This paper provides a historical overview regarding the emergence, development and deepening of divergences between the European Union (EU) and the People's Republic of China (China) in reducing global aviation emissions. It focuses on their divergences on three specific issues, i.e. under which framework to tackle global aviation emissions, whether and how to reflect the Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) principle in the design and implementation of the global market-based measures (MBMs) for international aviation and which role the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) should play in offsetting these emissions. Besides, this paper explains the driving forces behind these divergences by examining both normative and economic-related factors, which have formed different stances of both sides. From a Chinese perspective, considerations about the issues of state sovereignty, fairness regarding burden sharing in tackling climate change, the development of China's aviation and aircraft manufacturing and its limited capability in promoting the large-scale SAF deployment help explain its hardline stance on reducing global aviation emissions. As for the EU, perceptions of its leading role in the global climate governance and the CBDR-RC principle, the targets of strengthening the EU ETS role in the global carbon market, and the competitiveness of the European airlines are underlying reasons behind its attempt to include the international aviation under its ETS. Moreover, the EU member states' support to the ICAO can be explained through the conformity between the emissions offsetting objectives under this organisation and the EU's current climate policies.

Duong Thi Thuy Mai

Bo Yan

Asia Europe Journal

Divergences between the European Union and China on reducing international aviation emissions

欧盟与中国在减少国际航空排放方面的分歧

The twenty-first century has brought in its wake a flurry of competing foreign investment players on the African investment sphere. This situation may be called the globalization of foreign investment (Bodomo 2017). Foreign investment features as a salient issue for intellectual discussions of topics such as agency, soft power, and symmetry. In this paper, we outline the important role that China and the European Union (EU), the biggest investment polities in Africa, have played in the globalization of investment in Africa and argue that China has, indeed, created a paradigm shift with respect to its investment engagement with the African continent. This paradigm shift may be calibrated in terms of the volume of engagement; in terms of the speed and efficiency with which investment projects are completed, and, in terms of the very discourse of trade and investment. The argument is advanced further by discussing some of the main features of Chinese investment that distinguish it from that of other global players on the African continent, such as Europe. We further extend arguments from our previous work (Bodomo 2017; Bodomo and Che 2020) to say that if Africa does not sharpen its agency, the end result may be that China and the EU may gain at the expense of Africa but that should Africa play a more proactive and controlling role such as enforcing its investment laws, the mid-twenty-first century may yet see a trilateral win-win-win outcome for Africa, China, and the EU.

Dewei Che

Adams Bodomo

China and the European Union in Africa: win–win-lose or win–win-win?

中国与欧盟在非洲：双赢-双输还是三赢？

Abstract Economic diplomacy receives growing interest in the field of international relations research ever since the end of the cold war. Despite the vast number of literature on economic diplomacy, there are not many studies measuring the effect of economic diplomacy quantitatively. The purpose of this paper is to propose a method to measure economic diplomacy using the event study method that observes the influence of specific events on stock prices. In this study, the summit talks between the EU and China are selected as specific events that are considered as a form of economic diplomacy, and Airbus stock price, the proxy of the reaction to the economic diplomacy, was observed to verify the influence of it. The study categorized the summit talks by the type of participants whether the top politicians were included or not. The result shows that, among all summit talks, the summit talks between top politicians between the EU and China influence the stock price of Airbus positively, and it is statistically significant.

Sunkung Choi

Measuring economic diplomacy using event study method: the case of EU-China summit talks and Airbus stock price changes

使用事件研究法衡量经济外交：以欧盟-中国峰会谈判和空客股价变动为例

Abstract This article analyses trade flows EU-ASEAN, focusing on export performance and technological intensity, covering the years 2004–2016. The aim of this paper is to analyse to what extent, a further trade integration between the EU and ASEAN, could generate business opportunities for countries in both trading blocs. This analysis could serve as a basis for designing and implementing effective policies and strategies by policymakers in the face of a deepening EU-ASEAN trade integration. Therefore, a detailed analysis of the degree of complementarity of trade patterns, the weight of intra-industry trade, and the revealed comparative advantages allows us to outline some of those challenges and opportunities. Results suggest that intra-industry trade is moderate, mainly focused on few manufactures, accounting for a low value of total trade flows between the two blocs, and concentrated in a few countries. The Lafay index analysis suggests that the EU and ASEAN are natural partners regarding the technological patterns of the revealed comparative advantages; therefore, a deepening in trade integration between this trading blocs could allow to exploit those comparative advantages.

Amadeo Navarro Zapata

María Arrazola

José de Hevia

Technological intensity in manufacturing trade between ASEAN and the EU: challenges and opportunities

东盟与欧盟制造业贸易中的技术强度：挑战与机遇

Suetyi LAI

Not seeing eye to eye: perception of the China-EU economic relationship

看法不一：中欧经济关系认知

After the introduction of the 16 + 1 cooperation platform in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in 2012, bilateral relations between China and Czechia warmed up in the period 2015–2017, most notably when they became strategic partners in 2016. However, relations declined thereafter due to factors such as China’s underwhelming investment programme, the Czech focus on security and human rights, and some Czech politicians’ engagement with Taiwan. This article analyses the shortcomings inherent in Chinese and Czech interpretations of their partner’s approaches to the relationship. The analysis demonstrates that several factors have undermined China’s efforts to build solid bilateral relations. Above all, China’s misunderstanding of the ways in which the Czech political system and culture influence the formulation of Czech policy towards China, combined with underwhelming economic results, have undermined China’s diplomatic efforts. At the same time, the fragmentation of Czech political power structures means that it is difficult for Czechia to form a stable consensus on China policy. In addition, lack of understanding of China’s history and the contemporary context of its foreign policy means that Czech views on China have become politicised and polarised. These problems have seriously affected the mutual trust and development of relations between the two countries, in the same way as they have impacted relations between China and other CEE countries, most notably Lithuania.

Fangxing Qin

Jeremy Garlick

Siyang Liu

A meteoric strategic partnership? The still long march of mutual understanding and trust between China and the Czech Republic

流星般的战略伙伴关系？中捷相互理解和信任的漫长征程仍在继续

To address environmental problems, efforts to green financial systems are proliferating across the globe. However, green finance policy approaches differ substantially and in ways left unexplained in current literature. Focusing on the EU and China as the most active and influential in green finance, the paper provides a comparative analysis and conceptualization of their approaches. The analysis is based on the dissection of policy documents, a review of stakeholder statements and articles, and insights from semi-structured interviews and participant observation. The paper finds that in terms of similar characteristics, both parties seek inclusive expertise input, establish thematic committees, and initiate green finance efforts through financial system-wide guidelines. In terms of different characteristics, the paper finds that through a consultation-based, transparent, and limited mandate approach, the EU is characterized by longer time horizons and organic growth. This can be contrasted with the Chinese technocratic, closed-door, and non-limited mandate approach, characterized by rapid rollout and command-and-control growth. These findings can be conceptualized as a bottom-up market-facilitating approach in the EU and a top-down market-steering approach in China. The different approaches help explain current difficulties in coordination between the EU and China and imply that cooperation is only possible through compatibility rather than harmonization. The findings show that different governance models can actively use the state to pursue sustainable development, and second that such an active state can function in very different ways towards the same goals.

Mathias Lund Larsen

Bottom-up market-facilitation and top-down market-steering: comparing and conceptualizing green finance approaches in the EU and China

自下而上的市场促进与自上而下的市场引导：比较和概念化欧盟与中国绿色金融方法

In the twenty-first century, changing global power equations are impacting the dynamics of foreign and security policy choices of small states, as they seek to develop alliances and partnerships to offset their geopolitical and geo-economic vulnerabilities. In this context, Armenia's security orientation is largely seen as consistently intertwined with Russia even after independence. Armenia has also attempted to develop a "normative alliance" with the European Union, relying mostly on its special relations with France. In recent years, various factors including domestic politics, deficit of security, and Russian dominance have led to a gradual re-orientation in the Armenian alliance trajectory towards more multilateral partnerships indicating a tendency towards "hedging" alliances. Conceptualizing from a theoretical foundation relating to small-state alliance options, this paper presents a case for Armenia-India strategic partnerships, given the historical and cultural ties between the two nations and the rapid growth of India as an emergent giant in the multipolar world. In this context of strategic analysis, the Georgia-Armenia-Iran corridor has a potential of vital geo-economic and geopolitical axis for India as well as for Russia, the EU, and China. The position of Armenia with its "both… and" integration approach, approximation with the EU, and strategic partnership with Russia has proved to be insufficient in security issues; however, the friendly disposition of a rising power, such as India, leaves Armenia with the capacity to diversify its security as a local civilizational and geo-economic connector.

Radhika Lakshminarayanan

Tigran Yepremyan

Armenia-India partnership: geopolitical and geo-economic implications in the Eurasian context

亚美尼亚-印度伙伴关系：欧亚背景下的地缘政治与地缘经济影响

Sirma Altun

Ceren Ergenc

The EU and China in the global climate regime: a dialectical collaboration-competition relationship

欧盟与中国在全球气候体制中的辩证合作-竞争关系

The Visegrad Group format — coordinated policy forum for Czechia, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary — has been dubbed as a significant policy tool that advocates the interests and builds synergies among the four partners. The "Visegrad Four + " format, which coordinates foreign relations of these four countries, has been narrated as the key foreign policy venue of the V4, and the V4 + Japan is often understood as the key partnership within this format. Due to the recently growing Chinese influence in Central and Eastern Europe, and the impacts of the war in Ukraine in 2022, many have come to expect the coordination to strengthen and ramify. This article argues, however, that the V4 + Japan platform represents only a marginal policy forum and is unlikely to gain any significant political momentum in the foreseeable future. Basing the analysis on a set of interviews with the V4 and Japanese policymakers, the paper posits three reasons that have prevented the deepening of the V4 + Japan coordination: (i) there are significant limits to socialization in the group, (ii) there are diverse threat perceptions among V4 members, and (iii) there is little interest in deepening economic coordination vis-a-vis third parties. These findings question the viability of foreign policy coordination among the Visegrad Group members, and highlight the impediments for the expansion of V4 + Japan cooperation.

Michal Kolmaš

Diverging perceptions of the “Visegrad Four + ” format and the limits of the V4 + Japan cooperation

“维谢格拉德四国+”格式的分歧认知与V4+日本合作的局限性

《亚欧期刊》是一份季刊，致力于就亚洲和欧洲面临的共同挑战发表高质量的学术论文和政策讨论，帮助塑造关于亚洲和欧洲共同未来（包括风险和机遇）的叙述。该杂志欢迎学术和学术上严谨的研究论文，以及关于双边利益问题的政策简报和思想文章，包括管理和政治经济、创新、安全研究、区域和全球治理，以及相关的社会文化发展和历史事件。官方引用为：ASIA EUR J

The Asia Europe Journal is a quarterly publication dedicated to publishing high-quality academic papers and policy discussions on the common challenges faced by Asia and Europe, aiming to shape the narrative about their shared future, including potential risks and opportunities. The journal welcomes rigorous academic research papers, as well as policy briefs and thought pieces on bilateral issues, covering management and political economy, innovation, security studies, regional and global governance, and related socio-cultural developments and historical events. The official citation is: ASIA EUR J.

《亚欧期刊》是一份季刊，专注于发表关于亚洲和欧洲共同面临的挑战的高质量学术论文和政策讨论，旨在帮助塑造关于这两个地区未来的叙述，包括潜在的风险和机遇。该期刊欢迎严谨的学术研究论文，以及针对双边利益问题的政策简报和思想文章，涵盖管理与政治经济、创新、安全研究、区域与全球治理，以及相关的社会文化发展和历史事件。官方引用格式为：ASIA EUR J

期刊	Asia Europe Journal
ISSN	1610-2932, 1612-1031
h-index	26
Journal Impact	1.64
国际分区	INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS(Q2)
国内分区	社会学(3区)社会学国际关系学(4区)