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.
HISTORICAL INSTITUTIONALISM AND ENERGY POLICY AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK TO ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF THE EASTERN ENLARGEMENT ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE EU’s ENERGY POLICY
Energy policy did not enjoy as much attention in European studies as other European policy areas due to the lack of specific jurisdiction granted by the treaty. Although energy was the main focus of two of the initial treaties, as the European project evolved, states proved they were not keen on allowing EU institutions to get involved in areas of national interest and security and energy continued to be considered just from the point of view of trade and not as a policy area of its own. Along with the shift in the use of certain resources oil and gas becoming primary resources, the Union’s institutional setup was not updated to deal with this change. Nevertheless, this seems to be changing and important steps have been taken with the aim of establishing a common energy policy in the EU, especially after the decision to expand towards the east. In this sense, the present paper brings forward a historical institutionalist approach to assess the impact of the eastern enlargements of 2004 and 2007 on the evolution of the EU’s energy policy. It deploys a number of core concepts like unintended consequences, learning, path dependency and critical junctures while exploring the interaction between institutions and preferences. * Draft – feedback welcomed (ioana.lungu@bristol.ac.uk)
SEASONAL AND REGIONAL MPG AS INFLUENCED BY ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND TRAVEL PATTERNS
In-use fuel economy shortfall varies regionally and seasonally in response to changing environmental conditions and travel patterns. Shortfall changes by 25 percent or more are associated with variation in miles travelled per day by in-use vehicles. Monthly variations in northern states are twice those in the south; air conditioning penalties also vary by region. Although regional difference in annual levels are relatively small, shortfall can increase by 16 percent in densely populated urban areas. These variations have been quantified in an analysis of time-series mpg data and related to variables commonly reported in fuel economy surveys.