Which Rules for the Global Order? The Global Dimension of the Russian-EU Relationship – The Case of International Crises
Both the European Union and Russia have demonstrated aspirations to shape the international order on a global level. The EU has been the most prominent exponent and promoter of a solidarist vision of the International Society (IS), whereas the Russian Federation has belonged to the proponents of a pluralist international order. This article therefore analyses how both actors have attempted to reconcile their respective visions of the IS and what the consequences for the global order have been. It argues that rules and norms have formed the core of the IS and have directly influenced the international order. Three major international crises (Iranian, Middle Eastern and Kosovo) have been chosen as case studies. The selected crises have touch upon crucial rules and norms: the use of force, the scope of non-military coercion, the non-intervention principle, human rights and the inclusion-exclusion issue. The extent of cooperation between Russia and the EU in particular crises has varied. Both actors have been able to overcome some of their differences and reconcile their positions. However, it seems that the differences between Russia and the EU regarding the rules and norms of the IS have been too broad to allow for a common normative base of an emerging global order. Despite general agreement on common interests, the detailed content of norms and rules has remained the source of disputes and has slowed down (or has even made impossible) the practical application of a common approach. Therefore, Russian-EU relations in a global dimension should be expected to prolong the process of emergence of a post-unilateral international order, rather than provide a basis for it.
The European Union and Border Conflicts: The EU and the Israel–Palestine conflict
Introduction The case study discussed in this chapter departs from the other case studies in this book as neither of the two conflict parties, Israel and Palestine, is geographically or, at least in the near future, politically part of the EU. Yet, while there is no immediate integration perspective for the two conflict parties, both Israel and Palestine have close linkages to the EU, both bilaterally and in the context of the multilateral Euro- Mediterranean Partnership (EMP), in which a framework of association between both countries and the EU has been established. This association dimension renders the Israel–Palestine case study central to the analysis in this book and allows us to test whether association provides for similar mechanisms in the transformation of border conflicts as integration does in the other case studies. Having said this, it is important to remember that there has been European involvement in the Middle Eastern region for centuries and in the Israeli–Arab conflict from the early twentieth century through to the present era and the formation of a common EU foreign policy (Sachar 1999; Heller 2004). As has become a commonplace among European policy-makers, developments in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have a significant influence on developments in the EU.
Earned Sovereignty: The Road to Resolving the Conflict Over Kosovo’s Final Status
This article is the third in a series of three articles which discuss the emerging doctrine of "earned sovereignty." The first article provided a detailed definition of earned sovereignty, and its sub-components, and explained the historical and political basis for the doctrine. The second article set forth the legal basis for the doctrine. This article explores the competition between self-determination and sovereignty in the conflict between Kosovo and Serbia, and tracks the efforts of the international community to rely on the doctrine of earned sovereignty to resolve the conflict.