INTERREGIONALISM TRENDS AND ANALYSIS OF EUROPEAN UNION AS A GLOBAL ACTOR

Year 2018, Volume: 1 Issue: 2, 61 - 108, 27.11.2018

Caner Övsan Çakaş

https://doi.org/10.38004/sobad.482650

Abstract

The European Union is the most integrated regional block in the World which presents an ideal example for the other regions. The regional integration of the EU not only includes economical components but also political, cultural and identical components which have a vital role on the way of EU’s identity and interests’ formations. In this article it has aimed to answer a research question namely, “Why the EU has to pursue pure interregionalism in its foreign and trade policies and what extent could EU pursue pure interregionalism?” The possible answer of this question will be elaborated in the fields of identical considerations of the EU as a social, political and cultural entity or actor in the international society and economical considerations which stresses the decreasing competitiveness of the European market compared to its counterparts. The EU may be assessed as the initial example of the actor of the post-modern or post-Westphalian multilateral framework which stresses the decentralization of governance and inclusion of the many actors such as multinational corporations, international organizations, sub-national institutions and NGO’s in the multilateral decision-making process. Consequently, the EU may find its identity and interests in a post-modern conception of the state and it has to impose this regional identity of formation process to other parts of the globe to legitimize its existence not only around the world, but also on its own demos. On the other hand, EU has to impose its core standards such as labor and environment standards to other counterpart regions for continuing its welfare system without decreasing its competitiveness. As a result, The EU could achieve this strategy more efficiently in an international relations practice which mostly lean on pure interregionalism. Because it is easier to perceive three or four regional blocks rather than hundreds of states

Keywords

Interregionalism, World Politics, International System, European Union, Pure Interregionalism

BÖLGELER ARASICILIK AKIMLARI VE AB’NİN KÜRESEL BİR AKTÖR OLARAK ANALİZİ

Abstract

Avrupa Birliği, dünyanın diğer bölgeleri için ideal bir örnek teşkil eden en fazla bütünleşmiş bölgesel blok olarak değerlendirilebilir. Zira AB'nin bölgesel entegrasyonu sadece ekonomik alanı değil, aynı zamanda kültürel ve siyasi alanları da kapsayan bir yapıya sahiptir. Bu çalışmada, AB'nin neden kendi dış politikaları ve ticaret politikalarında salt bölgelerarası bakış açısına sahip bir politikayı takip etmesi gerektiği ve söz konusu bölgeler arası politikayı ne ölçüde izleyebildiği hususunun aydınlatılması amaçlamıştır. Bu hususun analiz edilebilmesi amacıyla da AB'nin sosyal, politik ve kültürel bir aktör olarak kendisine bakış açısı ve Avrupa ekonomisinin rakiplerine kıyasla azalan rekabet gücünü vurgulayan ekonomik faktörler ele alınmıştır. AB, yönetim mekanizmasına çokuluslu şirketler, uluslararası örgütler, ulusal kurumlar ve STK'lar gibi pek çok aktörün dahil edilmesini benimseyen ve çok taraflı karar verme sürecini uygulayan post modern tarzı devlet şeklinin ilk örneği olarak değerlendirilebilir. Dolayısıyla AB’nin bu yönetişim mekanizmasını küresel çapta diğer bölgelere de ithal etmesi gerek kendi kimliğini kendi vatandaşları gözünde sağlamlaştırması gerekse kendi ekonomisinin rekabet gücünü arttırması açısından çok büyük bir önem arz etmektedir. Bu çalışmada AB’nin bu amacını gerçekleştirebilmesi için uluslararası alanda “salt bölgeselcilik” adı verilen ve uluslararası sisteminin çok sayıda ulus devletten ziyade bölgesel birlikler olarak organize edilmesini savunan bir politikayı benimsemesi gerektiği sonucuna varılmıştır. 

Keywords

Bölgelerarasıcılık, Uluslararası Sistem, Avrupa Birliği, Dünya Politikası, Salt Bölgelerarasıcılık

References

• Acharya, A. (2010). Regional Worlds in Post-Hegemonic Era. New York: Cornell University Press.
• African Union (2015). “Official Text”, http://pa.au.int/en/content/expert%E2%80%99s-review-african-transitional-justice-framework-lome-togo-5-august-2012 (18.09.2018)
• African Union (2000). “The Costitutive Act of African Union”, http://www.au.int/en/sites/default/files/ConstitutiveAct_EN.pdf (18.09.2018)
• Aggarwal V.K and Fogarty E.A. (2004). EU Trade Strategies : Between Regionalism and Globalism. Palgrave: Macmillian Press.
• Althusser, L. (1965). Ideological State Apparatus. Paris: Sourbonne Press.
• Amnesty International (2015).The Violation of Human Rights in Countries https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/(20.09.2018)
• Balkır, C. (2007). Avrupa-Akdeniz Ortaklığı: Mare Nostrum’dan Birarada Yaşamaya. C. Balkır (Ed.) Avrupa-Akdeniz Ortaklığı: Mare Nostrum’dan Birarada Yaşamaya: 129-153. İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Yayınları.
• Barry, P. (1995). Begining Theory: An Introduction to Critical Theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
• Beck, U. (1985). Risk Society: Towards the Another Modernity. New York: Ithakı Press.
• Bull, H. (2009). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Macmillian Press.
• Collier, P. and Reinika, R. (2001). Reconstruction and Liberalization: An overview of World Production. Regional and Sectorial Studies Review, 43(3): 45-80.
• Coulter, J. (2002). Remarks on the Conceptualization of Social Structure. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 112(3): 87-102.
• Delanty, G. (1997). Inventing Europe, Idea, Identity and Reality. London: Macmilian Publishing.
• Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (2009). Anti-Odipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenie. Paris: BS Press.
• Dietz, T. (2001). Europe as a Discursive Battleground : Discursive Analysis and European Integration Studies. T. Dietz (Ed.) Cooperation and Confilict: 76-101. New Delhi: SAGE Publishing.
• Dinan, D. (2001). Fifty Years of European Integration : A Remarkable Achievement. Fordham International Law Journal, 31 (5): 1134-1201.
• Dolar, D. (2005). Globalization, Poverty and Inequality. M.Weinstein (Ed.) Globalization : What’s New? : 187-229. New York: Pluto Press.
• Doulas, I.A. (2005). Trade and Globalization. M.Weinstein (Ed.) Globalization : What’s New? :230-283. New York: Pluto Press.
• Doyle, M. W. (2008). Liberalism and Foreign Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Doyle, M. W. (1997). Ways of War and Peace. New York: W.W.Norton Books.
• Dunne, T. (2001).The International Society and English School Framework. Theories of International Theories, 56(22): 145-201.
• Edwards, G. and Regelsberger, E. (1990). Europe’s Global Links : The European Community and Interregional Cooperation. London: Pinter Publisher.
• Emerson, M. and Boubekeur, A. (2007). Political Islam and European Foreign Policy: Perspectives From Muslim Democrats of Mediterranean. Bonn: Centre for European Policy Studies Publisher.
• Emerson, M. and Youngs, R. (2007). European Islam: Challenges for Society and Public Policy. Bonn: Centre for European Policy Studies Publisher.
• Esping, A. (1999). Three Worlds of Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• European Commission (2012). European 2020 Strategy. http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf(19.09.2018)
• European Commission (2010). Official Text of Cotonou Agreement.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:22000A1215(01) (20.09.2018)Fergusson, I. (2008). World Trade Organization Negotiations: Doha Development Agenda. The Economist, 222 (4): 23-33.
• Freedom House (2015).The Statistic on the Freedom of the World. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2015#.Vk7XVmfotdg(20.09.2018)
• Fryer, J. (1999). The New Lomé Convention: Marriage on the Rocks but No Separation. International Development Review, 21(1): 23-45.
• Giddens, A. (1997). Beyond the Left and Right : Future of the Radical Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gruhn, V. I.(1989). The Lomé Convention: Inching Toward Interdependence. International Organization, 130(1): 73-89.
• Harvey, D. (1990). The Condition of Post Modernity : An Equiry Into The Origions of Cultural Changes. Cambridge: Blakwell Press.
• Homans, G. (1987). Rational Choice Theory and Behavioral Psychology. International Organizations, 41(1): 34-55.
• Ikrenberry, J.G. (1997). Liberal Internationalism 3.0: America and Dilemmas of World Order. Perspective on Politics, 7(1): 90-145.
• Joseph, D. (2015). AU Suspends Burkina Faso Over Coup.Voice of America, 12(2): 3-7.
• Kant, I. (1995). Perpetual Peace and Political Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Keohane, R. (1989). International Institutıons: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32(1): 344-401.
• Keohane, R. (1987). Multilateralism: An Agenda for Research. International Journal, 45(1): 17-78.
• Kraser, S. (1983). Regimes and Limits of Realism in International Regimes. New York: Cornell University Press.
• Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards the Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso Publishing.
• Langendijk, J. and Wiersma, J.M. (2008). Travels Among Europe’s Muslim Neighbours. Amsterdam: Litros Press.
• Langenhove, L. V. (2010). The EU As A Global Actor In A Multipolar World And Multilateral 2.0 Enviroment. Egmont Royal Instıtue for International Relations, 36(1): 22-45.
• Levin, D.M. (1987). The Opening of Vision: Nihilism and The Postmodern Situation. New York: New York University Press.
• McKinsey Institution (2014).Can Productivity Save the Growth in Aging Population ? http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/growth/can_long-term_global_growth_be_saved (19.09.2018)
• Mercosur (2010).What is Mercosur?. http://www.as-coa.org/articles/explainer-what-mercosur-0?gclid=CL3kg9vOmckCFeTFcgodZm0AfQ(18.09.2018)
• Piketty, T. (2014). Le Capital Au XXI Sıence. Paris: Edition du Seolil.
• Ravenhill, J. (1984). What Is to Be Done for the Third World Commodity Exporters? An Evaluation of the STABEX Scheme. International Organization, 38(1): 25-33.
• Ruggie, J.G. (1993). Multilateral Matters : The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form. New York: Colombia University Press.
• Rüland, J. (2002). Inter and Transregionalism : Remarks on the State of Art of New Research Agenda. National Europe Center Paper, 25(1): 12-43.
• Sharma, D. S. (2008). The many Faces of Globalizations : A Survey of Recent Literature. New Global Studies, 2(2): 21-42.
• Shore, C. (2000). In Uno Plures: EU Cultural Policy and Governance of Europe. The University of California Cultural Analysis Journal, 5 (1): 34-58.
• Soderbaum, F. and Langenhove, L. (2003). Intruduction: The EU as a Global Actor and Role of Interregionalis. European Integration, 27(3): 250-277.
• Stryker, S. (1992). The Vitalization of Interactionism. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(1): 6-18.
• Şemşit, S. (2007). Sosyal, Kültürel ve İnsani Boyut: Avrupa-Akdeniz Ortaklığının En Zayıf Halkası. C. Balkır (Ed.) Avrupa-Akdeniz Ortaklığı: Mare Nostrum’dan Birarada Yaşamaya: 129-153. İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Yayınları.
• Telo, M. (2005). Globalization, New Regionalism and Role of European Union. Foreign Affairs, 78(2): 43-67.
• United Nation Economic and Social Affirs Department (2015). Enviromental Expenditures Per Countries, http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/IWG%20calendar.htm(19.09.2018 )
• Wahl, A. (2011). The Rise and Fall of the Welfare State in Europe. London: Pluto Press.
• Waltz, K. (1978). One State, One Man, One Policy : Balance of Power Strategy in International Relations. Foreign Affairs, 34(3): 89-112.
• Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy : What is States Make of It. The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organizations, 46 (2): 364-415.
• World Economic Forum (2014). Competitiveness Report of World Economic Forum 2014.http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-competitiveness-report-2013-2014(19.11.2015)
• World Intellectual Property Organization (2015). Global Innovation Index Report of World Intellectual Property Organization.https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/userfiles/file/reportpdf/gii-full-report-2015-v6.pdf (19.09.2018)
• Woolcock, S. (2010). The Treaty of Lisbon and the European Union as an Actor in International Trade. ECIPE Working Paper, 1(1): 11-23.
• Woolcock, S. (2013). Comparing the International Trade Policies : the EU, United States, EFTA and Japanese PTA Strategies. European Parliament's Committee on International Trade Journal, 22(2): 23-44.
• Zielonka, J. (2008). Europe as a Global Actor: Empire by Exaple. International Affairs, 84(3) 112-146.