Covid-19 pandemic: Lessons learned, challenges and opportunities for health policy and regulatory changes in the European Union

On 30 January 2024, the European Studies Centre (ESC) discussed the lessons learned from the European Union’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The discussion focused on the challenges faced by the EU to coordinate policy, provide EU-wide tools to mitigate the pandemic impact, and establish robust processes to effectively address future challenges arising from pandemics. The main speaker for the seminar was Dr. Andrzej Rys, EU Visiting Fellow at St. Antony’s College. Professor Dipak Kalra, President of The European Institute for Innovation through Health Data, spoke as a discussant. The seminar was chaired by Dr. Eli Gateva, Departmental Lecturer at the Department of Politics and International Relations.

Rys had spent 18 years working in the EU Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE). The Commission’s response to the Covid-19 crisis was the most interesting development for him due to the collective commitment and cooperation to react to the crisis and establish rather quickly new policies in place. Rys outlined the Commission’s legal and operational approaches to respond to the crisis.

He noted that despite the tension between the Member States regarding EU’s role on health policy, it is becoming a policy area where the EU is having an increasingly greater role. The EU can adopt health legislation under Article 168 (protection of public health) and the Article 114 (single market) and Article 16 (social policy) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Similarly, Articles 16 (data protection) and 179 (strengthen scientific and technological bases) have been relevant. In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, Articles 122 and 222 (solidarity) and 196 (civil protection) have also been relevant because they allowed the Council to act.

Refugee protection in Europe: Some contemporary challenges

On 23 January 2024, the European Studies Centre (ESC) discussed the challenges of refugee protection in Europe and of the implementation of international conventions at sea. The two speakers for this seminar were Catherine Briddick, Andrew W Mellon Associate Professor of International Human Rights and Refugee Law and a fellow of St Antony's College, and Steven Haines, Professor of Public International Law in the University of Greenwich. Othon Anastasakis, ESC Director, chaired the seminar. While Briddick focused on the challenges of refugee protection in Europe, Haines discussed his efforts and those of his colleagues to draft the Geneva Declaration for Human Rights at Sea.

Briddick’s discussion was focused on the application of the EU’s common asylum system to women who have experienced, or who are at risk of, gender-based persecution. Relevant to EU law are a range of international legal instruments, including the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Istanbul Convention, and European Convention on Human Rights. Article 78 (1) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union further provides for the development of a common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection. According to Briddick, however, the EU Directive 2011/95/EU excludes EU citizens. The definition of a ‘particular social group’ is also textually narrowed, and grounds for exclusion are expanded.

What can opinion polls tell us about Europe in a changing world?

The European Studies Centre (ESC) discussed on 16 January 2024 the results of two opinion poll surveys conducted as part of the Dahrendorf Programme. One of the opinion polls was conducted by the European Council of Foreign Relations (ECFR) and measured public opinion of the United States (US), the European Union (EU), Russia, China, India, South Africa, South Korea, Brazil, Indonesia, and Türkyie on questions related to the role of the US, EU, Ukraine, and Russia. The other poll was conducted by the Eupinions programme at the Bertelsmann Stiftung and measured public opinion within EU states on the support for Ukraine. The results of the first poll were presented by Ivan Krastev, director of Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia and Permanent Fellow at the Institute of Human Sciences. The main results of the second poll were presented by Isabelle Hoffmann, founder of the Eupionions programme. The seminar was chaired by Timothy Garton Ash, Professor of European Studies, St. Antony’s College, Oxford.

Krastev underscored that the main purpose of the polling was to understand more the “mood” rather than the “opinion” of the public in the selected countries. Krastev further noted in India the vast majority of the citizens were more optimistic about their country’s future, while in Türkyie and the EU most of the citizens (58-59%) felt pessimistic. More generally, Asian countries – except for South Korea – were more optimistic than the US and EU. According to Krastev, this is a reflection of the general feeling of the collapse of the Western order.

On the question of the partnership with China vs the US, Krastev argued that there is only one area where China is perceived as competitive as the West: trade. On migration preferences and security cooperation, however, he argued that the US and Europe still hold their appeal in most of the polled countries. Nevertheless, countries do want to benefit from trade with China, and would not like to be forced to choose between China and the US.