Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evolutionary institutionalism in Europe’s neighborhood post-enlargement: the European Neighborhood Policy brings geopolitics back in

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Asia Europe Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A major conceptual overhaul is under way in the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) with significant consequences for its eastern dimension. This paper examines such policy adjustments from the perspective of evolutionary institutionalism. The paper revisits the changing rationale of the ENP due to the impact of the broader geopolitical environment on its normative structure and compliance mechanisms on the example of the EU’s Eastern Partnership (EaP) with six countries in the post-Soviet space. By tracing the evolution of the EaP as a result of the Ukraine crisis and the creation of the Eurasian Economic Union, the paper finds that the EaP’s progressive institutional growth has been replaced with the diversification of its governance mechanism, transforming the established top-down model of conditionality and deep institutionalization of the EU’s neighborhood relations. The evolving institutional arrangements of the EaP, nominally at odds with the principles of institutional continuity, demonstrate that international institutions are resilient vis-à-vis ecological pressures. These findings represent a novel contribution to the literature exploring the institutions-geopolitics dichotomy in the Europe/Eurasia region. The paper concludes that, as the EU has adapted to the structural dependencies of its partners, it is now better positioned to expand its influence in the post-Soviet space. The evolution of the EaP offers valuable insights into the actual process of building a more geopolitical EU: not by advancing pragmatic EU interests or establishing its own “soft” sphere of influence in the Europe/Eurasia region but by sustaining inclusive resilient and efficient institutions with a global outlook.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Chart 1
Chart 2
Chart 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The ENP includes 16 countries located along the EU’s eastern and southern borders belonging to different geopolitical settings: the post-Soviet space, whose fragmentation was finalized as a result of the 2004 eastward enlargement, North Africa, and the Eastern Mediterranean. The Eastern partner countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, and Tunisia belong to the southern neighborhood. Russia is not a part of the ENP but takes part in cross-border cooperation including with ENP members. On the rationale, objectives, and early evolution of the ENP, see European Commission (2004), Ejoshvili (2010), and Korosteleva (2012), among others.

  2. The Eastern Partnership (EaP) countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. The EaP is discussed in section “The EU’s progressive regionalism model of neighbourhood relations” below.

  3. See European Commission’s President von der Leyen program speech (European Commission 2019).

  4. See Uriy Vdovenko, “20 Deliverables for 2020: Where is the Eastern Partnership Headed,” Prism Ukraine, http://prismua.org/en/pdf/8688/. Accessed 23 May 2020.

  5. I thank one of the anonymous reviewers for pointing to the need to emphasize this point.

  6. Such requirements were part of the Barcelona Process and the Mediterranean Partnership concluded with countries in North Africa and the Middle East.

  7. The ENP also includes the southern borders of the EU in the Mediterranean region. With regard to the southern neighborhood, the EU implements The Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity with the Southern Mediterranean Partners policy framework. This analysis is concerned only with the eastern section covering the countries from the post-Soviet space, excluding Russia.

  8. Emphasis in the original.

  9. The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA), signed in 1994, constitutes the basis of EU-Russia relations. The PCA provides for the future establishment of a free trade area without deeper integration (European Council 1994). The creation of “common spaces” was proposed at the St. Petersburg Summit, May 2003. Negotiations on a new EU-Russia Agreement started at the Khanty-Mansiysk Summit, 2008 and a Partnership for Modernization at the Rostov Summit, 2010. On then Prime Minister Putin’s proposal for a common regional market from “Vladivostok to Lisbon,” see Der Spiegel, 26 November 2010, “The World from Berlin,” (online). http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/the-world-from-berlin-putin-s-free-trade-proposal-is-just-a-smokescreen-a-731370.html. Accessed 29 December 2019.

  10. See Pop V (2009) EU expanding its “sphere of influence,” Russia says. EUObserver, 21 March 2009. https://euobserver.com/foreign/27827. Accessed 20 June 2020; Deutsche Welle, EU’s New Eastern Partnership Draws Ire from Russia, 21 March 2009 (tt/afp/dpa/reuters), https://www.dw.com/en/eus-new-eastern-partnership-draws-ire-from-russia/a-4116554. Accessed 22 May 2020.

  11. The EAEU is built around the members of the ECU (Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan). Armenia and Kyrgyzstan became members in 2015.

  12. The provisional accords for an AA were supposed to be finalized at the Vilnius Summit in November 2013.

  13. Borderlex, In Brief: Riga Summit—Fading Hopes of European Destiny for European Partners, 20 May 2015. http://www.borderlex.eu/tag/neighbourhood?print=pdf-page.

  14. At the 2019 Brussels Summit, Azerbaijan did not sign the outcome declaration as it failed to mention the territorial integrity of the partner countries although at prior occasions the EU had explicitly stated support for the territorial integrity of Ukraine. See Dominik Istrate, “Landmark Eastern Partnership summit ends without joint declaration,” Emerging Europe,

    15 May 2019, available at https://emerging-europe.com/news/landmark-eastern-partnership-summit-ends-without-joint-declaration/. Accessed 22 June 2020.

  15. The DCFTA became fully operational on 1 January 2016.

  16. CEPA was signed on 24 November 2017. See European Union External Action Service, Fact sheets (Armenia), May 5, 2019, ID 160622_3. https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headQuarters-homepage/4080/eu-armenia-relations-factsheet_en. Accessed 5 October 2019.

  17. Ibid. See Euractiv, EU Ends Belarus Sanctions, 25 February 2016. https://www.euractiv.com/section/europe-s-east/news/eu-ends-belarus-sanctions/. Accessed 9 January 2020.

  18. See European Council, Council Conclusions on Belarus, Press Release, 15 February 2016. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/02/15/fac-belarus-conclusions/. Accessed 10 October 2019.

  19. The European Parliament does not recognize the National Assembly Belarus due to the lack of European standards in the electoral process.

  20. Data from Eastern Partnership: What is it? Key Factsheets. https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/neighbourhood/eastern-partnership_en. Accessed 22 June 2020.

  21. See Eastern Partnership Index, online. https://eap-csf.eu/eastern-partnership-index/#section-fillup-1. Accessed 1 May 2020.

References

  • Ademmer E, Delcour L, Wolczuk K (2016) Beyond geopolitics: exploring the impact of the EU and Russia in the “contested neighborhood”. Eurasian Geogr Econ 57(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2016.1183221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler E, Barnett M (1998) Security communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson J (1999) Regional integration and democracy: expanding on the European experience. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur B (1994) Increasing returns and path dependence. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Auer (2015) Carl Schmitt in the Kremlin: the Ukraine crisis and the return of geopolitics. Int Aff 91(5):953–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechev D, Nicolaïdis K (2010) From policy to polity: can the EU’s special relations with its ‘neighbourhood’ be decentred? J Common Mark Stud 48(3):475–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buzan B, Wæver O (2003) Regions and powers: the structure of international society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cadier D (2014) Eastern Partnership vs Eurasian Union? The EU-Russia competition in the shared neighborhood and the Ukraine crisis. Glob Policy (October) http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/articles/climate-change-energy-and-sustainability/eastern-partnership-vs-eurasian-union-eu%E2%80%93russia-co. Accessed 1 December 2019

  • Cadier D (2019) The geopoliticisation of the EU’s Eastern Partnership. Geopolitics 24(1):71–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2018.1477754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2009) Joint declaration of the Prague Eastern Partnership Summit Prague, 7 May 2009. Press release 8435/09 (Presse 78). Brussels, 7 May 2009. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/er/107589.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2020.

  • DeBardeleben J (ed) (2007) The boundaries of EU enlargement: finding a place for neighbours. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  • Delcour L (2010) The European Union, a security provider in the Eastern neighbourhood? Eur Sec 4(10):535–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Micco P (2015) When choosing means losing: the Eastern partners, the EU and the Eurasian Economic Union. Study, DG EXPO/B/PolDep/Note/2015_108 EN. PE 549.026. European Union, Brussels

  • Dragneva R, Delcour L, Jonavicius L (2017) Assessing legal and political compatibility between the European Union engagement strategies and membership of the Eurasian Economic Union, EU-STRAT Working Paper No. 07 ‘The EU and Eastern Partnership Countries – An Inside-Out Analysis and Strategic Assessment’ (EU-STRAT).

  • The Economist (2013) Trading insults: a trade war sputters as the tussle over Ukraine’s future intensifies (24 August). http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21583998-trade-war-sputters-tussle-over-uk. Accessed 20 July 2019

  • Ejoshvili N (2010) The evolution of the European Union’s neighborhood strategies: the case of the Eastern Partnership. VDM Verlag Dr, Müller, Saarbrücken

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2004) European Neighborhood Policy—strategy paper. Communication from the Commission, COMM(2004) 373final. European Commission, Brussels

  • European Commission (2015) Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions. Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy. SWD (2015) final, 18 November. European Commission, Brussels

  • European Commission (2017). High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (2017) Eastern Partnership—20 deliverables for 2020 focusing on key priorities and tangible results. Joint Staff Working Document (9.6.2017) SWD(2017) 300 final. European Commission, Brussels

  • European Commission (2019) Speech in the European Parliament Plenary Session as delivered. Ursula von der Leyen President-elect of the European Commission. Strasbourg, 27 November 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/president-elect-speech-original_1.pdf.

  • European Council (1994) Council and commission decision on the conclusion of the agreement on partnership and cooperation between the European communities and their member states of the one part, and Russia, of the other part COM(94) 257, 15 June 1994. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1421756702017& uri=CELEX:51994PC0257

  • European Council (2020) Council conclusions on Eastern Partnership policy beyond 2020. 7510/1/20 REV 1. Council of the European Union Brussels, 11 May 2020

  • European Parliament (2013) European Parliament Resolution of 12 September 2013 on the Pressure Exerted by Russia on Eastern Partnership countries (in the context of the upcoming Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius). Document 2013/2826(RSP) (September 12). European Parliament, Brussels

  • European Parliament (2019) Fact Sheets on the European Union. Three Eastern Partnership neighbours: Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus. Fact Sheets on the European Union – 2019, Available online: www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en.

  • Galeotti M, Bowen A (2014) Putin’s empire of the mind. Foreign Policy (21 April), Available online: http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/21/putins-empire-of-the-mind

  • George A, Bennett A (2005) Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Greif A (2014) Do institutions evolve? J Bioecon 16:53–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-013-9173-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gänzle S (2007) The EU’s neighborhood policy: a strategy for security in Europe? In: Gänzle S, Sens A (eds) The changing politics of European security: Europe alone? Palgrave, London, pp 110–134

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hall P (1992) The movement from Keynesianism to monetarism: institutional analysis and British economic policy in the 1970s. In: Steinmo S, Thelen K, Longstreth F (eds) Structuring politics: historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 90–113

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hasenclever A, Mayer P, Rittberger V (1997) Theories of international regimes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Haukkala H (2015) From Cooperative to Contested Europe? The conflict in Ukraine as a culmination of a long-term crisis in EU-Russia relations. J Contemp Eur Stud 23(1):25–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heldeweg M (2017) Normative alignment, institutional resilience and shifts in legal governance of the energy transition. Sustainability 9:1273. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords, European Union Committee (2015) The EU and Russia, before and beyond the crisis in Ukraine. Sixth Report 2014-2015. The Stationary Office, London, Available online: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldeucom/115/115.pdf

  • Hyde-Price A (1996) The International Politics of East Central Europe. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyde-Price, A (2008) A ‘tragic actor’? A realist perspective on ‘Ethical Power Europe’ Intl Affrs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) 84(1):29-44

  • Ikani N (2019) Change and continuity in the European neighbourhood policy: the Ukraine crisis as a critical juncture. Geopolitics 24(1):20–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2017.1422122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikenberry J, Inoguchi T (2007) The uses of institutions: the U.S., Japan, and governance in East Asia. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke and New York

  • Juncker, J. C. 2017. State of the Union Address. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release _SPEECH-17-3165_en.htm.

  • Jupille J, Caporaso J (1999) Institutionalism and the European Union: beyond international relations and comparative politics. Annual Rev Pol Sc 2:429–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay A (2006) The dynamics of public policy: theory and evidence. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Korosteleva E (2012) Eastern Partnership: a new opportunity for the neighbors? Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuus M (2011) Policy and geopolitics: bounding Europe in Europe. Ann Assn Am Geographers 101(5):1140–1155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane D (2015) Eurasian Integration as a response to neoliberal globalization. In: Lane D, Samokhvalov V (eds) The Eurasian project and Europe: Regional discontinuities and geopolitics. Palgrave, Basingstoke, pp 3–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavenex S (2004) EU external governance in ‘wider Europe’. J Eur Public Pol 11(4):680–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavenex S, Schimmelfennig F (eds) (2013) Democracy promotion in the EU’s neighborhood: from leverage to governance? Routledge, London and New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehne S (2020) How the EU can survive in a geopolitical age. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Europe) Working Paper. February 2020

  • Lewis O, Steinmo S (2012) How institutions evolve: evolutionary theory and institutional change. Polity 44(3):314–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manners I (2010) As you like it: EU normative power in the European neighborhood policy. In: Whitman RG, Wolff S (eds) The European neighborhood policy in perspective: Context, implementation and impact. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 29–50

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • March J, Olsen J (1984) The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life. Am Pol Sci Rev 78:743–744

    Google Scholar 

  • Mogherini, F. 2017. Speech by Federica Mogherini at the Munich Security Conference. https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en/20832/Speech%20by%20Federica%20Mogherini%20at%20the%20Munich%20Security%20Conference.

  • Nitoiu C (2019) Increasingly geopolitical: EU’s Eastern neighbourhood in the age of multiple crises. In: Rouen G, Pascariu C (eds) (2019) Resilience and the EU’s Eastern Neighbouring Countries: From Theoretical Concepts to a Normative Agenda. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp 25–47

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nitoiu C, Sus M (2019) Introduction: the rise of geopolitics in the EU’s approach in its Eastern neighbourhood. Geopolitics 24(1):1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orbie J (2006) Civilian power Europe: review of the original and current debates. Cooperat Conflict 41(1):123–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2014) Do institutions for collective action evolve? J Bioecon 16:3–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierson P (2000) Path dependence, increasing returns, and the study of politics. Am Polit Sci Rev 94(2):251–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouen G, Pascariu C (eds) (2019) Resilience and the EU’s Eastern neighbouring countries: from theoretical concepts to a normative agenda. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimmelfennig F, Engert S, Knobel H (2006) International socialization in Europe: European organizations, political conditionality, and democratic change. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schimmelfennig F, Sedelmeier U (2002) Theorizing EU enlargement: research focus, hypotheses, and the state of research. J Eur Public Policy 9(4):500–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stivachtis Y, Webber M (2011) Regional international society in post-enlargement Europe. J Eur Int 33(2):101–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelen K (2004) How institutions evolve: the political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Trenin D (2009) Russia’s spheres of interest, not influence. Wash Q 32(4):3–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tulmets E, Vieira A, Ferreira-Pereira L (2018) Introduction: competing conditionalities? Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus between the European Union and Russia. Eur Pol Soc 19(4):451–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2018.1456745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wivel A, Mouritzen H (eds) (2004) The geopolitics of Euro-Atlantic Integration. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wivel A, Wæver O (2018) The power of peaceful change: the crisis of the European Union and the rebalancing of Europe’s regional order. Int Stud Rev 20(2):317–325. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viy027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wæver O (1996) European security identities. J Common Mark Stud 34(1):103–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yusoff WS, Wuri Handayani M, Sazli S, Fairuz Md SM (2018) Determining the optimal mix of institutional geopolitical power and ASEAN corporate governance on the firm value of Malaysia’s multinational corporations (MNCs). MATEC Web Conf 150:06017. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201815006017MUCET2017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zielonka (2006) Europe as empire: the nature of the enlarged European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science & Geography, University of Texas at San Antonio, 1 UTSA Circle, MS 4.02.40, San Antonio, TX, 78249, USA

    Boyka M. Stefanova

Authors
  1. Boyka M. Stefanova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Boyka M. Stefanova.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stefanova, B.M. Evolutionary institutionalism in Europe’s neighborhood post-enlargement: the European Neighborhood Policy brings geopolitics back in. Asia Eur J 19, 329–346 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-021-00601-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-021-00601-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation