DOCSLIB.ORG

What Is Behind the Lack of Unity on the EU Sanctions Towards Russia?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Is Behind the Lack of Unity on the EU Sanctions Towards Russia? What is behind the lack of unity on the EU sanctions towards Russia? Sofia Wallberg 2015 Abstract The research investigate the Visegrad countries (Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary) cohesion problem finding a joint position on the EU sanctions against Russia by answering the question: What is behind the Visegrad Groups different positions and lack of unity on the EU sanctions towards Russia?. To identify what is behind the Visegrad Groups different positions the theory spring from Putnam’s two-level game theory and will focus on Tsebelis Nested game theory. The two theory´s together enable to map out the Visegrad countries different games nested in an arena dynamics consisting of the three different arenas: the domestic arena, the supranational arena and the international arena. To be able to explain the V4 countries' divided positions, this research will use five different hypotheses, which will function as explanatory factors trying to describe what is behind each of the V4 countries taken position on the EU sanctions against Russia. The result of the research show that the countries positions and decisions on the three arenas, from their point of view, can be explained as rational choices and strategically decisions taken in the nested game surrounding the sanction war against Russia. Due to the fact that each of the V4 countries act rational to maximize their goal achievement, a coherence problem occur, which makes it hard for the V4 countries to reach an agreement on the “level 3” sanctions. Key words: Ukraine crises, Visegrad countries, Sanctions policy, European Union cooperation Words: 19 976 Abbreviations EU European Union V4 Visegrad Group NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization Definitions EU sanctions – “also referred to as restrictive measures – against third countries, individuals or entities, are an essential EU foreign policy tool that it uses to pursue objectives in accordance with the principles of common Foreign and Security Policy”.1 Economic sanctions - can be divided into trade sanctions and financial penalties. Trade sanctions meaning blocking the import and export of goods to and from a state and financial sanctions related to the freezing of financial assets and banning money transfers, gifts and credit.2 ”Level 1” sanctions - consist of diplomatic sanctions. “The diplomatic sanctions adopted by the EU included the unilateral suspension of visa facilitation talks, negotiations on the New Agreement, and the upcoming EU-Russia summit”.3 ”Level 2” sanctions - consist of restrictive measures: ”visa bans, asset freezes and political wrist-slapping. The latter includes suspending G8 meetings, halting formal bilateral summits and stopping negotiations on Russia’s membership of the OECD, a rich-world think-tank, and the International Energy Agency.”4 ”Level 3” sanctions - consist of economic sanctions that target entire economic sectors such as defence or energy, and which could do more damage to Russia´s economy but could potentially also damage Western Europe´s industries5 and furthermore comprising unspecified `far-reaching consequences for relations on a broad range of economic areas´.6 1 European Union External Action, 2015 2 Statens offentliga utredningar, 2006: 38 3 Blockmans, Steven, 2014 4 Charlemagne, 2014 5 Dalton, Meichtry, Thomas, 2014 6 Charlemagne, 2014 Table of contents st 1 The EU faced with a severe thereat to European security in the 21 1 century ............................................................................................................................. 1.1 Research question and aim ................................................................................... 2 1.2 Delimitations ........................................................................................................ 3 1.2.1 Choice of case ............................................................................................... 3 1.2.2 Selection of countries .................................................................................... 3 1.2.3 The Visegrad Group ...................................................................................... 4 1.2.4 The Visegrad countries position towards “level 3” sanctions ...................... 4 1.2.5 Time delimitation .......................................................................................... 5 1.3 Outline of the study .............................................................................................. 5 2 Background ............................................................................................................... 6 2.1 The Ukraine conflict ............................................................................................ 6 2.2 EU sanctions against Russia ................................................................................ 7 2.3 Russian retaliatory measures ................................................................................ 8 3 Method and Material .............................................................................................. 10 3.1.1 Research Design ......................................................................................... 10 3.1.2 Material ....................................................................................................... 10 3.1.3 Existing literature ........................................................................................ 11 3.1.4 Contribution to existing literature ............................................................... 11 4 The two-level game and the three-level game ....................................................... 12 4.1 Putnam’s theory of two-level games .................................................................. 12 4.2 Tsebelis Nested Games theory ........................................................................... 13 4.3 Interpretation of the theories .............................................................................. 14 4.3.1 Model of the three-level game .................................................................... 15 4.3.2 Explanation of the Hypothesis .................................................................... 16 4.3.3 Operationalization ....................................................................................... 17 4.3.4 The model of the linkage between arena dynamics and the six different hypothesis ................................................................................................. 18 4.3.5 Theoretical assumptions ............................................................................. 19 5 The explanation to the Visegrad countries positions ........................................... 20 5.1 Domestic political ambitions ............................................................................. 20 5.1.1 Poland ......................................................................................................... 20 5.1.2 The Czech Republic .................................................................................... 22 5.1.3 Slovakia ...................................................................................................... 23 5.1.4 Hungary ...................................................................................................... 25 5.2 Business interests ............................................................................................... 27 5.2.1 Poland ......................................................................................................... 28 5.2.2 The Czech Republic .................................................................................... 29 5.2.3 Slovakia ...................................................................................................... 30 5.2.4 Hungary ...................................................................................................... 31 5.3 Geopolitical concerns ........................................................................................ 33 5.3.1 Poland ......................................................................................................... 34 5.3.2 The Czech Republic .................................................................................... 35 5.3.3 Slovakia ...................................................................................................... 36 5.3.4 Hungary ...................................................................................................... 36 5.4 The Visegrad countries EU cooperation ............................................................ 36 5.4.1 Poland ......................................................................................................... 37 5.4.2 The Czech Republic .................................................................................... 38 5.4.3 Slovakia ...................................................................................................... 39 5.4.4 Hungary ...................................................................................................... 40 5.5 External cooperation with non-EU countries .................................................... 41 5.5.1 Poland ......................................................................................................... 41 5.5.2 The Czech Republic .................................................................................... 43 5.5.3 Slovakia ...................................................................................................... 44 5.5.4 Hungary .....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fundamental Law of Hungary (As in Force on 29 June 2018) This Document Has Been Produced for Informational Purposes Only
    The Fundamental Law of Hungary (as in force on 29 June 2018) This document has been produced for informational purposes only. THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF HUNGARY English translation of the consolidated version of the Fundamental Law of Hungary incorporating: - the First Amendment to the Fundamental Law, - the Second Amendment to the Fundamental Law, - the Third Amendment to the Fundamental Law, - the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law, - the Fifth Amendment to the Fundamental Law, - the Sixth Amendment to the Fundamental Law, - the Seventh Amendment to the Fundamental Law, as in force on 29 June 2018 Ministry of Justice 2017 (contact: [email protected]) 1 The Fundamental Law of Hungary (as in force on 29 June 2018) This document has been produced for informational purposes only. The Fundamental Law of Hungary (25 April 2011) God bless the Hungarians NATIONAL AVOWAL WE, THE MEMBERS OF THE HUNGARIAN NATION, at the beginning of the new millennium, with a sense of responsibility for every Hungarian, hereby proclaim the following: We are proud that our king Saint Stephen built the Hungarian State on solid ground and made our country a part of Christian Europe one thousand years ago. We are proud of our forebears who fought for the survival, freedom and independence of our country. We are proud of the outstanding intellectual achievements of the Hungarian people. We are proud that our nation has over the centuries defended Europe in a series of struggles and enriched Europe’s common values with its talent and diligence. We recognise the role of Christianity in preserving nationhood.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Context of Eu Accession in Hungary
    European Programme November 2002 THE POLITICAL CONTEXT OF EU ACCESSION IN HUNGARY Agnes Batory Introduction For the second time since the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty – seen by many as a watershed in the history of European integration – the European Union (EU) is set to expand. Unlike in 1995, when the group joining the Union consisted of wealthy, established liberal democracies, ten of the current applicants are post-communist countries which recently completed, or are still in various stages of completing, democratic transitions and large-scale economic reconstruction. It is envisaged that the candidates furthest ahead will become members in time for their citizens to participate in the next elections to the European Parliament due in June 2004. The challenge the absorption of the central and east European countries represents for the Union has triggered a need for internal institutional reform and new thinking among the policy-makers of the existing member states. However, despite the imminence of the ‘changeover’ to a considerably larger and more heterogeneous Union, the domestic profiles of the accession countries have remained relatively little known from the west European perspective. In particular, the implications of enlargement in terms of the attitudes and preferences of the new (or soon to be) players are still, to a great extent, unclear. How will they view their rights and obligations as EU members? How committed will they be to the implementation of the acquis communautaire? In what way will they fill formal rules with practical content? BRIEFING PAPER 2 THE POLITICAL CONTEXT OF EU ACCESSION IN HUNGARY Naturally, the answers to these questions can only government under the premiership of Miklós Németh be tentative at this stage.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Article
    5 Comment & Analysis CE JISS 2008 Czech Presidential Elections: A Commentary Petr Just Again after fi ve years, the attention of the Czech public and politicians was focused on the Presidential elections, one of the most important milestones of 2008 in terms of Czech political developments. The outcome of the last elections in 2003 was a little surprising as the candidate of the Civic Democratic Party (ODS), Václav Klaus, represented the opposition party without the necessary majority in both houses of Parliament. Instead, the ruling coalition of the Czech Social Democratic Party (ČSSD), the Christian-Democratic Union – Czecho- slovak Peoples Party (KDU-ČSL), and the Union of Freedom – Democratic Union (US-DEU), accompanied by some independent and small party Senators was able – just mathematically – to elect its own candidate. However, a split in the major coalition party ČSSD, and support given to Klaus by the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (KSČM), brought the Honorary Chairman of the ODS, Václav Klaus, to the Presidential offi ce. In February 2007, on the day of the forth anniversary of his fi rst elec- tion, Klaus announced that he would seek reelection in 2008. His party, the ODS, later formally approved his nomination and fi led his candidacy later in 2007. Klaus succeeded in his reelection attempt, but the way to defending the Presidency was long and complicated. In 2003 members of both houses of Parliament, who – according to the Constitution of the Czech Republic – elect the President at the Joint Session, had to meet three times before they elected the President, and each attempt took three rounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Coalition Formation and the Regime Divide in Central Europe
    Program on Central & Eastern Europe Working Paper Series #52, j\Tovember 1999 Coalition Formation and the Regime Divide in Central Europe Anna Grzymala-Busse· Weatherhead Center for International Affairs Harvard University Cambridge, lvlA 02138 Abstract The study examines the formation of coalitions in East Central Europe after the democratic transi­ tions of 1989. Existing explanations of coalition formations, which focus on either office-seeking and minimum wmning considerations, or on policy-seeking and spatial ideological convergence. However, they fail to account for the coalition patterns in the new democracies of East Central Europe. Instead, these parties' flrst goal is to develop clear and consistent reputations. To that end, they will form coalitions exclusively within the two camps of the regime divide: that is, amongst par­ ties stemming from the former communist parties, and those with roots in the former opposition to the communist regimes. The two corollaries are that defectors are punished at unusually high rates, and the communist party successors seek, rather than are sought for, coalitions. This model explains 85% of the coalitions that formed in the region after 1989. The study then examines the communist successor parties, and how their efforts illustrate these dynamics . • I would like to thank Grzegorz Ekiert, Gary King, Kenneth Shepsle, Michael Tomz, and the participants ofthe Faculty Workshop at Yale University for their helpful comments. 2 I. Introduction The patterns of coalition fonnation in East Central Europe are as diverse as they are puzzling. Since the ability to fonn stable governing coalitions is a basic precondition of effective democratic governance in multi-party parliamentary systems, several explanations have emerged of how political parties fonn such coalitions.
    [Show full text]
  • On Great Hungary and the Importance of Minor Geopolitical Traditions
    On Great Hungary and the importance of minor geopolitical traditions Marco Antonsich Department of Geography Loughborough University Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU United Kingdom EMAIL: [email protected] Kinga Szalkai Corvinus University of Budapest Doctoral School of International Relations 8 F ővám tér Budapest, 1093 Hungary EMAIL: [email protected] It’s a Monday morning of a hot summer day in Budapest. A well-dressed, old lady climbs the stairs of the Trolley Bus 75, in the centre of Pest. She sits besides another woman, also well-dressed, in her early forties. A polite conversation starts about the hot weather and the catastrophes that it causes. When the younger lady observes that Hungary, in general, has very favourable climate conditions, her interlocutor abruptly replies: “Yes, this is why so many nations envy us!” 1 “Why, is it because we recovered from so many tragedies and catastrophes?” “No, I mean Hungary has always been attacked because our forefather Árpád had a perfect choice with this country. This is why Hungary fought through so many centuries, and this is why many people died and Hungary got divided. This beautiful huge country, just imagine how beautiful it was! [and then] Trianon came” “Mmmmm, mmmm” “And this country is a total disaster since then! They took away what they could […]” More than ninety years have passed since the Treaty of Trianon (1920), which left Hungary with less than a third of its original territory and about 3.3 million ethnic Hungarians living in the neighbouring countries of then Romania, Czechoslovakia, and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.
    [Show full text]
  • Far from Stability: the Post-Election Landscape in Bulgaria Dariusz Kałan
    No. 50 (503), 15 May 2013 © PISM Editors: Marcin Zaborowski (Editor-in-Chief) . Katarzyna Staniewska (Managing Editor) Jarosław Ćwiek-Karpowicz . Artur Gradziuk . Piotr Kościński Roderick Parkes . Marcin Terlikowski . Beata Wojna Far from Stability: The Post-Election Landscape in Bulgaria Dariusz Kałan Early parliamentary elections not only will not help restore political stability in Bulgaria but also could further deepen the chaos because of the high dispersion of votes and the expected difficulties with creating a coalition. For a country immersed in crisis, maintaining the post-election stalemate is particularly not beneficial because of the deteriorating economic situation and growing public pressure. Regardless of which party will return to power, one should not expect a significant improvement in Bulgaria’s image in the EU or a positive settlement of the most important issues, including the country’s rapid accession to the Schengen area. Although the winner of the early parliamentary elections of 12 May was the centre-right Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria (GERB, 30% of votes), for all four parties that exceeded the 4% electoral threshold, the results can be seen as satisfactory. GERB, the ruling party in 2009–2013, won for the second time in a row during unfavourable economic and social situations. The similar support for the Bulgarian Socialist Party (27%), which received more than 600,000 additional votes than in 2009, is because of the mobilisation of its permanent electorate and generational changes in the party. Also, for the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (11%), which represents the Turkish minority, and the nationalist Attack party (7%), the results are a confirmation of their stable positions on the political scene.
    [Show full text]
  • WHY COMPETITION in the POLITICS INDUSTRY IS FAILING AMERICA a Strategy for Reinvigorating Our Democracy
    SEPTEMBER 2017 WHY COMPETITION IN THE POLITICS INDUSTRY IS FAILING AMERICA A strategy for reinvigorating our democracy Katherine M. Gehl and Michael E. Porter ABOUT THE AUTHORS Katherine M. Gehl, a business leader and former CEO with experience in government, began, in the last decade, to participate actively in politics—first in traditional partisan politics. As she deepened her understanding of how politics actually worked—and didn’t work—for the public interest, she realized that even the best candidates and elected officials were severely limited by a dysfunctional system, and that the political system was the single greatest challenge facing our country. She turned her focus to political system reform and innovation and has made this her mission. Michael E. Porter, an expert on competition and strategy in industries and nations, encountered politics in trying to advise governments and advocate sensible and proven reforms. As co-chair of the multiyear, non-partisan U.S. Competitiveness Project at Harvard Business School over the past five years, it became clear to him that the political system was actually the major constraint in America’s inability to restore economic prosperity and address many of the other problems our nation faces. Working with Katherine to understand the root causes of the failure of political competition, and what to do about it, has become an obsession. DISCLOSURE This work was funded by Harvard Business School, including the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness and the Division of Research and Faculty Development. No external funding was received. Katherine and Michael are both involved in supporting the work they advocate in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Baltic Unity Within European Unity – Why Myth, Not Reality?
    1 Baltic Unity within European Unity – why Myth, not Reality? In recent years a debate about development of the European Union (EU) has become hugely important. There are diverse views on the direction of federalism, which the President of the European Commission J. M. D. Barroso is passionately promoting: “Let’s not be afraid of the words: we will need to move towards a federation of nation states. This is what we need. This is our political horizon.”1 As a consequence of such ambitious plans, the question of national identity and independence has become crucial. However, less attention has been paid to the problem of regional cooperation and the effects of already existing European integration on it, which is exactly what this report aims at. In mass media one can often hear about an entity called ‘the Baltic States‘. This union of three states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania has cooperated quite a lot in the two last decades of 20th century, however, now the importance of cooperation seems to be in decline. The Baltic unity in the European unity (i.e. EU) is a myth because of two reasons: passive effect of the integration in the EU, when the European unity indirectly and unintentionally influences the cooperation among the Baltic States, and active effect of the policies of the EU, when they have deliberate impact on the Baltic Unity. Baltic Unity before the EU In order to indicate why Baltic unity is impossible in the context of integrated Europe, it is necessary to recall the common aim of Baltic cooperation before the accession to the European Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Opportunism Not Ideology: Fidesz's Campaign Against Sexual Minorities
    Opportunism not Ideology: Fidesz’s Campaign Against Sexual Minorities Article by Kata Benedek July 23, 2021 A new law targeting LGBTQI+ people in Hungary is just the latest move in the ruling party’s history of stigmatising sexual minorities and rolling back their rights. While the European Union finally seems willing to send a signal that the Hungarian government’s agenda is in defiance of European values and fundamental rights, its leader Viktor Orbán seems determined to pursue this illiberal course. Kata Benedek looks back at the path which has brought Hungary to this point, and the prospects for a change of direction. “I am defending the rights of the homosexual guys.” This is how Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán answered a journalist’s question as he arrived at the European Council as part of a visit to Brussels in late June 2021. The remark came after an hours-long debate had taken place in the European Council about the new Hungarian law discriminating against the LGBTQI+ community. The controversial law – that was passed on 15 June on the grounds of child protection – conflates LGBTQI+ people with the sexual abuse of children. The new bill simultaneously introduces a US-style registry of paedophile sex offenders combined with a Russian-style ban on exposing minors to so-called LGBTQI+ propaganda in the context of sexual education and general representation in education and media. The law was widely criticised both domestically and abroad for undermining equality, fundamental rights, freedom of expression, rights to information, and for treating sexual minorities in a manner similar to criminals, by suggesting that both categories deserve the same social judgement and treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 the Status Law: Hungary at the Crossroads János
    Chapter 6 The Status Law: Hungary at the Crossroads1 János Kis The Status Law is the cherished baby of the FIDESZ government. If there is anything Orbán and his colleagues did from conviction, then this is it. The twist of fate is that since getting into government they have not paid such high a price for anything as for their favourite creature. If they fail at the 2002 elections, the international conflicts which the Status Law drifted Hun- gary into will occupy an illustrious place among the causes of their defeat. According to all indications, Orbán and his colleagues thought that the European Union would not involve itself in the matter, and that discontent in the neighbouring countries, which would thus be isolated, could be ignored. They were wrong. Although somewhat late, the EU distinctly stated that the adoption of the law should have been preceded by consultations with the gov- ernments of the neighbouring countries and that such consultation and agree- ment should at least be conducted post hoc.2 Thus the government was forced to negotiate and make concessions. To disguise its humiliating defeat, it left the law unchanged and merely overrode it with executive orders.3 However, under the rule of law, a piece of legislation cannot be revised by lower level directives. So disregard for international law was compounded by a disre- gard for the Constitution. The present situation cannot continue. An amendment to the Status Law seems unavoidable.4 If the Orbán government wanted a Status Law, it should have conducted talks with Hungary’s neighbours, certainly before presenting a bill.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenger Party List
    Appendix List of Challenger Parties Operationalization of Challenger Parties A party is considered a challenger party if in any given year it has not been a member of a central government after 1930. A party is considered a dominant party if in any given year it has been part of a central government after 1930. Only parties with ministers in cabinet are considered to be members of a central government. A party ceases to be a challenger party once it enters central government (in the election immediately preceding entry into office, it is classified as a challenger party). Participation in a national war/crisis cabinets and national unity governments (e.g., Communists in France’s provisional government) does not in itself qualify a party as a dominant party. A dominant party will continue to be considered a dominant party after merging with a challenger party, but a party will be considered a challenger party if it splits from a dominant party. Using this definition, the following parties were challenger parties in Western Europe in the period under investigation (1950–2017). The parties that became dominant parties during the period are indicated with an asterisk. Last election in dataset Country Party Party name (as abbreviation challenger party) Austria ALÖ Alternative List Austria 1983 DU The Independents—Lugner’s List 1999 FPÖ Freedom Party of Austria 1983 * Fritz The Citizens’ Forum Austria 2008 Grüne The Greens—The Green Alternative 2017 LiF Liberal Forum 2008 Martin Hans-Peter Martin’s List 2006 Nein No—Citizens’ Initiative against
    [Show full text]
  • Representations of Unity in Soviet State Symbols
    Soiuz and Symbolic Union: Representations of Unity in Soviet State Symbols Anne M. Platoff ff fvast Defining the Soviet Union representatives of four republics signed the During its nearly 70-year existence from 1922- ‘Treaty of the Creation of the Union of Soviet 1991, the Soviet Union was the world’s largest Socialist Republics’ and the ‘Declaration of the country. From the end of World War II through the Creation of the USSR’, officially reuniting the breakup of the USSR, this vast state spanned an Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic area of 22,402,200 square kilometres (8,649,500 (Russian SFSR), the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist sq. mi.) across 11 time zones in north-eastern Republic (Ukrainian SSR), the Byelorussian Soviet Europe and northern Asia. The borders of the Socialist Republic (Byelorussian SSR), and the country measured more than 60,000 km (37,282 Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet miles) and were adjacent to 12 countries, 12 seas, Republic (Transcaucasian SFSR; comprised of as well as the Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific Oceans. Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan) into one In terms of population (285,743,000 in 1989), the multinational state. Throughout the history of the USSR ranked third in the world behind China and country some republics were subdivided, others India. The full name of the country in Russian was were added, and one became an autonomous Soiuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik, republic of the RSFSR, with the total number which translated into English as ‘Union of Soviet ranging from four to sixteen. From 1956 through Socialist Republics.’ The word ‘Soviet’ (which in 1991, there were fifteen Soviet republics.
    [Show full text]