Inhaltsangabe:Abstract: It has been maintained that the European Union can best be considered a political system. Following this argument, foreign policy making in the EU should also be approached from a systemic perspective. Roughly, three main sources of foreign policy can be identified: the Common Foreign and Security Policy under Pillar II, external relations of the EU under Pillar I, and national foreign policies of the member states. The Northern Dimension policy is an interesting case in point because in various ways it touches upon all three areas. Thus, officially, the Northern Dimension is an EU external relations policy and is therefore located within the responsibility of the Commission. However, it has been adopted as a response to an initiative of one member state, Finland, and it can safely be argued that essentially national foreign policy interests formed the base for this advance by Finland. Furthermore, it has also been suggested that the Northern Dimension can be considered a type of security policy, at least from the point of view of an extended, post-modernist, security policy agenda. Not only for this reason is the Northern Dimension innovative and challenging for the EU. It is also meant to work and achieve its goals without any new institutional arrangements or additional money being spent. Indeed, these two aspects have widely been considered the main reasons for the relatively quick adoption of the initiative as an EU policy. At the same time, however, they have been the cause for substantial criticism and allegations that the initiative offers little to the Union beyond its rhetoric. This paper will explore whether there is any basis to such claims. It will be argued that so far the Northern Dimension has indeed been rather poor in substance, at least when taking as a base for judgment the Action Plan it is guided by. Nevertheless, the initiative has considerable potential by virtue of how it is supposed to work. This is not to say that concrete outcomes won t have to be achieved as well, but the way they might be reached is what could make the Northern Dimension act as a model for the EU s external relations. Before looking at the propositions on its functioning, however, I will review the objectives of the Northern Dimension policy, thus summarizing the rhetoric about the initiative. In the main part of the work, I will first regard the most salient criticisms against the Northern Dimension, above all the alleged [...]

In the contemporary policy debate on the EU's neighborhood, grand designs are transforming into more pragmatic considerations. This book examines regional cooperation among the countries of northern Europe, emphasizing the pitfalls and successes of engaging Russia. Drawing from the experiences of northern partnerships, the authors assess prospects for collaborating on energy, transportation, the environment, and public health. They conclude that practical regional cooperation with Russia can prove highly relevant not only for developing the EU's northern policy but also for working with Russia in general.

Drawing on the empirical case of the Russian-Georgian war of 2008, the book explores the theoretical underpinnings of the idea of 'great power management' first articulated within the English School of International Relations. The contributors to the volume approach this idea from a variety of theoretical perspectives, ranging from policy-analysis to critical theory, but all of them are addressing the same question: What does the Russian-Georgian war of 2008 tell us about great power management as an institution of international society?