SS2026-Lecture6

ECPS Academy Summer School 2026 – Dr. Giulio Pugliese: The EU’s Policy Towards Asia Amidst Changing US–China Security and Trade Dynamics

by Videos

As Europe deepens its engagement with the Indo-Pacific, the region has become far more than a distant theatre of economic opportunity—it has emerged as a central arena where geopolitical competition, technological innovation, supply-chain resilience, and strategic autonomy intersect. In this insightful lecture, Dr. Giulio Pugliese demonstrated how the Indo-Pacific evolved from a Japanese strategic narrative into a defining framework for understanding twenty-first-century international politics. Examining the growing rivalry between the United States and China, Taiwan’s geopolitical and technological significance, and the implications of Washington’s increasingly transactional alliance strategy, he argued that Europe must move beyond traditional regional perspectives and formulate a coherent Indo-Pacific policy rooted in its own interests. The lecture offered participants a nuanced understanding of how Europe’s future security and prosperity are becoming increasingly intertwined with developments across Asia.

Reported by ECPS Staff

The third day of the ECPS Academy Summer School 2026 continued its exploration of Europe’s changing geopolitical environment by shifting attention beyond the Atlantic theatre to the increasingly consequential dynamics unfolding across the Indo-Pacific. Held under the overarching theme, “Europe Between Oceans: The EU in the Age of Geoeconomics, Populism, and Strategic Competition,” the sessions examined how the European Union is recalibrating its external relations amid intensifying strategic competition between the United States and China. Following discussions on strategic autonomy, de-risking, and economic security, the sixth lecture broadened the analytical horizon by investigating Europe’s evolving engagement with Asia and the conceptual transformations that increasingly shape international politics. Against this backdrop, Dr. Giulio Pugliese, Director of the EU–Asia Project at the European University Institute and Associate Fellow at the Istituto Affari Internazionali and King’s College London, delivered a stimulating lecture entitled “The EU’s Policy Towards Asia Amidst Changing US–China Security and Trade Dynamics.” Combining insights from international relations, strategic studies, and Asian regional politics, the lecture challenged participants to rethink the Indo-Pacific not merely as a geographical designation but as a politically constructed strategic space whose emergence has profoundly influenced European foreign policy. <

The session was thoughtfully introduced by Anita Tusor, doctoral researcher at Charles University and Staff Officer at NATO’s Allied Command Transformation, who situated the discussion within one of the defining strategic dilemmas confronting contemporary Europe. She observed that the European Union increasingly finds itself navigating between its two most important economic partners—the United States and China—at a time when their rivalry is reshaping both global trade and international security. Rather than portraying the Indo-Pacific as a distant theatre of commercial interest, Tusor argued that recent geopolitical developments, particularly Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, have fundamentally altered European strategic thinking. The conflict has created direct linkages between the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific security theatres, compelling European policymakers to recognize that developments in East Asia now carry direct implications for Europe’s own security calculations. She further suggested that Europe’s growing interest in Japan’s experience of managing long-standing US–China tensions provides valuable opportunities for policy learning as Brussels seeks to navigate an increasingly polarized international environment. Her introduction effectively framed the lecture by emphasizing that Europe’s engagement with Asia is no longer peripheral but has become an integral component of its broader strategy for managing geopolitical competition. 

Reimagining the Indo-Pacific: Strategic Narratives and Europe’s Asian Turn

Connecting live from Taipei, Dr. Pugliese began by explaining that his primary objective was not simply to review recent European policy initiatives toward Asia but to unpack the intellectual foundations of one of the most widely used yet insufficiently examined concepts in contemporary international relations: the Indo-Pacific. While the term has rapidly entered the vocabulary of policymakers, diplomats, and scholars alike, he argued that it should not be understood as a politically neutral geographical label. Instead, it represents what strategic communication scholars describe as a strategic narrative—a carefully constructed story designed to simplify complex geopolitical realities, define particular challenges, identify preferred actors, and legitimize specific policy responses. Seen through this lens, the Indo-Pacific is not merely a map but a political project that reflects competing visions of regional order, international leadership, and global governance. Dr. Pugliese invited participants to appreciate that language itself constitutes an instrument of power, capable of shaping perceptions, legitimizing alliances, and influencing strategic behavior. 

At the heart of Dr. Pugliese’s analysis lay the argument that the Indo-Pacific concept originated not in Washington but in Tokyo. Drawing extensively upon his own research on Japanese foreign policy, he demonstrated that the contemporary understanding of the Indo-Pacific owes much to the strategic vision developed by the late Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and a relatively small circle of policymakers who sought to redefine Asia’s geopolitical architecture during the late 2000s and early 2010s. Their objective was to present an alternative regional order capable of responding to China’s expanding economic and strategic influence, particularly the growing prominence of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). By advancing the concept of a Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP), Japan deliberately expanded the geographical imagination of Asia beyond a China-centered perspective. Rather than viewing Asia exclusively through East Asia and the Western Pacific, the Indo-Pacific connected the Pacific and Indian Oceans into a single strategic theatre stretching from East Africa to the western shores of the Americas, encompassing India, Australia, Southeast Asia, and maritime democracies across the region. In doing so, the concept challenged what Pugliese described as the increasingly Sinocentric geographical narrative embedded within Beijing’s own regional initiatives.

Read the Full Report

SS2026-Lecture5

ECPS Academy Summer School 2026 – Assoc. Prof. Reuben Wong: Strategic Autonomy, De-risking, and EU Economic Security Tools

by MultimediaVideos

The European Union’s pursuit of strategic autonomy has emerged as one of the defining geopolitical debates of the twenty-first century, reflecting the growing convergence of security, economics, technology, and global power competition. In this intellectually stimulating lecture, Associate Professor Reuben Wong examined how Europe’s search for greater strategic independence has been reshaped by an increasingly volatile international environment marked by intensifying US–China rivalry, Russia’s revisionism, and rapid technological transformation. Challenging conventional assumptions about Europe’s transatlantic relationship and its approach toward China, he argued that strategic autonomy requires not only stronger defense and economic security instruments but also a fundamental reassessment of Europe’s place within an emerging multipolar order. The lecture offered participants a provocative and nuanced framework for understanding the future of European geopolitics.

Reported by ECPS Staff

The third day of the ECPS Academy Summer School 2026 marked a decisive transition from examining the political economy of international trade toward confronting the broader geopolitical forces reshaping Europe’s external relations. Convened under the overarching theme, “Europe Between Oceans: The EU in the Age of Geoeconomics, Populism, and Strategic Competition,” the programme explored how the European Union is increasingly compelled to navigate an international environment characterized not only by intensifying strategic rivalry between the United States and China but also by the erosion of long-standing assumptions about globalization, security, and the liberal international order. Against this backdrop, Associate Professor Reuben Wong of the National University of Singapore delivered a thought-provoking lecture entitled “Strategic Autonomy, De-risking, and EU Economic Security Tools,” inviting participants to reconsider Europe’s geopolitical position through an analytical lens that combined European integration studies with the strategic realities of contemporary international politics.

From the outset, Assoc. Prof. Wong made clear that his objective was not merely to catalogue the European Union’s emerging economic security instruments or explain the technical dimensions of de-risking. Rather, he sought to interrogate the underlying assumptions shaping European strategic thinking at a moment when the continent finds itself simultaneously confronting geopolitical uncertainty, technological transformation, and shifting distributions of global power. Drawing upon his long-standing scholarship on European foreign policy, as well as his experience observing both European and Asian strategic debates, Assoc. Prof. Wong encouraged participants to move beyond familiar policy slogans and instead examine the deeper questions surrounding Europe’s identity, capabilities, and long-term strategic interests.

One of the lecture’s distinguishing features was the perspective from which it was delivered. Speaking from Singapore—a country whose foreign policy has long depended upon balancing relations among competing major powers—Assoc. Prof. Wong approached debates over European strategic autonomy with a degree of analytical distance rarely encountered within discussions dominated by either Brussels or Washington. Rather than treating Europe’s geopolitical dilemmas as uniquely European, he situated them within a broader transformation of the international system, where established powers increasingly confront rising competitors, traditional alliances are being reassessed, and economic interdependence has itself become a source of strategic vulnerability. This external vantage point enriched the discussion by encouraging participants to question assumptions that often remain implicit within European policy circles.

Assoc. Prof. Wong also began by highlighting the conceptual ambiguity surrounding two of the most frequently invoked expressions in contemporary European policy discourse: strategic autonomy and de-risking. Although both terms have become central to debates on European foreign and economic policy, they often carry different meanings depending upon the context in which they are employed. Assoc. Prof. Wong observed that discussions of de-risking almost invariably evoke Europe’s increasingly complex relationship with China. The concept reflects growing concerns regarding excessive dependence on Chinese supply chains, critical raw materials, strategic technologies, intellectual property protection, and infrastructure deemed essential to European economic resilience. De-risking, therefore, does not necessarily imply economic decoupling from China but rather seeks to reduce strategic vulnerabilities while preserving mutually beneficial commercial relations.

By contrast, Assoc. Prof. Wong suggested that strategic autonomy has historically been associated less with China than with Europe’s relationship with the United States. At its core lies the question of whether the European Union possesses the political, military, and institutional capacity to pursue its own foreign policy independently of American strategic preferences. While the expression has acquired renewed prominence following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and amid renewed uncertainty surrounding American global leadership, Assoc. Prof. Wong reminded participants that the debate itself stretches back to the end of the Cold War. Since the early 1990s, European leaders have repeatedly grappled with the challenge of transforming the Union from an economic giant into a credible geopolitical actor capable of defending both its interests and its values.

 

Read the Full Report

SS2026-Lecture4

ECPS Academy Summer School 2026 – Prof. Alasdair Young: Populism Trumped Transatlantic Trade Cooperation

by MultimediaVideos

Can the transatlantic trading order survive the rise of populism? In his lecture at the ECPS Academy Summer School 2026, “Europe Between Oceans: The EU in the Age of Geoeconomics, Populism, and Strategic Competition,” Professor Alasdair Young argues that Donald Trump’s second presidency marks a fundamental break with more than seventy years of EU–US trade cooperation. Moderated by Dr. Jessica Lawrence, the session explores how populist narratives, protectionism, geopolitical rivalry, and legal innovation are transforming the politics of international trade. Combining historical perspective with international political economy and trade law, Professor Young demonstrates that the future of transatlantic relations will depend not only on commercial negotiations but also on reconciling economic openness with democratic legitimacy, strategic autonomy, and global stability.

Reported by ECPS Staff

The transformation of transatlantic trade relations has become one of the defining features of the contemporary international political economy. For more than seven decades, the economic partnership between the European Union and the United States served as one of the principal pillars of the liberal international order, underpinning global trade liberalization, multilateral governance, and unprecedented levels of economic integration. Although the relationship periodically experienced disputes over agricultural regulation, industrial subsidies, market access, and monetary policy, these conflicts were generally managed within a shared commitment to rules-based cooperation and institutional compromise. Today, however, intensifying geopolitical rivalry, the resurgence of economic nationalism, the growing politicization of trade, and the rise of populist politics have fundamentally altered the assumptions that long sustained transatlantic economic cooperation. Understanding this transformation therefore requires moving beyond conventional analyses of tariffs and trade balances to examine the deeper political, institutional, and ideological forces reshaping the global trading system.

These questions lay at the heart of the ECPS Academy Summer School 2026, held under the theme “Europe Between Oceans: The EU in the Age of Geoeconomics, Populism, and Strategic Competition.” Bringing together leading scholars and participants from around the world, the programme explored how geopolitical competition, strategic autonomy, democratic polarization, and technological rivalry are redefining Europe’s external relations and the future of global governance. Within this broader intellectual framework, Professor Alasdair Young, Neal Family Chair at the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs at the Georgia Institute of Technology, delivered a historically grounded and theoretically sophisticated lecture entitled “Populism Trumped Transatlantic Trade Cooperation.” Drawing upon decades of research on European Union trade policy and international political economy, Professor Young argued that the second Trump administration represents not simply another period of transatlantic commercial tension but a fundamental break with the cooperative logic that has characterized EU–US trade relations since the creation of the post-war trading order. By situating recent tariff disputes within the longer evolution of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the broader history of transatlantic economic integration, he demonstrated that contemporary protectionism reflects a deeper transformation in the politics of international trade itself.

The session was expertly moderated by Dr. Jessica Lawrence, Senior Lecturer at the University of Essex School of Law, whose scholarship on international economic law, World Trade Organization governance, European Union internal market regulation, and the intersection of trade with broader public policy objectives provided an ideal intellectual point of departure for the discussion. Her introductory remarks effectively framed the lecture by emphasizing that recent developments—from the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs and regulatory disputes to growing tensions over sustainability standards, digital governance, and industrial policy—should be understood not as isolated trade disagreements but as manifestations of broader geopolitical and institutional change. By encouraging participants to consider whether transatlantic trust has been fundamentally weakened, whether the WTO can continue to anchor the global trading system, and whether regional arrangements may increasingly displace multilateral governance, Dr. Lawrence situated Professor Young’s lecture squarely within the Summer School’s overarching exploration of geoeconomics, populism, and strategic competition.

Combining historical analysis, international political economy, trade law, and comparative politics, Professor Young challenged participants to rethink the relationship between populism and international commerce. He argued that Donald Trump’s protectionist agenda cannot be adequately explained through conventional accounts centered on sectoral interests or geopolitical competition alone. Instead, it reflects a distinctive populist conception of trade in which imports, trade deficits, and international economic interdependence are interpreted as evidence of exploitation by foreign actors enabled by domestic political elites. Equally significant was his analysis of the European Union’s response, which demonstrated that Europe’s acceptance of an asymmetrical trade agreement reflected not diplomatic weakness, but the complex strategic constraints imposed by wider security considerations, including NATO and the war in Ukraine. Offering a rich synthesis of historical perspective and contemporary policy analysis, the lecture provided participants with a compelling analytical framework for understanding how populism, protectionism, legal innovation, and geopolitical rivalry are collectively reshaping one of the world’s most consequential economic partnerships and, with it, the future of the liberal international economic order.

Read the Full Text

SS2026-Lecture3

ECPS Academy Summer School 2026 – Prof. Erik Jones: The Political Economy of EU–US Trade Relations

by Videos

What happens when the political foundations of the transatlantic partnership begin to erode? In his lecture at the ECPS Academy Summer School 2026, “Europe Between Oceans: The EU in the Age of Geoeconomics, Populism, and Strategic Competition,” Professor Erik Jones argues that Europe is entering a “post-Atlantic” era in which the assumptions that sustained EU–US cooperation since the Second World War are being fundamentally reconfigured. Moderated by Professor Elaine Fahey, the session examines how globalization, democratic polarization, populism, and geopolitical rivalry are reshaping transatlantic trade relations, European strategic autonomy, and the liberal international order. Combining historical perspective with political economy, the lecture offers a compelling framework for understanding Europe’s changing role in an increasingly fragmented world.

Reported by ECPS Staff

The rapid transformation of the transatlantic relationship has become one of the defining developments of the contemporary international political economy. For much of the post-war period, the partnership between Europe and the United States rested upon a remarkably durable combination of shared democratic values, expanding economic integration, multilateral cooperation, and common strategic interests. While periodic disagreements over security, trade, and foreign policy repeatedly tested the alliance, they rarely challenged its underlying political foundations. Today, however, intensifying geopolitical rivalry, democratic polarization, the uneven consequences of globalization, and the resurgence of populism have fundamentally altered the assumptions that long sustained the Atlantic order. As questions of economic security, industrial policy, strategic autonomy, and democratic resilience increasingly intersect, understanding the future of EU–US relations requires moving beyond traditional analyses of trade disputes or diplomatic disagreements to examine the deeper structural transformations reshaping both societies and the international system.

These questions stood at the center of the ECPS Academy Summer School 2026, held under the title “Europe Between Oceans: The EU in the Age of Geoeconomics, Populism, and Strategic Competition.” Bringing together leading scholars and participants from across the world, the programme explored how geopolitical competition, economic fragmentation, democratic backsliding, and the changing architecture of globalization are redefining Europe’s place in an increasingly contested international order. Within this broader intellectual framework, Professor Erik Jones delivered a thought-provoking lecture, “The Political Economy of EU–US Trade Relations,” in which he challenged conventional understandings of the contemporary transatlantic partnership. Rather than interpreting recent tensions as merely another cyclical crisis in EU–US relations, Professor Jones argued that Europe is entering what he described as a “post-Atlantic”era, in which many of the political, economic, and strategic assumptions underpinning the post-war transatlantic relationship are being fundamentally reconfigured. Combining historical analysis, international political economy, European integration studies, and comparative politics, he demonstrated that the current rupture extends far beyond disagreements over tariffs, NATO burden-sharing, or trade negotiations, reflecting instead a deeper erosion of domestic political solidarity, institutional trust, and the liberal consensus that historically sustained transatlantic cooperation.

The session was expertly moderated by Professor Elaine Fahey, Professor of EU Law at City Law School, City St George’s, University of London, whose distinguished scholarship on European Union external relations, international economic governance, cybersecurity, and transatlantic legal cooperation provided an ideal intellectual setting for the discussion. Her own research, situated at the intersection of European law and global governance, closely complements many of the themes explored throughout Professor Jones’s lecture, particularly the evolving legal and institutional architecture of EU–US relations. 

Opening the session, Professor Fahey warmly welcomed participants and underscored Professor Jones’s long-standing contributions to the study of European politics, international political economy, and transatlantic relations. She highlighted his extensive body of scholarship, noting that his work has profoundly shaped contemporary understanding of European integration, economic governance, and the changing dynamics of the Atlantic partnership. Describing his research portfolio as both extensive and intellectually influential, she emphasized that his lecture would offer participants a valuable opportunity to engage with one of the foremost scholars examining Europe’s evolving international position. Her moderation helped situate the discussion within the broader challenges confronting Europe as it navigates an era of geoeconomic rivalry, democratic uncertainty, and strategic realignment.

Drawing on decades of research into European integration, globalization, and international political economy, Professor Jones argued that the future of transatlantic relations will depend less on repairing individual policy disagreements than on rebuilding the domestic political foundations that have historically enabled international cooperation. His lecture offered participants not only a penetrating reinterpretation of EU–US trade relations but also a broader analytical framework for understanding how globalization, democracy, strategic autonomy, and geopolitical competition collectively reshaping Europe’s role in the twenty-first-century international order are.

Read the Full Report

SS2026-Lecture2

ECPS Academy Summer School 2026 – Prof. Kent Jones: Populism, Legitimacy, and the Politicization of Trade

by MultimediaVideos

As international trade becomes increasingly entangled with geopolitical rivalry, democratic legitimacy, and populist politics, understanding the future of the rules-based trading order has never been more urgent. In his lecture at the ECPS Academy Summer School 2026, “Europe Between Oceans: The EU in the Age of Geoeconomics, Populism, and Strategic Competition,” Professor Kent Jones examines how the resurgence of populism—particularly under Donald Trump’s second presidency—is reshaping the World Trade Organization (WTO) and challenging the legitimacy of multilateral trade governance. Moderated by Dr. Neo Sithole, the session combines international economics, institutional theory, and political economy to explore why the future of global trade depends not only on markets and tariffs but also on trust, shared norms, and the political foundations of international cooperation.

Reported by ECPS Staff

The accelerating politicization of international trade has emerged as one of the defining features of the contemporary global political economy. Once regarded primarily as a technocratic domain governed by multilateral rules, reciprocal market access, and the pursuit of economic efficiency, international trade has increasingly become an arena where questions of national sovereignty, democratic legitimacy, geopolitical rivalry, and populist mobilization converge. Rising protectionism, strategic competition among major powers, disruptions to global supply chains, and the growing tendency of governments to weaponize economic interdependence have fundamentally challenged the assumptions underpinning the post-war liberal trading order. Understanding contemporary trade politics therefore requires moving beyond conventional economic analysis to examine its broader political, institutional, and ideological foundations.

These themes were at the heart of the ECPS Academy Summer School 2026, held under the title “Europe Between Oceans: The EU in the Age of Geoeconomics, Populism, and Strategic Competition.” Bringing together leading scholars and participants from across the globe, the programme explored how geoeconomic rivalry, democratic backsliding, populism, and the erosion of the liberal international order are reshaping both European integration and global governance. Within this broader intellectual framework, Professor Kent Jones‘s lecture, “Populism, Legitimacy, and the Politicization of Trade,” offered a timely and theoretically rich examination of the profound political transformation currently affecting international trade governance. 

The session was thoughtfully moderated by Dr. Neo Sithole, Non-resident Research Fellow at the ECPS Foreign Policy Research Group, whose introduction effectively situated Professor Jones’s lecture within the broader objectives of the Summer School. By highlighting Professor Jones’s distinguished scholarship on international trade, globalization, and the political economy of multilateral institutions, Dr. Sithole prepared participants to engage with the lecture’s central themes while emphasizing the growing importance of examining trade through the interconnected lenses of populism, democratic legitimacy, and international governance. 

Drawing on international economics, political economy, institutional theory, and constructivism, Professor Jones argued that the contemporary crisis confronting the World Trade Organization (WTO) extends far beyond disputes over tariffs or market access. Instead, it reflects the gradual erosion of the shared political commitment that has historically sustained the rules-based trading system. By connecting the resurgence of populism to the weakening of institutional legitimacy and the fragmentation of multilateral cooperation, the lecture provided participants with a sophisticated analytical framework for understanding one of the most consequential transformations in the contemporary international political economy. 

Read the Full Report

SS2026-Lecture1

ECPS Academy Summer School 2026 – Prof. Arlo Poletti: The Evolution of EU Trade Policy and the Global Trade Order

by MultimediaVideos

How has the European Union’s trade policy evolved from championing liberal multilateralism to pursuing strategic autonomy in an era of geopolitical rivalry? In his opening lecture at the ECPS Academy Summer School 2026, “Europe Between Oceans: The EU in the Age of Geoeconomics, Populism, and Strategic Competition,” Professor Arlo Poletti examines the historical transformation of EU trade policy against the backdrop of globalization, China’s rise, populist contestation, and the growing weaponization of economic interdependence. Moderated by Dr. Sonali Chowdhry, the session demonstrates that contemporary trade policy can no longer be understood solely through the lens of market liberalization but must increasingly be viewed as an instrument of geopolitical strategy, economic resilience, industrial policy, and European strategic autonomy.

Reported by ECPS Staff

The accelerating transformation of the international political economy has fundamentally reshaped the role of trade in global affairs. Once understood primarily as a vehicle for market integration, economic efficiency, and multilateral cooperation, trade policy has increasingly become intertwined with geopolitical competition, technological rivalry, economic security, and democratic politics. The resurgence of great-power rivalry, the weaponization of economic interdependence, the fragmentation of global supply chains, and the rise of populist and nationalist movements have challenged many of the assumptions underpinning the post-war liberal trading order. As governments increasingly employ tariffs, industrial policy, sanctions, export controls, and investment screening as instruments of strategic statecraft, understanding contemporary trade policy requires a broader analytical perspective that integrates economics, international relations, and political science.

These developments provided the intellectual backdrop for the opening lecture of the ECPS Academy Summer School 2026, held under the theme “Europe Between Oceans: The EU in the Age of Geoeconomics, Populism, and Strategic Competition.” Bringing together leading scholars and participants from around the world, the programme explored how profound geopolitical, economic, and political transformations are reshaping Europe and the wider international order. Within this context, Professor Arlo Poletti delivered a wide-ranging lecture, “The Evolution of EU Trade Policy and the Global Trade Order,” examining how the European Union has evolved from one of the principal architects and defenders of the liberal multilateral trading system into an increasingly geoeconomic actor seeking to balance openness with resilience, strategic autonomy, and economic security. Combining insights from international political economy, European integration studies, and comparative political economy, Professor Poletti demonstrated that contemporary EU trade policy can no longer be understood solely through the lens of market liberalization but must increasingly be analyzed as an instrument of foreign policy, industrial strategy, and geopolitical influence. 

The session was thoughtfully moderated by by Dr. Sonali Chowdhry, Research Associate at DIW Berlin and Fellow at the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, whose own scholarship on global value chains, international trade, sanctions, and the distributional consequences of trade policy provided an ideal intellectual framework for the discussion. She observed that the rules-based multilateral trading order that had long provided the foundation for European prosperity could no longer be taken for granted. Rising geopolitical rivalry, intensifying technological competition with China, increasingly protectionist trade policies emanating from the United States, and the disruption of global energy markets following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have collectively transformed the strategic environment within which European trade policy operates. 

She further explained that understanding Europe’s response requires looking beyond individual trade agreements or tariff disputes. Instead, participants needed to appreciate the historical trajectory through which European trade policy evolved—from an instrument primarily concerned with market liberalization into one increasingly intertwined with questions of industrial policy, technological competitiveness, economic resilience, and national security. This broader perspective, she argued, would enable participants to understand not only contemporary EU trade policy but also the wider transformations affecting the international economic order itself. 

By situating Professor Poletti’s presentation within the broader transformations affecting the global political economy, Dr. Chowdhry emphasized why the evolution of European trade policy has become central to understanding Europe’s strategic position in an era marked by intensifying geopolitical competition and growing uncertainty. Her moderation effectively established the conceptual foundations for a lecture that encouraged participants to rethink trade not merely as an economic policy domain, but as one of the principal arenas through which power, security, and international order are increasingly contested.

Read the Full Report. 

Michael Shifter

Prof. Shifter: Anti-Establishment Politics, Not Ideology, Drove Colombia’s Election

by MultimediaVideos

Colombia’s 2026 presidential election has reignited fundamental debates about populism, democratic resilience, institutional legitimacy, and the future of representative democracy in Latin America. Is the country experiencing a conventional ideological shift, or does the election reveal a deeper transformation in democratic politics? In this ECPS interview, Professor Michael Shifter argues that Colombia’s election was driven less by ideology than by widespread anti-establishment sentiment rooted in persistent insecurity, weak state capacity, and public frustration with successive governments’ failure to deliver results. Examining the rise of security populism, the erosion of political moderation, the resilience of Colombian democratic institutions, and the evolving relationship with the United States, Professor Shifter offers a nuanced assessment of Colombia’s political trajectory and its broader implications for comparative studies of populism and democratic governance.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

Colombia’s 2026 presidential election marks one of the most consequential political turning points in contemporary Latin America, raising fundamental questions about populism, democratic resilience, institutional legitimacy, and the future of representative government. The election of Abelardo de la Espriella, following the historic presidency of Gustavo Petro, has frequently been interpreted as evidence of a regional shift from the left toward the populist radical right. Yet such an interpretation, while politically intuitive, risks overlooking the deeper structural forces reshaping democratic politics across the hemisphere. Is Colombia witnessing an ideological realignment, or does the election reveal something more profound about the changing nature of democratic representation itself? As insecurity, organized crime, institutional distrust, and dissatisfaction with political elites intensify across Latin America, electoral competition increasingly appears to revolve less around competing ideological projects than around public demands for effective governance, security, and political renewal.

Few scholars are better positioned to interpret these developments than Professor Michael Shifter, Adjunct Professor at the Center for Latin American Studies (CLAS) at Georgetown University and Senior Fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue. For decades, his scholarship has examined the intersections of democratic governance, state-building, political violence, US–Latin American relations, and institutional development. In this wide-ranging interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Shifter offers a nuanced interpretation of Colombia’s election that challenges conventional narratives about ideological polarization and instead places anti-establishment politics at the center of democratic change.

Professor Shifter argues that the conventional interpretation of Colombia’s 2026 election as simply a shift from left to right overlooks a deeper transformation taking place in the country’s democratic politics. “The conventional narrative… is that we’re seeing a turn to the right… I think that’s only part of the story,” he explains. “If we focus only on that, we’re missing something more profound and more fundamental,” namely “profound discontent, widespread anger, and a strong anti-establishment sentiment.” In his view, Abelardo de la Espriella’s victory represents not merely a rejection of Gustavo Petro’s left-wing government but the continuation of the same anti-establishment dynamic that first brought Petro himself to power in 2022. “It is not simply a shift from the left to the right,” he observes, “but a continuation of anti-establishment politics.”

Throughout the interview, Professor Shifter explores how declining confidence in traditional political parties, the rise of social media-driven campaigning, persistent insecurity, and frustration over governments’ inability to deliver tangible results are transforming democratic competition throughout Latin America. He explains why contemporary electoral behavior is increasingly shaped by emotional appeals rather than coherent political programs; why “security populism“has become an increasingly powerful electoral force; why the apparent rise of a unified global populist right often conceals significant ideological differences among its leaders; and why Colombia’s political center continues to erode under the combined pressures of institutional failure and rejectionist voting. At the same time, he cautions against reducing contemporary Latin American politics to simplistic ideological categories, emphasizing instead the diversity of populist experiences across the region.

Despite his concern about growing populist pressures, Professor Shifter ultimately offers a measured assessment of Colombia’s democratic future. One of the most important—and, in his view, most overlooked—developments of the Petro years was “the resilience of Colombian institutions: Congress, the courts, civil society, and the press.” While acknowledging the serious challenges posed by insecurity, polarization, and anti-establishment politics, he concludes on a cautiously optimistic note, expressing confidence that Colombia’s democratic institutions remain capable of preserving constitutional order and maintaining effective checks and balances in the years ahead.

Here is the revised version of our interview with Professor Michael Shifter, edited lightly to enhance clarity, readability, and overall flow for publication.

AzizHuq

Prof. Huq: The US Supreme Court Has Created the Conditions for Democratic Backsliding

by MultimediaVideos

As democratic backsliding increasingly unfolds through legal institutions rather than overt constitutional rupture, what distinguishes constitutional resilience from constitutional decline? In this wide-ranging interview with the ECPS, Professor Aziz Huq of the University of Chicago examines how populism, executive power, judicial doctrine, digital platforms, and artificial intelligence are transforming liberal constitutionalism in the United States and beyond. Drawing on comparative constitutional law, he argues that contemporary democratic erosion often proceeds “under the cover of law,” while warning that populists are developing their own constitutional vision. From presidential immunity and democratic backsliding to algorithmic governance and AI-driven power concentration, Professor Huq offers a timely and sophisticated analysis of democracy’s evolving constitutional challenges in the twenty-first century.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

Across much of the democratic world, constitutional democracy is undergoing a profound transformation. Contemporary democratic erosion rarely arrives through military coups or overt constitutional rupture. Instead, it increasingly unfolds through courts, legislatures, executive decrees, and formally legal mechanisms that gradually weaken institutional constraints while preserving the appearance of constitutional continuity. At the same time, digital platforms and artificial intelligence are reshaping the public sphere, altering the production and circulation of political information, and redistributing power between states, private technology companies, and citizens. Together, these developments raise fundamental questions about the future of liberal constitutionalism, democratic resilience, and the capacity of democratic institutions to withstand both populist governance and technological disruption.

Few scholars have done more to illuminate these intersecting challenges than Professor Aziz Huq, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. One of the world’s leading authorities on constitutional law, democratic backsliding, judicial independence, executive power, and the constitutional implications of artificial intelligence, Professor Huq has produced influential scholarship that bridges American constitutional law with comparative democratic politics. His work has fundamentally reshaped scholarly debates on constitutional resilience, the institutional foundations of liberal democracy, and the legal mechanisms through which elected governments may gradually undermine democratic competition without abandoning constitutional forms.

In this wide-ranging conversation with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Huq argues that understanding contemporary democratic backsliding requires moving beyond conventional labels such as populism or authoritarianism toward a more institutional analysis of incentives, constitutional design, and political time horizons. Drawing on Mancur Olson’s theory of the “stationary bandit,” he suggests that “the crucial question” is not simply whether a leader is populist, but “what the time horizon of a populist leader is.” In his view, democratic stability depends heavily on whether political leaders remain constrained by long-term institutional incentives or instead pursue short-term extraction of political and economic rents.

Turning to the United States, Professor Huq contends that “American democratic erosion is proceeding under the cover of law.” Rather than dramatic constitutional breakdown, he identifies legal innovations—including aggressive partisan gerrymandering, expansive presidential authority, and recent Supreme Court jurisprudence—as mechanisms through which democratic competition is being incrementally weakened. Most strikingly, he argues that “the Supreme Court has been responsible for creating the conditions for democratic backsliding,” particularly through its broad conception of presidential immunity and its endorsement of constitutional doctrines that facilitate the concentration of executive power.

Yet Professor Huq’s analysis extends well beyond the American case. He argues that “populists have developed their own version of constitutionalism,” challenging the assumption that constitutionalism necessarily remains synonymous with liberal democracy. Rather than witnessing the disappearance of constitutional government, he suggests, democracies may instead be entering an era in which competing constitutional visions coexist and contest one another. Simultaneously, the digital transformation of politics introduces an additional layer of constitutional complexity. While acknowledging that empirical evidence remains incomplete, Professor Huq warns that contemporary information ecosystems reward emotional engagement over deliberation, observing that “the shift from reasoning to emotion favors populist politics.” He also cautions that, despite its transformative potential, artificial intelligence is currently reinforcing rather than reducing inequalities, concluding that “AI is concentrating power rather than leveling the playing field.”

Ultimately, Professor Huq offers neither fatalism nor easy optimism. Instead, he presents a sober institutional diagnosis of democracy’s contemporary challenges while emphasizing that democratic renewal will require rebuilding effective constitutional constraints, representative institutions, and political organizations capable of responding both to populist pressures and to the unprecedented constitutional questions raised by the digital age.

Here is the revised version of our interview with Professor Aziz Huq, edited lightly to enhance clarity, readability, and overall flow for publication.

MEP Juan Fernando López Aguilar

MEP López Aguilar: The Return Regulation Is a Violation of EU Fundamental Values

by MultimediaVideos

As the European Union implements its new Migration and Asylum Pact amid growing populist pressures, fundamental questions are emerging about the future of European constitutionalism. In this exclusive interview with the ECPS, MEP Juan Fernando López Aguilar argues that the Return Regulation represents “a violation of EU fundamental values” and warns that migration governance is increasingly being reshaped by radical-right narratives. Reflecting on the erosion of the cordon sanitaire, the “Melonization” of European migration policy, and the normalization of exclusionary rhetoric, MEP López Aguilar contends that “migration is a fact, not a crisis,” while insisting that “asylum is a right” that must remain protected. The interview offers a timely reflection on populism, democratic backsliding, human rights, and the future of European integration.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

At a moment when migration has become one of the most polarizing issues in European politics, the European Union finds itself confronting a profound constitutional dilemma. The implementation of the Migration and Asylum Pact, together with the Return Regulation, has reignited fundamental debates about sovereignty, solidarity, fundamental rights, and the future of European integration. Once conceived as a legal and political project founded upon supranational cooperation, shared responsibility, and the protection of human dignity, the European Union is increasingly facing accusations that it is redefining migration governance under the growing influence of populist radical-right politics. Against a backdrop of geopolitical instability, demographic change, electoral realignments, and increasingly contested debates over migration, the central question is no longer simply how Europe manages migration, but whether it can continue to do so without compromising the constitutional and humanitarian values upon which the Union itself was built.

Few policymakers are better positioned to reflect on these developments than Juan Fernando López Aguilar. A Member of the European Parliament (MEP) representing Spain’s Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) since 2009, López Aguilar previously served as Spain’s Minister of Justice and chaired the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) between 2019 and 2024. Trained as a constitutional lawyer and widely recognized as one of Europe’s foremost authorities on constitutionalism, the rule of law, migration governance, and fundamental rights, he has played a central role in shaping EU migration and asylum legislation over the past decade. His long engagement with the negotiations surrounding the Migration and Asylum Pact places him at the heart of one of the Union’s most consequential constitutional debates.

In this wide-ranging conversation with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), MEP López Aguilar argues that the Return Regulation represents far more than a technical adjustment to migration management. Rather, he contends that it constitutes “a violation of EU fundamental values” and departs from the legal architecture painstakingly constructed through the Migration and Asylum Pact. Rejecting the growing trend toward externalizing asylum responsibilities, he warns that “migration management cannot come at the expense of the rule of law,” insisting that migration must be addressed through a genuinely European response grounded in “shared responsibility and binding solidarity” rather than bilateral arrangements with third countries.

Throughout the interview, MEP López Aguilar situates the transformation of European migration policy within broader processes of democratic and political change. He argues that the European People’s Party’s (EPP) increasing cooperation with radical-right parties has effectively dismantled the traditional Brandmauer or cordon sanitaire, allowing what he calls the “Melonization” of European migration policy to become mainstream. In his assessment, attempts to externalize migration control, normalize return hubs, and securitize asylum are inseparable from the wider normalization of populist narratives within European politics. At the same time, he cautions that Europe risks undermining its own credibility as a global defender of human rights through increasingly visible double standards in both migration and foreign policy.

Perhaps most strikingly, MEP López Aguilar rejects the assumption that migration itself constitutes Europe’s principal challenge. “Migration is a fact, not a crisis,” he argues, insisting that “reducing migration to zero is not only impossible—it is stupid.” Likewise, he defends asylum as a non-negotiable legal obligation, declaring that “asylum is a right. It must be respected, no matter the cost.” For MEP López Aguilar, the real danger lies not in migration itself but in the gradual erosion of Europe’s constitutional identity through the normalization of policies and rhetoric that once belonged exclusively to the political fringes. The interview therefore offers not merely a critique of current migration policy, but a broader reflection on populism, democratic backsliding, constitutionalism, and the future of the European project itself.

Here is the revised version of our interview with MEP Juan Fernando López Aguilar, edited lightly to enhance clarity, readability, and overall flow for publication.

Professor Gino Pauselli.

Asst. Prof. Pauselli: LGBTQ+ Rights Have Become a Symbolic Boundary in Global Politics

by MultimediaVideos

Authoritarian governments, populist movements, and rising powers are increasingly challenging the liberal international order not only by contesting specific human rights norms but also by questioning the institutions that create and enforce them. In this interview with the ECPS, Assistant Professor Gino Pauselli of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign examines how international norms are negotiated, resisted, and reshaped in an era of geopolitical rivalry and democratic uncertainty. Drawing on research spanning LGBTQ+ rights, migration, border securitization, China’s influence in global governance, international organizations, and civil society, he argues that contemporary struggles over human rights are fundamentally contests over political authority, sovereignty, and the power to define international law itself.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

Throughout the post-Cold War era, the international human rights regime has often been understood as one of the defining pillars of the liberal international order. Built upon the principles of universality, multilateral cooperation, and the progressive expansion of international legal protections, this order has contributed to significant advances in the promotion of civil liberties, minority rights, and transnational accountability. Yet, in recent years, these foundations have come under mounting pressure. Across both established and emerging democracies, populist leaders, authoritarian governments, and rising powers have increasingly challenged not only specific human rights norms but also the institutions and legal processes through which those norms are produced, interpreted, and enforced. Far from being confined to domestic politics, contemporary conflicts over sovereignty, migration, borders, LGBTQ+ rights, and civil society have become central battlegrounds in a broader contest over the future of global governance and the legitimacy of liberal universalism.

It is precisely these transformations that lie at the heart of the scholarship of Dr. Gino Pauselli, Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Combining insights from international relations, comparative politics, and human rights scholarship, Dr. Pauselli examines how international norms emerge, diffuse, and are contested through interactions among states, international organizations, NGOs, and transnational advocacy networks. His research offers an original perspective on the contemporary struggle between liberal and illiberal visions of international order, moving beyond simplistic accounts of democratic decline to reveal the complex political processes through which global norms are negotiated, resisted, and reshaped.

In this wide-ranging interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Dr. Pauselli argues that contemporary disputes over LGBTQ+ rights are ultimately less about sexuality than about political authority itself. As he puts it, “the ostensible subject is LGBT rights, but the deeper objection concerns who gets to make international law and how.” In his view, sexual orientation and gender identity have become powerful symbolic markers through which states signal their position in an increasingly polarized international order. Consequently, “LGBT rights have become the issue through which states perform that boundary—a way of signaling which side of a supposed civilizational divide a state stands on.”

Dr. Pauselli also offers important insights into the changing dynamics of authoritarian and populist politics. While acknowledging that anti-LGBT rhetoric often serves to divert attention from policy failures, he argues that it represents something more ambitious: “an active project to reshape society or build society around a notion of a heteronormative state.” Similarly, his research on border securitization demonstrates that restrictive migration policies can generate unintended human rights consequences. Rather than rhetoric alone, he finds that visible state projects such as border walls communicate heightened threat perceptions to border officials, thereby increasing the likelihood of abuse.

The interview further explores China’s growing influence within international institutions, the contestation surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity resolutions at the UN Human Rights Council, the emergence of illiberal NGO networks, and the evolving relationship between populism and international human rights governance. Throughout the conversation, Dr. Pauselli challenges conventional assumptions that rising powers necessarily reject global governance altogether. Instead, he argues that they increasingly seek to reshape existing institutions from within, because they “do value order and global governance,” while contesting the liberal content of the norms that sustain them.

Despite documenting an increasingly coordinated transnational backlash against liberal human rights norms, Dr. Pauselli remains cautiously optimistic about the future of the human rights project. Resistance to human rights, he observes, is hardly new; what is new is “the transnational coordination of this opposition at both the state and non-state levels.” Yet he also insists that attacks on the postwar human rights regime cannot ultimately succeed without offering a compelling alternative. The greatest challenge for liberal actors, he concludes, is not simply defending abstract legal principles but demonstrating, through people’s lived experiences, how universal human rights meaningfully improve everyday life. In an era increasingly shaped by populism, geopolitical rivalry, and normative contestation, this interview offers a timely and sophisticated examination of the future of democracy, international law, and the global human rights order.

Here is the revised version of our interview with Assistant Professor Gino Pauselli, edited lightly to enhance clarity, readability, and overall flow for publication.