In this section, all MERCURY publications will be listed. In particular, there is a MERCURY E-paper series featuring in-depth studies of various aspects of EU multilateralism (see below). Moreover, short Policy Briefs regularly summarise core findings and recommendations based on research carried out within MERCURY (see right column).

In January 2011, MERCURY issued a revised version of E-paper no. 1 "Conceptualising Multilateralism: Can We All Just Get Along?" (February 2010). In their paper, Caroline Bouchard and John Peterson adress the role of the "poor, ugly duckling" that multilateralism is playing amongst concepts in the study of international relations. They provide a conceptual framework for understanding multilateralism and a definition that can guide further research. To read more, click   here.

In February 2010, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 2 "Diplomatic Strategies of Major Powers: Competing Patterns of International Relations? The Cases of the United States of America, China and the European Union". In their paper, Nadia Klein, Wulf Reiners, Chen Zhimin, Jian Junbo and Ivo Slosarcik compare unilateral, bilateral, multilateral and pluralistic strategies of the US, China and the EU. They conclude that all major powers seek multilateralism only as one strategy amongst many. To read more, please click   here.

In February 2010, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 3 "The Evolving 'Doctrine' of Multilateralism in the 21st Century". In their paper, Elena Lazarou, Geoffrey Edwards, Christopher Hill and Julie Smith explore in how far the concept of multilateralism has become a 'doctrine' for the EU, understood as a coherent guide to policy practice. They state that demand for effective multilateralism now extends beyond trade and security to climate change, disease control and migration. To read more, please click  here.

In September 2010, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 4 "Externalising migration policy: The European Union’s ‘Global’ Approach". In her paper, Nur Abdelkhaliq examines constraints at EU level, posed by decision-making structures and differing policy prioritisations, on the multilateral pursuit of migration policy objectives with the Mediterranean. She argues that the Commission, seemingly as a way of bypassing these intra-European constraints, increasingly supports the implementation of migration-related initiatives coherent with the 2005 Global Approach through international organisations such as the International Organization for Migration and the UN Refugee Agency. To read more, please click  here.

In October 2010, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 5 "Market Power Europe: EU Externalisation of Market-Related Policies". In his paper, Chad Damro claims that the EU actively externalises its internal market-related policies and regulations in multilateral settings. This externalisation provides clear evidence of the EU acting as a Market Power Europe and suggests an oft-overlooked way in which the EU pursues effective multilateralism. The large size of the EU’s regulated single market and its significant institutional and regulatory capacity enhance the ability to externalise both economic and social regulations. Such an exercise of power, which may occur as intentional or unintentional behaviour, suggests the EU is more capable and more likely to use coercive means and tools than would be expected by other conceptualisations of the EU as a power. To read more, please click  here.

In October 2010, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 6 "Assessing EU Multilateral Action: Trade and Foreign and Security Policy Within a Legal and Living Framework". In their paper, Nadia Klein, Tobias Kunstein and Wulf Reiners start from the asumption that the European Union seeks to contribute to “effective multilateralism”, as laid down explicitly in the EU treaty and in various conceptual documents such as the European Security Strategy. Drawing on research on the EU’s actual performance as an international actor, this paper provides a framework for assessing the varying levels of multilateral action in EU external policies. In particular, it focuses on two institutional factors: (1) the capacity to co-ordinate internally a given EU position and (2) the capacity to represent an EU position externally. These two factors are analysed systematically for the common commercial policy and for the common foreign and security policy. In this context, both the legal framework – from the Nice to the Lisbon Treaty – and the living framework – the actual use of the provisions – are taken into account. Based on data from 2000 to 2009, the findings of the analysis indicate that the EU is relatively stronger in supporting international law (multilateral legal basis) than in pooling resources with other international actors (multilateral implementation). To read more, please click  here.

In December 2010, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 7 "Cooperation in the North - Multilateralims or Mess?". In her paper, Gunilla Herolf explores whether the European Union has lived up to its commitment to "effective multeralism" through its policies towards the Baltic Sea Region. The emphasis is on the EU institutions, but the paper also examines the roles of the countries involved in cooperation as well as their relations to the EU and its institutions. The paper explores how the EU got involved in cooperation, the driving forces behind its continued involvement in the north and the character of its policies. It does not, however, deal with the implementation or the impact of these policies. To read more, please click  here.

In December 2010, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 8 "The EU-China Partnership on Climate Change: Bilateralism Begetting Multilateralism in Promoting a Climate Change Regime?". This paper has been written as part of Work Package 3 "Multilateralism in Practice: Key Regions and Partners". In her paper, Giulia Romano presents an analysis of the outcomes of the agreement to establish a bilateral Partnership on Climate Change that was signed by the EU and China in September 2005. The two parties pledged to strengthen the dialogue on climate change policies, exchange views on key issues in climate change negotiations and develop concrete action to tackle climate change by carrying out specific cooperation projects. The paper tries to assess if the EU-China partnership on climate change can be considered, as intended, an important contribution to a multilateral solution to climate change, or if this bilateral relationship only functions at a rhetorical level without producing concrete results. To read more, please click  here.

In June 2011, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 9 "The EU, the Middle East Quartet and (In)effective Multilateralism". In her paper, Nathalie Tocci analyses the question whether the 'Middle East Quartet' has affirmed itself as an effective multilateral forum, and to what extend the EU has contributed to the realisation of this goal? The paper argues that the Quartet has not affirmed itself as either a genuinely multilateral or effective mediation forum. Its activities have reflected either the EU's unsuccessful attempts to frame American initiatives within a multilateral setting, or the US's successful attempts at providing a multilateral cover for unilateral actions. The Quartet is not vithout value. But to play a useful role, it schould be enlarged and reshaped as a forum to establish a renewed international consensus on the Arab-Israeli conflict. To read more, please click  here.

In August 2011, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 10 “The European Union Development Strategy in Africa: the Economic Partnership Agreements as a Case of Aggressive Multilateralism”. In his paper, Lorenzo Fioramonti analyses how the ‘multilateralization’ of development has influenced the EU approach, culminating with the adoption of the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with sub-Saharan African countries. The analysis is structured in light of the fact that for several decades, Europe entertained a preferential relationship with its former colonies in Africa, which translated into a set of trade and development preferences. With the progressive diffusion of market liberalization, this preferential relationship came to be called into question. The paper raises a number of questions regarding the actual nature of multilateral processes by focusing on the intended and unintended effects of political, economic and technical asymmetries between rich and poor countries. To read more, please click  here.

In September 2011, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 11 ‘“Chasing Pavements”: The East Asia Summit and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Discursive Regionalism as Disguised Multilateralism’. Revolving around the concept of “Community”, or “community” – the use of the capital “c” being seen as indicative of cultural homogeneity - debate on an Asian region has ostensibly pitted those who favour an entity limited to East Asia (China, Japan, South Korea and the ten countries of ASEAN) against those who propose a much wider entity embracing India, North (and, perhaps, South) America, as well as Australasia. Previously these two conceptualizations possessed their eponymous translation in the East Asian Economic Caucus (reincarnated as ASEAN +3) and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum respectively. However with the creation in 2005 of the East Asian Summit (EAS) to include India, Australia and New Zealand and, above all, its 2011 enlargement to include the United States and Russia, the distinction between the two conceptualizations of an Asian region has become confused. In order to explain this development, the author David Camroux suggests that the language of “region” or “community” is a discursive smokescreen disguising changes in approaches to multilateralism. An examination of the EAS, contrasted with another recent regional project, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), suggests that the actors involved, both state and non-state, are seeking overwhelmingly to ensure the primacy of individual nationstates in intergovernmental multilateral relations. To read more, please click  here.

In September 2011, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 12 “The EU’s Engagement with China in Building a Multilateral Climate Change Regime: Uneasy Process Towards an Effective Approach”. By tracing the development of the EU’s engagement with China in the framework of global climate change governance the authors, Yan Bo, Giulia C. Romano and Zhimin Chen, analyse the impact of bilateral cooperation and dialogue between the EU and China on the construction of a multilateral climate change regime. The European Union and China are two key players in climate change politics, in terms of their huge contributions to, and their significant influence in, solving the problem. The paper argues that the EU’s approach of engaging with new rising players, particularly China, in moving the multilateral climate change negotiation forward should be improved to be more effective. To read more, please click  here.

In November 2011, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 13 “The European Union and the Reform of the United Nations: Towards a More Effective Security Council?”. The authors of this paper, Nicoletta Pirozzi with Hubertus Juergenliemk and Yolanda Spies, aim to assess the possible impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the EU’s presence and performance at the United Nations and outline the prospects for future developments under three main dimensions: coordination (among EU member states and institutions); representation (of the EU as a single actor); and impact (measured in terms of what the EU and its member states collectively achieve). In particular, these benchmarks are used to evaluate what influence the positions of the Union’s institutions and member states produce on the crucial issue of UN Security Council’s reform. Moreover, this paper offers an analysis of the EU’s cooperation with other regional entities, primarily the African Union, at the UN and provides a model for testing the possible role of regional organizations and the evolution of regionalism within the UN system. To read more, please click  here.

In November 2011, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 14 “Multilateralism as Envisaged? Assessing European Union’s Engagement in Conflict Resolution in the Neighbourhood”. The authors of this paper, Tomáš Weiss, Nona Mikhelidze and Ivo Šlosarcík, analysed the European Union’s practice in resolving conflicts in its neighbourhood. In doing so, the paper assesses the extent to which the EU lives up to its declarations and proceeds multilaterally, in cooperation with other international actors. Two case studies are presented – on Georgia and Bosnia and Herzegovina – in which concrete EU behaviour on the ground is studied. The paper argues that various types of engagement are used by the EU in the conflicts: inaction, uni-, bi-, and multilateralism. Whereas bilateralism seems to be circumstantial, unilateralism and multilateralism belong to EU’s preferential modes of activity. At the same time, the EU is much more effective in supporting multilateral activities than in leading them. To read more, please click  here.

In December 2011, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 15 "Fiscal Multilateralism in Times of the Great Recession". In her paper, Charlotte Rommerskirchen argues that during the Great Recession of 2008-2010 the need for international policy coordination has been brought into bolder relief. The study investigates the state of fiscal multilateralism during and in the aftermath of the last economic and financial crisis. In particular, it scrutinizes the EU’s role to facilitate fiscal multilateralism in the G20. So doing it presents two modes of leadership; one of structural and one of informational leadership. The first is concerned with agenda control and the potential to exert leadership as an ‘architect of change’. The second identifies leadership as information transmission that is signaling via policy action. Building on this distinction, this paper scrutinizes the EU’s role to facilitate fiscal multilateralism in the G20, arguing that the EU’s leadership has been much stronger on the ‘structural leg’ than on the ‘informational leg’. To read more, please click  here.

In November 2011, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 16 “African Local Integration and Multilateralism: The Regional Economic Communities and Their Relationship with the European Union”. The author of this paper, Julian Kitipov, explores different forms of regionalism and multilateralism in Africa. Since the end of the Cold War, the notion of regionalism in Africa has undergone, and is still undergoing, a process of transformation that includes reassessing its role, capabilities and design. However, the slow pace of continent-wide integration has resulted in the creation of a new framework to address Africa’s challenges. As the building blocks of regional integration, the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) will need to contribute significantly to deepening regionalism. The geographical proximity with Europe has also played an important role in the integration of Africa. It has influenced (by virtue of imitation and also through specific interregional policies, mainly concerning development) institution building, trade and other issues of common interest and concern. This paper explores the drivers of regional integration as a form of multilateralism in Africa amid the strengths and weaknesses of African RECs. To read more, please click  here.

In January 2012, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 17 “The EU Neighbourhood and Comparative Modernisation”. The authors of this paper, L'ubica Debnárová, Věra Řiháčková, Silvia Colombo and Luke March analyse the European Union and its member states’ role in promoting democracy and human rights in its neighbourhood. The key research question is whether the European Union lives up to its rhetoric and in practice prefers multilateral to bilateral activities. The paper operates with three scenarios of possible EU action: multilateral action, bilateral action, and non-action. It presents three case studies that examine the EU’s involvement in providing stability and democracy in the different regions of its neighbourhood – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova and Morocco. In conclusion, the paper shows how the EU contributes (or not) to effective multilateralism in democracy and human rights promotion in the neighbouring countries asserting that, for various reasons, the effective multileral approach is rarely used by the EU in order to achieve its defined policy goals. To read more, please click  here.

In January 2012, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 18 “The European Union and Multilateralism in the Mediterranean: Energy and Migration Policy". In their paper, Silivia Colombo and Nur Abdelkhaliq explore the practice of EU multilateralism vis-à-vis the Mediterranean — a key region for the European Union — by examining energy and migration policies. These two issue-areas are crucial in the Union’s strategy for incorporating internal policy objectives into external, multilateral frameworks. The paper assesses the extent to which the EU can be defined as multilateral by exploring the actions of the European Commission and member states in their relations with the different stakeholders concerned with the pursuit of these policies — partner countries and a range of international and non-governmental organisations. The paper concludes by gauging the extent to which multilateralism can be termed as effective in view of the outcomes of the EU’s engagement with these policy areas at internal and external levels. To read more, please click  here.

In April 2012, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 19 “The EU and Multilateral Crisis Management: Assessing Cooperation and Coordination with the UN".  Multilateralism sits high on the European foreign policy agenda and constitutes a founding principle of the EU's integration process. Yet, in their comparative analysis of  key missions and diplomatic initiatives in the field of crisis management Lorenzo Fioramenti, Maxi Schoeman and Gerrit Olivier reveal lights and shadows in the much-heralded 'choice of multilateralism' underpinning the cooperation between the EU and the UN. On the one hand, the EU strives to support the UN and operate legitimately within its framework and mandate; on the other hand, it wishes to carve out an autonomous space for its role in multilateral crisis management, be it through military means or through diplomatic strategies. Moreover, institutional cooperation at the top-level has not always resulted in good coordination on the ground, thus undermining 'effective multilateralism'. To read more, please click  here.

In April 2012, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 20 "Multilateralism In Practice: An Exploration of International Involvement in Solving the Crisis in Darfur". In their paper, Maxi Schoeman and Jian Junbo explore aspects of the numerous international efforts (2003-2011) to solve the crisis in Darfur, paying specific attention to the failure of these attempts. Answers to two specific questions are sought: How do we explain the failure to reach a resolution to this crisis despite the scope of international involvement through various international organisations? Second: What do we learn about ‘multilateralism in practice’ by studying the Darfur crisis? The paper concludes that the involvement of multiple actors does not necessarily constitute ‘effective multilateralism’, but may in fact inhibit the search for a resolution of conflict, especially in instances where actors have different interests at stake and desire different ways in which to resolve the conflict. To read more, please click  here.

In April 2012, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 21 "The EU’s Trade Policy and China: Cooperation in the Interest of Multilateralism?". In his paper, John Armstrong evaluates the changing EU-China trade relationship. He argues that the three strategies (or pillars) the EU has employed – engagement, education (capacitybuilding activities), and enforcement – are under ever greater pressure. The EU is itself learning from its interaction with China, and China is beginning to assert itself as it becomes a more confident player. The paper reviews these strategies and how they connect the two sides. It also looks at the stages of interaction between the two sides, from pre-WTO accession to post-accession. China has yet to find the confidence to take a leadership role in the multilateral trading system, and is careful to protect domestic interests. The EU finds itself caught up in post-financial crisis turmoil and is also becoming more adamant about protecting domestic interests. Given these challenges it is critical that the two sides maintain channels of communication and cooperation, so the tension between multilateral solutions and domestic interests is resolved to the benefit of the global trading system. To read more, please click  here.

In April 2012, MERCURY issued E-paper no. 22 "Trade and Climate Change: Harnessing European Multilateralism for Africa’s Development". In his paper, Brendan Vickers claims that climate and trade issues lie at the intersection of two of the world’s most contested multilateral negotiations – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the World Trade Organisation’s Doha Round. With their complex inter-linkages, there is still no clarity about the rules governing trade and and climate change. Within the context of shifting global competitiveness from North to South and West to East, African countries are concerned about the rise of “green protectionism” and the possibility of unilateral punitive trade measures to support domestic climate action in Europe. This paper explores some of these concerns by focusing on the potential trade impact of EU climate policies on Africa, specifically border tax adjustments on commodities and carbon standards and labelling for consumer goods. The paper provides tentative ideas on how European multilateralism in the UNFCCC could address Africa’s concerns, promote transparency, confidence and trust among the parties, and support the continent’s development. To read more, please click  here.

In February 2010, MERCURY has issued its first Policy Brief. The two-page Policy Brief summarises main findings of the first project year. To read more, please click  here.

In December 2010, MERCURY has issued its second Policy Brief. The two-page Policy Brief summarises main findings regarding the conceptual and institutional basis of EU multilateralism. To read more, please click  here.

In November 2011, MERCURY, EU-GRASP and EU4Seas have issued a joint Policy Brief. Building on compared results and conclusions these three FP7 funded projects drafted nine recommendations. They are presented as a contribution to the EU wide debate on the role of the European Union in global and regional multilateralism. To read more please click  here.

In January 2012, the publication project SCOOP presented a Special Issue on the EU and multilateralism. The nine-page summary is based on research carried out within the three FP7 funded projects MERCURY, EU-GRASP and EU4Seas. Building on the projects' main findings, the special issue highlights a number of ways for the EU to be more effective in its approach to multilateralism. To read more please click  here.

In January 2012, MERCURY has issued its third regular Policy Brief. The two-page Policy Brief summarises main findings regarding the EU's multilateral approach towards key regions and partners. To read more, please click  here .

In January 2012, MERCURY has issued its fourth regular Policy Brief. The three-page Policy Brief summarises main findings regarding the EU's external action in multilateral fora. To read more, please click  here.