DOCSLIB.ORG

Unfolding the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Views from the Region

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Unfolding the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Views from the Region Styopa Safaryan, Elkhan Nuriyev, Marin Lessenski, Joseph Chakhvashvili, Panagiota Manoli, Igor Munteanu, Nicolae Micu, Nadia Alexandrova Arbatova, Aleksandar Fatic, Mustafa Aydin, Omer Fazlioglu, Grigoriy Perepelytsia Editor Panagiota Manoli no 2 XENOPHON PAPER UNFOLDING THE BLACK SEA ECONOMIC COOPERATION VIEWS FROM THE REGION Styopa Safaryan, Elkhan Nuriyev, Marin Lessenski, Joseph Chakhvashvili, Panagiota Manoli, Igor Munteanu, Nicolae Micu, Nadia Alexandrova Arbatova, Aleksandar Fatic, Mustafa Aydin, Omer Fazlioglu, Grigoriy Perepelytsia Editor Panagiota Manoli no 2 XENOPHON PAPER UNFOLDING THE BLACK SEA ECONOMIC COOPERATION VIEWS FROM THE REGION JULY 2007 International Centre for Black Sea Studies (ICBSS) 4 Xenophontos Str. 10557 Athens Greece Tel: +30 210 324 2321 Fax: +30 210 324 2244 Email: [email protected] Website: www.icbss.org Director General: Dimitrios Triantaphyllou © International Centre for Black Sea Studies 2007. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the International Centre for Black Sea Studies. The views expressed exclusively represent the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the ICBSS. ISSN 1790-8396 ISBN 978-960-89227-8-5 Published by the International Centre for Black Sea Studies and printed in Athens (Greece) by Ktimes 2 design & advertising. 2 UNFOLDING THE BLACK SEA ECONOMIC COOPERATION VIEWS FROM THE REGION CONTENTS Preface . .5 Dimitrios Triantaphyllou Introduction . .7 Panagiota Manoli Armenia in the Black Sea Region: 16 Year-Old Variable Geometry with Remaining Local Constants . .11 Styopa Safaryan Azerbaijan and the Wider Black Sea Area: New Prospects and Future Challenges . .27 Elkhan Nuriyev The Black Sea Cooperation: An Outlook from Bulgaria . .37 Marin Lessenski Black Sea Economic Cooperation: A Georgian Perspective . .53 Joseph Chakhvashvili Greece’s Engagement with the Black Sea Economic Cooperation . .67 Panagiota Manoli The Policy of Moldova towards the Black Sea Region and the BSEC . .85 Igor Munteanu The Policy of Romania towards the BSEC and the Black Sea Region . .101 Nicolae Micu Unfolding the Black Sea Economic Cooperation: A View from Russia . .111 Nadia Alexandrova-Arbatova The Policy of Serbia towards the BSEC and the Black Sea Region . .119 Aleksandar Fatic The Turkish Policy towards the Wider Black Sea Region and its Chairmanship of the BSEC (May – October 2007) . .129 Mustafa Aydin and Omer Fazlioglu X E N O P H O N P A P E R no 2 3 The Policy of Ukraine towards the BSEC and the Black Sea Region . .141 Grigoriy Perepelytsia Conclusions: Balancing National Interests . .157 Panagiota Manoli ANNEXES . .161 About the authors . .161 Abbreviations . .165 4 UNFOLDING THE BLACK SEA ECONOMIC COOPERATION VIEWS FROM THE REGION PREFACE What have been the main policy concerns of the countries of the Black Sea region when joining a regional structure such as the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC)? This is the main question that this edited volume of the Xenophon Paper series deals with. As the Organisation of the BSEC has reached its fifteenth Anniversary it is of value to identify common stands along with diversified views on the priorities of Black Sea cooperation as seen by experts coming from within the region. In devising a future strategy for the BSEC, in particular, but also in assessing the prospects of regional cooperation in any area of the world it is imperative to identify the main concerns of the local players and stakeholders. The International Centre for Black Sea Studies (ICBSS), being the think tank of the Organisation of the BSEC, launched a series of publications with a view to celebrate the occasion of the 15th Anniversary of the BSEC and more important to open a window to the needs, priorities and concerns of the regional states. The publication at hand is the third one on the occasion of BSEC at Fifteen following the Black Sea Economic Cooperation: Fifteen Years of Regional Activity, 1992-2007 Views by Foreign Ministers and Heads of BSEC Institutions (2007) and The BSEC At Fifteen: Key Documents, 1992- 2007 (2007). The views expressed herein by experts in their personal capacity disclose both the variety of angles from which the regional countries approach multilateral cooperation in the area and the common denominator upon which the Black Sea regionalism is taking shape. We hope that this publication is to be proven useful not only to the research community but also to the policy-makers both in the Black Sea region and beyond. Dimitrios Triantaphyllou Athens, July 2007 X E N O P H O N P A P E R no 2 5 INTRODUCTION Panagiota Manoli This Xenophon Paper titled “Unfolding the Black Sea Economic Cooperation: Views from the Region” is the product of collective work and reflection by researchers from the Black Sea region. The Black Sea is often cited as the cradle of civilisations, a bridge between East and West, a land rich in cultural diversity. Most literature focuses on the historical and cultural elements of the Black Sea countries while current international relations writings mostly refer to the ‘frozen’ conflicts that represent the greatest challenge to the future development of the region. This publication looks towards another direction by focusing on the possibilities of ‘cooperation’ and region building. It thus represents an effort to cast some light on the efforts to enhance intra-regional links and forge a new regional structure: the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC). The BSEC’s mission according to its Charter is ‘to promote a lasting and closer cooperation among the states of the BSEC region’.1 Though a post Cold War structure, the BSEC has roots in the early 1990s, i.e. prior to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The idea belonged originally to the Turkish ambassador to the United States Sukru Elekdag, who announced this project for the first time during a panel discussion organised in Istanbul in January 1990.2 The convergence of the ideology between the Turkish and Russian leadership in 1991 set the grounds for the emergence of the BSEC as an initiative. The creation of a tool to facilitate economic interaction around the Black Sea along the lines of economic and political liberalism was advocated by both sides. The idea was soon embraced by all littoral states and states beyond the Black Sea that shared economic and political interests (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania and Ukraine). Especially in the 1990s the high degree of diversity – in terms of the level of economic development, market size, population, etc. – of the then eleven member states (Serbia joined later in 2004) of the BSEC undermined the common identity of the new structure. 1 BSEC (1998), Charter of the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, preamble, para. 6, Yalta, 5 June. Text available on http://www.bsec-organization.org. 2 On the conceptualisation of the BSEC see Manoli, Panagiota (2004), The formation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation: A Case Study of Subregionalism, PhD dissertation, University of Warwick. X E N O P H O N P A P E R no 2 7 Nevertheless, its members shared the common vision of regional cooperation as ‘a part of the integration process in Europe, based on human rights and fundamental freedoms, prosperity through economic liberty, social justice, and equal security and stability, which is open for interaction with other countries, regional initiatives and international organisations and financial institutions’.3 As broad as that common vision might seem, its power to inspire should not be underestimated. For almost half of the participating states (i.e. for the Newly Independent States and for the, until then, self-isolated Albania) it was above all a historic first in their appearance on the international scene. For all newly emerged states in the eastern part of Europe - and their neighbours alike - application of the CSCE principles and norms in their interstate affairs and adherence to economic and political liberty was a priority. Regional cooperation might have served partly declaratory purposes especially in the 1990s but it soon came to address real needs related to opening links of interaction and solving problems of economic development and transition. The BSEC is officially defined as a ‘regional economic organisation’ placing trade and economy – related activities as the priority issues on its agenda hence, its Working Groups have focused on fields like trade, finance, SMEs, agriculture, transport, etc. However, the BSEC has not developed into a trade bloc, or a Free Trade Agreement (despite initial efforts) nor have its members taken trade related commitments. The BSEC agreement does not provide for any trade related preference for countries within the Group. Despite the rhetoric on the economic character of regionalism – which might be partly attributed to the early influence of Ozal’s ideas on liberal foreign policy – the BSEC developed primarily as a foreign policy tool to serve the strategic priority of the political elites in the newly independent states; their ‘return to Europe’. A powerful force driving regionalism in all parts of Europe has been the European Union. EU integration acted as a powerful force, a dominant model in intraregional affairs. The BSEC represented an effort to transplant the functional approach of building political stability through economic cooperation. This is reflected not only in the nature of the main working groups of the organisation but even more in its official documents. The founding members stressed thus in the preamble of the Charter ‘…the desire of their countries and peoples for constructive and fruitful collaboration in wide ranging fields of economic activity with the aim of turning the BSEC Region into one of peace, stability and prosperity’ (para. 11). After the first formative years of the BSEC there was a strong request by the participating states that the agenda of the organisation moved beyond the level of ‘discussion’ and 3 BSEC (1998), Charter of the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, preamble para.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Elkhan NURIYEV
    RLASSA Elkhan NURIYEV CURRENT AND PAST AFFILIATIONS PhD in Political Science; Expert Advisory Board Member, Center for Science and Social Innovations, Stavropol, Russia; Global Energy Associate in Brussels Energy Club, Brussels, Belgium; Reconnecting Eurasia, Geneva, Switzerland; The recipient of various international fellowship awards including William Fulbright Scholarship (USA, 1996), University of California Berkeley Program Grant Award (USA, 1998), Woodrow Wilson International Center’s Grant Award (USA, 1999), Georg Forster Research Fellowship (Germany, 1999), Alexander von Humboldt Fellowship Award (Germany, 2000-2003/2015), DAAD Research Fellowship (Germany, 2005-2006/2014), and Corridors Fellowship (Leibniz Institute for East and Southeast European Studies, Germany, 2017). Have lectured internationally on post-Soviet Eurasia at a number of respected universities and research institutions, including Columbia University, Stanford University, George Washington University etc. MAJOR PUBLICATIONS Books | Monographs | Other Contributions (Selected): The South Caucasus at the Crossroads: Conicts, Caspian Oil and Great Power Politics LIT, Berlin, 2007 http://lit-verlag.de/isbn/3-8258-6216-9 Endless Endgame: Whither Russia-West Confrontation? Russia in Global Affairs Journal, April 2018, Moscow, Russia http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/book/-19475 The Other Side of Conict Resolution: Mobilizing Peace Constituencies in the South Caucasus Journal of Conict Transformation – Caucasus Edition, March 2018, Washington, DC, USA http://caucasusedition.net/the-other-side-of-conict-resolution-mobilizing-peace-
    [Show full text]
  • Lucas Lypp Die Europäisierung Des Auswärtigen Handelns: Deutsche
    Lucas Lypp Die Europäisierung des auswärtigen Handelns: Deutsche und EU-Außenpolitik im südlichen Kaukasus Hamburg, Oktober 2008 von der Universität Hamburg - Institut für Politische Wissenschaft als Promotion im Fach Politikwissenschaft angenommen Datum der letzten mündlichen Prüfung: 8. Januar 2010 eingereicht im Wintersemester 2008 / 2009 Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Stefan Brüne Zweitgutachterin: Prof. Dr. Christine Landfried Inhalt Einleitung 5 I. Die Europäisierung der Außenpolitik 10 Das Entstehen einer gemeinsamen außenpolitischen Identität der Europäischen Union als stärkster Ausdruck der Europäisierung 12 Begriff der Europäisierung 26 Erscheinungsformen der Europäisierung 28 Intensität der Europäisierung 31 Orte der Europäisierung 33 Hohe EU-Kompatibilität deutscher Außenpolitik 39 II. Der südliche Kaukasus: ein Zielgebiet internationaler Politik 41 Historischer Hintergrund, geografische Zusammensetzung 42 Fragmentierte Region 42 Energiedrehscheibe 43 Krisenregion 44 Geopolitischer Kontext 52 Hohe Erwartungen an den Westen 54 Die Politik der großen Mächte: Interessen, Strategien, Konkurrenz 58 2 III. Deutsche und europäische Politik im südlichen Kaukasus 62 Gründe des deutschen Engagements in der Region 62 Institutionelle Ressourcen 70 Handlungsfelder, Prinzipien und Instrumente der deutschen Kaukasuspolitik 79 Anfänge, Grundlagen 80 Breites Politikspektrum 82 Multilateraler und regionaler Ansatz 84 Schwerpunkt Entwicklungshilfe 86 Außenwirtschaftspolitik, wirtschaftliche Hilfe 90 Energieaußenpolitik, Entwicklung des Energiesektors
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union's Black Sea Region Policy*
    * THE EUROPEAN UNION’S BLACK SEA REGION POLICY AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ’NİN KARADENİZ BÖLGESİ POLİTİKASI ПОЛИТИКА ЕВРОСОЮЗА К ЧЕРНОМОРСКОМУ РЕГИОНУ ** Assist. Prof. Dr. Haydar EFE ABSTRACT After Romania and Bulgaria entrance in to the EU, the Black Sea region has become very important for the European Union. First of all, stability and security in the Black Sea region is important for the EU. This region is also a main concern for the European Union regarding of preventing the spread of organized crime and terrorism. On the other hand, this region is an important hub for energy and transport flows for the EU. The EU is an important economic and trading partner for the Black Sea countries and makes many efforts to stimulate democratic and economic reforms and supports regional development of the whole region. In this context, “Black Sea Synergy” Programme as an EU initiative was launched in 2007, and finally in May 2009, the EU adopted the “Eastern Partnership” a plan to foster closer political and economic ties with these countries of the region. Key Words: European Union, Black Sea region, Black Sea Synergy, Eastern Partnership ÖZET Bulgaristan ve Romanya’nın AB’ye girmesinden sonra, Karadeniz bölgesi Avrupa Birliği için çok önemli hale geldi. İlk olarak, Karadeniz Bölgesinde istikrar ve güvenlik AB için önemlidir. Bu bölge organize suçlar ve terörizmin yayılmasını önlemede Avrupa Birliği için bir endişe kaynağıdır. Öte yandan, bu bölge AB için enerji ve ulaşım için önemli bir terminaldir. AB Karadeniz ülkelerinin önemli bir ekonomik ve ticari ortağıdır ve tüm bölgede bölgesel kalkınmayı desteklemekte ve demokratik ve ekonomik reformları teşvik etmek için çok çaba harcamaktadır.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Projections of Temperature and Precipitation In
    Climate Change Projections of Temperature and Precipitation in the Eastern Black Sea Basin, Turkey by using Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines Statistical Downscaling Method Sinan NACAR ( [email protected] ) Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2497-5032 Murat KANKAL Bursa Uludağ University Umut OKKAN Balıkesir University Research Article Keywords: Eastern Black Sea Basin, Climate Change, MARS, Statistical Downscaling Posted Date: August 17th, 2021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-647619/v1 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License Climate change projections of temperature and precipitation in the Eastern Black Sea Basin, Turkey by using multivariate adaptive regression splines statistical downscaling method Sinan NACAR*1, Murat KANKAL2, Umut OKKAN3 1Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University, Department of Civil Engineering, 60150, Tokat, Turkey, [email protected] 2Bursa Uludağ University, Department of Civil Engineering, 16059, Bursa, Turkey, [email protected] 3Balıkesir University, Department of Civil Engineering, 10600, Balıkesir, Turkey, [email protected] *Corresponding author: Sinan Nacar, Ph.D. (Email: [email protected]) Author ORCID ID Sinan Nacar 0000-0003-2497-5032 Murat Kankal 0000-0003-0897-4742 Umut Okkan 0000-0003-1284-3825 Climate change projections of temperature and precipitation in the Eastern Black Sea Basin, Turkey by using multivariate adaptive regression splines statistical downscaling method Sinan Nacar*1, Murat Kankal2, Umut Okkan3 1Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University, Department of Civil Engineering, 60150, Tokat, Turkey, [email protected] 2Bursa Uludağ University, Department of Civil Engineering, 16059, Bursa, Turkey, [email protected] 3Balıkesir University, Department of Civil Engineering, 10600, Balıkesir, Turkey, [email protected] *Corresponding author: Sinan Nacar, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Is the Black Sea Region in Turkey's Foreign Policy?
    TurcasIlan165x235mmENG copy.pdf 1 22.12.2014 15:12 WHERE IS THE BLACK SEA REGION IN TURKEY’S FOREIGN POLICY? C Black Sea regional analyses often assume that Turkey holds the role of a regional M leader pursuing its intra-regional interests. In contrast to this perspective, this article will present evidence verifying an absence of a Black Sea regional Y conception in Turkey’s foreign policy. It will show how Turkey’s vision related to CM the Black Sea is limited to maritime security and control of the Turkish Straits. As MY this study reveals, even if Turkey perceives itself as a regional leader, this region CY does not include the Black Sea; Ankara has far bigger ambitions, seeing itself in the center of the Afro-Eurasian geography. Such an approach to the Black Sea CMY region makes it very unlikely for Turkey to promote regional integration, much less K see itself as part of the region at all. Sophia Petriashvili* Fall 2015 * Dr. Sophia Petriashvili is an Assistant Professor in the International Relations Department, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences at Tbilisi State University, Georgia. 105 VOLUME 14 NUMBER 3 SOPHIA PETRIASHVILI ith the longest shoreline among all the Black Sea littoral states, Turkey’s outlook towards the Black Sea region is greatly preconditioned by its historical background. For centuries, starting from the conquest of W Crimea in 1475 up to 1774 when the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca was signed, the Black Sea was regarded as an Ottoman lake and had gained the status of an inner sea of the Empire.1 The Ottoman Empire enjoyed the exclusive right to con- trol the Turkish Straits, which required all foreign vessels passing through the Straits to obtain permission from the Sublime Porte.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey and Black Sea Security 3
    SIPRI Background Paper December 2018 TURKEY AND SUMMARY w The Black Sea region is BLACK SEA SECURITY experiencing a changing military balance. The six littoral states (Bulgaria, siemon t. wezeman and alexandra kuimova* Georgia, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine) intensified their efforts to build up their military potential after Russia’s The security environment in the wider Black Sea region—which brings takeover of Crimea and the together the six littoral states (Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russia, Turkey start of the internationalized and Ukraine) and a hinterland including the South Caucasus and Moldova— civil war in eastern Ukraine is rapidly changing. It combines protracted conflicts with a significant con- in 2014. ventional military build-up that intensified after the events of 2014: Russia’s Although security in the takeover of Crimea and the start of the internationalized civil war in eastern Black Sea region has always Ukraine.1 Transnational connections between conflicts across the region been and remains important for and between the Black Sea and the Middle East add further dimensions of Turkey, the current Turkish insecurity. As a result, there is a blurring of the conditions of peace, crisis defence policy seems to be and conflict in the region. This has led to an unpredictable and potentially largely directed southwards, high-risk environment in which military forces with advanced weapons, towards the Middle East. including nuclear-capable systems, are increasingly active in close proxim- Russian–Turkish relations have been ambiguous for some years. ity to each other. Turkey has openly expressed In this context, there is an urgent need to develop a clearer understanding concern about perceived of the security dynamics and challenges facing the wider Black Sea region, Russian ambitions in the Black and to explore opportunities for dialogue between the key regional security Sea region and called for a actors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Black Sea Region — Shores and Delta
    Black Sea region. page 1 European Environment Agency Europe’s biodiversity — biogeographical regions and seas Biogeographical regions in Europe The Black Sea Region — shores and delta Original contributions from ETC/NPB: Sophie Condé, Dominique Richard (coordinators) Nathalie Liamine (editor) Anne-Sophie Leclère (data collection and processing) Barbara Sotolargo (drafting) Ulla Pinborg (final co-editor) Map production: UNEP/GRID Warsaw (final production) Project manager: Tor-Björn Larsson, EEA ZooBoTech HB, Sweden, Linus Svensson (final edition) Black Sea region. page 2 Summary ............................................................................................................ 3 1. What are the main characteristics and trends of the Black Sea biogeographical region? ..................................................................................... 3 1.1 General characteristics.............................................................................. 3 1.1.1 Extent and limitations ............................................................................ 3 1.1.2 Geomorphological and topography ........................................................... 3 1.1.3 Soils .................................................................................................... 4 1.1.4 Climate ................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Present biodiversity status and trends: habitats, fauna and flora ............. 5 1.2.1 Habitats ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Caucasian Review of International Affairs (CRIA) Is a Quarterly Peer-Reviewed, Non- Profit and Only-Online Academic Journal Based in Germany
    CCCAUCASIAN REVIEW OF IIINTERNATIONAL AAAFFAIRS Vol. 4 (((3(333)))) sssummersummer 2020201020 101010 EU DEMOCRACY PROMOTION THROUGH CONDITIONALITY IN ITS NEIGHBOURHOOD JANINE REINHARD EU ENGAGEMENT IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN GEORGIA : TOWARDS A MORE PROACTIVE ROLE MEHMET BARDAKÇI RELIGION AND ITS IMPORTANCE IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS : A CASE STUDY OF 2008 RUSSIAN -GEORGIAN WAR INES -JACQUELINE WERKNER FROM RACKETEER TO EMIR : A POLITICAL PORTRAIT OF DOKU UMAROV , RUSSIA ’S MOST WANTED MAN KEVIN DANIEL LEAHY THE CRISIS OF GAZPROM AS THE CRISIS OF RUSSIA ’S “E NERGY SUPER -STATE ” POLICY TOWARDS EUROPE AND THE FORMER SOVIET UNION ANDREY KAZANTSEV EURASIAN BARGAINING , AGRICULTURE , AND THE DOHA ROUND SARITA D. JACKSON WAS KOSOVO ’S SPLIT -OFF LEGITIMATE ? BACKGROUND , MEANING AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE ICJ’ S ADVISORY OPINION HEIKO KRUEGER UKRAINE : A CHALLENGE FOR U.S., EU & NATO REGIONAL POLICY TAMERLAN VAHABOV ISSN: 1865-6773 www.cria -online.org EDITORIAL BOARD: Dr. Tracey German (King’s College Dr. Robin van der Hout (Europa-Institute, London, United Kingdom) University of Saarland, Germany) Dr. Andrew Liaropoulos (Institute for Dr. Jason Strakes (Analyst, Research European and American Studies, Greece) Reachback Center East, U.S.) Dr. Martin Malek (National Defence Dr. Cory Welt (George Washington Academy, Austria) University, U.S.) INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD: Prof. Hüseyin Bagci , Middle East Prof. Werner Münch , former Prime Technical University, Ankara, Turkey Minister of Saxony-Anhalt, former Member of the European Parliament, Germany Prof. Hans-Georg Heinrich, University of Vienna, Austria Prof. Elkhan Nuriyev , Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies under the Prof. Edmund Herzig , Oxford University, President of the Republic of Azerbaijan UK Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Overview of the Polish-Ukrainian Cross-Border Cooperation
    Oeconomia 12 (4) 2013, 93–106 COMPREHENSIVE OVERVIEW OF THE POLISH-UKRAINIAN CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION Agnieszka Parlińska Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW Oksana Zamora Sumy National Agrarian University Abstract. The article is dedicated to the comprehensive analysis of the cross-border coop- eration between Polish and Ukrainian border regions, which are involved in euroregions, established on their basis. The analysis covers theoretical aspects, fi nancial issues of the cross-border collaboration, as well as socio-economic aspects research of the investigated territories development. Authors’ aim is to compare the principles and tendencies of ter- ritories development within cross-border Polish-Ukrainian regions in order to provide a comprehensive vision of the cross-border cooperation between Ukraine and Poland within Carpathian Euroregion and Euroregion Bug. Key words: euroregions, cross-border cooperation projects, socio-economic analysis, Po- land, Ukraine INTRODUCTION Interstate relations between Ukraine and Poland have very long and rich history, and have been developing on the local, regional and state levels. New era of them has started in year 1991 after Polish Republic was the first to recognize Ukrainian independence. But in terms of interregional cooperation the connection was officially set up in 1992, when Agreements on Friendly Relations and Cooperation1 (May 5) and on Border Inspection 1 Agreement between Ukraine and the Republic of Poland on Friendly Relations and Cooperation ratifi ed by the law of Ukraine, No 2611-XII (2611–2612). Ratifi cation date – 17.09.1992. Source: http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/616_172. Corresponding author – adres do korespondencji: Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW, Department of European Policy, Public Finance and Marketing, Nowoursynowska 166 Str., 02-787 Warsaw, Poland, e-mail: [email protected] 94 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Department External Policies REGIONAL COOPERATION in THE
    STUDY Policy Department External Policies REGIONAL COOPERATION IN THE BLACK SEA AREA: ANALYSIS OF THE OPPORTUNITIES TO FOSTER SYNERGIES IN THE REGION FOREIGN AFFAIRS December 2007 JANUARY 2004 EN This study was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs. This study is published in the following language: English Authors: Krassimir Y. Nikolov Burcu Gültekin-Punsmann Study made under the framework contract with the Trans European Policy Studies Association (TEPSA) Krassimir Y. Nikolov holds a Jean Monnet chair at Varna Free University “Chernorizets Hrabar”, Bulgaria, and is Secretary General of the Bulgarian European Community Studies Association (BECSA). Previously he was Senior Research Fellow and Director of the Institute of European Studies and Information – Sofia. His research interests focus on CFSP, ENP, Eastern EU enlargement, EU institutional system and decision making. Dr. Burcu Gültekin-Punsmann holds a PhD degree from the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris. She is Research Fellow at the Center for European Studies at the Middle East Technical University in Ankara and the Turkey project manager of the Caucasus Business and Development Network (CBDN) project run by the London based international NGO International Alert. Former NATO Manfred Wörner research fellow, she is currently acting as the principal investigator of the NATO financed project “Bridging Perceptions of Security, Integrating the Black Sea Region”. Responsible Official: Dag Sourander Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union Policy Department BD4 06M083 rue Wiertz B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] Publisher European Parliament Manuscript completed on 5 December 2007. The study is available on the Internet at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/expert/eStudies.do?languageEN If you are unable to download the information you require, please request a paper copy by e-mail : [email protected] Brussels: European Parliament, 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Concrete Steps to Break the Deadlocks in the South Caucasus
    Band 2 / 2020 Band 2 / 2020 “Out of the box thinking” was on the agenda of the 20th Regional Stability in the South Caucasus Study Group (RSSC SG) work- shop. After several workshops dealing with geopolitical issues, and a stock-taking workshop in 2018, the co-chairs re-directed attention to the need for practical, ground-based initiatives to foster greater stability at the grass-roots and community levels. Concrete Steps to Break Speakers from the region were required to concentrate on what outcomes and conditions could break the current deadlocks the Deadlocks in the South in moving towards peace and regional stability. Although dead- locks in South Caucasus conflict resolution were hardly broken, Caucasus fresh consensus emerged among participants inter alia on: commonly held interests being defined and leveraged as confi- dence building to facilitate rapprochement and eventually lead to conflict resolution; administrative and identity issues being maintained cleanly separated; and the need to fully de-politicize issues addressed by peacebuilding initiatives. Concrete Steps to Break the Deadlocks in South Caucasus to Steps Concrete ISBN: 978-3-903121-83-6 Frederic Labarre and George Niculescu (Eds.) 2/20 20th Workshop of the PfP Consortium Study Group “Regional Stability in the South Caucasus” (Eds.) Niculescu Labarre, Study Group Information Study Group Information Frederic Labarre George Niculescu (Eds.) Concrete Steps to Break the Deadlocks in the South Caucasus 20th Workshop of the PfP Consortium Study Group “Regional Stability
    [Show full text]