STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE EAEC IN COMPETITIONWITH EUROPEAN INTEGRATION FORMATS IN THE CIS SPACE
https://doi.org/ 10.18384/2310-676X-2018-5-296-307
Abstract
The article analyzes political, institutional and identity-related features of the Eurasian integration project that constitute its strengths and weaknesses in competition with the EU-promoted forms of ‘soft integration’ in its Eastern neighbourhood. Proceeding from the finding of the investigation the author shows that the EAEU’s strengths consist in lower degree of integration constraints imposed by it upon member states and, hence, more favorable terms for preservation of their state sovereignty. At the same time, these strengths are not sufficient for overcoming the EAEU’s handicaps: weakness of its common identity and political subjectivity, structural asymmetry of its participants, which prevents integration process from getting beyond inter-state bargaining, and narrowness of its normative context that in absence of potent value basis is not able to compete successfully with the EU normative claims over the CIS states.
References
1. Бордачёв Т.В. Суверенитет и интеграция // Россия в глобальной политике. 2007. № 1. С. 65-77.
2. Журавлёва С.М., Иванов А.В. Евразийская цивилизационная идентичность как мировоззренческое основание нового объединения Евразии // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 12: Политические науки. 2016. № 1. С. 7-20.
3. Лепешев Д.В. Евразийская цивилизационная идентичность: к определению понятия // Наука и бизнес: пути развития. 2014. № 4 (34). С. 28-32.
4. Пахолкин Д.А. Нормативная сила в конкуренции евразийского и европейского интеграционных проектов на постсоветском пространстве // Среднерусский вестник общественных наук. 2017. Т. 12. № 6. С. 171-186.
5. Сурков В. Одиночество полукровки (14+) // Россия в глобальной политике. 2018. № 2-3/1. С. 124-129.
6. Титаренко М., Петровский В. О неоевразийской идентичности России // Международная жизнь. 2016. № 4. С. 20-44.
7. Burlyuk O., Shapovalova N. “Veni, vidi, … vici?” EU performance and two faces of conditionality towards Ukraine // East European Politics. 2017. Vol. 33. No. 1. P. 36-55.
8. Casier T. Identities and Images of Competition in the Overlapping Neighbourhoods: How EU and Russian Foreign Policies Interact // Security in Shared Neighbourhoods. Foreign Policy of Russia, Turkey and the EU. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. P. 13-34.
9. Delcour L., Kostanyan H., Vandecasteele B., van Elsuwege P. The Implications of Eurasian Integration for the EU’s Relations with the Countries in the post-Soviet space // Studia diplomatica. 2015. Vol. 68. No. 1. P. 5-33.
10. Delcour L., Tulmets E. Pioneer Europe? The ENP as a Test Case for EU’s Foreign Policy // European Foreign Affairs Review. 2009. Vol. 14. P. 501-523.
11. Diez Th. Constructing the Self and Changing Others: Reconsidering ‘Normative Power Europe’ // Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 2005. Vol. 33. No. 3. P. 613-636.
12. Dragneva R., Wolczuk K. The Eurasian Economic Union. Deals, Rules and the Exercise of Power // Chatham House Russia and Eurasia Programme Research Papers. May 2017. 27 p. URL: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/research/2017-05-02-eurasian-economic-union-dragneva-wolczuk.pdf (дата обращения: 15.04.2018).
13. Gnedina E. ‘Multi-Vector’ Foreign Policies in Europe: Balancing, Bandwagoning or Bargaining? // Europe-Asia Studies. 2015. Vol. 67. No. 7. P. 1007-1029.
14. Pace M. The Construction of the EU Normative Power // Journal of Common Market Studies. 2007. Vol. 45. No. 5. P. 1041-1064.
15. Ross Smith N. The EU and Russia’s conflicting regime preferences in Ukraine: assessing regime promotion strategies in the scope of the Ukraine crisis // European Security. 2015. Vol. 24. No. 4. P. 525-540.
Review
Views:
204
Email this article 