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.
Regulating Statehood: The Kosovo Status Settlement
On 2 February 2007 the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General unveiled a comprehensive proposal for a supervised independence of Kosovo with a view of clinching the last chapter of the dismemberment of Yugoslavia. This proposal constitutes a further attempt by the international community of states to bridle the volatile and unpredictable phenomenon of statehood. The state of Kosovo that is envisaged by the Status Settlement is to be endowedwith all the features that are nowadays seen as indispensable for the establishment of a modern government apparatus, a tendency that had already beenobserved in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina or East Timor. The proposed regulation of statehood in this case, however, proves to be of an unprecedented extent. Against that backdrop, the article grapples with the legal questions revolving around the independence of Kosovo, including secession, recognition, succession, international supervision, self-determination, and membership of international organizations.
The Internet and the Changing Beijing-Taipei Relations: Toward Unification or Fragmentation?
Information and its technologies facilitate the exercise of what has been called “soft power,” a concept that differentiates information from the conventional dimensions of “hard power,” which is mainly associated with military force and economic influence. Soft power, according to Nye, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense of the United States, means that “A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries want to follow it, admiring its values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness. In this sense it is just as important to set the agenda in world politics and attract others as it is to force them to change through the threat or use of military or economic weapons.”1