scholarly journals The undoing of a unique relationship? Peace and security in the EU–South Africa Strategic Partnership

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toni Haastrup
Author(s):  
Bas Hooijmaaijers ◽  
Stephan Keukeleire

Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) have, since the beginning of the 21st century, gained greater influence in global political and economic affairs and, since 2006, also steadily developed and increased their political dialogue and cooperation. South Africa joining the BRICS political grouping in 2011 was matched by a strengthening of the BRICS dialogue. This was reflected in the broadening range of issues covered, the increasing level of specificity of the BRICS joint declarations and cooperation, and the institutionalization of BRICS cooperation in various policy fields, including the creation of the New Development Bank (NDB). Notwithstanding the increased interaction between the BRICS states on the various political, economic, and diplomatic levels, the countries differ considerably in their political, economic, military, and demographic weight and interests and in their regional and global aspirations. China particularly stands out among the BRICS due to its political and economic weight. There are sufficient reasons to question the significance and impact of the BRICS format. Still, the BRICS countries have found each other in their commitment to counter the “unjust” Western-dominated multilateral world in which they are generally underrepresented. The EU did not develop a “BRICS policy” as such, which is understandable given the major differences between the BRICS countries and the ambiguous nature of the BRICS format. To deal with the various emerging powers and complement its predominantly regional partnerships, the EU instead institutionalized and deepened the political and economic bilateral relations with each of the BRICS countries, including through the objective of establishing a bilateral “strategic partnership” with each of these countries. However, the analysis of the EU’s relationship with the BRICS countries indicates that the label “strategic partnerships” mainly served as a rhetorical façade which belied that the EU failed to turn these relationships into real strategic partnerships and to behave strategically toward the BRICS countries. Another challenge for the EU appears when analyzing the BRICS within the broader context of various emerging power constellations and multilateral frameworks, including variations of the BRICS format (such as BRICS Plus, BASIC, and IBSA), multilateral frameworks with one or more BRICS countries at their center (such as the SCO, EAEU, and BRI), and regional forums launched by China. Taken together, they point to an increasingly dense set of partially overlapping formal and informal networks on all political, diplomatic, and administrative levels, covering an ever-wider scope of policy areas and providing opportunities for debate, consultation, and coordination. Whereas most of these forums are in and of themselves not very influential, taken together they have an impact on the EU and its traditional view on multilateralism in several ways. Seen from this perspective, the BRICS and other multilateral forums pose major challenges for both European diplomats and European scholars. They will have to make considerable efforts to understand and engage with these various forums, which are manifestations of an increasingly influential and powerful non-Western world wherein the role of Europe is much more limited.


Author(s):  
David Thackeray

Brexit is likely to lead to the largest shift in Britain’s economic orientation in living memory. Some have argued that leaving the EU will enable Britain to revive markets in Commonwealth countries with which it has long-standing historical ties. Their opponents argue that such claims are based on forms of imperial nostalgia which ignore the often uncomfortable historical trade relations between Britain and these countries, as well as the UK’s historical role as a global, rather than chiefly imperial, economy. This book explores how efforts to promote a ‘British World’ system, centred on promoting trade between Britain and the Dominions, grew and declined in influence between the 1880s and 1970s. At the beginning of the twentieth century many people from London, to Sydney, Auckland, and Toronto considered themselves to belong to culturally British nations. British politicians and business leaders invested significant resources in promoting trade with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa out of a perception that these were great markets of the future. However, ideas about promoting trade between ‘British’ peoples were racially exclusive. From the 1920s onwards colonized and decolonizing populations questioned and challenged the bases of British World networks, making use of alternative forms of international collaboration promoted firstly by the League of Nations and then by the United Nations. Schemes for imperial collaboration amongst ethnically ‘British’ peoples were hollowed out by the actions of a variety of political and business leaders across Asia and Africa who reshaped the functions and identity of the Commonwealth.


Author(s):  
Shreya Atrey

Why has intersectionality fallen by the wayside of discrimination law? Thirty years after Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term ‘intersectionality’, discrimination lawyers continue to be plagued by this question across a range of jurisdictions, including the US, UK, South Africa, India, Canada, as well as the UN treaty body jurisprudence and the jurisprudence of the EU and the ECHR. Claimants continue to struggle to establish intersectional claims based on more than one ground of discrimination. This book renews the bid for realizing intersectionality in comparative discrimination law. It presents a juridical account of intersectional discrimination as a category of discrimination inspired by intersectionality theory, and distinct from other categories of thinking about discrimination including strict, substantial, capacious, and contextual forms of single-axis discrimination, multiple discrimination, additive discrimination as in combination or compound discrimination, and embedded discrimination. Intersectional discrimination, defined in these theoretical and categorial terms, then needs to be translated into doctrine, recalibrating each of the central concepts and tools of discrimination law to respond to it—including the text of non-discrimination guarantees, the idea of grounds, the test for analogous grounds, the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination, the substantive meaning of discrimination, the use of comparators, the justification analysis and standard of review, the burden of proof between parties, and the range of remedies available. With this, the book presents a granular account of intersectional discrimination in theoretical, conceptual, and doctrinal terms, and aims to transform discrimination law in the process of realizing intersectionality within its discourse.


2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-33
Author(s):  
Florencia Rubiolo

Abstract: The diplomatic ties between Africa and Southeast Asia (SEA) have historically been sporadic and erratic. The only country in the SEA that the first decades after independence maintained a relatively narrower link to some African countries was Indonesia. Today, trade has gained momentum, being South Africa, Egypt and Nigeria, the largest trading partners of ASEAN in Africa, thanks to the growth rates of emerging countries in both regions.This increasing trade relation has been accompanied by some political diplomatic initiatives such as the AASROC (Asian African Sub Regional Organizations Conference), theNAASP (New Asian African Strategic Partnership) and the interregional approach between ASEAN and the African Union (may 2012). And, in the cases of Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia, there has also been a slight development in bilateral relations. From a South-South perspective, our aim in this paper is to discuss the density and possibilities of this bilateral and multilateral relation and what consequences might bring to Africa.Keywords: Africa – Southeast Asia foreign policy – South South relations – diversification


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document