from decisions about SPS processes to regulations verification of emissions data.

The post The boundless mystery of Assimilated EU Law? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

By Marius Guderjan (Centre for British Studies, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) and Mario Kölling (Department of Political Science, Spanish National Distance Education University)

Although the COVID-19 pandemic seems something of the past and meanwhile overshadowed by other crises, we should still remember its profound impact on public health, people, employment and businesses. In 2020, the real GDP in the EU fell by more than 6%, which was higher than during the 2008 financial crisis. The management of the crisis was clearly dominated by national as well as by regional and local governments. Nevertheless, the EU also introduced massive economic and fiscal measures and departed from the austerity policy following the 2008 financial crisis. The EU amended its budget, created new loans, activated the general escape clause of the Stability and Growth Pact and expanded the lending capacity of the European Stability Mechanism. Most importantly, the Member States agreed the largest stimulus package in the history of the EU: Next Generation EU (NGEU), which was worth €750 billion financed by joint borrowing.  The key instrument of NGEU was the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), providing €672.5 billion in loans and grants to support reforms and investments undertaken by the Member States.

Given the scale and multilevel nature of the EU’s intervention, our recent JCMS article takes a close look at the EU’s socio-economic responses to the COVID-19 crisis. By analysing existing decision-making procedures and democratic practices, principles of good governance and effective performance, we draw conclusions about the political legitimacy of the RRF and we discuss how the legacy of this measure may shape future governance arrangements.

There is a strong rationale for governments to take fast and extraordinary actions during crises, circumventing and even breaking existing conventions, procedures and rules. However, crisis management may not only challenge the political legitimacy of these actions but may also result in permanent changes to a system of governance. Therefore, we considered who took and authorised decisions and whether this was in line with existing democratic practices, and whether the input legitimacy of the EU’s crisis response (as conceptionalised by Schmidt 2022) was compromised.  Similar to previous crises (as discussed in the literature on new intergovernmentalism, e.g. Puetter 2016 and Bickerton et al. 2014), decisions were dominated by the European Council and the Commission and negotiated behind closed doors. The latter set the RRF’s policy objectives and governance structure to which the former agreed. During 2021 and 2022, Member States then had to submit national Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRP) with detailed targets, milestones, estimated costs and proposals for structural reforms. The RRPs were designed in close bilateral cooperation with the Commission, which gained the authority to decide together with the Council over their implementation.

As during previous crises (see e.g. White 2022 and Kreuder-Sonnen 2016), the newly introduced EU measures lacked transparency, accountability and judicial scrutiny. To capture these, our article also focuses on the RRF’s so-called throughput legitimacy: namely, on its compliance with rules, efficient governance, public engagement and access to information about decision-making processes, and the inclusion of (territorial) interest groups. The RRF is a performance-based instrument that is assessed and disbursed based on the fulfilment of specific milestones and targets outlined in the RRPs. Various criteria (e.g., population size, GDP per capita and unemployment levels) and formats (e.g., the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard, performance audits by the European Court of Auditors, Recovery and Resilience Dialogues, evaluation reports) were introduced to enhance the accountability and transparency of allocation of RRF funding. Yet, our article traces various issues regarding the transparency of policymaking. Only two thirds of Member States committed to publishing detailed information about the implementation of the RRPs.

It is often suggested (e.g. by Lindgren and Persson 2010) that the EU’s legitimacy relies largely on its output legitimacy, meaning on its ability to deliver effective results to the satisfaction of its Member States and citizens. It is fair to say that the RRF has supported substantial reforms within the Member States, but rather than stimulating new innovations many RRPs have not dealt with structural challenges and only supported outstanding reforms that would have been carried out anyway. The scope of the RRPs has also varied considerably. While RRPs in Italy, Spain and Greece were ambitious targeting structural challenges of labour markets or tax systems, in northern Member States RRF funding is relatively small in comparison to GDP (less than 1%) and reforms played a minor role in their RRPs. Whereas the RRF financed measures to support employment, living standards and social protection, the funding was insufficient and too short-termed to drive a sustainable green and digital transformation. Inflation and supply shortages increased the costs of investment substantially, and the administrative workload undermined the distribution of funding and delayed the delivery of milestones and targets. We conclude in our article that due to the exclusion of subnational governments in the development of the RRPs in many Member States, the delivery of the RRPs was often inefficient and failed to meet local and regional priorities and needs.

Despite some shortcomings, we suggest that the legitimacy of European crisis governance rests on its ability to deal with complex, transnational issues to the satisfaction of the Member States rather than on its democratic credentials. Whereas this may not come as a big surprise, it is particularly significant to highlight that exceptional provisions introduced during crisis are subsequently adopted and normalised within future governance frameworks. While the Commission and Member States have empowered themselves, place-based principles and multilevel partnerships with subnational governments, which were strengthened during previous decades in areas such as Cohesion Policy, are currently under threat. In its proposal for the new Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034, the Commission has adopted the RRF’s approach and seeks to maintain performance-based policy programmes and centralised planning with targets, milestones and structural reforms. This fosters exclusive top-down policymaking at the cost of inclusive bottom-up approaches. Two years of complex negotiations lie ahead, during which adjustments to budget items, the EU’s institutional design and the redistribution of power between the European, national and subnational levels are at stake. We do not know for sure yet what the outcome will be and to what extent it will be the legacy of the crisis.

Marius Guderjan is a Fellow at the Centre for British Studies at Humboldt-Universität Berlin, and used to work at the Otto Suhr Institute of Political Science at Freie Universität Berlin. His research interests include European integration, multilevel governance, intergovernmental relations and territorial politics; including the book Local Government in the European Union.

Website: https://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/en/polwiss/forschung/systeme/polsystem/Team/Marius-Guderjan.html

Mario Kölling is Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Spanish National Distance Education University (UNED), Madrid, and Senior Researcher at the Fundación Manuel Giménez Abad. His research focuses on methodological issues related to territorial decentralisation and multilevel governance. He has published extensively on the European Union budget.

Website: https://www.uned.es/universidad/docentes/politicas-sociologia/mario-kolling.html

The post Legitimacy and legacy of the EU’s socio-economic crisis governance during Covid-19 appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

By David Howarth (University of Luxembourg) and Lucia Quaglia (University of Bologna)

Financial market integration has been a core objective of European integration since the 1950s. Over several decades, the European Union (EU) has adopted hundreds of legislative acts aimed at removing barriers to cross-border finance and harmonising the regulation and supervision of capital markets. Yet progress has been uneven, contested, and repeatedly repackaged.

The most recent example is the transformation of the Capital Markets Union (CMU)—launched in 2015, relaunched in 2020, and rebranded as the Savings and Investments Union (SIU) in early 2025. Our recent article with JCMS examines key policy narratives—the causal stories policymakers use to justify and promote specific reforms— that have been used to promote CMU over time. We find it surprising that—despite the importance of financial market integration for EU economic growth—the Commission has strategically promoted the policy through a variety of narratives linked to policy goals that have greater support among member state governments and public opinion.

A technical project with broad ambitions

Financial market integration is, at its core, a technical policy area. It primarily concerns banks, non-bank financial firms (e.g., asset management), stock exchanges, clearing houses, and supervisors. For most citizens—and many politicians—it remains remote and opaque. Yet over time, EU institutions have increasingly presented financial integration as a solution to a wide range of broader economic and political challenges — notably, the digital and green transitions, and European competitiveness in relation to the United States and China.

This expanding ambition is also visible in the shift from CMU to SIU. What began as a project to deepen European capital markets has been reframed as a tool to support economic growth, finance the green and digital transitions, strengthen Europe’s geopolitical position, and mobilise household savings for long-term investment. Rather than abandoning a stalled project, EU policymakers have repeatedly changed the story told about it.

To explain this strategy, we adopt an actor-centred constructivist perspective, which highlights how purposeful actors deploy ideas strategically to build political support for a policy. In particular, we examine how EU supranational actors use policy narratives to widen support for a highly contested integration project.

Five narratives for one project

Drawing on a qualitative and quantitative analysis of 421 public speeches delivered between 2014 and 2024 by senior officials at the European Commission, the European Central Bank (ECB), and the three European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs), we identify five main policy narratives used to promote financial market integration.

First, CMU has been framed as a way to create new opportunities for European financial firms, enhancing their competitiveness and scale. Second, it has been presented as a mechanism to increase private funding for the real economy, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. Third, EU officials have linked CMU to the green and digital transitions, portraying integrated capital markets as essential to financing climate action and technological innovation. More recently, a fourth narrative has gained prominence: financial integration as a response to geopolitical and geoeconomic challenges, notably Europe’s lagging competitiveness relative to the United States and China. Finally, a fifth narrative focuses on long-term investment and savings, emphasising the need to channel Europe’s high household savings into productive investment—an argument central to the rebranding of CMU as SIU.

These narratives overlap, but their relative importance has shifted over time, reflecting changing economic conditions and political priorities. The evolution of CMU narratives closely tracks broader shifts in EU policy priorities. In its early phase, CMU was tied to post-crisis economic recovery and investment, notably through the Juncker Plan. After 2020, it became increasingly linked to financing the green and digital transitions. Following the pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and growing global economic fragmentation, geopolitical narratives moved to the fore.

The latest rebranding as Savings and Investments Union builds on these earlier narratives while adding a new emphasis on retail savings. Influential reports by Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi have reinforced the argument that Europe must better mobilise household savings to support long-term investment and competitiveness. The shift also reflects an effort to make financial integration appear more relevant to citizens, not only as workers or consumers but as savers and investors.

Why progress towards CMU has been so difficult

The repeated reframing of CMU reflects the deeply contested political economy of financial market integration. CMU is not a single reform but a bundle of measures, including supervisory centralisation, tax harmonisation, insolvency law reform, market infrastructure consolidation, and the expansion of non-bank finance.

Each of these elements creates winners and losers across and within member states. Large economies may favour stronger EU-level supervision, while smaller states resist it. Countries with low corporate taxes oppose harmonisation, while others push for it. Banks often support securitisation reforms but resist measures that increase competition from non-bank intermediaries.

As a result, stable coalitions in favour of CMU have been hard to build. EU officials themselves have acknowledged that national vested interests have repeatedly stalled or diluted reforms. In this context, policy narratives become a key political tool. By linking financial market integration to widely supported objectives—such as climate policy, innovation, or strategic autonomy—EU institutions seek to expand the boundaries of the issue and attract new supporters beyond the financial sector.

The limits of narrative power

Our findings highlight both the strategic use and the limits of policy narratives. EU supranational actors clearly act as ideational entrepreneurs, flexibly reframing financial market integration to align with the priorities of the moment. This confirms the importance of ideational power for institutions that lack strong coercive tools. At the same time, repeated shifts in narrative have not delivered a decisive breakthrough in financial market integration. Despite more than a decade of reframing, CMU—and now SIU—remains incomplete. Narratives can attract attention and broaden debate, but they cannot eliminate underlying distributional conflicts.

The story of CMU and SIU thus illustrates a broader dynamic of European integration: when political consensus is elusive, projects persist not by succeeding, but by being continuously reinterpreted. Whether the latest narrative centred on savings and investment will finally unlock significant progress remains an open question.

David Howarth has been a Full Professor of Political Science at the University of Luxembourg since 2012 and was previously a Jean Monnet Chair at the University of Edinburgh. He researches on European economic governance / political economy topics and specifically financial regulation and Economic and Monetary Union. He is the author or co-author of six monographs, a textbook, over seventy peer-reviewed journal articles and dozens book chapters. He has also edited or co-edited fifteen journal special editions and six volumes on these topics including, most recently (with Judith Clifton and Daniel Fuentes), Regional Development Banks in the World Economy (OUP, 2021). His most recent monographs are Banking on Europe: How the European Commission became a semi-sovereign borrower (OUP, 2026, with Dermot Hodson et al.), Bank Politics (OUP, 2023, with Scott James) and The Political Economy of Banking Union (OUP, 2016, with Lucia Quaglia).

Lucia Quaglia (DPhil Sussex, MA Sussex) is Professor of Political Science at the University of Bologna. Previously, she was Professor at the University of York. She has published 9 books, 7 of which with Oxford University Press. Her most recent book is The Perils of Internal Regime Complexity in Shadow Banking, Oxford University Press. She has guest co-edited seven special issues of academic journals, including the Journal of European Public Policy, New Political Economy, Review of International Political Economy, Journal of Common Market Studies, and Journal of European Integration. She has published more than 60 articles in refereed academic journals in the fields of public policy, political economy, and EU studies. Together with Manuela Moschella and Aneta Spendzharova she has edited the textbook European Political Economy, Oxford University Press, 2024.

The post From Capital Markets Union to Savings and Investments Union: Why the EU keeps changing the story on financial integration appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

I notice it’s been some six months since my last post here, which reflects on both the new pace of UK-EU relations and the lack of anything useful to add to the debate.

I did bestir myself to write about the return of finance-based framing back in November, as various people noticed this was a thing, but even that was a very brief matter (albeit one we might return to).

Even the recent number of press stories launched by Labour about the new for a closer relationship currently lack any great depth: the items that are being mentioned relate to stuff already on the reset agenda, which have themselves moved at a glacial pace. The failure of SAFE negotiations in November was undoubtedly a set-back and one that helped to move up the ERASMUS+ decision some weeks later, but this has deflected attention from the lack of quick movement elsewhere. Even the Spain-UK treaty on Gibraltar, agreed last June, is still to be put through ratification.

At best, this suggests that things might be moving forward, rather than are demonstrably doing so. Even if we make allowances for the likely cross-linkage of ETS, SPS and Youth Mobility, there risks being little to show come the next EU-UK summit, whose date is still to be fixed.

Ultimately, this reflects on the lack of urgency for either side. The EU has many other more pressing things to attend to right now, while British policy is caught up in the general funk about the government’s central strategic purpose. Moreover, none of the reset elements will actually make a huge difference to those involved, beyond helping to remove some points of friction and to rebuild trust.

However, with Labour languishing in the polls, the EU might be forgiven for wondering whether it’s worth moving now on more relations, when a new British government might come along a tear those apart in three years’ time: witness the flourishing adoption of ECHR withdrawal on the right that continues to contain no concern about the impact on the TCA/WA.

This all said, it’s good not to be too downbeat about things. The rhetoric remains positive, negotiations do continue and British public opinion is still relatively benign on closer links.

As such, I’m going to try to be more active this year as we move through the reset, looking both at the specific elements and the wider relationship. As ever, I’m always very happy to produce graphics on particular things: just contact me and I’ll be on it.

In the meantime, here are some updates of the main trackers on WA/TCA meetings and the progress on the Strategic Partnership. As always, you can follow the links to the PDFs with clickable links to source documents.

PDF: https://bit.ly/UshGraphic85

 

PDF: https://bit.ly/UshGraphic125

PDF: https://bit.ly/UshGraphic141

The post New year, same old UK-EU relations? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

AI risk pyramid. Source: European Commission https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai

Bao-Chau Pham

When the European Union‘s Artificial Intelligence Act finally entered into force on 1 August 2024, it was widely described as a landmark: the world’s first comprehensive framework for regulating AI. Throughout the policy-making process from early 2018 onwards, much of the debates focused on how the Act regulates – its risk categories and list of banned use-cases – and what these legislative choices do. This included commentary on its neglect of human rights, as well as concerns that it might stifle innovation. Sitting underneath these discussions, however, is a simpler question: what problem is the AI Act actually trying to solve?

That question is at the heart of my article, co-authored with Sarah R. Davies and published in Critical Policy Studies. As the EU now debates delays and possible revisions of the Act – or “rollbacks”, as more critical voices have put it – the question feels newly relevant. The recently proposed Digital Omnibus package may not just tweak the AI Act as a legal instrument. We may be witnessing the re-articulation of the very problem the legislation was designed to address.

In this post, I briefly introduce the argument of our article, reflect on why this way of reading the AI Act matters, and suggest why current discussions about revisiting the Act make the question ”What problems is the AI Act really solving?” even more salient.

 

Reading policy as problem representations: the WPR approach

Our article starts from the premise that policies do not merely respond to external issues. Instead, policies actively participate in producing the very problems they are designed to solve. Drawing on Carol Bacchi’s seven-step “What’s the Problem Represented to Be?” (WPR) approach, we therefore read the AI Act as a document that constructs a particular understanding of AI and its governance.

From this perspective, asking whether the AI Act is effective or proportionate is only half the story. The more fundamental question is how the Act frames AI as a policy problem in the first place. This, in turn, allows us also to interrogate what and who gets foregrounded, sidelined, or taken for granted in the process.

Using the WPR approach, we identify two dominant, yet ambivalent, problem representations of AI in the Act. On the one hand, AI is framed as a major economic and societal opportunity, essential for competitiveness and Europe’s (digital) future and something that Europe risks „missing out“ on. On the other hand, AI appears as a source of significant risk, particularly to European fundamental rights and democratic values. 

This dual framing is not a contradiction to be resolved; it is the organising logic of the Act. The cascading scale of risk – dividing systems into minimal, limited, high, and unacceptable risk categories – emerges directly from this way of problematising AI. The AI Act frames the policy problem as one of managing trade-offs: how to promote uptake while preserving trust, or how to govern a fast-moving technology without stifling it.

Seen this way, the AI Act is not just regulating technology. It stabilises a particular vision of AI as something that can, and should, be rendered governable through categorisation, technical requirements, and legal obligations. Other possible ways of characterising AI as a policy issue, as well as other possible responses, are, in the process, foreclosed. 

Importantly, the problem is also represented in a way that positions the European Union as the primary actor capable of solving it. One of our key arguments that follows is that the AI Act also plays a role in enacting a particular version of Europe and Europeanness. It constructs and institutionalises the notion of the EU as an exceptional, morally authoritative policy actor in global AI governance. In this sense, the AI Act is as much about Europe’s self-identification in a global technological landscape as it is about regulating specific AI systems.

 

Why this matters now: shifting goalposts

At first glance, current discussions about revising the AI Act may look like implementation politics: delayed technical standards, pressures from industry and lobbyists, and geopolitical concerns about competition. If we return to the question of problem representation, however, these debates take on a different meaning. They point to a possible shift in what is understood to be the central problem that AI policy should address.

As we argue in our article, during the AI Act’s legislative process the dominant discourse centred on risk to fundamental rights alongside economic opportunity. Increasingly, however, public debate is framed in different terms: how to avoid over-regulation, maintain competitiveness, and keep pace with global AI development. The risk that now receives the most attention is not always harm to citizens or democratic institutions, but harm to innovation ecosystems and market position.

This does not mean that fundamental rights have completely disappeared from the conversation, but it does suggest that they may no longer be the primary lens through which the policy problem is articulated. From a WPR perspective, the question is not whether the AI Act is being weakened or strengthened. It is whether the problem the policy is meant to solve is being re-articulated.

If AI is increasingly represented as a competitiveness challenge rather than a rights challenge, then different policy solutions, which favour scalability and speed, follow suit. Seen in this light, current proposals to simplify the AI Act are interventions in an ongoing struggle over how AI should be understood as a matter of public concern and whose interests should take priority when trade-offs are made.

This is precisely why the question “what problem is the AI Act solving?” remains important. It reminds us that regulation and policy are never only about technicalities. If we take problem representation seriously, then revisiting the AI Act is equally about deciding which understandings of AI become stabilised in European governance going forward.

To conclude, the AI Act was never just a response to extraneous technological developments. From a critical policy perspective, it reads as an attempt to stabilise a particular way of thinking about AI and governance in Europe. As the constellation we saw in the AI Act is now being reconsidered, returning to the question of problem representation can help us unpack and trouble what is at stake. Whether the AI Act ultimately changes or not, it is worth remembering that the debates about AI governance are not only about how we regulate, but about what we think needs regulating, why, and for whom.

 

Bao-Chau Pham is a recent PhD graduate in Science and Technology Studies from the University of Vienna (Austria). In her dissertation, Bao-Chau explored imaginaries of artificial intelligence in European policy and media discourses. 

The post Revisiting what problems the EU AI Act is actually solving appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Dear Colleagues,

As I reflect on my first full year as Chair, I am so proud of the work we have done and especially for the warm support I continue to enjoy. This supportive spirit was very much on display at our last annual conference in Liverpool, hosted by Liverpool John Moores University.

The programme, so expertly put together by our Events Working Group, track conveners and our UACES office staff highlighted different facets of Europe in interesting times. This conference facilitated conversations about the trajectories of European integration and transformation, governance, especially in the health and digital spheres, the importance of law and history to our understanding of the current moment and the utility of critical perspectives. Beyond the academic debates and discussions, the real world implications of our work and activities, especially how our field can respond to a rapidly changing global environment.

The local organising team went all out for us, and I want to extend heartfelt thanks to all of our Liverpool colleagues for their hard work and hospitality.

Aside from the main conference, the Graduate Forum Research Conference in Athens and the Doctoral Training Academy in Madrid were important reminders of how central PhD researchers and early-career colleagues are to the future of European Studies. I am pleased to note that this was yet another successful year and I am thankful to Sydney and the team for leading on our early career activities.

This has also been a year of change within UACES governance. We have said thank you and goodbye to colleagues whose terms on the Committee and in Officer roles have come to an end and welcomed new trustees who are already bringing fresh ideas and energy. I am grateful to everyone who gives their time and expertise to UACES governance, often quietly and on top of already heavy workloads.

Our journals, JCMS and Contemporary European Politics, continue to thrive, with strong rankings and a growing global readership that reflects the quality and breadth of scholarship produced by this community and of course the excellent work of the editors.

Looking ahead, there is much to be excited about. In 2026, we will build on the success of Liverpool as we prepare future Annual Conferences, including our 56th meeting in Prague hosted by Charles University. Prague promises to be a fantastic setting for conversations about how Europe is constructed, contested and reimagined in national discourses and I hope many of you will already be thinking about submitting those panel and paper proposals.

We continue to work on strengthen the infrastructure that underpins our scholarly community. In that spirit and with members of the committee, I undertook a review of how to continue support through Research Networks in a very constraining financial environment. In the new year, we will be relaunching this funding stream in a way that offers more flexible, sustainable backing for collaborative projects and better showcases the diversity of work across European Studies. Alongside this, we are looking at how to expand our awards programme to recognise the different ways in which colleagues at all career stages contribute to our field. Throughout, our priority remains to support research, teaching and impact that is intellectually ambitious, inclusive and outward facing.

None of this would be possible without you.

And to you a massive thank you.

As we approach the holiday season and the turn of the calendar year, I hope you are able to find some time for rest, joy and the people who matter to you.

I look forward to our many collaborations in the coming year.

With warm wishes,

Toni
Chair, UACES

The post End Of Year Letter From UACES Chair appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

By Francesco Duina (Bates College, USA)

For decades, the EU has projected its internal legal frameworks onto the world. It has done so indirectly through the Brussels Effect, whereby countries and trading blocs in other parts of the world pre-emptively adopt EU internal standards in order to facilitate trade with the EU. And it has done so directly, by way of imposing its own standards through trade agreements. Given this, most observers of the EU have viewed it as an ‘exporter’ of norms – and this has represented perhaps its most important form of international power.

The possibility of the EU importing standards from other countries or blocs has been given little consideration. Instead, attention has consistently gone to the continued production of EU internal regulations which, once in place, have had significant external effects. The EU’s unabated propensity to regulate has sustained this interest: its various efforts to slow down or even reverse its regulatory output have come and gone, with little impact on the overall picture. Between 2019 and 2024 alone, for instance, the EU passed 13,000 legal acts. The EU has in turn relished the benefits associated with being the ‘first mover’ in new areas such as, say, digital markets and environmental policy: it knows that those who regulate first set the terms and that those who follow must at least consider them, especially if the first mover enjoys a huge internal market. These dynamics have turned the EU into a regulatory juggernaut committed to its internal standards and historically eager to have other countries and blocs adopt them.

The Animal Welfare Case

A recent development in animal welfare policy represents, however, a noteworthy departure from this pattern. I explained how and why this happened in my recent JCMS article. The EU – widely viewed as already having a wide-reaching regulatory framework in this policy area – was about to announce four long-awaited proposals in late 2023 on transport, slaughter, labelling, and the housing of animals. The Commission had determined that its existing frameworks, developed over the previous 25 years or so, required modernization. Equally important, major polls, the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘End the Age Cage’ that was supported by 170 non-governmental organisations and nearly 1.5 million citizens across the EU, and various protests, electoral campaigns and other civil society initiatives had put pressure on the EU. More broadly, the measures were consistent with its wider effort to ‘green’ agricultural trade.

Crucially, and not surprisingly, the four proposals would have come with ‘conditionality’ expectations: the requirement that trade partners exporting products into the EU comply in their treatment of animals with the standards set in those laws. An announcement by the Commission on the proposals was expected by the end of December 2023. But starting in the summer of that year the momentum slowed. Then, in her State of the Union speech in September, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen signalled that something might go astray: there was no mention of animal welfare in her list of priorities. At the end of 2023, the Commission finally presented a proposal only on transport. The surprise turnaround caused significant consternation. The media publicised it, and NGOs and other interested parties voiced their objections (with, for instance, Eurogroup for Animals putting up posters in Brussels’ subway system) that continued well into late 2024.

What can explain this unexpected turn of events? Several factors surely played a role. These included powerful farmers’ protests against more agricultural regulation and unfair international competition, a diminished interest in the Commission’s Green Deal at a time when conservative populist parties seemed poised to do well in national and EU elections, and food security concerns fuelled by the war in Ukraine.

But the pending ratification of the EU-Mercosur trade deal (twenty years in the making) also played a (late-stage) role. In particular, Commission officials worried – whether justifiably or not – that the proposals’ conditionality clauses for exporters to the EU would have risked upsetting the South American countries given their lower standards.  These concerns led those officials to conclude that only one of the four proposals could go ahead. The EU-Mercosur trade deal thus became the ‘nail in the coffin’ for animal welfare progress in the EU.

What is crucial to emphasize here is that this meant not only a derailment of internal EU policy but, in effect, a willingness to accept that the lower standards of trading partners should be a cause of that derailment. Put differently, rather than a rule ‘giver’ the EU became in essence a rule ‘taker.’ Close attention should therefore go to how, exactly, Commission officials reached their position.

My analysis highlights the confluence of three dynamics. The first were institutional: competition amongst three directorates-general, with Directorate General Trade prevailing in its push to conclude the deal over the preferences of Director General Health (which supported the proposals) and Director General AGRI (which demanded that, should the proposals be pursued, conditionality had to be imposed). The second set of dynamics were temporal: animal welfare came to be seen as the ‘last straw’ in terms of EU demands on Mercosur especially because the EU had just months before greatly frustrated the Mercosur countries with extensive demands on deforestation. The third were symbolic: the Commission had made increasingly vocal public commitments to conclude several major trade deals in the very near future.

The Broader Lessons

The derailment of EU animal welfare policy thus offers us an opportunity to observe a sort of reversal of the EU’s ability to project its regulatory power. As such, it also prompts us to reflect on two broader points related to the nexus between EU trade policy and its regulatory power.

First, when it comes to trade, the EU may no longer be fundamentally concerned with the projection of regulatory power. We know that the Commission has already asserted, in part given its new Open Strategic Autonomy direction, the importance of geopolitical priorities as it pursues trade opportunities across the world. Regulatory power may become a victim of this new approach.

Second, there may be subject areas where the EU will struggle to impose its regulatory standards onto its trading partners, even if it wants to do so. There is in fact something particular about animal welfare that also applies to policy areas like the environment and labour standards. The target is not the physical standards of finished products that exporters wish to send to the EU. Instead, it is the processes associated with the production of those products. These are much harder to observe and measure, and ultimately make intrusive demands on the trading partners. The EU will therefore likely find it rather difficult to project its standards in those areas.

Francesco Duina is Charles A. Dana Professor of Sociology at Bates College (USA). His research focuses on the relationship between the economy, culture, and politics.  He co-edited Standardizing the World: EU Trade Policy and the Road to Convergence, published by Oxford University Press.

Website: https://www.bates.edu/faculty/profile/francesco-g-duina/

 

The post Always a Norm Exporter? The Case of Animal Welfare Policy and Trade appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

By Sebastian Heidebrecht (Centre for European Integration Research, Department of Political Science, University of Vienna)

On 30 October 2025, the European Central Bank (ECB) announced the next preparatory phase and its readiness to introduce a digital euro in 2029. Unlike private forms of electronic money created by private banks, the digital euro will be a retail central bank digital currency (CBDC). As such, it will be directly available to citizens for everyday use. Unlike electronic money held in bank accounts, which is money created by the private banking system, the digital euro will be a direct liability of the central bank, like cash. Shortly before, on 23 October 2025, the European Council also signalledcontinuing support, highlighting the importance of the digital euro project for “a competitive and resilient European payment system” and “Europe’s strategic sovereignty and economic security”.

Down The Rabbit Hole? A Puzzling Policy Initiative

It seems the common currency is getting fit for the digital age, or are key European Union (EU) policymakers marching towards a digital Euroland? (Perceptive readers will note that I am referring to an earlier debate around the introduction of the analogue euro in the JCMS issues of June and September 1999.) A fictive wonderland, in which polarised politics, citizen concerns, and stakeholder interests do not play much role? It is essential to note that the issuance of the digital euro will depend on the success of an accompanying legislative package, which will, among other things, introduce the digital euro as a form of legal tender. Yet, CBDCs have long been met with considerable scepticism; inter alia, they are deemed “a solution in search of a problem”. Furthermore, the digital euro will require costly public infrastructure, marking a departure from the previous reliance on private actors and the general principle that state intervention should only occur in clear cases of market failure.

Perhaps most importantly, the digital euro project, and particularly the retail version, also poses several potential challenges, including public opinion. Banks and traditional payment providers may resist it to defend their business models. Populist parties may also oppose it and defend analogue cash against what they may perceive as an elite-driven project originating from Brussels and Frankfurt. In times of tight public budgets and rising Euroscepticism, the drive by the ECB and the Commission to introduce the digital euro seems particularly surprising. Why are the EU institutions advancing this project?

Through the Looking Glass: Why EU Actors Promote the Project

In a recent JCMS article, I examine the move forward of the digital euro project. I demonstrate the importance of how digitalisation, intertwined with geopoliticisation, impacts the euro area. Of course, innovation in the world of finance has long been closely tied to technological advancements. ‘Fintech,’ or the use of digital technology to provide financial solutions, may thus be only the most recent innovation in a long list of financial innovations. Yet, big platform companies have entered the sector, offering payment services such as Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Amazon Pay. These may, due to lock-in and network effects, consolidate markets and create potential oligopolies or even a monopoly in certain sectors. Furthermore, states are using digital financial technology to weaponize interdependence, as demonstrated by Russia’s exclusion from the SWIFT international payment system in March 2022.

Against this backdrop, important developments in the late 2010s and early 2020s encouraged EU policymakers to advance the project.

First, in 2019, Meta (formerly Facebook) announced its intention to introduce its own cryptocurrency, sparking significant debate among public officials about potential threats from private and/or foreign financial innovations, and demonstrating the need to keep pace with financial innovation.

Secondly, policymakers reconsidered the problematic fragmentation of the EU payment sector along national lines, which results in a reliance on a few international card companies, such as Visa and Mastercard. This issue has long been recognised, with repeated but unsuccessful attempts to integrate the euro retail payment market. The latest attempt of a private-run and publicly promoted initiative failed in 2022, revealing the challenges of a market-based European solution.

Third, EU policymakers increasingly aim to ensure monetary sovereignty and the public role of money, thereby safeguarding EU strategic autonomy. One argument presents the European payment sector’s dependence on foreign infrastructure and a few foreign private companies as problematic, particularly in a period of growing international tension. Ever since the prospect of a second Trump presidency in January 2025 emerged, EU officials in the Commission and the ECB have increasingly framed the digital euro in geopolitical terms.

Waking Up: Political Challenges and EU Politics

Yet, concerns remain. Far-right politicians mobilise against the project, inter alia claiming to defend an imaginary “fortress cash”, demanding a “no to CDBC”, and advocating the usage of crypto alternatives instead. The private banking sector is also sceptical about the project. In terms of EU bureaucratic politics, one of the most controversial issues for policymakers and the institutions involved is whether, in line with the Commission’s proposal on the digital euro, holding limits and the prohibition of remuneration should be addressed in secondary legislation. The ECB opposes these measures, arguing that such restrictions in secondary legislation are contrary to its monetary policy competences and may be necessary in exceptional scenarios, such as a negative interest rate environment. Yet, legislators defend them based on their structural impact on the financial system, which, as an economic rather than monetary policy, would be an issue of political concern.

Against this backdrop, it will be interesting to see if the digital euro project can overcome political challenges in the legislative process. Perhaps most importantly, many of the project’s controversial design features will affect whether and how the digital euro will be accepted and used by citizens. Ultimately, this will be the main benchmark for assessing whether we will find ourselves in a digital wonderland, in which the digital euro exists only in central bank drawing boards, or worse, is implemented but not used by anyone, or if we wake up in a world where the familiar euro has found an actual digital reflection.

Sebastian is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Centre for European Integration Research, housed in the University of Vienna’s Department of Political Science. His research looks at how actors, processes, and institutions shape the digital transformation of European economies and societies, with a particular focus on European Union policies. Website: https://eif.univie.ac.at/heidebrecht/index.php LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/sebsebastian-heidebrecht-22194066

The post Ready to Introduce a CBDC – or ECB in Digital Euro Land? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.