The keynote address was delivered in the form of framing remarks by Dana Allin, editor of Survival, and senior fellow for transatlantic affairs at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The address set the tone for the following panels by placing in historical perspective current debates about European security. These framing remarks sought to define the moment we are in by focusing on the relationship between the EU and Russia before and after the Russian invasion of Ukraine; and the transatlantic relations before and after Trump. The keynote speech, as well as introduction by Giacomo Tagiuri, can be watched here.

Inseparable Futures: Ukrainian Security as European Security

The first panel explored a broad range of perspectives about the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. Almost three years into the war, there is growing acknowledgement of the entanglements of EU and Ukrainian security, and yet possibly insufficient understanding of how EU societies must change in the face of these entanglements. Kostiantyn Gorobets, a legal philosopher, questioned the utility of understanding the Russian invasion of Ukraine’s as a simple violation of international law – he emphasized the need to understand Russia’s articulation of international legalism as part of Russia’s imperial vision. Viktoriia Lapa, an international lawyer and activist, focused on what the EU must do to ensure a stable and just peace in Ukraine: as she proposes, this may require a whole-society approach to defense in the EU. Nicole Scicluna, an international relations scholar, emphasized the salience of EU enlargement to Ukraine and the gap between promise and reality in this field. Finally, Natasha Stamenkovikj, a human rights lawyer, argued that a transitional justice approach can be applied to the resolution of the war in Ukraine, and detailed efforts by the EU in this regard. 

EU Law in an Age of Global Rivalry 

The second panel moderated by Maria Weimer, zoomed into broader signs of transformation of EU law as it seeks to acquire harder global power. Federico Fabbrini, a EU and constitutional law scholar, sketched the type of constitutional reform that the EU may need to undertake to support broader defense efforts and sustain future enlargement. Joris Larik, an expert of EU foreign relations law, traced the emergence of a law of the geopolitical awakening – by identifying traces of it in various areas of EU law and policy – defense, but also trade, and foreign subsidies. Alessandro Petti, also an expert of EU foreign relations law, detailed how the Court of Justice of the EU builds notions of power and territory in the EU – through an emergent EU neighborhood law that expands the EU’s authority beyond its borders. Pola Cebulak, a EU legal scholar, also looked at the Court of Justice and explored how the Court navigates competing demands of EU and international law through a discussion of the Front Polisario judgment. Finally, Ties Dam, a political theorist explored narrative as a source of geopolitical power for the EU and an essential ingredient of its awakening – through a comparison with XI Jinping’s China, he explored what the EU needs to deploy the power of narrative.  

Economic Security: a New Paradigm for EU Economic Law and Regulation

The third panel moderated by Jan Broulik, asked to what extent economic security, as emerging among others in the Draghi report, transforms EU economic law and policy. Anna Marhold, an international trade lawyer, explored the future of the WTO and rule-based trade relations especially under a second Trump presidency, and what this means for Europe. Nathan Meershoek, an EU lawyer expert in public procurement, explored how EU law can support the build-up of its military industries. Max von Thun, director of the European chapter of the Open Markets Institute, an anti-monopoly think tank, navigated the complexities of EU commitments to increase its power while keeping markets open and competitive. 

EU Values to the Test of Security

The last panel moderated by Wiebe Hommes, featured a range of contributions exploring the relationship between rule of law, human rights, and security. Nicole Scicluna explored the stance of the EU vis a vis the international rule of law through a discussion of member states’ reaction to the Netanyahu’s arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court. As Scicluna argued, the EU’s support for international rule of law and EU security are mutually reinforcing – as the EU can only thrive in a global environment governed by the Rule of Law. The other speakers addressed the tension between security and values within the EU. Maciej Krogel, an EU legal scholar, explored how the CJEU constructs notions of the EU identity mainly through reference to values, and the role played by other EU goals mentioned in Art 3 TEU, namely peace, in the Court’s case law. Kati Cseres, an expert on EU competition law, addressed the interplay of security and Rule of law backsliding in Orban’s Hungary, with particular emphasis on the economics aspect thereof. Jakub Jaraczewski, research coordinator of Democracy Reporting International, described how Poland navigates the tension between security and values at a moment in which the Polish government tries to both restore rule of law and built up its military capacity.

The conference contributed to define the geopolitical moment the EU lives today: the security challenges that the EU faces and how the EU must change to face these challenges. Whether the EU needs an awakening or not, its law and policy have already changed significantly in a growing rivalrous geopolitical landscape - transformations that the conference has sought to document. In the spirit of ACELG, the conference was a moment of interdisciplinary reflection around the governance and legal processes of the EU addressing themes of societal relevance and urgency for both expert and non-expert audiences.