EU Democracy Promotion in the Mediterranean - Cooperation against All Odds?

Focusing on the Euro-Mediterranean relations since the early 1990s, this paper investigates in how far the EU has been able to shape its relations with third countries according to its democracy promotion policy. The paper traces the evolution of the EU’s provisions for democracy promotion and compares the implementation of political dialogue and democracy assistance with seven (semi-)authoritarian regimes (Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, and Tunisia) since the early 1990s. A clear regional trend to more intensive cooperation lends credibility to the claim that the EU possesses a certain agenda setting power in international relations. A systematic comparison across countries and over time explores the explanatory power of interdependence, political liberalisation, and statehood for the remaining country variation. The paper finds that the degree of political liberalisation in target countries is the most important scope condition for cooperation in the field of democracy promotion and points to the need of further investigating (domestic) factors to account for the EU’s differential ‘normative power’ in international relations.closer cooperation; closer cooperation; democracy; Mediterranean; Europeanization; Europeanization

the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network as an intermediary actor

This paper focuses on the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN) that tries to promote civil society co-operation and human rights within the Euro- Mediterranean Partnership (EMP). To this end, it explores the EMHRN’s ‘actorness’ and role in Euro-Mediterranean transnational relations in three respects: its linkage to the intergovernmental politics of the EMP, its participation in transnational civil society activities, and its part in the local human rights activism of its members. Methodologically, the empirical analysis relies primarily on document analysis and interviews and narrows its focus down to Morocco for the last aspect. The network’s identity and activities as an umbrella organisation for human rights are closely linked to the EMP. It pursues a mix of strategies, including the lobbying and consultancy, awareness-raising campaigns, service-provision to its members, and international networking in the context of Euro-Mediterranean relations. It assumes various functions vis-à-vis European institutions, national governments, its members, and other transnational actors, leaving its nature ambiguous and potentially compromising the effectiveness of its different strategies. Despite all these limitations, the EMHRN definitely contributes to ‘transnationalising’ Euro-Mediterranean (human rights) politics, bringing parts of civil society closer to the EMP – and vice versa

cooperation against all odds?

Focusing on the Euro-Mediterranean relations since the early 1990s, this paper investigates in how far the EU has been able to shape its relations with third countries according to its democracy promotion policy. The paper traces the evolution of the EU’s provisions for democracy promotion and compares the implementation of political dialogue and democracy assistance with seven (semi-)authoritarian regimes (Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, and Tunisia) since the early 1990s. A clear regional trend to more intensive cooperation lends credibility to the claim that the EU possesses a certain agenda setting power in international relations. A systematic comparison across countries and over time explores the explanatory power of interdependence, political liberalisation, and statehood for the remaining country variation. The paper finds that the degree of political liberalisation in target countries is the most important scope condition for cooperation in the field of democracy promotion and points to the need of further investigating (domestic) factors to account for the EU’s differential ‘normative power’ in international relations

More than cheap talk? Euro-Mediterranean cooperation on human rights and democracy

Malgrat els esforços de la UE en la promoció de la democràcia i un compromís comú per la democràcia i els drets humans al EMP, no hi ha signes de convergència cap al model liberal democràtic propugnat per la UE. No obstant això, l'abast i la intensitat de la cooperació multilateral, transnacional i bilateral han augmentat constantment en tota la regió des de mitjans de 1990. La cooperació en el camp de la promoció de la democràcia es caracteritza per la forta dinàmica de normativa sectorial, i la diferenciació geogràfica, però està clarament situada en un marc regional i altament estandarditzat. Si bé la convergència política o la política sembla poc probable en el curt o mitjà termini, democràcia i drets humans estan fermament establerts en una agenda regional comúDespite the EU's democracy promotion efforts and a joint commitment to democracy and human rights in the EMP, there are no signs of convergence towards the liberal democratic model advocated by the EU. However, the scope and intensity of multilateral, transnational, and bilateral cooperation have steadily increased across the region since the mid 1990s. Cooperation in the field of democracy promotion is marked by strong dynamics of sectoral, normative, and geographical differentiation, but it is clearly situated in a regional and highly standardised framework. While policy or polity convergence seems unlikely in the short or medium term, democracy and human rights are firmly established on a joint regional agend

EU democracy promotion in the Mediterranean: cooperation against all odds?

"Focusing on the Euro-Mediterranean relations since the early 1990s, this paper investigates in how far the EU has been able to shape its relations with third countries according to its democracy promotion policy. The paper traces the evolution of the EU's provisions for democracy promotion and compares the implementation of political dialogue and democracy assistance with seven (semi-)authoritarian regimes (Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, and Tunisia) since the early 1990s. A clear regional trend to more intensive cooperation lends credibility to the claim that the EU possesses a certain agenda setting power in international relations. A systematic comparison across countries and over time explores the explanatory power of interdependence, political liberalisation, and statehood for the remaining country variation. The paper finds that the degree of political liberalisation in target countries is the most important scope condition for cooperation in the field of democracy promotion and points to the need of further investigating (domestic) factors to account for the EU's differential 'normative power' in international relations." (author's abstract

From External Promotion to Internal Protection?

Whether the European Union (EU) really lives up to its image of “transformative power” is still an open empirical question. There is no doubt that the EU has been active in setting and promoting norms that go far beyond the objective of regional economic integration. It prescribes and promotes standards for national governance institutions related to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. However, in comparison to other regional organizations, the EU used to focus on the transformation of domestic governance institutions beyond rather than within its borders, targeting accession candidates, neighboring countries, and third states alike. Only recently did the EU start to develop policies and instruments explicitly aiming to protect the same norms and values within its own member states that it seeks to transfer externally. This paper traces the evolution of the EU’s external and internal governance transfer. While the external dimension is still better developed institutionally, regional integration provides the EU with effective policies and instruments to protect its fundamental values within the member states.Ob die Europäische Union (EU) tatsächlich dem Anspruch einer „transformativen Macht“ gerecht wird, ist eine offene empirische Frage. Die EU setzt und fördert jedoch ohne Zweifel aktiv Normen, die weit über das Ziel regionaler wirtschaftlicher Integration hinaus gehen. Dazu gehören Standards für nationale Governance-Institutionen mit Blick auf Demokratie, Menschenrechte, und Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Regionalorganisationen konzentrierte sie sich dabei ursprünglich vor allem auf die Transformation nationaler Governance-Institutionen jenseits ihrer Grenzen in Beitrittskandidaten, Nachbarländern und Drittstaaten. Erst seit Kurzem entwickelt die EU auch Strategien und Instrumente, die explizit auf den Schutz dieser Normen und Werte in ihren eigenen Mitgliedstaaten zielen. Dieses Papier zeichnet die Entwicklung des externen und internen Governance-Transfers der EU nach. Obwohl die externe Dimension institutionell nach wie vor besser entwickelt ist, stehen der EU im Rahmen des Integrationsprozesses effektive Instrumente zum Schutz ihrer Grundwerte in den Mitgliedstaaten zur Verfügung

Following a Global Script?

Since the end of the Cold War, international organizations and states have developed programs to promote (good) governance at the country level. Regional organizations have gained an important role in governance transfer because they constitute an intermediary level of agency between the nation-state and global institutions. This paper maps the governance transfer of nine regional organizations in the Americas, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. We analyze the objectives, approaches, and instruments used to promote the creation and transformation of governance institutions in target countries. This comparison shows that similar standards and instruments have been adopted throughout the areas of study, in line with the notion of a global governance script. At the same time, we find important differences with regard to when and how the regional organizations prescribe and promote “good” governance institutions at the national level. Research on diffusion and comparative regionalism is ill- equipped to account for this double finding of increasing similarities and persisting differences. The paper calls for a more agency-centered approach that conceptualizes governance transfer as an institutional choice by states. We identify factors that elicit states’ demand for governance transfer, on the one hand, and that shape its institutional design, on the other.Seit Ende des Kalten Krieges haben Internationale Organisationen und Staaten Programme entwickelt, um „Gutes Regieren“ in Mitgliedstaaten und Drittländern zu fördern. Regionalorganisationen sind als Vermittler zwischen nationalen und globalen Institutionen wichtig für solche Governance-Transfers. Dieses Papier erfasst den Governance-Transfer von neun Regionalorganisationen in den Amerikas, Afrika, Asien und im Nahen Osten. Dabei analysieren wir die Ziele, Ansätze und Instrumente für die Schaffung oder Veränderung von Institutionen in Zielländern. Dieser Vergleich zeigt Ähnlichkeiten bei Standards und Instrumenten, was auf die Ausbreitung eines „globalen Skripts“ für Governance hindeutet. Allerdings unterscheiden sich Organisationen auch darin, wie und wann sie bestimmte Governance-Institutionen in Mitgliedstaaten vorschreiben und fördern. Die Diffusions- und Vergleichende Regionalismusforschung ist auf einen solchen Doppelbefund schlecht vorbereitet. Unser Papier schlägt einen stärker auf Akteure fokussierten Ansatz vor, der Governance-Transfer als Konsequenz staatlicher Entscheidungen ansieht. Wir identifizieren Faktoren, die einerseits die Nachfrage nach solchen Prozessen und andererseits ihre institutionelle Ausgestaltung beeinflussen

The limits of the transformative power of Europe

1\. Introduction 6 2\. Membership Matters, but When and How? 7 3\. Zooming into the European Neighborhood: Going Against the Tide? 11 4\. EU External Governance – Does it Make a Difference? 14 5\. Conclusions 17 Literature 19The EU’s Eastern Enlargement is considered to be one of the (few) successful experiments of promoting good – both effective and legitimate – governance. By contrast, the EU’s transformative power appears to be weak or non-existent vis-à-vis its (old) neighbors in the South and its (new) neighbors in the East. Both are not only marked by ‘bad governance’ but also lack a (credible) membership perspective. While the Western Balkans and Turkey have made significant progress towards good governance, both with regard to government effectiveness and democratic legitimacy, the European Neighborhood Countries (ENCs) appear to be stuck in transition or never got that far in the first place. Even when the effectiveness of their governance institutions has improved, they remain well behind the other regions and especially their democratic legitimacy is still wanting or even in decline. The paper shows that there is a correlation between an EU membership perspective and the successful transformation of neighboring countries. Therefore, it has been argued that the ineffectiveness of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is due to the lack of this ‘golden carrot’. However, we argue that the prospects of EU membership stabilizes rather than drives the move towards effective and legitimate governance in candidate countries. Thus, a membership perspective is unlikely to either turn around negative or speed up positive developments in the EU’s neighborhood. Even if the ENCs received a membership perspective, it would be unlikely to push them significantly towards democratic and effective governance as long as there is no endogenously driven process of change. Given the EU’s preference for stability and state-building, the ENP does not provide an alternative for promoting good governance either. The ENP clearly lacks transformative power and where it might have some domestic impact, it risks consolidating rather than undermining authoritarian regimes by helping to strengthen their capacities for effective governance

Good governance and bad neighbors? The limits of the transformative power of Europe

The EU’s Eastern Enlargement is considered to be one of the (few) successful experiments of promoting good – both effective and legitimate – governance. By contrast, the EU’s transformative power appears to be weak or non-existent vis-à-vis its (old) neighbors in the South and its (new) neighbors in the East. Both are not only marked by ‘bad governance’ but also lack a (credible) membership perspective. While the Western Balkans and Turkey have made significant progress towards good governance, both with regard to government effectiveness and democratic legitimacy, the European Neighborhood Countries (ENCs) appear to be stuck in transition or never got that far in the first place. Even when the effectiveness of their governance institutions has improved, they remain well behind the other regions and especially their democratic legitimacy is still wanting or even in decline. The paper shows that there is a correlation between an EU membership perspective and the successful transformation of neighboring countries. Therefore, it has been argued that the ineffectiveness of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is due to the lack of this ‘golden carrot’. However, we argue that the prospects of EU membership stabilizes rather than drives the move towards effective and legitimate governance in candidate countries. Thus, a membership perspective is unlikely to either turn around negative or speed up positive developments in the EU’s neighborhood. Even if the ENCs received a membership perspective, it would be unlikely to push them significantly towards democratic and effective governance as long as there is no endogenously driven process of change. Given the EU’s preference for stability and state-building, the ENP does not provide an alternative for promoting good governance either. The ENP clearly lacks transformative power and where it might have some domestic impact, it risks consolidating rather than undermining authoritarian regimes by helping to strengthen their capacities for effective governance

The European Union’s Fight against Corruption in the Southern Caucasus

In dieser Ausgabe wird untersucht, unter welchen Bedingungen die Bemühungen externer Akteure zum Staatsaufbau (state-building) in Räumen begrenzter Staatlichkeit effektiv sind. Wir argumentieren, dass die Legitimität der extern geförderten Norm unter lokalen Akteuren wesentlich für den erfolgreichen Aufbau von Staatskapazitäten ist. Internationale Normen müssen anschlussfähig sein an dominante innerstaatliche Diskurse über politische Reformen. Empirisch untersuchen wir die Anti-Korruptions-Programme der Europäischen Union (EU) und ihre Implementation in einer der korruptesten Regionen der Welt, dem Südkaukasus. Wir zeigen, dass Legitimität erklären kann, warum die Bemühungen der EU in Georgien zur Verringerung von Korruption beigetragen haben, nicht aber in Armenien. In beiden Ländern konnten politische Eliten die Anti-Korruptions-Programme selektiv als Instrument gegen politische Gegner nutzen und mit Hilfe vergrößerter Staatskapazitäten das Regime stabilisieren. Allerdings wurde nur in Georgien die Korruptionsbekämpfung durch eine dauerhafte innerstaatliche Mobilisierung unterstützt, die zusätzlichen Druck auf politische Eliten zur effektiven Umsetzung institutioneller Reformen aufbaute.This paper asks under which conditions the state-building efforts of external actors in areas of limited statehood are likely to be effective. We argue that the legitimacy of the specific norms promoted by external actors among local actors is crucial for their success in strengthening state capacities. International norms need to resonate with the dominant domestic discourse on political reforms. To substantiate our argument, we focus on the European Union’s (EU) anti-corruption programs and their implementation in one of the most corrupt regions in the world, the Southern Caucasus. We show that legitimacy can explain why the EU’s fight against corruption helped reduce corruption in Georgia but not in Armenia. In both countries, political elites could selectively use anti-corruption programs as an instrument against political opponents using enhanced state capacities to stabilize the incumbent regime. Only in Georgia, however, the fight against corruption was facilitated by sustained domestic mobilization for anti-corruption policies that added pressure on political elites ‘from below.