Contemporary Issues in World Politics

The paper examines the role of networks in EU foreign policy as they are considered contemporary issues in world politics. The role of networks in the functioning of the United States of Europe serves as a model for the proposed analysis of the interaction between state and non-state actors in contemporary world politics. A model of interaction that arose in the EU can be regarded as the prototype of the future. Therefore, the force applied by the EU is called post-modern. This model contributes to the widespread use of soft power and its various derivatives, particularly normative and network powers. The reason for the emergence of the analysed model is a quasi-federal nature of the EU, which is characterised by a plurality of intersecting and delegated sovereign functions.

In today's globalised world, the importance of new actors – non-governmental organisations (NGOs), transnational corporations and mass media − has increased dramatically. They all turn into a form of interaction organisation between state and non-state entities in contemporary world politics. The US National Intelligence Council even formulated a new scenario for the future which is called “non-state world” (Galdorisi 2013). According to this scenario: “NGOs, transnational corporations, academic institutions and wealthy individuals, just as sub-national units such as large cities thrive and lead in dealing with global challenges. There is transnational elite, which supervises the key non-state actors” (National Intelligence Council 2012).

A method of combining non-state actors in world politics, which is characteristic for the modern world, is usually understood as a network. There are three important types of networks suggested: 1) technical networks where elements are technical devices (for example, computers); 2) interpersonal social network where members are individuals; 3) social inter-organisational networks where elements are the organisation, including state and non-state actors (Popp 2013).

For a variety of reasons, which are listed below, the elements of social networking organisation in the field of politics have been particularly widespread in Europe. In this context, the EU might well be regarded as a prototype of the future world that the above-mentioned report of the US National Intelligence Council depicted. A well-known division of labour within NATO on the basis of the US conducting military operations and the EU post-conflict settlement also provides the predetermined widespread use of network practices in organisation of state and non-state actors in European politics. The reason for this is that network practices allow Europe to defend its interests and promote its values without using traditional hard power. Thus, network practices of cooperation between state and non-state actors are a form of soft power in the context of globalisation.

A stereotype of the policy of the United States of Europe is strictly normative and, therefore, widespread among specialists in domestic and foreign policy of the EU, i.e., it relies solely on international instruments, institutions and organisations. This approach is supported by the representation concerning the EU's role in the world as a normative power and the post-modern power in the European press (Wood 2009). All these kinds of force can be considered as derivatives of soft power and further development of the Joseph Nye's corresponding theory in Europe (Keohane & Nye 2011). In this respect, Europe is generally opposed to the United States, Russia, China and other traditional powers, combining hard power (military and economic opportunities), soft power (attractiveness of policies) and smart power (effectively and dot applied force) (Nye 2007). All these theories support the notion of normative and highly institutionalised EU foreign policy. A widespread network of practices and technologies under the European Neighbourhood Policy allows speaking of a new kind of power - network power. It allows purposefully shaping the international environment in accordance with the values and interests of the EU, acting without the use of traditional military, economic, and even promotional tools (Popescu & Wilson 2009). In the field of development and implementation of EU foreign policy, network practices are mainly considered as a way to ensure the widest possible democratic participation (Anglo-Saxon experts), or as the most effective method of control in the context of globalisation (German experts).

There are a number of additional theories to explain the widespread use of network practices in the organs and structures of the EU. Firstly, the very structure of the quasi-federal European Union promotes networking practices that shows a comparison with the United States being a normal federal state (Peterson & O’Toole 2001). The EU is a complex structure, in which the intertwined interaction between national and supranational, governmental and nongovernmental organisations takes place. In the context of the EU, there is no single vertical or hierarchical structure of decision-making. Thus, all decisions are made by a complex coordination and exchange of views on many levels and functional structures - economic, political, security, and others among them. It is also practiced among state and non-state actors (civil society, the media and business). Secondly, the network practices correspond to the modern globalised and post-industrial world in which national and even supranational (EU) governments cannot control all of the key processes. The last, by definition, are global in nature and, therefore, not amenable to manage direct management at a lower level. Hence, networking becomes a useful alternative to traditional methods in this situation. Thirdly, network practices of making internal decisions in a democracy allow establishing more effective cooperation between state and non-state actors (NGOs and the media among them).

A logical continuation of the wide application of network practices in the internal policies of the EU and the EU enlargement policy was the dissemination practices for the European Neighbourhood Policy. According to some experts networking practices are the method of policy-making within the EU and the involvement of the maximum number of participants turned into a way of projection forces outside the EU (European Commission). This allows to defend European interests in crisis zones using the most untraditional and non-disputed ways. Good examples are some elements of the European Neighbourhood Policy and especially the Eastern Partnership. In this program, those elements can be specifically mentioned which are aimed at developing a network of civil society organisations in neighbouring states of Europe.

According to many authors of a liberal direction (this view has been criticised by more conservative neo-realist experts), the EU is a new type of international power (Keohane & Nye 2012). This view has the predominance of power structures within Europe for now. Development of ideas about the EU as a new type of world power is closely related to the theory of soft power and a new theory of smart power, created by American neo-liberal Joseph Nye (Nye 2007). It should be noted that these views are exposed to serious criticism on the part of the realists (neo-realists), who recognize only hard power (i.e., military and economic levers of government policy) (Zielonka 2006).

The above-mentioned critical views on liberal approaches to the described foreign policy of the EU have some justification, especially in the field of energy security, where the interests of the Russian Federation and European countries are directly affected or even opposed. According to experts, there is an acute contradiction between the liberal policy aspects of Europe and the desire to establish control over the sources of energy or to minimize the possibility of using other energies as a power weapon in the field of energy security in the EU policy and politics (Smith 2008).

Elements of power politics in the field of energy security lead to a greater state control in the EU, and this is contrary to liberal values (for example, recent legislation, directly aimed against Gazprom's investment in Europe) (European Parliament 2009). This policy is also linked to the active dissemination of the norms and values of the EU to the East, which may be compared to a number of features with the traditional policy of creating zones of influence or imperial world. This approach is called the concept of the European Empire or Eurosphere. Historically, similar to the synthesis of liberal and legal values, their power-nature spread was implemented by the British Empire especially in the later stages of its existence (Brouwer 2008). Illiberal aspects of the EU foreign policy are most actively manifested in relation to Russia, the Black Sea-Caspian region and the Middle East.

In general, criticism of liberal descriptions of the EU policy reveals elements of traditional imperialism and security approaches in a highly modified form manifested in the individual elements of the European policy, especially where the interests of the EU as a new type of political forces faced traditional interests of powerful states such as Russia or even deeper systemic conflicts as the Middle East. Supporters of a conservative realist (neorealist) approach believe that the existence of those areas where purely liberal policy is impossible reveals the nature of world politics characterised by anarchy, conflict and the right of force (Korab-Karpowicz 2010).

However, no matter how or why the theories of new and specific characteristics of the EU policy in the international arena are criticised by conservative-minded experts, neo-realists, they still fairly reflect many of the specific properties of a real European practice. These characteristics also make the inevitable widespread use of network technology in the EU foreign policy. In this case, using the network of practices, respectively, helps to disseminate the European norms and practices outside, where extensive cooperation with non-state actors abroad is carried out.

In the framework of the EU Eastern Partnership, social-networking technologies were widely adopted, in particular, those related to establishing cooperation with governmental and non-governmental organisations involved in the program of the post-Soviet states. A number of influential experts (e.g., the European Council on Foreign Relations, E. Wilson) suggested that the development of such forms of network cooperation is closely linked to the growth of the EU's soft power in the post-Soviet space, where it directly competes with soft power of Russia (Popescu & Wilson 2009).

This paper presented the EU power in terms of networking as a new trend in world power theories, where world power is considered to be a means of influence, adoption and implementation of a country and unions its own interests. From the abovementioned information it becomes evident that the role of networking practices in the European Union is important in order to ensure effective interaction of the EU structures with the rest of the world. Studying methods of network analysis and network technologies become also relevant, what is essential for training, dealing with analysts and practitioners. Attention should be paid to the way of organising a network of cooperation between state and non-state actors of contemporary world politics as a new, rapidly evolving trend. Network practices of cooperation between state and non-state actors are a form of soft power in the context of globalisation.