Whither the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership?

Failures in the World Trade Organisation’s Doha Round have prompted countries to turn to preferential trade agreements. Every country with a stake in world trade is now negotiating bilateral free trade agreements – with occasional infusions of regional attempts to forge greater trade ties by reducing barriers to trade and investments, e.g. the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Some claims Free Trade Agreements to be second-best alternatives to a dysfunctional multilateral system; others see them through the eyes of Jacob Viner and consider them to be termites of the trading system, diverting trade and causing bureaucratic obstacles to trade through Rules of Origin regulations. Yet regardless the side of the argument, the most outstanding feature of many FTAs is that they do not have impressive effects on growth in trade and Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The EU, for instance, considers its FTA with South Korea to be a first-of-a-kind, “deep and comprehensive” bilateral agreement with a medium-sized growth market – and at the time when it was ratified, EU representatives hailed it as an important trade agreement for the European post-crisis recovery. The estimates of the European Commission, however, suggested this FTA to boost GDP in Europe by no more than 0.08 percent.

EU-Asia Relations: A New Start?

Norms and Conditionality: The EU and Ukraine

Selection Procedures and Incentives for Government Provided Personnel (GPP) in the Rule of Law - An Overview of the Civilian Capacities Network

Coming into the Cold: Asia’s Arctic Interests

Understanding peacebuilding as essentially local

Norway and Turkey: Possibilities of cooperation through the eyes of Turkish opinion-makers

UNMISS County Support Bases: Peacekeeping–Peacebuilding Nexus at Work?

The initiative by the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) to establish County Support Bases (CSBs) in 35 counties, in addition to the presence it already has in 10 state capitals, reflects a new interest in UN peacekeeping operations in pursuing a greater nexus between peacekeeping and peacebuilding, especially at the local level. In principle, the CSBs are a positive development, representing a move towards focusing on areas where the need is greatest – but they have also given rise to several concerns. Internally, UNMISS has had to reassess how fast it can move and what it can achieve with the CSBs. The CSBs are intended to ‘facilitate the extension of state authority’, and serve as a vehicle for integration with the UN Country Team (UNCT), who are the ones who can actually bring tangible development and peace dividends to isolated rural areas. Externally, the CSBs are expected to have an enabling effect on the extension of state authority through co-location of UNMISS staff with government counterparts in the counties. Given the delays encountered in CSB construction, it is not yet possible to fully assess their impact, although partial presence and air movement has already facilitated what is often the only link between state authorities and rural communities. This policy brief focuses on exploring the conceptual thinking and vision behind the CSBs, the efforts to achieve greater integration between UNMISS and UNCT, the challenges UNMISS has been facing in developing the CSBs, and how the UN plans to use CSBs in the future.

The EEA and Norway Grants as a source of Soft Power