Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
SM baner

Vol. 72 No. 1 (2019): Jak uczyć o stosunkach międzynarodowych?

Forum

Differentiated integration and EU–Turkey relations: A chance for cooperation in foreign and security policies?

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35757/SM.2019.72.1.09
Submitted: January 11, 2020
Published: March 29, 2019

Abstract

The academic debate includes the functional model of differentiated integration in the EU–Turkey relations, which would mean the involvement of this state in the EU institutional framework and policies. The aim of the article is to analyse the inclusion of Turkey into the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU. It addresses the following questions: Is this policy a possible component of the new model of the EU–Turkey relations? What would be the potential areas of developed cooperation within this policy? Would it be possible for Turkey and the EU members to cooperate in the common neighbourhood? The author argues that the integration of Turkey into the EU foreign and security policy within the new model and as a result its cooperation with the EU countries within the common institutional framework would be possible only if the preferences and interests of the European Commission, EU members and Turkey are recognized sufficiently in the negotiated arrangement, which is currently highly problematic due to frequent contradictions between these preferences and interests, making the necessary compromise very difficult.

References

  1. Atilgan C., Klein D., EU integration models beyond full membership, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Berlin 2006 (Working Paper, 158), available at: <http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_8414−544−2−30.pdf> [accessed: 21 VI 2019].
  2. Aydın-Düzgit S., PESCO and third countries. Breaking the deadlock in European security, University of Cologne, January 2017 (FEUTURE Voices, 3), available at: <http://www.feuture.uni-koeln.de/site/feuture/pdf/FEUTURE_Voice_No_3_S._Aydin-Duezgit.pdf> [accessed: 21 VI 2019].
  3. Aydın-Düzgit S., Tocci N., Turkey and the European Union, Palgrave Macmillan, London–New York 2015.
  4. Barigazzi J., Doors open to keep Britain in EU (security), “Politico” [online], 5 V 2018 [accessed: 21 VI 2019], available at: <https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-defense-pesco-military-extendcooperation-to-non-eu-countries-say-benelux-countries>.
  5. Cianciara A. K., Differentiated integration in the European Union and its prospects in the context of enlargement and neighbourhood policies, [in:] The Euro-Atlantic system in a multi-polar world. A forecast, ed. J. M. Fiszer et al., Logos, Berlin 2015.
  6. Cianciara A. K., Szymański A., Differentiated integration. Towards a new model of European Union–Turkey relations?, “Turkish Studies” [online], 22 V 2019 [accessed: 21 VI 2019], available at: <https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2019.1618190>.
  7. Dai X., Snidal D., Sampson M., International cooperation theory and international institutions, [in:] Oxford research encyclopedia of international studies, Oxford University Press, Oxford, March 2010.
  8. Dokos T., Turkey and European security, [in:] Turkey’s accession to the European Union, ed. C. Arvanitopoulos, Springer, Berlin–Heidelberg 2009.
  9. Emerson M., Tocci N., Turkey as a bridgehead and spearhead. Integrating EU and Turkish foreign policy, Centre for European Policy Studies, August 2004 (EU–Turkey Working Papers, 1).
  10. Erkuş S., EU choosing to “re-engage” with Turkey. Offi cial, “Hurriyet Daily News” [online], 12 VI 2017 [accessed: 21 VI 2019], available at: <https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/eu-choosing-to-re-engage-with-turkey-official--114201>.
  11. The Euro-Atlantic system in a multi-polar world. A forecast, ed. J. M. Fiszer et al., Logos, Berlin 2015.
  12. Gstöhl S., Models of external differentiation in the EU’s neighbourhood. An expanding economic community?, “Journal of European Public Policy” 2015, vol. 22, No. 6.
  13. Güsten S., Salzen C. von, Fall Yücel hat für uns besondere Dringlichkeit. “Der Tagesspiegel” [online], 16 II 2018 [accessed: 21 VI 2019], available at: <https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/-deutschland-und-die-tuerkei-fall-yuecel-hat-fuer-uns-besondere-dringlichkeit/20968418.html>.
  14. Guttenberg K.-T. zu, Die Beziehungen zwischen der Türkei und der EU – eine “Privilegierte Partnerschaft”, Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung, Akademie für Politik und Zeitgeschehen, München 2004 (Aktuelle Analysen, 33), available at: <https://www.hss.de/fileadmin/migration/downloads/aa33_internet.pdf> [accessed: 21 VI 2019].
  15. Hale W., Turkey’s domestic politics, public opinion and Middle East policy, “Palgrave Communications” 2017, vol. 2 (doi:10.1057/palcomms.2016.81).
  16. Karakaş C., EU–Turkey. Integration without full membership or membership without full integration? A conceptual framework for accession alternatives, “Journal of Common Market Studies” 2013, vol. 51, No. 6.
  17. Karakas C., Gradual integration. An attractive alternative integration process for Turkey and the EU, “European Foreign Affairs Review” 2006, vol. 11, No. 3.
  18. Kirişci K., Bülbül O., The EU and Turkey need each other. Could upgrading the customs union be the key?, “Brookings” [online], 29 VIII 2017 [accessed: 21 VI 2019], available at: <https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/08/29/the-eu-and-turkey-need-each-other-could-upgrading-the-customs-union-be-the-key>.
  19. Lavenex S., Concentric circles or fl exible ‘EUropean’ Integration. A typology of EU external governance relations, “Comparative European Politics” 2011, vol. 9, No. 4−5.
  20. Lippert B., The nexus between enlargement and differentiation, Instituto Affari Internazionali, [Roma] 7 II 2017, available at: <http://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/eu60_2.pdf> [accessed: 21 VI 2019].
  21. Martill B., Sus M., Post-Brexit EU/UK security cooperation: NATO, CSDP+, or “French connection”?, “The British Journal of Politics and International Relations” 2018, vol. 20, No. 4.
  22. Milner H., International theories of cooperation among nations. Strengths and weaknesses, “World Politics” 1992, vol. 44, No. 3.
  23. Müftüler-Baç M., Turkey’s future with the European Union. Alternative model of differentiated integration, “Turkish Studies” 2017, vol. 18, No. 3.
  24. Müftüler-Baç M., Luetgert B., The European Union’s alternative models for maximizing its integration strategy for candidates and neighbour states. A process of external differentiation, [Berlin] November 2016 (MAXCAP Working Paper, 35), available at: <http://user-page.fu-berlin.de/kfgeu/maxcap/system/files/maxcap_wp_35.pdf> [accessed: 21 VI 2019].
  25. Murinson A., The strategic depth doctrine of Turkish foreign policy, “Middle Eastern Studies” 2006, vol. 42, No. 6.
  26. Öniş Z., Turkey and the Middle East after September 11. The importance of the EU dimension, “Turkish Policy Quarterly” 2003, No. 4.
  27. Öniş Z., Yılmaz Ş., Between Europeanization and Euro-Asianism. Foreign policy activism in Turkey during the AKP era, “Turkish Studies” 2009, vol. 10, No. 1.
  28. Özcan C., Merkel conveys Germany’s veto on Customs Union update with Turkey to Juncker, “Hurriyet Daily News” [online], 31 VIII 2017 [accessed: 21 VI 2019], available at: <http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/merkel-conveys-germanys-veto-on-customs-union-update-with-turkey-to-juncker-117422>.
  29. Pierson P., The path to European integration. A historical institutionalist analysis, “Comparative Political Studies” 1996, vol. 29, No. 2.
  30. Pisani-Ferry J., Röttgen N., Sapir A., Tucker P., Wolff G. B., Europe after Brexit. A proposal for a continental partnership, “Bruegel” [online], 29 VIII 2016 [accessed: 21 VI 2019], available at: <http://bruegel.org/2016/08/europe-after-brexit-a-proposal-for-a-continental-partnership>.
  31. Quaisser W., Wood S., EU member Turkey? Preconditions, consequences and integration alternatives, Forost, [München] October 2004 (Forost Arbeitspapier, 25), available at: <http://edoc.vifapol.de/opus/volltexte/2008/806/pdf/forost_Arbeitspapier_25.pdf> [accessed: 21 VI 2019].
  32. Şahin Y., Deciphering the “positive agenda” in Turkey–EU relations, Economic Development Foundation, December 2012 (IKV Brief, 16), available at: <https://oldweb.ikv.org.tr/images/upload/data/files/ikv_brief16_positive_agenda.pdf> [accessed: 21 VI 2019].
  33. Szymański A., Alternatives to EU membership. The case of Turkey, “The Polish Quarterly of International Affairs” 2007, No. 4.
  34. Szymański A., Conclusion, [in:] Turkey and Europe. Challenges and opportunities, ed. A. Szymański, Polski Instytut Spraw Międzynarodowych, Warsaw 2012.
  35. Szymański A., Turkey’s potential added value to the EU. Resolution of regional conflicts, “Turkish Policy Quarterly” 2009, vol. 8, No. 3, available at: <http://turkishpolicy.com/Files/ArticlePDF/turkeys-potential-added-value-to-the-eu-resolution-of-regional-conflicts-fall-2009-en.pdf> [accessed: 21 VI 2019].
  36. Tekingunduz A., Turkey’s growing defence industry, “TRT World” [online], 4 V 2018 [accessed: 21 VI 2019], available at: <https://www.trtworld.com/turkey/turkey-s-growing-defence-industry-17014>.
  37. Terzi Ö., The infl uence of the European Union on Turkish foreign policy, Routledge, London 2010.
  38. Turhan E., Thinking out of the accession box. The potential and limitations of internal and external differentiated integration between Turkey and the EU, Centre international de formation européenne, 3 VII 2017 (CIFE Policy Paper, 58), available at: <https://www.cife.eu/Ressources/FCK/files/publications/policy%20paper/CIFE_Policy_Paper_58_Thinking_out_of_The_Accession_Box_EU_Turkey_Ebru_Turhan_2017_1.pdf> [accessed: 21 VI 2019].
  39. Ülgen S., Avoiding a divorce. A virtual EU membership for Turkey, “Carnegie Europe” [online], 5 XII 2012 [accessed: 21 VI 2019], available at: <http://carnegieeurope.eu/2012/12/05/avoiding-divorce-virtual-eu-membership-for-turkey-pub-50218>.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.