scholarly journals Was ist wirklich dran an der deutschen Führungsrolle in der EU?

2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (182) ◽  
pp. 145-151
Author(s):  
Peter Wahl

There was a common sense among the mainstream of the European Left that Germany has become the hegemon in the EU. The refugee crisis reveals that this narrative was premature. The article clarifies central concepts such as dominance, hegemony and leadership and analyses the German power behind its military, economic, political and soft power potential. It concludes that only on economic terrain Germany is ahead of its main rivals France and UK. But the country does not have a sufficient potential for a hegemon. Hence, the traditional power hierarchy in the EU prevails with the French-German condominium on top, while coalitions of opponents, such as the Visegrad Group, successfully resists any leadership in specific areas.

2020 ◽  
pp. 162-181
Author(s):  
Ireneusz Paweł Karolewski

This chapter focuses on Central and Eastern European (CEE) member states of the EU, and how they positioned themselves in the new constellation of conflicts within the EU in the aftermath of the multiple crisis. It deals mainly with the Visegrad Group (V4) and explores its ‘repositioning’ in regard to two crisis-ridden policy fields of the EU: controversies about the rule of law and the refugee crisis. With regard to the former issue, the chapter discusses Poland as the most prominent case among the CEE countries. Against this background, it highlights two specific aspects of domestic politics: the memory games that the V4 countries play with their past and the Euroscepticism of government circles as well as a broader public.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Koß ◽  
Astrid Séville

Existing research on the evolution of European integration has pitted economic against identity issues. In the economic sphere, governments are arguably able to pursue their preferences more independently. If, however, identity issues become politicized this is supposed to suggest that governments lose their dominant position in integration and gradually become agents of Eurosceptic parties and/or electorates. This article looks at a phenomenon neither the intergovernmentalist nor the postfunctionalist perspective can fully explain: the emergence of the Visegrád Group (V4) as a collective actor in European politics in early 2016. This emergence occurred in the wake of the refugee crisis during which the identity issue of migration was politicized. However, there was no coherent partisan composition uniting V4 governments. Based on a sequence elaboration of all press statements of meetings of the V4 Prime Ministers since their EU-accession in 2004, we show that what at first sight appears to be informed by anti-immigrant and Eurosceptic sentiments may in fact display a more ambivalent position towards regional integration. The post-refugee crisis V4 appears as a case of politicized transnationalism—that is, cooperation to achieve transnational interests under the condition of politicization. This transnational interest not only comprised opposition to a relocation of migrants, but also the maintenance of a core transnational freedom within the EU, namely free movement under the Schengen acquis. We conclude that, under the condition of increasing politicization, identity issues help to forge government alliances of governments pursuing economic preferences.


2017 ◽  
pp. 82-107
Author(s):  
Michał Skorzycki

The article comprises the overview of the essential legal, administrative and financial means that the EU has at its disposal in case of rapid influx of immigrants, as well as a selection of major obstacles to the use of these tools, based on observation of the activities of the EU and its member states taken up to deal with the aforementioned situation which took place in 2015. Using the abovementioned observation and an analysis of relevant documents, it is argued that the refugee crisis of 2015 has revealed the necessity of a profound institutionalisation of the European immigration policy as the most effective way to overcome difficulties in response to such situations. The analysis leads also to the conclusion that the EU is caught in a dilemma of either suspending the Dublin system in crisis situations or creating a new system of intensive support for border member states.


Author(s):  
Fatih Resul Kılınç ◽  
Şule Toktaş

This article addresses the international movement of asylum seekers and refugees, particularly Syrian immigrants, and their impact on populism in Turkish politics between 2011 and 2018. The article argues that populist politics/rhetoric directed against Syrians in Turkey remained limited during this period, especially from a comparative perspective. At a time when rising Islamophobia, extreme nationalism, and anti-immigrant sentiments led to rise of right-wing populism in Europe, populist platforms exploiting specifically migrants, asylum seekers, and the Syrians in Turkey failed to achieve a similar effect. The chapter identifies two reasons for this puzzling development even as the outbreak of the Syrian civil war triggered a mass influx of asylum seekers and irregular immigrants into Turkey. First, the article focuses on Turkey’s refugee deal with the EU in response to “Europe’s refugee crisis,” through which Turkey has extracted political and economic leverage. Next, the article sheds light on Turkey’s foreign policy making instruments that evolved around using the refugee situation as an instrument of soft power pursuant to its foreign policy identity. The article concludes with a discussion of the rise of anti-Syrian sentiments by 2019.


2021 ◽  
pp. 001083672198936
Author(s):  
Lene Hansen ◽  
Rebecca Adler-Nissen ◽  
Katrine Emilie Andersen

The European refugee crisis has been communicated visually through images such as those of Alan Kurdi lying dead on the beach, by body bags on the harbor front of Lampedusa, by people walking through Europe and by border guards and fences. This article examines the broader visual environment within which EU policy-making took place from October 2013 to October 2015. It identifies ‘tragedy’ as the key term used by the EU to explain its actions and decisions and points out that discourses of humanitarianism and border control were both in place. The article provides a theoretical account of how humanitarianism and border control might be visualized by news photography. Adopting a multi-method design and analyzing a dataset of more than 1000 photos, the article presents a visual discourse analysis of five generic iconic motifs and a quantitative visual content analysis of shifts and continuity across four moments in time. The article connects these visual analyses to the policies and discourses of the EU holding that the ambiguity of the EU’s discourse was mirrored by the wider visual environment.


Author(s):  
M De Martino

This article aims to analyse the Jean Monnet programme as a soft power instrument of the European Union to achieve its objectives in the international arena. This research, through a quantitative and comparative analysis, explores the tendencies of the Jean Monnet Programme in terms of number of Jean Monnet projects per year in the countries, which have benefitted the most from the programme. From this study, it has emerged that regions neighbouring the European Union have trends very different from other third countries that are also active participants in the Jean Monnet Programme.


Author(s):  
Federica Cristani

AbstractThe present chapter focuses on the role of the Visegrád group (or V4, comprising Slovakia, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic) in international investment law-making. The chapter starts with a brief overview of the V4 group as a sub-regional system in Europe, including its modus operandi and main achievements in the field of economic cooperation. Subsequently, it turns to the regulation of foreign direct investment (FDI), both at the level of each V4 state and at EU level—with particular regard to the implication of the EU’s exclusive competence on FDI. Special attention is paid to the approach of the V4 countries towards the question of termination of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (BITs)—including an overview of the related objections to jurisdiction that the four countries have raised over the years in investor-state arbitrations based on intra-EU BITs—and to the relationship of the V4 group with non-EU countries—especially with (selected) East Asian countries. The main question is whether—and to what extent—the V4 group as a sub-regional system has a role to play in international investment law-making. The chapter highlights the proactive and advocacy role that the V4 group has traditionally played in manifold subject-matters, including the promotion and protection of FDI, and supports the positive “soft power” the V4 may exercise in this respect.


Politeja ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (5(62)) ◽  
pp. 117-140
Author(s):  
David Darchiashvili ◽  
David Bakradze

The article views the geographical area between the EU and Russian borders as a battle space of two, drastically different foreign policy and ideological approaches. The authors argue that in the years since the end of the Cold War, a unique surrogate of former clash of liberal and communist worlds emerged, leading to and underpinning current Hybrid Warfare, underway from Ukraine to Georgia. Its roots lay in the Russian interpretation of the Western attitude towards the East as Neo-colonialist. Relying on the income from its vast energy resources, Russia also tries to develop its version of so called “Soft Power”, used by the West in this region. Though in Russian hands, it is coupled with Moscow’s imperial experiences and resentments, and is becoming a mere element in Hybrid or “non-linear” war. Speaking retrospectively, the Eastern Partnership Initiative of the European Union can be seen as a response to Hybrid threats, posed by Russia against its Western and Southern neighbors. But the question is, whether EU foreign policy initiatives towards this area can and will be efficient and sufficient, if continued to be mostly defensive and limited within Soft Power mechanisms and philosophy, while Russia successfully combines those with traditional Hard Power know-how? The authors argue that in the long run, European or Euro-Atlantic Soft Power tool-kits, spreading Human Rightsbased culture farther in the East, will remain unmatched. But in order to prevail over the Russian revisionist policy here and now, the West, and, particularly, the EU need to re-evaluate traditional foreign policy options and come up with a more drastic combination of Soft/Hard Powers by itself. As the Georgian case shows, the European community should more efficiently use Conditionality and Coercive Diplomacy, combined with clearer messages about partners’ membership perspectives.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document