As part of their third-year requirements, PhD candidates of the 38th cycle will present and discuss a chapter of their dissertation. Each presentation will be followed by comments from a fellow PhD student (junior discussant) and a faculty member. The initiative promotes peer review and supports candidates in the lead-up to their final defence.

PROGRAMME

14:00–14:30

Presenter: Lorenzo Lombardi

PhD Discussant: Bob Kasper J. Mertens

Faculty Discussant: Louisa Parks

Title: Ride The Wave Until It Lasts? European Party Groups And The Politicisation Of The European Green Deal

Abstract: This paper investigates how European Parliament’s Party Groups (EPGs) modulated their discursive positionality across divisive policies of the European Green Deal (EGD) which best exemplify the trade-off between environmental protection and economic costs. Over the course of the 9 th legislature (2019-2024), political support for the EGD evolved significantly: the initial enthusiasm for ambitious climate policies (2019–2021) gave way to growing resistance (2022–2024) as right-wing EPGs capitalised on the increasing sectoral resentment as a way to reframe the policy direction of the EGD strategically. The research endorses a Strategic-Relational Approach (SRA) that highlights the recursive relationship between structure and political agency; in short, existing structures privilege certain political strategies, while those strategies are themselves calculated to either reproduce or reshape the structural context. Against this theoretical backdrop, the research assesses the discursive evolution in response to three exogenous shocks that occurred during the legislature: namely, the COVID-19 crisis, the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, and the launch of the Inflation Reduction Act. EPGs are selected across the economic and transnational cleavages to provide insights into different political agencies and strategic rationales. Empirically, the study focuses on two case studies that illustrate the economic-environmental trade-off, namely biodiversity conservation policy and sustainable investment. The selection of agencies and case studies is reinforced by a preliminary analysis of EPGs’ manifestos (2019-2024) to detect the ideological fault lines of EPGs and potential shifts in the positional/rhetorical framing of programmatic ideas; next, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is applied to plenary debates, drawing on a corpus of speeches delivered across the selected timeframe and based on voting behavior. 

14:30-15:00

Presenter: Marco Nicolò

PhD Discussant: Chiara Serioli

Faculty Discussant: Emanuele Massetti

Title: The EU's Understanding of Just Transition

Abstract: Just Transition emerged from the North-American workers movement to provide a social safety net against job losses derived from adopting environmental regulations. The concept was then interpreted by some groups to address larger socio-economic vulnerabilities and call for a system change to tackle environmental and climate problems. The European Union (EU) adopted Just Transition as a guiding principle for the European Green Deal (EGD) to ensure that no one is left behind as the EU proceeds to decarbonise its economy. However, the concept of Just Transition was not introduced by the EGD but actually has been circling within EU institutions since the early decade of the 2000s. Nevertheless, scholars have focused prominently only on how the EU developed Just Transition since the adoption of the EGD. This narrow approach does not fully help to grasp the evolution of Just Transition with the EU. For this reason, this chapter seeks to answer the question of “What is the EU’s understanding of Just Transition?”. This question is answered by analysing several documents from various EU institution from 2010 to 2024. To answer this question the chapter will be divided into two parts. The first part will answer the question by identifying an EU’s Just Transition acquis, that is a collection of key documents and principles that formed the EU’s understanding of Just Transition.

15:00-15:30

Presenter: Elena Miolo

PhD Discussant: Giovanni T. Roberto 

Faculty Discussant: Paolo Turrini

Title: Economic wars through trade measures: EU and US legal instruments

Abstract: This chapter explores the instruments employed by the EU and the US to control trade within the context of economic wars. It begins by analysing the concept of “economic war”, the text examines whether this notion might be classified as a legal concept. States increasingly rely on economic tools – and more specifically to this thesis, to trade measures – to exert pressure, deter behaviours, respond to violations, compete, or pursue foreign policy objectives. These instruments are commonly distinguished as either ‘sanctions’ or trade policy measures, according to their original design and historical intent. In turn, the EU and US legal systems are analysed following this scholarly distinction. With regard to the EU, both restrictive measures (proper to the CFSP) and trade measures (proper to the CCP) are analysed, with a specific focus on the recent Anti-Coercion Instrument which arguably stands between the two policies. The US framework analysis concentrates on the broad sanctioning powers of the President – both general and within ad-hoc statutes – and on two of the most frequently used trade instruments employed in coordination with sanctioning measures. This chapter aims to study the EU’s and US’s approaches to economic wars, by comparing the legal structures and strategic uses of their respective instruments. Furthermore, on the one hand, it demonstrates the distinct legal frameworks that separate “sanctioning” measures from trade-restricting measures proper to commercial policies, within both EU and US jurisdictions. On the other hand, it reveals the increasing overlap between the two typologies of measures, both factually (mainly, by the US) and normatively (recently, by the EU). This analysis provides insights into the evolving nature and application of trade control instruments as tools in the conduct of economic wars.

15:00-16:00

Break

16:00-16:30

Presenter: Francesca Colla

PhD Discussant: Daniele Stracquadanio

Faculty Discussant: Louisa Parks

Title: Climate change uninhabitability and (im)mobilities: narratives and practices in the case of Barbuda

Abstract: This paper aims at critically analysing how the category of uninhabitability is conceptualized and mobilized in climate change discourses and practices, particularly in relation to human (im)mobilities. This is done through a literature review, which points to the need of understanding uninhabitability as a fundamentally contested category, and to focus on bottom-up interpretations of the concept as informed by lived experiences and local power relations. This focus is adopted by investigating how the people of the Caribbean island of Barbuda understand uninhabitability, after their island was declared uninhabitable by the government in the aftermath of 2017 hurricane Irma. This bottom-up perspective is complemented by a critical analysis of the declaration of uninhabitability and of the uninhabitability narratives mobilised by the national government. The analysis suggests that uninhabitability should be understood a) as an emotional category; and b) as a political category, defined and mobilised by different actors to further their agendas. The paper contributes to the growing academic debate on the question of climate change-related uninhabitability. It concludes with a call for self-determination to be at the centre of policy-making relating to climate change (im)mobilities and uninhabitability to avoid climate determinism and advance climate and mobility justice.

This whole question of habitability. Right? I believe there has been a lot of what I should say, imperialistic views in terms of that. Because as someone from the outside, you don't tell me what is habitable for me. The person who determines how they can live in a place is the actual people who experience [that place] and are living there. They are the ones who should define what's habitable or not. Right? What has been happening is that this question of habitability is something which is being imposed more than anything else as a means of essentially capturing resources that are being used by the people.” - Mr M., Barbudan environmental expert

16:30-17:00

Presenter: Maddalena Valacchi

PhD Discussant: Sandro Nicolas Schraudolph

Faculty Discussant: Sara Lorenzini

Title: Strikes: A View from at Home and from Abroad

Abstract: Solidarność’s history is often seen as a steadfast journey to success, led by heroes like Lech Wałęsa, who brought to light the hopes and dreams of the Polish people. The perception of Solidarity as a key player in the Cold War and crucial to the fall of communism in Poland stems from the enthusiasm and support it garnered, especially early on. But what was Solidarność? Was it always an opposition movement with “internationalist” goals? Was the Western diplomatic reaction as eager as recent analyses suggest? While Solidarność is a story of triumph, understanding its influence on international relations requires moving beyond this retrospective view to explore the various stages faced by workers, intellectuals, the Polish government, and the differing responses of Western European actors. This chapter examines the establishment of Solidarność in August 1980 from both Polish and international perspectives. At the Gdańsk Shipyard, workers navigated uncertainties, guided by determination and solidarity. Each day brought risks but also the potential to reshape their future. What began as a spontaneous struggle gradually evolved into a trade union, step by step, demand by demand. As the world watched closely, unsure whether a compromise would crush or become historic, contrasting dynamics emerged: Western public opinion swiftly rallied behind the strikers, while governments weighed support against the risk of instability in the region, and reactions within the Eastern Bloc ranged from cautious restraint to open alarm.