Ukraine and Canada: The European Union as a Partner in Negotiation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31861/mhpi2020.41.46-57Keywords:
negotiation, organization, integration, European Union, Ukraine, CanadaAbstract
The European Union as a mode of European Unification is a good example of an international actor channelling negotiation processes in an optimal way. As both Ukraine and Canada will continue and probably intensify negotiation processes with the European Union it seems to be relevant to take a closer look at the EU as a negotiation partner and opponent. Negotiating with the EU is very complicated, first of all because of the complexity of the EU itself. The European Union is, compared to other collective international actors, a strong transnational organization with international and supranational features. This strength has an impact on the negotiation process and its closure. It is special in the sense of having a strong legal system with the European Court with powers to enforce compliance on the Member States. It”s institutions have their own role to play and cannot be ignored. The architecture of the Union consists of a wide range of actors, issues and thereby processes, having consequences for the EU citizens, their governments and those of other countries in Europe and the world, like Ukraine and Canada. The European Union is an actor in its own right on the world stage. As a hybrid international construct – being neither a state, nor a conventional international organization, nor a full supranational body – the EU is a power block that is difficult to be handled. It is a problematic entity, for itself and for third countries. This paper analyses the character and characteristics of some of the key internal and external negotiation processes of the EU, as they have been influenced by the strengths and weaknesses of the organization. Understanding its internal negotiation complexity will help Canada and Ukraine to conduct successful negotiations.
References
2. Berg, Casper F. van den, (2011), Transforming for Europe, The Reshaping of National Bureaucracies in a System of Multi-Level Governance, Leiden: Leiden University Press, Doctoral Dissertation.
3. Bjola, Corneliu (2013), “Understanding Enmity and Friendship in World politics: The Case for a Diplomatic Approach”, in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 8.1, 1-20.
4. Börzel, Tanya, (2010), “European Governance: Negotiation and Competition in the Shadow of Hierarchy”, in Journal of Common Market Studies, 48.2, 191-219.
5. Dür, Andreas; Mateo, Gemma, (2010), “Choosing a bargaining strategy in EU negotiations: power, preferences, and culture”, in Journal of European Public Policy, 17.5, 680-693.
6. Elgström, Ole; Jönssen Christer (eds.), (2005), European Union Negotiations. London: Routledge.
7. Gower, Jackie, (2006), “Towards One Europe?”, in Sakwa, Richard; Stevens, Anne, (eds.), Contemporary Europe, Houndmills: Palgrave, 54-77.
8. Gray, Julia (2009), “International Organization as a Seal of Approval: European Union Accession and Investor Risk”, in American Journal of Political Science, 53.4, 931-949.
9. Groen Lisanne; Niemann, Arne; Oberthür, Sebastian (2012), “The EU as a Global leader? The Copenhagen and Cancun UN Climate Change Negotiations”, in Journal of Contemporary European Research, 8.2., 173-191.
10. Guggenbühl, Alain, (2013), “The Culture of Negotiation in the European Union: Reviewing Trends and predicting Patterns of Multilateral Decision-Making”, in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 8.1, 21-47.
11. Hale, Thomas; Held, David; and Young, Kevin L., (2013), Gridlock, Why Global Cooperation is failing when it”s Most Needed, Chichester: John Wiley& Sons.
12. Hosli, Madeleine O.; Arnold, Christine, (2010), “The Importance of Actor Cleavages in negotiating the European Constitution”, in International Studies Quarterly, 54, 615-632.
13. Keukelaire, Stephan; Mac Naughtan, Jennifer, (2008), The Foreign Policy of the European Union, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
14. Kibris, Arzu; Baç-Müftüler, Meltem, (2011), “The Accession Games: A Comparison of Three Limited-Information Negotiation Designs”, in International Studies Perspectives, 12, 399-427.
15. Landau, Alice, (2004), “Negotiating the Enlargement”, in Meerts, Paul W. and Cede, Frank (eds.), Negotiating European Union, Houndmills: Palgrave/Macmillan, 199-216.
16. Lang, Winfried, (1989), “Multilateral negotiations: the role of presiding officers”, in Mautner-Markhof, Frances (ed.), Processes of International Negotiations, Boulder: Westview Press, 23-42.
17. Lodge, J.E.; Pfetsch, F.R. (1998), “Negotiating the European Union: Introduction”, in International Negotiation, 3.3, 289-293.
18. Loo, Guillaume; Van Elserwege, Peter and Petrov, Roman (2014/9), The EU-Ukrainian Association Agreement: Assessment of an Innovative Legal Instrument, EU I Working Paper LAW, European University Institute, Badia Fiesolana.
19. Martin, Fernandez, (2012), “The European Union and International negotiations on Climate Change. A Limited Role to Play”, in Journal of Contemporary European Research, 8.2, 192-209.
20. McKibben, Heather Elko, (2010), “Issue Characteristics, Issue Linkage, and States” Choice of Bargaining Strategies in the European Union”, in Journal of European Public Policy, 17.5, 694-707.
21. Meerts, Fedor; Coulaloglu, Thassos, (2012), “Between Mediation and Negotiation, HCNM Intervention in Identity Conflicts”, in Zartman, William; Anstey, Mark and Meerts, Paul W., (eds.), The Slippery Slope to Genocide, Reducing Identity Conflicts and preventing Mass Murder, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 306-327; and in Canadian Studies, Chernivtsi, pp. 51-62.
22. Meerts, Paul, (1999), “The Changing Nature of Diplomatic Negotiation”, in Melissen, J. (ed.), Innovation in Diplomatic Practice, London: Macmillan Press, 79-93.
23. Phinnemore, David, (2010), “European Union Enlargement: To 27 … and Beyond”, in The European Union, Encyclopaedia and Directory 2011, London and New York: Routledge, 254-258
24. Rice, Thomas; Kleine, Mareike, (2010), “Deliberation in Negotiation”, in Journal of European Public Policy, 17.5, 708-726.
25. Schaik Louise van (2013), EU Effectiveness and Unity in Multilateral Negotiations, More than the Sum of its Parts?, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
26. Sjöstedt, Gunnar, (2003), Professional Cultures in International Negotiation: Bridge or Rift?, Lanham: Lexington Books.
27. Smith, Karen, (2003), European Foreign Policy in a Changing World, Cambridge, Oxford, Malden: Polity Press & Blackwell Publishing.
28. Smith, Karen, (2010), “The External Relations of the European Union”, in The European Union, Encyclopaedia and Directory 2011, London and New York: Routledge, 235-245.
29. Staden, Fred Van, (2013), “De EU internationale speler met gebreken”, in Schout, A. en Rood, J. (eds.), Nederland als Europese Lidstaat: eindelijk normaal?, Den Haag: Boom Lemma.
30. Vickers, Brendan (2011), “Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Small States in the EU-SADC EPA Negotiations”, in The Round Table, Vol. 100, #413, 183-197.
31. Warntjes, Andreas (2010), “Between bargaining and deliberation: decision-making in the Council of the European Union”, in Journal of European Public Policy, 17.5, 665-679.
32. Zartman, William, I., (2001), “Conclusion: Discounting the Cost”, in Zartman, William, I., I.W. (ed.), Preventive Negotiation, Avoiding Conflict Escalation, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
33. Zartman, William, I., (2003), “Negotiating the Rapids: The Dynamics of Regime Formation”, in Spector Bertram I. and Zartman, William I., (eds.) Getting it Done, Post-Agreement Negotiation and International Regimes, Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 13-50.
34. Zwaan, Jaap de, (2013), Europa en de Burger. Hoe verder met de Europese Unie-samenwerking? Den Haag: Haagse Hogeschool.
