Pub Date : 2013-06-01DOI: 10.1080/15705854.2013.785264
Cristian Niţoiu
The article analyses the way narratives are constructed in EU external relations and their relation to policy practices. Five overarching narratives are identified: the EU as a security provider, the EU as a democratizer and spreader of ‘good’ norms, the EU as an actor that contributes to or assures global peace, the EU as an entity that contributes to the well-being of peoples around the world and finally the narrative of EU good neighbourliness. After a brief section that details the links between discourses, narratives and political practice, the article will systematically explore the five narratives. The rationale for this endeavour is based on the often huge discrepancy found between the ambitious goals set out in narratives and the poor policy track of the EU in its external relations. Continuous policy and discursive redefinition and reconsideration provide a dynamic context in which goals are renegotiated when political reality deviates from them. A clear pattern of downgrading ambitions when policy outcomes do not match them can be observed in the EU's external relations.
{"title":"The Narrative Construction of the European Union in External Relations","authors":"Cristian Niţoiu","doi":"10.1080/15705854.2013.785264","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15705854.2013.785264","url":null,"abstract":"The article analyses the way narratives are constructed in EU external relations and their relation to policy practices. Five overarching narratives are identified: the EU as a security provider, the EU as a democratizer and spreader of ‘good’ norms, the EU as an actor that contributes to or assures global peace, the EU as an entity that contributes to the well-being of peoples around the world and finally the narrative of EU good neighbourliness. After a brief section that details the links between discourses, narratives and political practice, the article will systematically explore the five narratives. The rationale for this endeavour is based on the often huge discrepancy found between the ambitious goals set out in narratives and the poor policy track of the EU in its external relations. Continuous policy and discursive redefinition and reconsideration provide a dynamic context in which goals are renegotiated when political reality deviates from them. A clear pattern of downgrading ambitions when policy outcomes do not match them can be observed in the EU's external relations.","PeriodicalId":186367,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on European Politics and Society","volume":"94 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120887282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-06-01DOI: 10.1080/15705854.2013.785259
S. Bostancı
Drawing on Thomas Kuhn's seminal analysis, this article argues that mainstream EUropean integration theories such as neo-functionalism and intergovernmentalism are unified by underlying ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions – thus – conform to the same scientific paradigm. This means that while opening up opportunities for study of some aspects of EUropean integration, simultaneous closure occurs so that other aspects remain under-explored. The value of identifying this effect is to enable researchers to sound out complementary approaches and paradigms to overcome said limitations and elicit new insights. Adopting a focus on discourse as a means, as well as identity formation as a form of integration, Eder's attempt to transcend transactionalism's omission to focus on content and functions rather than density of transactions is a laudable example of this endeavour. However, it can be argued that he reproduces several of the mainstream integration theories' paradigmatic assumptions. Flood's account of political myth goes beyond such limitations. Usefully supplemented by a structural rather than normative understanding of ideology and extended beyond historico-ideological content, this approach allows for the study of the identity-endowing and integrating function of implicitly or explicitly ideologically marked narratives that establish what it means to be EUropean. Although tentative steps towards this focus of study exist in EUropean studies, more rigorous theorising and extensive empirical research are needed.
{"title":"Making the Mythical European: Elucidating the EU's Powerful Integration Instrument of Discursive Identity Construction","authors":"S. Bostancı","doi":"10.1080/15705854.2013.785259","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15705854.2013.785259","url":null,"abstract":"Drawing on Thomas Kuhn's seminal analysis, this article argues that mainstream EUropean integration theories such as neo-functionalism and intergovernmentalism are unified by underlying ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions – thus – conform to the same scientific paradigm. This means that while opening up opportunities for study of some aspects of EUropean integration, simultaneous closure occurs so that other aspects remain under-explored. The value of identifying this effect is to enable researchers to sound out complementary approaches and paradigms to overcome said limitations and elicit new insights. Adopting a focus on discourse as a means, as well as identity formation as a form of integration, Eder's attempt to transcend transactionalism's omission to focus on content and functions rather than density of transactions is a laudable example of this endeavour. However, it can be argued that he reproduces several of the mainstream integration theories' paradigmatic assumptions. Flood's account of political myth goes beyond such limitations. Usefully supplemented by a structural rather than normative understanding of ideology and extended beyond historico-ideological content, this approach allows for the study of the identity-endowing and integrating function of implicitly or explicitly ideologically marked narratives that establish what it means to be EUropean. Although tentative steps towards this focus of study exist in EUropean studies, more rigorous theorising and extensive empirical research are needed.","PeriodicalId":186367,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on European Politics and Society","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121817532","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-06-01DOI: 10.1080/15705854.2013.785260
Amy C. Busby
This article explores what ethnography can tell us about the practice of politics inside the European Parliament (EP). It responds to calls from within the discipline for a more sociological approach to the EU institutions and research which makes the real world of politics visible. The paper argues that an ethnographic methodology coupled with a Bourdieusian theoretical framework enables deeper exploration of the everyday practice of politics by individual MEPs and therefore a more nuanced understanding of political behaviour within this institutional context. First, it identifies the gap to which it hopes to contribute, discusses the growing sociological literature of the EU, and introduces ethnography. Then it discusses Bourdieu's structural constructivism and outlines relevant thinking tools, with particular reference to Adler-Nissen's work. The paper then applies the theoretical framework to data gathered through ethnographic fieldwork and elite interviews, aiming to open up the black-box and illuminate practices occurring inside. The EP is conceptualised as a transnational political field with a system of positions and power relations, where doxa operates beneath a habitus of dispositions, and where actors employ their position and capital in strategies to influence what is at stake in the game.
{"title":"‘Bursting the Brussels Bubble’: Using Ethnography to Explore the European Parliament as a Transnational Political Field","authors":"Amy C. Busby","doi":"10.1080/15705854.2013.785260","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15705854.2013.785260","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores what ethnography can tell us about the practice of politics inside the European Parliament (EP). It responds to calls from within the discipline for a more sociological approach to the EU institutions and research which makes the real world of politics visible. The paper argues that an ethnographic methodology coupled with a Bourdieusian theoretical framework enables deeper exploration of the everyday practice of politics by individual MEPs and therefore a more nuanced understanding of political behaviour within this institutional context. First, it identifies the gap to which it hopes to contribute, discusses the growing sociological literature of the EU, and introduces ethnography. Then it discusses Bourdieu's structural constructivism and outlines relevant thinking tools, with particular reference to Adler-Nissen's work. The paper then applies the theoretical framework to data gathered through ethnographic fieldwork and elite interviews, aiming to open up the black-box and illuminate practices occurring inside. The EP is conceptualised as a transnational political field with a system of positions and power relations, where doxa operates beneath a habitus of dispositions, and where actors employ their position and capital in strategies to influence what is at stake in the game.","PeriodicalId":186367,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on European Politics and Society","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133182840","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-06-01DOI: 10.1080/15705854.2013.785261
Vanda Amaro Dias
This article analyses how the European Union (EU) and Russia perceive each other as regional players, by assessing their security-oriented policies towards the shared neighbourhood in Eastern Europe and South Caucasus, and delves into the impact those perceptions have on EU–Russia relations. It argues that both EU and Russian policies towards the region are built upon the belief that internal security starts outside their borders and, thus, the countries in the shared neighbourhood emerge as lynchpins in their internal and regional security strategies. In a mostly competing and mutually exclusive logic, the EU and Russia attempt to keep those countries in their own sphere of influence. Accordingly, commitments to European integration are generally seen by Moscow as a political loss, in the same way that a rapprochement towards Russia is usually perceived to constrain the EU's leverage in the region. This research is framed by a critical constructivist approach focusing on practices and discourses, thereby enabling a broader mapping of the dynamics resulting from the EU's and Russia's competing interests, perceptions and policies in the shared neighbourhood, and a deeper understanding of their impact on EU–Russia bilateral relations, particularly under the so-called strategic partnership.
{"title":"The EU and Russia: Competing Discourses, Practices and Interests in the Shared Neighbourhood","authors":"Vanda Amaro Dias","doi":"10.1080/15705854.2013.785261","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15705854.2013.785261","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses how the European Union (EU) and Russia perceive each other as regional players, by assessing their security-oriented policies towards the shared neighbourhood in Eastern Europe and South Caucasus, and delves into the impact those perceptions have on EU–Russia relations. It argues that both EU and Russian policies towards the region are built upon the belief that internal security starts outside their borders and, thus, the countries in the shared neighbourhood emerge as lynchpins in their internal and regional security strategies. In a mostly competing and mutually exclusive logic, the EU and Russia attempt to keep those countries in their own sphere of influence. Accordingly, commitments to European integration are generally seen by Moscow as a political loss, in the same way that a rapprochement towards Russia is usually perceived to constrain the EU's leverage in the region. This research is framed by a critical constructivist approach focusing on practices and discourses, thereby enabling a broader mapping of the dynamics resulting from the EU's and Russia's competing interests, perceptions and policies in the shared neighbourhood, and a deeper understanding of their impact on EU–Russia bilateral relations, particularly under the so-called strategic partnership.","PeriodicalId":186367,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on European Politics and Society","volume":"154 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113960618","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-06-01DOI: 10.1080/15705854.2013.785265
N. Tomić
Foreign policy analysis (FPA) in a classical sense entails focusing on agents (individuals or groups of individuals). In the case of the European Union (EU), FPA becomes more problematic. Firstly, the question arises of what a foreign policy of the EU really means. This article defines EU foreign policy in a wider sense, namely along the lines of what is known as EU's external action. It focuses however on the security aspect of the EU's external action – the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and its defence dimension, the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Furthermore, a problem of identifying agents arises in the EU setting in large part because of the complex institutional setup of the CFSP/CSDP. Although final decisions are made at the level of the Council, the policy itself is drafted and prepared at lower levels of policy-making (working parties, committees and agencies) based in Brussels. This article proposes a discursive institutionalist model of analysis, applicable to any organization of the policy process. After presenting the model's ontological and epistemological positions, as well as theoretical underpinnings, the article elaborates on the different levels of information processing and meaning construction by actors and their role in setting the overall foreign policy discourse by shaping the coordinative discourses1 during this early phase of the policy-making process.
{"title":"Coordinative Discourses in Brussels: An Agency-oriented Model of EU Foreign Policy Analysis","authors":"N. Tomić","doi":"10.1080/15705854.2013.785265","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15705854.2013.785265","url":null,"abstract":"Foreign policy analysis (FPA) in a classical sense entails focusing on agents (individuals or groups of individuals). In the case of the European Union (EU), FPA becomes more problematic. Firstly, the question arises of what a foreign policy of the EU really means. This article defines EU foreign policy in a wider sense, namely along the lines of what is known as EU's external action. It focuses however on the security aspect of the EU's external action – the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and its defence dimension, the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Furthermore, a problem of identifying agents arises in the EU setting in large part because of the complex institutional setup of the CFSP/CSDP. Although final decisions are made at the level of the Council, the policy itself is drafted and prepared at lower levels of policy-making (working parties, committees and agencies) based in Brussels. This article proposes a discursive institutionalist model of analysis, applicable to any organization of the policy process. After presenting the model's ontological and epistemological positions, as well as theoretical underpinnings, the article elaborates on the different levels of information processing and meaning construction by actors and their role in setting the overall foreign policy discourse by shaping the coordinative discourses1 during this early phase of the policy-making process.","PeriodicalId":186367,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on European Politics and Society","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126034687","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-06-01DOI: 10.1080/15705854.2013.785263
J. Mathieu, Sharon Weinblum
The European Union considers Trade Defence Instruments (i.e., anti-dumping, countervailing duties and safeguards) as a cornerstone of the EU trade policy in the battle against ‘unfair competition from across the globe’. At the same time, the rationale behind these instruments, or the fight against ‘unfair trade practices’, remains somehow woolly. In this article, we argue that it is crucial to unpack the different meanings bestowed on the concept of unfair trade. An interpretative perspective is therefore adopted in order to highlight the complexity behind this notion. The analysis is based on a systematic analysis of the debates revolving around the issue of Trade Defence Instruments held within the European Parliament during the current legislative session. First, we show that a specific storyline on unfair trade can be considered dominant. Second, we expose the ‘kaleidoscopic’ reality behind unfair trade, showing that this notion is a floating signifier. Against this backcloth, the article puts forward the argument that the institutionalisation of Trade Defence Instruments precisely relies on this character of unfair trade as a floating signifier.
{"title":"The Battle Against Unfair Trade in the EU Trade Policy: A Discourse Analysis of Trade Protection","authors":"J. Mathieu, Sharon Weinblum","doi":"10.1080/15705854.2013.785263","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15705854.2013.785263","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union considers Trade Defence Instruments (i.e., anti-dumping, countervailing duties and safeguards) as a cornerstone of the EU trade policy in the battle against ‘unfair competition from across the globe’. At the same time, the rationale behind these instruments, or the fight against ‘unfair trade practices’, remains somehow woolly. In this article, we argue that it is crucial to unpack the different meanings bestowed on the concept of unfair trade. An interpretative perspective is therefore adopted in order to highlight the complexity behind this notion. The analysis is based on a systematic analysis of the debates revolving around the issue of Trade Defence Instruments held within the European Parliament during the current legislative session. First, we show that a specific storyline on unfair trade can be considered dominant. Second, we expose the ‘kaleidoscopic’ reality behind unfair trade, showing that this notion is a floating signifier. Against this backcloth, the article puts forward the argument that the institutionalisation of Trade Defence Instruments precisely relies on this character of unfair trade as a floating signifier.","PeriodicalId":186367,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on European Politics and Society","volume":"93 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114494353","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-04-01DOI: 10.1080/15705854.2012.732391
Gal Ariely
This paper examines whether the civic–ethnic framework is indeed relevant for the distinction between Western and Eastern Europe from institutional and public opinion perspectives. Multilevel analysis of data from the last wave of the European Value Study across 45 countries shows that there are indeed dissimilar conceptions of nationhood in the West and in the East. In Eastern Europe there is higher support for the ethnic component than the civic component and there are stronger relations between national identification and the ethnic component. The results indicate that, despite critiques of the civic–ethnic framework, to a certain extent, it reflects a distinction between Western and Eastern Europe.
{"title":"Nationhood across Europe: The Civic–Ethnic Framework and the Distinction between Western and Eastern Europe","authors":"Gal Ariely","doi":"10.1080/15705854.2012.732391","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15705854.2012.732391","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines whether the civic–ethnic framework is indeed relevant for the distinction between Western and Eastern Europe from institutional and public opinion perspectives. Multilevel analysis of data from the last wave of the European Value Study across 45 countries shows that there are indeed dissimilar conceptions of nationhood in the West and in the East. In Eastern Europe there is higher support for the ethnic component than the civic component and there are stronger relations between national identification and the ethnic component. The results indicate that, despite critiques of the civic–ethnic framework, to a certain extent, it reflects a distinction between Western and Eastern Europe.","PeriodicalId":186367,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on European Politics and Society","volume":"100 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116915885","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-04-01DOI: 10.1080/15705854.2012.732394
Agnieszka K. Cianciara
Polish business interest groups exerted limited influence on Brussels decision-making in the post-accession period (2004–2009). The patterns of influence are examined by means of a resource-based approach, including factors such as organization and budget, networks and reputation, but also on the basis of process tracing and preference attainment analysis. Limited effectiveness of Polish lobbying could be explained by the short period of socialization to EU politics. However, research shows that patterns of Polish interest representation in the EU should be further explained by the hybrid domestic institutional environment resulting from the transformation and Europeanization processes, as well as by the limited compatibility of the two institutional contexts. In fact, the actual opportunity structures differ to a large extent, both in terms of systemic openness and participatory regimes, between the national and the European level, notwithstanding the formally neo-pluralist character of interest representation systems both in Poland and in the EU.
{"title":"Polish Business Lobbying in the EU 2004–2009: Examining the Patterns of Influence","authors":"Agnieszka K. Cianciara","doi":"10.1080/15705854.2012.732394","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15705854.2012.732394","url":null,"abstract":"Polish business interest groups exerted limited influence on Brussels decision-making in the post-accession period (2004–2009). The patterns of influence are examined by means of a resource-based approach, including factors such as organization and budget, networks and reputation, but also on the basis of process tracing and preference attainment analysis. Limited effectiveness of Polish lobbying could be explained by the short period of socialization to EU politics. However, research shows that patterns of Polish interest representation in the EU should be further explained by the hybrid domestic institutional environment resulting from the transformation and Europeanization processes, as well as by the limited compatibility of the two institutional contexts. In fact, the actual opportunity structures differ to a large extent, both in terms of systemic openness and participatory regimes, between the national and the European level, notwithstanding the formally neo-pluralist character of interest representation systems both in Poland and in the EU.","PeriodicalId":186367,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on European Politics and Society","volume":"125 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114001220","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-04-01DOI: 10.1080/15705854.2012.732392
Pantelis Sklias, Georgios Maris
Many scholars have tried to comprehend and analyse the root causes of the Greek economic crisis. In the majority of these analyses, a series of economic factors were mainly highlighted as the key to understanding the nature of the problem. While these factors are profound aspects of the Greek financial and economic failure, they are only a part of the reality. The root causes for the Greek crisis can be found within the Greek political and institutional model of development and its model of governance. In this paper a series of political factors are highlighted as the key factors of this crisis. The development of statism, the failed Europeanization, the high level of corruption, the impact of syndicates and interest groups on the formation of economic policies, the skewed model of governance, populism and the unstable political and parliamentary regime are the most profound. The Greek crisis has a political element that cannot be overlooked and it is highly different than any other European country. This political element makes us worry about the future of the Greek crisis and the EU.
{"title":"The Political Dimension of the Greek Financial Crisis","authors":"Pantelis Sklias, Georgios Maris","doi":"10.1080/15705854.2012.732392","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15705854.2012.732392","url":null,"abstract":"Many scholars have tried to comprehend and analyse the root causes of the Greek economic crisis. In the majority of these analyses, a series of economic factors were mainly highlighted as the key to understanding the nature of the problem. While these factors are profound aspects of the Greek financial and economic failure, they are only a part of the reality. The root causes for the Greek crisis can be found within the Greek political and institutional model of development and its model of governance. In this paper a series of political factors are highlighted as the key factors of this crisis. The development of statism, the failed Europeanization, the high level of corruption, the impact of syndicates and interest groups on the formation of economic policies, the skewed model of governance, populism and the unstable political and parliamentary regime are the most profound. The Greek crisis has a political element that cannot be overlooked and it is highly different than any other European country. This political element makes us worry about the future of the Greek crisis and the EU.","PeriodicalId":186367,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on European Politics and Society","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121908704","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-04-01DOI: 10.1080/15705854.2012.732395
F. Cocozzelli
This article analyses the process of democratisation and democratic consolidation in Kosovo. In doing so, it presents a framework for analysing democratisation and democratic consolidation as two distinct processes. Early efforts at democratisation in Kosovo as part of the former Yugoslavia stalled with the violent conflict of the 1990s, and were only revived with the deployment of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) in 1999. Despite any successes that UNMIK may have had in promoting democratisation however, democratic consolidation remained elusive, in large part because of Kosovo's lack of sovereignty. The declaration of independence in February 2008 changed the situation, providing an opportunity for democratic consolidation. The article provides an analysis of the new constitution and the first post-independence general elections in an effort to evaluate local democracy, arguing that although limited progress had been made, Kosovo had not achieved democratic consolidation by the end of 2011.
{"title":"Between Democratisation and Democratic Consolidation: The Long Path to Democracy in Kosovo","authors":"F. Cocozzelli","doi":"10.1080/15705854.2012.732395","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15705854.2012.732395","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the process of democratisation and democratic consolidation in Kosovo. In doing so, it presents a framework for analysing democratisation and democratic consolidation as two distinct processes. Early efforts at democratisation in Kosovo as part of the former Yugoslavia stalled with the violent conflict of the 1990s, and were only revived with the deployment of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) in 1999. Despite any successes that UNMIK may have had in promoting democratisation however, democratic consolidation remained elusive, in large part because of Kosovo's lack of sovereignty. The declaration of independence in February 2008 changed the situation, providing an opportunity for democratic consolidation. The article provides an analysis of the new constitution and the first post-independence general elections in an effort to evaluate local democracy, arguing that although limited progress had been made, Kosovo had not achieved democratic consolidation by the end of 2011.","PeriodicalId":186367,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on European Politics and Society","volume":"142 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122916662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：