Conceptualising the EMP through the lens of regime theory has the advantage of moving away from a formalistic approach to multilateralism, institutional linkages and the impact of domestic politics on regional affairs: it could set in train a process for the internationalisation of issues and their inclusion under a flexible management system. But it is still questionable how far the EMP can realise its objectives under its currently weak institutional structure, and without investing in partnership-building measures on questions with the view to developing a credible socio-cultural dialogue and a Charter for Peace and Stability with proper compliance mechanisms [90]. The envisaged Charter will be an exercise in pre-emptive diplomacy in the form of an institutionalised alliance of co-operative states. In addition, it can provide the levels of transparency necessary for a continuous and structured political dialogue among distinct socio-cultural settings, along with the necessary machinery for managing endemic crises and often-protracted conflicts. Also, the emerging Parliamentary Forum could provide the EMP an additional legitimising platform from which to promote peace, stability and a regular dialogue for engendering the awareness of common interests and the creation of symbiotic structures of governance and problem-solving. Both agenda-identification (the acknowledgement of legitimate claims by a partner) and agenda-setting functions (the way in which such claims are included) could be achieved through the institutionalisation of the Forum. A normative implication here is that the proliferation of legitimate arenas will have an important domestic impact on the partners’ policy strategy, in that they would now have to direct their claims to, and via, additional legitimate avenues. In any case, it would be interesting to evaluate the endorsement of this parliamentary structure and assess the extent to which its mechanisms can accommodate declared principles and particular interests. All the above beg the question of why states are bound by certain norms, principles, rules and decision-making procedures. Regime theory offers a plausible answer: whether or not international co-operation is an a priori objective of states, the latter pursue their interests more effectively by being members of a larger association. Reflections on a transformative order ‘Current political transformations and reforms in Europe as well as in other parts of the world’, writes Olsen, ‘are redefining the terms of political life’ [91], reactivating basic questions of (good) governance. Fundamental changes in the conditions of shared rule pose new challenges to the search for viable orders based on stable authority patterns within and between states and societies. These ascending challenges offer the formative context for the integration of domestic and international politics and, by extension, the conditions for developing a better understanding of the process of global change. At the same time, the struggle for social and political equality, the ever widening chasm between rich and poor, as well as the displacement of bipolarity by deep divisions of socio-cultural and political values at various levels, point in the belief that defining elements of separateness proceeds hand in hand with the need to identify degrees of common understanding among a plethora of public, semi-public and private actors operating under conditions of complex interdependence and global interconnectedness.
Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!