Search results

Porast angažovanja Poljske na Zapadnom Balkanu je primetan. Ovaj rad ima za cilj da istraži kompatibilnost prioriteta EU u regionu i nacionalnih interesa Poljske. Ugrađen u koncept Raison D`Etat i realistički teorijski okvir, ovaj rad prati evoluciju pristupa EU i Poljske prema regionu u potrazi za nivoom simbioze između dva igrača. Autor istražuje strateški pristup EU prema Zapadnom Balkanu, prikazuje vremensku dinamiku poljskog uključivanja u region i upoređuje argumente iza strateške prirode Zapadnog Balkana. Nalazi prepoznaju uključivanje poljskih prioriteta u strategiju EU prema regionu. Međutim, još uvek postoji neizvesnost u kojoj meri je Zapadni Balkan uključen u najviše državne interese Poljske. Zapadni Balkan i dalje može postati žrtva unutrašnjih poljskih sukoba oko glavnih spoljnopolitičkih prioriteta. Kontinuitet angažovanja zakona i pravde sa regionom od strane vlade koja ne deluje u skladu sa zakonima i pravdom i očuvanje tempa angažovanja odrediće da li će Zapadni Balkan zaista postati deo poljske Raison D`Etat.

This paper will look at the concept of de-Europeanisation through the prism of the official relations between the EU representatives and the political elites in two countries – Bulgaria and Serbia. Here de-Europeanisation is defined as a process of deterioration of the quality
of integration or more simply as 'it is worse than it was'. The article begins with a critical overview of the dominant theoretical approaches to enlargement Europeanisation. Then, from a theoretical perspective, the article explores the role of EU legitimisation for national political elites.
While distinguishing between revolutionary and opportunistic legitimisation, the paper highlights the former, based on Bulgaria and Serbia. Going beyond the liberal political narrative of democratic backsliding in Central Europe, the article will approach critically the dominant Europeanisation
assumption of the unequivocally positive effect of European integration on national political elites. Particularly, it will examine the relevance of the argument that in the case of rule of law and human rights, the existing formal Europeanisation not only does not lead to informal Europeanisation
of the states, but it can also have a reverse effect through the preservation of pathological political practices and their infusion into the process of European integration. The research will use a qualitative method of analysis to juxtapose the official EU/nation state political elites'
rhetoric with political practices at the national level in the context of rule of law and human rights. Based on the findings, the paper argues that the EU oriented institutionalised perspective of Europeanisation omits important interactions on a micro-level that lead to the accommodation
of political practices contradictory to EU's fundamental political values. While these practices survive in the peripheries of the integration process, they have the potential to multiply and eviscerate the fundamental political practices and thus the EU's political system.

From introduction: "The role of religion in U.S. foreign policy is a very complex issue. Dependent on the personal attitude of the researcher, religion can play a major or secondary role in analyzing the process of shaping American behavior in international relations. This topic is extremely difficult for political scientists (and I daresay for other scholarly approaches as well) due to its inherently internal nature. It is easier to research and analyze open, accessible and, even if controversial, publicly discussed topics. However, this is not the case with religion. When asked to contribute to the volume on this topic the first feeling was confusion. Undoubtedly, there is religious inclination in the deeds and actions of the following American administrations, but does that mean that all the actions are guided by religious principles? Does it mean that the point of relevance is the divine principles of Christianity? Is the Decalogue the driving force of American foreign policy? Ultimately, how can we measure this topic? I will risk saying no to these questions."(.)

"The sixtieth anniversary of the Council of Europe (hereinafter "CoE") provides opportunity for reflection on the political developments in the field of human rights in Europe. The organization, which was established in order to promote such values as rule of law, human rights and democracy, created the most efficient mechanism of human rights protection worldwide. This regional system of human rights, being associated with the "West" during the Cold War era, today gathers forty seven member states. All of them, at least theoretically, comply with the highest standards of individual protection and recognize the authority of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "ECtHR" or "the Court")."(.)

By employing the concept of raison d??tat, the article questions the European
Union?s role in the so-called Western Balkan region. While the region
continues to be covered by the EU?s enlargement policy, we argue that the
policy has been in paralysis. We explore whether the heightened geopolitical
tensions in Europe have brought the EU to a turning point at which it would
use its enlargement policy decisively to pursue its strategic interests in
the region. We start with a theoretical discussion of raison d??tat and its
instrumentalization in the context of the European Union as a non-state
actor. Then, we use the conceptual benchmarks of the raison d??tat to
analyze its empirical implementation through the EU?s relations with Western
Balkan countries. We explore the EU?s available enlargement policy tools and
the diverging positions within the EU towards enlargement. We pay special
attention to the ?New enlargement methodology? devised by the Commission in
2019. We argue that despite the Commission?s efforts to promote the EU?s
common interest in the region framed in a geopolitical narrative, the
diverging national interests still preclude the EU from aggregating its own
and pursuing its raison d??tat towards the region. The ?new methodology?
does nothing to overcome this situation. What is more, by insisting on a
?stronger political steer? and by further facilitating the reversal of the
accession process, the document pushes the Union further away from a common
ground regarding the enlargement.

This article explores how national executives in Serbia and Bulgaria address European Union (EU) rule of law conditionality by framing it within the populism/technocracy dichotomy. The rule of law remains one of the main problems of EU relations with the two countries. While acknowledging the nuances of pre- and post-enlargement Europeanisation, this article explores the technocratic and populist narratives exploited by the national executives in their interactions with the EU and their domestic public. Rather than positioning the current executives unequivocally either as populist or technocratic, we argue that the political elites act strategically in using both populist and technocratic techniques towards their publics when explaining interaction with the EU. We explore the extent this type of executive behaviour is determined by the countries' formally different status. While we look for the levels of possible similarity and distinction in the two cases/countries stemming from their different EU membership status, our findings confirm the existence of strategic defensive populist and technocratic techniques applied towards the EU and the national public in both countries The aim of this strategy is to mitigate the impact of the EU rule of law pressure and to secure the persistence of the existing rule of law shortcomings within the process of European integration. Interestingly, our research did not identify substantial impact of the formally different status towards the EU of the two countries.

Is the European Union (EU) in a state of crisis? Over recent years, a series of systemic and spontaneous challenges, including Brexit, the rise of Euroscepticism and the Eurozone and refugee crises, have manifested in landmark moments for European integration. First published as a special issue of the journal Global Discourse, this edited collection investigates whether these crises are isolated phenomena or symptoms of a deeper malaise across the EU. Experts from across disciplines analyse and rethink the forces which pull Europeans together, as well as those which push them apart