Advertisement

Democracy or Stability? EU and US Engagement in the Southern Caucasus

  • Tanja A. Börzel
  • Yasemin Pamuk
  • Andreas Stahn
Part of the Governance and Limited Statehood Series book series (GLS)

Abstract

With the recent war over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Southern Caucasus has yet again become a focal point for international crisis mediating efforts. The 2008 flare-up of the Russian-Georgian conflict redirected international attention to a small, but strategically important region that forms part of the European Union’s (EU) and Russia’s near abroad, and, in which the United States (US) has important security and economic interests. The three states in the Southern Caucasus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, gained independence in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse in 1991. Since then, both the EU and the US have sought to intensify their relations with these countries in order to support their post-communist transitions in democracy, market-based economy and stateness. Yet compared to other post-Communist regions, such as the Central Eastern European countries (CEEC), the Southern Caucasus seriously suffers from bad governance. As arbitrary rule and pervasive corruption are common in all three countries, they have been subject to external actors’ comprehensive attempts in promoting substantial reforms.

Keywords

European Union Good Governance Effective Government Democratic Governance Civil Society Actor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adam, M. (2001) “Governance als Ansatz der Vereinten Nationen. Das Beispiel des UNDP,” in M. Adam and K. König (eds), Governance als entwicklungspolitischer Ansatz. Forschungssymposium vom 29. bis 30. September 2000, Speyer: Forschungsinstitut für Öffentliche Verwaltung bei der Hochschule für Verwaltungswissenschaften Speyer.Google Scholar
  2. Alieva, L. (2000) Reshaping Eurasia: Foreign Policy Strategies and Leadership Assets in Post-Soviet South Caucasus, Berkeley Program in Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies.Google Scholar
  3. Baran, Z. (2001) “The Caucasus: Ten Years after Independence,” The Washington Journal Quarterly 25, 1: 221–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Börzel, T. A., Y. Pamuk and A. Stahn (2007) “Good Goverance in the European Union,” Berliner Arbeitspapiere zur Europäischen Integration, Center of European Studies, Freie Universität Berlin 07, 5.Google Scholar
  5. Börzel, T. A., Y. Pamuk and A. Stahn (2008) The European Union and the Promotion of Good Governance in its Near Abroad: One Size Fits all?, SFB Working Paper Series No. 18, Berlin, December 2008: 10.Google Scholar
  6. Börzel, T. A., Y. Pamuk and A. Stahn (forthcoming) “One Size Fits All? How the European Union Promotes Good Governance in Its Near Abroad,” SFB Working Paper.Google Scholar
  7. Brzezinski, Z. (1997) The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geopolitical Imperatives, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  8. Burnell, P. (2000) Democracy Assistance: International Cooperation for Democratization, London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  9. Bush, G. H. W. (1992) Freedom Support Act Signed into Law — Freedom for Russian and Emerging Eurasian Democracies and Open Markets — Statement by President George H. W. Bush — Transcript. In US Department of State Dispatch (ed.): White House, Office of the Press Secretary.Google Scholar
  10. Carothers, T. (2004) Critical Mission: Essays on Democracy Promotion, Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
  11. Carothers, T. (2006) Confronting the Weakest Link: Aiding Political Parties in New Democracies, Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
  12. Chayes, A. and A. H. Chayes (1993) “On Compliance,” International Organization 47, 2: 175–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chayes, A., A. H. Chayes and R. B. Mitchell (1998) “Managing Compliance: A Comparative Perspective,” in E. B. Weiss and H. K. Jacobsen (eds), Engaging Countries: Strengthening Compliance with International Environmental Accords, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Checkel, J. T. (2001) “Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change,” International Organization 55, 3: 553–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conzelmann, T. (2003) “Auf der Suche nach einem Phänomen: Was bedeutet Good Governance in der europäischen Entwicklungspolitik,” Nord-Süd-Aktuell 17, 3: 475–7.Google Scholar
  16. Diez, T., S. Stetter and M. Albert (2006) “The European Union and Border Conflicts: The Transformative Power of Integration,” International Organization 60, 3: 563–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dolzer, R. (2004) “Good Governance: Neues transnationales Leitbild der Staatlichkeit?” Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 64, 3: 535–46.Google Scholar
  18. Downs, G. W. (1998) “Enforcement and the Evolution of Cooperation,” Michigan Journal of International Law 19, 2: 319–44.Google Scholar
  19. Epstein, S. B., N. M. Serafino and F. T. Miko (2007) “Democracy Promotion: Cornerstone of U.S. Foreign Policy?” RL34296, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, 26 December 2007.Google Scholar
  20. EU/Azerbaijan (2006) Action Plan.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission (1998) “Mid Term Evaluation of Tacis Activities in Georgia: Evaluation Report,” Brussels: January 1998.Google Scholar
  22. Epstein, S. B., N. M. Serafino and F. T. Miko (2001a) “TACIS Country Strategy Paper 2002–2006. National Indicative Programme 2002–2003: Azerbaijan,” Brussels: 27 December 2001.Google Scholar
  23. Epstein, S. B., N. M. Serafino and F. T. Miko (2001b) “TACIS Country Strategy Paper 2002–2006. National Indicative Programme 2002–2003: Georgia,” Brussels: 27 December 2001.Google Scholar
  24. Epstein, S. B., N. M. Serafino and F. T. Miko (2003a) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Wider Europe — Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours.Google Scholar
  25. Epstein, S. B., N. M. Serafino and F. T. Miko (2003b) “TACIS Country Strategy Paper 2003–2006. National Indicative Programme 2004–2006: Georgia,” Brussels: 23 September 2003.Google Scholar
  26. Epstein, S. B., N. M. Serafino and F. T. Miko (2003c) “TACIS National Indicative Programme 2004–2006: Azerbaijan,” Brussels: 22 May 2003.Google Scholar
  27. Epstein, S. B., N. M. Serafino and F. T. Miko (2003d) Wider Europe Neighbourhood: Proposed New Framework for Relations with the EU’s Eastern and Southern Neighbours, Brussels.Google Scholar
  28. Epstein, S. B., N. M. Serafino and F. T. Miko (2004a) “European Neighbourhood Policy. Strategy Paper,” Brussels: 12 May 2004.Google Scholar
  29. Epstein, S. B., N. M. Serafino and F. T. Miko (2004b) “TACIS Action Programme for Georgia — Part II,” Brussels: 16/17 June 2004.Google Scholar
  30. Epstein, S. B., N. M. Serafino and F. T. Miko (2005a) “Commission Staff Working Paper, annex to: European Neighbourhood Policy, Country Report Azerbaijan,” Brussels: 2 March 2005.Google Scholar
  31. Epstein, S. B., N. M. Serafino and F. T. Miko (2005b) “Commission Staff Working Paper, annex to: European Neighbourhood Policy. Country Report Georgia,” Brussels.Google Scholar
  32. Epstein, S. B., N. M. Serafino and F. T. Miko (2006a) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Strengthening the European Neighbourhood Policy.Google Scholar
  33. Epstein, S. B., N. M. Serafino and F. T. Miko (2006b) “ENPI Country Strategy Paper 2007–2013: Azerbaijan.”Google Scholar
  34. Epstein, S. B., N. M. Serafino and F. T. Miko (2006c) “On Strengthening the European Neighbourhood,” COM (2006) 726 final, 4 December 2006.Google Scholar
  35. Epstein, S. B., N. M. Serafino and F. T. Miko (2007a) “Communication from the Commission. A Strong European Neighbourhood Policy,” Brussels: 5 December 2007.Google Scholar
  36. Epstein, S. B., N. M. Serafino and F. T. Miko (2007b) “European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument. Georgia. National Indicative Programme 2007–2010,” Brussels.Google Scholar
  37. Fairbanks, C. H. Jr (2004) “Georgia’s Rose Revolution,” Journal of Democracy 15, 2: 110–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fearon, J. D. (1998) “Bargaining, Enforcement and International Cooperation,” International Organization 52, 2: 269–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fuster, T. (1998) Die “Good Governance” Diskussion der Jahre 1989 bis 1994. Ein Beitrag zur jüngeren Geschichte der Entwicklungspolitik unter spezieller Berücksichtigung der Weltbank und des DAC, Bern, Stuttgart, Wien.Google Scholar
  40. Goltz, T. (1997) “Catch-907 in the Caucasus,” The National Interest 48.Google Scholar
  41. Héritier, A. (2003) “New Modes of Governance in Europe: Increasing Political Capacity and Policy Effectiveness?” in T. A. Börzel and R. Cichowski (eds), The State of the European Union, 6 — Law, Politics, and Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hill, H. (2006) “Good Governance — Konzepte und Kontexte,” in G. F. Schuppert (ed.), Governance-Forschung. Vergewisserung über Stand und Entwicklungslinien, Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  43. Hillion, C. (2000) “Institutional Aspects of the Partnership between the European Union and the Newly Independent States of the Former Soviet Union: Case Studies of Russia and Ukraine,” Common Market Law Review 37, 5: 1211–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay and M. Mastruzzi (2003) “Governance Matters III: Governance Indicators for 1996–2002,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper.Google Scholar
  45. Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay and M. Mastruzzi (2006) “Governance Matters V: Governance Indicators for 1996–2005,” World Bank Policy Research Paper.Google Scholar
  46. King, C. (2004) “A Rose Among Thorns: Georgia Makes Good,” Foreign Affairs 83, 2: 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. König, K. (2001) “Zur Steuerungs-und Werteproblematik,” in M. Adam and K. König (eds), Governance als entwicklungspolitischer Ansatz, Speyer.Google Scholar
  48. Lomsadze, G. (2002) “Georgian Kidnapping: A Deadly Trend,” 27 June 2002.Google Scholar
  49. Magen, A. (2006) “The Shadow of Enlargement. Can the European Neighbourhood Policy Achieve Compliance?” 68, Stanford: Center on Democracy, Development, and The Rule of Law.Google Scholar
  50. Magen, A., and L. Morlino (eds) (2008) Anchoring Democracy: External Influence on Domestic Rule of Law Development, London.Google Scholar
  51. McFaul, M. (2004–2005) “Democracy Promotion as a World Value,” The Washington Quarterly 28, 1: 147–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mendelson, S., and J. Glenn (2002) The Power and Limits of NGOs, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Metreveli, E., and E. Hakobyan (2001) “The Political Underpinnings of U.S. Bilateral Aid to the Countries of Transcaucasus,” Demokratizatsiya 9, 3.Google Scholar
  54. Mitchell, L. A. (2006) “Democracy in Georgia Since the Rose Revolution,” Orbis 50, 4: 669–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Murphy, E. C. (2002) “Good Governance: Ein universal anwendbares Konzept?” Internationale Politik 57, 8: 1–9.Google Scholar
  56. Nichol, J. (2008) “Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests,” RL30679, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, 31 January 2008.Google Scholar
  57. Nodia, G. (2005) “The Dynamics and Sustainability of the Rose Revolution,” in M. Emerson (ed.), Democratisation in the European Neighbourhood, Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  58. Offe, C. (1991) “Capitalism by Democratic Design? Democratic Theory facing the Triple Transition in East Central Europe,” Social Research 58, 4: 865–92.Google Scholar
  59. Olcott, M. B. (2002) “US Policy in the South Caucasus,” Connections 3, 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Oliker, O., and T. S. Szayna (eds) (2003) Faultlines of Conflict in Central Asia and the South Caucasus. Implications for the U.S. Army, Pittsburgh, PA: Rand Cooperation.Google Scholar
  61. Ottaway, M., and T. Carothers (2000) Funding Virtue: Civil Society Aid and Democracy Promotion, Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
  62. Pamuk, Y. (2008) Weak States — Strong Networks? Clientelism in Areas of Troubled Statehood: Collaborative Research Centre (SFB) 700.Google Scholar
  63. Petrov, R. (2002) “The Partnership and Co-operation Agreements with the Newly Independent States,” in A. Ott and K. Inglis (eds), Handbook on European Enlargement, The Hague: TMC Asser PressGoogle Scholar
  64. Pierre, J. (1999) “Introduction: Understanding Governance,” in J. Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance: Authority, Steering, and Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Raik, K. (2006) “Promoting Democracy in the Eastern Neighbourhood — The Limits and Potential of ENP,” The International Spectator 2006, 3: 31–45.Google Scholar
  66. Risse, T. (1999) “International Norms and Domestic Change: Arguing and Communicative Behavior in the Human Rights Area,” Politics and Society 27, 4: 526–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. R isse, T., and U. Lehmkuhl (2007) “Regieren ohne Staat? Governance in Räumen begrenzter Staatlichkeit,” in T. Risse and U. Lehmkuhl (eds) Regieren ohne Staat? Governance in Räumen begrenzter Staatlichkeit Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  68. Scharpf, F. W. (1999) Governing Europe. Effective and Legitimate? Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schimmelfennig, F. (2007) “Europeanization beyond Europe,” Living Reviews in European Governance 1, 1: www.livingreviews.org/lreg-2007-1.Google Scholar
  70. Shaffer, B. (2003) “US Policy. The South Caucasus: A Challenge for the EU,” Chaillot Papers 65, 53–62.Google Scholar
  71. Sherwood-Randall, E. (1998) “US Policy and the Caucasus,” Contemporary Caucasus Newsletter 5, 3–4.Google Scholar
  72. Starr, S. F. (1997) “Power Failure: American Policy in the Caspian,” National Interest.Google Scholar
  73. Talbott, S. (1997) A Farewell to Flashman: American Policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Address at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. In US Department of State Dispatch (ed).Google Scholar
  74. Tamrazian, H., and K. Aliyev (2006) Caucasus: U.S. says Aliyev, Kocharian must show “poltical will”: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.Google Scholar
  75. Tarnoff, C. (2007) “US Assistance to the Former Soviet Union,” RL32866, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, 1 March 2007.Google Scholar
  76. The White House (1998) President Clinton names Ambassador Richard L. Morningstar to be Special Adviser to the President and the Secretary of State for Caspian Basin Energy Diplomacy. In Office of the Press Secretary July 24 (ed.) Statement by the Press Secretary of the White House on 24. July 1998; to be found under http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/WCPD-1998-07-27/html/WCPD-1998-07-27-Pg1480.htm or http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/whouse/archive/1998/july/wh5727.htm.
  77. Theobald, C. (2001) Zur Ökonomik des Staates. Good Governance und die Perzeption der Weltbank, Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  78. Tolentino, A. S. (1995) “Good Governance through Popular Participation in Sustainable Development,” in K. Ginther, E. Denters and P. J. I. M. Waart (eds), Sustainable Development and Good Governance, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  79. Transparency International Georgia (2004) Anticorruption Strategy of Georgian Government.Google Scholar
  80. US Department of State (1996) “U.S. Government Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union — FY 1995,” Washington DC: April 1996.Google Scholar
  81. Tolentino, A. S. (1997) “U.S. Government Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union — FY 1996 Annual Report,” Washington DC: January 1997.Google Scholar
  82. Tolentino, A. S. (1998) “U.S. Government Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union — FY 1997 Annual Report,” Washington DC: January 1998.Google Scholar
  83. Tolentino, A. S. (1999) U.S. Silk Road Strategy Act on March 10, 1999. Section five of this Act amended the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 with Chapter 12 (Support for the Economic and Political Independence of the Countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia)Google Scholar
  84. cf. U.S. Code collection Title 22, Chapter 67 available at www.law.cornell.edu
  85. Tolentino, A. S. (2000) “U.S. Government Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union — FY 1999 Annual Report,” Wasington DC: January 2000.Google Scholar
  86. Tolentino, A. S. (2001) “U.S. Government Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union — FY 2000 Annual Report,” Washington DC: January 2001.Google Scholar
  87. US Department of State (2002) “U.S. Government Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with Eurasia — FY 2001,” Washington DC: March 2002.Google Scholar
  88. Tolentino, A. S. (2003) “U.S. Government Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with Eurasia — FY 2002,” Washington DC: January 2003.Google Scholar
  89. Tolentino, A. S. (2004) “U.S. Government Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with Eurasia — FY 2003,” Washington DC: January 2004.Google Scholar
  90. Tolentino, A. S. (2006) “U.S. Government Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with Eurasia — FY 2005,” Washington DC: January 2006.Google Scholar
  91. Welt, C. (2006) Regime Vulnerability and Popular Mobilization in Georgiás Rose Revolution: CDDRL Working Papers: Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Tanja A. Börzel, Yasemin Pamuk and Andreas Stahn 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tanja A. Börzel
    • 1
  • Yasemin Pamuk
    • 1
  • Andreas Stahn
    • 1
  1. 1.Otto-Suhr-Institut for Political ScienceFreie Universität BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations