Скачать 167.18 Kb.
|DRAFT – DO NOT CITE!!|
Institute of International Studies
University of Wroclaw
Regional network of co-operation in Europe as a tool of efficient governance.
This paper focuses on interregional co-operation understood as co-operation among regional agencies existing in European space (hence called here intersubregional). The European Union is the main actor of regional co-operation here, but also since the beginning of the 1990s many regional cooperation frameworks have been established in Central–East and South-East Europe and on the post-Soviet Union territories. Their aim has been to promote dialogue and cooperation on various issues. This outburst of regional co-operation partly stemmed from European Union initiatives and served the policy of enlargement or closer cooperation initially. Currently it is also used as a tool of the European Neighbourhood Policy. Hence, one level of analysis is connected with the place of Eastern regional organisations in the EU’s strategies and policies. The second level of analysis concerns links among these various structures of co-operation which emerged within the Eastern Europe sub-region. The existence of these arrangements for the last fifteen and more years allows us to consider the following questions: Does interegional co-operation exist? How far it is institutionalised and efficient? Can a regional network of co-operation in Eastern Europe be a successful method of strengthening this sub-region as a whole? To what extent can links with the EU determine this potential success? And is the EU is an obstacle to, or a supporter of, intraregional co-operation outside the EU. The paper concludes that efficient governance within Eastern Europe has to be built on multilevel co-operation which should include all agencies established in this area.
Europe is an exceptionally rich space of various regional institutions which cooperate in various areas. The European Union (EU) is the main actor in regional co-operation here along with others panEuropean structures like the Council of Europe, the OSCE or NATO, but also since the beginning of the 1990s many regional cooperation frameworks have been established in Central–East and South-East Europe and on the post-Soviet Union territories. Their aim has been to promote dialogue and cooperation on various issues. This outburst of regional co-operation partly stemmed from European Union initiatives and served the policy of enlargement or closer cooperation initially. Currently it is also used as a tool of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). Hence, one level of analysis is connected with the place of Eastern regional organisations in the EU’s strategies and policies. The second level of analysis concerns links among these various structures of co-operation which emerged within the Eastern Europe sub-region. The existence of these arrangements for the last fifteen and more years allows us to consider the following questions: Does inter (sub)regional co-operation exist? How far it is institutionalised and efficient? Can a regional network of co-operation in Eastern Europe be a successful method of strengthening this sub-region as a whole? To what extent can links with the EU determine this potential success? And is the EU an obstacle to, or a supporter of, inter(sub)regional co-operation outside the EU?
This paper is built on several concepts which are popular among international specialists contemporarily; among them there are regionalism, regionalisation, governance. All these notions are interpreted in different, sometimes controversial ways, especially since they are the subject not only of various theoretical approaches but also of various disciplines. My aim is to see them as an international phenomenon which can became a leading feature of the 21st century.
Regionalism in international relations can be defined as various forms of international cooperation, alliances, arrangements of states which are close in geographical distance. The background for these various forms of cooperation or integration is created by sharing common values, norms, systems, interests ( e.g. Edward Haliżak1, Andrew Hurrell2). It is also a foreign policy that defines the international interests of a country in terms of particular geographic areas. According to Helge Hveem3, regionalism concerns a programme or an ideology, but also a situation where there is a clear concept of region, a group of actors who strongly declare that this region exits; they share values and goals connected with their regional project. Hence it is a concept which can lead to regionalisation. This latter is seen as the set of processes that lead states to work together in an international system on a regional scale 4.
For this paper there is a very important difference between the so called ‘old regionalism’ and ‘new regionalism’. This latter is built in the era of globalisation, as a response to it and its result from the bottom up; it includes promotion of free market, interregional cooperation in which there are involved not only states but also other actors, including society. Bjorn Hettne defined it ‘as a multidimensional form of integration which includes economic, political, social and cultural aspects and thus goes far beyond the goal of creating region-based free trade regimes or security alliances. Rather, the political ambition of establishing regional coherence and identity seems to be of primary importance’5. While the old regionalism was built by states and on intergovernmental only cooperation; it was a centre-periphery system with asymmetry of power, economic protectionism; could have a form of protectorate or colonisation.
As we can notice, this new regionalism contains such important element like being open for cooperation among various regional entities. Usually our area of interests concern interregional cooperation, so between organisations placed on various continents. In the case of this paper, I will focus on links between organisations active in Europe. Hence, it is an open question how such a form of cooperation should be named. It is possible to call it also ‘interregional cooperation’, however to avoid misunderstandings it can be more useful to define it as ‘intraregional’ or even more precise ‘intersubregional cooperation’, because ‘intraregional’ can be associated with cooperation within regional organisations.
Regionalism and regionalisation meet with various theoretical approaches which all can be useful for interpretations of processes and concepts, depending on their particular contexts. For example, from the realist perspective of IR regionalism it is actually an outward expansion from the nation state. From the liberal perspective it can be seen as an impulse for regions to work more closely together. This could overcome national boundaries and make nationally under-privileged regions capable of working with neighbouring regions (from another country), without undue central government interference. From the structuralists’ point of view it is seen either as an attempt to build around centre – peripheries (old regionalism) or a chance for peripheries to develop better and protect their interests in the era of globalisation thanks to closer cooperation, also with stronger states of a region (new regionalism). From the social constructivism point of view it is associated with a shift of norms and values which not only help to build a particular region but also help to reshape its neighbourhood. There are also special theories of regionalism, borrowed from studies on integration (e.g. functionalism, neofunctionalism, federalism). The analyses presented in this paper stem from liberal and constructivists approaches.
In contemporary discourse, regionalism should serve to establish a zone of security and development. 6 The economic, political, and cultural networks constructed within a region could be a much better guarantor of a peaceful order. 7 This order results from multilevel cooperation of many actors. In this context, the other important notion is applied – ‘regional governance’.
According to James Rosenau’s definition ‘governance’ is a set of regulatory mechanisms in a sphere of activity, which are efficient even without formal authority. Governance refers also to principles and procedures like regimes, but differs from them in that it exists not only in well-defined areas, is not confined to a single sphere of endeavour, and is connected with the whole global order.8 Governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and co-operative action taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest 9. Hence, governance means longlasting deliberation, dialogue, negotiations between many various actors which try to solve their problems and fulfil their interests but in a non-antagonistic way.
However, an idea of efficient ‘global governance’ or ‘international governance’ still does not exist in reality. At present it is an intellectual and moral choice to envisage the future of the world in this way. It requires a ‘cosmopolitan society’10, an ‘international version’ of a strong civil society, and democracy, because it cannot work without dialogue, good will and shared values. Taking into account that such a global society will exist only in the distant future (if at all), more hopes are associated with the regional scale of governance, and it is because of this that the EU’s experience is so interesting. The EU is seen of course as an example of the ‘new regionalism’.11
European regional cooperation in work
The European Union became to be involved in regional governance when the communist system collapsed in its immediate neighbourhood. It stemmed from several reasons. Among them was the fact that most of the countries which transformed their political and economic systems expressed their interests of the EU’s membership clearly. These states stepped on the very difficult road of democratisation and freeing their markets which could lead to social tensions, conflicts, instability. It motivated the Union’s involvement and readiness to help. This new situation in the East ran together with revolutionary changes in the European Community which after Maastricht began to be the Union and enlarged its activity beyond the economic area and beyond its borders.
This governance was not direct, however, because the EU had no legitimacy for it. On the other hand the EU’s real role and opportunities increased together with the pressure for accession of the Eastern European states. From moment when decisions were taken on further enlargement (1997) its influence on the neighbourhood increased even more.
The system of various pre-accession aid funds and negotiations forcing candidates to adaptation were efficient tools ( ‘a carrot and a stick’). However it is worth noticing that it was not a one-track communication channel because candidate states or these which wanted to achieve such status, cooperated in this process willingly and were ready to legitimize the Union’s policy towards them. Apart from them these relations were not only on an intergovernmental level but also self-governmental ( e.g. euro-regions, exchange of young people), economic corporations or non-governmental organisations. Therefore from this moment we can talk about governance which, as we know, is understood as multidimensional, deliberative and inclusive for various actors’ forms of activity.
This stage was finished in 2004-2007 along with the eastern enlargement and emergence of the EU 27. Obviously, the enlargement policy, as an instrument for influencing the Union’s neighbourhood is still in force in the case of states which are taken into account as members (the Western Balkans, Turkey). The readiness of accession is declared also by Ukraine or Moldova, Georgia or even Maghreb and Mashrek. But the EU, mainly its ‘old’ members are too tired by enlargement and they associate with this process only high cost. Apart from this, there are countries in the neighbourhood of the EU which cannot or do not want to be members of the EU (Russia, Belarusia). Hence, from the beginning of the 21st century the idea of a common EU external policy towards neighbouring states began to materialise in the shape of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP).
This policy concept was refined by several documents which appeared during this period. These included: the conclusions of the European Council concerning the Initiative for A New Neighbourhood ( November 2002); a communication from the European Commission entitled ‘The Wider Europe Neighbourhood: Proposed New Framework for Relations with the EU’s Eastern and Southern Neighbours’ (March 2003)12, and Paving the Way to the New Neighbourhood (June 2003)13; European Security Strategy (December 2003)14; the Commission’s Strategy Paper and Country Reports (May 2004)15, followed by the proposal for a New Neighbourhood Instrument (September 2004) which was given shape in the form of Action Plans under the ENP.16. In March 2005 the Commission proposed to embrace the next countries within this framework (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Egypt and Lebanon), and the Council agreed in April. 17 In 2005, the process of presenting the Country Reports under the ENP framework was continued and the AP negotiated. Russia decided to negotiate with the EU special agreements because it was against treating her on the same level as other neighbours. The Russian position was accepted.
The Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (PCA) ( not embracing only Belarus) are the legal basis for mutual cooperation with the eastern neighbours, but all activities currently and in the near future stem from the Action Plans (AP) which operate preliminarily for 3-5 years. During this period, progress in meeting agreed objectives is monitored in the bodies established by the Partnership and Cooperation Council – which bring together representatives of partner countries, member states, the European Commission and the Council Secretariat. Depending on the degree of success in implementing the initial AP, each partner could be offered a new and more wide ranging contractual framework for its relations with the EU in the form of European Neighbourhood Agreements (ENA).
Apart from bilateral cooperation, the ENP also planned for multilateral regional cooperation which will, however, be based on the already existing subregional arrangements.18 The implementation of the priorities in the Action Plans are supported by financial assistance through the existing Meda and Tacis programmes. From 2007, the Commission implemented a new ‘policy driven’ European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) which focuses in particular on supporting the implementation of the ENP Action Plans. The ENPI replaces existing geographical and thematic programmes covering the countries concerned, and will bring (according to the Commission hopes) a radical simplification in procedures and substantial gains in efficiency. It was planned to establish the Cooperation and Development instrument which could support cooperation between partner countries sharing a common border. It is stressed that this crossborder cooperation component is a specific and innovative feature of the ENPI. It is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). This concept stems from an awareness that ‘Developing an area of good “neighbourliness” requires resources to promote crossborder cooperation between partner countries and the Member States so as to promote integrated regional development among border regions and avoid the creation of new dividing lines.’19 In this proposal it was openly stated that ENPI has a political character and will serve those states which share common values with the EU. However, it was pointed out that such countries as Belarus could be embraced by some form of financial assistance, for example in the framework of transborder cooperation.
As we can estimate from the brief presentation of the above documents the EU treats Mediterranean, East European and Caucasus states equally. It obviously does not mean that their specific characteristics are disregarded (AP have individual characters) but it does mean that they all are treated on the same level, as ‘neighbouring’ countries, and hence are excluded from any membership plans. This aspect, starting from the first document (Wider Europe), was a cause for disappointment among these EEC which either expressed their interest in accession (Ukraine, Moldova) or were its devoted supporters (Poland). Year 2008 brought in this respect new elements. On the one hand, France began its campaign for special treating the Mediterranean area (even in form of the Union); on the other hand Poland proposed a new project of “eastern policy” which will serve only these countries which are ready to reform and could be embraced by special rules (e.g. abolishing the visa system, exchange of academics and young people, additional funds, broader opening of markets).
The European Union is still in the process of shaping its own position and politics towards the neighbourhood, and the different interests of its members as well as lack of readiness to increase financial funds for this goal, diminish influence. Not less important is the question of the legitimisation of the EU’s activity. If the Union wants to play a role of main actor and inspire reforms there, it has to be credible, coherent and legitimised. A contemporary lack of cohesion, double standards towards democracy and human rights in the neighbouring states, and a lack of clarity that could justify this exceptional involvement of the EU in governance - are the main obstacles to such role.
We need, however, to remember that legitimisation in the case of such a unique arrangement as the EU demands a slightly different, new approach. Legitimacy was traditionally closely linked to the nation-state with its clearly marked territory, organisation, and a more or less centralised governance system. The EU is not a nation-state, but at the same time it is not a purely intergovernmental organisation (whose legitimacy derives solely from the member states); it is a ‘multidimensional system of governance’. On the one hand, possibly a different kind of entity should not be judged by different criteria from the point of view of legitimacy or democratic application. The aim should be to ensure that the EU form adopts the best standards of the state form, so we need a government responsible to an elected parliament and until we get that there will be no true legitimacy in the EU. On the other hand, in realistic terms (the EU is non-state) and also taking into account the general crisis of the traditional form of democracy at the national level, possibly the ‘legitimacy’ of such a body should be based on different assumptions and a different concept. This concept can combine such elements as a common identity built on common values (not ethnic, but civic, such as democracy and human rights), commonly accepted institutions, the utility of the system (economic help and profits), and myths of the past and future.20 Hence the EU in its quest for a more democratic system and its own legitimisation has, on the one hand, to exploit nation-state based democratic standards and institutional arrangements, and on the other hand to search for new forms of governance based on networks and deliberative interactions. It is especially important in the case of neighbouring states which are not taken into account as members in future, so the mechanism of the ‘carrot and stick’ cannot work. 21
Considering all the above, it seems that one possibility to strengthen the EU’s policy in the region is governance in the framework of a regional network, mentioned at beginning. How real it is we can estimate from the current state of subregional cooperation in Europe. Looking at this, one can note, first of all, many regional structures, secondly their multidimensional activities, thirdly mutual links. Let’s look more closely at these elements.
Regional, institutional partners of the EU emerged in their majority in the 1990s. The EU was an animator of these processes because many of the new arrangements tried to follow the Union’s concepts and rules and/or they were created with the aim of accelerating accession to the EU. Hence, these structures also envisage a model of new regionalism and develop methods of governance.
It is not an aim of this paper to describe in details each of the subregional organizations. Therefore their presentation is limited to minimum.
The Visegrad Group (V4) was created in 1991, currently all its members (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia) belong to the EU. Their activity is multidimensional and the V4 closely cooperates with other regional bodies as well as with single countries in the region.22 During conference in Copenhagen, in 1992 was taken decision to create The Council of Baltic Sea States (CBSS).23 This organization has quite impressive successes in comparison to other analogical structures and it goes beyond intergovernmental cooperation as well as own borders of members states (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russia and Sweden, and a representative of the European Commission). Since the 10th Ministerial Session of the CBSS in 2001, the Council has intensified efforts to coordinate CBSS activities with those of other organisations actively working to advance regional cooperation in the Baltic Sea area. The CBSS has taken the initiative to organise annual coordination meetings, with the participation of heads of Baltic Sea regional organisations. We can notice the increased co-operation between the CBSS, the Arctic Council (AC), the Barents Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC) and the Nordic Council (NC), together with the European Union, with the objective of improving co-ordination and enhancing the implementation of specific projects and priorities of these regional councils as well as in the context of the Northern Dimension. These other, mentioned above, organizations are not less active, hence the northern subregion belongs to the most advanced in the area of various cooperation links. The AC, created in 1996 in Ottawa by Canada, Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States of America, focus on the environmental protection of enormous area of Arctic (30 mln2 kilometers) and common effort for sustainable development. 24 The BEAC (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the European Commission) was created in 1993 again with aim of economic, environmental, development cooperation. 25 The NC has much longer history, to be created in 1952 (Denmark, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Finland, Åland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden).26 Apart from intraregional cooperation it came to develop links with the whole northern area. Among various initiatives is e.g. regional co-operation under the heading 'Baltic Euroregional Network' (BEN). The project is run in co-operation with the Council of the Baltic Sea States. 35 partners from nine countries in the Baltic Sea Region, including Belarus, take part in the project. A new phase of the BEN-project started in April 2007: BEN-EAST.
One of the most interesting projects of northern region is the Baltic Sea Initiative (BSI), a network of networks such as: the Baltic Development Forum, the Baltic Sea Chambers of Commerce Association, the Baltic Sea Forum - Pro Baltica, the Baltic Sea NGO Forum, the Baltic Sea Trade Union Network, the Helsinki Commission, ScanBalt, working to promote competitiveness and sustainable growth in the Baltic Sea Region in accordance to BSI values.27
Regional development in southern part of Europe was less promising for many years because of conflicts, ethnic tensions, economic difficulties, poverty. However the same factors can also mobilize countries of region to cooperation which happened after Kosovo military crisis in 1999. Since 21st century, several arrangements established earlier in Balkans began to develop more fruitful cooperation with active help and inspiration of the EU. The Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) was created in 1992, by Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine (now also Serbia)28. Contemporarily it cooperates with many other countries involved in this region but also with the UN, the World Bank, the OECD, the WTO, regional organizations in the Central Asia etc. An increasingly important role is played also by: the Central European Initiative (CEI), established in 1989, embracing 18 members now29, the Southeast European Co-operative Initiative (SECI), from 1995, which members (Greece, Albania, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Bosnia - Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary and Moldova ) especially focus on the combating trans-border crime.30; the Southeast European Cooperation Process (SEECP), from 1996, which the basic goals include the strengthening of security and political situation, intensification of economic relations and co-operation in human resources, democracy, justice, and battle against illegal activities; and at last but not at least The Stability Pact31 initiated in 1999 by the EU which evolved with others partners, in 2008 into the Regional Co-operation Council – a forum of coordination of the efforts launched in the southern region of Europe32 . In the purely economic area we can also point to the fact that from 2007 the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) was shifted to the Balkan region with the same aim, to create a free market, which it played since 1992 in the Central Europe.
Also the Eastern part of Europe has own regional organization: the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), established in 1991 on the ruins of the Soviet Union with the ambition to create similar to the EU, hence multidimensional cooperation, however without fulfilling this expectation by now. 33 Its area of activity embraces also the Central Asia region where we also can find some arrangements: the Central-Asian Economic Community (CAEC) from 1997 r. 34 or the Economic Cooperation Organisation (ECO) from 1985 but rebuilt seriously in 1992.35
After this brief overview, an opinion that the EU’ neighbourhood in Europe and Asia is reached by many subregional forms of cooperation developing multidimensional activity and inter(sub)regional links, is justified. Two tables presented below show fields of cooperation and mutual contacts.
Tab. 1 Areas covered by regional arrangements
Source: Prepared by author from the official websites of the organisations
We can see that the most popular areas of coordination are connected with economy, development, infrastructure, environmental protection, transborder exchange. The leading role is also attached to the human rights protection and stabilization of democracy.
Tab. 2 Links among subregional structures
Source: Prepared by author from the official websites of the organisations
Table 2 allows us to notice an understandable tendency for strengthening the links first of all among organisations working in the same or neighbouring regions. It was said before that it leads towards multidimensional ‘network of networks’ (northern Europe as well as the latest evolution in southern Europe). But it is possible also to note that some organizations are searching for institutional partners outside the region; hence the northern countries cooperate also with Balkans; for the V4, placed in the center of Europe, such cooperation is even quite obvious. On this background it is interesting that the CIS focuses mainly on its own area. Although it does not mean that its members are not active in other forums of regional cooperation. It concerns Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Asian and Caucasus states.
Not less important is that each of these organizations is directly or through various forms of cooperation attached to the EU (such institutional links do not exist only in the CIS case). Most of the structures develop also contacts with other regional or global organisations and with states which are not placed in a particular region but are interested in closer cooperation. Their non-governmental level of activity is crucial, too, for real governance. However these analyses stem from declarations and documents. Therefore an answer for following two questions: how this multilevel and multidimensional cooperation looks in practice and whether new regionalism and governance will create real ground for the future development in Europe demand deep studies on each of these subregional agents and their mutual links. The open question concerns also the EU’s potentiality to act, in the context of the failure of the Lisbon Treaty. However, paradoxically, this diminished energy of Brussels can force subregional structures to take more responsibility for governance in their regions, without waiting for the EU though inevitably with help of some of the Union’s members. This possible ‘gap’ can also stimulate stronger activity of the non-governmental actors. On the other hand, if the EU’s lack of energy to act in the neighbourhood lasts, and if it will be associated with the lack of a coordinated position of its 27 members, and if it results in the withdrawing financial help and readiness to solve conflicts, we can expect that the situation, especially in southern Europe can worsen.
Hence, it seems, that the EU will be engaged in its neighbourhood in spite of internal problems but possibly, even more willingly, will call various subregional partners to develop their own initiatives. As a result such developed network of networks can improve forms of governance methods and create a more unified Europe. I see it as a quite probable scenario.
1 E. Haliżak, Regionalizm w stosunkach międzynarodowych, (in:) E. Haliżak, R. Kuźniar (eds.), Stosunki międzynarodowe, geneza, struktura, dynamika, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego 2006, p.269
2 A. Hurrell, Explaining the Resurgence of Regionalism in World Politics, “Review of International Studies”, 21/4, 1995, pp. 334-338.
3 H. Hveem, The Regional Project in Global Governance, in: F. Söderbaum, T. Shaw (eds.), Theories of New Regionalism, Basingstoke: Palgrave 2003, p.83.
4 L. Fawcett, Regionalism from an Historical Perspective, in: M. Farrell, B. Hettne, L. Van Langenhove (eds.), Global Politics of Regionalism. Theory and Practice, London: Pluto Press 2005, p. 25.
5 B. Hettne, The new regionalism: a prologue, in: B. Hettne, A. Inotai, O. Sunkel (eds), The New Regionalism and the Future of Security and Development, London: Macmillan Press 2000 ,p. xix . See also: . Hettne, The New Regionalism Revisited, w: F. Söderbaum, T. Shaw (ed.), op.cit., s.23. B. Hettne, A. Inotai, O. Sunkel (eds), Globalism and the New Regionalism, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press 1999; B. Hettne, Regionalism, security and development: a comparative perspective, in B. Hettne, A. Inotai, O. Sunkel (eds), Comparing Regionalisms. Implications for Global Development, Basingstoke: Palgrave 2001.
6 M. Fortmann, S.N. MacFarlane, S. Roussel (eds), Multilateralism and Regional Security, Toronto: The Canadian Peacekeeping Press 1997.
7 See more E. Stadtmüller , Regional dimensions of security, w: M.Farrell, B.Hettne, L.Van Langenhove (eds), Global Politics of Regionalism. Theory and Practice, London, Ann Arbor: Pluto Press 2005,p.104 and next.
8 J.N. Rosenau, E.O. Czempiel, Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1992, pp. 5-9; see also e.g. R.Higgott, The Theory and Practice of Global and Regional Governance: Accommodating American Exceptionalism and European Pluralism, “European Foreign Affairs Review”, vol.10,4/2005 ,pp. 575-594.
9 The Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1995
10 D. Held, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995.
11 M. Farrell, ‘EU External Relations: Exporting the EU Model of Governance?’, “European Foreign Affairs Review”, vol.10/2005, pp. 451-462 ; M. Telo (ed.), Europe: a civilian Power? EU, Global Governance and World Order, Basingstoke: Palgrave 2005; M. Telo (ed.), European Union and New Regionalism. Regional Actors and Global Governance in a Post-hegemonic era, Aldershot: Ashgate 2001; E. Stadtmuller, Unia Europejska i regionalny governance. Czy też w kierunku polityki wschodniej?,”Przegląd Zachodni” nr 4/2005, pp. 5-32; E. Stadtmüller, Regional Stabilisation and Security: The European Union as a Model, in: S.Wojciechowski (ed.), Współczesna Europa, Poznań: Wyższa Szkoła Humanistyczna 2004 ,pp. 73-102; K. Joergensen, B. Rosamond, Europe: Regional laboratory for a global polity?, in: Ougaard M., Higgott R. (ed.), Towards a Global Polity, London&NY: Routledge 2002; E. Haliżak, S. Parzymies (eds), Unia Europejska nowy typ wspólnoty międzynarodowej , Warszawa: ISM Uniwersytet Warszawski, Oficyna Wyd. ASPRA-JR 2002.
12 Wider Europe – Neighbourhood: Proposed New Framework for Relations with the EU’s Eastern and Southern Neighbours, Communication from the European Commission to the Council and European Parliament, 11.03. 2003.
13 Paving the way for a New Neighbourhood Instrument, Communication from the European Commission, 1.07 2003, www.europa.eu.int
14 European Security Strategy, http://ue.eu.int/pressData/en/reports/78367.pdf
15 The Commission Strategy Paper and Country Reports, Brussels, 12 May 2004, http://europa.eu.int/comm/world/enp/document_en.htm
16 Communication from the Commission to the Council on the Commission proposals for Action Plans under the ENP, COM(2004) 795 final, Brussels, 9 December 2004 http://europa.eu.int/comm/world/enp/pdf/action_plans/Communication_Commission_ENP_Action_Plans.pdf
17 European Neighbourhood Policy: the next steps , Brussels, 2 March 2005 , IP/05/236 http://europa.eu.int/comm/world/enp/pdf/country/ip05_236_en.pdf . European Neighbourhood Policy – Council conclusions 25.IV.2005 http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/gac/date/2005/04_250405_ga.pdf#enp
19 Proposal presented by the Commission for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, Brussels, 29.9.2004, COM(2004) 628 final, 2004/0219 (COD), http://europa.eu.int/comm/world/enp/pdf/getdoc_en.pdf
20 See interesting overview of concepts on the sources of legitimisation: L.Friis, A.Murphy, ”And never the twain shall meet?” EU quest for legitimacy and enlargement, in M.Kelstrup, M.Williams (eds), International Relations Theory and the Politics of European Integration. Power. Security and Community, London and New York, Routledge, 2000, pp. 229-231
21 See: E. Stadtmüller, Proces tworzenia polityki wschodniej UE – uwarunkowania i legitymizacja, in Studia z nauk społecznych i humanistycznych, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego 2006, pp. 456-477.
29 Albania, Austria, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine, http://www.ceinet.org/home.php
32 Participants of the Regional Co-operation Council according to annex to its declaration are following: Albania; Austria; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Canada; Council of Europe; Council of Europe Development Bank; Croatia; Czech Republic; Denmark; European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; European Investment Bank; European Union (EU), represented by the Troika, consisting of the EU Presidency, the European Commission and the Council Secretariat, as well as the European Parliament; Federal Republic of Germany; Finland; France; Greece; Ireland; Italy;Hungary; Latvia; Moldova; Montenegro;North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; Norway; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe; Poland; Serbia; Slovakia; Slovenia; South East European Co-operative Initiative;
Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Romania; The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; Turkey; United Kingdom; United Nations; United Nations Economic Commission for Europe; United Nations Development Programme; United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) on behalf of Kosovo in
accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244; United States of America; World Bank. Joint Declaration On the Establishment of the Regional Co-operation Council (RCC), Sophia, 27 February 2008, http://www.rcc.int/
|Prof. Stefano Bianchini|
«Europe and the Balkans International network», one of the ancient networks established with the support of the European Commission...
«Southeastern Europe», the Journal of the «Europe and the Balkans International Network», Brill, Leiden
|Foundations of a network approach to governance||A europe-South America Network|
|Support for Graphical Modelling in Bayesian Network Knowledge Engineering: a visual Tool for Domain Experts||Aars, Jacob and Anne L. Fimreite. 2005. “Local Government and Governance in Norway: Stretched Accountability in Network Politics.” Scandinavian Political|
|Nature and development of operation research, some mathematical preliminaries, general methodology of operation research, application of operation research to||Tool Use: Misuse of shop tools will result in the loss of tool privileges|
|Trans-regional cooperation in the areas of eu-russia direct neighborhood: the changed roles of europe's margins (the kaliningrad case study)|
«Central and Eastern European Countries Inside and Outside the European Union: Avoiding a New Divide», Vilnius, May 13-15 2004
|In the Asia Pacific regional context, the understanding of regional and national security has been much covered broader strategic issue areas. The main purpose|