Slovenia: Learning in (Self-)Governance in the Conditions of Europeanisation
Slovenians believe that they mostly benefit in terms of mobility (no/less border controls), cheaper mobile calls and improved consumer rights. In opposition to these concrete EU-membership related benefits, however, the generally positive assessment of the EU dropped immensely following the European economic and financial crisis.
The Slovenian debate on the EU can broadly be summarised in two ways: the complementarity between deepening and widening the EU; and the need to strive for policies that serve the society (economic growth etc.) and citizens (for instance reinforce the EMU’s social dimension).
Slovenia supports the development of common EU curricula in primary school, but also for other education paths, such as lifelong learning. The country also supports high standards of food safety, an EU-wide universal access to public health, measures favourable to small and medium size enterprises, and the enlargement to the Western Balkans.
This publication is part of the "Building Bridges Paper Series". For more information about this project, click here.
Available in:
Regions and themes
Share
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
Slovenia: Learning in (Self-)Governance in the Conditions of Europeanisation
Center for Asian Studies
Asia is a nerve center for multiple global economic, political and security challenges. The Center for Asian Studies provides documented expertise and a platform for discussion on Asian issues to accompany decision makers and explain and contextualize developments in the region for the sake of a larger public dialogue.
The Center's research is organized along two major axes: relations between Asia's major powers and the rest of the world; and internal economic and social dynamics of Asian countries. The Center's research focuses primarily on China, Japan, India, Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific, but also covers Southeast Asia, the Korean peninsula and the Pacific Islands.
The Centre for Asian Studies maintains close institutional links with counterpart research institutes in Europe and Asia, and its researchers regularly carry out fieldwork in the region.
The Center organizes closed-door roundtables, expert-level seminars and a number of public events, including an Annual Conference, that welcome experts from Asia, Europe and the United States. The work of Center’s researchers, as well as that of their partners, is regularly published in the Center’s electronic journal Asie.Visions.
Pakistan and the Israel-Palestine Conflict: Transformation in Pakistan’s Approach After the War in Gaza
Pakistan has long combined vocal support for the Palestinian cause with covert engagement with Israel. Since the war in Gaza, this balance has become untenable: public opinion is united against Israel, joining Trump’s Board of Peace has drawn rare cross-party criticism, and new regional alignments put normalization out of reach.
The Oceania Factor in France’s Evolving Indo-Pacific Strategy
This paper examines the two-way relationship between France’s Indo-Pacific strategy and developments in Oceania. Oceania was not a priority in the initial years of France’s Indo-Pacific strategy, as the region was largely treated as secondary to major strategic hotspots and key partnerships, while overseas territories were primarily handled as domestic issues and recipients of a top-down strategy.
France’s View: From Diplomacy to Public-Private Action
France has emerged as the EU’s IMEC forerunner, combining port infrastructure, diplomatic alliances and public-private cooperation. With Marseille Fos at its core, the country brings a strategic hub for logistics, energy and digital connectivity to the corridor.
Trump II, the Crisis of the Rules-Based Order and Europe’s Indo-Pacific Strategy
This article examines the implications of Trump II for Europe’s engagement in the Indo-Pacific. The piece contends that Trump II is accelerating the erosion of the rules-based order and undermining the relevance of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) concept, while forcing Europe to refocus on its own continental security amid US retrenchment. Paradoxically, these very constraints create conditions for a more autonomous, pragmatic, and explicitly interest-driven European engagement in the Indo-Pacific, rather than outright withdrawal.