Angaben zur Quelle [Bearbeiten]
| Autor | Fulvio Attinà |
| Titel | European Neighbourhood Policy and the Building of Security around Europe |
| Sammlung | European Neighbourhood Policy: Political, Economic and Social Issues |
| Herausgeber | Fulvio Attinà and Rosa Rossi |
| Ort | Catania |
| Datum | Oktober 2004 |
| Anmerkung | Project The European Union Neighbourhood Policy of the Faculty of Political Sciences of the University of Catania, cofinanced by the European Commission Jean Monnet Project – Heading A-3022 |
| URL | http://www.fscpo.unict.it/EuroMed/ENPCataniabook.pdf |
Literaturverz. |
ja |
| Fußnoten | ja |
| Fragmente | 12 |
| [1.] Gd/Fragment 082 22 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2014-02-22 17:19:39 Schumann | Attinà 2004, Fragment, Gd, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 82, Zeilen: 22-25, 27-32 |
Quelle: Attinà 2004 Seite(n): 21, 22, Zeilen: 21:45-46; 22:15-20 |
|---|---|
| The European Union offers the prospect of a stake in the EU’s internal market to those countries that make concrete progress demonstrating shared values and effective implementation of political, economic and institutional reforms. [In order to have a better overview of the ENP offered incentives please see the appendix 4.139]
As listed in the appendix 4, neighbouring countries are invited to take political and legislative measures to enhance economic integration and liberalization, and measures to promote human rights, cultural cooperation and mutual understanding. Besides, they are explicitly invited also to make steps towards regional security co-management and participate in initiatives aimed at improving conflict prevention and crisis management as well as strengthening co-operation to prevent and combat common security threats. [139 Appendix 4 p.182] |
[Seite 21]
The European Union offers the prospect of a stake in the EU’s internal market to those countries that make concrete progress demonstrating shared values and effective implementation of political, economic and institutional reforms. [Seite 22] Neighbouring countries are invited to take political and legislative measures to enhance economic integration and liberalization, and measures to promote human rights, cultural cooperation and mutual understanding. Besides these measures, which are coherent with the European view of regional security, neighbouring countries are explicitly invited also to make steps towards regional security co-management and participate in initiatives aimed at (a) improving conflict prevention and crisis management, and (b) strengthening co-operation to prevent and combat common security threats. |
Ohne Hinweis auf eine Übernahme. |
|
| [2.] Gd/Fragment 153 03 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-12-19 08:33:22 Graf Isolan | Attinà 2004, BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gd, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 153, Zeilen: 3-13 |
Quelle: Attinà 2004 Seite(n): 17, Zeilen: 3-4, 7-12, 101-102 |
|---|---|
| Regions, in which military confrontation is currently practiced (the Middle East) or is maintained by the governments as unavoidable means of statehood, are less attractive for other developed states to create any security arrangement by explicit agreements. Thus, in this case, governments do not agree on any form of collective solution of security problems.
Military alliances are formed on the belief that the coordination of military force with likeminded countries is more successful than self defence in dissuading potential aggressors. Creation of a military alliance means encouraging other countries which do not participate in the latter to build an opposite alliance in order to make a kind of equilibrium of forces. Accordingly, it can be inferred that in many cases military alliances do not improve security condition of the members [sic] states but crystallize conflict relations that make constant or increase instability depending on circumstances.221 221 Attina Fulvio and Rossi Rosa – European Neighbourhood Policy: Political, Economic and Social Issues. The Jean Monnet Centre “Euro-med”, Department of Political Studies, University of Catania, 2004. p.17 |
In this case, however, governments do not agree on any form of collective solution of security problems. [...] Accordingly, military alliances are formed on the belief that the coordination of military force with likeminded countries is more successful than self-defence in dissuading potential aggressors. When a military alliance is created, in most of the cases the formation of opposite military alliance(s) is very probable because the rise of a strong collective actor incites other governments to unite in opposite alignment(s). For this reason, in many cases military alliances do not improve the security condition of the member states but crystallize conflict relations that make constant or increase instability according to circumstances.
3 This is the case of the regions in which military confrontation is currently practiced (like the Middle East) or is maintained by the governments as the unavoidable means of the state (like in the African sub-regional systems). [...] |
Art und Umfang der vielfach auch wortwörtlichen Übernahme bleiben ungekennzeichnet. |
|
| [3.] Gd/Fragment 154 02 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-12-20 01:01:09 Graf Isolan | Attinà 2004, BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gd, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 154, Zeilen: 2-7 |
Quelle: Attinà 2004 Seite(n): 17, Zeilen: 17-21 |
|---|---|
| It is followed by the collective security system. By the latter, governments prefer to keep armed forces under strict national control but agree to make them available on request as complement to collective force to intervene in case of need against an aggressor (for example the Organization of African Union). This kind of systems of collective security neither leads automatically to the constitution of collective military forces nor to the formation of permanent security mechanisms. | The systems of collective security occupy the centre of the line because with this arrangement, governments prefer to keep armed forces under strict national control but agree to make them available on request, instantly forming a collective force to intervene in case of need against an aggressor. In other words, for the low level of cooperative practices and social integration, national commitment to cooperation neither leads automatically to the constitution of collective military forces nor to the formation of permanent security mechanisms. |
Art und Umfang der Übernahme bleiben ungekennzeichnet. Die Quelle wird auf der vorangegangenen Seite im Text erwähnt und wird auf dieser Seite in einer Fußnote genannt. |
|
| [4.] Gd/Fragment 154 16 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-12-20 01:00:10 Graf Isolan | Attinà 2004, BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gd, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 154, Zeilen: 16-21 |
Quelle: Attinà 2004 Seite(n): 18, Zeilen: 19-21, 23-25 |
|---|---|
| The regional security partnership is characterized by the following indicators: measures of cooperative security (information exchange on military policies and structures) and comprehensive security (military and non military aspects of security) are indivisible part of regional security with obligation to improve security conditions in the region and preserve geopolitical stability. They are defined in international agreements. The security partnership agreements are formed by groups of countries characterized by conflict divisions, not large [flows of transactions and communication, and a small sharing of values and institutions.] | Second, in this form of regional security, measures of cooperative security (like exchange of information on military policies and structures) and comprehensive security (i.e. the military and non-military aspects of security) are constitutive means of regional security, and are explicitly defined in international agreements. [...] Third, security partnership agreements, in contrast to security communities, are formed by groups of countries characterized by conflict divisions, not-large flows of transactions and communication, and a small sharing of values and institutions. |
Art und Umfang der Übernahme bleiben ungekennzeichnet. Die Quelle wird auf der vorangegangenen Seite im Text erwähnt und wird auf dieser Seite in einer Fußnote genannt. |
|
| [5.] Gd/Fragment 155 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-12-16 21:51:13 Guckar | Attinà 2004, BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gd, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 155, Zeilen: 1-18 |
Quelle: Attinà 2004 Seite(n): 18, Zeilen: 23-41 |
|---|---|
| [The security partnership agreements are formed by groups of countries characterized by conflict divisions, not large] flows of transactions and communication, and a small sharing of values and institutions. At the same time, it must be declared that there exist some exceptions as well; for instance, countries are not divided by conflict lines, are linked by large flows of mutual transactions and communication, and share the same cultural and institutional values, but they meet consensus on introducing cooperation on security problems. Important is, that for some political and practical reasons, these states are willing to cooperate in order to reduce the risk of violent confrontations, and allow the flow of mutual communication and material transactions to make profit. At last, close cooperation between the states over time produces common orientations towards problems and values, thus, reduces the security culture difference, which leads to the formation of we-ness and common values. So, it is not excluded that a regional security partnership turns into a security community.223
To put it out in a short and precise way, the regional security partnership is a kind of consensus between the countries of a region to cooperate on the reduction of violence and enhancement of stability and peace by making use of different types of agreements and mechanisms like formal security treaties, security international organizations, joint action agreements, multilateral dialogue processes, peace and stability pacts including confidence building and preventive diplomacy measures, also measures for influencing domestic structures and processes of the countries at risk of internal violence. 223 Attina Fulvio and Rossi Rosa – European Neighbourhood Policy: Political, Economic and Social Issues. The Jean Monnet Centre “Euro-med”, Department of Political Studies, University of Catania, 2004. p.18 |
Third, security partnership agreements, in contrast to security communities, are formed by groups of countries characterized by conflict divisions, not-large flows of transactions and communication, and a small sharing of values and institutions. These conditions apply to the whole group of the countries of the partnership project, but some countries of the group are not divided by conflict lines, are linked by large flows of mutual transactions and communication, and share the same cultural and institutional values. In addition, the countries of the region have different security cultures but these are not so distant from one another as to prevent the formation of consensus on introducing cooperation on security problems. In other words, for some political and practical reasons, these countries are inclined to act together for the reduction of the risk of violent confrontation, and allow the flow of mutual communication and material transactions to increase on their own. Fourth, in as much as security cooperation in a regional partnership becomes strong and durable over time, the observance of common practices by the partner states produces common orientations towards problems and values and, consequently, reduces the security culture difference. On their turn, common practices and orientations lead to the formation of we-ness and common identities of the people of the partner states. Hence, it is possible that a regional security partnership turns into a security community.
In general terms, the regional security partnership is the arrangement that originates from the consensus of the states of a region to cooperate on the reduction of violence and enhancement of stability and peace by making use of different types of agreements and mechanisms like formal security treaties, security international organizations, joint action agreements, multilateral dialogue processes, peace and stability pacts including confidence-building measures, preventive diplomacy measures, and also measures for influencing the domestic structures and processes of the countries at risk of internal violence. |
Etwas gekürzt, aber inhaltlich identisch und in weiten Passagen wörtlich übereinstimmend. Art und Umfang der Übernahme bleiben ungekennzeichnet. |
|
| [6.] Gd/Fragment 155 30 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-12-20 00:58:49 Graf Isolan | Attinà 2004, BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gd, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 155, Zeilen: 30-33 |
Quelle: Attinà 2004 Seite(n): 18, Zeilen: 43-47, 48-50 |
|---|---|
| The good examples of the regional security cooperation are: the process of building of the European security system since the launch of the Helsinki Process; ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in the East Asia/Pacific; and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Central Asia. In the fundamental agreements of such security partnerships, shared principles [of peaceful relations are proclaimed and sources of conflict, tension and instability are made public by the partner governments.] | The construction of the European security system since the early Seventies, i.e. from the opening of the Helsinki Process, is the most important case of regional security partnership building in international politics but other current initiatives in Asia – namely in the East Asia/Pacific (i.e. the ASEAN Regional Forum, ARF) and in Central Asia (i.e. the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, SCO) – are examples of this form of regional security co-operation. [...] In the fundamental agreement shared principles of peaceful relations are proclaimed, commitment to avoid power confrontation is given, and sources of conflict, tension and instability are made public by the partner governments. |
Art und Umfang der Übernahme bleiben ungekennzeichnet. |
|
| [7.] Gd/Fragment 156 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-12-16 21:50:08 Guckar | Attinà 2004, Fragment, Gd, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 156, Zeilen: 1-8 |
Quelle: Attinà 2004 Seite(n): 18, 19, Zeilen: 18:47ff. - 19:1-3 |
|---|---|
| [In the fundamental agreements of such security partnerships, shared principles] of peaceful relations are proclaimed and sources of conflict, tension and instability are made public by the partner governments. The fundamental agreements include the operative agreements and mechanisms, which are used in order to implement cooperative measures for the management of common security problems. With the operative agreements, multilateral offices are created as well as the use is made of international organizations to deal with perceived security threats. The most important collective instruments of the security partnership are those multilateral offices and organizations, especially, in as much as they are responsible for peace-making and peace-keeping operations. | [Seite 18]
This observation reveals that a regional security partnership is based on a set of documents, i.e. one or few fundamental agreements, and a number of related operative agreements. In the fundamental agreement shared principles of peaceful relations are proclaimed, commitment to avoid power confrontation is given, and sources of conflict, tension and instability are made public by the partner governments. Within the frame of the fundamental agreements, the regional states agree to establish also the operative agreements and mechanisms that are needed to implement co-operative measures for the management of the common security problems. With the operative agreements, [Seite 19] the partner governments create multilateral offices and make use of existing and new created international organizations to deal with the perceived security threats. Multilateral offices and organizations are the most important collective instruments of the security partnership, especially in as much as they are responsible for peace-making and peace-keeping operations. |
Etwas gekürzt, aber inhaltlich identisch und in weiten Passagen wörtlich übereinstimmend. Art und Umfang der Übernahme bleiben ungekennzeichnet. |
|
| [8.] Gd/Fragment 156 11 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-12-20 00:56:33 Graf Isolan | Attinà 2004, BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gd, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 156, Zeilen: 11-32 |
Quelle: Attinà 2004 Seite(n): 19, Zeilen: 6-23 |
|---|---|
| Main attributes of the regional security partnership model224
Pre-conditions
Conditions
Structures and means
Consequences
224 Attina Fulvio and Rossi Rosa – European Neighbourhood Policy: Political, Economic and Social Issues. The Jean Monnet Centre “Euro-med”, Department of Political Studies, University of Catania, 2004. p.19 |
The main attributes of the regional security partnership model are summarized as it follows.
Pre-conditions
Conditions
Structures and means
Consequences
|
Art und Umfang der Übernahme bleiben ungekennzeichnet. |
|
| [9.] Gd/Fragment 157 16 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2016-03-08 18:46:17 Schumann | Attinà 2004, BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gd, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 157, Zeilen: 16-25, (26-32) |
Quelle: Attinà 2004 Seite(n): 17, Zeilen: 17:29-33 - 18:1-4.(4-10) |
|---|---|
| As to definition of security community, Karl Deutsch defines security community as a group of people that have become integrated and consider war as an obsolete instrument of conflict resolution. This group of people consider themselves as a community and produce a favourable ground for the establishment of peaceful conflict resolution institutions. Distinction is made between amalgamated security communities and pluralistic security one. Deutsch argues that by the first case the states have abandoned their full sovereignty and merge into an expanded state; but, by the second one, states retain their legal independence but develop common institutions with a sense of “we-ness”. Adler and Barnett point out two types of pluralistic communities – loosely and tightly coupled – according to whether they are close to giving up the full sovereignty or the vice versa – government centralization.225
Fulvio Attina gives us examples of each community type mentioned above. The formation of federal states like Germany in the 19th century is a good example for the amalgamated security community. Scandinavia, Canada and the United States, and the Euro-Atlantic community are examples of the loosely coupled form of pluralistic security community. The author points out the European Union as an example of the tightly coupled form of security community; but, at the same time, he underlines that the whole European continent is hardly a security community, and the wider Europe with its surroundings “… is [still far from being qualified as a case of this arrangement.”] 225 Attina Fulvio and Rossi Rosa – European Neighbourhood Policy: Political, Economic and Social Issues. The Jean Monnet Centre “Euro-med”, Department of Political Studies, University of Catania, 2004. pp.17-18 |
[Seite 17]
A security community, as initially theorized by Karl Deutsch, is a group of people that have become integrated and consider war as an obsolete instrument of conflict resolution (Deutsch et al., 1957). A security community is brought into being by the high level of transaction and communication flows that bind together a group of people who think of themselves as a community, and produce favourable conditions for the establishment of institutions of peaceful conflict resolution. Deutsch made a distinction between amalgamated security communities, which are formed by the states that [Seite 18] abandon their full sovereignty and merge into an expanded state, and pluralistic security communities in which states retain their legal independence but develop common institutions and a sense of “we-ness” and “we-feeling”. As Adler and Barnett remark (1998), pluralistic communities vary between two forms - the loosely and tightly coupled form - on whether they are close to persistent state sovereignty separation or emerging government centralization. Therefore, the right-hand part of the line of regional security systems is populated with three forms of arrangements. An example of amalgamated security communities is the formation of federal states like Germany in the 19th century. Scandinavia, Canada and the United States, and the Euro-Atlantic community are examples of the loosely coupled form of pluralistic security community. Finally, the European Union is example of the tightly coupled form of security communities, but the whole European continent is hardly a security community, and the wider Europe and its surrounding area is still far from being qualified as a case of this arrangement. |
Art und Umfang der Übernahme bleiben ungekennzeichnet. Beim zweiten hier dokumentierten Absatz wird der Urheber mehrfach genannt und es ist deutlich, dass hier die Inhalte eines anderen referiert werden. Nichtsdestotrotz ist auch hier die Übereinstimmung mit dem Original passagenweise eins zu eins, sodass auch hier eine Kennzeichnung der Zitate, wie sie beim letzten Halbsatz geschieht, angebracht gewesen wäre. Der zweite Absatz wird nicht in die Zeilenzählung mitaufgenommen. |
|
| [10.] Gd/Fragment 158 04 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2014-11-27 23:24:52 Hindemith | Attinà 2004, Fragment, Gd, KeineWertung, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel, ZuSichten |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 158, Zeilen: 4-15 |
Quelle: Attinà 2004 Seite(n): 19, 20, Zeilen: 19:44-48; 20:2-9 |
|---|---|
| As Attina argues, the European security partnership has been put many times to a test, but unfortunately, performance has not been always good. However, there are some positive records too, as the direct intervention of peacekeeping forces helped to restrain violence. The author underlines the fact that since the end of the 90s the European security partnership is under the challenge of the current worldwide in-security environment; and accordingly, the European governments’ preference for cooperative and comprehensive security has been tempered by the so-called “new discourse of threat and danger”. There was a clear need for upgrading of the European military preparedness in order to be in a better position to deal with the countries which are perceived to be aggressive and irrational like the Milosevic’s regime and those with the threats to global terrorism. As a consequence, we have witnessed the development of the ESDP for worldwide use as well as some enhancements in the Euro-Atlantic strategic preponderance as condition for international stability and peace.226
226 Attina Fulvio and Rossi Rosa – European Neighbourhood Policy: Political, Economic and Social Issues. The Jean Monnet Centre “Euro-med”, Department of Political Studies, University of Catania, 2004. pp.19-20 |
[Seite 19]
The European security partnership has been put to a test in various occasions during the Nineties, namely in former Soviet states and the Balkans. Performance has not been always good, sometimes deceptive. However, the positive role of the security mechanisms cannot be denied in several cases in which the direct intervention of peacekeeping forces helped to restrain violence, and the programs of relief and rehabilitation helped to restore civilian conditions in countries ravaged by internal violence. [Seite 20] Since the last Nineties, the European security partnership is under the challenge of the current worldwide in-security environment (see, for example, Biscop, 2004). Accordingly, the European governments’ preference for cooperative and comprehensive security has been tempered by the so-called “new discourse of threat and danger” (Krause and Latham, 1999: 39). To cope with the problem of containing the policies of governments which are perceived as aggressive, irrational and unreceptive of the cooperative mechanisms (like the Milosevic’s regime), and the problem of dealing with the threats of global terrorism, the European governments have focused on the need for upgrading their countries’ military preparedness. This policy change has many aspects including the development of the ESDP for worldwide use and, in some cases, the enhancement of the Euro-Atlantic strategic preponderance as condition for international stability and peace. |
Art und Umfang der Übernahme bleiben ungekennzeichnet. |
|
| [11.] Gd/Fragment 158 19 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2014-02-22 17:59:48 Schumann | Attinà 2004, BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gd, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 158, Zeilen: 19-23 |
Quelle: Attinà 2004 Seite(n): 21, Zeilen: 42-44 |
|---|---|
| The latter is aimed at developing a zone of prosperity and a “ring of friends”, with whom the EU can enjoy close, peaceful and cooperative relations. Thus, it is obvious that political and economic interdependence is believed by the Union to be the source of political stability and regional security. | The new policy plan is expressly aimed at developing a zone of prosperity and a ‘ring of friends’ with whom the EU can enjoy close, peaceful and co-operative relations. Political and economic interdependence is recognized as a reality that puts on the European Union the duty to creating an enlarged area of political stability and functioning rule of law. |
Art und Umfang der Übernahme bleiben ungekennzeichnet. Der Autor des Originals wird weiter oben genannt. |
|
| [12.] Gd/Fragment 158 26 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2014-11-27 23:26:11 Hindemith | Attinà 2004, Fragment, Gd, KeineWertung, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel, ZuSichten |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 158, Zeilen: 26-30 |
Quelle: Attinà 2004 Seite(n): 22, Zeilen: 20-24 |
|---|---|
| Accordingly, Attina argues that ENP approach to security consists of the classical concepts: i.e. those of comprehensive security – the interdependence of the political, socio-economic, ecologic, cultural and military dimensions – and cooperative security – the constant exercise of dialogue and exchange of information, knowledge and expertise. | In such a perspective, it is apparent – as Biscop (2004) has extensively demonstrated - that the Neighbourhood Policy approach to security consists of the classical concepts that distinguish the European regional security partnership of the last thirty years: i.e. the concepts of comprehensive security – as the interdependence between the political, socio-economic, ecologic, cultural and military dimensions - and cooperative security – as the constant exercise of dialogue and exchange of information, knowledge and expertise. |
Art und Umfang der Übernahme bleiben ungekennzeichnet, der Autor der Quelle wird aber erwähnt. |
|