<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE root>
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">Vestnik RUDN. International Relations</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">Vestnik RUDN. International Relations</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Международные отношения</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="print">2313-0660</issn><issn publication-format="electronic">2313-0679</issn><publisher><publisher-name xml:lang="en">федеральное государственное автономное образовательное учреждение высшего образования «Российский университет дружбы народов имени Патриса Лумумбы» (РУДН)</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">27445</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.22363/2313-0660-2021-21-3-487-497</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>THEMATIC DOSSIER</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>ТЕМАТИЧЕСКОЕ ДОСЬЕ</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="article-type"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title xml:lang="en">Germany’s Position on the Greek-Turkish Dispute: Intergovernmental Theory vs. Neofunctionalism</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Позиция Германии по греко-турецкому спору: интерговернментализм vs. неофункционализм</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8654-7629</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Ivkina</surname><given-names>Natalia Viktorovna</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Ивкина</surname><given-names>Наталья Викторовна</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="en"><p>PhD in History, Associate Professor, Department of Theory and History of International Relations</p></bio><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>кандидат исторических наук, доцент кафедры теории и истории международных отношений</p></bio><email>ivkina-nv@rudn.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff1"><aff><institution xml:lang="en">RUDN University</institution></aff><aff><institution xml:lang="ru">Российский университет дружбы народов</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2021-09-20" publication-format="electronic"><day>20</day><month>09</month><year>2021</year></pub-date><volume>21</volume><issue>3</issue><issue-title xml:lang="en">Mediterranean Sea Basin – New Regional Security Complex?</issue-title><issue-title xml:lang="ru">Бассейн Средиземного моря – новый региональный комплекс безопасности?</issue-title><fpage>487</fpage><lpage>497</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2021-09-20"><day>20</day><month>09</month><year>2021</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement xml:lang="en">Copyright ©; 2021, Ivkina N.V.</copyright-statement><copyright-statement xml:lang="ru">Copyright ©; 2021, Ивкина Н.В.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2021</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Ivkina N.V.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Ивкина Н.В.</copyright-holder><ali:free_to_read xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/"/><license><ali:license_ref xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0</ali:license_ref></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://journals.rudn.ru/international-relations/article/view/27445">https://journals.rudn.ru/international-relations/article/view/27445</self-uri><abstract xml:lang="en"><p style="text-align: justify;">The article identifies Germany’s position on the Greek-Turkish dispute in the Aegean Sea from the point of the intergovernmentalist and neofunctionalist theories. The relevance of the research topic is due to the constantly emerging contradictions between Turkey and Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean, as well as the need for the third parties to intervene in this dispute. The subject of the study is the German position, which is explained by the desire of the country to become a mediator. In addition, in European historiography on the integration there is an ongoing debate as to whether countries are guided in their foreign policy decisions by a common European set of norms, principles and values, or still by their own national interests. The aim of the study is to identify the principles that Germany follows in determining the political vector of its foreign policy, using the example of the dispute between Turkey and Greece in the Aegean Sea, and correlate them with the theories of intergovernmentalism and neofunctionalism. The research methods are comparative analysis for defining the correlation of the postulates and selected theories with the practical steps taken by Germany to resolve the Greek-Turkish dispute, as well as the institutional method, which allows determining the role and place of the state in the system of pan-European decision-making. The results of the study are presented in the form of a correlation of the main criteria of the theories of intergovernmentalism and neofunctionalism with the identified practical steps of Germany to resolve the dispute between Turkey and Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean. The conclusion identifies Germany’s commitment to one of the two theories for each of the selected criteria.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="ru"><p style="text-align: justify;">Статья посвящена выявлению позиции Германии по греко-турецкому спору в Эгейском море сквозь призму двух теорий: интерговернментализма и неофункционализма. Актуальность темы исследования обусловлена постоянно возникающими противоречиями между Турцией и Грецией в Восточном Средиземноморье, а также необходимостью вмешательства в данный спор третьих сторон. В качестве предмета исследования выбрана немецкая позиция, что объясняется стремлением страны стать медиатором в решении данного конфликта. Кроме того, в европейской историографии, посвященной интеграционным вопросам, не утихают споры относительно того, чем руководствуются страны при принятии внешнеполитических решений: общеевропейским набором норм, принципов и ценностей или собственными национальными интересами. Целью исследования является выявление принципов, которым следует Германия в процессе определения политического вектора внешней политики на примере спора между Турцией и Грецией в Эгейском море и соотнесение их с теорией интерговернментализма и неофункционализма. В качестве методов исследования выбраны сравнительно-сопоставительный анализ для соотношения постулатов выбранных теорий с практическими шагами Германии по урегулированию спора между Турцией и Грецией, а также институциональный метод, позволяющий определить роль и место государства в системе принятия общеевропейских решений. Результаты исследования представлены в виде соотношения основных критериев теории интерговернментализма и функционализма с выявленными практическими шагами Германии по урегулированию спора между Турцией и Грецией в Восточном Средиземноморье. В заключении определена приверженность Германии одной из двух теорий по каждому из выбранных критериев.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>theory of intergovernmentalism</kwd><kwd>theory of neofunctionalism</kwd><kwd>Greek-Turkish dispute in the Aegean Sea</kwd><kwd>Germany</kwd><kwd>national interests</kwd><kwd>European Council</kwd><kwd>EU</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>теория интерговернментализма</kwd><kwd>теория неофункционализма</kwd><kwd>греко-турецкий спор в Эгейском море</kwd><kwd>Германия</kwd><kwd>национальные интересы</kwd><kwd>Европейский совет</kwd><kwd>ЕС</kwd></kwd-group><funding-group/></article-meta></front><body></body><back><ref-list><ref id="B1"><label>1.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Atrashkevich, A. N. (2019). Turkey and Greece: Political and economic relations within the conflict circumstances (1999-2017). Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 19(4), 675-689. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2019-19-4-675-689</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Атрашкевич А.Н. Турция и Греция: политические и экономические отношения в конфликтных условиях (1999-2017 гг.) // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Международные отношения. 2019. Т. 19. № 4. С. 675-689. DOI: 10.22363/2313-0660-2019-19-4-675-689</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Pimenova, O. (2019). Legal integration in the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union: Comparative analysis. International Organisations Research Journal, 14(1), 76-93. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2019-01-05</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Пименова О.И. Правовая интеграция в Европейском союзе и Евразийском экономическом союзе: сравнительный анализ // Вестник международных организаций. 2019. Т. 14. № 1. С. 76-93. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2019-01-05</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3.</label><mixed-citation>Avar, Y., &amp; Lin, Y. C. (2019). Aegean disputes between Turkey and Greece: Turkish and Greek claims and motivations in the framework of legal and political perspectives. International Journal of Politics and Security, 1(1), 57-70</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4.</label><mixed-citation>Bac, M. (2005). Turkey’s political reforms and the impact of the European Union. South European Society and Politics, 10(1), 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608740500037916</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5.</label><mixed-citation>Beach, D., &amp; Pedersen, R. B. (2019). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6.</label><mixed-citation>Bergman, J. (2018). Neofunctionalism and EU external policy integration: The case of capacity building in support of security and development (CBSD). Journal of European Public Policy, 26(9), 1253-1272. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1526204</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7.</label><mixed-citation>Couloumbis, T. (1994). Introduction: The impact of EC membership on Greece’s foreign policy profile. In P. Kazakos &amp; P. Ioakimidis (Eds.), Greece and EC membership evaluated (pp.189-198). London: Pinter Publishers</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8.</label><mixed-citation>Cremona, M., &amp; Micklit, H.-W. (2016). Private law in the external relations of the EU. Oxford: Oxford University Press</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9.</label><mixed-citation>Gonenc, D., &amp; Durmaz, G. (2020). The politics of neoliberal transformation on the periphery: A critical comparison of Greece and Turkey. Southeast European and Black See Studies, 20(4), 617-640. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2020.1843284</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10.</label><mixed-citation>Haas, E. (1961). International integration: The European and the universal process. International Organization, 15(3), 366-392.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11.</label><mixed-citation>Haas, E. B. (1968). The Uniting of Europe. Stanford: Stanford University Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12.</label><mixed-citation>Haas, E. B. (2004). The Uniting of Europe: Political, social and economic forces, 1950-1957. Stanford: Stanford University Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13.</label><mixed-citation>Heraclides, A. (2010). The Greek-Turkish conflict in the Aegean: Imagined enemies. Palgrave Macmillan.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14.</label><mixed-citation>Hooghe, L. &amp; Marks, G. (2009). A postfunctionalist theory of european integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000409</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15.</label><mixed-citation>Hooghe, L., Lenz, T., &amp; Marks, G. (2019). A theory of international organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16.</label><mixed-citation>Kaplan, L. S. (1994). NATO and the United States. Updated edition. The enduring alliance. New York: Twayne Publishers.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><label>17.</label><mixed-citation>Lindberg, L. (1963). The Political dynamics of European integration. Stanford: Stanford University Press.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><label>18.</label><mixed-citation>Middelaar, L. (2019). Alarums and excursions: Improvising politics on the European stage. Newcastle: Agenda Publishing.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><label>19.</label><mixed-citation>Moravcsik, A. (1998). The choice for Europe. Ithaca: Cornell.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><label>20.</label><mixed-citation>Moravcsik, A. (2018). Preferences, power and institutions in 21st-century Europe. Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(7), 1648-1674. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12804</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><label>21.</label><mixed-citation>Riddervold, M., &amp; Rosén, G. (2016). Trick and treat: How the commission and the European Parliament exert influence in EU foreign and security policies. Journal of European Integration, 38(6), 687-702. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2016.1178737</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><label>22.</label><mixed-citation>Rumelili, B. (2004). The European Union’s impact on the Greek-Turkish conflict. Working Papers Series in EU Border Conflicts Studies. Bogazici University, University of Birmingham</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><label>23.</label><mixed-citation>Schmidt, V. (2019). Politicization in the EU: Between national politics and EU political dynamics. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(7), 1018-1036. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1619189</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><label>24.</label><mixed-citation>Stephanou, C., &amp; Tsardanides, C. (1991). The EC factor in the Greece - Turkey - Cyprus Triangle. In D. Constas (Ed.), The Greek-Turkish conflict in the 1990s: Domestic and external influences (pp. 207-230). New York: St. Martin’s Press</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B25"><label>25.</label><mixed-citation>Tranholm-Mikkelsen, J. (1991). Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or obsolete? Millenium, 20(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298910200010201</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><label>26.</label><mixed-citation>Yildiz, E. (2020). The Conflict between Greece and Turkey Mediterranean sea (international maritime law study). Jurnal Hukum, 36(2), 126-137. https://doi.org/10.26532/jh.v36i2.11393</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
