PARTICULARITIES OF EURASIAN REGIONALISM

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