The EU and its changing neighbourhood: Stabilization, integration and partnership

European Union Foreign and Security Policy: Towards a Neighbourhood Strategy

Volumn , Issue , 2003, Pages 12-26

  Missiroli, Antonio ^a  

^a European Union   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864044052     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203300855     Document Type: Chapter

References (39)

1. For a tentative overview, see G. Edwards, 'The Potential and Limits of CFSP:The Yugoslav Example', in E. Regelsberger, P. de Schoutheete and W. Wessels (eds), Foreign Policy of the European Union: From EPC to CFSP and Beyond, Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1997, pp. 173-95.
2. In December 2000 the Secretary-General of the EU Council, and High Representative for the CFSP, Javier Solana, released an 'evaluation report' on the three 'Common Strategies' hitherto adopted by the Union that sounded fairly critical of the method and the substance of the exercise, which had been introduced with the Treaty of Amsterdam. See 'Common Strategies Report', reproduced in A. Missiroli (ed.), 'Coherence for European Security Policy:Debates - Cases - Assessments', WEU-ISS Occasional Paper 27, WEU-ISS, Paris, May 2001, Annex E, pp. 80-6 (www.iss-eu.org). Common Strategies are expected to be in force for five years. For specific evaluations, see G. Sasse, 'The EU Common Strategy on Ukraine: A Response to Ukraine's pro-European Choice?', in A. Lewis (ed.), The EU and Ukraine: Neighbours, Friends, Partners?, London: The Federal Trust, 2002, pp. 213-20;
3. H. Haukkala and S. Medvedev (eds), The EU Common Strategy on Russia: Learning the Grammar of CFSP, Helsinki and Berlin: FIIA and IEP, 2001.
4. See M. Maresceau and E. Lannon (eds), The EU Enlargement and Mediterranean Strategies: A Comparative Analysis, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, 2001.
5. On the CFSP machinery, see J. Monar, 'Political Dialogue with Third Coun- tries and Regional Political Groupings: The Fifteen as an Attractive Interlocutor', in Regelsberger et al. (eds), Foreign Policy of the European Union, pp. 263-74.
6. See also M. Holland, The European Union and the Third World, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, 2002;
7. more generally, C. Piening, Global Europe: The European Union in World Affairs, Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1997.
8. On this phase, see K. E. Smith, The Making of EU Foreign Policy: The Case of Eastern Europe, New York: St Martin's Press, 1999;
9. P. Luif, 'The European Union's Projection of Security and Stability onto Central and Eastern Europe', in P. Luif (ed.), Security in Central and Eastern Europe: Problems -Perceptions - Policies, Vienna: Braumüller, 2001, pp. 307-42.
10. For a broader approach and a thorough analysis of the various sub-regional groupings and initiatives, see A. Cottey (ed.), Sub-regional Cooperation in the New Europe:Building Security, Prosperity and Solidarity from the Barents to the Black Sea, New York: East-West Institute, 1999.
11. See R. Dimtcheva, 'La Bulgarie et la Roumanie dans le Pacte de stabilité', EU-ISS Occasional Paper, 41, EU-ISS, Paris, January 2001 (www.iss-eu.org).
12. For an overall assessment, see M. Brusis and N. Galer, 'South-Eastern Europe and the EU: Problems, Actors, Policies', in W. van Meurs (ed.), Beyond EU Enlargement, vol. 2, The Agenda of Stabilisation for South-Eastern Europe, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation, 2001, pp. 45-71.
13. Accordingly, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Cyprus signed the accession treaty in April 2003 and become full members from April 2004. For a first evaluation, see H. Grabbe, 'The Copenhagen Deal for Enlargement', Briefing Note, Centre for European Reform, London, 20 December 2002 (www.cer.org.uk);
14. A. Missiroli, 'Two Enlargements and a Devolution', EU-ISS Newsletter, March 2003 (www.iss-eu.org).
15. For a general overview, see G. Avery and F. Cameron, The Enlargement of the European Union, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
16. See A. Missiroli (ed.), 'Bigger EU, Wider CFSP, Stronger ESDP? The View from Central Europe', EU-ISS Occasional Paper 34, EU-ISS, Paris, April 2002 (www.iss-eu.org).
17. For a post-Copenhagen evaluation, see A. Missiroli, 'EU Enlargement and CFSP/ESDP', European Integration, 2003, vol. 25, no. 1: 1-16.
18. See U. Sedelmeyer and H. Wallace, 'Eastern Enlargement', in H. Wallace and W. Wallace (eds), Policy-Making in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 427-60.
19. See H. Grabbe, 'The Benes Decrees: Implications for EU Enlargement', Briefing Note, Centre for European Reform, London, June 2002 (www.cer.org.uk);
20. 'A Spectre over Central Europe', The Economist, 17 August 2002, pp. 23-4.
21. More generally, see E. Berg and W. van Meurs, 'Legacies of the Past, Ethnic and Territorial Conflict Potentials', in I. Kempe (ed.), Beyond EU Enlargement, vol. 1, The Agenda of Direct Neighbourhood for Eastern Europe, Gütersloh, Bertelsmann Foundation, 2001, pp. 129-63.
22. For comparisons between the different enlargements of European organizations over the past years, see S. Croft, J. Redmond, G. Wyn Rees and M. Webber, The Enlargement of Europe, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999;
23. A. Hyde-Price, 'The Antinomies of European Security: Dual Enlargement and the Reshaping of the European Order', Contemporary Security Policy, 2000, vol. 21, no. 3: 139-67.
24. For an interesting overview, see T. Christiansen, F. Petito and B. Tonra, 'Fuzzy Politics around Fuzzy Borders: The European Union's "Near Abroad" ', Cooperation and Conflict, 2000, vol. 35, no. 4: 389-415.
25. A deal on 'Berlin-plus' was eventually struck in December 2002 in the wake of Copenhagen: it foresees inter alia that Malta and Cyprus will not participate in any EU operation conducted with NATO planning and logistical support. For an analysis of the issues involved, with particular emphasis on the military dimension, see A. Missiroli, 'EU-NATO Cooperation in Crisis Management:No Turkish Delight for ESDP', Security Dialogue, 2002, vol. 35, no. 1: 9-26.
26. See A. Lewis (ed.), The EU and Belarus: Between Moscow and Brussels, London: Federal Trust, 2002.
27. D. Lynch, 'Crisis in Moldova', EU-ISS Newsletter, Paris, February 2002 (www.iss-eu.org);
28. M. Bran, 'Les Moldaves et le passeport roumain', Le Monde, 29 November 2002, p. 17.
29. For example, T. Kuzio and J. D. P. Moroney, 'Ukraine and the West: Moving from Stability to Strategic Enlargement', European Security, 2001, vol. 10, no. 111-26;
30. O. Pavliuk, 'An Unfulfilling Partnership: Ukraine and the West 1991-2001', European Security, 2002, vol. 11, no. 1: 81-101;
31. Lewis (ed.), The EU and Ukraine.
32. See I. Kempe and W. van Meurs, 'Strategic Challenges and Risks of EU Eastern Enlargement', in I. Kempe (ed.), Beyond EU Enlargement, vol. 1, pp. 43;
33. S. White, I. McAllister and M. Light, 'Enlargement and the New Outsiders', Journal of Common Market Studies, 2002, vol. 40, no. 1: 135-53;
34. C. Guicherd, 'The Enlarged EU's Eastern Border: Integrating Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova in the European Project', SWP-Studie 20, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, Berlin, June 2002.
35. The relevant Council decision (doc. 14078/02) can be found in the Commission's Communication in www.europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/we/doc/ com_03_104_en.pdf.
36. See also J. Reed, 'Poland Suggests New Eastern Policy for EU', Financial Times, 28 January 2003, p. 2.
37. See F. Tanner (ed.), The European Union as a Security Actor in the Mediterranean, Zürich: Zürcher Beiträge zur Sicherheitspolitik und Konfliktforschung, 2001;
38. M. Ortega, 'Military Dialogue in the Euro-Mediterranean Charter:An Unjustified Absence', The International Spectator, 2000, vol. 35, no. 1:115-25.
39. See also D. Schmid, 'Optimiser le processus de Barcelone', Occasional Paper 36, EU-ISS, Paris, July 2002 (www.iss-eu.org).