Search

The European Union (EU) states in its 2016 Global Strategy that it intends to be a "responsible global stakeholder" and to "act worldwide to address the core causes of war and poverty, as well as to promote the indivisibility and universality of human rights" (European Union Global Strategy, 2016, pp. 5–8, 18). However, the Global Strategy is silent on the credentials or prerequisites that give the EU the authority to act globally and address conflicts and violations of human rights, including through the use of sanctions against non-EU states. How far the EU has the authority to use sanctions, which are essentially coercive measures, is especially relevant when the EU resorts to unilateral sanctions based on obligations owed erga omnes, namely measures without explicit United Nations Security Council authorisation and based on obligations owed to the international community as a whole. Drawing on Habermas's theory of communicative action, this article introduces an analytical framework - the "moral dimension" of EU authority - which maps the substantive and procedural standards to guide the assessment of whether the EU has the appropriate credentials to qualify as an authority with the right to intervene forcibly into the internal affairs of non-EU states. The analytical value of the framework is examined empirically in the case study of the EU's restrictive measures (sanctions) imposed in response to state violence against anti-government protests in Uzbekistan in 2005.

international organizations. Yet, more and more local civil society organizations (CSOs) are embracing reconciliation as a new agenda in the post-Euromaidan period. In this article, we analyze the role of local Ukrainian CSOs in fostering dialogue and reconciliation in Eastern Ukraine. Research on sub-state actors as legitimate agency in peacebuilding in Eastern Ukraine remains scarce. By drawing on the “everyday peace” perspective, we show that local bottom-up narratives of the conflict differ greatly from the top-down narratives of states and international organizations. Whereas the latter tend to reconfirm the status quo of the conflict or the (neo-) liberal economic approach to peace, local CSOs promote “rehumanizing the other,” which constitutes a quintessential process in achieving sustainable peace in Eastern Ukraine.

The article examines the role of European values in recent relations between the European Union and its neighbours, with a particular focus on EU–Moldovan and EU–Russian relations. Based on the assumption that European values are social constructs formed through speech acts, we examine interpretations of European values in official policy and communications of the EU and of political elites in the neighbouring states. We argue that there is a significant gap between interpretations of European values articulated by the EU and by political elites in Moldova and Russia, respectively. This ‘interpretative values gap’ needs to be addressed by the EU as a matter of urgency, in order to maintain the legitimacy of its neighbourhood policies and to ensure their successful implementation.

Considered by many to be Europe’s ‘last dictatorship’ under President Alexander Lukashenka, Belarus’s relations with the EU have been in decline for several years, despite initiatives such as the Eastern Partnership. Giselle Bosse warns that instead of disengaging, the EU should continue its policy of critical engagement with the country by building the capacity of Belarusian civil society and being more realistic and specific about its policy goals.