Fabienne Bossuyt

One of what kind? Comparative perspectives on the substance of EU democracy promotion

If democracy promotion is a ‘fashionable international art’ (Burnell 2000, 339), then there are many artists involved in it. It is impressive to observe, for instance, how the voices that offered a...

Humanitarian Aid as an Integral Part of the European Union's External Action: The Challenge of Reconciling Coherence and Independence

The article focuses on the European Unions (EU) humanitarian aid policy. It addresses the challenge for the EU to deliver independent humanitarian aid while simultaneously seeking to establish more coherence between its external policies. The article examines how the EU tries to reconcile these potentially conflicting policy goals, both de jure and in practice. Empirically, it explores the interaction between EU humanitarian aid and development cooperation, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and trade policy. While the independence of the humanitarian aid delivery is, for the most part, not being undermined, it remains difficult to establish positive synergies with other external policies because of institutional hurdles and legal constraints, as well as political obstacles and operational incompatibilities.

Unpacking the influence of the Council Presidency on European Union external policies: The Polish Council Presidency and the Eastern Partnership

The special position of the rotating Council Presidency has raised a long-standing debate on the extent to which this function allows a Member State to exert additional influence on European Union decision-making, in particular in external policy. This article argues that a broader and more differentiated study of Presidency influence could further this debate. In doing so, the article analyses the Polish Council Presidency (during the second half of 2011) and its influence on the European Union’s Eastern Partnership policies across three dimensions: (i) differences between influence on the agenda and influence on the contents of decisions, (ii) the forums (different levels in the Council and international forums) where the Presidency can exert influence, and (iii) different types of external policies, an area that has received relatively little scholarly attention thus far in the literature on the Presidency. The analysis shows that (i) the Presidency can determine the agenda to a certain extent, but the position of the chair does not allow the incumbent to exert additional influence on the contents of decisions; (ii) most Presidency influence of external policies is observed in the preparatory bodies of the Council, while at the ministerial or international level this influence is much smaller; and (iii) although the Presidency can play a rather prominent role in organizing multilateral events, this rarely amounts to real political influence. In turn, the Presidency’s influence is most tangible in specific bilateral dossiers.

The substance of EU democratic governance promotion via transgovernmental cooperation with the Eastern neighbourhood

ABSTRACT Existing studies of the European Union’s (EU) democratic governance promotion via transgovernmental cooperation in the EU’s neighbourhood seem to take the substance of what is being promoted by the EU for granted. In filling this gap, this article examines the substance of EU democratic governance promotion by assessing (1) to what extent norms of democratic governance appear in EU Twinning projects implemented in the Eastern neighbourhood, and (2) what factors account for differences in the presence of democratic governance norms across those projects. To explain possible variation, the article hypothesizes that the democratic governance substance of Twinning projects will vary with the country’s political liberalization, sector politicization, sector technical complexity, and EU conditionality attached to reform progress in a given policy sector. Data are retrieved from a content analysis of 117 Twinning project fiches from the Eastern neighbourhood and analysed via standard multiple regression. The article finds that the EU mostly promotes moderate, mixed democratic governance substance, which varies across different projects. This variation may be best explained by the level of political liberalization of the beneficiary country and the politicization and technical complexity of the policy sectors and institutions involved in respective Twinning projects.

The Normative Distinctiveness of the European Union in International Development: Stepping Out of the Shadow of the World Bank?

Although the EU has shown a strong ambition to put a distinctive stamp on the international aid agenda over the past 15 years, it has also been pointed out that its policies suffer from a series of collective action problems. This article explores how both relate to one another. This article examines the EUs normative distinctiveness in contrast to the World Bank, focusing on policy norms in the field of governance, aid effectiveness and social development. We argue that collective action problems do not necessarily hamper EU distinctiveness: they are also a symptom of a strong EU desire to pressure European actors to come up with norms that pacify disagreements.

Favouring Leaders over Laggards: Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan

This chapter maps the substance of EU democracy promotion in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan and identifies the factors that shape this substance. In applying the framework and hypotheses presented in the opening chapter of this volume, the empirical analysis focuses on the period 2007–2013.1 We consider both the EU’s discourse and its actual policy implementation. The chapter consists of two parts. The first part sketches the democratic substance promoted by the EU. It finds that the EU does more to promote ‘broad’ liberal democracy in Kyrgyzstan than in Kazakhstan. In the second part, possible factors are examined that shape the content of the EU’s democracy promotion in order to understand the variance between the two target countries. We conclude with a summary of the main findings based upon review of EU documents, interviews and assessments of the extent of democratic reform in both countries.

Between national and European foreign policy: the role of Latvia and Romania in the EU’s policy towards Central Asia

Abstract This article explores whether and to what extent new member states of the European Union (EU) seek to pursue their national foreign policy goals towards Central Asia through the EU rather than bilaterally. To do so, it focuses on Latvia and Romania. While the article finds evidence of Romanian attempts to project its interests in the region onto the EU level, Latvia appears to rely more extensively on the EU level to pursue its goals towards Central Asia. Using insights from the literature on Europeanization of national foreign policy, the article explains this finding with reference to four variables that determine whether a member state will seek to upload its national foreign policy preferences onto the EU level, namely the perceived salience of the policy goals, the extent to which member states can carve out a niche, their perceived capabilities and the level of Europeanization of their national foreign policies.

Comparative perspectives on the substance of EU democracy promotion

Comparative perspectives on the substance of EU democracy promotion Hosted by the Centre for EU Studies (CEUS), Ghent University, Belgium, 24 June 2011 Lead projects/groups: EU-iPodS project: ‘The Substance of EU International Democracy Promotion’ (cross-university project organised by the CEUS of Ghent University and Anne Wetzel from the NCCR Democracy, University of Zürich), project website: http://www.eu-ipods.ugent.be/ -ESRC Project: ‘Paradoxes and Contradictions in EU Democracy Promotion Efforts in the Middle East’ (led by Michelle Pace), project website: http://www.eumena.bham.ac.uk/

The Participation of CEECs in EU Twinning Projects: Offering Specific Added Value for EU Transgovernmental Cooperation in the Eastern Neighbourhood?

Focusing on European Union (EU) Twinning projects in Azerbaijan and Ukraine, this article explores whether EU member states from Central and Eastern Europe (CEECs) offer specific added value for the implementation of EU Twinning projects in the Eastern neighbourhood compared to the older member states. An added value refers to the combined comparative advantages of a group of member states for the implementation of a Twinning project, as perceived by project stakeholders. The findings largely confirm our hypothesis that CEECs mostly offer country-specific comparative advantages, rooted in their recent transition and accession experience, socio-linguistic proximity, and shared historical legacies with the Eastern neighbourhood. In turn, the older member states are perceived to offer mainly sector-specific comparative advantages owing to their institutional experience, sectoral fit, existing sectoral networks in the Eastern neighbourhood, and prior Twinning experience in other countries.

The European Union’s Normative Power in Central Asia. Promoting Values and Defending Interests

THe eUROPeAN UNiON (eU)’S eNGAGeMeNT wiTH CeNTRAL ASiA has so far attracted only modest academic attention. Compared to the eU’s involvement in its immediate neighbourhood to the east, we still know relatively little about what the eU is doing in Central Asia, let alone whether it succeeds in having any impact there. voloshin’s book, therefore, offers a welcome contribution to the limited scholarship on this topic. Anchored in the commonly-used framework of ‘Normative Power europe’ (NPe) developed by ian Manners, the book seeks to examine whether the eU has any normative power in Central Asia. The author frames the central research question in terms of ‘effectiveness’: is the eU’s normative power in Central Asia effective, and if not, why not? To assess the level of effectiveness, voloshin resorts to the external governance model conceptualised by Sandra Lavenex and Frank Schimmelfennig, which distinguishes between effectiveness at the level of rule selection, rule adoption and rule application. This leads the author to assume that ‘if the eU’s normative power in Central Asia is effective, its norms and rules should not only be selected and adopted but also applied’ by the Central Asian countries (p. 9). As voloshin explains, this assumption rests on the presupposition that the eU relies on norms transfer mechanisms. Therefore, to analyse the eU’s normative foreign policy towards Central Asia, the book draws on ian Manners’ NPe framework, which identifies six norm diffusion mechanisms: contagion, informational diffusion, procedural diffusion, transference, overt diffusion and the cultural filter (p. 4). The analysis is presented in two empirical chapters, which each cover a distinct analytical period. Methodologically, the analysis draws evidence from official documents, secondary sources and interviews with officials of the eU and Central Asian countries. Focusing on the period between the early 1990s and 2007, when the eU adopted its strategy for Central Asia, the first chapter looks at three ‘core areas’ of the eU’s pre-2007 engagement with the region, namely democracy and human rights, technical assistance, and trade and economic cooperation. The second chapter analyses the period following 2007, during which—according to the author—‘hard power has been the norm so far’ (p. 10). Apart from the promotion of democracy and human rights, this chapter focuses on energy and security, two areas in which the eU has sought to gain increased influence in Central Asia through norm-based instruments (p. 42). Rather unsurprisingly, the analysis in the two empirical chapters finds that the eU’s normative power in the region is very limited, as evidenced by the non-application by the Central Asian countries of eU norms and rules. in explaining the ineffectiveness of the eU’s normative power, the author points to a combination of factors, including Central Asia’s authoritarian domestic situation, the complex security context and eU-specific problems. written in an enjoyable, easy-to-read style, this book will appeal to students and scholars interested in learning more about the eU’s external relations with regions beyond its immediate borders. For experts on the eU’s involvement in Central Asia, however, this book will add little to what they already know. while the merit of the book lies in its empirical focus on a region that remains understudied in the broader literature on the eU as an international actor, the study does not go beyond some broad empirical findings and falls short of presenting a less predictable and more substantiated account of the eU’s engagement with Central Asia.