The Evolution of the Discourse on Sovereignty and Sanctions and Its Siginificance for the EU’s External Relations

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.

1. Agnew J. (2018). Globalization and Sovereignty. Beyond the Territorial Trap. Lanham, USA: Rowman & Littlefield. 278 p.

2. Arbatova 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.

3. Bérard 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.

4. Berlin. Four Essays on Liberty. London: Oxford University Press. P. 118–172.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. Bradford A. (2020). The Brussels Effect. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 368 p.

8. 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:10.2760/727114

9. Cardwell P. J., Moret E. (2022). The EU, Sanctions and Regional Leadership. European Security. Vol. 32. No. 1. P. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2022.2085997

10. Damro C. (2012). Market Power Europe. Journal of European Public Policy. Vol. 19. No. 5. P. 682–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2011.646779

11. Fairclough 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.

12. Fairclough N., Wodak R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In: van Dijk T. (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage. P. 258–284.

13. Fierke 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/10.1111/1468-2478.00236

14. 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/eerr2022012

15. Hackenbroich 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.

16. Hajer 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.

17. 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.

18. Jackson R. H. (1990). Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 225 p.

19. 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/S0201708323030038

20. Krasner S. D. (1999). Sovereignty. Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 264 p.

21. Kuus M. (2010). Critical Geopolitics. In: N. Sandal (ed.) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.137

22. Manners I. (2002). Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 40. No. 2. P. 235–258.

23. 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-X

24. Portela 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.

25. 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.

26. 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/soveurope520213244

27. Schmitz 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.13428

28. Searle J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 187 p.

29. 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.

30. Tichy L. (2019). EU-Russia Energy Relations. A Discursive Approach. Cham: Springer. 218 p.

31. 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.

32. 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).

33.