Political Values in the European Post-Soviet Space: Identity and Sovereignty in the Face of Integration Processes

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The article analyzes the intergation processes in the post-Soviet space and shows that their direction is determined by the competition of states in a specific organizational field of political values. The effectiveness of the governments in this field depends directly on their ability to switch between the political values of the country and universal aggregations. This ability is becoming a key attribute of the empirical sovereignty of the state today. It is shown that in the conditions of asymmetric integration into the EU space in post-socialist countries and insufficient integration in the former Soviet republics, the accomplishment of this function requires specific institutional adaptations: differentiation between buffer mechanisms responsible for communication with external value systems, and the core that holds the deep value complexes of the community. The stability of the organizational bundle of state sovereignty and identity, the specifics of its functionaries in the post-Soviet space are described as giving the Russian Federation an opportunity of value action, focused on the population of post-Soviet and post-socialist countries and bypassing communications with pro-European-oriented and subordinated power apparatuses.

About the authors

Natalia V. Pankevich

Institute of Philosophy and Law UbRAS

Author for correspondence.
Email: n.pankevich@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7661-1754

PhD in Political Science, Associate Professor of the Institute of Philosophy and Law

Ekaterinburg, Russian Federation

References

  1. Berg, E., & Kuusk, E. (2010). What makes sovereignty a relative concept? Empirical approaches to international society. Political Geography, 29(1), 40–49. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2010.01.005.
  2. Biryukov, S., & Kovalenko, A. (2013). The Geopolitics of the Eastern European “Extreme Right”, Svobodnaya mysl (Free Thought), 1(1637), 97–110. (In Russian).
  3. Blyakher, L. (2008). Archaic Mechanisms of Power Legitimation in Russia, or Essays on the Roots of Nostalgic Consciousness. Politeia, (3), 7–29 doi: 10.30570/2078-5089-2008-50-3-7-29. (In Russian).
  4. Bolgova, I. (2019). “Eastern Partnership” After the Ukrainian Crisis: The Value of Stability or Stable Values? Contemporary Europe, 7(93), 115–123. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/soveurope72019115123. (In Russian).
  5. Bolgova, I., & Nikitina, Y. (2019). Eurasian Economic Union at a Crossroads Between Integration and Sovereignty, Contemporary Europe, 5(91), 13–22. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/soveurope520191322. (In Russian).
  6. Buzan, B. (1991). People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
  7. Dąbrowska, E. (2019). New conservatism in Poland: the discourse coalition around Law and Justice. In K. Bluhm & M. Varga (Eds.), New Conservatives in Russia and East Central Europe (pp. 245–259). NY: Routledge.
  8. Dezalay, Y. (1990). The big Bang and the Law: The Internationalization and Restructuration of the Legal Field. In M. Featherstone (Ed.), Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalisation and Modernity (pp. 279–293). London: Sage Publications.
  9. Di Maggio, P. (1983). State Expansion and Organizational Fields. In R. Hall & R. Quinn (Eds.), Organizational Theory and Public Policy (pp. 147–161). London: Sage Publications.
  10. Flavier, Н. (2015). Russia’s Normative Influence Over Post-Soviet States: the Examples of Belarus and Ukraine. Russian Law Journal, 3(1), 6–32.
  11. Gorshkov, M., & Tyurina, I. (2018). Synthesis of Ethnic and Civil as a Basis for the Russian Identity, RUDN Journal of Sociology, 18(1), 44–57. doi: 10.22363/2313-2272-2018-18-1-44-57. (In Russian).
  12. Habermas, J. (1996). Between Norms and Facts: contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Mit Press.
  13. Hillion, С. (2016). Anatomy of EU norm export. In P. van Eluswege & R. Petrov, Legislative Approximation of EU Law in the Eastern Neighbouhood of the European Union (pp. 13–20). Routledge: New York and London.
  14. Köllner, T. (2019). Religious conservatism in post-Soviet Russia and its relation to politics: empirical findings from ethnographic fieldwork. In K. Bluhm & M. Varga, New Conservatives in Russia and East Central Europe (pp. 245–259). NY: Routledge.
  15. Kuvaldin, S. (2020). The Values of the EU and their Protection in the European Law. Contemporary Europe, (7), 37–45. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/soveurope720203745. (In Russian).
  16. Lavrov, S.V. (2021). About Law, Rights and Rules. Russia in Global Affairs, (4), 8–20. doi: 10.31278/1810-6439-2021-19-4-8-20. (In Russian).
  17. Meyer, J.W., Boli, J., Thomas, G.M., & Ramirez, F.O. (1997). World Society and Nation-State, American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 144–181.
  18. Müller, J.-W. (2014). Parsing Populism: Who Is and Who Is Not Populist Today (pp. 80–89). Juncture, 2015.
  19. Oskolkov, P. (2019). Multiculturalism and the European Far-Right: Looking for the Other. Contemporary Europe, 3(89), 83–91. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/soveurope320198391. (In Russian).
  20. Pankevich, N. (2019). Eastern Neighbourhood of the EU: Alternatives for Integrative Projects Partnership. In E. Kurzynsky-Singer & R. Kulms (Eds.), Ukrainian Private Law and the European Area of Justice (pp. 255–284). Mohr Siebeck.
  21. Polese, A., Morris, J., Pawłusz, E., & Seliverstova, O. (2019). Identity and Nation Building in Everyday Post-Socialist Life. Routledge.
  22. Potemkina, O.Y. (2016). Visegrad Group and “Flexible Solidarity”. Contemporary Europe, (6), 43‒52. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/soveurope620164352. (In Russian).
  23. Scott, W.R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  24. Shishelina, L. (2020). Visegrad Group in Light of Challenges 2020. Contemporary Europe, (5), 89–98. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/soveurope520208998. (In Russian).
  25. Shishelina, L., & Vedernikov, M. (2019). The 2019 EP Elections and a New Stage of V4 Consolidation. Contemporary Europe, (5), 45–58. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/soveurope520194557. (In Russian).
  26. Sutyrin, V. (2020). Transformation of the EU’s Eastern Partnership After 2014. Contemporary Europe, 2(95), 111–122. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/soveurope22020111122. (In Russian).
  27. Teubner, G. (2008). State Policies in Private Law? American Journal of Comparative Law, 56(3), 835–843.
  28. Theiler, T. (2010). Societal security. In M.D. Cavelty & V. Mauer (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Security Studies (pp. 105–114). London: Routledge.
  29. Timofeev, N.S. (2020). On the Revival of Sovereignty and the Rule of the People. Constitutional and Municipal Law, (7), 28–33. doi: 10.18572/1812-3767-2020-7-28-33. (In Russian).
  30. Todorov, T., & Anzalone, J. (2005/2006). European Values. Salmagundi, 48/149, 16–22.
  31. Ungar, M. (2000). State Violence and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans-gender Rights. New Political Science, 22(1), 61–75.
  32. Vernygora, V., Troitino, D., & Västa, S. (2016). The Eastern Partnership Programme: is pragmatic regional functionalism working for a contemporary political empire. In Т. Kerikmäe & А. Chochia (Eds.), Political and Legal Perspectives of the EU Eastern Partnership Policy (pp. 7–23). Cham/Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London.
  33. Verpoest, L. (2008). State Isomorphism in the Slavic Core of the Commonwealth of Independent States. KU Leuven: LINES Institute for International and European Studies Series.
  34. Zweigert, K., & Kötz, H. (1996). Einführung in die Rechtsvergleihung auf dem Gebiete des Privatrechts. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Copyright (c) 2021 Pankevich N.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies