Suchergebnisse

Раздел "Международные отношения и внешняя политика" ; В 2006–2014 гг. происходил активный процесс формирования и реализации энергетической политики Европейского союза. Страны – члены ЕС предпринимали шаги по созданию единого энергетического рынка, внедряли энергоэффективные технологии и развивали возобновляемую энергетику. В то же время объединение налаживало двустороннее и многостороннее сотрудничество в энергетической сфере на международной арене. В статье на основе новых документов и статистических данных проанализированы ключевые направления внешней энергетической политики Европейского союза в 2006–2014 гг. Рассмотрены зависимость участников Евросоюза от внешних поставщиков энергоносителей, характер взаимоотношений ЕС с потребителями энергоресурсов, а также проблемы взаимодействия с транзитными государствами. = An intense process of formation and implementation of the EU energy policy took place in 2006–2014. The Member States undertook steps to create a single energy market, introduced energy efficiency technologies and developed renewable energy. Meanwhile, the Union made efforts to establish bilateral and multilateral cooperation in the energy sphere on the international arena. Based on new documents and statistical data, this article investigates into the key directions in the external energy policy of the European Union in 2006–2014. The author analyzes the dependence of the EU members on external energy suppliers, the nature of the relations between the EU and main energy consumers as well as the challenges of cooperation with transit states.

This article maps out the state of affairs of the academic literature which uses procedural spatial voting models to explain legislative decision-making in the European Union. Employing Tsebelis's (1994) article in which the author models the Union's co-operation procedure and using it as a reference point, I show that there is no clarity yet as to which of the several existing procedural model specifications yields the most convincing results. I conclude by suggesting how the current situation could be improved, and that procedural modelling might be integrated with other rational choice theory for a better understanding of the ongoing evolution of the policymaking instruments in the European Union.

The European Union (EU) is often hailed as one of the most successful peace projects in the history of humankind. Indeed, since its inception more than 70 years ago, the EU has made unparalleled contributions to the advancement of peace and reconciliation on the European continent. Despite these successes, the EU integration process faces increasing challenges, including the unprecedented departure of one of its members. Further, one of the greatest tests to European cohesion has proved to be the refugee and migrant crisis, which has revealed fault lines over not only migration but also broader issues of identity, norms, and values. In the wake of this crisis, the Visegrad Group— comprised of Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic—presented viewpoints that deviated from those held by most Western European states and EU institutions, thus prompting debates about the emergence of a new East–West divide within Europe. Intrigued by whether the notion of solidarity has a different meaning for those who were present at the birth of the EU as opposed to those who joined more than half a century later, this study strives to uncover the Visegrad countries' understanding of and approach to European solidarity. Making the case that states' behavior is a result of varying national characteristics deeply rooted within their national identities, it develops an analytical framework for investigating the nexus between identity and solidarity. Applying this framework to the Visegrad states' responses to the refugee and migrant crisis and their positions and preferences regarding further enlargement of the EU yields three pivotal conclusions. First, the Visegrad states' identification with the European project as well as their interpretation of the EU's norms and values, such as that of solidarity, are contingent upon their respective national identities and historical experiences. Second, the particular composition and interaction of identity elements activated in political discourse can explain varying solidarity profiles among different states as well as possible variances in a single state's behavior across multiple policy areas. And third, the Visegrad states share a great number of similar identity elements, yet often differ in their manifestation or degree of expression. By taking a more nuanced look at the Visegrad cooperation, this study challenges the widespread impression of the Visegrad Group as a homogeneous bloc. The findings make clear that even the same identity element with a slightly different manifestation can lead to different decisions. At the same time, geographical proximity, cultural similarities, and shared historical experience function as a "magnet" that draws the Visegrad states closer together, unites them in their policy preferences, and ensures the continuation of the Visegrad cooperation. In sum, the present study advances the understanding of the process of European integration and the Visegrad Group's multifaceted role in it.

AbstractFunctional, transaction‐cost approaches to international institutions depict them as passive fora for bargaining among states with autonomously derived preferences. This article probes the limits of the functional, intergovernmental account of the European Union. It suggests that EU institutions can affect political behaviour and outcomes in at least three broad ways: (1) by becoming autonomous political actors; (2) by creating options for domestic actors in their choice of allies and arenas (creating 'multi‐level politics'); and (3) by inducing changes in domestic policies and institutions. The article provides instances of each effect in the European Union. It concludes that, in order to understand how the European Union works as well as how it has evolved, analysis must move beyond the limits of the functional, intergovernmentalist approach.