Международно-политическая субъектность Евросоюза

142

ГАЛЫМ ЖУСИПБЕК

INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL IDENTITY

OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Galym Zhussipbek

Suleyman Demirel University, Almaty, Kazakhstan, 040900

Abstract

The international political identity of the European Union is still fiercely debated in the expert community. Traditional theories of international relations do not contain adequate keys for the assessment of its activities. The view that the EU cannot be identified as an actor in international relations is still present. Such attitudes are defined by the fact that the EU does not possess tools to ensure its security in military terms. Meanwhile, more broad interpretations of security, which have become more pronounced in recent years, highlight the significance of those spheres of international interaction where the European Union has the greatest potential. From the onset, European integration has exerted an impact on th international environment through economic channels. However, after the end of bipolarity, the European entity was able to intensify its activities due to the newly established Common Foreign and Security Policy as well as European Security and Defense Policy. The EU peacekeeping activities clearly indicate its growing presence in international relations. The EU efforts in crisis management and post-crisis reconstruction received high recognition and increased its reputation in the global arena. Meanwhile, EU capabilities are not limited to the CFSP alone. Its structural diplomacy, which is aimed at constructing norms and rules accepted by other actors, emerges as the crucial tool of its influence. However, due to the remaining gap between the EU’s ambitions and its capabilities, the notion of “small power” was developed in literature to reflect ambiguity in the assessments of its influence. Another group of scholars proposed such notions as “enlightened”, “normative”, or “civil power” in order to reflect the desire on the part of the EU to “civilize” its environment and force its partners to act in accordance with a set of rules. The practice of the EU’s foreign policy significantly diverges from the idealistic foundations of these models. Still, European scholars believe that in the current hostile environment such compromises are inevitable and they do not cancel out the positive impact of the EU in contributing to the emergence of a more perfect global order.

Keywords:

European Union; Common Foreign and Security Policy; Common Security and Defense Policy; foreign policy identity; normative power; small power; post-modern power; crisis management; NATO.

References

Anderson S., Seitz, T. 2006. European Security and Defense Policy Demystified Nation-Building and Identity in the European Union. Armed Forces and Society. Vol. 33. No. 1.

Annawitt Philipp. Global Security and Regional Responses: Conflict Management in a Fractured World, GCSP Geneva Papers. Conference Series. No. 18.

Arbatova N. 2011. The EU and Crisis Management. ES i regionalnye konflikty [The EU and Regional Conflicts]. Moscow: Institute of World Economy and International Relations Press.

Bailes A. 2005. Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)/ European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) Challenges and Prospects. Hamburger Vortrge am Institut fr Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik, Hamburg.

Baykov A. 2010. Integration in East Asia Through the Lens of the EU Experience. Sravnitelnaya politika. No. 1.

Baykov A. 2009. The Evolution of EU Approach to Security. Rossiya v mirovoy ekonomike i mezhdunarodnyh otnosheniyah. Moscow: IMEMO.

Bogaturov A. 2003. Contemporary International Order. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 1. No. 1.

Bull H. 1982. Civilian Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 21 No. 2.

143

МЕЖДУНАРОДНО-ПОЛИТИЧЕСКАЯ СУБЪЕКТНОСТЬ ЕС

Buzan B. 1991. People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the PostCold War Era, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Cooper R. 2000. The Postmodern State and the World Order, London: Demos. Cooper R. 2002. The New Liberal Imperialism. Guardian. 07 April.

Danilov D. 2002. The European Union: The Emergence of the Common Security and Defence Policy. Kosmopolis. Available at: http://www.rami.ru/cosmopolis/archives/1/danilov.html (accessed 30.05.2013).

Garavini Giuliano. 2010. «Foreign Policy beyond the Nation-State». In: Wolfram Kaiser (ed.). EU History Themes. Palgrave, Macmillan.

Haseler S. 2004. Super-State: The New Europe and its Challenge to America, London: I.B. Tauris. Howorth J. 2010. The EU as a Global Actor: Grand Strategy for a Global Grand Bargain?. Journal of

Common Market Studies. Vol. 48. No. 3: 455-474.

Inglehart R., Welzel C. 2005. Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press

Keukeleire S., Justaert A. 2012. EU Foreign Policy and the Challenges of Structural Diplomacy: Comprehensiveness, Coordination, Alignment and Learning. DSEU Policy Paper 12.

Keukeleire S., Thiers R., Justaert A. 2009. Reappraising Diplomacy: Structural Diplomacy and the Case of the European Union. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy. No. 4: 143-165.

Koenig Nicole. 2011. The EU and the Libyan Crisis: In Quest of Coherence? IAI Working Papers, No 11, July 19, Istituto Affari Internazionali.

Kundnani H., Vaїsse J. 2011. EU foreign policy: moving on from Libya. Available at: http://www. opendemocracy.net/hans-kundnani-justin-vaїsse/eu-foreignpolicy- moving-on-from-libya (accessed 30.05.2013).

Laїdi Z. 2008. Norms over Force: The Enigma of European Power. New York: Palgrave. Leonard, M. 2005. Why Europe will run the 21st Century. London: Fourth Estate.

Liaidi Z. 2010. Europe as a Risk Averse Power. GARNET Policy Brief. Available at: http://www2.warwick. ac.uk/fac/soc/garnet/policybriefs/policybrief11.pdf (accessed 30.05.2013).

Manners I. 2002. ‘Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Common Market Studies. № 40: 245–252.

Manners I. 2010. Global Europa: Mythology of the European Union in World Politics. Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 48, No. 1: 67–87.

Maull H. 2005. Europe and the New Balance of Global Order. International Affairs. Vol. 81. No 4: 779-780. McCormick J. 2007. The European Superpower. London: Palgrave.

Menon A. 2008. Europe: The State of the Union. London: Atlantic Books.

Nye J. 2004. Soft Power. The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs

Rieker Pernille. 2006. From Common Defence to Comprehensive Security: Towards the Europeanization of French Foreign and Security Policy? Security Dialogue. Vol. 37, No 4.

Rosecrance R. 1998. The New Type of International Actor. In: Zielonka J. (ed.). Paradoxes of European Foreign Policy, ed. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

Salmon Trevor. 2005. The European Security and Defence Policy: Built on Rocks or Sand? European Foreign Affairs Review. No. 10 (3).

Sjursen H. 2004. Changes to European Security in a Communicative Perspective. Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 39 No. 2:121-122.

Telo M. 2006. Europe: A Civilian Power? European Union, Global Governance, World Order, London: Palgrave.

Toje A. 2010. The European Union as a Small Power. Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 49. No. 1. Tonra B. 2009. The European Union as a Global Actor, October 7. Available at: http://ssrn.com/

abstract=1484740 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1484740 (accessed 30.05.2013). Troitsky M. 2007. The European Union in World Politics. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 5. No. 3(15). Varwick J. 2006. European Union and NATO Partnership, Competition or Rivalry? Kieler Analysen zur

Sicherheitspolitik. No. 18.

Voronov K. 2011. The North European Nations. ES i regionalnye konflikty [The EU and Regional Conflicts]. Moscow: Institute of World Economy and International Relations Press..

White B. 2001. Understanding European Foreign Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Zwolski K. 2009. The European Union as a Security Actor: Moving Beyond the Second Pillar. Journal of Contemporary European Research, Vol. 5, No. 1.