Stefania Panebianco

When responsibility to protect ‘hits home’: the refugee crisis and the EU response

Abstract While the Syrian refugee crisis unravels at the EU’s doorstep and as the death toll in the Mediterranean continues unabated, questions about the international community’s duty to act on behalf of the afflicted people inevitably arise, thereby fuelling convoluted debates about Responsibility to Protect (R2P). In light of the international community’s inertia and of the EU’s incapacity to adequately manage the worst humanitarian crisis of recent times, this article argues that time is ripe to explore other ways to implement R2P. There is a ‘missing’ link between R2P and refugee protection and the duty to protect refugees can be framed within the R2P discourse. Building on the idea that asylum is central to the implementation of R2P, we suggest that the acknowledgment of the linkage between R2P and refugee protection is helpful not only to improve the EU management of the current crisis, but also to uphold R2P when the international community is at a stalemate.

The 60th anniversary of the EU: a new élan for the EU … or maybe not

The 60th anniversary of the European Union (EU) celebrated by the leaders of 27 EU member states on 25 March 2017 has been affected by major challenges: the Westminster terrorist attack just a few days before the Summit, Brexit and the UK’s notification under Article 50 Treaty on European Union a few days later, euroscepticism affecting also the EU founding member states, waves of populism all over Europe, increasing migrant flows across the Mediterranean, the unsettled Syrian crisis, to name just a few. For some time now the EU has been in the midst of a crisis and many observers have been urging deep reforms to construct a stronger Union and face this critical juncture. Due to the wrong perception of the (dis)advantages of belonging to the EU, misunderstanding of EU values and principles, or criticism of specific policies such as the monetary union and the Euro, over time the European public opinion has passed from providing a permissive consensus to expressing an overt opposition to further European integration. Today the EU foundational rationale seems to have waned, thus needs to be restated and adapted to contemporary reality. The European Commission attempted to re-launch the debate on the advantages of the EU membership by adopting a pragmatic and direct approach to catch the citizens’ attention and regain more support. As announced in President Juncker’s 2016 State of the Union speech, on 1 March 2017 the European Commission presented a White Paper on the Future of Europe to contribute to the Rome Summit of 25 March 2017. To celebrate the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the EU, the European Commission aimed at identifying Avenues for unity for the EU at 27. Yet a negative post-Brexit atmosphere permeated the EU celebrations and the only achievement of the summit was the meagre re-statement of the lowest common denominator cooperation mechanism in the EU at 27. Negotiations of the Rome Declaration were difficult. And Poland’s decision to adhere to the declaration was sighed with relief. Unconvincingly, many European political leaders depicted these results as a plus and not as a minus in these times of EU crisis. The White Paper presented by President Jean-Claude Juncker aimed at allowing for a reflection on the state of play of the European project, by assessing its achievements and strengths, seeking to further improvements and to shape a stronger future at 27. Despite its better intentions, though, not only it did not relaunch the European project, but it actually weakened it, because it lacks a political vision for the future. This might reflect the institutional imbalance that recently has relegated the European Commission to a secretariat in favour of the European Council, frustrating the role of policy-entrepreneur that the Commission played in the past through its initiative powers. The White Paper presents five scenarios for the Union to evolve by 2025. In Scenario 1 – called Carrying On – the EU27 would stick to its course and focus on delivering its current reform agenda. In Scenario 2 –

The EU's democracy promotion and the Mediterranean neighbours: orientation, ownership and dialogue in Jordan and Turkey, by Ann-Kristin Jonasson

analysis shows that democratic values and norms have yet to become fully entrenched in both countries. The most significant shortcoming of this volume is that readers will need to actively undertake their own comparative analyses of the two countries for each dimension, such as political parties, economic reforms, and social welfare. The book is composed of a series of parallel single-case studies focused on either Korea or Taiwan rather than on both countries. Diamond and Shin overlook the importance of adding a concluding chapter to clarify the volume’s contribution to the development of democratic theory and to make policy suggestions for countries either caught in an authoritarian trap or struggling against democratic backlash. Also lacking is a clear rationale for the comparison shared among the contributors. In other words, why did they compare the two democracies? Are these maturing democracies encountering similar challenges already faced by other mature democracies? Or do Korea and Taiwan struggle with unique problems that neither other mature nor new democracies have experienced? This volume only obliquely addresses these questions. Nevertheless, New Challenges for Maturing Democracies in Korea and Taiwan certainly stands as a stepping stone for research on new democracies struggling to consolidate democracy. Readers will gain a great deal of knowledge and understanding of the trajectories of political, economic, and social change in democratic Korea and Taiwan, including where the two countries might be heading.