|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
127065
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the role of the European Union (EU) and United States as actors in international disaster relief. We take the analysis of 'actorness' one step further than normal by assessing the extent to which different aspects of EU and US actorness led to effectiveness in actual outcomes. In doing so, we make two contributions. First, we provide a rare comparison between EU and US foreign policy actorness, shedding light on the actor capability of each bloc in the area of international disaster relief. Second, we specify the relationship between actorness and effectiveness, a relationship which is too often assumed rather than explored. Using previous research of EU and US actorness as a starting point, we link four aspects of actorness to effectiveness and assess the resulting hypotheses using the case of the 2010 Haiti earthquake. We find support for our proposed links between actorness and effectiveness, although further research is needed before robust conclusions can be drawn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
113734
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article surveys the current state of the academic debate about actorness and legitimacy of the European Union. It investigates various kinds of EU's actorness, as well as concepts and categories of its legitimacy, and attempts to trace their relationships, which remains an underdeveloped aspect of the discussion. We examine a wide range of scholarly articles, books and other academic sources in assessing the quality and fairness of the respective discussions and suggest that, within the current mostly normative debate, a positive evaluation of the EU's legitimacy is unattainable and that it is necessary to acquire a fairer notion of what kind of international actor the Union is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
127062
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article argues that, by acting autonomously and cohesively, the European Union (EU) was able to shape the global agenda on foreign aid throughout the 2000s, particularly on the issue of donor complementarity and division of labour. By contrast, its ability to promote aid effectiveness in Sub-Saharan Africa was significantly constrained by national aid bureaucracies and by the complex aid architecture. More generally, to fully understand whether or not the EU is an effective actor, it is necessary to take into account how EU actorness contributes to the issue being discussed. At headquarter level, the European Commission sought to enhance EU actorness, which was seen as key to aid effectiveness. On the ground, national aid bureaucracies resisted EU actorness in the name of aid effectiveness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
093889
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The papers in this special edition are a very small selection from those presented at the EU-NESCA (Network of European Studies Centres in Asia) conference on "the EU and East Asia within an Evolving Global Order: Ideas, Actors and Processes" in November 2008 in Brussels. The conference was the culmination of three years of research activity involving workshops and conferences bringing together scholars from both regions primarily to discuss relations between Europe and Asia, perceptions of Europe in Asia, and the relationship between the European regional project and emerging regional forms in Asia. But although this was the last of the three major conferences organised by the consortium, it in many ways represented a starting point rather than the end; an opportunity to reflect on the conclusions of the first phase of collaboration and point towards new and continuing research agendas for the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
116198
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
After the terror attacks of 11 September 2001, the European Union (EU) staked its claim as an important international player in the fight against global terrorism. The EU encouraged new initiatives at the United Nations and devoted newfound attention to aid and assistance programs to third states. The EU's ambitions and heightened activity prompts a number of questions about rhetoric versus action and offers a useful test case for assessing the quality of the EU's 'actorness'. This article applies the actorness concept to shed light on the EU's behaviour in global counter-terrorism activities. It draws together existing insights on actorness into an analytical framework containing four sets of variables - context, coherence, capability and consistency - and applies the framework to evidence gathered on the EU's international and third country role in countering terrorism. Our results show that the actorness approach sheds considerable light on the EU's international behaviour in global counter-terrorism and suggests the EU has some way to go before becoming a full actor in this area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
127017
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The goal of this Special Issue is to improve our conceptualisation and empirical understanding of EU actorness and effectiveness in International Relations. While the European Union aspires to play a greater global role, its actorness and effectiveness cannot be taken for granted given the nature of the EU as a multi-level and semi-supranational polity encompassing 28 Member States with diverse foreign policy preferences. The EU is presently at an important crossroad. On the one hand, its external policy stature and capacity have been boosted by institutional innovations and by the Union's increased involvement in the full spectrum of international issues. On the other hand, a number of factors cast doubt on the EU's real external policy actorness and effectiveness: slow and often only modest internal reforms, an increasing politicisation of formally 'low politics' issues, the prolonged sovereign debt crisis in the Eurozone, and a less favourable external environment, with the US shifting its focus to the Asia-Pacific region and emerging powers creating a more polycentric world order. In view of these changes and subsequent developments in the scholarly literature, our aim is to re-evaluate earlier conceptions of EU actorness. Central to this re-evaluation will be a shift in focus from notions of actorness to effectiveness. This introductory article will unpack and further elaborate the issues raised in this abstract by delineating the EU as an international actor in the empirical context, by reviewing the existing conceptual literature, defining and conceptualizing key notions and by providing an overview of the contributions to this Special Issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
085463
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article aims to analyse the EU's evolving involvement in the management and resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By using the framework of EU 'actorness', it argues that the EU has had the 'opportunity, presence and capabilities' to be an actor in the conflict. Developments in the international and EU contexts, as well as in the conflict itself, both allowed, and at times forced the EU to be more active. As a result the EU has become a more important actor in the conflict space. Yet this occurred at the expense of the EU's decreasing distinctiveness as an actor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
127049
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article analyses the extent of European Union (EU) actorness and effectiveness at the 15th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009. Although the EU has been characterised as a leader in international climate policy-making for some time, the COP 15 meeting in Copenhagen has overall brought about disappointing outcomes for the Union. This casts doubts on EU actorness and effectiveness in this field. We take the article by Jupille and Caporaso as a conceptual point of departure and then specify a more parsimonious actorness framework that consists of coherence and autonomy. Effectiveness is conceptualised as the result of actorness conditioned by the 'opportunity structure', that is, the external context that enables or constrains EU actions. We hold that EU actorness was only moderate, especially given somewhat limited coherence. In terms of the opportunity structure, we argue that the strong involvement of other important actors with rather different positions adversely impacted on EU effectiveness, along with a high degree of politicisation that constrained the European Union's ability to negotiate effectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
160088
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea without the consent of Ukraine was a rare case of a state taking territory from a state with whom it previously enjoyed friendly relations. The paper seeks to explain the causes and consequences of this annexation by examining theories of democratic peace, constructivism and irredentism. In 1971, political scientist Myron Weiner published an article “The Macedonian Syndrome” in the journal World Politics (vol. 23, no. 4, 665–683). In particular, the paper examines the applicability of Weiner’s theses to Russia’s 2014 attempt to annex Crimea from Ukraine. While Weiner’s theory helps to explain Russia’s moves, his theory can be updated to consider the consequences of those moves. Russia attempted to justify its annexation by transposing the concept of friendship from Ukraine itself to a piece of its territory – Crimea. This transposition rested on a false dichotomy between Ukraine and Crimea, and Russia’s failure to live up to its international commitments to respect Ukrainian borders brought swift consequences in the form of Western sanctions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
164650
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the European Union (EU) has spent considerable time and energy on defining and refining its comprehensive approach to external conflicts. The knock-on effects of new and protracted crises, from the war in Ukraine to the multi-faceted armed conflicts in the Sahel and the wider Middle East, have made the improvement of external crisis-response capacities a top priority. But has the EU managed to plug the capability–expectations gap, and develop an effective, comprehensive and conflict sensitive crisis-response capability? Drawing on institutional theory and an approach developed by March and Olsen, this article analyses whether the EU has the administrative capacities needed in order to be an effective actor in this area and implement a policy in line with the established goals and objectives identified in its comprehensive approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
122308
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Starting with the assumption that the European Union has increasingly tended to present its major space achievements as a substantial contribution to a larger and more ambitious project of construction and legitimization of a political actor (common foreign and security policy/European security and defense policy), this study deals with the EU's international actorness regarding global space governance. Different criteria (authority, autonomy, and coherence) have been selected in order to measure the level of international actorness in a given sector. This original grid of analysis has been systematically tested on the EU in order to conclude if the EU is an actor in the space field or if it is simply present in the field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|