This Master Thesis aims to answer the question why the EU foreign policy-makers decided toimplement the Eastern Partnership (EaP). As the EU foreign policy decision-making processis based upon consensus between all EU Member States, an argumentation analysis isconducted to find the arguments that the policy-makers use to convince the others. By usingHabermas’ Theory of Communicative Action, the arguments are categorized into pragmatic(security and economic interests), moral (humanitarian values) or ethical-political (culturalvalues) logics. The research material consists of official documents and statements of the EUinstitutions. Then, the arguments are evaluated as whether they can be said to be legitimate,‘mobilizing’ arguments: intelligible, appropriate and true. The main result is that even if allargumentation categories are used by policy-makers, none of the categories can be said to becompletely legitimate. Therefore, an ideological perspective is a possible complement to thecategories within the Theory of Communicative Action. This perspective would possibly addto the understanding why the EaP was implemented.

Political legitimacy has often been addressed in terms of the legitimacy of actors, while the legitimacy of policies as such is relatively neglected. This thesis argues that an analytical distinction between the categories of the actor and its action is necessary, since an actor's legitimacy does not automatically imply the legitimacy of its behaviour; furthermore, in real social discourse, actions are not exempt from legitimacy judgments. The ambition of the thesis is to make use of this research gap and to examine one of the most important tools of the EU's foreign policy by means of an analytical framework of political legitimacy. The selected cases are the current episode of CFSP sanctions against Russia; "appropriate measures" under the ACP Partnership agreement against Zimbabwe; and the informal arms embargo against China. Sanctions dealt with in the first two cases are deemed legitimate, while the arms embargo on China failed to meet the legitimacy criteria. Apart from the findings on legitimacy, two major conclusions can be drawn from the analysis: The lack of internal coherence is impairing the legitimacy of the EU's political measures; and the imposition of sanctions through an institutionalised political framework enhances their transparency in contrast to informal measures.

The EU’s notable transformation over the past five decades is obviously an event of modern state concepts. However, the EU’s matter of concern has placed too much emphasis on economic and trade issues, while its capability and power have achieved remarkable growth with far-reaching ramifications in both economic and political affairs. This also means that studies of the EU foreign policy have hardly reached North East Asia because of geographical limit between them, the EU’s weak institutional capacity and vestige of the Cold War. Therefore the EU and the Korean Peninsula did not have chance to build a critical relationship. This time could be defined as ‘standstill’ between Europe and the Korean Peninsula or ‘quiet diplomacy’. 1993 marked a turning-point in relations between the EU and the Korean Peninsula. Firstly, European countries have launched the Maastricht Treaty since they had signed in 1992. The Treaty implies the EU’s more strengthened international role in the political and economic area in accordance with its increased capability and reinforced power. Secondly, North Korea announced its intention to withdraw from the NPT on 12 March 1993 and then the Korean Peninsula was compelled to face a political crisis. Since the EU took unofficial Humanitarian Aids for North Korea in 1994-1995, KEDO and the EU in 1997 agreed to the terms and conditions of the accession to KEDO of its nuclear regulatory body. This was the first challenge of the EU political engagement of the Korean Peninsula question. In the context, this research seeks to answer the question of “What are the EU priorities in its strategy for Korean Peninsula?” that includes broadly the EU’s regional strategy for North East Asia in line with its foreign policy agenda. To tell the conclusion, the EU’s intervention to North Korea was firstly encouraged in dimension of economic interests through vitalization of international trade after the Korean Peninsula would be reunified. The EU considered that Asian nuclear market is an important factor in order to build nuclear technical standard as well as to obtain commercial interests although the European nuclear firms did not obtain chance enough to construct for North Korea nuclear facilities construction. The EU’s political incentives for political change-seeking in North East Asia must also be considered. Actually, the EU diplomatically opened the door of Pyongyang and led the isolated regime to a channel that communicates with international community although the EU did not take a seat at Six-Party Talks to engage itself in the Korean Peninsula question. As a result, the EU could increase the image of a ‘peaceful mediator’ or an ‘honest blocker’ in the term of ‘reputation’ through engagement continued for the Korean Peninsula Crisis. The EU’s foreign policy has been partly successful in context that Europe succeeds in promoting its existence as a global actor. Therefore, its foreign policy would gradually be reinforced to bolster the EU’s credibility and influence in the Korean Peninsula. The EU’s role is surely reduced in the Korean Peninsula issues with the termination of the KEDO project. However, the EU’s role is expected to be performed in different ways under its confidence and capability. The EU’s next engagement depends on where its new incentives will be, and then its question will be how to realize them in accordance with its institutional conditions and actual capacity. / Doctorat en Sciences politiques et sociales / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Nearly four decades of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)-European Union (EU) relationship have witnessed the importance of ideas and identity alongside the economic interests in shaping the behaviour of the two sides. The study takes interest in understanding the EU’s actorness and the EU as a normative actor with and within Southeast Asia through a reflectivist lens. The thesis is an attempt to provide a new perspective on a relationship commonly assessed from an economic angle. It outlines the opportunity of non-traditional security (NTS) challenges to enhance EU actorness and normative influence in Southeast Asia. Against this backdrop, the study explores the dialogue and cooperative initiatives of two regions, which attach relatively little salience to each other. The study employs a NTS lens and draws upon the case of the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-98, the haze in relation to forest governance, the Bali bombings of 2002 and the political conflict in Aceh. The study assumes that these NTS issues can stimulate processes of threat convergence as well as threat ‘othering’. It argues that these processes enhance European engagement in Southeast Asia and contribute to shaping regional stability in Southeast Asia. Furthermore, NTS crises present situations, where norms can become unstable, contested and substituted. This allows us to better examine the EU as a normative actor. To establish an understanding of the EU’s actorness and the EU as a normative actor, the empirical evidence will focus on the threat perceptions, motivations of action and activities of the EU and its member states. For the purpose of differentiating the EU as a normative actor, the study will also include the discussion of the normative objectives and behaviours of the EU and its member states and apply a reflectivist theoretical framework. Hypothetically, NTS crises trigger external assistance and normative influence and thus, they offer an opportunity to establish a more nuanced picture of the EU in the region. At the same time, the study acknowledges that there are a variety of constraints and variables that complicate the EU’s actorness. The thesis seeks to identify and discuss these. So far, scholarly publications have failed to apply the NTS perspective systematically. This thesis provides the first monograph-length treatment of the EU in Southeast Asia through a NTS and reflectivist lens.