Portrait of Professor Elena Korosteleva

Professor Elena Korosteleva

Professor of International Politics
Director of the Global Europe Centre (Professional Studies)

About

Elena Korosteleva is Professor of International Politics, and Jean Monnet Chair of European Politics, which she was awarded twice by the European Commission in recognition of her research and teaching excellence. Before joining the School in 2012, Elena was Senior Lecturer in International Politics and Director of the newly established Centre for European Studies at Aberystwyth University. Drawing on this experience, in 2013 Elena successfully launched the Global Europe Centre (GEC) at Kent, in partnership with Professor Whitman. Professor Korosteleva is presently the Principal Investigator of the large four-year GCRF UKRI COMPASS project (ES/P010849/1, 2017-21, £4mln), supported by the British government, to address the challenges of capacity-building in developing countries. In particular, the COMPASS project, along with its partner at the University of Cambridge, seeks to establish ‘the hubs of excellence’ at the top-level HEIs in Azerbaijan (ADA University), Belarus (BSU), Tajikistan (TNU) and Uzbekistan (UWED) for knowledge sharing in the areas of research integrationimpact governance, and sustainable communities.

Elena received her Doctoral Degree in European Politics from the University of Bath (2001), and a PhD equivalent in Political Sociology from the Belarusian State University (1997). Thereafter she served as a British Academy Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Glasgow, and is currently a Visiting Professor at the LSE IDEAS and the College of Europe (Natolin). Elena served as member of the International Advisory Board for the GLOBSEC and Central European Strategy Council; Professorial Fellow of the Dahrendorf Forum at LSE IDEAS, and core group member, Munich Security Conference (2018). Elena works closely with UK (Westminster, FCO, DFID, British Council, WFD, HM Embassies) and EU institutions (European Commission, External Action Service, European Parliament and regional EUDs), and EU organisations (TEPSA, IRI, CEPS), and national governments in wider Eurasia. Elena is a regular media commentator for BBC, ITV, France24, Sky News and national news channels.

Elena's research interests include the concepts of governance, resilience as self-governance, regional order-building, peoplehood and democracy promotion; EU Global Security Strategy and Foreign Policies (ENP/EaP) including relations with Russia, Eastern Europe, Central Asia and China. In 2011 Elena completed a large ESRC-funded project (RES-061-25-0001) titled 'Europeanising or securitising the outsiders: Assessing the EU's partnership-building with Eastern Europe' (2008-2011), which findings contributed towards revising EU policies in the eastern neighbourhood, with a particular focus on ‘partnership’. Recently, she also acted as CoI to the H2020 UPTAKE (EU 691818) project ‘Building Research Excellence in Russian and East European Studies’, led by the University of Tartu in partnership with Uppsala, which scored the highest evaluation mark from the European Commission for exceeding our research development targets by over 500% (please visit the project site).

Elena is currently in charge of the GCRF COMPASS project (2017-21), the largest grant in the history of the Faculty of Social Sciences, and the 3rd largest at the University of Kent; and CoI to the new GCRF AGRE project, in partnership with Durham and Oxford, working on connectivity and the effects of globalisation across the wider Eurasian region. Elena’s funding application succes  totals over £8mln, including collaboration with all major UK (GCRF, ESRC, AHRC, British Academy, FCO) and EU (H2020; EuropAid; Jean Monnet and ERASMUS+) funders.

Elena has more than 100 publications, including 10 authored and edited monographs. Her major academic articles appeared in the journals of Contemporary Security Policy; International Relations & Development; Cooperation & Conflict; Democratization; and International Relations. Elena is currently working with Dr Irina Petrova on a manuscript Change, Resilience and Adaptive Governance in wider Eurasia; and with Professor Trine Flockhart (Southern Denmark University) - on resilience and multi-order governance.

Research interests


  • Concepts of partnership, governance and order in IR and EU studies
  • Resilience, capacity-building and sustainable development
  • EU Foreign Policy and External Relations, including European Neighbourhood Policy and Eastern Partnership
  • Europe as a global order-making actor
  • Pluralising and contextualising democracy
  • EU Relations with Russia, eastern region and Central Asia
  • EU Global Security Strategy and resilience

Current Projects:

  • COI to the GCRF AGRE project 'Fostering Adaptive Governance and Resilience in Local Communities of Central Asia: from fragmented past to connected future?' In partnership with the Universities of Durham and Oxford, Prof. Korosteleva and Dr Petrova are working to build strategic partnerships for research and government relations across wider Eurasia, spanning Belarus in the west, Pakistan in the south, and Mongolia in the east. This is the 1st phase of the project aiming to prepare a full-fledged proposal to explore the effects of connectivity on local stakeholders in the region.

  • PI to the GCRF UKRI COMPASS project (ES/PO10849/1, 2017-21; £4,1mln). In partnership with Professor Siddharth Saxena from the University of Cambridge, Elena focuses on resilience and adaptive governance while developing research excellence and capacity-building with the Belarusian State University, ADA University, University of World Economy and Diplomacy in Uzbekistan and National University in Tajikistan. The project connects academic research with the world of policy and civil society. 
  • PI to EASMUS+ project (2016-2-UK01-KA107-034991, 2017-18, €90K & 2019-20, €100K) ‘Developing strategic research and multi-disciplinary partnerships with Belarusian State University’.

Recently completed projects

  • H2020 UPTAKE (EU 691818; 2016-19, €1,1mlm) project 'Building Research Excellence in Russian and East European Studies' in partnership with the Universities of Tartu and Uppsala. For more information visit the project site.
  • SIBA, Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy, EUROPAID, 2016
  • CEELBAS Development fund, a seven-member consortium, AHRC, 2014-16
  • ODB/SIDA Belarus’ values survey, 2016
  • European Partnership Fund, University of Kent, 2015
  • Slovak Atlantic Commission ‘Widening Participation in Moldova’, 2013-14
  • European Commission, Jean Monnet LLP, 2013-16
  • European Commission UK, wider community project, 2014
  • FCO/British Embassy (Minsk) project ‘Promoting Democracy by Education in Belarus’, 2013
  • ODB/SIDA project ‘Engendering European values by education in the eastern region’, 2013
  • European Commission, Jean Monnet LLP, Pilot Project ‘Teaching EU in schools’, 2012
  • European Commission, Jean Monnet Life Long Programme, 2011
  • ESRC 1st Grants Scheme ‘Assessing the EU’s partnership-building approach with Eastern Europe’, 2008-11

Teaching

Undergraduate:

Postgraduate:

Supervision

Professor Korosteleva is interested in supervising research degree students who wish to explore conceptually and practically, the notions of governance, order, resilience, democracy, ‘the local’ vs ‘the global’, and foreign & security policy, of the EU, Russia, China especially in relation to the expanding region of wider Eurasia.  

Professor Korosteleva presently supervises the following Doctoral students:

Polina Bishenden (2nd year GCRF PhD student)
Gender Norms localisation in Central Asia

Huawei Zheng (3rd year GCRF PhD student)
Eurasian Economic Union as an order-making actor

Tanya Radchuk (4th year PhD student)
Small States’ Foreign Policy: the Case of Belarus 

Susanne Szkola (completed successfully in 2020)
Collective Identity Constructions and Perceptions of Security in the South Caucasus (2009-2015)

Alisa Karpovich (MRES completed successfully in 2019)

Miruna Beldiman (MRES completed successfully in 2018)

Igor Merheim-Eyre (completed successfully in 2017)
The Soft-Civilian Power: Europe and Consular Affairs in a Changing International System

Eske Van Gils (completed successfully in 2016)
EU Bargaining Power: examining EU-Azerbaijan relations

Professional

 

Publications

Showing 50 of 55 total publications in the Kent Academic Repository. View all publications.

Forthcoming

  • Korosteleva, E. and Paikin, Z. eds. (2020). Russia between East and West, and the future of Eurasian order’. International Politics 57:1-295.
  • Korosteleva, E. and Flockhart, T. eds. (2020). Resilience in EU and International Institutions. Routledge SPIB.
  • Korosteleva, E. and Petrova, I. (2020). From ‘the global’ to ‘the local’: the future of ’cooperative orders’ in Central Eurasia in times of complexity. International Politics [Online] 57:1-37. Available at: https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1057/s41311-020-00262-4.
    Living in times of increasing complexity is hard; it becomes even harder with the realisation of diminishing control. How do we adapt our governance to this complexity to ensure peaceful cohabitation of the established and emergent order regimes? This paper contends that it is important to embrace complexity in full, conceptually and practically, by shifting from ‘the global’ to ‘the local’, to understand the pressure of transformational change and to prepare the ground for the emergence of more resilient and cooperative orders. We apply this complexity-thinking, using a 3P analysis, to Central Eurasia, presently a battleground of three competing order-making regimes - the EU, China and Russia. We argue that for more resilient and cooperative orders to emerge, it is essential to understand and enable ‘the local’ and embrace the region in is diversity, to facilitate a more joined-up and bottom-up governance in managing the complexity of a changing world.
  • Azmanova, A. (2020). Countering precarity: social resilience through a political economy of trust. In: Korosteleva, E. and Flockhart, T. eds. Resilience in EU and International Institutions. London: Routledge.
    This chapter explores the socio-economic parameters that shape experiences of security and vulnerability. It argues that contemporary capitalism has generated not just a precarious class, a “precariat” (Guy Standing), but a precarious multitude, with experiences of precarity cutting across gender, age, class and occupational differences. Policy efforts and intellectual critique have so far focused either on fighting inequality through redistribution or on a revival of the post-WWII, bureaucratic welfare state. As an alternative, this chapter will articulate a policy set that fosters societal and personal resilience by building what I have conceptualized as “political economy of trust”. These are reforms which counter social and economic insecurity at the level of interpersonal relations and interactions, with a focus on logistics of equitable distribution of risks and opportunities.

Article

  • Korosteleva, E. and Paikin, Z. (2020). Russia between east and west, and the future of Eurasian order. International Politics [Online] 57:1-23. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-020-00261-5.
    This article introduces the special issue by going beyond the traditional debates about geopolitics and great power rivalry. Instead, it examines the emergent and highly complex world of Central Eurasia, in its transformative effort to reorder itself in response to both global and local change. In particular, the paper (and the volume) focuses on two interrelated themes: one of a changing Russia, that is anxiously trying to adapt to the uncertain dynamics within and beyond the wider Eurasian space; and the other – of an emerging complexity of new order-making regional (integration) initiatives that are poised to reshape the future of international and global order. The overarching intention of this paper and the volume is to advance the need to focus on ‘the local’, to gain a more holistic understanding of the present-day challenges and the kind of global response needed to stay attuned to the increasingly complex world.
  • Korosteleva, E. and Flockhart, T. (2020). Resilience in EU and international institutions: Redefining local ownership in a new global governance agenda. Contemporary Security Policy [Online] 41:153-175. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1723973.
    The article introduces the special issue by exploring the full potential of “resilience” as a governing regime of the European Union and other international institutions. Developing a more comprehensive understanding of the concept is important for three reasons. One, it gives an opportunity to see resilience not only as a quality of a system, but also as a way of thinking, and a process inherent to “the local” that cannot be externally engineered. Two, as an analytic of governance, resilience challenges the current fundamentals of top-down global governance and refocuses it on the role of “the local” and “the person” to make it more responsive to people’s needs. Three, resilience cannot be understood without exploring where and how it is constituted–that is, without unpacking “the local” ordering domain to see how ontological insecurity and a sense of “good life” could contribute to the emergence of more adaptive governing systems.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2019). Reclaiming resilience back: A local turn in EU external governance. Contemporary Security Policy [Online]:1-34. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2019.1685316.
    Resilience seems to have become "the everyday" covering many aspects of our lives and the policy agenda of major international institutions. However, despite the upsurge in its popularity, are we sure we understand resilience well enough to make full use of its potential? Is resilience just about an entity and its qualities, the knowledge of which could help us improve its response to adversity? Or is it more about resilience as governance-thinking which could enable local communities to self-organize to build life they have reason to value, with external assistance as necessary? Tackling these fundamentals is important, not least to ensure that resilience is not another buzzword but an opportunity to make governance more adaptive. This article argues that resilience cannot be engineered externally, and requires local communities, aware of their own strength and capacities, to actualize their own potential in their strife for "good life," the way they specify.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2019). A Comedian, A President, and A Prime Minister: the 2019 presidential election in Ukraine. LSE Dahrendorf Forum [Online]:2. Available at: https://www.dahrendorf-forum.eu/a-comedian-a-president-and-a-prime-minister-the-2019-presidential-election-in-ukraine/.
    Ukrainian politics has been dominated by debates over whether to align with Russia or the EU, but Elena Korosteleva and Vsevolod Samokhvalov say the latest election proves that might be changing. The first of April, commonly known as an April Fools’ Day, produced some surprising election results, even by Ukrainian standards. Out of 39 registered presidential hopefuls only two came forth: the stand-up comedian Volodymyr Zelenskiy (30 percent), and the former president Petro Poroshenko (16 percent), with the former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, left behind with only 13 percent of the vote. Some say Zelenskiy has not just won the first round of the election, but also slapped the establishment in the face, taking twice as many votes as the best-known politicians in the country and reducing a pro-Russian candidate Yuriy Boyko to a negligible 11.7 percent. What does this tell us about Ukrainian politics?
  • Korosteleva, E. (2018). Paradigmatic or Critical? Resilience as a New Turn in EU Governance for the Neighbourhood. Journal of International Relations and Development [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-018-0155-z.
    Rising from the margins of EU aid documents, resilience became a centrepiece of the 2016 EU Global Security Strategy, especially in relation to the neighbourhood. While new resilience-thinking may signify another paradigmatic shift in EU modus operandi, the question that emerges is whether it is critical enough to render EU governance a new turn, to make it sustainable? This article argues that in order for resilience-framed governance to become more effective, the EU needs not just engage with ‘the local’ by way of externally enabling their communal capacity. More crucially, the EU needs to understand resilience for what it is – a self-governing project – to allow ‘the local’ an opportunity to grow their own critical infrastructures and collective agency, in their pursuit of ‘good life’. Is the EU ready for this new thinking, and not just rhetorically or even methodologically when creating new instruments and subjectivities? The bigger question is whether the EU is prepared to critically turn the corner of its neoliberal agenda to accommodate emergent collective rationalities of self-governance as a key to make its peace-building project more successful.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2017). Putting the EU Global Security Strategy to test: ‘cooperative orders’ and othering in EU–Russia relations. International Politics [Online] 56:304-320. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-017-0128-7.
    This paper examines the notion of othering and its role in the development of cooperative regional orders, prioritised by the EU Global Security Strategy. It argues that the conceptual underpinnings of the relationship between the inside and the outside, the established Self and the emergent Other, are too often taken for granted, and in an increasingly fragmenting global order require urgent re-conceptualisation. Hitherto, excessive emphasis has been placed on the Self, at the expense or even ignorance of the Other, leading to the production and endurance of hegemonic power structures, reinforced and maintained by the exclusionary ‘regimes of truth’, to which the EU-Russia relations in the ‘shared’ neighbourhood presently testify. Drawing on post-structuralist and Freudian work, the paper argues that while living in an increasingly complex and contested world, it is imperative to develop a more nuanced understanding of a changing global order as relational and interdependent. This would require a new conceptualisation of othering as a reciprocal nexus (rather than an opposition or even juxtaposition) between the Self and the Other, to ensure that cooperative orders would form and become sustainable.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2017). Eastern Partnership: bringing ’the political’ back in. East European Politics [Online] 33:1-23. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2017.1340882.
    Drawing on Edkins’ (1999) interpretation of ‘politics’ and ‘the political’, this article conceptually rethinks the Eastern Partnership agenda. Part of the problem, as this article argues, is the EU’s failure to imagine a new social order, which would give a relational value to the Other, and become more accommodating of their diverse and different world: and not by way of disciplining it to the EU purported standards, but rather by way of aligning differences to a mutually agreeable ‘normal’. The article thus problematises power relations as a process of ‘othering’, in order to re-conceptualise them via the key notions of differentiation conceived as distinction rather than deviation, and normalisation, seen as the interplay between different normalities. The article argues for bringing ‘the political’ (Edkins 1999) back in as an opportunity for debate and legitimation of contesting social orders.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2016). Eastern Partnership and the Eurasian Union: bringing ’the political’ back in the eastern region. European Politics and Society [Online] 17:67-81. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2016.1171275.
    Drawing on the post-structuralist traditions and especially Jenny Edkins’ (1999) interpretation of ‘politics’ and ‘the political’, this article sets to conceptually rethink the geo-strategic dynamics of the EU-Russia relations in the context of the eastern region. It argues that while the EU’s and the Russia-led Eurasian (EEU) projects may be appealing in their own right, their visions for the ‘shared’ eastern neighbourhood remain self-centred and exclusionary. The root of the problem, as this paper contends, is that the EU and the EEU struggle to imagine a new social order, which would give a relational value to the Other as pari passu, and assume cooperation as an interplay of differing normalities rather than subjection to one’s norms and authority. Presently, the EU and Russia find themselves locked in parallel rather than complementary relations with the ‘shared’ region, each attempting to institutionalise their respective political orders, and not by way of contestation – ‘the political’ – but rather by a depoliticised means of technocracy or compulsion. This, if anything, is likely to destabilise the region further, if ‘the political’ is not back on the agenda
  • Korosteleva, E. (2016). The European Union, Russia and the Eastern region: The analytics of government for sustainable cohabitation. Cooperation and Conflict [Online] 51:365-383. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836716631778.
    This article applies the Foucauldian premise of governmentality and the analytics of government framework to demonstrate how exclusive modalities of power – of the European Union (EU) and Russia – and their competing rationalities relate, intersect and become, counter-intuitively, inextricable in their exercise of governance over the eastern neighbourhood. This particular approach focuses on power as a process to gauge the prospects for compatibility and cohabitation between the EU and Russia. Using original primary evidence, this article contends that cohabitation between these two exclusive power modalities is possible and even inevitable, if they were to legitimise their influence over the contested eastern region. It also exposes a fundamental flaw in the existing power systems, as demonstrated so vividly in the case of Ukraine – that is, a neglect for the essential value of freedom in fostering subjection to one’s authority, and the role of ‘the other’ in shaping the EU–Russian power relations in the contested region
  • Korosteleva, E. (2016). The European Union and Belarus: democracy promotion by technocratic means?. Democratization [Online] 23:678-698. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2015.1005009.
    Is Belarus an enviable constant in international relations: a maverick, isolated from the West and inseparable from the East? On the surface, there seems to be business as usual: Lukashenko's regime remains unchallenged; Belarus’ relations with the European Union – spasmodic at best; while its absorption into Russia's Eurasian project continues apace. Yet, some critical disjunctures – manifested in government tacit resistance to Russia's influence, and more instructively, in people's growing affinity with Europe – may indicate a sea-change transformation in the very fabric of society. This article, utilizing extensive and subject-focused research, conducted in the country between 2009 and 2013, examines the nature and causalities of the occurring change. It argues that democracy promotion, in Belarus’ case, may work better when depoliticized and inculcated, through norms, regulations, and practices of international order, into the daily lives of individuals. Through its continued technocratic, inclusive, and sector-level engagement, European Union governance, even under the conditions of limited bilateral dialogue, have succeeded in fostering much-needed space for reciprocal learning and critical reasoning, which may have far greater transformative potential than manufacturing a single collective will for democracy building.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2015). EU-Russia relations in the context of the eastern neighbourhood. Bertelsmann Stiftung policy paper [Online]:1 -12. Available at: https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en/publications/publication/did/eu-russia-relations-in-the-context-of-the-eastern-neighbourhood/.
    This report briefly examines EU-Russia relations in the context of the eastern neighbourhood. It contends that both the EU and Russia’s ambitions for the eastern region have evolved into two competing region-building projects underpinned by differing strategies, norms, instruments, and actors. Although projecting competing rationalities, the two projects, until recently, had peacefully co-existed, working around conflicting issues of political norms and economic convergence, which were not necessarily seen as insurmountable for furthering regional cooperation. Their subsequent politicisation and securitisation, as a consequence of events in Ukraine, have rendered regional partnership currently incompatible, revealing a profound lack of understanding the region by both the EU and Russia; and the EU under-exploited capacity to work co-jointly with the Eurasian Union (and Russia) vis-a-vis the region. This report contends that the EU must make an effort to acknowledge and engage with the above actors in the region, in order to develop cooperative strategies, based on shared interests, international norms and compatible instruments for the advancement of economic and political convergence.
  • Korosteleva, E., Natorski, M. and Simao, L. (2013). The Eastern Dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy: practices, instruments and social structures. East European Politics [Online] 29:257-272. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2013.807801.
    The European Union (EU) continuingly searches for more effective policy towards its eastern neighbours, which is reflected in the ongoing adaptation of its existing approaches, discourses and policy strategies to the new challenges of its external environment. In order to understand the complexity and limitations of the EU framework under the European neighbourhood policy and the eastern partnership initiative – that is, to consider the interface between policy instruments, institutional structures and multiple agents – one needs to adopt an original analytical perspective of practices to comprehensively assess the policies' outcomes. With this in mind, this issue sets to discern patterns of social practices between the EU and its eastern neighbours, and examine how these relations guide agents' interactions in various policy areas. This introduction outlines the theoretical framework synergising the three fundamental concepts – of practices, policy instruments and social structures – that have predicated research for this issue. It also outlines the structure and main arguments of the individual case-studies which inform the issue's conceptual framework.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2013). Evaluating the role of partnership in the European Neighbourhood Policy. Eastern Journal of European Studies [Online] 4:11 -36. Available at: http://ejes.uaic.ro/articles/EJES2013_0402_KOR.pdf.
    After recent enlargements, the EU sought to develop a new strategy that would incentivise rather than compel, in the absence of a membership prospect, the neighbours for reform. The concept of partnership was placed on the agenda as a supplementary tool of EU governance to offset negative externalities of convergence and compliance. However, it has taken the EU three conceptual iterations to finally identify a suitable frame for engagement. This paper posits that the EU is currently at a critical juncture observing an important shift in its modus operandi – away from hierarchical coordination and control, to more networked relations of self-censorship and ownership, designed to operate through a complex matrix of grass-root initiatives to penetrate all levels of society. To make it an effective model for the future external relations, the EU still requires two important elements – institutionalisation of the new governance structure, and learning about ‘the other’, to mobilise partners’ support for reciprocal and sustainable cooperation.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2012). Questioning Democracy Promotion: Belarus’ response to the ’colour revolutions’. Democratization [Online] 19:37-59. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2012.641294.
    The article focuses on the aftermath of the colour revolutions by analysing and questioning the real success, as often depicted by the West, of democracy promotion in the East European region. First of all, the article challenges the conventional logic of democracy promotion – even when backed by moral reasoning and resource availability – as sufficient and adequate for instigating democratic change in non-liberal regimes. By examining the case of Belarus it further contends that authoritarian regimes effectively learn to resist and counteract foreign-led democracy promotion, and often do so legitimately, with a minimal use of force. The article concludes that in order to exercise democracy promotion (if such a thing is possible at all) a far deeper understanding of autocratic narratives is needed, associated with a much closer look at societal norms and values, as well as an individual country's geopolitical resources and strategies.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2011). Change or Continuity: Is the Eastern Partnership an Adequate Tool for the European Neighbourhood?. International Relations [Online] 25:243-262. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047117811404446.
    This article examines the discourse of the EU’s relations with eastern Europe under the recently launched Eastern Partnership (EaP) initiative. First, it evaluates the EaP’s conceptual framework to suggest that there seems to be more continuity than change in the EU’s modus operandi with its neighbours. More crucially, the notion of ‘partnership’, central to the new philosophy of cooperation with the outsiders, continues to be ill defined, causing a number of problems for the effective and legitimate realisation of the European Neighbourhood Policy/Eastern Partnership in the region. Second, drawing on the empirical investigations of the official discourses in Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova, the article reveals an increasing gap between EU rhetoric and east European expectations. In the absence of adequate partnership response to the needs and interests of ‘the other’, the policy is unlikely to find anticipated legitimation in the neighbourhood.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2011). The Eastern Partnership Initiative: A New Opportunity for Neighbours?. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics [Online] 27:1-21. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13523279.2011.544381.
    The EU's relationship with its neighbours to the east has long been founded on the aspiration to build a kind of partnership that does not automatically offer the prospect of membership to former Soviet republics apart from the Baltic States. The mechanism for this was initially the European Neighbourhood Policy, embracing a wider range of countries, which has been further buttressed by the Eastern Partnership initiative (EaP) in an effort to revitalize the partnership-building process in the east. Although more differentiated and versatile, the EaP has nevertheless inherited the Neighbourhood Policy's original conceptual limitations, especially concerning the ill-defined nature of partnership. Practical limitations, on the other hand, include the policy's lack of coherence and management, as well as its low visibility and public appreciation on the ground across the board. The East European response to the EU's initiative reveals further tensions and contradictions, especially pertaining to partner countries' geopolitics and cultural and civilization differences. It is clear that the EU's ‘politics of inclusion’ needs further conceptualization in order to shift the balance away from the EU towards the partner countries themselves. Only in these circumstances of de-centring can the notion of partnership become true and effective.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2011). Belarus’ Foreign Policy in a time of crisis. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics [Online] 27:3-23. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13523279.2011.595167.
    As with the rest of the world, Belarus has been affected by the global economic crisis.
    However, the main consequences for the country were less economic, but rather
    political in nature. Although closely connected with Russia, it was not the spillover
    of the crisis, such as the reduction in its hitherto ‘miraculous’ levels of
    economic growth to almost nothing in one year, that hit Belarus hard. Instead, it was
    Russia’s deliberate politics of ‘pragmatization’, directed at its ‘near abroad’ to
    facilitate compliance of and interdependence with its neighbours, which dramatically
    altered Belarus’s foreign policy landscape. The two principal corollaries of the
    global crisis for Belarus therefore included the new and irreversible search (successful
    or otherwise) for diversification away from Russia, and the reinvigorated sense of
    sovereignty with which Belarus now attempts to rebuild itself domestically and
    internationally.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2010). Was There a Quiet Revolution? Belarus After the 2006 Presidential Election. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics [Online] 25:324-346. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13523270902861038.
    The 2006 presidential election in Belarus mobilized a large cross-section of society to protest against the Lukashenko regime. Although unprecedented, the mass mobilization was short-lived, failing to develop into another kind of coloured revolution in the region. The key to our understanding of the endurance of Lukashenko's regime seems to lie in its internal environment, and notably, in the seemingly contradictory feature of the Belarusian electorate. Not only do they fully identify with the president, thus effectively legitimizing his politics and policies; they also do so knowingly, through their strategic learning of how to survive and even thrive under Lukashenko's regime. This type of learning, however, may not necessarily lead to a critical reflection of the regime's malpractice, and thus is unlikely to challenge its foundations.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2010). Moldova’s European Choice: ‘Between Two Stools’?. Europe-Asia Studies [Online] 62:1267-1289. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2010.504383.
    The article examines EU–Moldovan relations from the perspective of the external governance framework. It reveals some considerable progress in the procedural engagement of both parties. However, the internal instability experienced by Moldova in 2009 is seen to have disrupted these relations, stalling further negotiations and even questioning Moldova's true commitment to Europe. To understand this ostensibly sudden change in Moldova's allegiance to Europe, it is argued that analysis needs to go beyond conventional governance framework(s). Premised on the notion of ‘constitutive boundaries’ a ‘partnership’ perspective offers a more nuanced understanding of the boundaries of ‘the other’, thus revealing the salience of geopolitics and culture in Moldova's relations with the outside world.
  • Korosteleva, E. and Bosse, G. (2009). Changing Belarus? The Limits of EU Governance in Eastern Europe and the Promise of Partnership. Cooperation and Conflict [Online] 44:143-165. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0010836709102736.
    Since the end of the Cold War, European Union (EU) efforts in transforming Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) have been enormously successful. The 2004 enlargement is widely regarded as the single most effective foreign policy strategy in the Union's history, and the recent European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) was designed to repeat that success in countries located on the EU's new Eastern borders. Although the ENP has been the subject of substantive discussion in European academia, Belarus is the one country in Eastern Europe that has largely escaped scholarly attention. This article takes stock of recent developments in EU—Belarus relations and seeks to explain the very limited leverage of the EU over the country. We first examine the EU's relations with Belarus through the theoretical lens of external governance. By taking for granted the EU's ability to transfer its norms and values, however, the governance perspective does not account for the EU's very limited success in changing Belarus. We therefore revisit Michael Smith's notion of `boundaries of order' to highlight the impact of legal/institutional, transactional, cultural and geopolitical factors on EU—Belarus relations. We argue, in particular, that the existence and the construction of boundaries between the Union and its neighbouring states are essentially mutually constitutive processes. Besides shifting its own boundaries (and thereby extending its rules to outsiders), the EU is itself subject to the boundaries enacted by neighbouring states. In our conclusion, we juxtapose the notion of external governance as `rule transfer' with `partnership' as a more suitable mode of interaction between the EU and Belarus

Book section

  • Korosteleva, E. (2017). The Challenges of a Changing Eastern Neighbourhood. In: Schumacher, T., Marchetti, A. and Demmelhuber, T. eds. Routledge Handbook on the European Neighbourhood Policy. London: Routledge. Available at: https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbook-on-the-European-Neighbourhood-Policy/Schumacher-Marchetti-Demmelhuber/p/book/9781138913721.
    The chapter examines challenges posed by the changing eastern region to the EU’s eastward foreign policy. It argues that while the EU has been reflective of its approach to the neighbourhood, it still struggles to understand and engage with the increasing complexities of the region. These in particular include the rise of the Eurasian Economic Union and the neighbours’ strong preference for developing complementarity between the EU and Russia’s region-building initiatives. Furthermore, the chapter contends that it is precisely the lack of positive othering involving recognition and engagement between the EU and Russia, and the wider region that prevents the development of more sustainable and effective policies towards the region.
  • Korosteleva, E. and Merheim-Eyre, I. (2016). The Political and the ENP: rethinking the EU relations with the eastern region. In: Gstöhl, S. and Schunz, S. eds. Theorizing the European Neighbourhood Policy. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Available at: https://www.routledge.com/9781138204799.
    Drawing on Jenny Edkins’ post-structuralist interpretation of ‘politics’ and ‘the political’, this chapter offers a new conceptual account of the stagnated relations between the European Union and the eastern region. Part of the difficulty, as this chapter argues, is the EU’s failure to imagine a new social order, which would give a relational value to the Other, and become more accommodating of the neighbours’ diverse and different world views. The chapter problematizes power relations as a process of ‘othering’ in order to re-conceptualize them via the key notions of ‘differentiation’, conceived as distinction rather than deviation, and ‘normalization’, seen as the interplay between different normalities. It argues for bringing ‘the political’ back in as an opportunity to imagine and legitimize contesting social orders.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2016). The-EU-Russia Relations: in search of a dialogue. In: Avoiding a New ’Cold War’: The Future of EU-Russia Relations in the Context of the Ukraine Crisis. LSE IDEAS. Available at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/research/reports/new-cold-war.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2015). The EU and its Eastern Neighbours: why ’othering’ matters. In: Nicolaidis, K., Sebe, B. and Maas, G. eds. Echoes of Empire: Memory, Identity and Colonial Legacies. Tauris, pp. 267-283. Available at: http://www.ibtauris.com/Books/Humanities/History/General%20%20world%20history/Echoes%20of%20Empire%20Memory%20Identity%20and%20the%20Legacy%20of%20Imperialism.aspx.
    The EU increasingly envisages itself as a ‘credible force for good’ (Solana 2007) in international relations. Despite its modest appearance, this is an expressly profound ambition, which intends to embrace the fundamentals of a ‘lasting power’, an ‘understanding of good’, and ‘credibility’ under the umbrella of a single but polycentric player. This vision, in its various incarnations – from civilian, transformative, normative, ethical, and responsible Europe – has been legitimated, writ large, in both scholarly and EU policy-making circles. Yet, this has been done either retrospectively, referring to the EU’s exceptionalism in terms of its to-date accomplishments and its ‘particular historical evolution’ (Manners 2002: 252); or more so, introspectively, based on the EU’s ‘authority, resources, and capacity to govern’ (Friis and Murphy 1999:214). The world order, however, has altered to become more interdependent and even interpolar (Howorth 2010; Grevi 2009); and with it, the hegemonic appeal of traditional powers can no longer be taken for granted (Linklater 2011). It is therefore surprising how little attention hitherto has been paid to understanding or indeed imagining the EU not only through the lens of its self-perception, tainted by its past colonial overtones of a ‘superior Self’ on a crusading mission to civilise the world. What is still amiss, is the EU’s perceptive awareness of the relational importance of the outside in its construction of a legitimate and credible Self, whereby the authority to govern is no longer a given, but rather earned through mobilisation and electioneering, to ensure allegiances from its counterparts, in a competitive and interpolar world.

Monograph

  • Korosteleva, E., Paikin, Z. and Paduano, S. (2019). Five Years After Maidan: Towards a Greater EUrasia?. LSE IDEAS. Available at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/research/reports/greater-eurasia.
    Five years after Maidan, is Moscow’s commitment to the Greater Eurasia paradigm a sign of global power’s continued eastward shift, or rather an indication of Russia’s weakness and reliance on other rising powers to maintain a global profile? How committed is Russia to integrating politically and economically with the rest of Eurasia? And following Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s election and the peaceful transfer of power in Ukraine, will Russia again look west, with
    the European model once more proving attractive to a critical mass of Russians?
    This report, building on a workshop held at LSE IDEAS in December 2018 and supported by the Horizon 2020 UPTAKE and Global Challenges Research Fund COMPASS projects, brings together some of the UK’s foremost scholars on Russia, the EU and the post-Soviet space to evaluate the challenges and opportunities facing Russia’s ‘Greater Eurasia’ foreign policy concept.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2016). The EU and Belarus: Seizing the Opportunity?. Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies. Available at: http://www.sieps.se/en/publications/european-policy-analysis/the-eu-and-belarus-seizing-the-opportunity-201613epa.
    Belarus’ domestic context and regional outlook have altered considerably, opening up opportunities for cooperation and change. This policy brief examines the EU’s approach to the country to discuss its policy success and failures, and how to make it more sustainable in the future. It advances three particular tenets, which could make Belarus more responsive, resilient and through inter-regional cooperation – more compatible:
    - Belarus, as a small state, prioritises a ‘balancing strategy’ with its greater regional powers. Acknowledging and engaging its geo-political complexity would make EU-Belarus cooperation more enduring
    - Belarus, like any other state in the eastern region, is normatively different, and requires a tailored approach to develop shared values. A more interest-driven technical cooperation may increase Belarus’ commitment and socialisation into the international system of norms and standards
    - The EU needs to recognise and engage with the EEU to increase its own leverage in the region. By empowering individual member states, it would contribute to their resilience as well as to making the EEU trading bloc more structurally sound, stable and open for dialogue.
    Recognising the above tenets is not about stating the obvious, but rather ensuring a more inclusive and sustainable nature of EU cooperation for the benefit of the wider region.
  • Korosteleva, E., Merheim-Eyre, I., Van Gils, E. and Mnatsakanyan, I. (2015). Reviewing the European Security Strategy in the Eastern Neighbourhood. CEPI. Available at: http://www.cepolicy.org/publications/towards-new-eu-global-strategy-challenges-and-opportunities-eastern-neighbourhood.
    The EU has considerably progressed in fostering a common vision for the European Security Strategy (ESS). It moved beyond the national priorities of individual Member States to collectively consider the interests of the European Union (EU) as a whole, and to separately articulate its external (2003)[1] and internal (2010)[2] security priorities. At the same time, more challenging tasks still lie ahead, as highlighted by the High Representative report of June 2015. Primarily, they relate to:
    •facilitating a joined-up vision, merging external and internal dimensions of security;
    •developing a joined-up inter-institutional approach involving all Members States and EU institutions, and connecting policy instruments and geographical silos into a European Security Model (ESM); and
    •fostering sustainable partnerships (including of strategic interests) with regional and global actors.

    If implemented, the strategy has the potential to enable the EU to extend its security goals beyond its borders, and to move closer to its aspiration to become a global (rather than regional) security player. It therefore comes as no surprise that the Commission has been tasked by the Council to develop a comprehensive strategy review by June 2016, taking all institutional views and current developments of the very complex, contested and inter-connected world into account.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2015). Moldova’s Focus Groups: Widening a European Dialogue in Moldova. Global Europe Centre, University of Kent. Available at: http://www.kent.ac.uk/politics/gec/research/index.html.
    Commissioned by the Slovak Atlantic Commission (SAC), Professor Elena Korosteleva conducted focus groups about European, national and Eurasian values in Moldova in order to contribute to the debate on the relations between Moldova and the European Union (EU) from the public’s perspective. Focus groups were conducted in Moldova between 28 March and 11 April 2014 focusing on the country’s relations with the EU and the (Eurasian) Customs Union (ECU); as well as public perceptions, values, and attitudes towards the afore-mentioned entities. Detailed findings are available in the survey brief enclosed.
  • Korosteleva, E., Merheim-Eyre, I., Van Gils, E. and Mnatsakanyan, I. (2015). Towards a New European Global Security Strategy: Challenges and Opportunities. Global Europe Centre, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Kent. Available at: http://www.kent.ac.uk/politics/gec/research/documents/gec-policy-paper-towards-a-european-global-security-strategy.pdf.
    This report briefly examines the interplay between the European security strategic vision and capabilities, its institutional architecture and policy implementation practices, with a particular focus on the EU consular affairs, EU democracy promotion and EU engagement in frozen conflicts under the Neighbourhood Policy (Appendices 1-3).

    This report contends that in order for the EU to develop an effective and sustainable global security strategy, it first, has to reconcile the vision of its strategic priorities within its inter- and intra-institutional settings. Second, a serious effort is required to develop an integrated view on European security, which does not only focus on the internal dimensions of the EU Security strategy (capabilities), but also equally draws on its external aspects - a genuinely inclusive approach that would blur internal and external dimensions of security. For this to succeed a deeper understanding of a partnership-building process (especially of strategic partnership) is needed. Finally, while legitimation of the new security vision is essential within the EU, a greater emphasis should be placed on its external environment, which must not only include a cross-cutting approach to multiple policy instruments as suggested by the EEAs, but more essentially, their connection with the interests and needs of third parties. Case-studies in appendices elaborate further on some specific aspects of the EU security within the eastern neighbourhood context.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2014). Moldova’s Values Survey: Widening a European Dialogue in Moldova. University of Kent. Available at: http://www.kent.ac.uk/politics/gec/research/documents/gec-moldova-survey-brief-2014.pdf.
    Commissioned by the Slovak Atlantic Commission (SAC), the Global Europe Centre (GEC), under the leadership of Professor Elena Korosteleva, conducted a survey about European and national values in Moldova in order to contribute to the debate on the relations between Moldova and the European Union (EU) from the public’s perspective. The nation-wide representative survey was conducted in Moldova between 19 October and 7 November 203 focusing on the country’s relations with the EU and the (Eurasian) Customs Union (ECU); as well as public perceptions, values, and attitudes towards the afore-mentioned entities. Detailed findings are available in the survey brief

    Three major trends are currently observable in the behavioural patterns of Moldova’s population:

    Public support of the EU and its policies (EaP) has slightly eroded which is reflected in the respondents’ perceptions, levels of interest, attitudes and behavioural preferences
    Moldovan respondents signal deep confusion in relation to the values they associate with their country vis-à-vis those attributed to the EU, and the Eurasian Customs Union (ECU)
    Levels of awareness about the Eurasian Customs Union (ECU) are relatively high (85%), and many respondents see the ECU as equally effective as the EU in addressing immediate pressing problems of economic reforms, trade relations and employment in Moldova.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2014). Moldova’s Values Survey: Widening a European Dialogue in Moldova. Global Europe Centre, University of Kent. Available at: http://www.kent.ac.uk/politics/gec/research/index.html.
    Two major trends are currently observable in the behavioural patterns of Moldova’s population:
    - Public support of the EU and its policies (EaP) has slightly eroded which is reflected in the respondents’ perceptions, levels of interest, attitudes and behavioural preferences
    - Moldovan respondents signal deep confusion in relation to the values they associate with their country vis-à-vis those attributed to the EU, and the Eurasian Customs Union (ECU)
    Thematic Block I: Public perceptions of and attitudes to the EU
    - Although levels of awareness and frequency of public travel to the EU have positively grown (+2%) since 2009, which is duly reflected in higher public cognizance of the EU in terms of its institutional structures, membership and policies; public interest in the EU (-5%) and levels of trust especially (-23%) nevertheless demonstrate signs of decline
    - There is an increasing discernment that Moldova is being perceived as a ‘laggard’ (+7%), and a ‘second-class’ partner (+5%), as well as an unlawful (+17%) and feeble democracy (+4%).
    - Although the EU continues to associate with the feelings of ‘faith’ (+10%) and ‘enthusiasm’ (+4%), there is also a noticeable rise in public ‘distrust’ and ‘anxiety’ (+15%), alongside ‘indifference’ (+3%) and the loss of ‘hope’ (-4%) since 2009
    Thematic Block II: Moldova-EU relations under the EaP: perceptions, values and ambitions
    - There is a general sense of stagnation in EU-Moldovan relations depicted as ‘more talks than actions’ (+2%) in public discourse. Furthermore, the EU-Moldovan relations under the EaP are now conceived as corresponding more to the interests of the EU rather than those of Moldova (+13%)
    - This is further reinforced by the increasingly negative anticipation of change under the EaP associated with deteriorating living conditions, growing pressure from Russia, costly reforms, political uncertainty, and limited change in practice.
    - There is a growing sense of normative disorientation amongst the Moldovan respondents: while the EU continues to associate with a fixed set of liberal values, the perceptions of ‘the Self’ have markedly eroded, with every third respondent struggling to attribute any definitive connotation of values to their own country
    Thematic Block III: Moldova-Russia relations, including perceptions of/attitudes to the ECU
    - Levels of awareness about the Eurasian Customs Union (ECU) are relatively high (85%), and many respondents see the ECU as equally effective as the EU in addressing immediate pressing problems of economic reforms, trade relations and employment in Moldova
    - The ECU is also associated with a hybrid normative model of ‘social democracy’, which offers a mix of liberal and socialist (egalitarian) values, and which may be more appealing to the public mind. An increasing number of respondents believe that partnership with Russia would be more beneficial for Moldova (+3%) than that with the EU (-14%); and they would rather choose membership in a Russia-led union (+15%) to that in the EU (-1%)
    - There is an actualising sense of rivalry between the ECU and the EU, with public opinion explicitly divided between the two regional power centres
  • Korosteleva, E., Casier, T. and Whitman, R. (2014). Building a Stronger Eastern Partnership: Towards an EaP 2.0. Global Europe Centre, University of Kent. Available at: http://www.kent.ac.uk/politics/gec/research/index.html?tab=policy-papers.
    The European Union has been working to deepen the economic and political relationship with its Eastern neighbouring countries over the recent years. A set of formal agreements are intended for signature between the EU and Ukraine, Moldova and the South Caucasus states at the Eastern Partnership (EaP) summit scheduled for 28-29 November 2013. These agreements have provoked a response from the Russian Federation which is seeking to offer an alternative set of economic relationship to the exclusion of the EU.
    In the first Policy Paper to be published, the recently created Global Europe Centre (GEC) sets out a reform agenda that the EU needs to adopt towards the EaP states to enable a more binding relationship. The paper argues that the EU needs to define a ‘next generation’ objective for the EaPas it enters the implementation phase of the current set of Association Agreements (AAs). The proposal is that the EU should set a European Partnership Community (EPC) statusas a bilateral and multilateral goal for the EaP. The paper contends that there is urgency for the EU to think more strategically vis-à-vis its neighbourhood, and create a more clear-cut place for Russia to avoid the current situation of divisive competition.
    Further, the EU needs to reform aspects of its current EaP policy. The EU needs to define a clearer, and measureable set of objectives for its role in the resolution of the ‘frozen’ conflicts of its Eastern neighbourhood; refresh its policy towards Belarus; speed up visa liberalisation to ease travel for citizens of the EU’s neighbouring states; and deepen and broaden civil society engagement by investing more in deep democracy, linkage and people-to-people contacts.
  • Casier, T., Whitman, R. and Korosteleva, E. (2013). Global Europe Centre Policy Paper. Building a Stronger Eastern Partnership: Towards an EaP 2.0. Global Europe Centre. Available at: http://www.kent.ac.uk/politics/gec/GEC%20Policy%20Paper.pdf.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2013). Belarus and the Eastern Partnership: A National Values Survey. University of Kent. Available at: http://www.kent.ac.uk/politics/gec/research/documents/gec-belarus-survey-brief-2013.pdf.
    Commissioned by the Office for Democratic Belarus (ODB), the Global Europe Centre (GEC), under the leadership of Professor Elena Korosteleva, conducted a survey about European and national values in Belarus in order to contribute to the debate on the relations between Belarus and the European Union (EU) from the public’s perspective. The nation-wide representative survey was conducted in Belarus between 20 May and 4 June 2013 focusing on the country’s relations with the EU and the (Eurasian) Customs Union (ECU); as well as public perceptions, values, and attitudes towards the afore-mentioned entities. Detailed findings are available in the survey brief

    Three particular trends are observable in Belarus’ public relations:

    Comparative trends demonstrate a positive and substantive shift in public attitudes towards the EU; reflected in higher levels of awareness, more knowledge about EU structures and policies, more interest in EU affairs, more perceivable commonalities with the EU as a polity, more appreciation of EU support, and most importantly, identity-based preferences developing in relation to the latter.
    At the same time, normative underpinnings of public behaviour remain firmly rooted in cultural traditions and historical legacies of the past.
    Levels of awareness about the (Eurasian) Customs Union (ECU) are relatively high (90%). Importantly, the majority of respondents see the ECU as more relevant in addressing immediate economic and energy security concerns.

Book

  • Korosteleva, E. (2012). The European Union and Its Eastern Neighbours: Towards a More Ambitious Partnership?. [Online]. Routledge. Available at: http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415612616/.
    This book explores the EU’s relations with its eastern neighbours. Based on extensive original research – including surveys, focus-groups, a study of school essays and in-depth interviews with key people in Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Russia and in Brussels – it assesses why the EU’s initiatives have received limited legitimacy in the neighbourhood.

    The European Neighbourhood Policy of 2004, and the subsequent Eastern Partnership of 2009 heralded a new form of relations with the EU’s neighbours – partnership based on joint ownership and shared values – which would complement if not entirely replace the EU’s traditional governance framework used for enlargement. These initiatives have, however, received a mixed response from the EU’s eastern neighbours. The book shows how the key elements of partnership have been forged mainly by the EU, rather than jointly, and examines the idea and application of external governance, and how this has been over-prescriptive and confusing.

Thesis

  • Merheim-Eyre, I. (2017). Extending EU Governmentality to the Eastern Neighbourhood: A Study of Knowledge Production, Governing Technologies and Micro-Practices in the EU Management of Cross-Border Mobility.
    Based on Foucault's work on the rationalities of government (governmentality) and Bourdieu's study of practices (philosophy of action), this thesis seeks to examine the case of cross-border mobility by way of analysing knowledge-production, instruments of governing and practices in the EU's relations with the states of the Eastern Partnership (EaP). The thesis shows that EU attempts at governing cross-border mobility do not merely aim to foster regulated mobility between the EU and its neighbours, but are also inherently linked to the EU's efforts to shape the EaP states to its own standards and practices of governing.
    Using the case studies of i) border management capacity-building, ii) facilitation of short-term travel and iii) labour migration, the study argues that while the EU's rationalities of governing remain largely controlling and disciplinary, the study of the microcosm of daily practices reveals some emergent rationalities of 'governing at a distance', which increasingly draw on the interplay of both the EU's interests and partners' needs. To this end, it does not merely present issues of cross-border mobility from the perspective of either 'inclusion' or 'imposition of constraints', but rather by way of seeking to govern the external space by making the Other 'capable of bearing a kind of regulated freedom' (Rose & Miller; 2008: 53).
    The thesis' key contributions are (i) conceptual involving ontological examination of the wider changes in the EU management of (in)security, and focus of a paradigmatic shift from the EU directly-controlling 'governance' to a more nuanced form of diffused 'governmentality', or governing at distance, and its effectiveness; and (ii) methodological, combining the study of knowledge-production and instruments of governing with daily practices, hitherto applied separately, but in this research proving instrumental for understanding the EU management of insecurities and its sustainability. Empirically (iii), the thesis provides new data on the three case studies, particularly, highlighting the extent to which the EU's attempts at governing are transposed to the micro-level of daily practices.
    In the context of the on-going migration crisis, the eastern neighbourhood provides some important lesson-drawing for the management of cross-border mobility in the wider neighbourhood and beyond.
  • Van Gils, E. (2016). Establishing the Rules of the Game: Bargaining Power in Relations Between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan.
    The European Union (EU) has had a range of policy objectives, many of them transformative, in the countries in its eastern neighbourhood since their independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. However, there appear to be limits to the EU's success in fulfilling the objectives with a transformative character, especially in its relations with Azerbaijan. This thesis examines why the EU faces limits to this fulfilment, by examining Azerbaijan's strategic use of bargaining power as a possible explanation for these hindrances.

    This research is premised on the idea that policy-making in bilateral relations can be seen as a form of continuous negotiation, which outcomes are determined by the EU and Azerbaijan's respective negotiation success based on their strategic application of bargaining power. The hypothesis tested in this thesis is that the lack of inclusive policy-making by the EU has led the Azerbaijani government to use bargaining strategies in order to enforce more inclusive policies, where the initial EU objectives are not in line with Baku's interests. This resistance to the EU's transformative objectives could then explain why the latter are only fulfilled in part.

    This idea will be tested on three different policy areas: agenda-setting of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict; democracy and human rights promotion policies; and the negotiations over economic and legal approximation. The case studies will corroborate the hypothesis but demonstrate variations in the successful application of bargaining power strategies to the three policy domains. This research will conclude that the current configuration of power considerably limits the fulfilment of EU transformative objectives in the neighbourhood, and requires substantial change in the EU policies and attitudes, through more inclusive forms of policy-making, to be more effective and sustainable.

    This study makes three important contributions to the scholarship: it develops the concept of bargaining power in international relations, and links it to the concept of inclusive policy-making to comprehensively ascertain the EU's capacity to meet its transformative objectives. Furthermore, it sheds an empirical light on Azerbaijan as a hitherto understudied country case of international relations.
  • Beldiman, M. (2016). The European Union’s Economic Diplomacy in The Eastern Neighbourhood.
    The face of diplomacy is changing: it has moved away from the conventional statecraft towards becoming more inclusive, welcoming new actors and introducing new instruments, structures and functions. It has also put the economic dimension at the heart of diplomacy today. The objective of this thesis is to assess the impact of the EU's economic diplomacy upon the new actors' performance, by exploring the impact of the Eastern Partnership's SME Flagship Initiative upon SMEs' business performance in the Republic of Moldova. This study aims to compare and contrast the theoretical model of diplomacy and its practice, identifying its advantages and challenges. An empirical study was used to test the hypotheses of this thesis, with interviews being conducted with European Commission and Moldovan officials, as well as NGO experts involved in the management and delivery of the East Invest programme. Results have shown that the EU economic diplomacy model has become more (1) complex and more inclusive, but it still lacks (2) agility (including transparency and accountability) and (3) connectivity, in terms engaging with third parties. This study enriches the research on EU economic diplomacy and the Eastern Partnership instruments for SMEs.

Edited book

  • Korosteleva, E., Merheim-Eyre, I. and Van Gils, E. (2018). ‘The Politics’ and ‘The Political’ of the Eastern Partnership Initiative: Reshaping the Agenda. [Online]. Korosteleva, E., Merheim-Eyre, I. and Van Gils, E. eds. Routledge. Available at: https://www.routledge.com/The-Politics-and-The-Political-of-the-Eastern-Partnership-Initiative/Korosteleva-Merheim-Eyre-Van-Gils/p/book/9780815358985.
    Drawing on Edkins’ (1999) interpretation of ‘politics’ and ‘the political’, this article conceptually rethinks the Eastern Partnership agenda. Part of the problem, as this article argues, is the EU’s failure to imagine a new social order, which would give a relational value to the Other, and become more accommodating of their diverse and different world: and not by way of disciplining it to the EU purported standards, but rather by way of aligning differences to a mutually agreeable ‘normal’. The article thus problematises power relations as a process of ‘othering’, in order to re-conceptualise them via the key notions of differentiation conceived as distinction rather than deviation, and normalisation, seen as the interplay between different normalities. The article argues for bringing ‘the political’ (Edkins 1999) back in as an opportunity for debate and legitimation of contesting social orders.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2014). EU Policies in the Eastern Neighbourhood: The Practices Perspective. [Online]. Korosteleva, E., Natorski, M. and Simao, L. eds. London: Routledge. Available at: http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415720571/.
    The EU continuously searches for more effective policy towards its eastern neighbourhood, which is reflected in the on-going adaptation of its existing approaches, discourses and policy strategies to the new challenges of its external environment. In order to understand the complexity and limitations of the EU framework under the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and the Eastern Partnership Initiative (EaP) – that is, to consider the interface between policy instruments, institutional structures, and multiple agents – one needs to adopt an original analytical perspective of practices to comprehensively assess the policies’ outcomes.

    This volume therefore offers an examination of social practices as implemented through the use of policy instruments and subsequently embedded into the existing/emergent social structures which shape and determine the EU-neighbours’ relations. To gauge success of the ENP in the eastern region, the manuscript pulls together a rich collection of geographical and thematic case-studies, joined by the overarching conceptual framework of practices.This study’s principal aims are to discern patterns of social practices which guide agents’ interactions in different policy areas; to explore the origin and effect of these practices (the role of dominant discourses, logistical imbalances, deliberate strategies, etc.); and to explicate the nature of the emerging social structures being established in the eastern region. This approach is distinctive from other constructivist undertakings as it allows to synergise the meanings of social actions (through the focus on agents and instruments), and their structural extensions (through the focus on emergent structures) across geo- and bio-political localities of the EU and its eastern neighbourhood.

    This book was published as a special issue of East European Politics.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2012). Eastern Partnership: A New Opportunity for the Neighbours?. [Online]. Korosteleva, E. ed. London: Routledge. Available at: http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415676076/.
    This volume offers a collective assessment of the development and impact of the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership Initiative on its eastern neighbours - Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova in particular, with Russia’s added perspective. Founded on extensive empirical and conceptual research, the volume uniquely bridges the perspectives of all parties across the EU’s eastern border, in an attempt to understand advantages and problems related to the effective implementation of the EU policies in the eastern region. The undertaken research points to the prevalence of the top-down and conditional governance approach in EU treatment of the outsiders, which is not only Eurocentric and prescriptive in nature, but also falls short of the declared partnership principles. Without the understanding of partners’ internal dilemmas and needs, which could only be achieved through the equivalence and reciprocity of partnership, the EU would struggle to make the policy effective and legitimate in the region, and to buttress its reputation as a ‘credible force for good’ on the international arena.

    This book was published as a special issue of the Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics.
  • Korosteleva, E. (2011). Vostochnoe Partnerstvo: Problemy I Perspektivy (Eastern Partnership: Problems and Perspectives). Korosteleva, E. ed. Minsk: Belarusian State University.
    Dannaya kniga yavilas rezultatom issledovaniy, provedennyh v 2008-11 godah v ramkah proekta "Evropeizatsiya ili sekyuritizatsiya stran-autsayderov? Otsenka partnerskogo podhoda Evropeyskogo Soyuza k stranam Vostochnoy Evropy". Predstavleny raboty uchenyh iz Velikobritanii, Rossii, Belarusi, Ukrainy i Moldovy, posvyaschennye analizu evropeyskoy integratsionnoy politiki. Issledovaniya baziruyutsya na obshirnyh empiricheskih dannyh, sobrannyh v hode provedeniya natsionalnyh oprosov, fokus-grupp, glubinnyh intervyu i shkolnyh esse s tselyu razrabotki vseobemlyuschego videniya protsessa postroeniya partnerstva mezhdu Evropeyskim Soyuzom i ego vostochnymi sosedyami. Dlya issledovateley, zanimayuschihsya problemami vneshnepoliticheskogo partnerstva, a takzhe studentov, magistrantov, aspirantov, prepodavateley vuzov.

Edited journal

  • Korosteleva, E. and Flockhart, T. eds. (2020). Resilience in EU and international institutions: redefining local ownership in a new global governance agenda. Contemporary Security Policy [Online] 41:1-360. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/fcsp20/41/2.
    a special issue, edited by E. Korosteleva (Kent) and T. Flockhart (SDU), and involving the following articles:

    - Korosteleva, E. & Flockhart, T. (2020) Resilience in EU and international institutions: redefining local ownership in a new global governance agenda DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2020.1723973
    - Tocci, N. (2019) Resilience and the role of the European in the world. advance online publication DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2019.1640342
    - Chandler, D. (2019) Security through societal resilience: Contemporary challenges in the Anthropocene. DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2019.1659574
    - Flockhart, T. (2020) Is this the end? Resilience, ontological security, and the crisis of the liberal international order DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2020.1723966
    - Korosteleva, E. (2019) Reclaiming resilience back: A local turn in EU external governance. DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2019.1685316
    - Bargues-Pedreny, P. (2019) Resilience is “always more” than our practices: Limits, critiques, and skepticism about international intervention. DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2019.1678856
    - Petrova, I. & Delcour, L. (2019) From principle to practice? The resilience-local ownership nexus in the EU Eastern Partnership policy. DOI:10.1080/13523260.2019.1678280
    - Anholt, R & Sinatti, G. (2019) Under the guise of resilience: the EU approach to migration and forced displacement in Jordan and Lebanon. DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2019.1698182
    - Juncos, A. & Joseph, J. (2019) Building sustainable peace and the EU’s ‘resilience turn’: the contradictions of intervention in Bosnia. DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2019.1703082

Internet publication

  • Korosteleva, E., Petrova, I. and Merheim-Eyre, I. (2020). The Eastern Partnership 3.0: Change or Continuity? [Blog post]. Available at: https://www.dahrendorf-forum.eu/the-eastern-partnership-3-0-change-or-continuity/.
    In an effort to address multiple challenges the EU is facing in its eastern neighbourhood, Brussels has recently published a new strategy ‘Eastern Partnership Policy beyond 2020’. Elena Korosteleva, Irina Petrova and Igor Merheim-Eyre reflect on the proposed changes and argue that success will depend on the EU’s ability to realise the full potential of resilience, with a particular focus on local ownership and genuine partnerships.
  • Korosteleva, E. and Petrova, I. (2020). Resilience Is Dead. Long Live Resilience! [Article]. Available at: https://www.dahrendorf-forum.eu/resilience-is-dead-long-live-resilience/.
    Reflections about the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic and its implications for Europe and the world engendered the view that ‘resilience is dead’. In this post, Elena Korosteleva & Irina Petrova argue that what we observe today is the demise of the ‘neo-liberal’ framing of resilience. Meanwhile, the resilience of human grit lives on.
  • Korosteleva, E. and Bossuyt, F. (2019). The EU and Central Asia: New Opportunities or ‘the Same Old song’? [Online]. Available at: https://www.dahrendorf-forum.eu/the-eu-and-central-asia-new-opportunities-or-the-same-old-song/.
    The article examines what is new about the new 2019 EU Strategy towards Central Asia
Last updated