The role of norms and values in the European Union’S Russia Policy

Russia and Europe in the Twenty-First Century: An Uneasy Partnership

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 133-148

  Haukkala, Hiski ^a  

^a FINNISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 54349100193     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.7135/UPO9781843317548.011     Document Type: Chapter

References (61)

1. See the Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe, Official Journal of the European Union, C310, volume 47, 16 December 2004, Title V, Chapter I, Article III-292.
2. See Ian Manners, ‘Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40:2 (2002), pp. 235-58.
3. The original civilian power Europe argument was made in François Duchêne, ‘The European Community and the Uncertainties of Interdependence’ in M. Kohnstamm and W. Hager (eds.), A Nation Writ Large? Foreign-Policy Problems before the European Community (London and Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1973).
4. For a fuller exposition of this argument see Robert Cooper, The Breaking of Nations. Order and Chaos in the Twenty-First Century (London, Atlantic Books, 2003). Also the EU’s own Security Strategy betrays this notion. See A Secure Europe in a Better World. European Security Strategy, passim, esp. pp. 1 and 10-11.
5. See ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect. Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (Ottawa: International Development Research Center, December 2001), pp. 7-8.
6. Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun, ‘The Responsibility to Protect’, Foreign Affairs, 81:6 (2002), pp. 99-110. About the roots of the concept
7. Thomas G. Weiss, ‘Governance, good governance and global governance: conceptual and actual challenges’, Third World Quarterly, 21:5 (2000), pp. 795-814, p. 800. The homepages of ICISS are at http://www.iciss.ca/, accessed 18 April 2005.
8. Charter of Paris for a New Europe, CSCE 1990 Summit, Paris, 19-21 November 1990. Available at http://www.osce.org/docs/english/1990-1999/summits/paris90e.htm, accessed 17 March 2005.
9. For overviews concerning the process, see, for example, Roy Ginsberg, ‘The Impact of Enlargement on the Role of the European Union in the World’ in J. Redmond and G. G. Rosenthal (eds.), The Expanding European Union: Past, Present, Future (Boulder and London, Lynne Rienner, 1998);
10. Roy Ginsberg, Foreign Policy Actions of the European Community. The Politics of Scale (Boulder and London, Lynne Rienner and Adamantine Press, 1989), pp. 151-2.
11. It entered into force for a period of ten years in December 1997.
12. Cf. John Peterson and Michael E. Smith, ‘The EU as a Global Actor’ in E. Bomberg and A. Stubb (eds.), The European Union: How Does it Work? (Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press, 2003);
13. Fritz W. Scharpf, ‘The Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration’, Public Administration, 66:3 (1988), pp. 239-78.
14. Karen E. Smith, ‘The End of Civilian Power EU: A Welcome Demise or Cause for Concern?’, The International Spectator, XXXV:2 (2000), pp. 11-28;
15. Adrian Treacher, ‘From Civilian Power to Military Actor: The EU’s Resistible Transformation’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 9:1 (2004), pp. 49-66.;
16. Richard G. Whitman, From Civilian Power to Superpower? The International Identity of the European Union (London and Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1998). Here I essentially agree with Manners who has complained that the ‘Civilian Power Europe’ debate has centered too much on the nature of that actorness (capabilities and the lack of them) while largely sidelining its (normative) content.
17. Cf. Manners, ‘Civilian Power Europe’, p. 239.
18. About the logic of accession, see Graham Avery and Fraser Cameron, The Enlargement of the European Union (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 32-3. About ENP
19. Hiski Haukkala, The EU as a Regional Normative Hegemon: The Case of European Neighbourhood Policy, unpublished article manuscript under review for publication.
20. For more about conditionality in EU’s external relations, see Karen E. Smith, ‘The Use of Political Conditionality in the EU’s Relations with Third Countries: How Effective?’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 3:2 (1998), pp. 253-74;
21. Marcela Szymanski and Michael E. Smith, ‘Coherence and Conditionality in European Foreign Policy: Negotiating the EU-Mexico Global Agreement’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 43:1 (2005), pp. 171-92.
22. It should be stated that neither this article nor the writer assumes that the normative component is the only significant dimension in EU’s Russia policy. Traditional (interstate?actor) bargaining co-exists there as well and should be kept in mind. Inserting that factor into the equation is, however, beyond the aims of this chapter.
23. Richard Youngs, ‘European Union Democracy Promotion Policies: Ten Years On’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 6:3 (2001), pp. 355-73. For a comprehensive survey of EU external agreements and the role of human rights in them
24. Vaughne Miller, The Human Rights Clause in the EU’s External Agreements, House of Commons Research Paper 04/33, 16 April 2004.
25. The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (hereafter PCA). Available at http://europa.eu.int?comm/external_relations/ceeca/pca/pca_russia.pdf, accessed 20 April 2005.
26. PCA, Title I, Article 2.
27. Miller, The Human Rights Clause, p. 11.
28. For an overview, see Youngs, ‘European Union Democracy Promotion’. For more specific treatments of, for example, EU-Mexico and EU-Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) elations
29. Szymanski and Smith, ‘Coherence and Conditionality’;
30. Soile Kauranen and Henri Vogt, Piilopoliittisuudesta poliittisuuteen: Afrikan, Karibian ja Tyynenmeren valtioiden ja Euroopan unionin yhteistyön kehitys, FIIA Report 5/2003 (Helsinki, the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, 2003), respectively.
31. PCA, Joint declaration in relation to articles 2 and 107.
32. PCA, Title VI, Article 55.1.
33. PCA, Title VI, Article 55.2.
34. See Weiss, ‘Governance, good governance and global governance’;
35. Olav Stokke, ‘Aid and Political Conditionality: Core Issues and State of the Art’ in O. Stokke (ed.), Aid and Political Conditionality (London and Geneva, Frank Cass in association with the European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes EADI, 1995).
36. About more traditional international institutions, see Robert O. Keohane, International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory (Boulder, San Francisco and London, Westview Press, 1989);
37. K. J. Holsti, Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics (Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press, 2004). The same logic is to be found from the Union’s new neighbourhood policy, which, in the words of the (then) Commission President Romano Prodi, is about sharing ‘everything but institutions’ with the Union’s new neighbourhood.
38. Haukkala, The EU as a Regional Normative Hegemon.
39. About the teacher/student approach and Russia, see Christopher S. Browning, ‘The Region-Building Approach Revisited: The Continued Othering of Russia in Discourses of Region-Building in the European North’, Geopolitics, 8:1 (2003), pp. 45-71.
40. Vladimir Baranovsky, Russia’s Attitudes towards the EU: Foreign and Security Policy Aspects. Programme on the Northern Dimension of the CFSP, No. 15 (Helsinki and Berlin, the Finnish Institute of International Affairs and Institut für Europäische Politik, 2002).
41. Sergei Karaganov, ‘Russia and the international order’ in D. Lynch (ed.), What Russia sees. Chaillot Paper No 74, January 2005 (Paris, European Union Institute for Security Studies, 2005), p. 34.
42. About Putin’s agenda concerning Russia’s modernisation, see Richard Sakwa, Putin-Russia’s Choice (London and New York, Routledge, 2004).
43. Hiski Haukkala, ‘A problematic “strategic partnership”’ in D. Lynch (ed.), EU-Russian security dimensions. Occasional Paper No. 46, July 2003 (Paris, European Union Institute for Security Studies, 2003), p. 10;
44. Timofei V. Bordachev, ‘Strategy and Strategies’ in A. Moshes (ed.), Rethinking the Respective Strategies of Russia and the European Union. Special FIIA-Carnegie Moscow Center Report (Helsinki and Moscow, the Finnish Institute of International Affairs and Carnegie Moscow Center, 2003). Russia’s mid-term EU strategy betrays this notion as well
45. Timofei V. Bordachev ‘Medium-term Strategy for Development of Relations between the Russian Federation and the European Union (2000-2010)’, Diplomaticheskii Vestnik, No. 11, November 1999, pp. 20-8.
46. Russia-EU bilateral trade and trade with the world. DG Trade, 30 March 2005. Available at http://trade-info.cec.eu.int/doclib/html/113440.htm, accessed 2 May 2005.
47. The beginning phase of the conflict has been reconstructed and analysed in depth in Hiski Haukkala, ‘The Making of the European Union’s Common Strategy on Russia’ in H. Haukkala and S. Medvedev (eds.), The EU Common Strategy on Russia: Learning the Grammar of the CFSP. Programme on the Northern Dimension of the CFSP, No. 11 (Helsinki and Berlin, the Finnish Institute of International Affairs and Institut für Europäische Politik, 2001), esp. pp. 51-62.
48. An excellent analysis of EU’s policy on Russia and Chechnya is Tuomas Forsberg and Graeme Herd, ‘The EU, Human Rights, and the Russo-Chechen Conflict’, Political Science Quarterly, 120:3 (2005), 455-78.
49. A term coined by the US Ambassador in Moscow, Alexander Vershbow. Quoted in Dov Lynch, ‘Misperceptions and divergences’ in D. Lynch (ed.), What Russia sees, p. 17.
50. See Report with a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on EU-Russia Relations, Final a5-0053/2004, 2 February 2004; Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on relations with Russia, COM(2004) 106, 9 February 2004.
51. Karaganov, ‘Russia and the international order’, p. 32;
52. Bordachev ‘Strategy and Strategies’.
53. See Report of the High-Level Group on the common European economic space. Tenth EU-Russia summit, Brussels, 11 November 2002. Available at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm?external_relations/russia/summit_11_02/concl.htm, accessed 1 May 2005.
54. The Common European Economic Space (CEES) Concept Paper, III.12. EU-Russia summit, Rome, 6 November 2003, Joint Statement, Annex 1, 13990/03 (Presse 313). Available at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/russia/summit11_03?1concl.pdf, accessed 1 May 2005.
55. Hiski Haukkala, ‘What Went Right with the EU’s Common Strategy on Russia?’ in A. Moshes (ed.), Rethinking the Respective Strategies, p. 76.
56. S. Prikhodko and A. Pakhomov, Problems and Prospects of Russia’s Accession to WTO. Russian-European Centre for Economic Policy (RECEP), Policy Paper Series, September 2001, p. 13.
57. S. Prikhodko and A. Pakhomov, Problems and Prospects of Russia’s Accession to WTO. Russian-European Centre for Economic Policy (RECEP), Policy Paper Series, September 2001 p. 29.
58. Miller, The Human Rights Clause, p. 47.
59. Karen E. Smith, ‘The EU, Human Rights and Relations with Third Countries: “Foreign Policy” with an Ethical Dimension?’ in K. E. Smith and M. Light (eds.), Ethics and Foreign Policy (Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press, 2001);
60. Hanns W. Maull, ‘German Foreign Policy, Post-Kosovo: Still a “Civilian Power”?’, German Politics, 9:2 (2000), pp. 1-24.
61. Graham Timmins, ‘Strategic or Pragmatic Partnership? The European Union’s Policy Towards Russia Since the End of the Cold War’, European Security, 11:4 (2002), pp. 78-95.