Conference Agenda

FIFA and UEFA hold the monopoly in organizing professional football competitions in Europe. On the other hand, the European Super League Company was established on the initiative of a group of professional football clubs, with the intention to create a new international professional football competition project known as the “Super League”, outside of the framework of FIFA and UEFA. The response on behalf of the FIFA and UEFA and the threating for sanctions to clubs and players that will participate in the Super League, led to judicial remedies. In that respect, in the decision C-333/21, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had the opportunity to review FIFA’s and UEFA’s regulations as to their compliance with EU competition law. The aim of this presentation is to highlight the main parts of the Court’s decision and highlight its importance for the future of football in Europe.

This paper explores EU–Türkiye relations through the lens of emotions, unearthing how affective discourse shapes perceptions of cooperation, competition, and identity construction. While previous constructivist accounts have emphasized power asymmetries and the EU’s othering of Türkiye, this study draws upon the emotional turn in International Relations theory to investigate how emotions function as instruments of political positioning for Türkiye and its counter-hegemonic discourse towards the EU. Focusing on the aftermath of the 2016 EU–Türkiye Statement, the analysis focuses on emotion-laden language in political speeches to understand how Türkiye’s stance towards the EU has been informed by emotional tropes such as ressentiment and overconfidence, making possible a reversal in the EU’s normative stance. In this way, by linking emotion discourse to normative boundary drawing, the paper contributes to the literature on EU-Türkiye relations and the field of emotions in international politics more broadly, proposing a framework that incorporates emotions into the analysis of international interactions. Ultimately, it demonstrates that emotions are central to understanding Türkiye’s evolving strategic posture and the broader dynamics of EU–Türkiye relations.

While industrial policy has formally remained a Member State competence, several EU competencies limit its exercise by imposing positive or negative rules. State aid rules are considered the most stringent straitjacket on Member State’s autonomy to support undertakings. EU industrial policy is mainly based on recognizing free market forces, where intervention should be limited to correct market failures. State aid rules and the European Commission, exercising its exclusive competence to decide on the compatibility of draft aid, are viewed as limiting the discretion of Member State’s on how and when to intervene in the economy. For a long time, the EU industrial policy has struggled to add value to Member State’s industrial policies, but since the mid-2010s, the EU industrial policy has become more pronounced. The COVID-19 crisis and, later, the energy crisis called for a more interventionist approach and enhancing the EU’s strategic autonomy.

After warning that the European economy is at a remarkable cross-roads, the European Commission highlighted the need for economic recovery from a deep crisis, the green and digital transitions, its future competitiveness, and open strategic autonomy globally in key strategic areas such as batteries, semiconductors, cloud and edge computing, scaling up financing large-scale research and infrastructure projects, where there is a need to combine public and private efforts.

Against this background, this desk research investigates the effect of the EU State Aid rule on national economic policy and how national policymakers can adjust their projects to fit into the EU State Aid law and policy framework to remain compliant.

This research examines the process through which the European Commission facilitated the integration of aviation emissions into the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) while aligning with the global Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). Using the aviation sector as a central case study, the research highlights the political and institutional complexities of implementing climate policy in a multi-level governance context, where regional regulatory initiatives intersect with global frameworks. Employing Two-Level Game Theory and Constructivist Role Theory, the study explores the dual leadership role of the European Commission—particularly DG CLIMA—in navigating internal EU dynamics and external negotiations with international actors.

Internally, the European Commission had to manage divergent Member State interests, with some nations prioritizing the competitiveness of their aviation industries, while others, including climate-progressive states, advocated for more stringent regional measures. Externally, the Commission faced the challenge of reconciling EU-level ambition with international aviation agreements under the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The resulting policy outcomes sought to balance regional leadership through an enhanced EU ETS with the global alignment required under CORSIA, addressing tensions between regulatory sovereignty and international cooperation.

The research utilizes a qualitative approach, drawing on interviews with EU officials, policy documents, and process tracing of key decision-making milestones to analyze the interactions between the European Commission, Member States, the European Parliament, and international stakeholders. The analysis focuses on how the Commission navigated internal institutional tensions, coordinated diverse Member State positions, and engaged in global aviation governance to advance its dual objectives of climate ambition and international alignment.

This study contributes to the understanding of the European Commission’s leadership in integrating sectoral emissions into climate governance frameworks. It highlights how the Commission leveraged its position to bridge regional and global initiatives, demonstrating its capacity to adapt governance mechanisms to align diverse interests under complex multi-level constraints. The findings offer valuable insights into how supranational actors can mediate between competing policy demands, fostering innovation in global climate governance through sectoral leadership.