Political and Legal Perspectives of the EU Eastern Partnership Policy

278 Pages·2016·3.623 MB·English

by  Tanel Kerikmäe, Archil Chochia (eds.)

Tanel Kerikmäe · Archil Chochia Editors
Political and Legal
Perspectives of
the EU Eastern
Partnership Policy
Political and Legal Perspectives of the EU Eastern
Partnership Policy
ThiSisaFMBlankPage
Tanel Kerikma¨e (cid:129) Archil Chochia
Editors
Political and Legal
Perspectives of the EU
Eastern Partnership Policy
Editors
TanelKerikma¨e ArchilChochia
TallinnLawSchool TallinnLawSchool
TallinnUniversityofTechnology TallinnUniversityofTechnology
Tallinn,Estonia Tallinn,Estonia
ISBN978-3-319-27381-5 ISBN978-3-319-27383-9 (eBook)
DOI10.1007/978-3-319-27383-9
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2016930826
SpringerChamHeidelbergNewYorkDordrechtLondon
©SpringerInternationalPublishingSwitzerland2016
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartof
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexempt
fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthis
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
hereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.
Printedonacid-freepaper
Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland is part of Springer Science+Business Media
(www.springer.com)
Preface
Year 2015,sixyearsafterlaunchingtheEU’sEasternPartnership(EaP) policyin
2009,canbecharacterisedasyetanothercrucialyearintheimplementationofthat
policy.
InMay2015,theRigaEasternPartnershipSummit—EaPSurvivalSummit,asit
was also sometimes called—took place, which was to take stock of the EaP
initiative in the context of tremendously changed post-2013 security political
environment. Also, a broader European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) review was
launchedinMarch2015.AstheHighRepresentativeoftheEuropeanUnionforthe
ForeignAffairsandSecurityPolicyFedericaMogheriniunderlinedwhileintroduc-
ingtheENPreview:TheEUhasavitalinterestinbuildingstrongpartnershipswith
itsneighbours.Recentdevelopmentsintheregionhaveincreasedthechallengeswe
allface:fromeconomicpressurestoirregularmigrationandsecuritythreats.We
needastrongpolicytobeabletotackletheseissues.Wealsoneedtounderstand
betterthedifferentaspirations,valuesandinterestsofourpartners.Thisiswhatthe
review is about if we are to have a robust political relationship between our
neighboursandus.
Reaching these objectives is without any doubt a very difficult task. And there
aremanyreasonstobelievethattheoutcomeofthereviewwillbe,toalargeextent,
influencedbythecrisisinUkraineanddeterioratingsituationintheSouth.Before
2013, the entire ENP policy was very much based on the philosophy of enlarge-
ment, which used the assumption of EU’s irresistibility and attractiveness. Along
withchangedenvironment,thelatterhasbeenpushedbackbythenewconcernsfor
securityandstabilityintheneighbourhood.Basedonthoseconsiderations,funda-
mental questions have been asked in the ENP review document about the further
levelandinstrumentsofcooperation.
The main question deriving for the EaP within the context of ENP review
ishowtomakethepolicytrulyefficientinthecontextofincreasingdifferentiation
between the Eastern Partners. Here also the questions about keeping the balance
between values and interests become relevant: how to avoid the lowering of the
level of ambitions of the policy, how to live up to the principle of conditionality
v
vi Preface
(socalledmore-for-moreprinciple)underthecircumstanceswherethe28Member
States are unlikely to find compromise on the membership perspective and
how, without giving up on EU interests, to develop meaningful relationships
with those that do not want to have a closer integration with the EU. After all,
EaP is first and foremost a framework for developing bilateral relations with
six respective countries—Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Belarus. And accordingly, the EU’s EaP initiative should also be looked at rather
as a tool, not as an ultimate goal. The main aim is the well-being, stability
anddemocratisationofEaPcountriesandtherebymakingtheneighbouringregion
moreprosperousandstable.
There is a growing differentiation between EaP countries regarding their
ambitions for their relations with the EU. There are the three countries that
have stated their wish to become members of the EU and the other three, which
formanyreasons have chosenverydifferentpaths.Thelitmus testintheforesee-
able future for those countries that have concluded the association agreements
will be the actual and efficient implementation of those agreements, i.e. the
actual achievements by the EaP countries themselves in reforming their societies
and economies. Even though the main burden here lies with the partner countries
themselves, this will also be the yardstick by which the EaP policy and EU’s
commitmentwillbemeasured.
Let us hope that the ENP review will provide us with some additional, more
flexible tools that would help reach those aims. The ongoing review process and
different discussion platforms tackling the challenges related to the reshaping
of the policy are of utmost importance. The current publication, launched by
Estonian scholars, which is a compilation of articles by well-known international
authors who examine the political and legal perspectives of the EU EaP policy,
isavaluablecontributiontothisend.
Tallinn,Estonia MargeMardisalu-Kahar
Contents
DimensionsandImplicationsofEasternPartnershipPolicy:
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
TanelKerikma¨e
TheEasternPartnershipProgramme:IsPragmaticRegional
FunctionalismWorkingforaContemporaryPoliticalEmpire?. . . . . . . 7
VladVernygora,DavidRamiroTroiti~no,andSigridVa¨stra
TowardsaNewEuropeanNeighbourhoodPolicy(ENP):
WhatBenefitsoftheDeepandComprehensiveFreeTrade
Agreements(DCFTAs)forSharedProsperityandSecurity?. . . . . . . . . 23
TatjanaMuravskaandAlexandreBerlin
InformationSocietyGoesEast:ICTPolicyintheEU’sEastern
PartnershipCooperationFramework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
OlgaBaturaandTatjanaEvas
DemocratisatingtheEasternPartnershipintheDigitalAge:
ChallengesandOpportunitiesofPoliticalAssociationBeyond
theLanguageofOfficialTexts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
YuriMisnikov
ExportingGoodGovernanceViae-Governance:Estonian
e-GovernanceSupporttoEasternPartnershipCountries. . . . . . . . . . . 81
KatrinNyman-MetcalfandTarasRepytskyi
EasternPartnershipandFamilyLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
KristiJoamets
MappingtheMigrationIssues:EaPPolicyasaToolforRegulation. . . 119
LehteRoots
vii
viii Contents
TheEuropeanUnionandProtectionofEnvironmentinEastern
PartnershipCountries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
HamedAlavi
ImplementationofAssociationAgreementsBetweenthe
EUandUkraine,MoldovaandGeorgia:Legaland
ConstitutionalChallenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 153
RomanPetrov
TheUkrainianCrisisasaChallengefortheEasternPartnership. . . . . 167
EvhenTsybulenkoandSergeyPakhomenko
EuropeanisationofPrivateLawinUkraine:Comparisons
intheFieldofLawofObligations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
ThomasHoffmann
ChangeofPowerandItsInfluenceonCountry’sEuropeanization
Process.CaseStudy:Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
ArchilChochiaandJohannaPopjanevski
Georgia’sRightto‘EuropeanDream’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
DaliGabelaia
EuropeanSelf-RegulationsMechanism:TheCaseStudyforGeorgia. . . 227
MamukaAndguladze
EuropeonRomanian-SpeakingTVintheRepublicofMoldova. . . . . . 247
OnoriuCola˘cel
Baltic–RussianInnovationCooperationintheContextofEUEastern
Partnership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
EuniceOmololaOlaniyiandGunnarKlausPrause
Dimensions and Implications of Eastern
Partnership Policy: Introduction
TanelKerikma¨e
An official definition for the core theme of the given book has been given by the
EuropeanUnionExternalAction:
The Eastern Partnership (EaP) is a joint initiative of the EU and its Eastern European
partners:Armenia,Azerbaijan,Belarus,Georgia,theRepublicofMoldovaandUkraine.
Launchedin2009attheEUPragueSummit,itbringsourEasternEuropeanpartnerscloser
totheEU.TheEasternPartnershipsupportsandencouragesreformsintheEaPcountries
forthebenefitoftheircitizens.1
We have to admit that the posed objectives and aims of the EaP are not in
compliance with the actuality. The success stories are clouded by frustration,
mismanagement,failures,unexpectedobstacles,blameputoneachother.Although
the whole European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is currently in repairs, the
achievement of intentions requires lots of resources and political will from both
sides.Thisvolumeisbasedoncurrentlessonslearnedand,thereforenotdedicated
tocountry-specificstudiesofBelarus,AzerbaijanorArmenia,as,inthecontextof
theEaP,thereisnotmuchtocelebrate.Thisfactispresentedbyseveral scholars,
e.g. by Pawel Dariusz Wis´newski from Carnegie Centre.2 Critical view is also
presentedbyAdamHugfromtheUK-basedForeignPolicyCentre,whoclaimsthat
“the EaP was transformed by events from a broadly technocratic exercise into a
geopoliticalfaultlinebetweenEurope(andthewiderWest)andRussia”.3Surely,
the “Russian factor” cannot be ignored when delving into the analysis of EaP
strategies. Fierce critical comments by Moscow are further supported by inter-
national independent and “independent” experts. For example, Dr Heinrich
1http://eeas.europa.eu/eastern/index_en.htm.
2Wis´newski(2013).
3Hug(2015).
T.Kerikma¨e(*)
TallinnUniversityofTechnology,TallinnLawSchool,Tallinn,Estonia
e-mail:[email protected]
©SpringerInternationalPublishingSwitzerland2016 1
T.Kerikma¨e,A.Chochia(eds.),PoliticalandLegalPerspectivesoftheEUEastern
PartnershipPolicy,DOI10.1007/978-3-319-27383-9_1