In A Comparative Appraisal of Normative Power Ville Sinkkonen constructs a three-pronged analytical framework for the analysis of normative power, a theoretical concept recently associated with studying the international role of the European Union. This toolkit allows him to compare the foreign policy conduct of the EU and the United States in the context of the January 25th, 2011 Revolution in Egypt along three dimensions: ‘norms and identity’, ‘means’ and ‘paradoxes’. These components permit an in-depth analysis of Western norm promotion in the midst of the upheaval, building on a large pool of source documents. The monograph broadens the remit of normative power through its empirical bent, comparative research set-up and focus on a swiftly unfolding revolution/transition complex. In the process, the prevalent discourse of the EU as a benign international actor is subjected to rigorous analytical scrutiny.

By shedding light on EULEX - the EU mission to Kosovo – this open access book investigates the EU’s peacebuilding activities in that country, in the light of the normative power theory in the post-conflict setting and peacebuilding theory. Ten years after the massive engagement of the EU in the country torn by war, the authors critically assess the effects of the EU projecting its normative power – the enforcement of its standards, ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – through the EULEX mission, taking into consideration also the local aspects, so far neglected in this field of research. Inspecting thoroughly the EULEX activities in the police, customs and judiciary sector, the authors reveal that the mission can contribute to a positive change, but only in those cases which do not request a heavy political involvement and broad leverage by other international players (for example in improving standards of work in police and customs). When it comes to the most serious cases of organized crime, corruption and war crimes, EULEX, however, has not been able to address them effectively due to several internal mission’s deficiencies and external factors; the perceived ineffectiveness of EULEX among the local population led to the lowering of trust not only in this CSDP mission, but also in the EU in general. This open access book offers a comprehensive assessment of the EULEX mission, based on two Horizon2020 research projects: IECEU - Improving the Effectiveness of Capabilities in EU Conflict Prevention, and KOSNORTH – The European Union and its Normative Power in a Post-conflict Society: A Case Study of Northern Kosovo (Marie Sklodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship). As such it is an invaluable resource for scholars, students and policymakers interested in security questions in South Eastern Europe and EU external action.

The notion of Normative Power Europe (NPE) is that the EU is an 'ideational' actor characterised by common principles and acting to diffuse norms within international relations. Contributors assess the impact of NPE and offer new perspectives for the future exploration of one of the most widely used ideas in the study of the EU in the last decade.

This book offers a unique analytical investigation of the international politics of the EU, China, and India in the context of their security strategies in Central Asia. It shows how the interaction between these three actors is likely to change the frameworks and practices of international relations. This is studied through their interactions with central Asia, using the framework of normative powers and the concept of regional security governance. Briefly, a normative power shapes a target state's attitudes and perceptions as it internalizes and adopts the perspectives of the normative power as the norm. The work comparatively studies the dynamics that have allowed Beijing, Brussels, and New Delhi to articulate security mechanisms in Central Asia, and become rising normative powers. This innovative study does not aim to catalog foreign policies, but to uncover the dominant perceptions, cognitive structures and practices that guide these actors' regional agency, as exemplified through the context of Central Asia. It will be an essential resource for anyone studying international relations, international relations theory, and foreign policy analysis.

This book presents a topical, holistic assessment of the European Union’s democracy promotion in South-East Europe, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, analyzed through the prism of the Normative Power Europe (NPE) framework of transnational policy formation. To do so, it brings together three scholarly domains that traditionally stand apart and are discussed separately. The first addresses the notion of the European Union conducting a normatively-driven foreign policy both near and far abroad. The second is concerned with the legitimacy, operationality, and effectiveness of promoting democracy in third-world countries. The third addresses the quality of the relationship the European Union has been able to establish with some vital – yet often troubled – countries in South-East Europe, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia. Finally, based on the empirical findings presented in each chapter, this volume concludes by rethinking the concept and relevance of NPE to the field’s understanding of the EU’s foreign policy making. This edited volume offers the reader both a theoretically and empirically rich analysis of the European Union’s efforts to promote democracy abroad. As such is scholars and students of EU studies, particularly EU foreign policy, as well as policy makers at EU and national level and civil society representatives responsible for designing/implementing democracy promoting projects on the ground.

This important book “classifies organizations on the basis of organizational properties and systemically examines variations amount different types of organization” (American Sociological Review). Bringing light to a neglected field, A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations presents models for the analysis of various organizational types and examines how they are constructed. Primarily discussing the relationship between compliance and each variable it introduces, this book works as a cornerstone for the comparative analysis of organizations.

The purpose of the jus ad bellum is to draw a line in the sand: thus far, but no further. In the light of modern warfare, a state should today have an explicitly recognised and undisputed right of delimited unilateral defence not only in response to an occurring armed attack, but also in interception of an inevitable or imminent armed attack. This book, however, makes it evident that unilateral interception is not incontestably compatible with the modern right of self-defence in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Then again, unilateral defence need not forever be confined to self-defence only, wherefore the book proposes that the concept of defence may best be modernised by a clear legal division into responsive and interceptive defence. Since both threat and use of force are explicitly prohibited in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, this book further recommends that both responsive and interceptive defence should be explicitly excepted from this prohibition in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The modern jus ad bellum should thus legally recognise a dual face of defence: responsive self-defence if an armed attack occurs, and interceptive necessity-defence if a grave and urgent threat of an armed attack occurs. For without a clarifying and modernising revision, the concept of defence will become irreparably blurred until it is completely dissolved into the ever-shifting sands of war.