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.
EU–Russia relations: Between conflict and cooperation
EU–Russia relations have often been considered in scholarship to be governed by the dichotomy between conflict and cooperation. Cooperation has often coexisted or overlapped with conflict on a significant number of issues and policy areas, making relations between the two actors very complex. This article explores the dichotomy between conflict and cooperation, highlighting the way it has influenced the two actors’ policies towards the Eastern Neighbourhood. It posits that the difference between what the European Union (EU) says and what it does is desired and perpetuated both by Russia, the EU’s member states and the countries within the Eastern Neighbourhood. Simultaneously, Moscow is unable to formulate a clear strategy for the Eastern Neighbourhood, which makes its approach geared at providing short-term incentives to corrupt politicians in the countries in the region not sustainable in the long term. In doing so, the article also aims to enquire into the potential for EU–Russia relations to move beyond the well-known conflict–cooperation dichotomy.
European Union ‘Normative Power’ and the Security Challenge
Abstract In this discussion of security and democracy in the European Union two interrelated arguments are put forward about the use of normative power to address the security challenge. The article starts by discussing the European (security) Union within the context of over 15 years of European human security debates, and then reflects on the current conduct of the total war on terror as led by the USA. The author argues for the need to be normative in the EU's security policies and concludes by considering the normative security dilemmas that the EU and its member states face over security and democracy, war and peace. He reiterates the argument that the EU should and must apply its own normative principles to the security challenge if we are ever to move beyond total war and towards sustainable peace.