Transforming the eastern neighbourhood: the security implications of European Union Activity in Ukraine 2000-2006

This thesis examines the external activities of the European Union conducted in the wider Europe against the backdrop of eastern enlargement. It focuses on the technical aspects of EU diplomacy, using qualitative research methodology to study the programmes and initiatives launched since the year 2000 in the countries lying along the Union’s new border to the east. Drawing on evidence from Ukraine, it hypothesises that the EU is an agent of transformation in the eastern neighbourhood and that this transformation has important implications for the regional order in the post-Soviet space. The thesis constitutes an investigation into the transformational activities engaged by the EU in Ukraine conducted with an eye to their strategic implications. It documents and analyses three instances of EU intervention in Ukraine’s internal processes that relate to management of cross-border traffic in the Ukrainian-Russian borderland, restructuring of the country’s energy sector, and conduct of its contentious presidential election in 2004. It is argued that while these interventions have explicitly sought to advance the Union’s security with respect to certain twenty-first century transnational threats, they have at the same time served to confer important strategic advantages on the EU that include giving the bloc greater knowledge and control over developments in Ukraine and that contribute to the dismantling of infrastructural, institutional and other ties between Kiev and the other Soviet successor states, notably Russia. The effect of the European Union’s actions in the region, whether intended or not, has thus been to undermine any competing regional initiatives that cut across its own functions, and thereby to assert itself as the primary integration project in Europe. By showing how technical interventions in the politics, economics and administration of Ukraine can yield important geopolitical dividends, this thesis demonstrates that, in the context of EU external relations, high and low politics are interlinked.

The EU's 'transnational power over' Central Asia:Developing and applying a structurally integrative approach to the study of the EU's power over Central Asia

This thesis challenges the consensual scholarly expectation of low EU impact in Central Asia. In particular, it claims that by focusing predominantly on narrow, micro-level factors, the prevailing theoretical perspectives risk overlooking less obvious aspects of the EU?s power, including structural aspects, and thus tend to underestimate the EU?s leverage in the region. Therefore, the thesis argues that a more structurally integrative and holistic approach is needed to understand the EU?s power in the region. In responding to this need, the thesis introduces a conceptual tool, which it terms „transnational power over? (TNPO). Inspired by debates in IPE, in particular new realist and critical IPE perspectives, and combining these views with insights from neorealist, neo-institutionalist and constructivist approaches to EU external relations, the concept of TNPO is an analytically eclectic notion, which helps to assess the degree to which, in today?s globalised and interdependent world, the EU?s power over third countries derives from its control over a combination of material, institutional and ideational structures, making it difficult for the EU?s partners to resist the EU?s initiatives or to reject its offers. In order to trace and assess the mechanisms of EU impact across these three structures, the thesis constructs a toolbox, which centres on four analytical distinctions: (i) EU-driven versus domestically driven mechanisms, (ii) mechanisms based on rationalist logics of action versus mechanisms following constructivist logics of action, (iii) agent-based versus purely structural mechanisms of TNPO, and (iv) transnational and intergovernmental mechanisms of EU impact. Using qualitative research methodology, the thesis then applies the conceptual model to the case of EU-Central Asia. It finds that the EU?s power over Central Asia effectively derives from its control over a combination of material, institutional and ideational structures, including its position as a leader in trade and investment in the region, its (geo)strategic and security-related capabilities vis-à-vis Central Asia, as well as the relatively dense level of institutionalisation of its relations with the five countries and the positive image of the EU in Central Asia as a more neutral actor.

Behind the scenes:a week in the life of a Senior Pro-Vice Chancellor

Helen Higson graduated from Cambridge University in 1982 and followed this up with an MSc with the Open University and a PhD at Birkbeck College London. She started working in HE at Southampton University and has spent the last 25 years at Aston University. Her roles there have been various, starting as PA to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor External Relations and spending 20 years with Aston Business School. Helen was awarded a Personal Chair in Higher Education Learning and Management in 2008 and is currently Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor, with responsibility for International Relations, Employability, Schools Liaison, Registry and Planning. Helen was awarded an AUA Fellowship in 2010 and an OBE in the 2011 New Year Honours list.

Interregionalism

Interregionalism is deeply rooted in the foreign policies and external relations of the EU. Interregional cooperation today not only encompasses trade and aid but also political dialogue, cultural relations and even security cooperation. Although the EU’s official ambition has been to formalize and institutionalize its interregional relations with other regional bodies or organizations (so-called ‘pure interregionalism’), in practice there are a bewildering variety of interregional or group-to-group relations on display (Hänggi 2006; Baert et al. 2014). The EU is rapidly evolving as a global actor and while doing so it has been trying to export its own civilian and normative values. Interregionalism is an important tool in this process, contributing to the EU’s policy of fostering regionalism worldwide, not only in the triad (Europe, North America and East Asia) (De Lombaerde and Schulz 2009). Through interregionalism, the EU and its regional others enhance their presence, gain recognition, tighten institutional cohesion and define identities. Interregionalism, therefore, occupies a special position in the construction of regional actorness in global affairs (Wunderlich 2012). However, the link between interregionalism and regionalism is both complex and underexplored (Baert et al. 2014; Doidge 2007). Much depends on the type of interregional relations, and the balance of other forms of cooperation, which appears to play out differently in different regions. All this leads to a number of research questions that should be addressed by the academic literature, including is there a preference for interregional relations in EU’s foreign policy? If so, for what reason(s)? What are the consequences of such a preference? What is the role of interregionalism in the broader context of EU’s external policies? How are expressions of regionalism related to expressions of interregionalism? Does the sui generis character of the EU lead to a sui generis character of EU interregionalism? This chapter provides a general overview of the evolution of the field, the key conceptual and analytical debates, as well as the main research questions that drive the research agenda. Emphasis is also placed on identifying the main gaps in the field and suggesting directions.

The effects of perceived business uncertainty, external consultants and risk management on organisational outcomes

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relations between perceived business uncertainty (PBU), use of external risk management (RM) consultants, formalisation of RM, magnitude of RM methods and perceived organisational outcomes. Design/methodology/approach: This paper is based on a questionnaire survey of members of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants in the UK. Using AMOS 17.0, the paper tests the strength of the direct and indirect effects among the variables and explores the fit of the overall path model. Findings: The results indicate significant and positive associations exist between the extent of PBU and the level ofRMformalisation, as well as between the level ofRMformalisation and the magnitude of RMmethods adopted. The use of externalRMconsultants is also found to have a significant and positive impact on the magnitude of RM methods adopted. Finally, both the extent of RM formalisation and the magnitude of RM methods adopted are seen to be significantly associated with overall improvement in organisational outcomes. Research limitations/implications: The study uses perceptual measures of the level of business uncertainty, usage of RM and organisational outcomes. Further, the respondents are members of a management accounting professional body and the views of other managers, such as risk managers, who are also important to the governance process are not incorporated. Originality/value: This study provides empirical evidence on the impact ofRMdesign and usage on improvements in organisational outcomes. It contributes to the RM literature where empirical research is needed in order to be comparable with the traditional management control system literature.

EU-ASEAN relations in the post-Cold War era:an analysis of the impact of normative factors on interregionalism

This thesis examines the relationship between the European Union (EU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with a focus on why their normative elements, e.g. values and norms, affect their ties in the post-Cold War era. Since the end of the Cold War, policy-makers and academics have become interested in region-to-region interaction, termed interregionalism. Though interregionalism is considered to have become an indelible feature of post-Cold War international politics, there are question marks over its importance. It is often argued that interregionalism reinforces the collective identity of the regional organisations involved. It is also maintained that its overall relevance to the international system depends on the level of actorness, which is primarily measured in institutional and material terms, of the participant regional organisations. This thesis contends that the normative components of the EU and ASEAN are also fundamental constituents of their actorness and, consequently, define significantly their interregionalism. This is based on a crucial observation that normative factors are of importance to the regional and international relations of the EU and ASEAN. Yet, while they strongly espouse norms and values to guide their internal and external activities, their normative premises radically differ from each other. Furthermore, these normative differences jeopardise their cooperation. Building on this observation the inquiry takes the normative components of the EU and ASEAN as the criterion as well as the focus for investigating their interregionalism. In doing so, it hypothesises that the EU and ASEAN are two different regional actors that adopt two dissimilar sets of norms to conduct their regional and international affairs and that such normative differences hinder their relations. Within this hypothesis, it seeks to address three central questions. First, what are the normative features that constitute the EU and ASEAN as actors in world politics and that make them different from each other? Second, what are the main sources of their normative differences? Finally, why do their normative differences become an obstructive factor in their relationship? To address these issues, the inquiry adopts a constructivist interpretation (of International Relations) and opts for a narrative and empirical inquiry, which is based on information and data acquired from official documents, scholarly works and interviews and questionnaires. In doing so, it finds that as they were born and evolved in two dissimilar temporal and spatial settings, the EU and ASEAN are two different norm entrepreneurs and normative powers. The former advocates a set of liberal cosmopolitan norms whereas the latter champions a set of traditional communitarian principles. Their normative differences become a major obstacle to their cooperation, especially when one regional organisation’s norms are refused or violated by the other. Thus, a key lesson drawn from these findings is that in order to explain more fully EU-ASEAN interregionalism, it is essential to consider their norms, the reasons behind their normative differences and the implication of those differences to their relations