Recent Publications

Rossella Marino
Ine Lietaert

Among the objectives composing the 2018 UN Global Compact for Migration, Objective 21 deals with the return of migrants to their countries of origin. This objective includes a reference to sustainable reintegration occurring when returnees have access to psycho-social assistance, justice and occupational prospects. The policy objective of sustainable reintegration apparently enjoys broad support in the face of some countries increasingly opposing the global governance of migration. Such support can be explained by making reference to sustainable reintegration’s potential to accommodate diverse interests and the limited monitoring of the programmes it underpins. 


Mihnea Tanasescu (Editor)
Claire Dupont (Editor)

The book “The Edges of Political Representation. Mapping, Critiquing and Pushing the Boundaries”, edited by VUB researcher Mihnea Tanasescu and former IES researcher Claire Dupont, provides a nuanced overview of what political representation means today and how it can be approached from an academic perspective. In line with one of the main scopes of the EDGE programme, namely building bridges between the Department of Political Science and the Institute for European Studies, this books collects a series of essays and reflections on political theory, political philosophy, party politics, electoral politics, feminism, European politics, minority politics and online governance.

Marie Lamesch

Digital Services Tax: A Critical Analysis And Comparison With The VAT System, European Taxation Volume 59, No 6.

Marie Lamensch

Trust: A sustainable option for future of the EU VAT system? (Column) International VAT Monitor, Vol. 29, Issue 2.

Werner Haslehner

Taxing Remote Digital Supplies, in Tax and the Digital Economy - Challenges and Proposals for Reform, Werner Haslehner, et al (eds.), Kluwer.

Marie Lamensch

Collecting Value-added tax in the platform economy: overview of the fundamental issues and recent EU 2018 developments, with Edoardo Traversa, in The Platform Economy, Bram Devolder (ed.), Intersentia.

Marie Lamensch

The role of platforms in B2C e-commerce, with Rebecca Millar, in CJEU – Recent Developments in Value Added Tax 2018, Lang et al (Eds), Linde verlag.

Silviu Piros
Joachim Koops

Piros S., Koops J. (2020) “Towards a Sustainable Approach to EU Education Diplomacy? The Case of Capacity-Building in the Eastern Neighbourhood”. In: Carta C., Higgott R. (eds) Cultural Diplomacy in Europe. The European Union in International Affairs. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham


Luis Simón
Alexander Lanoszka
Hugo Meijer


Scholars and pundits alike continue to portray the U.S.-led regional alliance systems in Europe and East Asia in stark, dichotomous terms. Whereas the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the standard model of multilateralism, the U.S.-led system of bilateral alliances in East Asia is the archetypal ‘hub-and-spokes’ structure in which different allies (the spokes) enjoy deep bilateral strategic ties with Washington (the hub) but not with each other. We argue that these common depictions of U.S.-led alliance systems are obsolete. Instead, we show that what we label ‘nodal defence’ – a hybrid category that combines overlapping bilateral, minilateral and multilateral initiatives – better captures how the U.S.-led alliance systems in Europe and East Asia operate today. Specifically, nodal defence is a hybrid alliance system in which allies are connected through variable geometries of defence cooperation that are organized around specific functional roles so as to tackle different threats. To show how nodal defence is an emerging central feature of the U.S.-led regional alliance systems, we conduct an original cross-regional comparison of how these alliance systems work, drawing on elite interviews, official documents, and secondary literature.

Read more >>>

Luis Simón, Alexander Lanoszka & Hugo Meijer (2019) Nodal defence: the changing structure of U.S. alliance systems in Europe and East Asia, Journal of Strategic Studies, DOI: 10.1080/01402390.2019.1636372

Christof Roos
Laura Westerveen


Freedom of movement (FOM) in the European Union (EU) has become a highly salient issue in political and public debates. Most of the literature on FOM is heavily focused on the judiciary interpretation of this EU right, or on conflicting attitudes towards FOM within the national arena. However, the EU and its institutions as political actors that define and shape the content and meaning of FOM are largely absent from this literature. If mentioned, EU actors are often depicted as ideological and orthodox defenders of FOM. We argue that this perspective is empirically inaccurate, which leads to skewed theoretical assumptions. It not only overlooks an EU-level discourse on FOM that has changed significantly in recent years but also fails to acknowledge that even fundamental rights and key pillars of EU integration can be subject to discursive change at the EU level. A frame analysis of documents from the European Commission, the European Council, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament from 2004 to 2016 forms the basis of our argument. During this period, restrictionist arguments have increasingly entered EU actors’ discourse on FOM. Viewed almost as an absolute right of EU citizens during the 2000s, FOM during the 2010s has been framed in terms of the conditions underlying the exercise of this right. We conclude that EU actors are engaged in a political debate over what FOM means and that their discourse has shifted to support an increased conditionality of FOM.

Read more >>>