Content uploaded by Nasuh Sofuoglu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nasuh Sofuoglu on Dec 19, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Balkan and Black Sea Studies
Year 3, Issue 5, December 2020, pp. 171-190.
Theoretical Approaches to the Black Sea Region:
‘Is the Wider Black Sea Area a Region?’
Nasuh Sofuoğlu
Abstract:
The paper aims to shed light on how a region may be built out of the
Black Sea area. Therefore, the paper asks, first, whether the Black
Sea area is a region or a region-to-be. If neither, then how to
transform the Black Sea area into a region through the context of
‘new regionalism’ and the relevant theories. First, it delves into
defining what it means to be a ‘region’ in the context of ‘new
regionalism’. Then, three different theories, i.e. neo-functionalism,
neo-liberal institutionalism and constructivism, are unravelled to
lay the foundation for the main query of the paper – ‘is the Wider
Black Sea area a region’. Constructivism provides fertile ground for
the most appropriate premises for constructing a region around the
Black Sea in relation to new regionalism. Accordingly, the paper
discovers the perils and opportunities lying ahead of any initiative
to construct a region out of the Black Sea area. The paper offers that
the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) acts as an anchor of the
Wider Black Sea area and a catalyst for a new understanding of
Ph.D candidate, Kadir Has University, ORCID ID: 0000-0002-8453-4557
e-mail: nasuh.sofuoglu@erdogan.edu.tr
Submitted: 02.03.2020, Accepted: 15.12.2020
NASUH SOFUOĞLU
172
regionalism which is capable of taking root and thriving in the Black
Sea area.
Keywords: Neo-functionalism, Neo-liberal institutionalism,
Constructivism, BSEC, WBSA
Introduction
1
Human life has thrived and flourished in the Black Sea area for
thousands of years. By building villages, cities, kingdoms and nation
states, most of the times, people have learnt to cohabit and coexist over
time. While the limit for humankind has always been the sky, academics
ground this brand-new way of cohabitation for human society in ‘new
regionalism’. Regions are ontologically not out there in the world. On the
contrary, ‘region’ is an idea to which ascribed meaning by humankind. It
is a socially constructed phenomenon. People defined it in a certain
manner, and it represents a particular meaning in our minds. ‘New
regionalism’ derives from this definition of 'region'. It emphasises
‘interaction' and ‘cooperation' over ‘institution'. This nascent definition of
regionalism serves as one of the two means to answer the paper's research
question which is whether the Black Sea is a region or a region-to-be; if
neither, how to build a region in the Black Sea area through the context of
‘new regionalism’ and the relevant theories. By using theories, namely
neo-functionalism, neo-liberal institutionalism and constructivism, the
other means is achieved. The motivation for utilising these three theories
is based on their compatibility to regionalism and regional
interdependence. Whereas they are theoretically competent to question
‘new regionalism' initiatives, some of the theories are practically
incompetent to question the new regionalism in the Black Sea area. The
combination of ‘new regionalism' and one of the theories, i.e.
constructivism, depicts how to construct a region out of the Black Sea area.
The Black Sea area is of particular interest because of its location and
components. For instance, it is comprised of a great power, Russia; EU
member states, Bulgaria and Romania; NATO member states, Bulgaria,
Romania and Turkey and the post-Soviet states, Moldova, Ukraine and
Georgia. With a variety of interests and actors involved, the Black Sea area
provides a dynamic opportunity to analyse the theoretical process of
building a region. Further, the Black Sea is also a nexus of several regions
1
I would like to express my gratitude to the two anonymous reviewers for their invaluable
feedback on earlier draft of the paper. I also wish to extend thanks to Tara Cravens for her
diligent proofreading of the paper.
IS THE WIDER BLACK SEA AREA A REGION?
173
such as the Caucasus, Europe, the Balkans and Eurasia. Therefore, the area
is of particular interest because, stability and prosperity in the Black Sea
area may serve as a peace multiplier in its vicinity.
Literature Review
The essay scrutinises the extant literature through the perspective of
new regionalism, while applying the unique theories of neo-functionalism,
neo-liberal institutionalism and constructivism. The paper can be divided
into two main parts even though it is comprised of five distinctive
components. These two main body parts are separated into a philosophical
thinking section and a material thinking section.
In the philosophical section, the theoretical knowledge combined
with several academics’ works on regionalism is supported by Fawn’s
2
insights on what makes a region regarding geography, identity, actors etc.
Also, Väyrynen’s
3
article is a valuable contribution for making a
comparison between ‘old’ and ‘new’ regionalism. Ethier
4
and Mittelman
5
provide further elaboration on characteristics of new regionalism.
Furthermore, two of Hettne’s extensive and pioneering works, namely
“Beyond the ‘New’ Regionalism”
6
and “The New Regionalism Revisited,”
7
thoroughly affected the author’s comprehension of regionalism. Besides,
Söderbaum’s
8
introduction to his edited book ‘Introduction: Theories of
Regionalism’ paved the way for this paper to provide a better expression
2
Rick Fawn, “'Regions' and Their Study: Wherefrom, What for and Whereto?” Review of
International Studies, vol. 35, no. S1 (2009): 5. doi:10.1017/s0260210509008419.
3
Raimo Vayrynen, “Regionalism: Old and New,” International Studies Review, vol. 5, no. 1
(2003): 25–51. doi:10.1111/1521-9488.501002.
4
Wilfred Ethier, "The New Regionalism," The Economic Journal, vol. 108, no. 449 (1998): 1149-
1161.
5
James H. Mittelman, "Rethinking The "New Regionalism" in the Context of
Globalization," Global Governance, vol. 2, no. 2 (1996): 189-213.
6
Björn Hettne, “Beyond the 'New' Regionalism,” New Political Economy, vol. 10, no. 4 (2006):
543–571. doi:10.1080/13563460500344484.
7
Björn Hettne, "The New Regionalism Revisited," in Theories of New Regionalism. eds. Fredrik
Söderbaum and Timothy M. Shaw, (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 22-42.
8
Fredrik Söderbaum, "Introduction: Theories of New Regionalism," in Theories of New
Regionalism. eds. Fredrik Söderbaum and Timothy M. Shaw, (London: Palgrave Macmillan,
2017), 1-20.
NASUH SOFUOĞLU
174
of regionalism. The works of Gochhayat,
9
Rumelili
10
and Söderbaum
11
have allowed for an expansion of theoretical understanding.
The second integral part of the paper analyses to what extent the Black
Sea area is a region and where the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC)
stands in this equation. For instance, Stefan Troebst
12
makes use of the
concept of “meso-region” to make sense of the Black Sea Region. First of
all, it should be emphasised that the book edited by Hamilton and
Mangott
13
provided a great inspiration to the creation process of this
paper. Hajizada and Marciacq’s
14
paper, together with Ciută’s “Parting the
Black Sea (Region): Geopolitics, Institutionalisation and the
Reconfiguration of European Security”
15
and “Region? Why Region?
Security, Hermeneutics, and the Making of the Black Sea Region,”
16
present the issues of security, economic cooperation, political disputes and
environmental degradation. Through a coherent perspective, the authors
highlight the challenges lying ahead of the Black Sea area if the states in
the Black Sea area are interested in building a region out of their
neighbourhood, in addition to the BSEC, if it’s intention is to be the
epicentre of initiatives for regionalism. For further detailed information,
the works of Secrieru
17
, Manoli
18
and Celac
19
have been extremely helpful
9
Artatrana Gochhayat, “Regionalism and Sub-Regionalism: A Theoretical Framework with
Special Reference to India,” African Journal of Political Science and International Relations, vol. 8,
no. 1 (2014): 10–26. doi:10.5897/ajpsir2013.0611.
10
Bahar Rumelili, "Bölgeselcilik ve İnşacılık: Kazanımlar ve Vaatler", Uluslararası İlişkiler, vol.
12, no. 46 (2015) 169-185.
11
Fredrik Söderbaum, "Theories of Regionalism", in Routledge Handbook of Asian Regionalism.
eds. Mark Beeson and Richard Stubbs (Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge 2012), 11-
21.
12
Stefan Troebst, “The Black Sea as Historical Meso-Region: Concepts in Cultural Studies
and the Social Sciences,” Journal of Balkan and Black Sea Studies, no. 2 (2019): 11-29.
13
Daniel S. Hamilton, and Gerhard Mangott, The Wider Black Sea Region in the 21st Century
(Washington, D.C.: Center for Transatlantic Relations, 2008).
14
Mukhtar Hajizada and Florent Marciacq, “New Regionalism in Europe's Black Sea Region:
the EU, BSEC and Changing Practices of Regionalism,” East European Politics vol. 29, no. 3
(2013): 305–327. doi:10.1080/21599165.2013.807800.
15
Felix Ciuta, “Parting the Black Sea (Region): Geopolitics, Institutionalisation and the
Reconfiguration of European Security,” European Security vol. 16, no. 1 (2007): 51–78.
doi:10.1080/09662830701442402.
16
Felix Ciuta, “Region? Why Region? Security, Hermeneutics, and the Making of the Black
Sea Region,” Geopolitics vol. 13, no. 1 (2008): 120–147. doi:10.1080/14650040701783367.
17
Stanislav Secrieru, "Protracted Conflicts in the Eastern Neighborhood: Between Averting
Wars and Building Trust," Centre for International and European Studies vol. 6 (2013): 1-13.
18
Panagiota Manoli, "Black Sea Regionalism in Perspective," Centre for International and
European Studies vol. 2 (2011): 1-8.
19
Sergiu Celac, "The Role and Potential of Tte Organization ff the BSEC," Centre for
International and European Studies vol. 1 (2017): 1-7.
IS THE WIDER BLACK SEA AREA A REGION?
175
at understanding what the BSEC stands for in the Black Sea area, its
capabilities, and what the member states may achieve if they commit
themselves to the BSEC for constructing a cohesive region.
1. Regionalism in Theoretical Perspective
There has been an ongoing debate over the definition of ‘region' and
the sub-terms emanating from it since the 1960s and 1970s. However, these
debates have not spawned a collectively revered definition of ‘what a
region is.' Yet, there is a consensus on ‘how to define a region' which
actually articulates no strict boundaries. Indeed, there is no blueprint for
‘what a region is', but the widely accepted argument is that defining a
region begs for varying degrees of queries which have no particular
boundaries. What the paper places a high value on is regional harmony
and similarities or cohesiveness – political, economic, social, military – of
states located within the given territorial limits. In other words, the
characteristics a region should have are (a) geography; (b) regularity and
intensity of connections; (c) shared region-wide perceptions; (d) agency.
20
There is no middle ground over ‘what a region is’. Whether it implies
a spatial proximity
21
or it is a non-spatial phenomenon implying
interdependence
22
or cultural similarities etc. Several academics from
various disciplines, e.g. geography, political science and international
relations (hereafter, IR), have uttered assumptions over the query.
Geographers focus on the geographical aspect of the term whereas political
scientists regard regions as particular areas within states. Also, IR scholars
are interested in supra-national regions and coherence in such territorial
spaces. There are also cross-border regions and definitions of regionalism
centred on economic relationships. Indeed, regions are one of the most
significant foundations of scholarly works concerned with the world we
live in and gaining insights into world politics. Yet, what this paper
considers as a region is a territorial space comprised of economic, military,
political and cultural linkages.
20
Rodrigo Tavares, “The State of the Art of Regionalism, the Past, Present and Future of a
Discipline,” UNU-CRIS Working Papers (United Nations University, October, 2004).
21
Andrew Hurrell, "Regionalism in Theoretical Perspective,” in Regionalism in World Politics:
Regional Organization and International Order. eds. Louise Fawcett (New York: Oxford UP,
1995a): 58-66.
22
Joseph S. Nye, “Patterns and Catalysts in Regional Integration,” International Organization
vol. 19, no. 04 (1965): 870., doi:10.1017/s0020818300012649.
NASUH SOFUOĞLU
176
The efforts for defining a region refer to a land with people on that
land. The width of this land and how many people are located there are
irrelevant. The number of states on this land is also irrelevant. Therefore,
any geographical place on earth is a potential region. However, such a
definition does lack of scholarly perspective so that no scholarly definition
would be built on this ambiguous definition. Frankly, what we are in
knowledge of is that regions are not ‘there’ but in our imaginations and
minds. It is a product of human intellect. It is a product of people talking
and contemplating on such an entity.
Outdated interpretations of state-centric definitions of 'region' are
questioned and replaced by a new understanding of ‘region’ taking into
account economic linkages, cultural resemblances and transnational
connections.
23
Regions frequently and partially overlap or they completely
involve one another. For instance, Eastern Europe is full of post-Soviet
states that are, an integral part of Europe, which is, simultaneously, a
region and a continent. Describing the borders of any region, in accordance
with new regionalism, is a challenge because, ‘region’ is a definition in
flux.
24
New regionalism acknowledges that geography matters. However,
it exceeds the limits of spatial reasoning and takes into account the socially
constructed characteristics of a region which are fraught with abstract
notions such as identity and culture.
25
It emphasises that the regional
collaboration and coexistence which is in flux assume divergent meanings
in time and in compliance with the ever-changing interests and identities
of the relevant actors in a region.
26
Indeed, new regionalism pays close
attention to the nascent perspective concerning transnational relations and
scrutinises current trans-border mutual relations.
27
There are five divergent definitions of ‘regionness’ which are
geographic, sociological, and the ones based on institutionalisation,
regionalisation and supranational identity.
28
The first one concerning
geography delineates the terrestrial space and the limits of a particular
land. The second one regarding the sociological definition of ‘region’
depicts the social features of the inhabitants residing in a certain region.
23
Vayrynen, “Regionalism: Old and New”
24
For a comprehensive analysis of regionalism: Björn Hettne, ‘Beyond the ‘New’
Regionalism’, New Political Economy, 10/4 (Aug. 2006).
25
Zoleka, V. Ndayi, “Theorising the Rise of Regionness by Bjorn Hettne and Fredrik
Soderbaum,” Politikon vol. 33, no. 1 (2006): 113–124. doi:10.1080/02589340600618180.
26
R. Guy Emerson, “An Art of the Region: Towards a Politics of Regionness,” New Political
Economy vol. 19, no. 4 (2013): 559–577. doi:10.1080/13563467.2013.829434.
27
Mittelman, "Rethinking The "New Regionalism" in the Context of Globalization"
28
Ndayi, “Theorising the Rise of Regionness by Bjorn Hettne and Fredrik Soderbaum”
IS THE WIDER BLACK SEA AREA A REGION?
177
The third level describes what makes a land a proper region is political,
societal, economic and military collaboration level of the actors in an area
whereas the fourth portrays the harmony and cohesion of a civil society
pervading all the region. The fifth one pays attention to the unique identity
and legitimacy of a region.
Contentious theory-based interpretations regarding regionalism have
been made for a long time. Regions inherently ever-changing notions as a
change of mind is a fundamental feature of humans. People keep learning
through their lives by experiences, and their reasoning behind their
understanding of ‘what a region is' changes shape over time. Therefore,
what we considered as a region decades ago may become something else
in upcoming years because of the fact that people who ascribe meaning to
such notions are in a constant philosophical progress. A region is a living
organism because people in it are in a constant state of philosophical flux.
The peculiarity of a region depends on its characteristics such as
geographical and economic. Hence, the ambiguous contemporary
definition of ‘what a region is' is a challenge for the students of IR who are
on a quest for defining a particular territorial space as a region.
2. Theories for the Wider Black Sea Area
Many theories were spawned within IR in order to comprehend and
articulate regionalism. Some authors have even endeavoured to sort out
these theories. One of these ventures belongs to Hurrell
29
who divided
these theories into three components, namely systemic approaches,
regional and interdependence theories and domestic level theories. The
regionalism and interdependence theories, which is the second cluster of
theories of Hurrell, is considered as appropriate since its primary focal
point is the linkages among the states in the region. Then, the regionalism
and interdependence theories are categorised into three sections which are
Neo-functionalism, Neo-liberal institutionalism and Constructivism.
Neo-functionalism
Neo-functionalists posit that intense interdependence has the
capacity for bringing about region-wide political integration. In this
context, supranational institutions occupy a considerable place. Such
institutions are regarded as the remedy of common issues due to the ‘spill-
29
Hurrell, "Regionalism in Theoretical Perspective”
NASUH SOFUOĞLU
178
over effect.'
30
The very presence of such institutions alters the meaning of
collective identity in a region.
There are two spill-over effects, namely functional and political spill-
over.
31
The former implies that cooperation in an area should compel these
states to extend the area of cooperation. The latter refers to a self-propelled
process being initiated by the advent of supranational institutions.
According to Hurrell,
32
neo-functionalism has little to say about
regionalism, especially new regionalism due to three reasons which are (a)
its focus is more on institutions than the dynamics that make regionalism
possible (b) new regionalism is not interested in anything except for the
mutual interaction among states whereas neo-functionalism has high
expectations for the weakening importance of states and (c) new
regionalism does not imply strong institutional structure whereas neo-
functionalism regards institutions as essential for a stable and deep-rooted
regional coherence.
Neo-liberal Institutionalism
Neo-liberal institutionalism primarily focuses on international
cooperation, and the latest resurrection of regionalism is plausibly
explained by neo-liberal institutionalism.
3334
Neo-liberal Institutionalists
believe high levels of interdependence cause international cooperation.
Institutionalists argue that low transaction costs increase cooperation and
interaction on a regional basis. Moreover, neo-liberal institutionalism
considers 'state' as a rational actor which may be encouraged to cooperate.
So, ‘absolute gain' is a must for the neo-liberal institutionalist perspective.
It is also posited that regional institutions thwart ‘cheating' and deliver
‘transparency.'
35
Therefore, the neo-liberal institutionalist logic, like neo-
functionalists, assumes that the advent of regional institutions is spawned
30
Andrew Hurrell, “Explaining the Resurgence of Regionalism in World Politics,” Review of
International Studies vol. 21, no. 04 (1995b) 331. doi:10.1017/s0260210500117954.
31
Hurrell, “Explaining the Resurgence of Regionalism in World Politics”
32
Hurrell, “Explaining the Resurgence of Regionalism in World Politics”
33
For further readings: Robert O. Keohane, International Institutions and State Power (Boulder,
Colo.: Westview, 1989); Keohane, Power and Interdependence (Boston: Longman, 2012);
Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton:
Princeton UP, 1984).
34
Gochhayat, “Regionalism and Sub-Regionalism: A Theoretical Framework with Special
Reference to India”
35
Hurrell, "Regionalism in Theoretical Perspective”
IS THE WIDER BLACK SEA AREA A REGION?
179
by the benefits of collaboration.
36
Neo-liberal institutionalists understand
the importance of local interest groups over the substitution of regional
institutions to the state. Hence, these institutions manage to survive to the
extent that they keep to settle disputes and solve problems.
All in all, institutionalists assume that a monolithic region would be
probable if there was a bottom-up collaboration leading a myriad of low-
level cooperation to form an intense network so that grand cooperation
becomes reality.
Constructivism
Constructivism is not a theory of regionalism, old or new. Yet, its
content is promising for understanding regions and regionalism.
Constructivism is interested in identities and interests of actors.
Constructivism posits that not only material forces but also ideas and
cognitive forces are imperative to make sense of world order.
37
Cognitive
elements ascribe meaning to material forces which, only then, acquire
causality. Also, actors attribute meaning to material objects through the
medium of shared knowledge.
38
Therefore, constructivism bids fair for
shedding light on new regionalism perspective.
As ‘regional awareness’ and ‘regional identity’ imply constructivist
roots, Constructivism scrutinises ‘what a region is’ by coining terms such
as ‘cognitive regionalism’ and ‘cognitive interdependence.’
39
Various
terms referring to shared regional features, such as collective identity,
reciprocal commitment and a sense of community, emanate from the very
same source as Constructivism. Additionally, the emergence of such a
community depends on common societal values.
Constructivism takes into account reasoning, ideas and normative
elements rather than overemphasising material factors. Constructivism
36
Gochhayat, “Regionalism and Sub-Regionalism: A Theoretical Framework with Special
Reference to India”
37
For further information: Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (New York:
Cambridge UP, 1999); Nicholas Greenwood Onuf, Making Sense, Making Worlds:
Constructivism in Social Theory and International Relations (London: Routledge, 2012); Friedrich
Kratochwil, The Puzzles of Politics: Inquiries into the Genesis and Transformation of International
Relations (Miltonpark, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2010).
38
Claduia M. Fabbri, “The Constructive Promise and Regional Integration: An Answer to
‘Old’ and ‘New’ Puzzles. The South American Case,” CSGR Working Paper (University of
Warwick, November, 2005).
39
Hurrell, “Explaining the Resurgence of Regionalism in World Politics”
NASUH SOFUOĞLU
180
urges the students of IR to comprehend that identities and interests are
socially constructed. Indeed, states are not given but constructed by ever-
changing interactions.
3. From a Sea to Conquer to a Region to Construct
The Black Sea which is surrounded by littoral states, namely Turkey,
Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, the Russian Federation and Georgia,
constitutes an area with densely inhabited coastal cities, ample natural
resources and two straits, Bosphorus and Dardanelles, tying it to the rest
of the world.
40
In the context of geopolitical position of the Black Sea area, the Black
Sea is an open sea with rivers, Don, Volga, Danube, connecting it to
adjacent territorial spaces. It also resides at the locus of Europe, Asia and
Mediterranean. Therefore, the Black Sea area has been at the centre of
military campaigns and commerce since the first Greek colonies in the
Black Sea area.
41
This long history of the Black Sea area which is fraught
with wars and commerce refers to various cultures and cosmopolitan
entities. The Black Sea area has been a place, for a number of countries,
either waging war or for using diplomacy with other countries for a long
time.
During the Cold War era the ‘iron curtain’ separated the Western
countries and their ‘partners' from Soviet Russia and its allies. Historically
a deep interaction existed among the countries or kingdoms in the Wider
Black Sea area (WBSA). The WBSA is comprised of multiple countries
including Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece
Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine.
However, cultural, linguistic, religious sectarian or ideological differences
created rifts started with the Cold War division.
4243
An area, comprised of two countries – Tzarist Russia and Ottomans –
fought with each other more than for one hundred years and other
components which were either ‘orbits’ of one of their neighbours or a part
of their neighbour's territories, is not proper for building a full-fledged
40
For further information: https://www.britannica.com/place/Black-Sea.
41
Also see: https://www.ancient.eu/ionia/.
42
Mukhtar and Marciacq, “New Regionalism in Europe's Black Sea Region: the EU, BSEC and
Changing Practices of Regionalism”
43
Even though Albania and Armenia may be thought as ‘long shot’ for being integral parts
of the area, their presence does not hurt the aim of this paper.
IS THE WIDER BLACK SEA AREA A REGION?
181
region out of it. Also, an area full of countries with diverse levels of
democracy and economic strength does not provide a proper zone for
region-wide cooperation and coexistence. In addition to these, the
harmony of the countries in a region in terms of foreign policy is a must if
there is a region to be established. For example, there is a reconciliation
between Russia and Turkey stemming from an aversion to the US, and it
is in contradiction with Ukrainian and Georgian sentiments regarding the
US.
There are incentives, which encourage the countries of an area on to
construct a region, for region-wide collaboration. Some of these incentives
are conservation of natural resources, region-wide commerce, regional
infrastructure investments and tourism.
44
Yet, the WBSA hosts ongoing
and frozen conflicts which consist of, at least, a country located in the
WBSA.
45
Moreover, there are other impediments to regional coexistence
such as the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and Black Sea Synergy
(BSS) as the embodiment of EU’s interest in the WBSA together with any
NATO involvement in any official event.
There are incentives for and hindrances to a region to be built in the
WBSA. Even though countries located in the WBSA are far away from
being ready to commit themselves to a region-building process, these
countries concede that cooperation on various topics such as commerce
and environment is in their own interest.
The security challenges for regional cooperation deserve special
attention since they prevent the WBSA to become a full-fledged region.
There are divergent security threats to the WBSA, which are the most
drastic impediment to regionalism in the area. There are a number of
conflicts, including Crimea, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria, which
are protracted, frozen or ongoing. There are also closed borders, Turkey
and Armenia, organized crime, migration, terrorism, etc. All these
examples beg for a certain query which is "why is the WBSA fraught with
enmity and antagonism?" Even though the incompetence of the political
elites in the WBSA is an essential shortcoming, it alone would not have
44
For further information and more: Charles King, "The Wider Black Sea Region in the
Twenty-First Century", In the Wider Black Sea Region in the Twenty-First Century: Strategic,
Economic and Energy Perspectives (NW, Massachusetts Ave.: Center for Transatlantic Relations
SAIS, 2008).
45
For further information: Anna Matveea, “Conflicts in the Wider Black Sea Area”, In the
Wider Black Sea Region in the Twenty-First Century: Strategic, Economic and Energy Perspectives
(NW, Massachusetts Ave.: Center for Transatlantic Relations SAIS, 2008).
NASUH SOFUOĞLU
182
such a regional and long-standing impact. To begin with, these newly-
independent nation states have just discovered their ethnic and national
roots, which affected regional consciousness negatively. Also, geopolitical
importance of the WBSA for the great powers has converted the area into
a hotspot for the great powers' competition, especially a zone suitable for
power projection. Furthermore, the WBSA has not been recognised,
treated and considered as a region since the last few years. As the most
relevant and prominent actors, neither the EU nor NATO had any policy
strengthening the coherence of the WBSA area. On the contrary, the EU
and NATO policies were counterproductive in terms of supporting any
regional initiative to enable regionalism to thrive in the WBSA. It is clearly
observed, up to now, that contemporary WBSA is susceptible to Russian
aggression. These revisionist policies of Russia are not only the reason but
also an outcome of Russia's neighbouring countries' willingness to engage
or maintain close ties with the EU. All in all, there will be no regional
coherence or regionalism if the security challenges are not tackled.
4. The Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) – A Locus for a
Region-to-be?
There are several cooperation attempts which do not comprise of all
the Black Sea area within the WBSA. These cooperation initiatives, which
have been inadequate until now, indicate that coexistence is an imperative
for the survival of sovereign states and is a well-comprehended
phenomenon in the WBSA. There were several attempts for collaboration
such as the Organisation for Democracy and Economic Development
(GUAM) and trilateral cooperation, a sub regionalism attempt in the South
Caucasus, among Turkey-Georgia-Azerbaijan. Yet, such ventures were
insufficient to stimulate a collective consciousness among their members
or participants. For instance, GUAM, consisting of Georgia, Ukraine,
Azerbaijan and Moldova, does not have the resilience to stand against
Russia, and these countries’ collective capacity is not sufficient to nourish
regionalism attempts among these states. Besides, the Turkish-
Azerbaijani-Georgian trilateralism is fraught with examples of cooperation
such as transportation networks, energy routes or joint military drills. Yet,
their aim is not creating a cohesive habitat for their collaboration efforts.
Georgia is a country longing for the EU’s approval. The EU has already
granted visa liberalisation for Georgia striking a decisive blow against sub
regional cohesion among these states. Whereas Turkey’s policies are at
odds with the EU on many issues, Azerbaijan has never had close and
warm relations with the EU. Indeed, all these countries have different
political agendas. What brings together these actors is the Other, meaning
IS THE WIDER BLACK SEA AREA A REGION?
183
Russia. Indeed, all these initiatives are established to thwart Russia’s
incursions into her neighbourhood, in one way or another. The BSEC is a
home-grown, inclusive, region-wide organisation comprising of all the
countries in the WBSA including Russia. Therefore, these countries have
an external impetus for having closer relations with each other, but
indigenous driving force leads them to divergent paths. Additionally, both
of these initiatives are sub regional attempts for cooperation and
collaboration which does not imply a full-fledged region-wide cohesive
initiative. Indeed, even though these attempts for cooperation among a
few states reveal the stimulus to regionalism efforts, the quantity and
quality of such ventures are not deemed sufficient for pondering over
theoretical debates regarding regionalism.
The section focuses on the WBSA with its immense habitat for
cooperation in terms of economy, politics, military, social and so on. The
attempts for a cohesive WBSA are in stalemate for two distinctive reasons.
Firstly, economic linkages among the states in the WBSA are
underdeveloped. Even though the weak economic conditions of each of
these countries beg for regional cooperation, there is neither integration
nor policy coordination on a regional basis. Secondly, the security
challenges these countries face undermine constructive and fruitful
regionalist ventures. Such security issues should be addressed and found
a proper solution as it is underlined above.
There are various countries with diverse political, economic and
cultural roots in the WBSA.
46
Yet, these countries also have common
ground, such as natural resources, to cooperate. Moreover, there are
vulnerabilities of these countries which should lead these states to amity
rather than enmity. The mere presence of BSEC should serve as a means to
reach out such a regional cohesion among these states. However, there are
still many things to do in order to achieve the aforementioned goal.
The establishment of BSEC is the first concrete initiative in terms of
regionalism in the WBSA.
47
The BSEC is established as a centre for
providing roundtable discussions and meetings to the states in the WBSA.
46
For further information and more: Panagotia Manoli, ‘Black Sea Regionalism in
Perspective’, Center for International and European Studies, (Dec. 2011); Sergiu Celac, ‘The Role
and the Potential of the Organisation of the BSEC’, Center for International and European Studies,
(Nov. 2011).
47
Mukhtar and Marciacq, “New Regionalism in Europe's Black Sea Region: the EU, BSEC and
Changing Practices of Regionalism”
NASUH SOFUOĞLU
184
It rendered a top-down support for regional cohesion possible.
48
Thanks
to the creation of BSEC, there is a solid start for regional interstate
interaction in the WBSA.
The BSEC has succeeded in intensifying the regional web of
interactions. While, the private sector’s interaction is feeble, their
commercial success may be the only way for building a region out of the
WBSA. Therefore, the states of the WBSA should encourage private
companies by giving incentives to strengthen their region-wide interstate
commercial relations. Transcending borders by commerce and investing
into other states in the region engender a proper environment for putting
an end to frozen and ongoing conflicts throughout the WBSA. Such
commercial relations put pressure on warring parties and force them to
make peace for the sake of a cohesive region.
All the aforementioned necessary moves beg for an
intergovernmental regional organisation to oversee such procedures. As
such an organisation, the BSEC has proved itself by surviving in a chaotic
environment which is fraught with conflicts, economic crises, disarray and
revolutionary sentiment for twenty years. Yet, the BSEC is not an
impeccable organisation and regionalism does not need an organisation to
vigorously thrive and flourish. Still, it is tangible and evident that BSEC is
an integral part of any attempt for a cohesive region in the WBSA.
Insights into the Regionalism Attempts in the WBSA
All the hindrances to regionalism in the WBSA are put aside, there are
several means for realising regional cooperation.
There are several small size states, a few middle size states and a great
power in the WBSA. They are not able to export high quality and expensive
products to developed countries. So, the WBSA has the capacity to become
a commerce hub if these states commit themselves to such a goal. There is
also a whole sea providing these states with an opportunity for
collaboration on environmental policies and transport networks. Besides,
these states would collaborate on less contentious issues including disaster
relief operations and marine life conservation in order to get a sense of
upsides of collaboration on a regional basis.
48
For further information on BSEC's support for regional cohesion: BSEC, ‘Declartion of the
25th Anniversary Summit of the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation', (May,
2017).
IS THE WIDER BLACK SEA AREA A REGION?
185
The ongoing or frozen conflicts are the greatest impediment to
regionalism. They prevent any attempts for communication and
collaboration. A region cannot be constructed as long as the states cannot
get along with each other or even statelets, for that matter, which are
actually illegal secessionist entities and, still, recognised by a certain state
in the very same region.
49
Territorial disputes are abundant in the WBSA,
since they thwart the best hopes of the WBSA for warmer relations among
the states of the area. Therefore, if these countries come to grip with how
to construct a cohesive region, they have to get a solid grasp of how to
solve the conflicts over territorial disagreements.
50
There is an exogenous incentive for regionalism initiatives in the
WBSA, which is the EU. The EU is a global power thanks to its capacity to
exert influence on countries located in its neighbourhood. So, the EU has
the capacity to lure the countries of the WBSA into committing themselves
to a certain task. There would be a better chance of region-building in the
WBSA if the EU has given incentives to stimulate regionalist sentiments
such as information sharing –sweet-talk– and modernisation of regional
institutions. However, the ongoing conflicts force EU into conducting
particular policies which do not contribute to the peaceful resolution of
these disputes. What they do is actually hindering the EU’s possible
contributions to the region-building process.
Theoretical Remarks on the WBSA
Neo-functionalism is an approach to regionalism, because it focuses
all of its attention toward regional institutions. These institutions are
relatively insignificant in new regionalism, but new regionalism is
imperative for cooperation efforts in the WBSA. The states of the WBSA
are not interested in any interaction weakening their sovereignty.
However, new regionalism paves the way for these states to engage in
mutual interaction by emphasising coexistence and cohesion. Hence, the
states see an opportunity rather than a threat in new regionalist efforts.
Furthermore, neo-functionalism regards regional institutions as the
remedy of all region-wide conflicts and disputes, which is a perspective
that does not comply with the reality of the contemporary WBSA. The
49
Dimitrios Triantaphyllou, “The Complexities of Black Sea Regional Security,” The Centre for
Governance and Culture in Europe, (June 2012).
50
For further analysis of security issues in the WBSA: Stanislav Secrieru, ‘Protracted Conflicts
in the Eastern Neighborhood: Between Averting Wars and Building Trust, Centre for
International and European Studies, (Jan. 2013).
NASUH SOFUOĞLU
186
number of conflicts has been really high for a long time in the WBSA, and
it prevents any cooperation-driven initiative springing from the WBSA.
This vicious cycle thwarts any deep-rooted region-wide cooperation
venture. Neo-functionalist assumptions enable areas, which have already
overcome most of their problems spawning military disputes, to advance
toward a region of coherent states. Yet, neo-functionalist presumptions of
how to evolve into a cohesive region are insufficient and deficient for the
WBSA.
Neo-liberal institutionalism underlines international cooperation as
one of the foundations of the resurgence of regionalism and, practically,
implies that interdependence and interaction bring about international
cooperation. Cooperation is, frankly, the only possible way of delivering
regional cohesion. Yet, how it should be achieved is the real impasse here.
Neo-liberals take ‘state’ into account as a rational actor regarding
cooperation as the most plausible alternative. Therefore, they presume that
states seek ‘absolute gains’. However, what has been observed in the last
decades of the WBSA is not related to ‘absolute gain’ in any way. These
states’ foreign policies are driven by prudence and caution. Their policies
could only be considered as relative-gains-driven at best. They try to
maintain the balance between the two poles as long as there is no explicit
threat to their own territories. The thorough understanding of neo-
liberalism regarding regionalism deserves closer attention than any other
assumptions analysed above. Neo-liberal institutionalists comprehend
that commerce and the private sector’s direct involvement in regional
business networks are imperative to regionalism if it is going to flourish.
Moreover, neo-liberal institutionalists appreciation of bottom-up
collaboration is a must for new regionalism. However, neo-liberal
institutionalism does not contemplate the ongoing and frozen conflicts in
the WBSA either. These conflicts are what makes regional cooperation
impossible, and it is not feasible to reach a region-wide consensus without
addressing such issues.
Constructivism, although it is not a theory related to regionalism in
any way, explains new regionalism’s competence in the WBSA with its
emphases on identities and interests. It argues that cognitive forces are as
important as material factors in the world. Material objects and forces are
ascribed meaning by people so that they have no meaning by themselves,
therefore they have no importance, other than attributed to them by
people. This reasoning alone solves multiple problems that the
aforementioned two theories could not solve. Constructivism focuses on
terms such as ‘regional identity’ and ‘regional awareness’ and bases its
IS THE WIDER BLACK SEA AREA A REGION?
187
assumptions on a solid argument about ‘how to construct a region’. It
underlines cooperation by taking advantage of cognitive forces which let
us think out of the material world. Furthermore, it posits that the
emergence of a region is explicitly related to common societal values.
These values are the primary factors that people make use of when they
ascribe meaning to certain material forces and factors. All in all,
constructivism has the capacity to answer the queries that new regionalism
compels students of IR to ask.
Conclusion
New regionalism raised hopes in the WBSA for constructing a region
around the Black Sea. Moreover, new regionalism complies with the
constructivist assumptions on how to build a region. This is important
because constructivism relies on ‘cognitive forces' to explain how a region
should be built. This definition has the capacity to find a solution to the
challenges to the regionalism efforts in the WBSA. The WBSA has
challenges to and opportunities for ‘new regionalism' ahead of its way.
Most of the challenges are security-based whereas opportunities are
economy-based. Yet, there is only one means to support or take the lead of
the regionalism efforts in the Black Sea area which is the BSEC. The BSEC
does not hold the key to success in making regionalism real for the Black
Sea area. However, it is still the best hope of the states of the WBSA. If the
BSEC succeeds at building bridges between these states by intensifying
cooperation, collaboration and interaction, there will be a Black Sea region
based on the definition of region of ‘new regionalism'. Moreover,
constructivism will serve as a perspective displaying that the WBSA is a
region.
The paper scrutinises the nascent ‘Black Sea Region’ through the
prism of ‘new regionalism’ and three pertinent theories. The area has the
capacity to become a fully-fledged region called the ‘Black Sea Region’
even though the littoral states and the other components of the wider Black
Sea area are regarded as parts of several other regions, such as the Balkans
and the Caucasus. The BSEC is a good case as a starting point. It possesses
the potential to construct a well-structured region. All in all, the WBSA
should not be fathomed as a divided area comprised of various clusters –
the Balkans, the Caucasus, Eastern Europe – but a monolithic ‘Black Sea
Region’ anchored by the BSEC.
NASUH SOFUOĞLU
188
Bibliography
Celac, Sergiu. “The Role and Potential of The Organization of the BSEC.”
Centre for International and European Studies, vol. 1, (2017): 1-7.
Ciută, Felix. “Parting the Black Sea (Region): Geopolitics,
Institutionalisation and the Reconfiguration of European Security.”
European Security, 16(1) (2007): 51-78.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09662830701442402
Ciută, Felix. “Region? Why Region? Security, Hermeneutics, and the Making of
the Black Sea Region.” Geopolitics, 13(1) (2008): 120-147.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14650040701783367
Emerson, R. Guy. “An Art of the Region: Towards a Politics of
Regionness.” New Political Economy, 19(4) (2013): 559-577.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2013.829434
Ethier, Wilfred. “The New Regionalism.” The Economic Journal, 108(449)
(1998): 1149-1161.
Fabbri, Claudia M. “The Constructivist Promise and Regional Integration:
An Answer to 'Old' and 'New' Puzzles. The South American case.”
Working Paper (Coventry: University of Warwick, 2005).
Fawn, Rick. “‘Regions’ and Their Study: Wherefrom, What for and
Whereto?,” Review of International Studies, 35(S1) (2009): 5-34.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210509008419
Gochhayat, Aratrana. “Regionalism and sub-regionalism: A Theoretical
Framework with Special Reference to India.” African Journal of Political
Science and International Relations, 8(1) (2014): 10-26.
https://doi.org/10.5897/ajpsir2013.0611
Hajizada, Mukhtar, & Marciacq, Florent. “New Regionalism in Europe's
Black Sea Region: The EU, BSEC and Changing Practices of
Regionalism.” East European Politics, 29(3) (2013): 305-327.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2013.807800
Hamilton, Daniel. S. and Mangott, Gerhard. The Wider Black Sea Region in
the 21st Century. (Washington, D.C.: Center for Transatlantic
Relations, 2008).
IS THE WIDER BLACK SEA AREA A REGION?
189
Hettne, Björn. “Beyond the ‘New’ Regionalism.” New Political Economy,
10(4) (2005): 543-571. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563460500344484
Hettne, Björn. “The New Regionalism Revisited.” In Theories of New
Regionalism, eds. Fredrick Söderbaum and Timothy M. Shaw, 22-42.
London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.
Hurrell, Andrew. “Regionalism in Theoretical Perspective.” In Regionalism
in World Politics, eds. Louise Fawcett and Andrew Hurrell, 58-66. New
York: Oxford UP, 1995a.
Hurrell, Andrew. “Explaining the Resurgence of Regionalism in World
Politics.” Review of International Studies, 21(4) (1995b): 331-358.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210500117954
Manoli, Panagiota. “Black Sea Regionalism in Perspective.” Centre for
International and European Studies, vol. 2 (2011): 1-8.
Mittelman, James. H. “Rethinking the “New Regionalism” in the Context
of Globalization.” Global Governance, 2(2) (1996): 189-213.
https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-002-02-90000004
Ndayi, Zoleka V. “‘Theorising the Rise of Regionness’ by Bjorn Hettne and
Fredrik Soderbaum.” Politikon, 33(1) (2006): 113-124.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02589340600618180
Nye, Joseph S. “Patterns and Catalysts in Regional Integration.”
International Organization, 19(4) (1965): 870-884.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300012649
Rumelili, Bahar. “Bölgeselcilik ve İnşacılık: Kazanımlar ve Vaatler.”
Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 12 (46) (2015): 168-185.
https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.463033
Secrieru, Stanislav. “Protracted Conflicts in the Eastern Neighborhood:
Between Averting Wars and Building Trust.” Centre for International
and European Studies, vol. 6 (2013): 1-13.
Söderbaum, Fredrik. “Introduction: Theories of New Regionalism.” In
Theories of New Regionalism, eds. Fredrik Söderbaum and Timothy M.
Shaw, 1-21. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
NASUH SOFUOĞLU
190
Söderbaum, Fredrik. “Theories of Regionalism.” In Routledge Handbook of
Asian Regionalism, eds. Mark Beson and Richard Stubbs, 11-21. Milton
Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2011.
Tavares, Rodrigo. The State of the Art of Regionalism, The Past, Present and
Future of a Discipline. UNU-CRIS Working Papers, (United Nations
University, 2004).
Triantaphyllou, Dimitrios. “The Complexities of Black Sea Regional
Security.” The Centre for Governance and Culture in Europe, 6, 2012.
Troebst, Stefan, “The Black Sea as Historical Meso-Region: Concepts in
Cultural Studies and the Social Sciences,” Journal of Balkan and Black
Sea Studies, 2 (2019): 11-29.
Vayrynen, Raimo. “Regionalism: Old and New.” International Studies
Review, 5(1) (2003): 25-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.501002
