Advertisement

“Moral Power” of the EU through its Regionalization Policy in the South Caucasus

  • Syuzanna Vasilyan
Chapter

Abstract

To explicate the EU’s policy of regionalization in the South Caucasus this chapter draws on the theory of regionalism retrieving relevant concepts/notions. Most importantly, it suggests at the outset that “regionalism” connotes internal triggers aimed at the creation of a regional order, while “regionalization” presupposes both external and internal endeavors. All the pertinent European agents promoting regional cooperation are uncovered. Three layers of regionalization (intra-regional, trans-regional, cross-regional, inter-regional) and four levels (nano-, micro-, meso-, macro-) fostered by the EU are identified. These are not identical to the categories segmented in the policy documents. The research shows that the EU’s “power” has been “actual” on the moral parameters of consequentialism, coherence and inclusiveness, “largely potential” on the balance between values and interests, and “potential” “power” on consistency, normative steadiness and external legitimacy.

References

  1. Armenpress. (2016, April 8). President of Armenia: Non-Recognition of Independence of Nagorno Karabakh is Compromise from Armenian Side. Retrieved from https://armenpress.am/eng/news/842755/.html.
  2. Asbarez. (2011, May 16). No Reconciliation Without Genocide Recognition, Says Sarkisian. Retrieved from http://asbarez.com/95893/no-reconciliation-without-genocide-recognition-says-sarkisian/.
  3. Bertelsmann Stiftung. (2016a). Armenia Country Report. Gutersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung. Google Scholar
  4. Bertelsmann Stiftung. (2016b). Azerbaijan Country Report. Gutersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.Google Scholar
  5. Bertelsmann Stiftung. (2016c). Georgia Country Report. Gutersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.Google Scholar
  6. Bertelsmann Stiftung. (n.d.). Transformation Index 2016. Retrieved from https://www.bti-project.org/en/home/.
  7. Breslin, S., & Higgott, R. (2000). Studying Regions: Learning from the Old, Constructing the New. New Political Economy, 5(3), 333–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Council of the European Union. (2003). A Secure Europe Is a Better World: European Security Strategy. Brussels: Council of the European Union.Google Scholar
  9. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit. (2014). GIZ South Caucasus Together in Europe. Bonn and Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit.Google Scholar
  10. Edwards, M. (2004). Future Positive: International Co-operation in the 21st Century. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  11. EU Neighborhood Info Center. (2012). EU Neighborhood Barometer: Azerbaijan. Retrieved from http://euneighbourhood.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FactsheetENPI_wave2-AZ-EN1.pdf.
  12. EU Neighborhood Info Center. (2013a). Most Armenians Want Greater EU Role, Poll Finds. Retrieved from http://www.enpi-info.eu/maineast.php?id=32838&id_type=1&lang_id=450.
  13. EU Neighborhood Info Center. (2013b). EU-Georgia: Poll Finds Vast Majority of Georgians Want Greater EU Role. Retrieved from http://www.enpi-info.eu/maineast.php?id=32842&id_type=1&lang_id=450.
  14. EU Neighbors. (n.d.). East: Projects. Retrieved from https://www.euneighbours.eu/en/east/eu-in-action/projects/all.
  15. European Commission. (1999a). The European Union and the Republic of Armenia. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission. (1999b). The European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission. (1999c). The European Union and the Republic of Georgia. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission. (2000). Report from the Commission: The TACIS Programme Annual Report 1999. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission. (2006a). European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument: ENPI Eastern Regional Programme Strategy Paper 2007–2013. Brussels: European Commission. Google Scholar
  20. European Commission. (2006b). European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument: ENPI Eastern Regional Indicative Programme 2007–2010. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission. (2006c). European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument: ENPI Interregional Programme Strategy Paper 2007–2013 and Indicative Paper 2007–2010. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission. (2006d). EU/Armenia Action Plan. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  23. European Commission. (2006e). EU/Azerbaijan Action Plan. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  24. European Commission. (2006f). EU/Georgia Action Plan. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  25. European Commission. (2007a). European Neighborhood & Partnership Instrument, Cross-Border Cooperation: Strategy Paper 2007–2013 and Indicative Programme 2007–2010. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  26. European Commission. (2007b, March 11). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Black Sea Synergy—A New Regional Cooperation Initiative. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  27. European Council and Council of the European Union. (n.d.). Public Register. Retrieved from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/register/en/content/int/?lang=EN&typ=ADV.
  28. European Parliament. (2002). EU relations with South Caucasus. European Parliament Resolution on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the European Union’s Relations with the South Caucasus, Under the Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (COM(1999) 272 – C5-0116/1999 – 1999/2119(COS)). Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/euro/pcc/aag/pcc_meeting/resolutions/2002_02_28.pdf.
  29. European Parliament. (2004a, February 2). Report with a Proposal for a European Parliament Recommendation to the Council on EU Policy Towards the South Caucasus, 2003/2225 (INI). Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Rapporteur: Per Gahrton (A 5-0052/2004). Retrieved from http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?L=EN&OBJID=67241&LEVEL=3&MODE=SIP&NAV=X&LSTDOC=N.
  30. European Parliament. (2004b). EU Policy Towards South Caucasus. European Parliament Resolution with a European Parliament Recommendation to the Council on EU Policy Towards the South Caucasus 2003/2225(INI)). Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P5-TA-2004-0122+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN.
  31. European Parliament. (2006). Briefing Note on the ‘Frozen Conflicts’ in the South Caucasus, the General Situation in the Region and its EU-Relations DGExPo/B/PolDep/Note/2006_026 [PE N°366.180]. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/nt/604/604272/604272en.pdf.
  32. European Parliament. (2008). A more Effective EU Policy for the South Caucasus. European Parliament Resolution of 17 January 2008 on a more Effective EU Policy for the South Caucasus: From Promises to Actions (2007/2076(INI)). Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P6-TA-2008-0016&language=EN.
  33. European Parliament. (2010). The Need for an EU Strategy for the South Caucasus. European Parliament Resolution of 20 May 2010 on the Need for an EU Strategy for the South Caucasus (2009/2216(INI)). Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P7-TA-2010-0193+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN.
  34. European Union External Action Service. (2016). Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe—A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy. Retrieved from http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/top_stories/pdf/eugs_review_web.pdf.
  35. German, T. (2012). Good Neighbors of Distant Relatives: Regional Identity and Cooperation in the South Caucasus. Central Asian Survey, 31(2), 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hettne, B., & Soderbaum, F. (2000). Theorizing the Rise of Regionness. New Political Economy, 5(3), 457–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. International Energy Agency. (n.d.). About EU4Energy. Retrieved from https://www.eu4energy.iea.org/about.
  38. Ministry of Defense and Republic of Armenia. (2007). Republic of Armenia: National Security Strategy. Yerevan: Ministry of Defense.Google Scholar
  39. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of the Republic of Moldova. (n.d.). About GUAM. Retrieved from http://www.mfa.gov.md/about-guam-en/.
  40. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia. (2005). National Security Concept of Georgia. Tbilisi: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia.Google Scholar
  41. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia. (2012). National Security Concept of Georgia. Tbilisi: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia.Google Scholar
  42. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Republic of Azerbaijan. (2007). National Security Concept of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Baku: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Google Scholar
  43. New Neighbors. (2006). The Project: About the Project. Retrieved from http://www.newneighbors.am/about_project.htm.
  44. Petrov, R., & Kalinichenko, P. (2016). On Similarities and Differences of the European Union and Eurasian Economic Union Legal Orders: Is There the ‘Eurasian Economic Union Acquis’? Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 43(3), 295–307.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, K. (2003). European Union Foreign Policy in a Changing World. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  46. Soderbaum, F., & Van Langenhove, L. (2006). Introduction: The EU as a Global Actor and the Role of Interregionalism. In F. Soderbaum & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), The EU as a Global Player: The Politics of Interregionalism (pp. 1–14). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. South Caucasus Integration. (2006). Alternative Start. Retrieved from http://www.southcaucasus.com/index.php?page=about&lang=en.
  48. Telo, M. (2006). Europe: A Civilian Power? European Union, Global Governance, World Order. Houndmills, Basingstoke and Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Trans-Adriatic Pipeline. (n.d.). Strategic Partnerships. Retrieved from https://www.tap-ag.com/the-pipeline/the-big-picture/strategic-partnerships.
  50. Turkish-Armenian Business Development Council. (2005). Activity Report 1997–present. Retrieved from http://www.tabdc.org/report.php.
  51. Van Langenhove, L. (2003). Theorising Regionhood (W-2003-1). United Nations University, Comparative Regional Integration Studies. Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/nispacee/unpan015229.pdf#search=‘Van%20Langenhove%20Theorising%20Regionhood’’.
  52. Vasilyan, S. (2006). The Policy of Regional Cooperation in the South Caucasus (Working Paper 24). Buenos Aires: Argentinean Center of International Studies.Google Scholar
  53. Vasilyan, S. (2008). The Banal Philosophy and the Realizable Utopia of the EU’s Neighborhood Policy—‘Medicine’ for the South Caucasian ‘Region’? Actual Policy: Journal for Free Political Concepts, 1(6), 10–13.Google Scholar
  54. Vasilyan, S. (2009). The EU’s Ambitious Regionalization of the South Caucasus. In P. De Lombaerde & M. Schulz (Eds.), The ‘Makability’ of Regions: The EU and World Regionalism (pp. 205–221). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  55. Vasilyan, S. (2014). Apposition of the EU’s Regionalization and Regionalism in the South Caucasus. Regional Dialogue. Tbilisi: Caucasian House. Retrieved from http://regional-dialogue.com/en/syuzanna-vasilyan-apposition-of-the-eus-policy-of-regionalization-of-and-regionalism-in-the-south-caucasus/.
  56. Vasilyan, S. (2016a). “Swinging on a Pendulum”: Armenia in the Eurasian Economic Union and with the European Union. Problems of Post-communism, 61(4), 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vasilyan, S. (2016b). Comparing European Union’s Policy Towards the Western Balkans and the South Caucasus. In S. Gstohl (Ed.), The European Neighborhood Policy in a Comparative Perspective: Models, Challenges, Lessons (pp. 163–181). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Vasilyan, S. (2018a). Novel Solutions to Resolve the Conflicts in the EU’s Eastern Neighborhood (College of Europe Policy Brief (CEPOB) series #2.18). Bruges, Belgium. Retrieved from https://www.coleurope.eu/news/new-issue-college-europe-policy-brief-series-cepob-25.
  59. Vasilyan, S. (2018b). EU’s Grit with Regionalization: An Antidote for the South Caucasus and the Black Sea (STRATPOL Policy Paper). Brussels and Brno: Strategic Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://stratpol.sk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/web-VASILYAN_PolicyPaper-Brief.pdf.
  60. Vayrynen, R. (2003). Regionalism: Old and New. International Studies Review, 5, 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vilpisauskas, R., Alisauskas, R., Kasciunas, L., Dambrauskaite, Z., Sinica, V., Levchenko, I., & Chirila, V. (2012). Eurasian Union: A Challenge for the European Union and the Eastern Partnership Countries. Vilnius: Eastern Europe Studies Centre. Retrieved from http://www.eesc.lt/uploads/news/id415/Studija%20apie%20Eurazija_EN.pdf.
  62. Welsh, H. A., & Willerton, J. P. (1997). Regional Cooperation and the CIS: West European Lessons and Post-Soviet Experience. International Politics, 34, 33–61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Syuzanna Vasilyan
    • 1
  1. 1.Université Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations