DOCSLIB.ORG

The Eastern Partnership a Decade on a Decade On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CHAILLOT PAPER / PAPER CHAILLOT 153 THE EASTERN PARTNERSHIP THE EASTERN PARTNERSHIP A DECADE ON DECADE A THE EASTERN PARTNERSHIP A DECADE ON Looking back, thinking ahead Edited by | LOOKING BACK, THINKING AHEAD BACK, LOOKING Stanislav Secrieru and Sinikukka Saari With contributions from Vano Chkhikvadze, Iulian Groza, Mikayel Hovhannisyan, Leonid Litra, Dzianis Melyantsou, Zaur Shiriyev and Kateryna Zarembo CHAILLOT PAPER / 153 July 2019 THE EASTERN PARTNERSHIP A DECADE ON Looking back, thinking ahead Edited by Stanislav Secrieru and Sinikukka Saari With contributions from Vano Chkhikvadze, Iulian Groza, Mikayel Hovhannisyan, Leonid Litra, Dzianis Melyantsou, Zaur Shiriyev and Kateryna Zarembo CHAILLOT PAPER / 153 July 2019 European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) 100, avenue de Suffren 75015 Paris http://www.iss.europa.eu Director: Gustav Lindstrom © EU Institute for Security Studies, 2019. Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated. The views expressed in this publication are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the EUISS or of the European Union. print ISBN 978-92-9198-842-6 online ISBN 978-92-9198-841-9 CATALOGUE NUMBER QN-AA-19-003-EN-C CATALOGUE NUMBER QN-AA-19-003-EN-N ISSN 1017-7566 ISSN 1683-4917 DOI 10.2815/279488 DOI 10.2815/61360 Published by the EU Institute for Security Studies and printed in Belgium by Bietlot. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019. Cover image credit: Daniel Born/unsplash The editors Stanislav Secrieru is a Senior Analyst and Sinikukka Saari is a Senior Associate Analyst at the EUISS. Their area of expertise focuses on EU‑Russia relations, Russia’s foreign and se‑ curity policy, Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The EUISS Chaillot Paper series The Chaillot Paper series, launched in 1991, takes its name from the Chaillot hill in the Trocadéro area of Paris, where the Institute’s first premises were located in the building oc‑ cupied by the Western European Union (WEU). The hill is particularly famous for the Palais de Chaillot which was the site of the UN Univer‑ sal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and housed NATO’s provisional headquarters from 1952 until 1959. 1 CONTENTS Executive Summary 2 Introduction 5 Doom or bloom for the Eastern Partnership? Sinikukka Saari and Stanislav Secrieru CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 5 Shifting ground 7 Belarus 71 How megatrends are shaping the eastern From discord to humming the same tune? neighbourhood Dzianis Melyantsou Sinikukka Saari and Stanislav Secrieru CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 2 Armenia 84 Ukraine 28 Striving for complementarity New engines for the partnership Mikayel Hovhannisyan Kateryna Zarembo and Leonid Litra CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 3 Azerbaijan 96 Moldova 42 An enduring ambivalence? Renewed hope after a string of setbacks Zaur Shiriyev Iulian Groza Conclusion 106 From ‘Eastern’ to ‘Partnership’ Sinikukka Saari and Stanislav Secrieru CHAPTER 4 Georgia 57 Abbreviations 112 Overcoming the libertarian legacy Vano Chkhikvadze Notes on the contributors 114 2 The Eastern Partnership a decade on | Looking back, thinking ahead EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ten years ago, the EU sought to revamp its pol‑ metamorphosed and is gradually turning into icy in the eastern neighbourhood. This endeav‑ a ‘post‑post‑Soviet’ space as the states make our became the Eastern Partnership initiative their own political and economic choices and which offered Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, as the shared history that once united them is Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine a much closer being interpreted and re‑interpreted from dif‑ institutional, economic and political relation‑ ferent national perspectives. Although reforms ship with the EU. This Chaillot Paper analyses and democracy have not progressed in a line‑ how attitudes towards the Eastern Partnership ar fashion in the region, in some EaP states a (EaP) have evolved in these states, assesses ret‑ fragile pluralism and a kind of rudimentary so‑ rospectively which elements of the programme cial contract are emerging as people turn from have worked and which have not, and finally passive subjects into active citizens. This trend suggests ways in which the EaP could be adapt‑ is likely to intensify in the next decade. One of ed to fend off regional challenges and take ad‑ the most persistent trends since the fall of the vantage of rising opportunities in the coming Soviet Union however, has been demographic decade. decline powered by high levels of migration, which runs increasingly towards other parts of The starting point for this analysis is a recog‑ the world than to Russia. One of the key reasons nition that the eastern neighbourhood is not for emigration is weak economic development some retrograde post‑Soviet backyard but in the region. Among the relatively new trends that its states and societies are changing and is the growing role of cyber in both the econo‑ moving on. Six interlinked megatrends, which my and politics in the eastern neighbourhood, manifest with different degrees of intensity which opens opportunities but also brings throughout the region, shape the present and challenges. The future will be shaped by these future trajectories of the countries of the east‑ major regional and internal shifts; policymak‑ ern neighbourhood. Since the fall of the USSR ers need to factor them in when thinking about there has been a centrifugal diffusion of pow‑ how to upgrade and improve the EaP for the er away from Moscow towards the capitals lo‑ next decade. cated at the borders of the former Soviet space. This rise of polycentrism gathered pace during In parallel with these regional megatrends, the last decade as eastern neighbours diversi‑ each EaP state has its own dynamics too. The six fied their foreign policy options by engaging country case studies in this paper demonstrate with other regional powers. Russia first tried the complexities of democratisation and reform to impede this trend and later to reverse it. Its as well as the fact that the developmental paths increasingly assertive policy vis‑à‑vis former of these six states are increasingly varied. Thus, satellites has fuelled the security deficit in the differentiation in the EaP region is already a re‑ region. This negative trend, in turn, has led to ality. In the associate partner states, the degree a bigger demand for the EU and the gradual of integration with the EU has deepened signif‑ transformation of the EU into one of the re‑ icantly, whereas in the non‑associate states the gion’s security managers. EU plays an important but a more limited role. Against this background of the rise of polycen‑ The case of Ukraine is emblematic in some re‑ trism and a growing security deficit, the region spects: significant progress in reform has been is becoming progressively more heterogeneous, made in this country despite extremely chal‑ to the extent that the designation ‘post‑Soviet’ lenging conditions, including an ongoing war in is becoming obsolete. This neighbourhood has the east of the country. Paradoxically, Russia’s Executive Summary 3 aggression has improved rather than hindered economic model: the country has experienced Ukraine’s performance in implementing re‑ some growth but little economic diversifica‑ forms. The changes are however still reversi‑ tion and development. Despite the Association ble and achievements fragile. The creation of Agreement (AA) and DCFTA, trade with the EU is the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area not growing as rapidly as was expected and un‑ (DCFTA) proved to be not only one of the key employment remains very high. More positive drivers of reforms, but also an important tool effects of the EaP have been seen in the tourism to offset the effects of Russia’s multiple trade industry as mobility has increased and Georgia embargoes. As a result, the EU has become by has become more connected to Europe and the far Ukraine’s key trade partner. Visa liberalisa‑ world. In the future, the EU needs to consider tion is having an equally positive impact on the ways in which it can best support the increase transportation sector and people‑to‑people in the competitiveness of Georgian business contacts. Much still needs to be done, in par‑ and its capacity to reach European markets. ticular in the domain of fighting corruption and improving the business climate. Ukrainian Among the non‑associated partner states, Ar- citizens support Europeanisation and expect menia stands out positively at least for now. more effective reform implementation from The Armenia–EU relationship seems to have the government. The best EU strategy in the found a new equilibrium after several years of case of Ukraine is a bottom‑up approach with soul searching. Armenia pulled out of the AA/ strict conditionality and a renewed package of DCFTA negotiations at the last minute and concrete benefits to provide sustained stimuli. joined instead the Russian‑dominated Eura‑ sian Economic Union (EAEU) in 2015. Despite Moldova has zigzagged with reforms and in its this, Armenia still sees the EU as a major part‑ relationship with the EU. While economically ner in pursuing reforms and wants to utilise Moldova is much closer to the EU than was the the existing potential of cooperation with the case a decade ago (almost 70% of exports are EU – as codified in the new Comprehensive and destined for the European market), politically Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) – to it has experienced significant democratic back‑ the full extent. The EU is the biggest donor in sliding. The simplistic labels of ‘pro‑Russian’ Armenia and its efforts have not gone unno‑ and ‘pro‑European’ have proven unhelpful in ticed: the majority of Armenian citizens and a country where oligarchic structures are par‑ policy‑makers alike regard the EU as a trust‑ ticularly strong, and where the majority of citi‑ worthy organisation and view the EaP with op‑ zens are primarily concerned about widespread timism.
Recommended publications
  • Flash Reports on Labour Law January 2017 Summary and Country Reports

    Flash Reports on Labour Law January 2017 Summary and Country Reports

    Flash Report 01/2017 Flash Reports on Labour Law January 2017 Summary and country reports EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Unit B.2 – Working Conditions Flash Report 01/2017 Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 ISBN ABC 12345678 DOI 987654321 © European Union, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Flash Report 01/2017 Country Labour Law Experts Austria Martin Risak Daniela Kroemer Belgium Wilfried Rauws Bulgaria Krassimira Sredkova Croatia Ivana Grgurev Cyprus Nicos Trimikliniotis Czech Republic Nataša Randlová Denmark Natalie Videbaek Munkholm Estonia Gaabriel Tavits Finland Matleena Engblom France Francis Kessler Germany Bernd Waas Greece Costas Papadimitriou Hungary Gyorgy Kiss Ireland Anthony Kerr Italy Edoardo Ales Latvia Kristine Dupate Lithuania Tomas Davulis Luxemburg Jean-Luc Putz Malta Lorna Mifsud Cachia Netherlands Barend Barentsen Poland Leszek Mitrus Portugal José João Abrantes Rita Canas da Silva Romania Raluca Dimitriu Slovakia Robert Schronk Slovenia Polonca Končar Spain Joaquín García-Murcia Iván Antonio Rodríguez Cardo Sweden Andreas Inghammar United Kingdom Catherine Barnard Iceland Inga Björg Hjaltadóttir Liechtenstein Wolfgang Portmann Norway Helga Aune Lill Egeland Flash Report 01/2017 Table of Contents Executive Summary ..............................................
  • The EIB COVID-19 Economic Vulnerability Index – an Analysis of Countries Outside the European Union

    The EIB COVID-19 Economic Vulnerability Index – an Analysis of Countries Outside the European Union

    2020 THE EIB COVID-19 ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY INDEX 08/2020 – EN 2020 THE EIB COVID-19 ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY INDEX AN ANALYSIS OF COUNTRIES OUTSIDE THE EUROPEAN UNION The EIB COVID-19 Economic Vulnerability Index – An analysis of countries outside the European Union Thematic Study © European Investment Bank, 2020. Authors Emmanouil Davradakis Ricardo Santos Sanne Zwart Barbara Marchitto This is a publication of the European Investment Bank’s Economics Department. The mission of the EIB’s Economics Department is to provide economic analyses and studies to support the Bank in its operations and in its positioning, strategy and policy. The department, a team of 40, is led by Debora Revoltella, Director of Economics. [email protected] www.eib.org/economics The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the European Investment Bank. The European Investment Bank does not endorse, accept or judge the legal status of any territories, boundaries, colours, denominations or information depicted on geographical maps included in its publications. All rights reserved. All questions on rights and licensing should be addressed to [email protected] For further information on the EIB’s activities, please consult our website, www.eib.org. You can also contact [email protected]. Get our e-newsletter at www.eib.org/sign-up Published by the European Investment Bank. Printed on FSC Paper. pdf: QH-03-20-412-EN-N ISBN 978-92-861-4713-5 doi: 10.2867/812925 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO RESILIENCE 3 GLOBAL SUMMARY 5 THE POWER OF A DIVERSE ECONOMY 7 HEALTHCARE AND ECONOMIC SYSTEMS 9 THE EIB COVID-19 VULNERABILITY INDEX 11 ANNEX: TECHNICAL DETAILS 15 INTRODUCTION There is a lot that we do not yet know about the health effects of COVID-19.
  • DA Evaluation Guidelines

    DA Evaluation Guidelines

    Development Account Final Report 1. KEY PROJECT FEATURES I. Project title UNECE FAO UNDA 8th tranche project “Sustainable Forest Management for Greener Economies in the Caucasus and Central Asia” II. Project DA code 2013-ROA-3634-2944-6875-0036 III. Implementing UNECE FAO Forestry and Timber Section Entity IV. Start date 08/2013 VI. End date a. Original: 06/2015 b. Actual date: 12/2015 VII. Beneficiary 1. Armenia_________________ 5. Kyrgyzstan countries 2. Azerbaijan 6. Tajikistan (pilot) 3. Georgia (pilot) 7. Uzbekistan 4. Kazakhstan (pilot) VIIII Implementing UN system Other partners partners 1. FAO 1. GIZ 2. UNFF 3. UNDP March 2016 2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS All seven project countries, namely Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan completed their activities according to the project workplan. Altogether 2 regional, 7 national, 9 coaching and 28 local capacity-building workshops were organized. The training package including modules on green economy and sustainable forest management, wood energy, forest policy formulation, and forest data collection and reporting, have been produced for the benefits of the participants. In addition, the training package included variety of participatory exercises to better introduce methodology for stakeholder engagement. Based on the workshop evaluations 91% of the participants acknowledged increased knowledge on policy formulation, bioenergy generation and data collection related to sustainable forest management and green economy. Three pilot countries, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan made a progress towards inclusion of green economy principles into the national forestry sector’s strategies and programmes. With support of the project, Georgia developed a national action plan for the forest sector in a green economy based on the input received from four local workshops.
  • A 2020 Vision for the Black Sea Region a Report by the Commission on the Black Sea

    A 2020 Vision for the Black Sea Region a Report by the Commission on the Black Sea

    A 2020 Vision for the Black Sea Region A Report by the Commission on the Black Sea www.blackseacom.eu An initiative of: The Black eaS Trust for Regional Cooperation A 2020 Vision for the Black Sea Region A Report by the Commission on the Black Sea Contents Why read this Report? 4 What is the Commission on the Black Sea? 7 Executive Summary 12 Резюме выводов 15 Yönetici Özeti 19 The Report Introduction: The State of Play 22 Peace and Security 28 Economic Development and Welfare 31 Democratic Institutions and Good Governance 34 Regional Cooperation 36 Conclusions 38 Policy Recommendations 40 The Black Sea in Figures 45 Abbreviations 65 Initiators 67 The Rapporteurs, Editor and Acknowledgements 69 Imprint 70 3 Why read this Report? Why read this Report? … because the Black Sea matters The Black Sea region is coming into its own - but it is a contested and sometimes dangerous neighbourhood. It has undergone countless political transformations over time. And now, once again, it is becoming the subject of an intense debate. This reflects the changing dynamics of the Black Sea countries and the complex realities of their politics and conflicts, economies and societies. Geography, the interests of others and the region’s relations with the rest of the world in large part explain its resurgence. Straddling Europe and Asia, the Black Sea links north to south and east to west. Oil, gas, transport and trade routes are all crucial in explaining its increasing relevance. In the last two decades the Black Sea has changed beyond recognition. We have witnessed the transformation of the former communist societies and the impact of globalisation.
  • Eastern Partnership Policy Beyond 2020: Advances and Omissions in a Vast Agenda

    Eastern Partnership Policy Beyond 2020: Advances and Omissions in a Vast Agenda

    14 April 2020 Eastern Partnership policy beyond 2020: advances and omissions in a vast agenda Michael Emerson, Steven Blockmans, Denis Cenusa, Tamara Kovziridze and Veronika Movchan The Joint Communication on the Eastern Partnership (EaP)1 published in March offers a broad array of policy orientations but relatively little operational specificity. This drafting is presumably intended to be acceptable to all six EaP states. The lack of reference to the joint request of the three states with Association Agreements (AAs) – Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine – to open a ‘quadrilogue’ with the EU to treat matters of common concern to them, and which are not relevant or plausible in relation to the other EaP states, is a glaring omission that could still be corrected at the EaP summit on 18 June. This summit should also agree on EaP policy beyond 2020, with the partner states, and include the many transnational issues worthy of quadrilateral consultations, such as how revisions of major EU policies (for instance, on energy, climate and competition) may affect the associated states. 1 Communication by the European Commission and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, “Eastern Partnership policy beyond 2020 – Reinforcing Resilience – an Eastern Partnership that delivers for all”, JOIN(2020)7 final, 18 March 2020. Michael Emerson is Associate Senior Research Fellow at CEPS. Steven Blockmans is Head of the EU Foreign Policy unit at CEPS and Professor of EU External Relations Law and Governance at the University of Amsterdam. Denis Cenusa is a political scientist and Program Director on Energy Security at the independent economic think-tank Expert-Grup, Chisinau, Moldova.
  • The European Economic Area (Eea), Switzerland and the North

    The European Economic Area (Eea), Switzerland and the North

    THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA (EEA), SWITZERLAND AND THE NORTH The European Economic Area (EEA) was set up in 1994 to extend the EU’s provisions on its internal market to the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) countries. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are parties to the EEA. Switzerland is a member of EFTA but does not take part in the EEA. The EU and EEA EFTA partners (Norway and Iceland) are also linked by various ‘northern policies’ and forums which focus on the rapidly evolving northern reaches of Europe and the Arctic region as a whole. LEGAL BASIS For the EEA: Article 217 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Association Agreements). For Switzerland: Insurance Agreement of 1989, Bilateral Agreements I of 1999, Bilateral Agreements II of 2004. THE EEA A. Objectives The purpose of the European Economic Area (EEA) is to extend the EU’s internal market to countries in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA). The current EFTA countries do not wish to join the EU. EU legislation relating to the internal market becomes part of the legislation of the EEA EFTA countries once they have agreed to incorporate it. The administration and management of the EEA is shared between the EU and the EEA EFTA countries in a two-pillar structure. Decisions are taken by joint EEA bodies (the EEA Council, the EEA Joint Committee, the EEA Joint Parliamentary Committee and the EEA Consultative Committee). B. Background In 1992, the then seven members of EFTA negotiated an agreement to allow them to participate in the ambitious project of the European Community’s internal market, launched in 1985 and completed at the end of 1992.
  • The New Eu Foreign Policy Architecture

    The New Eu Foreign Policy Architecture

    THE NEW EU FOREIGN POLICY ARCHITECTURE REVIEWING THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE EEAS NIKLAS HELWIG PAUL IVAN HRANT KOSTANYAN CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES (CEPS) BRUSSELS The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is an independent policy research institute in Brussels. Its mission is to produce sound policy research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe. The views expressed in this book are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed to CEPS or any other institution with which they are associated or to the European Union. Niklas Helwig is a Marie Curie Researcher of the EXACT network at the University of Edinburgh and Cologne and focuses on the institutional development of EU foreign policy. He worked for the Centre for European Policy Studies and the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. Paul Ivan is a Romanian diplomat. Previously, he worked as a researcher for the Centre for European Policy Studies, where he focused on EU political and institutional issues and the European External Action Service. Hrant Kostanyan is an associate research fellow at CEPS and a PhD candidate at the Centre for EU Studies at Ghent University. He worked as an external expert for International Alert, based in London, in the Eastern Europe and South Caucasus research project. He also worked as an expert on a European Commission-funded project on the EU’s relations with Russia and the Eastern Partnership at the EU Neighbourhood Info Centre. The authors thank Piotr Maciej Kaczyński for his comments on an earlier draft. ISBN 978-94-6138-262-7 © Copyright 2013, Centre for European Policy Studies and the authors.
  • Preparatory Activities for the Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey Regional Electricity Market

    Preparatory Activities for the Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey Regional Electricity Market

    ACTIVITY COMPLETION REPORT Preparatory Activities for the Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey Regional Electricity Market AZERBAIJAN: Legal, regulatory and market assessment regarding the export prospects towards the Turkish market (AHEF 121.AZ, & 122.GE) INOGATE Technical Secretariat and Integrated Programme in support of the Baku Initiative and the Eastern Partnership energy objectives Contract No 2011/278827 A project within the INOGATE Programme Implemented by: Ramboll Denmark A/S (lead partner) EIR Global sprl. The British Standards Institution LDK Consultants S.A. MVV decon GmbH ICF International Statistics Denmark Energy Institute Hrvoje Požar Document title Activity Completion Report “AZERBAIJAN: Legal, regulatory and market assessment regarding the export prospects towards the Turkish market” (AHEF 121.AZ, & 122.GE) Document status Final Name Date Prepared by 01/04/2016 Konstantinos Perrakis, Lila Vassilaki, Nikos Tourlis and Nikos Patsos Checked by 04/04/2016 Nikos Tsakalidis Adrian Twomey Approved by Peter Larsen 24/05/2016 This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. Table of Contents 1 PART 1 – EUROPEAN COMMISSION ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2
  • The Historical Development of European Integration

    The Historical Development of European Integration

    FACT SHEETS ON THE EUROPEAN UNION The historical development of European integration PE 618.969 1. The First Treaties.....................................................................................................3 2. Developments up to the Single European Act.........................................................6 3. The Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties...............................................................10 4. The Treaty of Nice and the Convention on the Future of Europe..........................14 5. The Treaty of Lisbon..............................................................................................18 EN - 18/06/2018 ABOUT THE PUBLICATION This leaflet contains a compilation of Fact Sheets provided by Parliament’s Policy Departments and Economic Governance Support Unit on the relevant policy area. The Fact Sheets are updated regularly and published on the website of the European Parliament: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets ABOUT THE PUBLISHER Author of the publication: European Parliament Department responsible: Unit for Coordination of Editorial and Communication Activities E-mail: [email protected] Manuscript completed in June, 2018 © European Union, 2018 DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice
  • State Transformation and the European Integration Project Lessons from the Financial Crisis and the Greek Paradigm Evangelos Venizelos No

    State Transformation and the European Integration Project Lessons from the Financial Crisis and the Greek Paradigm Evangelos Venizelos No

    State Transformation and the European Integration Project Lessons from the financial crisis and the Greek paradigm Evangelos Venizelos No. 130/February 2016 Abstract The financial crisis that erupted in the eurozone not only affected the EU’s financial governance mechanisms, but also the very nature of state sovereignty and balances in the relations of member states; thus, the actual inequalities between the member states hidden behind their institutional equality have deteriorated. This transformation is recorded in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the member states’ constitutional courts, particularly in those at the heart of the crisis, with Greece as the most prominent example. It is the issue of public debt (sovereign debt) of the EU member states that particularly reflects the influence of the crisis on state sovereignty as well as the intensely transnational (intergovernmental) character of European integration, which under these circumstances takes the form of a continuous, tough negotiation. The historical connection between public debt (sovereign debt) and state sovereignty has re-emerged because of the financial crisis. This development has affected not only the European institutions, but also, at the member state level, the actual institutional content of the rule of law (especially judicial review) and the welfare state in its essence, as the great social and political acquis of 20th century Europe. From this perspective, the way that the Greek courts have dealt with the gradual waves of fiscal austerity measures and structural reforms from 2010 to 2015 is characteristic. The effect of the financial crisis on the sovereignty of the member states and on the pace of European integration also has an impact on European foreign and security policy, and the correlations between the political forces at both the national and European level, thus producing even more intense pressures on European social democracy.
  • Adopted Resolution

    Adopted Resolution

    ADOPTED RESOLUTION EPP CONGRESS ZAGREB, 20 – 21 NOVEMBER 2019 Resolution adopted at the EPP Congress, Zagreb (Croatia), 20th - 21th November 2019 EPP Resolution on the 10th anniversary of the Eastern Partnership and its future Bearing in mind that: a) Eastern Partnership is a tailor-made concept of cooperation for all six countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine. Their further progress on the European path is very much dependent on compliance with European values and standards, to which these countries have committed themselves. b) the EU has proved its enormous transformative power through the Enlargement Policy, as confirmed by the success of the Central and Eastern European countries in their development from post-totalitarian regulated economies to European style democracies and social market economies, which was achieved due to the process of integration into the EU, c) this transformative power by enlargement shall be used in the Western Balkans and also in Eastern Partnership countries, willing to join the EU, d) this year marks the 10th anniversary of the Eastern Partnership (the EaP) which was established in 2009 as part of the European Neighborhood Policy and throughout the decade it has proven to be an effective instrument for providing tailored support based on the ‘more for more and less for less’ principle for the EaP countries in their implementation of the European reforms, e) the EPP in its Resolution on Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, adopted during the EPP Congress in Helsinki on 7-8 November
  • Bendukidze and Russian Capitalism

    Bendukidze and Russian Capitalism

    Georgia’s Libertarian Revolution Part two: Bendukidze and Russian Capitalism Berlin – Tbilisi – Istanbul 17 April 2010 “Bendukidze’s wealth, as compared to the assets of Russian billionaires, was relatively modest, with most estimates placing it in the range of 50 to 70 million USD in 2004. In a recent interview, he jokingly called himself a “mini-oligarch” at best. However, Kakha Bendukidze was always more than simply an investor and manager. In a 1996 ranking produced by the polling agency Vox Populi, Bendukidze was ranked 33rd among Russia’s top 50 most influential businessmen wielding the biggest influence on government economic policy. A 2004 article in Kommersant credited Bendukidze with being the first to “realise the need to create a lobbying structure that would be able to promote the interests of big business in a civilized way.” Bendukidze cared about politics and he had ideas about the way the Russian economy ought to develop.” (page 8) Table of contents 1. A biologist in Moscow ........................................................................................................ 3 2. How to Become an Oligarch ............................................................................................... 4 3. Big Business and Russian Politics ...................................................................................... 8 4. Vladimir Putin‟s authoritarian liberalism ........................................................................... 9 5. Leaving Russia (2004) ...................................................................................................... 13 Supported by The Think Tank Fund of the Open Society Institute – 3 – 1. A biologist in Moscow Kakha Bendukidze was born in Tbilisi in 1956 into a family of intellectuals. His father Avtandil was professor of mathematics at Tbilisi State University; his mother, Julietta Rukhadze, a historian and ethnographer. Bendukidze would later proudly describe a family with deep entrepreneurial roots: “My grandfather was one of the first factory owners in Georgia.