Кризис в отношениях России и ЕС: между «суверенитетом» и «европеизацией»
This chapter compares the interactions of the EU with Libya and Russia between the late 1990s until 2011, in the context of migration governance in the European “neighbourhood”, and, through the concept of policy transfer, explores the extent to which they invite a broader definition of the European neighbourhood. This comparison builds on crucial similarities between these two countries. From the EU perspective, cooperation with Russia and Libya was key since it considerably affected EU migration management capacities. Beyond the purview of established multilateral fora, the EU has engaged in close relations with Russia and Libya despite their not being parties to European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). The fact that the two countries did not partake in the ENP is central to our analysis. The ENP, targeting Eastern Europe, Southern Caucasus, as well as the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, has attempted to put under the same umbrella countries that have very little in common. Various scholarly works focusing on the assessment of the ENP as a policy transfer instrument, have generally done this through comparisons either between ENP countries or between an ENP country to a non-ENP country. In this chapter, we attempt a comparison of two non-ENP countries that are, nonetheless, important EU neighbours. In this context, the chapter seeks to explain how Libya and Russia contributed to, and were deeply implicated in, the development of EU neighbourhood. This perspective builds on the proposition that the interaction with countries that influence so significantly migration patterns to the EU and yet are not fully ENP members has much to say about EU neighbourhood strategy and impact. We trace the negotiations on migration between the EU and Russia and those between the EU and Libya and highlight differences and similarities. We pay special attention to bargaining dynamics and policy outcomes in such areas as readmission, visa facilitation and border management. We show how agendas, problems and solutions in EU cooperation with Russia and Libya are comparable, though different, insofar as they are mutually constituent rather than unilaterally driven by the EU. Consequently, we reflect on the evolving meaning of the “neighbourhood” through the lens of formal, informal and ad hoc methods of cooperation on migration. Representing outliers or “outsiders” not only of the European integration process, but also of the ENP, the cases of Libya and Russia are markers of processes and norms redefining EU neighbourhood concept. In conclusion, we argue that the relative leeway enjoyed by Libya and Russia and the patterns of two-way transfer with the EU rest on the features that the two countries shared economically and politically, on their migration management capacities, as well as their not being formal neighbours of the EU, even though they belong to the EU’s “invented neighbourhood”. Overall, focusing on the role played by two “difficult” or even “disobliging” neighbours in the construction of EU neighbourhood, we hope to contribute to two strands of literature – on the policy transfer in the area of migration and on the role of “outsiders” in the evolution of EU neighbourhood policy. The chapter invites critical reflection on the “invented” character of the EU neighbourhood, interdependent nature of EU neighbourhood policy, its paradoxes and emerging features. It also contributes to a broader discussion on the usefulness and efficiency of the ENP as a policy transfer framework.
Marina Larionova and Vitaliy Nagornov of the Moscow High School of Economics review the prospects for progress in the five key areas for technological modernization - energy efficiency, nuclear technology, space technology and communications, medical technology and strategic information technology. The authors also examine the most important legal changes for stimulating investment and innovation, such as amendments to the list of strategic enterprises and acts on special economic zones. They emphasise the importance of higher education reform in ensuring the success of the modernization agenda. Finally they look at EU-Russia cooperation in practice taking as examples various cross border initiatives.
This study focuses on such a complex issue as an energy security. The energy security is often considered from the consumer's point of view. But it's an "umbrella term", covering a lot of concerns. This study looks at how the concept of demand security came about and how it evolved. The chapter examines requests of consuming and producing countries. Energy has a significant role in the relations between Russia and EU and this case is considered in the chapter.
This review brings out clearly the many issues concerning the EU-Russia modernisation partnership. Perhaps the most important is the differences within Russia about how far and how fast to proceed with modernisation. President Dmitry Medvedev has spoken of the need to reform Russia’s “backward” economy, to end its “primitive reliance” on oil and gas. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, seems not to share this sense of urgency, arguing recently that modernisation was already under way, “but we need to make this development quite gradual”. Mr Putin has also been far less vocal than Mr Medvedev on the need to tackle corruption and take measures to strengthen the rule of law.
As in other years, in 2018 Russia functioned as a house of mirrors for the EU and its member states, often distorting their image, sometimes reflecting them accurately, at other times making them look better than they were in reality. In this respect, five points deserve particular attention: the EU’s unity and solidarity; its values and identity; its long-term goals and selective engagement; the EU’s and Russia’s damage limitation by encouraging multilevel relationships; and the EU–US–Russia triangle. The EU–Russia relationship matters for a number of significant reasons. It is the EU’s largest neighbour, the state with which it has the longest ground border and is, as such, a key security actor. But it is also the test case for the EU, a test from which the EU once again has not emerged well. Russia evades any attempts to fit it into the EU’s existing pattern of relations and the EU has still not managed to develop – or even imagine – a new one.
EU-Russia relations are on the stage of fundamental rethinking. Unshakeable foundations of mutual understanding and trust have been undemined. Ukraine crisis demonstrated an absolutely different vision of european security by Russia and West. New Helsinki can become the platform for launch of common free trade zone from Lisbon o Vladivostok.
European integration is going through difficult times, not only due to the crisis, but also because the logic that determines the development of the EU. It forces politicians to think in realistic terms. In a close partnership with the United States, the European powers are entering the global politic arena. For Russia, this is fraught with more complex partnership with the EU, as well as with single European countries that have revised their priorities.
The paper explores the state of academic dialogue between the Russian and Western scholarly communities studying the European Union (EU)–Russia relations in Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). By analyzing the citation patterns of the academic articles on the EU–Russia cooperation in this area, we arrive at the conclusion that the Russian scholarship mostly does not engage in a transnational academic dialogue with the Western counterparts. In other words, it has turned into a sealed ‘indigenous’ scholarly community. And what is more, it is also disintegrated within itself since the Russian scholars do not refer to the research produced by their compatriots either. To qualitatively substantiate our findings, in the last section of the paper, we review the universe of all articles written on the topic in Russian to distinguish five trends typical of the research published in Russian academic journals. We believe that these features are the result of the lack of engagement with the Western scholarship and simultaneously the cause which prevents the communication between the two scholarly communities. This, in turn, undermines the accumulation of the transnational multifaceted policy-relevant expertise essential for normalizing the relations between Brussels and Moscow in general and in JHA in particular.
The article deals with the processes of building the information society and security in the CIS in accordance with modern conditions. The main objective is to review existing mechanisms for the formation of a common information space in the Eurasian region, regarded as one of the essential aspects of international integration. The theoretical significance of the work is to determine the main controls of the regional information infrastructure, improved by the development of communication features in a rapid process.The practical component consists in determining the future policies of the region under consideration in building the information society. The study authors used historical-descriptive approach and factual analysis of events having to do with drawing the contours of today's global information society in the regional refraction.
The main result is the fact that the development of information and communication technologies, and network resources leads to increased threats of destabilization of the socio-political situation in view of the emergence of multiple centers that generate the ideological and psychological background. Keeping focused information policy can not be conceived without the collective participation of States in the first place, members of the group leaders of integration - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Currently, only produced a comprehensive approach to security in the information field in the Eurasian region, but the events in the world, largely thanks to modern technology, make the search for an exit strategy with a much higher speed. The article contributes to the science of international relations, engaging in interdisciplinary thinking that is associated with a transition period in the development of society. A study of current conditions in their relation to the current socio-political patterns of the authors leads to conclusions about the need for cooperation with the network centers of power in the modern information environment, the formation of alternative models of networking, especially in innovation and scientific and technical areas of information policy, and expanding the integration of the field in this region on the information content.