International relations theory and the EU reactions to the Russian annexation of Crimea
Author
Rijs, Erik Michiel
Term
4. term
Publication year
2019
Submitted on
2019-05-30
Abstract
This thesis examines how three prominent International Relations theories—structural realism, commercial liberalism, and conventional constructivism—account for EU member states’ responses to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and identifies which theory best fits the evidence. The study assembles country-level indicators aligned with each perspective (GDP and military spending; trade interdependence with Russia and natural gas dependence; cultural values from the Inglehart-Welzel map) and maps national reaction patterns using news and scholarly sources plus official statements. Recurring themes are labeled across countries, states are ranked by theory-relevant metrics, and the resulting tables are analyzed to assess explanatory power. Findings show noticeable correlations for all three approaches, but structural realism provides the most accurate account, particularly by explaining striking exceptions. Examples include the Baltic states’ strong support for sanctions despite low capabilities and high economic ties, Italy’s reluctance due to power-balance concerns, Austria’s neutrality-related caution, and Romania’s and Poland’s security worries stemming from geographic proximity. The thesis concludes that relative capabilities and security considerations were central drivers of EU reactions.
Denne masterafhandling undersøger, hvordan tre fremtrædende teorier i international politik—strukturel realisme, kommerciel liberalisme og konventionel konstruktivisme—kan forklare EU-landenes reaktioner på Ruslands anneksion af Krim i 2014, og hvilken teori der er mest præcis. Studien indsamler landspecifikke indikatorer knyttet til hver teori (BNP og militærudgifter; handelsafhængighed af Rusland og naturgasafhængighed; kulturelle værdier ifølge Inglehart-Welzel-kortet) og kortlægger hvert lands reaktionsmønstre med data fra nyheds- og forskningsartikler samt officielle udtalelser. Gentagne temaer i reaktionerne identificeres og mærkes, lande rangeres efter de relevante indikatorer, og tabellerne analyseres for at vurdere teoriernes forklaringskraft. Resultaterne viser mærkbare sammenhænge for alle tre perspektiver, men strukturel realisme giver den mest præcise forklaring, især ved at redegøre for markante undtagelser. Eksempler inkluderer de baltiske landes stærke støtte til sanktioner trods lav kapacitet og høj økonomisk afhængighed, Italiens tilbageholdenhed af hensyn til magtbalancen, Østrigs neutralitetsovervejelser samt Rumæniens og Polens sikkerhedsbekymringer på grund af geografisk nærhed. Afhandlingen konkluderer, at relative kapaciteter og sikkerhedshensyn var centrale drivkræfter i EU-landenes svar.
[This apstract has been generated with the help of AI directly from the project full text]