Тема: PARTICULARITIES OF EURASIAN REGIONALISM

Regional integration is an extremely multifaceted process and the relations between the countries of Eurasia are the center part of many of the current world discussions. Integration can lead to immense benefits, create new markets, increase competition, solve crises, foster development, and present ways of cooperation that were not possible on an individual basis. In Eurasia, this process has been very particular considering that most countries shared an extensive past, the Russian Empire, and the Soviet Union, resulting in specific and complex processes with significantly different levels of cooperation that deserve much academic attention.
The chronological frameworks of the study cover 1991 to 2023. In this specific research, we have looked at Eurasian regionalism starting in 1991 with the end of the Soviet Union and mainly focused on the countries that belonged to the USSR and with some important remarks about Europe and Chinese influence. Eurasia has evolved substantially in terms of regional integration from the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States to the Eurasian Union and this research is constructed in a way that connects these last thirty years to the present as well as to the traditional regional integration theory, established from the mid of the 20th century forward.
The topic’s relevance is connected to how fast Eurasia has changed in the past 30 years, with significant governmental processes, very particular continuities, and powerful institutions that have passed the test of time. It has been observed that the Eurasian integration process was painted in most of the world as a reflection of Russia’s foreign policy and oversimplified. In this line, we hope to show that there are ongoing regional intricacies, bargaining, and restructuring processes that cannot be summarized or undermined but are part of the dynamic and fast-changing environment we call Eurasia.
Theoretical substantiation of the study. This research attempted to connect the Eurasian processes to other theories that have been developed in the field and are applied to many other regional integration initiatives. In our literature review, we noted that Eurasia and the regions’ institutions are treated in a separate matter; either presenting it as another underwhelming project of Russian influence or a completely separate phenomenon, not belonging to traditional integration attempts. To suggest that Eurasian integration is very much aligned with the international standards of regional integration and to show its many sides, we define and apply many of the concepts of traditional regional integration theory to Eurasian institutions.
Scientific depth of the issue. The study of regional organization and the interactions between countries that have solid reasons to increase their cooperation is being conducted widely and has increased in importance after the increased success in the EAEU. Post-Soviet and Eurasian integration were considered in the works of Black L., DeBardeleben J., Dina and Martin Spechler, Dragneva R., Kaledin N., Lagutina M., Libman A., Marketos T. N., Obydenkova A., Popescu N., Stavrakis P. J., Vasilyeva N. A., Vinokurov E., among others. The practical elements that compose state and state integration were considered in the works of Acharya A., Chase-Dunn C., Gustavsson S., Haas E., Hall T.D., Keohane R., Lewin L., Nye J., Ohanyan A., Rosamond B., Soderbaum F., and many more. While research that enriches the understanding of the history of regionalism in Eurasia has been made in the recent past, this research introduces fresh theoretical perspectives on modern institutions in Eurasia and provides an overview of the International Relations understanding of regional integration.
The aim of this research is to identify what makes Eurasian regionalism unique and we worked with the hypothesis that Eurasian integration is constructed in a way that fosters integration even at high costs. To achieve this goal, we put the following objectives of our research:
1. To indicate interpretations to understanding ‘regional integration’, ‘regionalism’ in the theory of international relations.
2. To explore the practical application of regional integration by examining the factors that can either facilitate or hinder its development.
3. To explore the stages of development in the regional organizations of Eurasia: from post-Soviet stage to Eurasian one.
4. To give a historical overview of post-Soviet and Eurasian regional institutions and identify their advantages, disadvantages and specific features and understand what this means for Eurasian integration.
5. To identify the nature of current Eurasian integration, based on the analysis of the Eurasian Economic Union’s case.
6. To reveal the prospects of development of Eurasian integration and Eurasian regionalism.
As our goal is very specific, addressing the particularities of regional integration, most elements that are connected but are not directly influencing the literature as government changes, specific conflicts, and general foreign policy changes are a few of this research’s limitations.
...
Купить

At the beginning of the research, the objective was to understand what makes Eurasianism unique and if the states are willing to bear a greater price than other regions to make integration work. Not only we have identified many elements of uniqueness, both institutional and practical, we have established a timeline of how the organizations have evolved through time and how the states dealt with balancing agency and their sovereignty with the desire to reap economic benefits. In the first attempts of integration, the loose forms of cooperation were significantly damaging to how the organizations were perceived, and it forced the emergence of new organizations since using old ones with damaged reputations was more a risk than an asset. Eventually, with the relative success of specific organizations like the SCO and the EAEU, it seemed that the Eurasian states understood that a clear goal and a limited number of states in the same organization are the most likely to result in success.
The objectives of our research were achieved successfully through the application of system analysis, case study and document analysis. We have indicated an overarching history of concepts and theories that assisted us in understanding regional integration and regionalism in international relations. This research was able to combine significant number of defined concepts and their connections to practical institutions, while showing how different theories of regional integration competed with each other in the early stages of integration to the modern state­dominant model of integration. We hope to have shown the complexities of integration, that theories significantly overestimate the ability of institutions to constrain states and that ideology is not strong enough to motivate integration. In modern times, comparative regionalism and the focus on non-state actors are growing tremendously, but should consistently be put against fact and theories that highlight the relevant role of states in IR.
In addition, this research explored the practical application of regional integration. We have exposed many elements that assist us in understanding the factors that can either facilitate or hinder integration development. We were able to understand that practical integration can be limited because of clear state intentions and are a result of newly independent states and their elites attempts to retain as much power as possible. The studies of practical regional integration have shown that implementation gaps can be a result of intent and stagnation is normally a result of a process that can’t be undone, normally resulting in Zombie organizations or in the creation of new institutions to accomplish old goals. It’s important to highlight our discovery that when states create organizations for Integration Rhetoric or Talking Clubs, key regional integration concepts like spillover, unintended consequences, and lock-in are less visible. Furthermore, we understood that modern-day integration practically refutes the theories that affirmed that conflicts will not arise if there is a significant amount of interaction between countries. The theories that present the national intentions as a result of domestic competition are not universally appliable, considering that in some countries, the decision-making process is extremely condensed in a group, and, as we showed, this acts both as an incentive and a constraint for integration (search for rent and desire to retain sovereignty).
Moreover, the stages of development in the regional organization of Eurasia were demonstrated and the post-Soviet and Eurasian institutions were broadly explored. From the early non-binding loose association to the modern EAEU, we have learned that all organizations had a role in showing the post-Soviet countries about the possibilities of what can be accomplished as a group. We can affirm through our overview that each new organization attempted to avoid the mistakes of past organizations, being created to enjoy the newly acquired legitimacy, which is the main reason that organizations are founded and not reformed.
At last, we have identified the current nature of Eurasian integration and revealed prospects for its development. The nation-state still holds much of its power and it’s the central decision­making for every country in Eurasia and is very aligned with new institutionalism ideas that the states, exclusively, can chase goals. In this line, the states in the EAEU are aligning their macroeconomic policies with very realistic goals and correcting most of the problems present in the previous organizations. The clear indicators that states must attend, the ways that the organization found to measure their success and the establishment of short-time goals in the EAEU Charter are a massive innovation, not only in the integration, but in the reduction of asymmetries. F or the future, there are efficient plans to overcome one of the most worrying factors of integration, the top-down structure. Besides, in this section of our research, we observed how the fact that the EAEU members are sensitive and vulnerable to the same factors, this pushes them into integration and lock-in, connecting practical modern Eurasian integration to traditional integration theory. We affirm that Eurasian integration is essential for the future, considering their many similarities and the fact that periods of isolation have created more problems than solution. Nonetheless, it’s fair to claim that, in Eurasia, the institutions were built on a trial-and-error basis and that regional integration is no longer a solution, a tool in search of peace, but has evolved into its own phenomena, capable of coexisting and evolving during very significant, even military, conflicts.
Купить