Search Results

After the fall of Communism in Central and Eastern Europe, the newly democratized countries of this region joined two main pan‐European political and legal structures: the Council of Europe and the European Union. This book shows how the eastward enlargement of these two structures fostered the ‘constitutionalization’ both of the Council of Europe and of the EU. As for the human‐rights focused Council of Europe, the book shows that its main judicial body, the European Court of Human Rights, became a quasi ‘constitutional court’ of Europe as a result of the widening of its agenda and the resulting need to make activist decisions about the compatibility of national laws with the European Convention. Essentially, this move has been prompted by the enlargement of the Council of Europe and the admission of a number of countries which brought unique and often more substantial problems onto the Court’s agenda. In terms of the EU, the book shows that the enlargement (both prospective and actual) has been an important agenda‐setter for the constitutionalization of the EU; in particular, for openly placing the issue of fundamental rights on the EU agenda as a legitimate (indeed, indispensable) matter of concern for the EU. But the ‘constitutional synergies’ are a two‐way street: the accession to both pan‐European structures has also affected the development of democratic constitutionalism in Central and Eastern European (CEE) states, raising difficult issues regarding the relationships between national sovereignty, democracy, and human rights that CEE policy‐makers have grappled with. These issues and responses by CEE member states have also had implications for the ‘old’ EU member states. It is these dynamics that will be explored through various case studies, providing a new perspective on the development of legal norms and institutions within European supranational bodies.

The post-Cold War world has witnessed the extensive development of regional international organizations world-wide. The realtionship between their membership and democratization remains a topic of intense scholarly debate. This book opens up a new aspect of the debate by examining regional organization as set up by autocracies (e.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, and China)—referring to them as “non-democratic regional organizations.” How do these newly emerged organizations counteract and confront the democratization process in their own member states and beyond their borders? How and why do the political regimes, the economic development and the cultures of their member states impac the foundation and development of these organizations? What influence do these organizations have on migration, trade, conflicts, and democratization? The book addresses these questions by developing a new theory of authoritarian regionalism. Employing quantitative analysis of authoritarian regionalism world-wide and its historical development since the 1950s, as well as analysing case studies of post-Soviet Eurasia, the book argues that authoritarian regionalism is a new phenomenon in world politics and that modern non-democratic organizations differ from their historical predecessors and that their influence has radically increased in terms of geographic scope and intensity in the last few years. As such, authoritarian regionalism is an important addition to studies of comparative regionalism and the international dimension of authoritarianism. From the policy perspective, non-democratic regional organizations pose a challenge for Western actors in promoting democracy around the world.