Advertisement

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

  • Syuzanna Vasilyan
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter on the EU’s security policy wanders through neorealism and constructivism as appropriate theories for the study of the EU and its member states as actors on the global scene, including in/around the South Caucasus. It affirms the Union’s entrenched “difference” compared to its own member states, Russia and Turkey, and the USA, as conventional security actors prone to use “military power”. Instead, the EU relies on “civilian” “power”. The Union’s vocation has been to facilitate “positive” security centered on “human security” in pursuit of peace. Overall, through its security policy the EU has been a “potential” “power” on the moral parameters of consistency, balance between values and interests, and normative steadiness, “largely actual” “power” qua consequentialism and external legitimacy, and “partly actual” with respect to coherence and inclusiveness.

References

  1. Abbasov, S. (2009, June 3). Azerbaijan: Baku Can Leapfrog Over Ukraine, Georgia for NATO Membership. Eurasianet. Retrieved from http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insightb/articles/eav060409.shtml.
  2. Allen, D., & Smith, M. (1990). Western Europe’s Presence in the Contemporary International Arena. Review of International Studies, 16(3), 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amnesty International. (2017). A Blueprint for Despair: Human Rights Impact of the EU-Turkey Deal. London: Amnesty International.Google Scholar
  4. Balzacq, T. (2005). The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context. European Journal of International Relations, 11(2), 171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baran, Z. (2008). Turkey and the Wider Black Sea Region. In D. S. Hamilton & G. Mangott (Eds.), The Wider Black Sea Region in the 21st Century: Strategic, Economic and Energy Perspectives (pp. 87–102). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  6. Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2003). Regions and Powers: Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & De Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Centre for Strategic and International Studies. (2007). CSIS Commission on Smart Power: A Smarter, More Secure America. Washington, DC: Centre for Strategic and International Studies.Google Scholar
  9. Chyong C.-K., & Tcherneva, V. (2015, March 17). Europe’s Vulnerability on Russian Gas. European Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_europes_vulnerability_on_russian_gas.
  10. Cooper, R. (2000). The Post-Modern State and the World Order. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  11. Council of the European Union. (2003). A Secure Europe Is a Better World: European Security Strategy. Brussels: Council of the European Union.Google Scholar
  12. Council of the European Union. (2016). EU-Turkey Statement. Brussels: Council of the European Union. Retrieved from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/press-releases-pdf/2016/3/40802210113_en.pdf.
  13. Davutoglu, A. (2013, March 21). Zero Problems in a New Era: Realpolitik Is No Answer to the Challenges Posed by the Arab Spring. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/21/zero-problems-in-a-new-era/.
  14. EU Neighborhood Barometer. (n.d.). EU Neighborhood Barometer Surveys. Retrieved from http://euneighbourhood.eu/.
  15. Eurobarometer. (2005). Eurobarometer 63—Public Opinion in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission. (2004, May 12). Communication from the Commission: European Neighborhood Policy Strategy Paper. COM(2004) 373 final. Brussels: European Union.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission. (2005a). Common Spaces Roadmap. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission. (2005b). Negotiating Framework. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission. (2006a). EU/Armenia Action Plan. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  20. European Commission. (2006b). EU/Azerbaijan Action Plan. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission. (2006c). EU/Georgia Action Plan. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission. (n.d.-a). EU Annual Budget Life-Cycle: Figures. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/budget/annual/index_en.cfm?year=2016.
  23. European Commission. (n.d.-b). Budget. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/budget/biblio/documents/index_en.cfm.
  24. European Commission and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. (2015). Joint Staff Working Document: Implementation of the European Neighborhood Policy in Georgia Progress in 2014 and Recommendations for Actions. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015SC0066.
  25. European Council. (2008). 2008/157/EC: Council Decision of 18 February 2008 on the Principles, Priorities and Conditions Contained in the Accession Partnership with the Republic of Turkey and Repealing Decision 2006/35/EC. Official Journal L 051, 26/02/2008 P. 0004 – 0018. Brussels: European Council.Google Scholar
  26. European Council, Council of the European Union. (n.d.). EU Restrictive Measures in Response to the Crisis in Ukraine. Retrieved from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/ukraine-crisis/.
  27. European Union. (n.d.). EU Sanctions Against Russia Over Ukraine Crisis. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/newsroom/highlights/special-coverage/eu_sanctions_en.
  28. European Union External Action Service. (2014). Association Agenda Between the European Union and Georgia. Retrieved from https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/associationagenda_2014_en.pdf.
  29. European Union External Action Service. (2015). ENP Progress Reports. Retrieved from https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/8409/enp-progress-reports_en.
  30. European Union External Action Service. (2016a). 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.
  31. European Union External Action Service. (2016b, July 8). Shaping of a Common Security and Defence Policy. Retrieved from https://eeas.europa.eu/topics/common-security-and-defence-policy-csdp/5388/shaping-of-a-common-security-and-defence-policy-_en.
  32. Fule, S. (2012, October 1). Public debate of Commissioner Štefan Füle on “EU Enlargement: The European Agenda as a Driver for Reforms”. Retrieved from https://www.eliamep.gr/en/event/%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CE%B5%CF%85%CF%81%CF%89%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%AF%CE%BF%CF%85-%CE%B5%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%84%CF%81%CF%8C%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%85-%CE%BA-stefan-fule-%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B5%CF%8D/.
  33. Fund for Peace. (n.d.). Fragile States Index. Retrieved from http://fsi.fundforpeace.org/.
  34. Gazprom Export. (n.d.). Delivery Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.gazpromexport.ru/en/statistics/.
  35. Government of the United Kingdom. (n.d.). Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Equipment Holdings Statistics: Index. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/conventional-armed-forces-in-europe-equipment-holdings-statistics-index.
  36. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action, Volume One: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  37. Herz, J. (1951). Political Realism and Political Idealism: A Study of Theories and Realities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hoffmann, S. (1966). Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-State and the Case of Western Europe. Tradition and Change, 95(3), 862–915.Google Scholar
  39. International Energy Agency. (n.d.). Energy Security. Retrieved from http://www.iea.org/topics/energysecurity/.
  40. International Fact Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia. (2009). Report. Heidelberg: Max Planck Institute.Google Scholar
  41. Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma. World Politics, 30(2), 186–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kazimova, A. (2011). Azerbaijan Joins Ranks of Non-Aligned Movement. Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty. Retrieved from http://www.rferl.org/a/azerbaijan_join_nonaligned_movement/24200776.html.
  43. Keohane, R. O. (2002). Ironies of Sovereignty: The European Union and the Unites States. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(4), 743–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Manners, I. (2006). The Constitutive Nature of Values, Images and Principles in the European Union. In S. Lucarelli & I. Manners (Eds.), Values and Principles in European Union Foreign Policy (pp. 19–41). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  46. Mearsheimer, J. (2009). Reckless States and Realism. International Relations, 23(2), 241–256.Google Scholar
  47. Medina Abellan, M. (2008, July 23–26). The Impact of the European Union on Turkish Foreign Policy: Turkey’s Bilateral and Multilateral Relations. Paper Presented at World International Studies Conference, Ljubljana, Slovenia.Google Scholar
  48. Ministry of Defence, Republic of Armenia. (2007). Republic of Armenia National Security Strategy. Yerevan: Ministry of Defence, Republic of Armenia.Google Scholar
  49. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia. (2005). National Security Concept of Georgia. Tbilisi: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia.Google Scholar
  50. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Azerbaijan. (2007). National Security Concept of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Baku: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Azerbaijan.Google Scholar
  51. Nichol, J. (2014). Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia: Political Developments and Implications for US Interests. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  52. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (2016, July 9). Warsaw Summit Communiqué. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_133169.htm.
  53. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (n.d.). Relations with the European Union. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49217.htm.
  54. Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy, 80, 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Official Journal of the European Union. (2014). Legislation, L 261, Volume 57. Brussels: European Union. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2014:261:FULL&from=EN.
  56. On, C. (2014, April 18). Index of Friendliness Towards Russia. Association of Accredited Public Policy Advocates to the European Union. Retrieved from http://www.aalep.eu/index-friendliness-towards-russia.
  57. Phillips, D. (2005). Unsilencing the Past: Track-Two Diplomacy and Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  58. Rothstein, R. (1968). Alliances and Small Powers. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Ruparel, R. (2014, April 22). The EU Remains Hopelessly Divided Over Stronger Sanctions on Russia. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/raoulruparel/2014/04/22/the-eu-remains-hopelessly-divided-over-stronger-sanctions-on-russia/#2ae632b81ce9.
  60. Sjöstedt, G. (1977). The External Role of the European Community. Farnborough: Saxon House.Google Scholar
  61. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. (n.d.-a). SIPRI Arms Transfers Database. Retrieved from https://www.sipri.org/databases/armstransfers.
  62. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. (n.d.-b). SIPRI Military Expenditure Database. Retrieved from http://www.sipri.org/databases/milex.
  63. Toucas, B. (2018). Turkey Has No Allies in the Black Sea, Only Interests. Center for Strategic and International Studies. Retrieved from https://www.csis.org/analysis/turkey-has-no-allies-black-sea-only-interests.
  64. United Nations Development Program. (1994). Human Development Report 1994. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vasilyan, S. (2002). Protecion of Fundamental Human Rights and NATO Deployment in Kosovo. The Activist: Bulletin of the CEU Human Rights Students’ Initiative, 2(2), 9–10.Google Scholar
  66. Vasilyan, S. (2004). The US Policy towards the EU-Turkish Relationship. In Turkey’s Accession to the European Union. Report of the Course on Current Issues of International Organizations (151–159). Leiden: Leiden University.Google Scholar
  67. Vasilyan, S. (2006). The Policy of Regional Cooperation in the South Caucasus (Working Paper 24). Buenos Aires: Argentinean Center of International Studies.Google Scholar
  68. Vasilyan, S. (2010). A Cacophony: The EU’s Security Policy Towards the South Caucasus. In K. Henderson & C. Weaver (Eds.), The Black Sea and EU Policy: The Challenge of Divergent Agendas (pp. 87–107). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  69. Vasilyan, S. (2013). ‘Moral Power’ as Objectification of ‘Civilian’/‘Normative’ EUlogy: The European Union as a Conflict-Dealer in the South Caucasus. Journal of International Relations and Development, 17(13), 397–424. Google Scholar
  70. Vasilyan, S. (2014). Armenia from a Foreign Policy of Complementarity to Supplementarity? A Sandwich Story! International Affairs Forum, Centre for International Relations. Retrieved from http://www.ia-forum.org/Content/ViewInternalDocument.cfm?ContentID=8084.
  71. Vasilyan, S. (2016). “Swinging on a Pendulum”: Armenia in the Eurasian Economic Union and with the European Union. Problems of Post-Communism, 61(4), 32–46.Google Scholar
  72. 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.
  73. Vasilyan, S. (2018b). EU’s Grit with Regionalization: An Antidote for the South Caucasus and the Black Sea (STRATPOL Policy Paper). Brussels, Brno: Strategic Policy Institute. http://stratpol.sk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/web-VASILYAN_PolicyPaper-Brief.pdf.
  74. Vasilyan, S., & Petrossian, S. (2013). Armenia’s Integration ‘with’ the EU (Unpublished Policy Paper/Brief). Yerevan: American University of Armenia.Google Scholar
  75. Vincenti, D. (2016). Turkey to Back out of EU Migrant Deal if no Visa-Free Travel. Retrieved from https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/turkey-to-back-out-of-eu-migrant-deal-if-no-visa-free-travel/.
  76. Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of International Relations. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  77. Waltz, K. (2000). Structural Realism After the Cold War. International Security, 25(1), 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Winrow, G. M. (2007). Turkey and the Greater Black Sea Region. In N. A. Guney (Ed.), Contentious Issues of Security and the Future of Turkey (pp. 121–127). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations