The E. U.’s role as an international player began to upgrade alongside the effort to coordinate its external action by adopting a common foreign and security policy (CFSP). In this context, the EU has developed a wide range of policies and policy instruments that fall within its areas of legislative competence and extend from external trade and bilateral relations to the support of democratic institutions and international cooperation. After the end of the Cold –War, the European Union addressed the challenges arising from the emergence of post-conflict states, a considerable number of which were in its neighborhood. The E. U. pursuit of addressing challenges related to contested states has evolved over the years and varies significantly depending on the conflict, the bilateral relations, and the geopolitical context. Peacebuilding and state-building interventions were necessary for the post-conflict transition and socioeconomic rehabilitation of these fragile states with contested sovereignty. The E. U. supported countries in consolidating peace and building a modern state with political and economic means. Moreover, the E. U. has adjusted its interventions to the realities and conditions prevailing in each country. Since the impact of the E. U.’s integrated intervention on contested states remains a research concern, the present dissertation aims to address whether the E. U., as a global power, has the mechanisms and appropriate political skills to face the challenges presented in countries with contested statehood.
| Published in | Journal of Political Science and International Relations (Volume 6, Issue 3) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.jpsir.20230603.11 |
| Page(s) | 64-79 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Science Publishing Group |
E. U. Actorness, Contested States, E. U. Policies & Policy Tools
| [1] | Visoka, G and Doyle, J., (2016). New –Functional Peace: The European Union Way of Resolving Conflicts. Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 54, Nᴼ 4, pp. 862-877, Wiley Online Library, p. 865. |
| [2] | Tocci, N., (2007). The E. U. and Conflict Resolution: Promoting peace in the Backyard. UACES, Contemporary European Studies. Routledge / UACES, p. 177. |
| [3] | European Commission, (2003). Wider Europe – Neighborhood: A new framework for relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbors, Commission Communication COM (203), 104 final, p. 1, Brussels. |
| [4] | Tocci, N., (2007). The E. U. and Conflict Resolution: Promoting peace in the Backyard. UACES, Contemporary European Studies. Routledge / UACES, p. 176. |
| [5] | Visoka, G and Doyle, J., (2016). New –Functional Peace: The European Union Way of Resolving Conflicts. Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 54, Nᴼ 4, pp. 862-877. Wiley Online Library, p. 864. |
| [6] | Taylor, C., (2014). A modest proposal: Statehood and Sovereignty in Global Law. Journal on International Law. pp. 745-809. The University of Pennsylvania. Vol. 18, Nᴼ 3, Art. 2, p. 745. |
| [7] | Taylor, C., (2014). A modest proposal: Statehood and Sovereignty in Global Law. Journal on International Law. pp. 745-809. The University of Pennsylvania. Vol. 18, Nᴼ 3, Art. 2, p. 748. |
| [8] | Geldenhuys, D., (2009). Contested States in World Politics. (Basingstoke: Palgrave)., p. 14. |
| [9] | Closson, S., (2011). What do unrecognized states tell us about sovereignty? In: Caspersen, N. and Stansfield, G., (eds.). Unrecognized States in the International System, pp. 58-69. London and New York: Routledge, p. 59. |
| [10] | Bahcheli, T. Bartmann, B. and Srebnik, H., (eds.), (2004). De facto states. The Quest for Sovereignty. London: Routledge, p. 12. |
| [11] | Pegg, S. (1998). International Society and de Facto States. |
| [12] | Caspersen, N. and Stansfield, G., (2011). Unrecognized States in the International System. In: Caspersen, N. and Stansfield, G., (eds.). Unrecognized States in the International System. London: Routledge, pp. 1-8. |
| [13] | Geldenhuys, D., (2009). Contested States in World Politics. (Basingstoke: Palgrave). |
| [14] | Kolossov, V. and O’Loughlin, J., (1998). Pseudo-states as Harbingers of new geopolitics: the example of the Trans-Dniester Moldovan republic (TMR). Geopolitics, 3 (1), pp. 151-176. |
| [15] | Papadimitriou, D. and Petrov, P., (2012). Who’s Rule, Whose Law? Contested Statehood, External Leverage, and the European Union’s Rule of Law Mission of Kosovo. Journal Common Market Studies, Volume 50, Number 5, pp 746-763., p. 748. |
| [16] | Geldenhuys, D., (2009). Contested States in World Politics. (Basingstoke: Palgrave), p. 29. |
| [17] | Caspersen, N. and Stansfield, G., (2011). Unrecognized States in the International System. In: Caspersen, N. and Stansfield, G., (eds.). Unrecognized States in the International System. London: Routledge, p. 3. |
| [18] | Caspersen, N., (2011). States without sovereignty: imitating democratic statehood. In: Caspersen, N. and Stansfield, G., (eds). Unrecognized States in the International System. London: Routledge p. 85. |
| [19] | Caspersen, N., (2011). States without sovereignty: imitating democratic statehood. In: Caspersen, N. and Stansfield, G., (eds). Unrecognized States in the International System. London: Routledge p. 76. |
| [20] | Caspersen, N. and Stansfield, G., (2011). Unrecognized States in the International System. In: Caspersen, N. and Stansfield, G., (eds.). Unrecognized States in the International System. London: Routledge, p. 6. |
| [21] | Harvey, J., and Stansfield, G., (2011). Theorizing unrecognized states: sovereignty, secessionism, and political economy. In: Caspersen, N. and Stansfield, G., (eds). Unrecognized States in the International System. pp. 11-26 London: Routledge, p. 23. |
| [22] | Hechter, M., (1992. The dynamics of secession. Acta Sociologica, 35 (4), pp. 279-280. |
| [23] | Caspersen, N. and Stansfield, G., (eds)., 2014. Unrecognized States in the International System. In: Caspersen, N. and Stansfield, G., (eds.). Unrecognized States in the International System. London: Routledge, p. 6. |
| [24] | Krasner, S., (2001). Problematic Sovereignty. In: Krasner, S, (ed) Problematic Sovereignty, Contested Rules, and Political Possibilities, pp. 1-21. Columbia University Press, pp: 6-12. |
| [25] | Anderson, L., (2014). Reintegrating unrecognized states: internationalizing frozen conflicts. In: Caspersen, N and Stansfield, G., (eds). Unrecognized States in the International System., pp. 183-206. London and New York: Routledge, p. 183. |
| [26] | Jackson, R. H., (1987). Quasi-states, dual regimes, and neoclassical theory: International jurisprudence and the Third World. International Organization, 41 (4), pp. 519-549, p. 529. |
| [27] | Chorev, M., (2011). Complex terrains: unrecognized states and globalization. In: Caspersen, N. and Stansfield, G. eds., 2014. Unrecognized States in the International System. London and New York: Routledge: Exeter Studies in Ethno Politics. Part. 1, Ch. 2, pp 24-40. Routledge. p. 30. |
| [28] | Rosecrance, R., Solingen, E. and Stein, A., (2006)., Globalization and Its Effects: Introduction and Overview. In: No More States? Globalization, National Self-Determination, and Terrorism, Ch. 1, pp. 3-22. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp. 4-5. |
| [29] | Mulaj, K., (2008). Politics in Ethnic Cleansing: Nation-State Building and Provision of Insecurity in Twentieth Century Balkans. Lexington Books/Rowman & Littlefield. |
| [30] | Milliken, J. and Krause, K., (2002). State failure, state collapse, and state reconstruction: concepts, lessons, and strategies. Development and change, 33 (5), 753-774., p. 755. |
| [31] | Mulaj, K., (2011). International Actions and the making and the unmaking of unrecognized states. In: Caspersen, N. and Stansfield, G. eds., 2011. Unrecognized States in the. International System, pp. 41-57. London and New York: Routledge, p. 42. |
| [32] | Bartelson, J., (2006). The concept of sovereignty is revisited. The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 463-474. |
| [33] | Helman, G, and Ratner, S., (1992). Saving Failed States. Foreign Policy., 89, p. 4. |
| [34] | Wallensteen, P. and Sollenberg, M., 2001. Armed Conflict 1989-2000. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 38, Nᴼ5, p. 632. |
| [35] | Grevi, G. Helly, D. and Keohane, D., eds., 2009. European Security and Defense Policy. The First ten years (1999-2009). European Union. Institute for Security Studies, p. 19. |
| [36] | Grevi, G. Helly, D. and Keohane, D., eds., 2009. European Security and Defense Policy. The First ten years (1999-2009). European Union. Institute for Security Studies, p. 56. |
| [37] | European Commission, (2003). Wider Europe – Neighborhood: A new framework for relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbors, Commission Communication COM (203), 104 final, p. 10, Brussels. |
| [38] | Brinkerhoff, D., (2005). Rebuilding Governance in Failed States and Post-Conflict Societies: Core and Cross-Cutting Themes. Public Administration and Development, Public Admin, 25, p. 12. |
| [39] | Brinkerhoff, D., (2005). Rebuilding Governance in Failed States and Post-Conflict Societies: Core and Cross-Cutting Themes. Public Administration and Development, Public Admin, 25, p. 13. |
| [40] | Hameiri, S., (2010). Regulating Statehood: State Building and the Transformation of the Global Order. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, p. 87. |
| [41] | Fukuyama, F., (2005). State Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century. London. Profile Books. |
| [42] | Rotberg, R., (2004). The Failure and Collapse of Nation-States: Breakdown, Prevention, and Repair. In: Rotberg, R., (ed), When states fail: causes and consequences. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 1. |
| [43] | Zupanċiċ, R and Pejiċ, N., (2018). Limits to the European Union’s Normative Power in Post-Conflict Actions and Society. EULEX and Peacebuilding in Kosovo. Springer Briefs in Population Studies. Springer Open., p. 13. |
| [44] | Hameiri, S., (2010). Regulating Statehood: State Building and the Transformation of the Global Order. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, p. 73. |
| [45] | Furedi, F, (2009). Specialist Pleading. The Australian Library Review. Vol 2, pp. 14-15. |
| [46] | Hilgartner, S. (2000), Science on Stage: Expert Advice on Public Drama. Stanford University Press, p. 146. |
| [47] | Hameiri, S., (2010). Regulating Statehood: State Building and the Transformation of the Global Order. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, p. 80. |
| [48] | Jayasuriya, R., (2001). Globalization and Changing Architecture of the State: The Regulatory State and the Politics of Negative Coordination. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 8, No1, pp: 101-123, p. 101. |
| [49] | Duffield, M. (2011). Postmodern Conflict: Warlords, Post adjustment States, and Private Protection. Civil Wars. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 65-102. |
| [50] | Caspersen, N., (2009). Playing the Recognition Game: External Actors and the De Facto States. The International Spectator. Italian Journal of International Affairs, 44, pp. 47-60. |
| [51] | Harrison, G. (2004). The World Bank and Africa: The Construction of Governance States. New York and London. Routledge. |
| [52] | Mkandawire, T., (1999). Crisis management and the making of ‘choiceless democracies’ in Africa. In: Richard, J. (ed) The State, Conflict, and Democracy in Africa., pp119-136 Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, p. 97. |
| [53] | Rotberg, R., (2004). The Failure and Collapse of Nation-States: Breakdown, Prevention, and Repair. In: Rotberg, R., (ed), When states fail: causes and consequences. pp. 1-50. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp 2-4. |
| [54] | Zartman, I. W., (2005). Early and “Early Late” Prevention. In: Chesterman, S., Ignatieff, and Thakur, R., Making States Work: State Failure and the Crisis of Governance, pp. 273-295. United Nations University Press. |
| [55] | Pugh, M., 2005. The political economy of peacebuilding: a critical theory perspective. International journal of peace studies, pp. 23-42. |
| [56] | Suhrke, A., 2007. Reconstruction as modernization: the ‘post-conflict ‘project in Afghanistan. Third World Quarterly, 28 (7), pp. 1291-1308. |
| [57] | Hameiri, S., (2010). Regulating Statehood: State Building and the Transformation of the Global Order. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, p. 29. |
| [58] | Visoka, G and Doyle, J., (2016). New –Functional Peace: The European Union Way of Resolving Conflicts. Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 54, Nᴼ 4, pp. 862-877, Wiley Online Library, p. 862. |
| [59] | Hameiri, S., (2010). Regulating Statehood: State Building and the Transformation of the Global Order. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, p. 86. |
| [60] | Visoka, G and Doyle, J., (2016). New –Functional Peace: The European Union Way of Resolving Conflicts. Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 54, Nᴼ 4, pp. 862-877, Wiley Online Library, p. 863. |
| [61] | Meierhenrich, J., 2004. Forming states after failure. In: When States Fall: Causes and Consequences edited by Robert. I. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 153-69. |
| [62] | Krasner, S., 2004. Sharing Sovereignty New Institutions for collapsed and failing states. Project MUSE, International Security, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 85-119. |
| [63] | Keohane, R. O., 2003. Political authority after intervention: gradations in sovereignty. In: Holzgrefe, J. L and Keohane, R., (eds) Humanitarian intervention: ethical, legal and political dilemmas, pp. 275-298. Cambridge Press. |
| [64] | Hameiri, S., (2010). Regulating Statehood: State Building and the Transformation of the Global Order. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 29-30. |
| [65] | Chandler, D., (2005). International State Building: Conditionality, Beyond Sovereignty. Guest Seminar, Royal Institute for International Relations, Brussels. |
| [66] | Fabry, M., (2008). Secession and State Recognition in International Relations and Law. In: Pavkovic, A., and Radan, P., (eds). On the Way to Statehood: Secession and Globalization. Aldershot: Ashgate. |
| [67] | Owtram, F. (2011). The foreign policies of unrecognized states. In: Caspersen, N. and Stansfield, G. eds., 2011. Unrecognized States in the International System, pp. 128-143. London and New York: Routledge, p. 131. |
| [68] | Hill, C., 2003. The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy. Basing Stoke: Palgrave, p. 3. |
| [69] | Hill, C., 2003. The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy. Basing Stoke: Palgrave, p. 31. |
| [70] | Owtram, F. (2011). The foreign policies of unrecognized states. In: Caspersen, N. and Stansfield, G. eds., 2011. Unrecognized States in the International System, pp. 128-143. London and New York: Routledge, p. 134. |
| [71] | Hill, C., (2003). The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy. Basing Stoke: Palgrave, p. 40. |
| [72] | EUNPACK, (2016). Understanding the EU’s crisis response toolbox and decision-making processes. Deliverable 4.1. p. 17 http://www.eunpack.eu/sites/default/files/Deliverable%204.1.pdf |
| [73] | Zupanċiċ, R and Pejiċ, N., (2018). Limits to the European Union’s Normative Power in a Post-Conflict Society. EULEX and Peacebuilding in Kosovo. Springer Briefs in Population Studies. Springer Open., p. 14. |
| [74] | Manners, I., (2002). Normative power Europe: a contradiction in terms? Journal of common market studies, 40 (2), pp. 235-258, p. 241. |
| [75] | Tocci, N. and Manners, I., (2008). Comparing normativity in foreign policy: China, India, the EU, the US, and Russia. In: Tocci, N., (ed) Who is a normative foreign policy actor, The European Union and its Global Partners pp. 300-329. CEPS Paperback Series., p. 328. |
| [76] | Manners, I., 2006. The European Union as a Normative Power: A Response to Thomas Diez. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 167-180, p. 177. |
| [77] | Manners, I., 2006. The European Union as a Normative Power: A Response to Thomas Diez. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 167-180, p. 170. |
| [78] | Rifkin, J. (2004). The European Dream. New York: Penguin. |
| [79] | Krohn, F., 2009. What kind of power? The EU as an International Actor. Atlantic Community, p. 16. |
| [80] | Tuomioja, E., 2009. The Role of Soft Power in EU Common Foreign Policy. The lecture was addressed at the International Symposium on Cultural Diplomacy. Berlin 30/7/2009, p. 1. |
| [81] | Treaty of Lisbon, amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community (2007/C306/01), Official Journal of the European Union. Vol. 50. |
| [82] | White, B. (2004) ‘Foreign Policy Analysis and the New Europe’. In: Carlsnaes, W., Sjursen, H. and White, B. (eds) Contemporary European Foreign Police. London: Sage Publishers, p. 15. |
| [83] | Blockmans, S., Wouters, J. and Ruys, T. (2010) The European Union and Peacebuilding: Policy and Legal Aspects (The Hague: T. M. C Asser Press). |
| [84] | Ojanen, H. (2006). The EU and NATO: Two Competing Models for Common Defense Policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 57–76. |
| [85] | Sjursen, H., 2004., Security and Defense. In: Carlsnaes, W., Sjursen, H. and White, B. (eds) Contemporary European Foreign Policy, pp. 59-71. London: Sage Publishers., p. 69. |
| [86] | Sjursen, H., 2005. The EU as a “normative power”: how can this be? Paper prepared for EUSA Ninth Biennial International Conference, March 31 April 2, 2005, Austin, Texas, and Panel: From civilian to military power: the European at a crossroads? p. 3. |
| [87] | Sjursen, H., (2005). The EU as a “normative power”: how can this be? Paper prepared for EUSA Ninth Biennial International Conference, March 31 April 2, 2005, Austin, Texas, and Panel: From civilian to military power: the European at a crossroads? pp. 4-5. |
| [88] | Kagan, R, (2003). Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New Order. London. Atlantic. |
| [89] | Papadimitriou, D. and Petrov, P., (2012). Who’s Rule, Whose Law? Contested Statehood, External Leverage, and the European Union’s Rule of Law Mission of Kosovo. Journal Common Market Studies, Volume 50, Number 5, pp 746-763 p. 749. |
| [90] | Papadimitriou, D. and Petrov, P., (2012). Who’s Rule, Whose Law? Contested Statehood, External Leverage, and the European Union’s Rule of Law Mission of Kosovo. Journal Common Market Studies, Volume 50, Number 5 pp 746-763, p. 750. |
| [91] | Wolff, S. (2011). The limits of international conflict management in the case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In: Caspersen, N. and Stansfield, G., (eds). Unrecognized States in the International System, pp. 147-164. London: Routledge., p. 151. |
| [92] | Herrberg, A., (2011). The politics of unrecognized states and the business of international peace mediation/ Enablers or hindrances for conflict resolution? In: Caspersen, N. and Stansfield, G. (eds.), 2011. Unrecognized States in the International System, pp. 165-182. London: Routledge, p. 172. |
| [93] | Schimmelfennig, F. Sedelmeier. (2011). Governance by conditionality: EU transfer to the candidate countries of Center and Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policy. Manheim Centre of European Social Research. Germany. Routledge, pp. 669-687. |
| [94] | March, J. and Olsen, J. (1989) Rediscovering Institutions. The Organizational Basis of Politics, New York: Free Press. |
| [95] | Schimmelfennig, F. Sedelmeier. (2011). Governance by conditionality: EU transfer to the candidate countries of Center and Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policy. Manheim Centre of European Social Research. Germany, pp. 669-687., Routledge, pp. 677-678. |
| [96] | Commission of the European Communities (2004). COM (2004) 373 final. Communication from the Commission. European Neighborhood Policy. STRATEGY PAPER. |
| [97] | Popescu, N. (2006). The EU and South Caucasus. Paper presented at the STARLINK conference on “Security Sectors of Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine to the European Mainstream” in Yerevan Armenia organized by the Centre for European Security Studies, the Netherlands, and the International Center of Human Development, Armenia. p. 2. |
| [98] | Steunenberg, B and Dimitrova, A., (2017). Compliance in the E. U. enlargement process: The limits of conditionality. European Integration online Papers (Elop), Vol 11, Nᴼ 5, pp. 2-18., p. 2. Available at http://eiop. or. at/eiop/texte 2007-005a.htm. |
| [99] | Friis, L, and Murphy, A. (1999). The European Union and Central and Eastern Europe: Governance and Boundaries. Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 37, Nᴼ2, pp. 211-232, p. 211. |
| [100] | Gligorov, V. 2004. Southeast Europe: areas of regional cooperation, European Balkan Observer., p. 8. |
| [101] | Antonopoulos, E. and Bachtler, J. (2014). The role of the EU Pre-accession Assistance in the Establishment of National Coordination. Structures for the EU Funding: The case of Croatia. Journal of Contemporary European Research. Vol. 10, No 2, pp 185-202, p. 186. |
| [102] | Sadurski, W., (2010). Constitutionalism and the Enlargement of Europe. OUP Oxford., p. 9. |
| [103] | European Commission, 2001. Communication from the Commission on Conflict Prevention. COM (2001) 211 final, p. 4. |
| [104] | Bache, Ian (2010). Europeanization and multi-level governance: EU cohesion policy and pre-accession aid in Southeast Europe, Southeast European, and Black Sea Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1. |
| [105] | Duyulmus, C. U., (2014). The (re)-design of the EU pre-accession aid: A consequence of intergovernmental bargaining or complex institutional policy learning. In 10th Biennial Conference, Europe, and Peace. Montréal (pp. 8-10), p. 2. |
| [106] | Kmec, V., (2013). The E. U. and Peacebuilding in CSDP Missions and Operations: Formulating Peacebuilding Policies., pp. 1-21. The University of Cambridge. Available at: vk287@cam.ac.uk, p. 15. |
| [107] | Gowan, R., (2012). The Case for Cooperation in Crisis Management, in ECFR Policy Brief 59/ June http://www.ecfr.eu/page//ECFR59_CRISIS_MANAGEMENT_BRIEF.pdf. |
| [108] | Kmec, V., (2013). The E. U. and Peacebuilding in CSDP Missions and Operations: Formulating Peacebuilding Policies., pp. 1-21. The University of Cambridge. Available at: vk287@cam.ac.uk., p. 8. |
| [109] | Kmec, V., (2013). The E. U. and Peacebuilding in CSDP Missions and Operations: Formulating Peacebuilding Policies., pp. 1-21. The University of Cambridge. Available at: vk287@cam.ac.uk., p. 13. |
| [110] | Solana, J, (2008). Speech by the European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy at the Annual Conference of the European Union Institute for Security Studies, Paris, 30 October 2008, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/esdp/103647.pdf. |
| [111] | Ashton, C., (2013). Joint Statement by EU High Representative Catherine Ashton and Iran Foreign Minister Zarif. European External Action Service (2014) Press Statement ‘Ashton tells UN Security Council: EU is a committed partner for UN in search for international peace’ http://eeas.europa.eu/top_stories/2014/170214_ca_un_en.htm |
| [112] | Group for Legal and Political Studies. (2014.) Opinion. The Implementation of the EU facilitated agreement (s) between Kosovo and Serbia. |
| [113] | Visoka, G. and Doyle, J., (2016. Neo-functional peace: The European Union way of resolving conflicts. Journal of Common Market Studies, 54 (4), p. 868. |
| [114] | European External Action Service (2011) ‘Statement by the spokesperson of Catherine Ashton, EU High Representative on the start of the Belgrade–Pristina dialogue’. A 094/11, 8 March. |
| [115] | Visoka, G. and Doyle, J., (2016). Neo-functional peace: The European Union way of resolving conflicts. Journal of Common Market Studies, 54 (4), p. 863. |
| [116] | Government of Serbia (2015) Progress Report on the Dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina. Belgrade Serbia. |
| [117] | Fean, D. (2009). Making Good Use of the EU in Georgia: the “Eastern Partnership” and Conflict Policy. Ifri Russia/Nis Center. Russie. Nei. Visions. No 44, p. 5. |
| [118] | Schweiss, C. & Jebb, C., 2006. The European Union in the Balkans: From Intervention to Accession. In: Adamski, J., Johnson, M. T, and, Schweiss, C. 2006. Old Europe, New Security, Evolution for a Complex World. ASHGATE e-Book, p. 101. |
| [119] | Schweiss, C. & Jebb, C., 2006. The European Union in the Balkans: From Intervention to Accession. In: Adamski, J., Johnson, M. T, and, Schweiss, C. 2006. Old Europe, New Security, Evolution for a Complex World. ASHGATE e-Book, p. 115. |
APA Style
Eleni Chytopoulou. (2023). The EU Addressing the Challenge of Contested Statehood. Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 6(3), 64-79. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jpsir.20230603.11
ACS Style
Eleni Chytopoulou. The EU Addressing the Challenge of Contested Statehood. J. Polit. Sci. Int. Relat. 2023, 6(3), 64-79. doi: 10.11648/j.jpsir.20230603.11
AMA Style
Eleni Chytopoulou. The EU Addressing the Challenge of Contested Statehood. J Polit Sci Int Relat. 2023;6(3):64-79. doi: 10.11648/j.jpsir.20230603.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.jpsir.20230603.11,
author = {Eleni Chytopoulou},
title = {The EU Addressing the Challenge of Contested Statehood},
journal = {Journal of Political Science and International Relations},
volume = {6},
number = {3},
pages = {64-79},
doi = {10.11648/j.jpsir.20230603.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jpsir.20230603.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.jpsir.20230603.11},
abstract = {The E. U.’s role as an international player began to upgrade alongside the effort to coordinate its external action by adopting a common foreign and security policy (CFSP). In this context, the EU has developed a wide range of policies and policy instruments that fall within its areas of legislative competence and extend from external trade and bilateral relations to the support of democratic institutions and international cooperation. After the end of the Cold –War, the European Union addressed the challenges arising from the emergence of post-conflict states, a considerable number of which were in its neighborhood. The E. U. pursuit of addressing challenges related to contested states has evolved over the years and varies significantly depending on the conflict, the bilateral relations, and the geopolitical context. Peacebuilding and state-building interventions were necessary for the post-conflict transition and socioeconomic rehabilitation of these fragile states with contested sovereignty. The E. U. supported countries in consolidating peace and building a modern state with political and economic means. Moreover, the E. U. has adjusted its interventions to the realities and conditions prevailing in each country. Since the impact of the E. U.’s integrated intervention on contested states remains a research concern, the present dissertation aims to address whether the E. U., as a global power, has the mechanisms and appropriate political skills to face the challenges presented in countries with contested statehood.},
year = {2023}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - The EU Addressing the Challenge of Contested Statehood AU - Eleni Chytopoulou Y1 - 2023/07/31 PY - 2023 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jpsir.20230603.11 DO - 10.11648/j.jpsir.20230603.11 T2 - Journal of Political Science and International Relations JF - Journal of Political Science and International Relations JO - Journal of Political Science and International Relations SP - 64 EP - 79 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2640-2785 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jpsir.20230603.11 AB - The E. U.’s role as an international player began to upgrade alongside the effort to coordinate its external action by adopting a common foreign and security policy (CFSP). In this context, the EU has developed a wide range of policies and policy instruments that fall within its areas of legislative competence and extend from external trade and bilateral relations to the support of democratic institutions and international cooperation. After the end of the Cold –War, the European Union addressed the challenges arising from the emergence of post-conflict states, a considerable number of which were in its neighborhood. The E. U. pursuit of addressing challenges related to contested states has evolved over the years and varies significantly depending on the conflict, the bilateral relations, and the geopolitical context. Peacebuilding and state-building interventions were necessary for the post-conflict transition and socioeconomic rehabilitation of these fragile states with contested sovereignty. The E. U. supported countries in consolidating peace and building a modern state with political and economic means. Moreover, the E. U. has adjusted its interventions to the realities and conditions prevailing in each country. Since the impact of the E. U.’s integrated intervention on contested states remains a research concern, the present dissertation aims to address whether the E. U., as a global power, has the mechanisms and appropriate political skills to face the challenges presented in countries with contested statehood. VL - 6 IS - 3 ER -
Email: