Suchergebnisse

This article looks at Russian foreign policy from the perspective of the individuals responsible for decision making. The focus on the individual level of analysis aims to shed light on the evolving dynamics of Russian foreign policymaking and complement existing analysis on the role of ideas, world views and influential groups in foreign policy analysis, with insights from neo-classical realism and constructivism. Whereas the former sees the state as the transmission belt between international power distributions and political action, the latter underlines the roles of ideas and norms to explain agency. In this context, the article is well placed to deal with the evolving relationship between leaders' views and situational constraints, including other actors involved in setting foreign policy priorities and the external environment. How are decisions taken in the context of Russia's foreign policy under President Putin and Medvedev? What is the role of the presidents from both a legal (constitutional) and a practical perspective? The article maps Russian political leaders' decisions, under Putin and Medvedev, using two case studies: Putin's decision to support the US-led post-9/11 war on terror and Medvedev's decision to go to war with Georgia in 2008. Adapted from the source document.

This article looks at the interdependences between the democratisation processes in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh and the management of the Karabakh conflict, focussing on the EU's democracy promotion policies. The article argues that the EU's normative foreign policy in the South Caucasus has been limited by the permanence of the protracted conflicts, in two interrelated ways. First, by not addressing the conflicts the EU focused on long-term goals but failed to provide short-term incentives towards peace. Second, by allowing only a limited involvement in the protracted conflicts, especially inside Karabakh, the EU was perceived as a reluctant partner, undermining its normative credentials. [Copyright The Regents of the University of California; published by Elsevier Ltd.]

The author notes that to speak of democracy in the countries of Central Asia would seem to be a futile effort. The republics that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union are known for their authoritarian, repressive, & centralized regimes. Following a review of the history & sociopolitical context of the Central Asian countries, the author describes being in Bishkek in Jan 2010, when Kyrgyzstan was between revolutions & popular revolts, & discusses the country's internal dynamics as well as foreign relations with the US, Russia, & other Western nations. While a ray of hope was apparent at that time -- with the establishment of a new legitimate government & a new social contract -- it was soon extinguished. Once again, the future of Kyrgyzstan, like that of the other Central Asian countries, appears unlikely to change anytime soon. S. Stanton

The paper deals with EU policies towards its eastern periphery, focusing on the Western Balkans and South Caucasus. Departing from a comparative approach, the paper argues that the establishment of a regional normative order, with clear goals of stabilization through variable geometry integration, has found clear limits. The paper flashes out these dynamics and establishes important lessons to be learned from the European approach to the Balkans and the Caucasus. Adapted from the source document.