欧盟的概念政治和工作弹性

IF 3.2 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Review of International Studies Pub Date : 2023-10-05 DOI:10.1017/s0260210523000463
Jonathan Joseph, Ana E. Juncos
{"title":"欧盟的概念政治和工作弹性","authors":"Jonathan Joseph, Ana E. Juncos","doi":"10.1017/s0260210523000463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract International crises, most recently the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, often radically change our view of the world and our place within it. The European Union (EU) has been particularly impacted by these developments because these crises have accentuated some of its ontological and epistemological uncertainties and insecurities. While the EU’s resilience turn initiated by the EU Global Strategy of 2016 aimed at strengthening the EU’s ability to prepare and recover from external shocks and crises, since then, the concept of resilience has undergone a transformation. In recent years, we have seen the EU turning back in on itself and abandoning the radical aspects of resilience. Hence a paradox has emerged – the more complex the problems faced by the EU, the more it turns away from the logics of complexity present in the idea of resilience. In this article, we examine this conceptual shift through the lenses of concepts in action and the way these have reflected changes in the external context, but also power coalitions and institutional path dependencies. This argument will be explored by examining the recently adopted Strategic Compass and the EU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF).","PeriodicalId":48017,"journal":{"name":"Review of International Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conceptual politics and resilience-at-work in the European Union\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Joseph, Ana E. Juncos\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0260210523000463\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract International crises, most recently the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, often radically change our view of the world and our place within it. The European Union (EU) has been particularly impacted by these developments because these crises have accentuated some of its ontological and epistemological uncertainties and insecurities. While the EU’s resilience turn initiated by the EU Global Strategy of 2016 aimed at strengthening the EU’s ability to prepare and recover from external shocks and crises, since then, the concept of resilience has undergone a transformation. In recent years, we have seen the EU turning back in on itself and abandoning the radical aspects of resilience. Hence a paradox has emerged – the more complex the problems faced by the EU, the more it turns away from the logics of complexity present in the idea of resilience. In this article, we examine this conceptual shift through the lenses of concepts in action and the way these have reflected changes in the external context, but also power coalitions and institutional path dependencies. This argument will be explored by examining the recently adopted Strategic Compass and the EU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF).\",\"PeriodicalId\":48017,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of International Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of International Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210523000463\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of International Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210523000463","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

国际危机,最近的新冠肺炎大流行和俄罗斯入侵乌克兰,往往从根本上改变我们对世界的看法以及我们在世界中的地位。欧盟(EU)尤其受到这些发展的影响,因为这些危机加剧了它的一些本体论和认识论的不确定性和不安全感。2016年欧盟全球战略启动了欧盟的弹性转向,旨在加强欧盟从外部冲击和危机中准备和恢复的能力,自那时以来,弹性的概念发生了转变。近年来,我们看到欧盟开始自我封闭,放弃了弹性的激进方面。因此,一个悖论出现了——欧盟面临的问题越复杂,它就越背离弹性理念中所体现的复杂性逻辑。在本文中,我们通过行动中的概念以及这些概念在外部环境中反映变化的方式,以及权力联盟和制度路径依赖来研究这种概念转变。这一论点将通过检查最近通过的战略指南针和欧盟的恢复和弹性基金(RRF)来探讨。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Conceptual politics and resilience-at-work in the European Union
Abstract International crises, most recently the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, often radically change our view of the world and our place within it. The European Union (EU) has been particularly impacted by these developments because these crises have accentuated some of its ontological and epistemological uncertainties and insecurities. While the EU’s resilience turn initiated by the EU Global Strategy of 2016 aimed at strengthening the EU’s ability to prepare and recover from external shocks and crises, since then, the concept of resilience has undergone a transformation. In recent years, we have seen the EU turning back in on itself and abandoning the radical aspects of resilience. Hence a paradox has emerged – the more complex the problems faced by the EU, the more it turns away from the logics of complexity present in the idea of resilience. In this article, we examine this conceptual shift through the lenses of concepts in action and the way these have reflected changes in the external context, but also power coalitions and institutional path dependencies. This argument will be explored by examining the recently adopted Strategic Compass and the EU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Review of International Studies
Review of International Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
3.30%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: Review of International Studies serves the needs of scholars in international relations and related fields such as politics, history, law, and sociology. The Review publishes a significant number of high quality research articles, review articles which survey new contributions to the field, a forum section to accommodate debates and replies, and occasional interviews with leading scholars.
期刊最新文献
Towards an abolitionist feminist peace: State violence, anti-militarism, and the Women, Peace and Security agenda Degrowth, green growth, and climate justice for Africa No place to hide: The public attribution of responsibility for policy failures of international organisations Images of international thinkers The future is just another past
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1