Author
Listed:
- N. N. Gudalov
- E. Yu. Treshchenkov
Abstract
This paper explores the articulation of the resilience concept in the policies of the European Union to the Eastern and Southern neighborhoods. In the discourse of foreign policy and security of the EU Global Strategy 2016, this concept appears as a key one. The idea is to empower the neighboring countries in their autonomous efforts to build such resilience that would allow them to absorb a wide range of security threats without projecting them on the European Union. An analysis of the place of resilience in the evolution of the European Neighborhood Policy, as well as in relations with neighbors to the East and South, allows us to draw conclusions regarding the novelty of the approach, as well as the prospects and obstacles to its implementation. The EU policy is analyzed along key dimensions for the concept of resilience: systems, threats, and resources. At its core, the EU’s approaches have changed little, which can come into conflict with the cornerstone ideas of resilience thinking. For example, there is a tendency to assess the social and cultural practices existing in theneighboring countries through the prism of “right†and “wrong†, thus excluding them from resources of building resilience. In the case of the Eastern Neighborhood, Brussels did not refuse to promote here a full package of reforms aimed at spreading European practices to the states of the region. This is based on the perception of the region as a part of Wider Europe. The problems of the Southern Mediterranean and the Middle East, on the contrary, are increasingly merging in the eyes of the EU with those of the entire African continent. In the discourse and the policy of the European Union, disregard of the region’s problems may impede the formation of higher-quality forms of resilience in the South.
Suggested Citation
N. N. Gudalov & E. Yu. Treshchenkov, 2020.
"Resilience in the European Neighborhood Policy,"
Outlines of global transformations: politics, economics, law, Center for Crisis Society Studies, vol. 13(4).
Handle:
RePEc:ccs:journl:y:2020:id:669
DOI: 10.23932/2542-0240-2020-13-4-8
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ccs:journl:y:2020:id:669. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Кривопалов Ð Ð»ÐµÐºÑ ÐµÐ¹ Ð Ð»ÐµÐºÑ ÐµÐµÐ²Ð¸Ñ‡ (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.