The article analyzes the prospects of institutional innovation in the european international process. European Union (EU) is going through several crises of political, economic, ideological and intellectual nature. It makes many scholars and researchers as well as policymakers and ordinary people to think about redefining the concept of the «Common European home» for not only European states, but also in a broader sense meaning the post-Soviet space.
The authors present an assessment of weak and strong sides of the existing European integrational institutional architecture by using methods of systemic and probabilistic analysis as well as multi-level approach. It inevitably leads to the question about the relationship between the institutions as independent agents and nation states, and the role of intergovernmental cooperation in solving the current EU’s problems. This EU crisis creates opportunities as well as, challenges for Russia which has no possibility to simply fence off from Europe institutionally or ideologically. Europe was, is and will be a part of the Russian national interests – either as a threat or as a factor which contributes to its development and prosperity.
Therefore, the authors wonder how the updated concept of European integration can look and, respectively, which impact all these changes can have on Russian foreign policy. Using the historic institutionalism the authors make the conclusion about the existing institutional lock-ins and path-dependent behavior of the EU that does not allow to adapt to the rapidly changing environment. To solve the existing crisis EU needs upgrade the political, economic and intellectual concept of the integration process.
Key words: EU, EU-Russia relation, Brexit, European integration.
References
1. Alter K., Steinberg D. The Theory and Reality of the European Coal and Steel Community. Working Paper No. 07001. Buffet Center for International and Comparative Studies, 2007. Pp. 1-18.
2. Bordachev T. Russia and the European Union: Three Questions concerning New Principles in Bilateral Relation. Valdai Discussion Club Report, 2016. P.18.
3. Brickerton C. Towards a Social Theory of EU Foreign and Security Policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 171–190.
4. Esteve-Gonzalez P., Theilen B. European Integration: Partisan Motives or Economic Benefits? LSE Europe in Question Discussion Paper, 2014, no. 7. 40 p.
5. Haas E. The uniting of Europe. Political, Social and Economic Forces, 1950-1957. Stanford, Stanford University Press Publ. 640 p.
6. Habermas J. The Crisis of the European Union: A Response. Malden, MA, Polity Press Publ., 2012. 120 p.
7. Howorth J. The EU as a Global Actor: Grand Strategy for a Global Grand Bargain? Journal of Common Market Studies, 2010, no. 48, iss. 3, pp. 455 –474.
8. Francois J., Manchin M., Norberg H., Pindyuk O., Tomberger P. Reducing Transatlantic Barriers to Trade and Investment: An Economic Assessment, CEPR Final Project Report on behalf of the European Commission. London, Centre for Economic Policy Research, 2013. 124 p.
9. Hamilton D., Blockmans S. The Geostrategic Implications of TTIP. Paper No. 5. Centre for European Policy Studies, 2015. 360 p.
10. Kaveshnikov N. Four Scenarios for European Integration. RIAC, 2016. 10 p.
11. Miller V., Lunn J. The European Union: a democratic institution? House of Commons Briefing papers. Research Paper. Research Paper, 2014, no. 25, pp. 36–49.
12. Moravcsik A. The European Constitutional Compromise and the Neofunctionalist Legacy. Journal of European Public Policy, 2005, no. 12, pp. 349–389.
13. Nygren B. The Rebuilding of Greater Russia: Putin’s Foreign Policy Toward the CIS Countries. Abingdon, UK, Routledge Publ., 2017. 315 p.
14. Pierson P. Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics. The American Political Science Review, 2000, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 251–267.
15. Pollack M. The new institutionalism and European integration. European Integration Theories. 2nd ed. Ed. by W. Antje and T. Diez. Oxford, Oxford University Press Publ., 2008. Pp. 137–156.
16. Pollack M. Theoretical and comparative insights into EU policy-making. PolicyMaking in the European Union, ed. by H. Wallace, W. Wallace, M. Pollack. New York, Oxford University Press Publ., 2011. 380 p.
17. Romanova T. The EU’s crises and its future. Valdai Paper, no. 54. Valdai International Discussion Club, 2016. 16 p.
18. Romanova T. Russia and Europe: Somewhat Different, Somewhat the Same? RIAC, 2016. 12 p.
19. Rumer E. Russia and the Security of Europe. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2016. 35 p.
20. Stoll P., Douma W., Sadeleer N. CETA, TTIP and the EU precautionary principle. Legal analysis of selected parts of the draft CETA agreement and the EU TTIP proposals. Foodwatch, 2016. 52 p.
21. Trapero B., The Economic Crisis and its Effects on the quality of life in the European Union. Social Indicators Research, 2005, vol. 120, iss. 1, pp. 323–343.
22. Bordachev T. Russia and the Berlin-Washington Order in Europe. Valdai International Discussion Club. 2016. Available at: http://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/russia-and-the-berlin-washington-order-ineurope (Accessed: 18.11.2016).
23. Dempsey J, The Huge Geopolitical Implications of TTIP. Carnegie Europe, 03.10.2015. Available at: http://carnegieeurope.eu/publications/?fa=61507 (Accessed: 18.11.2016).
24. Dutch say «devastating no» to EU constitution. The Guardian, 02.06.2005. Available at: https://www.theguardian. com/world/2005/jun/02/eu.politics (Accessed: 18.11.2016).
25. Grabbe H., Lehne S. How to Build a More Flexible EU after Brexit. Carnegie Europe. 08.09.2016. Available at: http:// carnegieeurope.eu/2016/09/08/how-tobuild-more-flexible-eu-after-brexit-pub64507 (Accessed: 18.11.2016).
26. Gupta M. After the Brexit: Three New Challenges Facing European Security Leader. Security Intelligence, 2016. Available at: https://securityintelligence.com/ after-the-brexit-three-new-challengesfacing-european-security-leaders (Accessed: 18.11.2016).
27. Hix S. The policy successes (and failures) of British MEPs. LSE EUROPP blog, 22.01.2016. Available at: http://blogs. lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/01/22/the-policysuccesses-and-failures-of-uk-membersof-the-european-parliament/ (дата обращения: 18.11.2016). 28. Investment Court System put to the test. New EU proposal will perpetuate investors’ attacks on health and environment. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Corporate Europe Observatory Friend of the Earth Europe. Paper. 2016. Available at: https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/ investment_court_system_put_to_the_ test.pdf (Accessed: 18.11.2016).
29. Schuman Declaration, 9 May 1950. Available at: https://europa.eu/europeanunion/about-eu/symbols/europe-day/ schuman-declaration_en (Accessed: 18.11.2016).
30. Techau J. Four Predictions on the Future of Europe. Carnegie Europe, 12.01.2016. Available at: http://carnegieeurope.eu/ strategiceurope/?fa=62445 (Accessed: 18.11.2016).
31. Traynor I. Germany to push for compulsory EU quotas to tackle refugee crisis. The Guardian, 23.10.2015. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2015/oct/23/refugee-crisis-germany-push-compulsory-eu-quotas (Accessed: 18.11.2016). 32. Zeeb B, Schade D. It is All or Nothing: How to Make the EU more Democratic, Transparent and Efficient. Heinrich Boll Stiftung EU, 25.09.2015. Available at: https://eu.boell.org/en/2015/09/25/ its-all-or-nothing-how-make-eu-moredemocratic-transparent-and-efficient (Accessed: 18.11.2016).
DOI 10.24833/2071-8160-2017-1-52-21-35 (Read the article in PDF)
