Abstract
In the build up to the 2004 enlargement of the European Union (EU) debates about the nature and extent of (EU) Europe became widespread. Questions as to whether the 2004 enlargement would be the last major expansion of the EU were hotly debated, and the different candidate countries made great efforts to ensure they did not miss the departing boat toward membership. Within the EU, concerns about the enlargement focused on issues such as the need to avoid any dilution of the significant gains of the European project, as well as fears that the EU’s expansion to 25 members would turn the Union into a bureaucratic dinosaur and further undermine its democratic legitimacy. In this context, a desire to draw the final borders of (EU) Europe has become pronounced, with the perceived threat being that unchecked expansion will not only make the Union unworkable, but may actually pose an existential threat to it. Although it is clear that much disagreement exists on where the final borders of (EU) Europe should be drawn (e.g., should Turkey be in or out), the belief that Europe’s finalité should soon be decided has become widely held.
We would like to thank Pami Aalto, Marko Lehti and Viatcheslav Morozov for helpful reflections in preparing this chapter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Importantly, a number of analyses assess the impact of the ENP on the EU’s regional policies in the Mediterranean region. Several arguments made in these analyses are also applicable to the northern context. However, our contention is that developments in the North stand out as rather unique and raise a number of important questions for the implementation of the ENP. On the ENP and the Mediterranean, see R. A. Del Sarto and T. Schumacher, ‘From EMP to ENP: What’s at Stake with the European Neighbourhood Policy towards the Southern Mediterranean?’ European Foreign Affairs Review, 10: 1 (2005) p. 17–38.
S. Pardo and L. Zemer, ‘Towards a New Euro-Mediterranean Neighbourhood Space’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 10: 1 (2005) pp. 39–77.
F. Tassinari, ‘Security and Integration in the EU Neighbourhood: The Case for Regionalism’, CEPS Working Document No. 226/1 (July 2005).
K. E. Smith, ‘The Outsiders: The European Neighbourhood Policy’, International Affairs, 81: 4 (2005) pp. 757–73.
H. Grabbe, ‘The Sharp Edges of Europe: Extending Schengen Eastwards’, International Affairs, 76: 3 (2000) pp. 519–36.
J. Jeandesboz, ‘The European Neighbourhood Policy: Analysing the Securitisation(s) of the Union’s “External Border”’, paper presented at the COST Doctoral Training School, Critical Approaches to Security in Europe, Centre Européen, Institut d’Études Politiques, Paris, 16–18 June 2005.
As S. Pardo puts it, the aim has become one of keeping the chaos on the outside, while at the same time trying to enhance security by keeping the outside friendly. S. Pardo, ‘Europe of Many Circles: European Neighbourhood Policy’, Geopolitics, 9: 3 (2004) p. 735.
H. Malmvig, Cooperation or Democratisation?TheEU’sConflictingMediterranean Security Discourses (Copenhagen: DIIS Working Paper, 2004). Paper available at www.diis.dk.
G. Gromadzki, R. Lopata and K. Raik, Friends or Family? Finnish, Lithuanian and Polish Perspective on the EU’s Policy Towards Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, FIIA Report 12 (Helsinki: Finnish Institute of International Affairs, 2005), p. 15.
H. Haukkala, ‘A Rocky Ride for the EU and its European Neighbourhood Policy’, OSCE Review, 13: 2 (2005) p. 11.
B. Fererro–Waldner, ‘The European Neighbourhood Policy: Helping Ourselves through Helping Our Neighbours’, speech presented at the Conference of Foreign Affairs Committee Chairmen of EU Member and Candidate States, London, 31 October 2005. Speech available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/news/ferrero/2005/sp05_31–10–05.htm (Accessed 8 November 2005).
European Commission, European Neighbourhood Policy: Strategy Paper. Brussels, 12 May 2004. COM(2004) 373 final, p. 3.
On the ENP, see, for example, M. Emerson and G. Noutcheva, ‘From Barcelona to Neighbourhood Policy. Assessments and Open Issues’, CEPS Working Document, No. 220 (2005). As Smith notes, the actual criteria for assessment are far from clear. For example, often it is unclear who is responsible for undertaking an action or exactly how progress will be judged. See Smith, ‘The Outsiders’, pp. 764–5.
Gromadzki, Lopata and Raik, Friends or Family?, p. 14. See also R. Albioni, Lopata and Raik, Friends or Family?, p. 14. See also R. Albioni, ‘The Geopolitical Implications of the European Neighbourhood Policy’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 10: 1 (2005) p. 2.
M. Vahl, “‘Lessons from the North for the EU’s ’Near Abroad”, in C. S. Browning, ed., Remaking Europe in the Margins: Northern Europe after the Enlargements (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), p. 57; Tassinari, ‘Security and Integration’, p. 5.
C. S. Browning, ‘Complementarities and Differences in EU and US Policies in Northern Europe’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 6: 1 (2003) p. 23–50.
M. Filtenborg, S. Gänzle and E. Johansson, ‘An Alternative Theoretical Approach to EU Foreign Policy: “Network Governance” and the Case of the Northern Dimension Initiative’, Cooperation and Conflict, 37: 4 (2002) p. 387–407.
P. Joenniemi, ‘Changing Politics along Finland’s Borders: From Norden to the Northern Dimension’, in P. Ahponen and P. Jukarainen, eds, Tearing Down the Curtain, Opening the Gates: Northern Boundaries in Change (Jyväskylä: SoPhi., 2000), pp. 114–33.
S. Medvedev, Russia’s Futures: Implications for the EU, the North and the Baltic Region (Helsinki and Berlin: Finnish Institute of International Affairs and Institut für Europäische Politik, 2000).
On Russian attitudes toward the ENP see D. Averre, ‘Russia and the European Union: Convergence or Divergence?’, European Security, 14: 2 (2005) pp. 175–202.
N. Zaslavskaya, paper on the EU Neighbourhood Policy presented at The Fourth Northern Dimension’s Network Meeting, St. Petersburg State University, Russia, 19–20 September 2005.
European Commission, The European Neighbourhood Policy, http://europa.eu.int/comm/world.enp/faq_en.htm. (Accessed July 2005).
C. Archer, ‘The Northern Dimension as a Soft-Soft Option for the Baltic States’ Security’, in H. Ojanen, ed., The Northern Dimension: Fuel for the EU? (Helsinki and Berlin: Finnish Institute of International Affairs and Institut für Europäische Politik, 2001), pp. 188–208.
H. Moroff, ed., European Soft Security Policies: The Northern Dimension (Helsinki and Berlin: Finnish Institute of International Affairs and Institut für Europäische Politik, 2002).
C. S. Browning and P. Joenniemi, ‘Regionality Beyond Security? The Baltic Sea Region after Enlargement’, Cooperation and Conflict, 39: 3 (2004) pp. 233–53.
See A. Rettman, ‘EU and Russia to Cement Their Relations in the New Northern Treaty’, EUobserver, 1 September 2006.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2008 Christopher S. Browning Pertti Joenniemi
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Browning, C.S., Joenniemi, P. (2008). The European Neighbourhood Policy and Why the Northern Dimension Matters. In: DeBardeleben, J. (eds) The Boundaries of EU Enlargement. Studies in Central and Eastern Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591042_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591042_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-35616-4
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-59104-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)