intertrendsМеждународные процессыInternational Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy1728-27561811-2773AEFIR10.46272/IT.2024.22.1.76.6intertrends-459Research ArticleРЕАЛЬНОСТЬ И ТЕОРИЯREALITY AND THEORYЭволюция дискурса о суверенитете и санкциях и её значение для внешних связей ЕСThe Evolution of the Discourse on Sovereignty and Sanctions and Its Siginificance for the EU’s External RelationsРомановаТатьянаRomanovaTatianaСанкт-Петербургский государственный университет, Санкт-Петербург, Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики», МоскваРоссияSaint-Petersburg State University, Saint-Petersburg, 191060, HSE University, Moscow, 109028Russian Federation202408102024221СИЛА УБЕЖДЕНИЯ2241Copyright © Романова Т., 20242024Романова Т.Romanova T.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.intertrends.ru/jour/article/view/459

В дискурсе Евросоюза всё чаще используются вместе две новые категории: европейский / стратегический суверенитет (или автономия) и санкции. Анализ официальных текстов ЕС, выступлений его представителей, а также аналитических материалов показывает, что в Брюсселе было две итерации дискурса о суверенитете и санкциях. Первая появилась в 2017 году, вторая пришла на смену в 2022-м. Цель статьи состоит в выявлении ключевых изменений между первой и второй итерациями, а также их значения для внешней деятельности Брюсселя. Теоретической основой статьи стали работы по суверенитету Р. Х. Джексона и С. Краснера и критическая геополитика. Методологически исследование основано на качественном контент-анализе и критическом дискурс-анализе. В терминах Р. Х. Джексона первую итерацию дискурса Евросоюза можно охарактеризовать как суверенитет от (от экстратерриториальности США), а вторую – как суверенитет для (для оказания влияния на Россию). С каждой итерацией менялись интерпретации четырёх атрибутов (в терминах С. Краснера) суверенитета, то есть его аспектов. Для внутреннего было характерно последовательное углубление сотрудничества в ЕС, включая более активную реализацию ранее принятых решений. Вестфальский аспект суверенитета эволюционировал от ограничения влияния односторонних ограничительных мер США к минимизации связей с Россией. Последнее, по замыслу Брюсселя, должно создать рычаг давления на Москву и укрепить Европейский союз. Наконец, атрибут взаимозависимости эволюционировал в сторону отказа от глобальности. Смена первой итерации второй – это и переход ЕС от восприятия экономических контактов как стабилизирующего фактора, способствующего политико-правовому и ценностному сближению, к доминированию опасений использования взаимозависимости как инструмента воздействия. Более того, санкции и их поддержка партнёрами Евросоюза становятся для него, наравне с присоединением партнёров к либеральным ценностям, элементом структурирования мирового пространства. Эта трансформация обусловливает логику принятия внешнеполитических решений в ЕС.

The EU has introduced two new concepts in its discourse: European / strategic sovereignty and sanctions. The analysis of the EU’s official texts, its representatives’ speeches and experts’ essays reveals that to date there has been two iterations of the discourse on sovereignty and sanctions. The first one emerged in 2017 whereas the second one took hold in 2022. The goal of the article is to identify key changes between the first and second iterations, as well as the importance of these changes for the EU’s external relations. Theoretically, the article draws on the writings of Robert H. Jackson and Stephen Krasner on sovereignty, supplemented by critical geopolitics studies. Methodologically, the article is based on qualitative contentanalysis and critical discourse analysis. The ideas expressed by R. H. Jackson help to qualify the first iteration of the EU’s discourse on sovereignty and sanctions as sovereignty from (from the extraterritoriality of the USA) whereas the second one can be defined as sovereignty for (for putting pressure on Russia). The article also reveals that in each iteration Brussels reinterprets attributes (aspects) of sovereignty (S. Krasner). Domestic aspect of sovereignty is characterized by deeper cooperation within the Union as well as intensified implementation of already adopted decisions, although some priorities vary between the two iterations. Westphalian attribute of sovereignty has evolved from the limitation of US extraterritorial sanctions to the elimination of economic links with Russia, which, according to the EU, is meant to weaken Moscow and strengthen the European Union. Finally, the interdependence aspect of sovereignty has morphed into the refusal of globality, with the EU clinging to like-minded countries. The evolution from the first iteration to the second one demonstrates Brussels’ transfer from the understanding of economic contacts as a stabilizing factor, which leads to political, legal and normative convergences, to dominating concerns about weaponization of global interdependence. Moreover, sanctions and their support by EU partners help Brussels to structure the global space, on a par with EU-promoted liberal values and their backing. This transformation conditions the present logics of the EU’s foreign policy decision-making.

стратегический суверенитетевропейский суверенитетпозитивный и негативный суверенитетатрибуты суверенитетасанкцииЕвропейский союзкритическая геополитикаstrategic sovereigntyEuropean sovereigntypositive and negative sovereigntyattributes of sovereigntysanctionsEuropean Unioncritical geopoliticsReferencesАрбатова Н.К. Разносторонний треугольник: отношения Евросоюза с США и КНР // Полис. Политические исследования. 2023. № 6. С. 83–99. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2023.06.07Agnew J. (2018). Globalization and Sovereignty. Beyond the Territorial Trap. Lanham, USA: Rowman & Littlefield. 278 p.Коцур Г.В. «Стратегический суверенитет» и «стратегическая автономия в дискурсе ЕС: морфологический анализ // Современная Европа. 2023. №3. С. 33–44. DOI: 10.31857/S0201708323030038Arbatova N. K. (2023). Raznostoronniy treugol'nik: otnosheniya Evrosoyuza s SSHA i KNR [The versatile triangle: EU relations with the USA and China]. Polis. Political Studies. No. 6. P. 83–99. https://doi. org/10.17976/jpps/2023.06.07.Романова Т.А. Дискурс о суверенитете Европейского союза: содержание и последствия // Современная Европа. 2021. № 5. С. 32–44. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/soveurope520213244Bérard M.-H., Fabry E., Fatah F., Knudsen E., Lamy P., Pons G., Scgweitzer L., Vimont P. (2021). American Extraterritorial Sanctions. Did Someone Say European Strategic Autonomy? Europe in the World Policy Brief. Policy Paper. 22 March. 10 p. Berlin I. (1969). Two Concepts of Liberty. In: I.Сергеев Е.А., Воротников В.В. Стратегия Европейского Союза в условиях глобальной перестройки: автономия или эвтаназия? М.: МГИМО-Университет, 2023. 52 с.Berlin. Four Essays on Liberty. London: Oxford University Press. P. 118–172.Agnew J. Globalization and Sovereignty. Beyond the Territorial Trap. Lanham, USA: Rowman & Littlefield, 2018. 278 p.Biersteker T. J., Weber C. (1996). The social construction of state sovereignty, in state sovereignty as social construct. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 316 p.Bérard M.-H., Fabry E., Fatah F., Knudsen E., Lamy P., Pons G., Scgweitzer L., Vimont P. American Extraterritorial Sanctions. Did Someone Say European Strategic Autonomy? // Europe in the World Policy Brief. Policy Paper. 22.03.2021. 10 p.Bismuth R. (2023). The New Frontiers of European Sanctions and the Grey Areas of International Law. Revue Européenne du Droit. No. 5. URL: https://geopolitique.eu/en/revues/revue-europeenne-du-droit/ (accessed: 17.01.2024).Berlin I. Two Concepts of Liberty // Four Essays on Liberty / I. Berlin. London: Oxford University Press, 1969. P. 118–172.Bradford A. (2020). The Brussels Effect. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 368 p.Biersteker T.J., Weber C. The social construction of state sovereignty, in State sovereignty as social construct. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996. 316 p.Cagnin C., Muench S., Scapolo F., Stoermer E., Vesnic Alujevic L. (2021) Shaping and securing the EU’s Open Strategic Autonomy by 2040 and beyond. EUR 30802 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 148 p. doi:10.2760/727114Bismuth R. The New Frontiers of European Sanctions and the Grey Areas of International Law // Revue Européenne du Droit. 2023. No. 5. URL: https://geopolitique.eu/en/revues/revue-europeenne-du-droit/ (accessed: 17.01.2024).Cardwell P. J., Moret E. (2022). The EU, Sanctions and Regional Leadership. European Security. Vol. 32. No. 1. P. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2022.2085997Bradford A. The Brussels Effect. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. 368 p.Damro C. (2012). Market Power Europe. Journal of European Public Policy. Vol. 19. No. 5. P. 682–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2011.646779Cagnin C., Muench S., Scapolo F., Stoermer E., Vesnic Alujevic L. Shaping and securing the EU’s Open Strategic Autonomy by 2040 and beyond. EUR 30802 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021. 148 p. DOI:10.2760/727114Fairclough N. (2018). CDA as dialectical reasoning. In: J. Flowerdew, J. E. Richardson (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. Abingdon: Routledge. P. 13–25.Cardwell P.J., Moret E. The EU, Sanctions and Regional Leadership // European Security. 2022. Vol. 32. No. 1. P. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2022.2085997Fairclough N., Wodak R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In: van Dijk T. (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage. P. 258–284.Damro C. Market Power Europe // Journal of European Public Policy. 2012. Vol. 19. No. 5. P. 682–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2011.646779Fierke K. M. (2002). Links across the abyss: language and logic in international relations. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 46. No. 3. P. 331–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2478.00236Fairclough N. CDA as dialectical reasoning // The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies / ed. by J. Flowerdew, J. E. Richardson. Abingdon: Routledge, 2018. P. 13–25. Fairclough N., Wodak R. Critical discourse analysis // Discourse as Socal Interaction / ed. by T. van Dijk. London: Sage, 1997. P. 258–284.Gehrke T. (2022). EU Open Strategic Autonomy and the Trappings of Geoeconomics. European Foreign Affairs Review. Vol. 27. Special Issue. P. 61–78. https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022012Fierke K.M. Links across the abyss: language and logic in international relations // International Studies Quarterly. 2002. Vol. 46. No. 3. P. 331–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2478.00236Hackenbroich J., Oertel J., Sandner P., Zerka P. (2020). Defending Europe’s Economic Sovereignty: New Ways to Resist Economic Coercion. ECFR Policy Brief. October. 50 p.Gehrke T. EU Open Strategic Autonomy and the Trappings of Geoeconomics // European Foreign Affairs Review. 2022. Vol. 27. Special Issue. P. 61–78. https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022012Hajer M. (2006). Doing discourse analysis: coalitions, practices, meaning. In: M. Van Den Brink, T. Metze (eds.) Words Matter in Policy Planning: Discourse Theory and Method in the Social Sciences. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Urban and Regional Research. P. 65–74.Hackenbroich J., Oertel J., Sandner P., Zerka P. Defending Europe’s Economic Sovereignty: New Ways to Resist Economic Coercion. ECFR Policy Brief. October 2020. 50 p.Helwig N., Sinkkonen V. (2022). Strategic Autonomy and the EU as a Global Actor: The Evolution, Debate and Theory of a Contested Term. European Foreign Affairs Review. Vol 27. Special Issue. P. 1–20.Hajer M. Doing discourse analysis: coalitions, practices, meaning // Words Matter in Policy Planning: Discourse Theory and Method in the Social Sciences / ed. by M. van Den Brink, T. Metze. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Urban and Regional Research, 2006. P. 65–74.Jackson R. H. (1990). Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 225 p.Helwig N., Sinkkonen V. Strategic Autonomy and the EU as a Global Actor: The Evolution, Debate and Theory of a Contested Term // European Foreign Affairs Review. 2022. Vol. 27. Special Issue. P. 1–20.Kotsur G. V. (2023). ‘Strategicheskiy suverenitet’ i ‘strategicheskaya avtonomiya’ v diskurse ES: morfologicheskiy analiz [‘Strategic Sovereignty’ and ‘Strategic Autonomy’ in the EU’s Official Discourse: a Morphological Analysis of Ideology]. Sovremennaya Evropa. No. 3. P. 33–44. DOI: 10.31857/S0201708323030038Jackson R.H. Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. 225 p.Krasner S. D. (1999). Sovereignty. Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 264 p.Krasner S.D. Sovereignty. Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999. 264 p.Kuus M. (2010). Critical Geopolitics. In: N. Sandal (ed.) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.137Kuus M. Critical Geopolitics // Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies / ed. by N. Sandal. Oxford University Press, 2010. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.137Manners I. (2002). Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 40. No. 2. P. 235–258.Manners I. Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? // Journal of Common Market Studies. 2002. Vol. 40. No. 2. P. 235–258.Ó Tuathail G., Agnew J. (1992). Geopolitics and Discourse: Practical Geopolitical Reasoning in American Foreign Policy. Political Geography. Vol. 11. No. 2. P. 190–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/0962- 6298(92)90048-XÓ Tuathail G., Agnew J. Geopolitics and Discourse: Practical Geopolitical Reasoning in American Foreign Policy // Political Geography. 1992. Vol. 11. No. 2. P. 190–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/0962- 6298(92)90048-XPortela C. (2021). The EU and the Strategic Use of Sanctions as a Geo-economic Tool? In: Reader of the 21st Foreign Policy Conference of the Heinrich Böll Foundation “Between Hard and Soft Power. The European Union in a More Competitive World”. Heinrich Böll Foundation. June. URL: https://www.boell. de/en/2021/02/03/eu-and-strategic-use-sanctions-geo-economic-tool (accessed: 10.12.2021)64.Portela C. The EU and the Strategic Use of Sanctions as a Geo-economic Tool? // Reader of the 21st Foreign Policy Conference of the Heinrich Böll Foundation “Between Hard and Soft Power. The European Union in a More Competitive World”. Heinrich Böll Foundation, June 2021. URL: https:// www.boell.de/en/2021/02/03/eu-and-strategic-use-sanctions-geo-economic-tool (accessed: 10.12.2021)63.Portela C., Olsen K. B. (2023). Implementation and monitoring of the EU sanctions’ regimes, including recommendations to reinforce the EU’s capacities to implement and monitor sanctions. Brussels: European Parliament. PE 702.603. 104 p.Portela C., Olsen K.B. Implementation and monitoring of the EU sanctions’ regimes, including recommendations to reinforce the EU’s capacities to implement and monitor sanctions. Brussels: European Parliament, 2023. PE 702.603. 104 p.Romanova T. A. (2021). Diskurs o suverenitete Evropeyskogo soyuza: soderzhanie i posledstviya [The EU’s Discourse on Sovereignty: Content and Consequences]. Sovremennaya Evropa. No. 5. P. 32–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/soveurope520213244Schmitz L., Seidl T. As Open as Possible, as Autonomous as Necessary: Understanding the Rise of Open Strategic Autonomy in EU Trade Policy // Journal of Common Market Studies. 2023. Vol. 61. No. 3. P. 834–852. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13428Schmitz L., Seidl T. (2023). As Open as Possible, as Autonomous as Necessary: Understanding the Rise of Open Strategic Autonomy in EU Trade Policy. Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 61. No. 3. P. 834–852. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13428Searle J.R. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. 187 p.Searle J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 187 p.Tichy L. EU-Russia Energy Relations. A Discursive Approach. Cham: Springer, 2019. 218 p.Sergeev E. A., Vorotnikov V. V. (2023). Strategiya Evropeyskogo Soyuza v usloviyakh global'noy perestroyki: avtonomiya ili evtanaziya? [The EU’s Strategy in the Framework of Global Transformation: autonomy or euthanasia]. Moscow: MGIMO-Universitet. 52 p.Wodak R., Meyer M. Critical discourse studies: history, agenda, theory and methodology // Methods of Critical Discourse Studies / ed. by R. Wodak, M. Meyer. London: Sage, 2016. P. 1–22.Tichy L. (2019). EU-Russia Energy Relations. A Discursive Approach. Cham: Springer. 218 p.Zerka P. The Traveller’s Guide to European Economic Sovereignty. ECFR Commentary. 7 July 2022. URL: https://ecfr.eu/article/the-travellers-guide-to-european-economic-sovereignty/ (accessed: 17.01.2024).Wodak R., Meyer M. (2016). Critical discourse studies: history, agenda, theory and methodology. In: R. Wodak, M. Meyer (eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. London: Sage. P. 1–22.Zerka P. (2022) The Traveller’s Guide to European Economic Sovereignty. ECFR Commentary. 7 July. URL: https://ecfr.eu/article/the-travellers-guide-to-european-economic-sovereignty/ (accessed: 17.01.2024).Zerka P. (2022) The Traveller’s Guide to European Economic Sovereignty. ECFR Commentary. 7 July. URL: https://ecfr.eu/article/the-travellers-guide-to-european-economic-sovereignty/ (accessed: 17.01.2024).

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.