![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, extended geography encircling the Black Sea has begun to evolve into a multi-polar chaotic regional system and since then, this region has never been free of disputes over land frontiers. Besides border clashes, contestations over the control of energy resources and routes has been escalating since the 1990s and emerged as yet another dimension to explain the region’s diplomatic unpredictability. Under the shadow of these conflicts, regional players have been experiencing difficulties in formulating nonaligned and sustainable foreign policy strategies. They have been mostly unable to bring their common interests to the forefront and fallen behind in their regional integration objectives. Numerous cooperation attempts have remained inadequate in regards to standards such as scope, sphere of influence and permanency. Weak structure of regional integration and reluctance for its deepening create doubts about the region’s future stability. This paper first reviews the policy context of the Black Sea geography. It focuses on the Black Sea cities’ engagement into this context and mainly asks what kind of role, if any, cities play for facilitating diplomatic ties and alleviating systemic-level controversies. Building on the literature on city diplomacy, the paper elaborates on motivations behind and limits over such alternative levels of interactions and comments on their future geopolitical implications.
Notes
1. These bilateral tensions can be summarized as conflicts, after the dissolution of Soviet Union, between Azerbaijan and Armenia, over land frontiers in the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, between Russia and Georgia over the lands of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and between Moldova and the internationally unrecognized republic of Transnistria over the borderline with Ukraine and the rather recent one between Russia and Ukraine over the control of Crimean Peninsula.
2. Originally, BSEC was established to promote multilateral economic cooperation within the region and later its cooperation framework has extended to include several issues such as agriculture, banking and finance, combating crime, culture, customs matters, education, energy, environmental protection, tourism, transport and trade. Compared to other cooperative schemes in the region, BSEC can be evaluated as the most promising project. Still, its members’ commercial ties and/or political and cultural belongings outside the Black Sea region, problems with respect to financial support, as well as the exclusion of private sector from the organization’s decision-making mechanisms can all be associated with the regional players’ inability to utilize BSEC’s potential contributions to regional integration (Homorozean Citation2010, 14).
3. It is dubious that the sub-regional cooperation schemes and especially those that leave out powerful actors within the region – either Russia or Turkey – will contribute to the dynamism of regionalization in the Black Sea. Organization for Democracy and Economic Development (GUAM); the Community of Democratic Choice (CDC); the Kyiv Initiative and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) are some examples to such sub-regional intergovernmental organizations.
4. Established in 1913, IULA is the oldest international association which works on municipal cooperation at the global level, encourages decentralization and promotes local self-governance. IAC is a more recent association with more diverse and detailed priority directions, such as exchange of goods and services, engagement in joint projects, investment and infrastructure.
5. Members comprise Greek regions of East Macedonia and Thrace, Attica, Western Greece, Western Macedonia, Ionia Nissia, Epirus, Central Macedonia, Kriti, South Aegean, Peleponnisos, Central Greece, Thessalia, and North Aegean; Turkish provinces of Samsun, Sinop, Tekirdağ, Trabzon, Kırklareli, Edirne and Çanakkale; Romanian provinces of Calarasi, Galati and Tulcea; Bulgarian provinces of Varna and Burgas; Croatian Provinces of Istria and Primirsko-Goranska; as well as the city of Odessa from Ukraine. Besides, the Union of Bulgarian Black Sea Local Authorities has an observer status in the BBSRC. BBSRC also has special partnerships with Serbian, Georgian and Moldovan regions.
6. Visit the official website of BBSRC at: http://www.balkansblacksea.org/.
7. NALAS was established with the purpose of strengthening local democracy and decentralization, and brings together 16 associations that represent roughly 9000 local authorities in the South-East Europe. Visit the official website of NALAS at: http://www.nalas.eu/.
8. The article reads as follows: ‘They shall allow for appropriate financial compensation for expenses incurred in the exercise of the office in question as well as, where appropriate, compensation for loss of earnings or remuneration for work done and corresponding social welfare protection.’