Dr. Remember Miamingi’s Post

In this piece, I attribute to the AU the argument that consensus decision-making is a veil shielding member states from accountability. It functions as a de facto veto without consequences and a tool domestic audiences use to justify complacency in unpopular decisions. I contend that because the AU predominantly avoids voting mechanisms, it should adopt a weighted voting system. This system would enhance transparency and accountability and incentivize funding for the AU. If you have additional insights or a differing viewpoint, please feel free to share.

Will the USMCA Survive Its Upcoming Review? The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) faces a critical review in 2026, with the future of the agreement at stake. Key Factors: - 2024 Presidential Elections: Priorities of new leaders could impact the USMCA's future. - Agreement's Performance: Overall effectiveness of the USMCA in achieving its objectives will be evaluated. - Potential Adjustments: Recommendations to improve the agreement and address issues will be considered. - Continuity: Decision will be made on whether to indefinitely extend the USMCA or let it expire in 2036. ⏳ Perspectives: - Experts: Diverse opinions on the USMCA's future and the review. - Presidential Candidates: View the USMCA as a valuable tool but may use the review to advocate for their country's interests. - Businesses: Concerned about investor confidence, rule of law, and supply chains. Conclusion: The USMCA's future is uncertain and will depend on decisions made during the 2026 review. Businesses should pay attention to the process and consider how they could be affected. Want to learn more about the USMCA and its upcoming review? Visit muy blog for an in-depth analysis of the topic! ➡️ Will the USMCA Survive Its Upcoming Review? (coconsulting.mx) Link: ¿Sobrevivirá el acuerdo T-MEC a una próxima revisión? - El Diálogo (thedialogue.org) Source: The dialogue #T-MEC #Review #Trade #México #EstadosUnidos #Canadá #Companies #Economy

🚨HUGE NEWS: Published in JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies!🔥 I’m absolutely pumped to share that my article, ‘You Know, This Conference Has No Legitimacy’: Eurosceptic Contestation of the Conference on the Future of Europe, is now published in JCMS—one of the top-tier journals in EU studies! This piece dives into how Eurosceptic groups took on the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE), challenging its legitimacy and feeding the ever-present narrative of an ‘elite cartel’ governing the EU. It’s about bridging the gap between citizens and EU institutions, and what happens when that bridge gets contested. A massive shoutout to Alvaro Oleart, Karolina Borońska-Hryniewiecka, and Veronika Kotýnková Krotká for their brilliant feedback and support. Your insights made this piece what it is! 🙏 #JCMS #Politicization #EmpoweringDissensus #Euroscepticism #EUPolitics #CoFoE #EuropeanParliament 🔗 https://lnkd.in/ennSTF5V

🚨 NEW REPORT from The International Foundation for Electoral Systems Democratic Resilience Lab 💡 "Understanding and Interrupting Modern Day Authoritarian Collaboration: Suggestions for the Democracy Support Community" by Christina Cottiero Autocrats today are cooperating in ways previously thought exclusive to democratic leaders. This behavioral change poses a challenge to democracy champions everywhere. Thus, our three motivating questions:  👉 Why the shift?  👉 What does it look like?  👉 What can the international democracy support community do to interrupt this autocratic learning? Read more and download your copy today:

Less than a week before the upcoming US Presidential election, our analysis of the contestation of international institutions by the (first) Trump Administration - and other dissatisfied powers - is out with The Review of International Organizations. In this article, Benjamin Daßler, Tim Heinkelmann-Wild and I argue that dissatisfied states’ negative institutional power endowments in international institutions are key to understanding their varying contestation modes: the more limited (extensive) the negative institutional power of dissatisfied states in an institution, the more radical (moderate) modes of institutional contestation they will choose. Our "Negative Institutional Power Theory" explains why the Trump Administration's (and other dissatisfied powers') contestation of international institutions was not uniform but varied substantially. It also has important policy implications for dealing with a potential (second) Trump win: Whether, in the future, international institutions will be increasingly challenged from within and outside, can be influenced by institutional reforms that grant (or deny) states negative institutional power. Many thanks to my fabulous co-authors and to the many great colleagues who have commented on previous vrsions of the paper. You can read the (open access) article here: https://lnkd.in/eNMpmpQ2

New in JCMS! 🚨 Jan Kotýnek Krotký explores how Eurosceptic contestation might paradoxically strengthen EU integration by fostering public debate on EU issues. Using the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE) as a case study, the article analyses how Eurosceptic political groups have challenged its legitimacy, citing manipulative governance and lack of representativity. How could Eurosceptic narratives influence the future of EU integration and citizen engagement? 💭 Read the full article to find out more ➡️ https://lnkd.in/eReuA5RA #JCMS #UACES #EU #EuropeanStudies

Fahey, E. (2024). Democratic Leadership through Transatlantic Cooperation for Trade and Technology Reforms through the EU-US TTC Model? In: Petersmann, U. & Steinbach, A. (Eds.), Constitutionalism and Transnational Governance Failures. World Trade Institute Advanced Studies, 16. (pp. 279-307). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill/Nijhoff. doi: 10.1163/9789004693722_012 Abstract Transatlantic relations form a key case study for the development of global challenges, as a major platform of experimentation. Yet across administration shifts, it mostly provides historical evidence of ‘law-light’ ‘institution light’ commitments to bilateral law-making. The framing of institutions therein has appeared increasingly dominated by informality on account of decades of complex yet consistently failed experimentations in global governance. Parliament and Civil society have historically been excluded, on both sides of the Atlantic, but acutely in the European Union (EU). Constitutionalisation (with a small ‘c’) of EU-Unites States (US) transatlantic relations has manifold benefits for democracy. Trade and Technology are now viewed by the EU and US as the lynchpins of solutions to global challenges- yet through soft law and institution-lite fora. The chapter considers the evolution in place of soft law and institutions in transatlantic cooperation, the place of multilateralism and international law within this framing as executive to executive engagement, even in the new EU-US Trade and Technology Council (TTC) as a significant form of constitutionalisation of global challenges. It argues that a further deepening and widening of its democratic foundations beyond executive to executive engagement is needed for more successful cooperation in the 21st century.

At the Open European Dialogue's annual conference, 47 policymakers from 23 countries crafted a Code of Conduct to lead in polarised times: embrace conflict, respect rivals, focus on solutions & lead with purpose - these are just a few of the agreed principles which become ever more important for parliamentary discourse and the well functioning of European democracies. We are proud to partner with the Open European Dialogue in its mission to connect European politicians across parties and countries and promote innovative political conversations - alongside Robert Bosch Stiftung, König-Baudouin-Stiftung, IAI - Istituto Affari Internazionali, CIDOB (Barcelona Centre for International Affairs), ELIAMEP (Hellenic Foundation for European & Foreign Policy) and APROPOS - Advancing Process in Politics. Full story: https://lnkd.in/em6UtFEp

James Madison and Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper #20 criticizes the Articles of Confederation by examining the historical example of the United Netherlands. They highlight the weaknesses of the Dutch confederation, such as the lack of central authority, inefficiency, and vulnerability to foreign influence and internal conflict. Madison and Hamilton argue that these same issues plague the Articles of Confederation, rendering the U.S. government incapable of effective governance. They advocate for the ratification of the Constitution, which proposes a stronger federal structure to ensure national unity, enforce laws, and manage domestic and foreign affairs effectively. This paper underscores the necessity of a robust central government to preserve the Union and address national challenges. #federalist #federalistpapers #hamilton #madison #constitution #articlesofconfederation