European Union

On 13 June, the European Defence Agency (EDA) organises an Aviation Cyber Security Seminar, in the wider context of the implementation of the EU-NATO Joint Declaration, that will bring together the civil and military aviation and cyber defence communities, with the intent to develop a common understanding of current and future cyber security challenges for aviation, with a particular focus on military requirements.

The seminar, which will take place at the Eurocontrol premises in Brussels, shall provide a substantial overview of current and future developments in aviation and related cyber security risks, with the intent to promote cross-fertilization between aviation and cyber defence communities.

Moreover, it will offer a forum for EDA participating Member states to engage with expert representatives from relevant civil and military organisations, in view of facilitating the identification and prioritisation of opportunities for intergovernmental cooperation and dual-use approaches to cyber security in military aviation. 

The envisaged outcome of the seminar is the identification and prioritisation of concrete areas requiring urgent engagement, in view of addressing them in a coordinated and collaborative manner.

Speakers include representatives from:

• the European Air Group (EAG)
• the SESAR Joint Undertaking (SJU)
• the SESAR Deployment Manager (SDM)
• the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
• the European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE)
• EUROCONTROL, NATO and the NATO-Eurocontrol ATM Security Coordination Group (NEASCOG)
• the German Armed Forces Cyber Command
• and the European Defence Agency (EDA).

 

Written by Elena Lazarou,

On 8 and 9 June 2018, the leaders of the G7 will meet for the 44th G7 Summit in Charlevoix, Quebec, for the annual summit of the informal grouping of seven of the world’s major advanced economies. The summit takes place amidst growing tensions between the US and other G7 countries over security and multilateralism.

Background

© Rawf8 / Fotolia

The Group of Seven (G7) is an international forum of the seven leading industrialised nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as the European Union). Decisions within the G7 are made on the basis of consensus. The outcomes of summits are not legally binding, but compliance is high and their impact is substantial, as the G7 members represent a significant share of global gross domestic product (GDP) and global influence. The commitments from summits are implemented by means of measures carried out by the individual member countries, and through their respective relations with other countries and influence in multilateral organisations. Compliance within the G7 is particularly high in regard to agreements on international trade and energy. The summit communiqué is politically binding on all G7 members.

As the G7 does not have a permanent secretariat, the annual summit is organised by the G7 country which holds the rotating presidency for that year. The presidency is currently held by Canada, to be followed by France in 2019. Traditionally, the presidency country also determines the agenda of the summit, which includes a mix of fixed topics (discussed each time), such as the global economic climate, foreign and security policy, and current topics for which a coordinated G7 approach appears particularly appropriate or urgent. Preparatory and follow-up work, including the preparation of the final declarations which contain the key outcomes of each summit, is carried out by the governments’ chief negotiators, known as sherpas.

The G7 has developed a network of supporting ministerial meetings, which allow ministers to meet regularly to continue and prepare the work set out at each summit. G7 ministers and officials also meet on an ad hoc basis to deal with pressing issues, such as terrorism. From time to time, the leaders also create task forces or working groups to focus on specific issues of concern. The 2018 Canadian Presidency has identified five themes, namely: investing in growth that works for everyone; preparing for jobs of the future; advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment; working together on climate change, oceans and clean energy; and building a more peaceful and secure world.

The 2017 summit was held in Taormina, Italy, with outcomes in the areas of foreign policy, the global economy, trade, gender equality, human mobility, food security and nutrition, climate and energy, Africa and health as well as skills and labour. At the summit, the leaders also issued a statement on the fight against terrorism and violent extremism, which among other things called for closer cooperation among border control agencies, targeting terrorist financing as well as fighting terrorism on the internet.

Themes for the 2018 summit

The priorities set by the Canadian Presidency focus on five themes, namely:

1. Investing in growth that works for everyone, which includes the state of the economy, fiscal and monetary policy, tax, trade, investment and infrastructure.
2. Preparing for jobs of the future, which includes issues such as generating good jobs for all, including youth, and redesigning education to foster innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship in a digital age.
3. Advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment, by ‘ensuring that gender equality and gender-based analysis are integrated across all themes, activities and outcomes of Canada’s G7 Presidency’.
4. Working together on climate change, oceans and clean energy, which includes controlling climate change as a current compelling threat, protecting the natural environment, enhancing the environment and the economy together through clean technology and in other ways, and protecting the oceans from plastic and other pollutants.
5. Building a more peaceful and secure world, by addressing threats ranging from the use of chemical weapons in Europe and Syria, nuclear and missile proliferation in North Korea, regional security risks in Ukraine and the Baltic States, the Middle East and North Africa, Venezuela, and Asia, to terrorism, crime and corruption, and violations of democracy and human rights throughout the world, including via the internet.

Security and multilateralism at the centre: the G6 vs the US?

According to an analysis by the G7 Research Group, expectations regarding the success of the summit vary. However, most agree that, given the current global geopolitical climate, security will form a major part of the summit’s concerns. Since the 2017 Taormina Summit, G7 leaders have issued key statements on North Korea and Syria. Following the presidential elections in Venezuela in May 2018, the G7 issued a statement rejecting the electoral process and denouncing its result, namely the re-election of Nicolas Maduro. Yet, there are reasonable expectations that the withdrawal of the US from the Iran Nuclear Agreement (often referred to as JCPOA, for Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) will constitute a topic for disagreement. All of the other G7 members regret the US decision and support the implementation of the agreement. Apart from the EU, which has committed to uphold the deal in spite of the US withdrawal, both the Japanese and Canadian governments have expressed their support for the JCPOA as recently as early May 2018.

The G7 Summit also comes at a time of heightened tension between the USA and its G7 partners, following US President Donald Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on imports of steel and aluminium from some of its closest partners, including the EU and Canada. Several analyses posit that the issue of tariffs, alongside disagreement over other multilateral deals such as the JCPOA and the Paris Climate Agreement, will see a rift between the US and the remaining G7 parties, jeopardising the chances of a productive summit with constructive conclusions. G7 members, including the EU and Canada, are already considering retaliatory tariffs; following the meeting of G7 finance ministers in early June, the Canadian Finance Minister issued a statement expressing the ‘concern and disappointment’ of the other six members of the G7 over the US trade actions.

The G7 was formed in 1975. Since then, the heads of state or government of the seven have convened annual meetings to discuss key global issues. There are no formal criteria for membership, but participants are all highly developed liberal democracies. Its members are all committed to the shared values of peace and security, freedom and human rights, democracy and the rule of law, prosperity and sustainable development. The group deals with such issues as global economic outlook and macroeconomic management, international trade, energy, climate change, and relations with developing countries. Recently, the summit agenda has broadened considerably to include a host of political-security issues. The original group (without Canada, which joined in 1976) held its first summit in Rambouillet, France, in November 1975. As of 1994, the G7 began to meet with Russia at each summit in an outfit referred to as the Political Eight (P8) and, in 1998, Russia joined the G7 to form the G8. In March 2014, the G7 called for the G8 format to be suspended in response to Russia’s conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine, which was considered to be inconsistent with the group’s ‘shared beliefs and responsibilities’. In 2017, the G7 represented approximately 10.3 % of the global population and 32.2 % of the world’s GDP, as well as providing close to 70 % of all official development assistance (ODA).

The EU in the G7

The European Community (later EU) became a full participant of the G7 in 1981. It takes part in discussions on all topics and sessions, but does not hold the presidency or host summits. The EU G7/G20 Sherpa (currently Piotr Serafin) informs the EU Member States about the state of preparation for summits, which are attended by the Presidents of the Commission and of the European Council.

The President of the European Parliament attends the G7 speakers’ meeting, held annually by the G7 Presidency. In 2017, EP President Antonio Tajani participated in the 15th G7 speakers meeting, where he called for global responses to terrorism and to nuclear threats.

Read this At a glance on ‘The 2018 G7 Summit: Issues to watch‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Does the ePrivacy Regulation set a high standard for the confidentiality of electronic communications, or is it a far-reaching expansion of government surveillance authority?

Nato is helping to sustain transatlantic unity amid a Western rift on trade, as Macron and Trump exchange blows on Twitter ahead of a 'G6+1' summit.

Nord Stream 2 pipeline may well not comply with EU rules, but Sweden has no legal reason to say no to Russia, Stockholm said.

With Russia and China posing (different) threats to the EU from its east, and migration pressures from Africa to the south, the EU needs to find ways - and quickly - to reinvigorate the Brussels-Washington axis.

Part-time employment is very common in the Netherlands, where half (49.8%) of all employed people aged 15 to 64 worked part-time last year, Eurostat revealed on Friday. Also in Austria (27.9%), Germany (26.9%), Denmark (25.3%), the UK (24.9%), Belgium (24.5%) and Sweden (23.3%) part-time employment was common. At the opposite end of the scale, less than five percent worked part-time in Bulgaria (2.2%), Hungary (4.3%) and Croatia (4.8%).

The Montenegrin public broadcaster, RTCG, on Thursday sacked its director Andrijana Kadija, prompting protests from journalists and civil society in the Balkan country that the government was undermining the broadcaster's independent editorial policies. The European Union condemned the dismissal of Kadija in a statement saying it is "completely unacceptable" and "goes against freedom of expression and media which is a fundamental value of the European Union".

Using the word "Glen" (which means valley in Gaelic), could be restricted to whisky produced in Scotland so as not to confuse consumers, the EU court of justice said on Thursday in a case where a Hamburg court had asked for advice. The Scotch Whisky Association had taken a German whisky labelled "Glen Buchenbach" to the Hamburg court. It must now weigh the EU court's advice before ruling.

Sweden's government has approved the Nordstream 2 undersea pipeline project to transport Russian gas to Germany. "National and international law does not permit Sweden to reject the application of a pipeline outside Swedish territory" explained minister for enterprise and innovation, Mikael Damberg in a press conference on Thursday. Finland and Germany have already approved the project, leaving Denmark as the only country not having accepted the project.

The debate on CO2 targets for cars and vans in Europe by 2030 is shaping up to be another epic fight, write Greg Archer and Julia Poliscanova.

Written by Mihalis Kritikos,

© Maksim Kabakou / Shutterstock.com

Εxploring the relationship between law, technological innovation and regulatory governance has always been a challenging task for policy-makers. Technologies are often seen as ordinary objects of formal law that can fit into traditional doctrinal classification. But what if technologies questioned and challenged the traditional boundaries of legal thought? Some scholars even argue that technology is law, given that the employment of technology for control purposes in regulation provides opportunities to directly or indirectly shape human behaviour in legal terms. However, it is difficult to determine whether it is technology that challenges the law or the law that shapes, or even predefines, the development paths of new and emerging technologies.

Technology and regulation are often portrayed as adversaries. In a traditional legal setting, their relationship is limited to the grounding of legal reasoning in expert knowledge and scientific evidence. This is frequently the case in the domains of criminal, patent, consumer safety and environmental law. However, as law becomes more and more involved in regulating technological processes and products, it may inhibit or stimulate technological change as such.

Listen to podcast ‘What if technologies shaped the law?‘

In fact, on various occasions the normative influence of regulation upon the shaping of entire technological trajectories depends on the technology of regulation, namely the design and choice of regulatory policy instrument. That has been the case with the contentious development of crop biotechnology in Europe, attributed, among other things, to the centralised and expert-driven regulatory framework adopted for the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment and the European market.

Besides being an object of regulatory action, technology can also have an influential impact not only on the nature, content and type of regulation chosen to control technological developments, but also on the fulfilment of traditional legal objectives. For instance, science-based risk assessments have become the cornerstone of all EU legal rules that regulate the commercial authorisation of medicinal, plant protection and food products. Profiling technologies exert an influential role upon the shaping and interpretation of criminal rules, while internet content filters can protect minors from accessing harmful media content.

The employment of technology as a regulatory actor (appearing in the form of techno-regulation) indicates a shift from a ‘traditional legal order to a technologically managed order’. The development of regulatory technology, commonly known as RegTech, which refers to the use of technology to provide improved financial regulatory solutions, will be crucial to enable more efficient and effective regulation and compliance. In his famous book, Code and other laws of cyberspace, Lawrence Lessig argues that computer code (or ‘West Coast Code’, referring to Silicon Valley) regulates conduct in much the same way as legal code (or ‘East Coast Code’, referring to Washington, DC).

More specifically, code can determine behavioural options and the limits of interaction in virtual spaces, and the level of privacy protection required, as well as defining the terms of access to information in cyberspace. The normative influence of technology is mostly evident in those domains where algorithms are used. Algorithms, as currently understood, are formal rules, usually expressed in computer code as a set of instructions for a computer to follow, that make predictions on future events based on historical patterns. They are a self-contained step-by-step set of operations that computers and other ‘smart’ devices carry out to perform calculations, data processing and automated reasoning tasks.

Algorithms are widely employed to make decisions that have increasingly far-reaching impacts on individuals and society, not least in their applications for access to credit, healthcare, human welfare and employment. They are regulating more and more aspects of our lives by implementing institutional decision-making based on analytics, which involves the discovery, interpretation and communication of meaningful patterns in data, illustrating an increasing tendency to rely on technology as a substitute for other forms of regulation. In fact, self-running and self-enforcing technological applications could challenge traditional notions of legal personality, individual agency and responsibility.

The advent of blockchain technology and the transposition of contractual relationships into smart contract code that simulates the function of legal contracts through technology, or the adjustment of the software codes for autonomous vehicles to traffic regulations may also signal a shift from the traditional notion of ‘code is law’ (i.e. code having the effect of law) to the new conception of law is code. According to this narrative, the law is progressively starting to assume the characteristics of code, given the inclination to replace current laws and regulations with technical regulation – which can be enforced ex ante through code. This can be clearly seen in the case of smart cars that could simply refuse to start the engine if the sensors indicated that the driver had not fastened their seat belt properly, or of the programming of ‘no fly zones’ in drones.

What does the legal conceptualisation of technology mean for European policy-making?

The clear-cut division between law and technology has faded away, on account of the fact that scientific notions and technological concepts such as gene editing and autonomous machines have penetrated legal categories, and triggered the reconsideration of traditional legal terms such as autonomy and privacy. Some scholars have argued that mutual acknowledgment of the boundaries between law and technology has been replaced by a ‘co-production’ regime, where technology and policy are inter-related. The prospect of automated legal governance through the development of digital technologies may also lead to the weakening of centralised structures of law at EU level, in terms of their ability to control and supervise multiple aspects of citizens’ public and private lives.

Examination of the multiple facets of the interface between law and technology and of the increasingly influential role of technology in the shaping of legal rules and reasoning triggers a series of questions. Does EU law have the capacity to strike the right balance between technology as a regulatory object or category and technology as a regulatory agenda-setter? Can law, regulation and technology engage in meaningful conversations that cross doctrinal and technological categories? Should the technical code approached through Lessig’s lens be the most significant form of law? Will EU legislators acknowledge that codes codify values and cannot be treated as a mere question of engineering? A public debate on the aforementioned issues is urgently required given the intrusive potential of code as an enforcement mechanism and/or source of legal obligations that could lead to a Foucauldian networked governmentality and a self-regulated panopticon, whereby the decline of state powers is reinforced, and responsibilities and liabilities are increasingly passed down from the state to the individual technology user.

Read this At a glance on ‘What if technologies shaped the law?‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Kazakhstan, the most impressive reformer in the Central Asian region, is set to benefit enormously from China’s Belt and Road initiative as an equal partner, Kate Mallinson of Chatham House said at an international conference marking the 20th anniversary of Astana, on 5 June.

The Bulgarian Presidency of the EU has tabled fresh options for the bloc’s energy ministers who are meeting on Monday (11 June) to finalise their position on three laws that will shape Europe’s energy and climate policy until 2030.

Denmark is the last country still to complete its national permit procedure for the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline designed to bring Russian gas offshore to Germany under the Baltic Sea, after Nord Stream 2 obtained a permit from the Swedish government yesterday (7 June).

Despite an anti-German campaign run by the Law and Justice party (PiS) government and the media that support it for almost two years, Polish people's attitude towards Germans and the German view of Poles have not worsened in the slightest. EURACTIV’s media partner Gazeta Wyborcza reports.

Ukrainian lawmakers yesterday (7 June) approved key legislation to create a long-awaited anti-corruption court while also voting to dismiss the country's finance minister, a respected reformer backed by the West.

This week, real trade war now, European development days take a bow, and Europe unites to save Penka the cow.

Leaders of the Group of Seven rich nations headed for a summit in Canada on Thursday more divided than at any time in the group's 42-year history, as US President Donald Trump's "America First" policies risk causing a global trade war and deep diplomatic schisms.

On World Ocean Day (8 June), it is important to bring back to the forefront the debate of overfishing which is undermining the health of our oceans. Five years after the reform on the EU Common Fisheries Policy nothing much has changed, and discarding at sea is still common practice, writes Rebecca Hubbard.