Abstract Belgium and France, neighboring countries, share historical and linguistic ties, with approximately 40% of Belgium’s population speaking French. Yet, Belgian politics and tensions between its two main linguistic, French- and Dutch-speaking, communities often remain complex to French observers. This study investigates how French newspapers framed Belgian political crises within the context of Belgium’s political tensions. Drawing on the cultural proximity thesis, this article analyzes 252 articles from four French newspapers—Le Monde, Libération, Le Figaro, La Voix du Nord—covering two political crises. The first (2010–2011) resulted in a record 541 days without a government, while the second (2018–2020) led to nearly two years of deadlock. We examine causality and attribution patterns in media narratives to explore biases and representations of the crisis. Our findings show that French media highlight partisan conflicts and cultural divides as the root causes of these crises, often depicting Flemish parties, particularly the Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie (N-VA), as more confrontational. French-speaking figures are portrayed as stabilizers, reinforcing Francophone-favorable narratives. This research contributes to studies on foreign news coverage by applying Critical Frame Analysis to non-violent political crises, highlighting how cultural ties shape media framing beyond linguistic accessibility.

Abstract Mountain regions are highly vulnerable to climate change, yet governance of climate change mitigation (CCM) in agriculture remains dominated by top-down and sectoral approaches. This article examines how policy instruments shape the implementation of CCM in mountain livestock farming, focusing on Haute-Savoie (France) and the Canton of Valais (Switzerland). Combining policy instrument analysis with 31 semi-structured interviews with key state and local policy stakeholders, eleven farm visits, and document review, we assess how different institutional contexts structure farmer participation. Our findings challenge the assumption that decentralization automatically facilitates local climate action. In Switzerland, federal direct payments and project-based initiatives sustain strong farmer dependence on state support but generate only weak and fragmented territorial coalitions. In France, by contrast, the common agricultural policy (PAC) has paradoxically stimulated territorial governance through agro-environmental and climate projects (PAEC), even within a centralized system. However, farmer participation remains uneven and dominated by technical experts, while national farm unions often resist climate greening. The article contributes to the literature on policy implementation by showing how instrument design and territorial support structures condition the emergence of local coalitions for climate action. It highlights the need for long-term participatory mechanisms to strengthen the role of mountain farmers in climate mitigation strategies.

Abstract The European Parliament (EP) has traditionally been strongly committed to gender equality, human rights, and LGBTQI rights. At the same time, the EP is also a political institution where populist radical right actors have a strong presence. We study their impact on the EP from a gender perspective. The article applies the distinction between politics and “unpolitics” (Taggart 2018; Zaun and Ripoll Servent 2023) to understand the effects of radical right populism on gender equality policy-making and on parliamentary democratic functioning. Theoretically, we seek to contribute to the emerging discussion on “unpolitics” through a gender lens. We develop a framework of four dimensions to evaluate this impact: (i) discursive tactics, (ii) shifting policies, (iii) changing practices, and (iv) affective atmospheres. We suggest that the interplay between politics and unpolitics in relation to each dimension creates a comprehensive understanding of the radical right populist impact on gender equality in the EP. Finally, we discuss feminist responses to unpolitics and stress both the duality of unpolitics and the dilemma faced by MEPs seeking to protect EU institutions from destructive actors.

Abstract While the radical left has strong connections to the tradition of liberal democracy, it also has associations with authoritarian forms of rule and a tolerance of illiberal transgressions when perpetrated by sister parties. Through an exploration of 53 European Parliamentary debates from 2011 to 2022, this paper illuminates a hitherto neglected part of the Rule of Law Crisis, namely the extent to which radical left parties defend liberal democracy in the EU. We find that these parties, through the GUE/NGL group in the Parliament, tread a fine line between defending EU intervention in cases of democratic backsliding internal to member states, while retaining a critical outlook on the EU’s own democratic deficits. Our paper shows that the radical left develops a set of arguments that are sharply distinct not only from those of social-democratic parties, but also from radical right MEPs, suggesting that on this issue area at least, the latter two party families do not converge, contrary to what the “horseshoe” model of political ideology would suggest.