It is argued in this article that the enlargement processes of the two major
institutions of the West significantly affect the
‘externalities’ of the Baltic Sea area, and that this area
should therefore be understood as a European subregion rather than as a
distinct region. Whereas the extent of institutional adaptations of the European
Union and NATO since the end of the East-West conflict is impressive, both
enlargements are also creating new problems. In the case of the EU, its homogeneity
and the functioning of its institutions promise to be stretched to their very
limits, particularly given the tendencies towards ‘opting out’
of the aquis in several EU member states of the Baltic Sea area. Concerning
NATO, the author recognizes the irony that the new members hoped to join the
‘old alliance’, while in reality this has already undergone
transformation from a defence body to an institution dealing primarily with
out-of-area problems. For both the enlarged EU and NATO the
‘partnership’ with Russia is more a modus vivendi than
a clear perspective for the future and there is a need for further adapations on
both sides.
Brzezinski, Z. (2003) ’Europäer in den Irak! Die Zukunft
der transatlantischen Beziehungen’, Internationale Politik 58: 57-66.
4.
Gänzle, S.
(2002) ‘The EU’s Presence and
Actorness in the Baltic Sea Area: Multilevel Governance Beyond its External
Borders’, in
H. Hubel
(ed.) EU Enlargement and Beyond: the Baltic States and Russia, pp.
73-103.
Berlin: Verlag Spitz
.
5.
Gänzle, S. (2003) Die Europäische Union als
außenpolitischer Akteur. Eine Fallstudie zur Politik der EU
gegenüber den baltischen Staaten und Russland (1991-2002), (Dissertation)
University of Jena, 2003 (mimeo, publication in preparation).
6.
Haftendorn, H. (2002) ’Das Ende der alten NATO’,
Internationale Politik 57: 49-54.
7.
Haftendorn, H.
,
Keohane, R.
and
Wallander, C.
, eds (2002) Imperfect Unions: Security Institutions Over Time
and Space.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
8.
Holst, J. J.
, ed., (1973) Five Roads to Nordic Security.
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
.
9.
Hubel, H.
(1994) ‘The Baltic Dimension of European
Unification’, in
Kaisa Lähteenmäki
(ed.) Dimensions of Cooperation and Conflict in the Baltic Sea
Rim, pp. 57-67.
Tampere: Tampere Peace Research Institute
(TAPRI Research Report no. 58).
10.
Hubel, H., ed., (2002a) Die Ostbeziehungen der sich erweiternden
Europäischen Union (Beiträge einer Tagung der
Lehrstühle für Internationale Beziehungen Jena und Krakau,
Oktober 2001). Jena: Forum Politicum Jenense, 12/2002.
11.
Hubel, H. (2002b) ’Die Ostsee-Subregion. Laboratorium der
künftigen Ordnung Europas’, Internationale Politik 57: 33-40.
12.
Hubel, H.
(2002c) ‘The NATO-Russia Relationship from a
German and EU Perspective’, in
K. Khudoley
(ed.) Strategicheskoe Partnerstvo Rosii i Organizacii
Severoatlanticheskogo pakta: kogda nastanet ego chered?, pp.
82-91.
St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University Press
.
13.
Hubel, H.
and
Gänzle, S.
(2001) ‘The Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS)
as a Subregional Organization for “Soft Security
Management” in
the North-East of Europe’
. Report to the German Presidency of the CBSS, May 2001. Available at: http://www.baltinfo.org/Docs/ministerial/.
14.
Hubel, H.
and
Gänzle, S.
(2002a) ‘The Council of the Baltic Sea States
and the EU: Dealing with Soft Security Risks in an European
Subregion’, in
H. Hubel
(ed.) EU Enlargement and Beyond: the Baltic States and Russia, pp.
393-415.
Berlin: Berlin-Verlag Spitz
.
15.
Hubel, H.
and
Gänzle, S.
(2002b) ‘The Soft Security Agenda at the
Sub-Regional Level: Policy Responses of the Council of the Baltic Sea States
(CBSS)’, in
H. Moroff
(ed.) European Soft Security Policies: The Northern Dimension, pp. 251-280Berlin/Helsinki: Finnish Institute of
International Affairs, Helsinki/Institut für Europäische
Politik, Berlin
. Programme of the Northern Dimension of the CFSP, No. 17.
16.
Joenniemi, P.
, ed., (1992) ‘The Baltic Sea Area: A Region in the
Making’.
Oslo: Karlskrona
.
17.
Joenniemi, P.
(2002) ‘Kaliningrad — A
“Little Russia” within the European
Union’, in
H. Hubel
(ed.) EU Enlargement and Beyond: The Baltic States and Russia, pp.
417-446.
Berlin: Berlin-Verlag Spitz
.
18.
‘Joint Statement on Transit between the Kaliningrad Region and the
Rest of the Russian Federation’ (2002) Brussels, 11
November 2002. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/russia/summit_11_02/js_kalin.htm.
19.
Kaiser, K. (1991) Deutschlands Vereinigung. Die internationalen
Aspekte, pp. 73-7. Bergisch-Gladbach: Lübbe.
20.
Keohane, R. O.
and
Nye, J. S.
(2001) Power and Interdependence, 3rd edn.New York: Longman
.
21.
Kionka, R. R. (2004) The International Politics of Estonian Nationality
Policy. Ph.D. dissertation. Columbia University (forthcoming).
22.
Lake, David A.
(1997) ‘Regional Security Complexes: A Systems
Approach’, in
David A. Lake
and
Patrick M. Morgan
(eds) Regional Orders. Building Security in a New World, pp.
45-67.
University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State
University Press
.
23.
Lynch, A. C.
(2003)
‘The Influence of Domestic Factors on Russia’s World
Position Over the Next Ten Years’
. Paper prepared for the Seminar on the Sources and Limits of
Russian Power, Sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies
and the National Defense University, 30 April 2003
(revised 5 June 2003).
24.
Meister, S. (2003) Probleme der Regionalisierung in der
Russländischen Föderation. University of Jena.
25.
Miljan, T.
(1977) The Reluctant Europeans. The Attitudes of the Nordic
Countries towards European Integration.
London: Hurst
.
26.
Moroff, H.
, ed., (2002) ‘European Soft Security Policies: The
Northern Dimension’,
Berlin/Helsinki
(Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Helsinki/Institut
für Europäische Politik, Berlin). Programme of the Northern
Dimension of the CFSP No. 17.
27.
Müntel, G. (2003) ‘Kaliningrads Weg aus der
Isolation?’, Osteuropa 53: 249-61.
28.
Neumann, I. B.
(1992) Regions in International Relations Theory: The Case
for a Region-Building Approach.
Oslo
(NUPI Report no. 162).
29.
Neumann, I. B.
(1996) Russia and the Idea of Europe: A Study in Identity and
International Relations.
London and New York: Routledge
.
30.
Segbers, K. (1999) ’Rußland einbinden. Vom Sinn und Zweck
einer Simulation’, Blätter für deutsche und
internationale Politik 43: 829-36.
31.
Seiters, R. (1997) ’Rußlands Rang und
Größe gerecht werden’, in Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung, 10 October.
32.
Spruds, A.
(2002) ‘Perceptions and Interests in
Russian-Baltic Relations’, in
H. Hubel
(ed.) EU Enlargement and Beyond: the Baltic States and Russia, pp.
345-370.
Berlin: Berlin-Verlag Spitz
.
33.
Talbott, S.
(2002) The Russia Hand.
New York: Random House
.
34.
Timmermann, H. (1996) ‘Die Europäische Union und
Rußland—Dimensionen und Perspektiven der
Partnerschaft’, Integration 19: 195-207.
35.
Vedrine, H.
(1999) International Herald Tribune, 5 February.
36.
Wæver, O.
(1993) ‘Culture and Identity in the Baltic Sea
Region’, in
P. Joenniemi
(ed.) Co-operation in the Baltic Sea Region, pp.
23-48.
Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis
.
37.
Wallace, W.
(2000) ‘Collective Governance: The EU Political
Process’, in
H. Wallace
and
W. Wallace
(eds) Policy-Making in the European Union, pp.
523-542.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
38.
Wolfowitz, P.
(2002)
‘Speech of the Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz at the
38th Conference for Security Policy in Munich, 2 February 2002’ (excerpts)
, Internationale Politik57:
99-104
.
