Regional organizations play a crucial role in conflict resolution, and their effectiveness is heavily influenced by institutional design, political norms, and available resources. The European Union, for example, benefits from a wide range of diplomatic and economic tools that allow it to intervene effectively in regional conflicts. In contrast, ASEAN’s strict principle of non-interference can limit its ability to act decisively, while the African Union often faces challenges in implementing proactive measures due to limited capacity and resources. These dynamics highlight the importance of structured cooperation between regional organizations and global actors like the United Nations, as sustainable peace requires both context-sensitive regional initiatives and globally supported frameworks. Overall, the variation in approaches and capacities demonstrates that resolving conflicts is not only a matter of intent but also of institutional capability and coordination.

Even so , the article “Cooperative Governance in the Mediterranean: Developing Multilevel Governance” provides a clear and useful overview of how Mediterranean cooperation has shifted toward a multilevel governance model. I find the focus on the role of non-state actors and EU institutions particularly strong, as it adds depth to the discussion and makes the argument more convincing.

Still, I feel the article would benefit from more concrete examples from Southern Mediterranean countries to better connect the theoretical framework with real-world dynamics. Addressing the power asymmetries between the EU and its Southern partners would also make the analysis more balanced and realistic.

Overall, the piece is informative and well-structured, but adding practical evidence and a brief reflection on structural inequalities would make its contribution even stronger.

While the article provides a thorough analysis of issue hierarchization within the European Council, there are some points that could be further strengthened. First, the study mainly focuses on institutional and procedural factors, but it gives less attention to the role of informal networks, lobbying, and media influence, which often shape the agenda in subtle ways. Second, the empirical analysis, while detailed, relies heavily on historical case data; it would be valuable to see how these hierarchies operate in rapidly changing contexts, such as during unexpected crises (e.g., migration surges or geopolitical conflicts). Third, the discussion assumes that the hierarchy is relatively stable, but I wonder whether issue prioritization may be more fluid, with certain urgent matters temporarily overriding established hierarchies. Finally, the article could expand on the implications of issue hierarchization for democratic accountability: who decides which issues are “important,” and how does this affect transparency and public engagement?

Overall, the article contributes significantly to understanding EU agenda-setting, but integrating these additional perspectives would provide a more complete picture of how issues gain prominence or are sidelined.