Microsoft Word - Frédéric Mérand and Stefan Gänzle_Introduction.doc


Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 2 issue 2/2006 © RERA 2006 all rights reserved 

 

 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

……………………………………… 

         Introduction  
 

 

                       Frédéric Mérand and Stefan Gänzle 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 2 issue 2/2006 © RERA 2006 all rights reserved 

 

 2

It is our great pleasure to introduce this special issue of the Review of European and 

Russian Affairs devoted to the external relations of the European Union. The three articles 

selected for this issue deal with some of the most central topics of this particular policy area: 

the development of a strategic culture in the EU and its member states (as compared to the 

United States), the EU involvement in stabilizing the South-Eastern Balkan, and, last but not 

least, the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and Ukraine in matters of migration 

management. All of them provide in-depth insights into the growing importance of the EU’s 

actorness in international relations. The contributions were written by promising young 

scholars, who first presented their work at the Young Researcher Network (YRN) conference 

in Victoria ion May 18, 2006, and then agreed to undergo the painful peer-review process that 

is the hallmark of rigorous scientific publishing. 

The first article deals with transatlantic relations. Based on a careful and thorough 

reading of the European Union’s Security Strategy and the United States’ National Security 

Strategy, Benjamin Zyla, Royal Military College of Canada, makes the provocative argument 

that, beyond the rhetorical fights, EU and US security strategies are in fact quite similar. 

Couched in terms that former President Woodrow Wilson would have recognized as his own, 

these official documents “are alike in their messianic approach to create a better world and to 

enhance global order”. It follows from Zyla’s interpretation that it is incorrect to characterize 

Europe as a civilian power and the US as a military one or, to use the now famous bon mot, 

Europe as Venus and the US as Mars. By and large, the two “share very similar strategic 

objectives”. Although the author admits that there are minor gaps (for instance in terms of 

long-term visions), Zyla states that the differences have been overplayed in academia and the 

media and may just reflect spin. If Zyla is right, the demise of the transatlantic relationship 

may be further in sight that many believe or would like to believe. 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 2 issue 2/2006 © RERA 2006 all rights reserved 

 

 3

One may dispute Zyla’s conclusions and point out that while Europe and the US may 

agree on the ends – that of a liberal, democratic order – they strongly differ on the means. 

Pierre Hassner, for example, argues that the Bush administration is promoting a special kind 

of liberalism, which he calls “Wilsonianism in boots”. That is quite different from Brussels’ 

approach of “effective multilateralism”. Nevertheless, Zyla has written a sophisticated essay, 

and his argument is well worth reflecting upon. While the fact that the two security 

documents are similar does not mean that the actual policies are the same, he is right to insist 

that we should not overplay their differences. Zyla’s paper is a sobering reminder that we 

often read a text in the way we want to read and understand it. 

With the second article, we move from transatlantic to West-East relations, 

specifically the EU’s relations with Serbia and Montenegro. Marko Papic sets out to analyze 

the role played by the EU in drafting the Serbia and Montenegro State Union Constitution. 

The EU’s role, Papic argues, often bordered on direct intervention in domestic affairs. 

Brussels went “beyond conditionality” in assuming a pro-active – in fact determining – role of 

“constitutional engineering”. To test this hypothesis, Papic unfolds a thickly descriptive 

account of the Brussels’ involvement in the constitutional process. His account highlights the 

crucial role of Javier Solana, the EU’s High Representative for the Common Security and 

Foreign Policy. 

The theoretical contribution of Papic’s article is superb: his case suggests that the 

importance of “supportive strategies” in harnessing Eastern European countries to the West 

may have been underestimated in the growing literature on EU-spurred conditionality, which 

emphasizes reinforcement by reward and (soft) coercion. In addition, Papic gives an 

interesting twist to the constructivist argument of socialization. He shows that, in the process 

of democratic socialization, Brussels may actually have learned more than Belgrade did. 



Review of European and Russian Affairs vol. 2 issue 2/2006 © RERA 2006 all rights reserved 

 

 4

Socialization and lesson-drawing, two concepts that have been given special importance by 

the constructivist school, are not necessarily a one-way street.  

Last but not least, Lyubov Zhyznomirska’s article takes us firmly onto the 

constructivist terrain. Zhyznomirska uses the example of Ukraine to demonstrate how the EU 

is exporting the burden of international migration management to neighbouring countries. 

This has the probably unintended effect of destabilizing societal security in these countries 

which, like in the case of Ukraine, lack the administrative or institutional capacity to deal with 

problems posed by illegal migration. Zhyznomirska’s argument relies on the critical 

constructivist notion of “securitization”, whereby migration issues are increasingly 

constructed as security threats that require repressive measures. The case of the Ukraine 

suggests that this securitization strategy has a cost, which is borne by the states least capable 

of supporting it.  

Critical constructivism has often been accused of being high on theory but low on 

empirics. Zhyznomirska avoids this pitfall as she weaves an elegant argument that follows the 

“securitization” thread to illuminate a rigorous description of the EU’s external policy with 

regards to migration, Ukraine’s adaptation to it, and the complex relations between the two.  

The three articles include in this special issue demonstrate the richness of Canadian 

scholarship on European affairs. While pluralistic in their theoretical approaches, they share a 

commitment to rigorous, empirically-based research, with clear policy implications.