Abstract
If we are to believe the ‘democratic peace’ hypothesis, stability in Europe relies, in large part, on the extension of democratic, pluralistic political systems to the east of the continent, Russia included. The spread of democratic institutions, it is argued, provides domestic obstacles to belligerent acts by governments, while the diffusion of democratic norms promotes compromise and cooperative practices among states. The process of democratic transition, however, is far from trouble free. As noted in Chapter 1, the interactions of consolidated democracies may be peaceful, but the foreign policies of those in the early stages of democratization are more likely to be unpredictable and bellicose. Thus, stability relies not just on democratic development, but on the parallel assimilation of democratizing states into international institutions that may act to blunt the external consequences of domestic political transformations.
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
J. E. Manas, ‘The Council of Europe’s Democracy Ideal and the Challenge of Ethno-National Strife’, in A. Chayes and A. H. Chayes (eds.), Preventing Conflict in the Post-Communist World (Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1996), pp. 102–4.
B. Kovrig, ‘Creating Coherence: Collective Contributions to the Political Integration of Central and Eastern Europe’, in J. R. Lampe and D. N. Nelson (eds.), East European Security Reconsidered (Washington D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Centre Press, 1993), pp. 171–2.
R. L. Garthoff, The Great Transition. American–Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War (Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1994), p. 587.
D. Tarschys, ‘The Council of Europe: the Challenge of Enlargement’, The World Today, Vol. 51, No. 4, 1995, pp. 62–4.
H. Storey, ‘Human Rights and the New Europe: Experience and Experiment’, Political Studies, Vol. 43 (special issue), 1995, pp. 142–3.
A. Zagorsky, ‘Russia and European Institutions’, in V. Baranovsky (ed.), Russia and Europe. The Emerging Security Agenda (Oxford: Oxford University Press/ Frösunda, Sweden: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 1997), p. 537.
J. Checkel, ‘Empowerment, Ricochets and End-Runs: Russia’s Integration with Western Human Rights Institutions and Practices’ (Programme on New Approaches to Russian Security, Harvard University), Memo No. 14, October 1997, <http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~ponars/POLICYMEMOS/Checkelmemo.html>.
M. Janis, ‘Russia and the “Legality” of Strasbourg Law’, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1997, p. 41. The leniency scenario would follow from the fact that the inter-governmental element of the COE, the Committee of Ministers, supervises the execution of judgements of the Court in cases where the ECHR has been deemed to be violated.
J. T. Checkel, ‘International Norms and Domestic Politics: Bridging the Rationalist–Constructivist Divide’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1997, pp. 484–5; Pinto, op. cit., pp. 10–15.
See A. Moravscik, ‘Explaining International Human Rights Regimes: Liberal Theory and Western Europe’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1997, p. 159.
Copyright information
© 2000 Mark Webber
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Webber, M. (2000). Russia and the Council of Europe. In: Russia and Europe: Conflict or Cooperation?. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780333978047_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780333978047_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-40759-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-333-97804-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)