Between EU candidacy and independent diplomacy: third country alignment with EU positions at the OSCE

Reference list

• Amadio Viceré, M. G., & Sus, M. (2023). Differentiated cooperation as the mode of governance in EU foreign policy: Emergence, modes, and implications. Contemporary Security Policy, 44(1), 4–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2023.2168854
   Google Scholar
• Aydın-Düzgit, S., Bond, I., & Scazzieri, L. (2021). The role of differentiation in EU foreign. Security and defence policy cooperation with neighbouring countries. EU IDEA.
   Google Scholar
• Barbé, E., Herranz, A., Johansson-Nogués, E., Natorski, M., & Sabiote, M. A. (2009). Drawing the neighbours closer … to what? Explaining emerging patterns of policy convergence between the EU and its neighbours. Cooperation and Conflict, 44(4), 378–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836709344423
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belgian Delegation to the OSCE. (2021). Statement by the delegation of Belgium (PC.JOUR/1335 Annex 1). OSCE Permanent Council. https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/1/6/499194.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bicchi, F., & Maurer, H. (2018). Introduction: European cooperation abroad: European diplomatic cooperation outside EU borders. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 13(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-13010003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blavoukos, S., & Bourantonis, D. (2011). The EU presence in international organizations. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cardwell, P. J., & Moret, E. (2022). The EU, sanctions and regional leadership. European Security, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2022.2085997
   Google Scholar
• Conceição-Heldt, E. d., & Meunier, S. (2014). Speaking with a single voice: Internal cohesiveness and external effectiveness of the EU in global governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(7), 961–979. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2014.913219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edis, R. (1991). Punching above their weight: How small developing states operate in the contemporary diplomatic world. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 5(2), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557579108400066
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2021a). Albania 2021 report (SWD(2021) 289 final). European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2021b). Bosnia and Herzegovina 2021 report (SWD(2021) 291 final/2). European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2021c). Montenegro 2021 report (SWD(2021) 293 final/2). European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2021d). North Macedonia 2021 report (SWD(2021) 294 final). European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2021e). Serbia 2021 report (SWD(2021) 288 final). European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. (2017a). EU statement on Georgia (PC.DEL/61/17/Rev.1). OSCE Permanent Council. https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/a/0/296171.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. (2017b). EU statement on “Russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine and illegal occupation of crimea” (PC.DEL/102/17). OSCE Permanent Council. https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/c/c/296621.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. (2018). EU statement in response to a current issue raised by the Republic of Moldova on 8 March (PC.DEL/301/18). OSCE Permanent Council. https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/9/7/380887.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. (2019). EU statement in reply to the current issue raised by Georgia (PC.DEL/1033/19). OSCE Permanent Council. https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/a/1/430631.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. (2020a). EU statement in response to the report by the chief observer of the OSCE observer mission at two Russian checkpoints on the Russian-Ukrainian border, ambassador györgy varga (PC.DEL/181/20). OSCE Permanent Council. https://www.government.is/library/09-Embassies/Vienna/1259%20PC%20EU%20reply%20to%20CO%20OM.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. (2020b). EU statement in response to the Chair of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Alternate Minister of Foreign Affairs of Greece, H.E. Mr. Miltiadis Varvitsiotis (PC.DEL/1039/20). OSCE Permanent Council. https://www.government.is/library/09-Embassies/Vienna/1276%20PC%20EU%20reply%20to%20Chair%20Committee%20of%20Ministers%20of%20Council%20of%20Europe%20Miltiadis%20Varvitsiotis.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. (2021). EU statement on the occasion of Earth Day (PC.DEL/596/21/Rev.1). OSCE Permanent Council. https://www.government.is/library/09-Embassies/Vienna/1310%20PC%20EU%20on%20Earth%20Day.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrero-Turrión, R. (2021). The consequences of state non-recognition: The cases of Spain and Kosovo. European Politics and Society, 22(3), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2020.1762958
   Google Scholar
• Forsberg, T., & Seppo, A. (2011). The Russo-Georgian War and EU mediation. In Roger E. Kanet (Ed.), Russian foreign policy in the 21st century (pp. 121–137). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hellquist, E. (2016). Either with us or against us? Third-country alignment with EU sanctions against Russia/Ukraine. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 29(3), 997–1021. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2016.1230591
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henökl, T. E. (2015). How do EU foreign policy-makers decide? Institutional orientations within the European External Action Service. West European Politics, 38(3), 679–708. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2014.1000652
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillion, C. (2017). Adaptation for autonomy? Candidates for EU membership and the CFSP. Global Affairs, 3(3), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2017.1415505
   Google Scholar
• Jørgensen, K. E. (2015). Foreign and security policy: A case of the politics of alignment. In A. Güney, & A. Tekin (Eds.), The Europeanization of Turkish Public Policies: A scorecard (pp. 116–129). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jørgensen, K. E., & Laatikainen, K. V. (eds.). (2013). Routledge Handbook on the European Union and International Institutions: Performance, policy. power. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Koenig, N. (2015). A differentiated view of differentiated integration (Policy Paper No. 140). Jacques Delors Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Lehne, S. (2015). Reviving the OSCE: European security and the Ukraine crisis. Carnegie Europe.
   Google Scholar
• Lippert, B. (2021). Turkey as a special and (almost) dead case of EU enlargement policy. In W. Reiners, & E. Turhan (Eds.), EU-Turkey Relations: Theories, institutions, and policies (pp. 267–293). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Lundin, L.-E. (2015). Effective multilateralism after Lisbon: The added value of the EEAS and the EU delegation in Vienna. In D. Spence, & J. Bátora (Eds.), The European External Action Service: European diplomacy post-Westphalia (pp. 241–256). Palgave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Macaj, G., & Nicolaïdis, K. (2014). Beyond ‘one voice’? Global Europe's engagement with its own diversity Journal of European Public Policy, 21(7), 1067–1083. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2014.912148
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marciacq, F. (2012). The Western Balkans and the EU in multilateral organisations: Foreign policy coordination and declaratory alignment in the OSCE. Journal of Regional Security, 7(2), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.5937/jrs7-18274. http://www.regionalsecurityjournal.com/index.php/JRS/article/view/8.
   Google Scholar
• Marciacq, F., & Jaramillo, N. S. (2015). When the European Union speaks on behalf of non-European Union states: A critical appraisal of the European Union’s alignment mechanism in multilateral fora. European Security, 24(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2014.921617
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marošková, T., & Spurná, K. (2021). Why did they comply? External incentive model, role-playing and socialization in the alignment of sanctions against Russia in Albania and Montenegro. Journal of European Integration, 43(8), 1005–1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2021.1906238
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehmeti, L. I., & Radeljić (eds.). (2016). Serbian political parties and the Kosovo question. In Kosovo and Serbia: Contested Options and shared consequences (pp. 106–129). University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Morgenstern-Pomorski, J.-H. (2018). The contested diplomacy of the European External Action Service: Inception, establishment and consolidation. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Morina, E. (2022). Bound to Russia: Serbia’s disruptive neutrality. European Council on Foreign Relations. https://ecfr.eu/article/bound-to-russia-serbias-disruptive-neutrality/.
   Google Scholar
• Onderco, M., & Portela, C. (2023). External drivers of EU differentiated cooperation: How change in the nuclear nonproliferation regime affects member states alignment. Contemporary Security Policy, 44(1), 150–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2022.2146336.
   Google Scholar
• Orsini, A. (ed.). (2014). The European Union with(in) international organisations: Commitment, consistency and effects across time. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Panke, D. (2017). Speaking with one voice: Easier said than done? The EU in the UNGA. In S. Blavoukos, & D. Bourantonis (Eds.), The EU in UN politics: Actors, processes and performances (pp. 27–46). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Permanent Delegation of Norway to the OSCE. (2017). Joint statement on capital punishment in Belarus (PC.DEL/624/17). OSCE Permanent Council. https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/3/e/320766.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Schade, D. (2020). Untying the knot: Brexit and administrative disintegration in CFSP and CSDP structures. Politique Europeenne, 70(4), 18–39. https://doi.org/10.3917/poeu.070.0018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarzkopf, A. (2021). The EU as a global negotiator? The advancement of the EU’s role in multilateral negotiations at the UN General Assembly. International Relations, 35(4), 574–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178211045623
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddi, M., Karjalainen, T., & Jokela, J. (2022). Differentiated cooperation in the EU’s foreign and security policy: Effectiveness, accountability, legitimacy. The International Spectator, 57(1), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2022.2026683
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spence, D., & Bátora, J. (eds.). (2015). The European External Action Service: European diplomacy post-Westphalia. Palgave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Szép, V., & Van Elsuwege, P. (2021). EU sanctions policy and the alignment of third countries: Relevant experiences for the UK? In J. Santos Vara, R. A. Wessel, & P. R. Polak (Eds.), The routledge handbook on the international dimension of Brexit (pp. 226–240). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Tardy, T. (2014). CSDP: Getting third states on board [EUISS Brief 6/2014]. European Union Institute for Security Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Turkish Delegation to the OSCE. (2021). Statement by the Delegation of Turkey (PC.JOUR/1344 annex 4). OSCE Permanent Council. https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/c/0/504784.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• United States Mission to the OSCE. (2021). Joint statement of the group of friends of Georgia (PC.DEL/1270/21). OSCE Permanent Council. https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/6/6/496522.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• van Ham, P. (2009). EU-OSCE relations: Partners or rivals in security? In K. E. Jørgensen (Ed.), The European Union and International Organizations (pp. 131–148). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• von Groll, G. (1982). The nine at the conference on security and cooperation in Europe. In D. Allen, R. Rummel, & W. Wessels (Eds.), European Political Cooperation: Towards a foreign policy for Western Europe (pp. 60–68). Butterworth Scientific.
   Google Scholar
• Yavuz, M. H., & Huseynov, V. (2020). The Second Karabakh War: Russia vs. Turkey? Middle East Policy, 27(4), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/mepo.12529
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar