全球无治理之镜中的东方伙伴联盟协议:东非自贸协定将走向何方?

Q2 Social Sciences Lex Portus Pub Date : 2020-12-31 DOI:10.26886/2524-101X.6.2020.2
A. Kormych, V. Zavalniuk
{"title":"全球无治理之镜中的东方伙伴联盟协议:东非自贸协定将走向何方?","authors":"A. Kormych, V. Zavalniuk","doi":"10.26886/2524-101X.6.2020.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper focuses on powers’ dissolving effects brought by Eastern Partnership Association agreements, signed with Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, to associated states’ governance systems and practices and the development of associations’ institutions and procedures. To that end, the research utilizes the concepts of “ungovernance” and “global ungovernance” that, in the authors’ view, possess significant explanation potential in the field. The paper reviews the emergence of said concepts, which may be traced back to the mid of 1990th. It emphasizes the main features of those concepts concerning both national states and transnational institution-building projects. The dispersion of powers due to the implementation of association agreements is caused by the extension of obligations far beyond those needed to implement the DCFTA and binding the market access with progress in other fields. Such agreement’s design brings the notions of “uncertainty” and “inconsistencies” into assessing the institutional and procedural issues of its implementation. The paper also analyses the side-effects of the lack of accession perspective, which, combined with extensive obligations towards approximation to the EU legislation, creates an “impossibility of closure” effect (i.e., impossibility to reach objectives set). Such an effect happens due to unclear goals and discouragement of actors involved in the implementation because of the absence of future membership guarantees. The paper also suggests that the implementation process’s failures may result in significant institutional and procedural rearrangements within the association agreements’ frameworks to adjust the governance mode to cope with such failures.","PeriodicalId":36374,"journal":{"name":"Lex Portus","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Eastern Partnership Association Agreements in the Mirror of Global Ungovernance: Where Does the DCFTA Lead?\",\"authors\":\"A. Kormych, V. Zavalniuk\",\"doi\":\"10.26886/2524-101X.6.2020.2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The paper focuses on powers’ dissolving effects brought by Eastern Partnership Association agreements, signed with Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, to associated states’ governance systems and practices and the development of associations’ institutions and procedures. To that end, the research utilizes the concepts of “ungovernance” and “global ungovernance” that, in the authors’ view, possess significant explanation potential in the field. The paper reviews the emergence of said concepts, which may be traced back to the mid of 1990th. It emphasizes the main features of those concepts concerning both national states and transnational institution-building projects. The dispersion of powers due to the implementation of association agreements is caused by the extension of obligations far beyond those needed to implement the DCFTA and binding the market access with progress in other fields. Such agreement’s design brings the notions of “uncertainty” and “inconsistencies” into assessing the institutional and procedural issues of its implementation. The paper also analyses the side-effects of the lack of accession perspective, which, combined with extensive obligations towards approximation to the EU legislation, creates an “impossibility of closure” effect (i.e., impossibility to reach objectives set). Such an effect happens due to unclear goals and discouragement of actors involved in the implementation because of the absence of future membership guarantees. The paper also suggests that the implementation process’s failures may result in significant institutional and procedural rearrangements within the association agreements’ frameworks to adjust the governance mode to cope with such failures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36374,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lex Portus\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lex Portus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26886/2524-101X.6.2020.2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lex Portus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26886/2524-101X.6.2020.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文重点研究了与乌克兰、摩尔多瓦和格鲁吉亚签署的东部伙伴关系联盟协议对联盟国家治理体系和实践以及联盟机构和程序的发展所带来的权力消解效应。为此,本研究使用了“非治理”和“全球非治理”的概念,在作者看来,这些概念在该领域具有重要的解释潜力。本文回顾了上述概念的出现,这些概念可以追溯到20世纪90年代中期。它强调了涉及民族国家和跨国机构建设项目的这些概念的主要特点。由于实施联系国协定而导致的权力分散,是由于其义务的延伸远远超出了实施DCFTA所需要的范围,并将市场准入与其他领域的进展相绑定。这种协定的设计将“不确定”和“不一致”的概念带入评估其执行的体制和程序问题。本文还分析了缺乏加入视角的副作用,这与接近欧盟立法的广泛义务相结合,产生了“不可能的关闭”效应(即不可能达到设定的目标)。造成这种效果的原因是目标不明确,以及由于缺乏未来成员资格的保证而使参与实施的行动者气馁。本文还认为,实施过程的失败可能导致关联协议框架内重大的制度和程序重组,以调整治理模式以应对这种失败。
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
Eastern Partnership Association Agreements in the Mirror of Global Ungovernance: Where Does the DCFTA Lead?
The paper focuses on powers’ dissolving effects brought by Eastern Partnership Association agreements, signed with Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, to associated states’ governance systems and practices and the development of associations’ institutions and procedures. To that end, the research utilizes the concepts of “ungovernance” and “global ungovernance” that, in the authors’ view, possess significant explanation potential in the field. The paper reviews the emergence of said concepts, which may be traced back to the mid of 1990th. It emphasizes the main features of those concepts concerning both national states and transnational institution-building projects. The dispersion of powers due to the implementation of association agreements is caused by the extension of obligations far beyond those needed to implement the DCFTA and binding the market access with progress in other fields. Such agreement’s design brings the notions of “uncertainty” and “inconsistencies” into assessing the institutional and procedural issues of its implementation. The paper also analyses the side-effects of the lack of accession perspective, which, combined with extensive obligations towards approximation to the EU legislation, creates an “impossibility of closure” effect (i.e., impossibility to reach objectives set). Such an effect happens due to unclear goals and discouragement of actors involved in the implementation because of the absence of future membership guarantees. The paper also suggests that the implementation process’s failures may result in significant institutional and procedural rearrangements within the association agreements’ frameworks to adjust the governance mode to cope with such failures.
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
Lex Portus
Lex Portus Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Parallel Imports: Striking a Delicate Balance in a Multifaceted Environment Potential Influence of Article 6(1)(b) of the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts on Indian Private International Law Ukrainian Supreme Court Judicial Practice in Cases Arising from Disputes between Foreign Shipowners or Protection and Indemnity Clubs, and Seafarers or Seafarers’ Next of Kin India’s Submission to the ITLOS Climate Change Advisory Opinion: A Lost Opportunity Ukraine – China Asymmetric Economic Power Relations: What is to Come after BRI?
×
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