The European Union and Democracy Promotion in the Mediterranean: Strategic Choices after the Arab Spring

Author(s):  
Vera van Hüllen
Author(s):  
V. A. Latkina

The article discusses the policy of the European Union aimed at the export of its democratic values, acquis communautaire and governance models to the neighbour countries in the Southern Mediterranean. The process of Europeanization reflects a particular case of global megatrend -democratization which in its turn positioned as democracy promotion through soft power instruments. From the EU point of view the goal of the Barcelona process launched in 1995 was to construct Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and common identity in order to promote democratic transitions in Southern Mediterranean. While the EU Foreign Policy in the Mediterranean region was historically conditioned by the security interests of the European Union, it suffered from securitization/democratization dilemma. The article analyses the process of external Europeanization in the Southern Mediterranean as a regional dimension of global democratization process in the context of Union for the Mediterranean development before and after the Arab Spring and new approach in the framework of the ENP Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity with the Southern Mediterranean. The article proposes that the lack of political strategic vision in the EU toward the Arab democratic transition during 2011-2013 narrows its role as a transformative democratic power, hinders Europeanization/ democratization process in the macro-region of North Africa and Middle East and presents the EU with a new dilemma - to continue its traditional democratization policy or to shift towards a more pragmatic approach to cooperating with new Arab regimes.


2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (01) ◽  
pp. 117-122
Author(s):  
Mieczysław P. Boduszyński

Nearly nine years after a Tunisian street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi set himself ablaze in provincial Tunisia, a sense that the aspirations of the Arab Spring were always doomed to fail has set in among pundits and policymakers. The United States, and to a large extent the European Union, have all but given up on any pretense of democracy promotion in the region and have instead turned again to well-trodden policy repertoires emphasizing a realpolitik approach.


2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-138
Author(s):  
Marwa Fikry Abdel Samei

This article discusses the public diplomacy of the European Union (eu) towards the Arab Spring by focusing on the case of Egypt. It argues that despite its clear efforts, the eu’s response to the Arab Spring was a missed opportunity to establish Europe’s normative power. The eu has simply maintained its pre-Arab Spring policies. By analysing and comparing the content of the Facebook pages of both the eu delegation to Egypt and the European External Action Service (eeas) during the period from 14 October 2012 until 16 August 2013, the article demonstrates the differences between the messages and image presentations that were promoted in each page. Comparing these public diplomacy messages with specific eu policies reveals the gap between the words and deeds. The article explains this gap with reference to the discrepancy between Europe’s perception of the region, which results in certain policies, and its internal identity-building considerations.


2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 287-317
Author(s):  
Maria Rosaria Mauro

On 15 December 2016 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights adopted the judgment in Khlaifia and Others v. Italy. The case was referred to the Grand Chamber by Italy following the judgment released by the Second Section of the Court on 1 September 2015. The case concerns the detention and the ensuing repatriation to Tunisia of three irregular immigrants who arrived in Italy in 2011 during the “Arab Spring”. The judgment of the Grand Chamber confirms the Chamber’s judgment in relation to some important aspects, finding a violation of Article 5, paragraphs (1)(2) and (4), and of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3, and recognising no violation of Article 3 as to the conditions in which the applicants were held on the ships Vincent and Audace in the harbour of Palermo. On the contrary, the Grand Chamber distances itself from the Chamber’s assessment concerning the respect of Article 3 in relation to the conditions in which the applicants were held in the Centro di soccorso e prima accoglienza (Centre for Rescue and Initial Reception) on Lampedusa, of Article 4 Protocol No. 4 and of Article 13 ECHR taken together with Article 4 Protocol No. 4 ECHR, as the majority in the Chamber found the violation of these articles. This note analyses the differences between the two judgments, emphasising possible implications for the protection of the rights of migrants in Europe. In this context, the European Union “hotspot approach” and the Italian “Decreto Minniti” are also considered.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document