The Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA, Finnish: Ulkopoliittinen instituutti, Swedish: Utrikespolitiska institutet, UPI) is an independent research institute located in Töölö, Helsinki, that produces topical information on international relations and the European Union. It also publishes the journal Ulkopolitiikka.
Europäischer Auswärtiger Dienst Der Europäische Auswärtige Dienst (EAD) wurde 2010 nach dem Inkrafttreten des Lissabonner Vertrages geschaffen. Als eigenständige Einrichtung untersteht er dem/der Hohen VertreterIn der Union für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik und unterstützt die Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik. Da er im Aufbau und in der Themenfülle seinen nationalstaatlichen Geschwistern ähnelt, wird der Dienst im Sprachgebrauch auch „Europäisches Außenministerium“ genannt. So verfügt er über ein weltweites Netzwerk an Delegationen. Der EAD ist darauf angewiesen, effizient mit den Mitgliedstaaten und der Europäischen Kommission zusammenzuarbeiten und eine gemeinsame Position zu entwickeln. Dies geschieht insbesondere durch die inhaltliche Vorbereitung der finanziellen Instrumente der Kommission und der außenpolitischen Arbeitsgruppen des Rates der EU sowie durch Koordination mit nationalen EU-Botschaften vor Ort. Dem Ziel einer kohärenteren europäischen Außenpolitik stehen weiterhin bürokratische Spannungen mit der Europäischen Kommission und abweichende nationale Positionen der Mitgliedstaaten im Wege.
Abstract We introduce a special section on emerging international arrangements to cooperate on economic security issues.
ABSTRACT This article examines the EU's evolving narratives concerning the governance of digital technologies, focusing on the intersection of geopolitical challenges and internal policymaking through the lens of the strategic narratives approach. This compares two key EU narratives relating to digital policy: on the one hand, the narrative on ‘digital connectivity’ which advocates collaboration, engagement and market inclusion, and on the other hand, the more recent development of a defensive ‘digital sovereignty’ narrative emphasising the need for EU‐based digital industries, diversified supply chains and reduced reliance on external powers. Through an analysis of the official documents, strategy papers, public speeches and legislative initiatives on digital policy launched by the EU during the term of the first von der Leyen's Commission (2019–2024), we highlight how these two narratives evolved to coexist, determining the EU's unique approach to digital governance. The paper finds that both narratives may be less incompatible than one would think at first sight. They have transformed over time, in response to the increase in geopolitical competition, reaching a point of convergence in the mid‐2020s when the EU appeared to succeed in reconciling the contending aims of openness and autonomy in digital policy. The paper concludes with observations on the interplay between narrative constructions and the policymaking process and an outlook on the ongoing challenges confronting the EU.
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has carried out post-conflict environmental assessments (PCEAs) to evaluate the environmental damage of conflicts since the late 1990s. This article considers UNEP’s PCEAs as a case of securitisation. Existing literature suggests securitisation can lead to de-politicisation, associated with non-participatory, obliging policy practices, or politicisation, which can lead to inclusive, democratic outcomes. For environmental security policy to be effective, it therefore is crucial to know whether the securitisation of the environment has led to de-politicisation or politicisation. To explore this in the case of UNEP, the article examines whether the securitisation with regard to PCEAs has been de-politicising or politicising and, as a result, whether it has contributed more effective methods, practices, or policies to assess wartime environmental destruction. Focusing on the period after 2010, when PCEA was an established part of UNEP’s work but started to lose its role at the core of UNEP’s environmental security dimension to other issues like climate risks, this paper argues that UNEP’s approach to PCEA was mainly marked by depoliticisation, which may have hindered the efficacy of the assessments in practice. Due to UNEP’s waning interest in PCEA, its methodological development has lagged, suggesting the need for a new approach also incorporating politicised aspects.
