Abstract
The institutional power of the European Union (EU), and its rapid growth and strength in the past two decades alone, allow political scientists room to theorise on its success and its ability to participate in international relations. Hiski Haukkala examines the geopolitical interaction between the EU and Russia, questioning the role of sovereignty in relation to the EU's international approach, in his 2010 publication, The EU–Russia Strategic Partnership: The Limits of Post-sovereignty in International Relations.
Haukkala combines international relations theories of neo-realism, institutionalism and the English School to examine his main research question: ‘Can the differences in the degree of commonality concerning the normative foundation of the EU–Russia institution be used in explaining the recurring difficulties in the EU–Russia relationship?’ (p. 27) Haukkala uses the institutional term of commonality as the overall quality of interaction within a given institution, based on the logic of the English School's idea of an anarchic state in IR tempered by the acceptance of common norms and values. Haukkala's multifaceted theorisation aims to explain the relationship in a post-Cold War era via a framed issue method.
The EU has normatively challenged Russia's sovereignty by aiming to transform Russia along the lines of EU values and norms, yet declining any reciprocal movements of its own. Russia, on the other hand, has followed a more ‘traditional’ approach to its relationship with the Union, defining its sovereignty by seeking its own political and economic interests, while not allowing the Union to affect the Russian domestic sphere. Russia's ability effectively to exclude European Union politics from its domestic sphere is evident in Haukkala's examination of the Second Chechen War in chapter 7. The EU has followed the notion that insisting or imposing its values and norms on its neighbours will create stabilisation and prosperity in Eastern Europe.
The Russian sentiment is thus the result of the EU's imposition. Consequently, the EU and Russia are not on the same institutionalised ground in terms of their values and norms or in their respect for sovereignty; hence their sour political moods and lack of coordinated, strategic interaction.
And while Haukkala succeeds in his multifaceted theorisation, the role of the member states and their individual sovereignty is lacking. Haukkala's arguments to explain the EU–Russia interaction seem extremely plausible and arguably very well researched. The multifaceted theorisation is innovative and risky in IR, but well examined in this book. The book is geared to students of IR theory.