IS THE EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICY A HEGEMONIC INITIATIVE? CASE OF UKRAINE

Year 2025, Volume: 14 Issue: 27, 80 - 98, 30.06.2025

Elif Özdilek

https://doi.org/10.58635/ufuksbedergi.1679715

Abstract

This research aims to examine the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) until 2010s through a Neo-Gramscian lens, focusing on transnational power dynamics within Europe and uncovering the historically specific connections among economic, political, and civil societal developments, particularly in the context of Ukraine. The study seeks to illustrate how the EU’s hegemonic initiative is constructed and implemented, while also investigating potential redefinitions of this project and questioning its sustainability. It argues that the neo-liberal approach of the European Commission is intended to reshape the region into an area where the unrestricted movement of capital, goods, and services is ensured, yet the free movement of individuals is significantly limited, with no assurances of full membership for its partners. This study examines the potential for the ENP to function as a hegemonic initiative that could create a historic bloc and assesses whether it can sustain itself with the approval of its partners. It emphasizes the dynamics of social power relations and their organization within the frameworks of the state and civil society at both national and transnational levels, aiming to analyze the extent and nature of the coercion and consent provided to the EU.

Keywords

European Neighborhood Policy , Hegemony , Ukraine

AVRUPA KOMŞULUK POLİTİKASI HEGEMONİK BİR GİRİŞİM Mİ? UKRAYNA ÖRNEĞİ

Abstract

Bu araştırma, 2010’lu yıllara kadar Avrupa Komşuluk Politikası'nı (AKP) Neo-Gramscian bir mercekten inceleyerek, Avrupa içindeki ulus ötesi güç dinamiklerine odaklanarak ve özellikle Ukrayna bağlamında ekonomik, politik ve sivil toplum gelişmeleri arasındaki tarihsel olarak özgül bağlantıları ortaya çıkarmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, AB'nin hegemonik girişiminin nasıl inşa edildiğini ve uygulandığını göstermeyi amaçlarken, aynı zamanda bu projenin olası yeniden tanımlarını araştırmakta ve sürdürülebilirliğini sorgulamaktadır. Avrupa Komisyonu'nun neo-liberal yaklaşımının, bölgeyi sermayenin, malların ve hizmetlerin sınırsız hareketinin sağlandığı, ancak bireylerin serbest dolaşımının önemli ölçüde sınırlı olduğu ve ortaklarına tam üyelik güvencesi verilmediği bir alana yeniden şekillendirmeyi amaçladığını savunmaktadır. Bu çalışma, AKP'nin tarihi bir blok yaratabilecek hegemonik bir girişim olarak işlev görme potansiyelini inceliyor ve ortaklarının onayıyla kendini sürdürüp sürdüremeyeceğini değerlendirmektedir. Sosyal güç ilişkilerinin dinamiklerini ve bunların hem ulusal hem de ulus ötesi düzeylerde devlet ve sivil toplum çerçeveleri içindeki örgütlenmesini vurgulayarak AB'ye sağlanan zorlama ve rızanın kapsamını ve doğasını analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

Avrupa Komşuluk Politikası , Hegemonya , Ukrayna

References

• Aggarwal, V., & Fogarty, E. (2004). Explaining trends in EU interregionalism. In V. Aggarwal & E. Fogarty (Eds.), EU trade strategies: Between regionalism and globalism. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Bieler, A. (2002). The struggle over EU enlargement: A historical materialist analysis of European integration. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(4), 575–597.
• Bobbio, N. (1979). Gramsci and the conception of civil society. In C. Mouffe (Ed.), Gramsci and Marxist theory. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Buci-Glucksmann, C. (1980). Gramsci and the state (D. Fernbach, Trans.). Lawrence and Wishart.
• Burns, N., Lute, D., Vinjamuri, L. (2020). Stronger together: A strategy to revitalize transatlantic power. Project on Europe and the Transatlantic Relationship Report.
• Cadier, D. (2019). The geopoliticisation of the EU’s Eastern Partnership. Geopolitics, 24(1), 71–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2017.1344836
• Council of the European Union. (2022, May). A strategic compass for security and defense (7371/22). https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/54773/20220321-strategic-compass-en.pdf
• Emerson, M., Aydin, S., Noutcheva, G., & Tocci, N. (2007). European Neighbourhood Policy two years on: Time indeed for an ENP Plus (CEPS Policy Brief No. 126). https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/european-neighbourhood-policy-two-years-time-indeed-enp-plus/
• Epstein, R. A., & Sedelmeier, U. (2008). Beyond conditionality: International institutions in post-communist Europe after enlargement. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(6), 795–805.
• European Commission & High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. (2015, January). Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy (JOIN(2015) 50 final). https://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/enp/documents/2015/151118_joint-communication_review-of-the-enp_en.pdf
• European Commission. (2003, April). Wider Europe—Neighbourhood: A new framework for relations with our Eastern and Southern neighbors. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_DOC-03-104_en.htm
• Fontana, B. (2006). Liberty and domination: Civil society in Gramsci. Boundary 2, 33(2), 51–68.
• Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. Nowell-Smith, Trans.). International Publishers.
• Haukkala, H. (2008). A normative power or a normative hegemon? The EU and its neighborhood policy. In N. Tocci (Ed.), Who is a normative foreign policy actor? The EU and its neighbors (pp. 45–60). CEPS.
• Hoffman, J. (1984). The politics of consent and the crisis of Marxism. In C. Boggs (Ed.), The Gramscian challenge: Coercion and consent in Marxist political theory. Basic Blackwell.
• Jacoby, W. (2006). Inspiration, coalition, and substitution: External influences on post-communist transformations. World Politics, 58(4), 623–651.
• Kuzio, T., & Moroney, J. D. P. (2001). Ukraine and the West: Moving from stability to strategic engagement. European Security, 10(2), 1–20.
• Levy, D., & Egan, D. (2003). A neo-Gramscian approach to corporate political strategy: Conflict and accommodation in the climate change negotiations. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), 803–829.
• Lippert, B., Umbach, G., & Wessels, W. (2001). Europeanization of CEE executives: EU membership negotiations as a shaping power. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(6), 980–1012.
• Melvin, N. (2022). Securing Eurasia is Europe’s challenge. Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) Commentary. https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/securing-eurasia-europes-challenge Miliband, R. (1973). Poulantzas and the capitalist state. New Left Review, I(82), 83–92.
• Moran, J. (1998). Two conceptions of state: Antonio Gramsci and Michael Mann. Politics, 18(3), 143–151.
• Morton, A. D. (2003). Social forces in the struggle over hegemony: Neo-Gramscian perspectives in international political economy. Rethinking Marxism, 15(2), 153–179.
• Murphy, C. N. (1998). Understanding IR, understanding Gramsci. Review of International Studies, 24(3), 417–425.
• Schimmelfennig, F., & Sedelmeier, U. (2005). The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. Cornell University Press.
• Schmitt, M. N. (2022). Russia’s “special military operation” and the (claimed) right of self-defense. Articles of War, 28 February. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/russias-special-military-operation-claimed-right-self-defense/
• Taylor, P. (2008). The end of European integration: Anti-Europeanism examined. Routledge.
• Tilly, C. (1999). From interactions to outcomes in social movements. In M. Giugni, D. McAdam, & C. Tilly (Eds.), How social movements matter (pp. 253–270). University of Minnesota Press.