1. law, govt and politics
2. politics
3. foreign policy

 National School
for Political and Administrative Studies
THE EASTERN DIMENSION OF ROMANIA’S FOREIGN POLICY (1989-­‐2010) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Eduard Rudolf ROTH
Scientific coordinator
Professor Mihail Ionescu, PhD
Submitted in total fulfillment of the requirements for the of Philosophy degree of Doctor Bucharest - Romania
March-April 2015
i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER I.1: Study Background The thesis entitled ‘The Eastern Dimension of Romania’s foreign policy (1989-­‐2010)’ is devoted to the analysis of the behavioural dynamics of Romania’s foreign policy towards East in the period 1989-­‐2010, being the fruit of a five year research work carried out at National School for Political and Administrative Studies from Bucharest and at University of Kent at Canterbury (Brussels School for International Studies). The projects’ chronological limits were defined in order to reflect two historical turning points that had a significant contribution to the development and formulation of Romania’s foreign policy: -­‐
the year 1989 is a historical year landmark for Romania as it marks the last and the bloodiest of the wave of revolutions that swept the Eastern bloc and which somehow heralded the 1991 implosion of USSR (and subsequently the beginning of a the post-­‐Cold War Era); -­‐
the year 2010 is the year when Romania’s Supreme Defence Council had accepted a plan by Washington to deploy interceptor missiles inside its national territory, (as part of an US missile shield to protect Europe) – a foreign policy action which arguably shaped the proper climate for Bucharest to evolve from a distant NATO outpost situated on the European periphery of the Alliance, into an important variable of NATO’s global security equation. Key to my work is the analysis of Romania’s foreign policy in a conceptual framework situated at the intersection of the new political realities that reshaped the geometry of the international environment with the ahistorical theoretical constructions defined across the years by various IR and FPA schools of thought. Tributary to the belief that the existent split between FPA and IR Theory is to a large extent artificial being triggered by the different ontological and epistemological preferences of the two differences (the agent-­‐
structure debate or individualism-­‐holism – as reflected in the works of Kubalkova (2001) and Hudson’s (2005) – I will argue that through a conceptual overstretching aimed to diminish the normative pitfalls and theoretical flaws of their anthropomorphic fallacy, IR theories can be used in order to explain foreign policy dynamics. The limitations of the theoretical constructions considering states as agents and not as structures should also be overcome in order to unveil complex causal mechanisms. Moreover, in order to analyse Romania’s behavioural pattern through the conceptual lenses of the IR and FPA theories, I have updated the selected analytical toolkit with a new theoretical NRC concept circumscribed to the Role Theory’s sets of assumptions, propositions and values, with a multi-­‐layered conceptualization of foreign-­‐policy making within Neo-­‐Classical Realist theoretical framework and also a pre-­‐determined variation of Alexander Wendt’s Social Constructivism – aimed to partially answer to Zehfuss (2002) criticisms of the theory, which I developed in my Master Thesis presented at the University of Kent at Canterbury. These theoretical developments were fuelled, on one hand, by the fact that domestic politics can cause states to pursue suboptimal foreign policies (in report to what is expected from a unitary rational actor interacting with other unitary rational actors in an anarchic environment), and on another, because the differences between political, cultural and economic structures, or leadership goals unrelated to relative power may be causally relevant to explaining different foreign policy choices. 2 I.2: Aim and Objectives Through a theoretical endosymbiosis involving the engulfment of the structural geometry of power within the theoretical framework of foreign policy analysis, the central aim of this research is to identify and explain the behavioural dynamics of Romania’s foreign policy exercise towards East in the period 1989-­‐
2010. By focusing both on the systemic topography (in terms of power, entities controlling the power, visibility and perceptibility) and on the domestic inputs that could play a role in the formulation of foreign policy decisions, the thesis would uncover a large portfolio of both exogenous and endogenous interferences, explaining not only why, but also how a certain behavioural pattern occurred at a given moment. In this context, the thesis will argue that – with the exception of the period 1989-­‐1995 when Romania’s foreign policy relations were circumscribed to an inertial matrix of cooperation – between 1995 and until 2006, Romania had no coherent foreign policy towards East and all existent interactions and alignment were in fact by-­‐products of the overstretched prevalence of NATO and EU accession processes in Bucharest’s foreign policy exercise. In particular, this situation occurred due to the monopolization of Romania’s foreign policy resources by the European and Euro-­‐Atlantic integration, which left only marginal and modest institutional capacities for the design and formulation of other diplomatic projects played a key role in the process, but also because both Washington and Brussels imposed an altercasting socialization pattern to Bucharest, by providing cues to elicit a certain behaviour and ascribing roles, identities and ways of conduct that were congruent with their interests and goals, directly through bilateral interactions, or indirectly through sets of institutional, normative, legal, organizational or technical platforms (PfP, MAP, IMF and World Bank Agreements, acquis communautaire, etc.. However, after 2006 when the EU accession was about to materialize, Romania began a more active policy towards East, although mainly in the sense of revamping the economic ties with its former partners from st
Asia. After January 1 , 2007, it began to use the superior institutional capacities available for the design of diplomatic projects towards East and the possibility to upload national and ‘Americanized’ preferences through European foreign policy framework, the most visible being Black Sea Synergy and Caspian energy transport projects. I.3: Thesis Contributions The overarching argument for embarking on this specific research process is represented by the absence of any academic studies focused on identifying structural, domestic, perceptual and notional mutations affecting the Eastern dimension of Romania’s foreign policy exercise in the given period from a multi-­‐
dimensional/multi-­‐factorial perspective. Furthermore, the present experimental exploration focused on evaluating the amplitude of each process of change occurring from a multi-­‐dimensional, multi-­‐layered and functionally-­‐overlapped perspective -­‐ will arguably better account for explaining Romania’s diplomatic behaviour, than the existent body of literature which tend to cover rather singular foreign policy files in a relatively eclectic and very broad manner. Subsequently this project will highlight how Romania’s foreign policy in general and towards East in particular has evolved since 1989, how this has impacted Bucharest’s position in the international system, and what this means for future policies. Furthermore, the chosen interplay between practice and theory, will allow the thesis to capture the mutation processes manifested by what might be defined as some core variables by various IR schools of thought, namely security, sovereignty and identity, while identifying the factors which contributed to their conceptual broadening, widening or deepening. 3 Moreover, the symbiotic juxtaposition of theory and practice germinated in some collateral theoretical developments, namely the theoretic conceptualization of security and identity, as multi-­‐layered constructions, a meta-­‐theoretical improvement which will arguably allow a better way to effectively address any ontological issues in the new global environment, while preserving their validity and academic sense shaped by various schools of thought. One of the by-­‐products of the research process is represented by the thorough academic review of the Realist body of theories, the first of this amplitude realized by a Romanian scientist and arguably more complete than any existent material covering this topic, and which could be easily exported under the form of a Manual on Political Realism, destined to worldwide International Relations students and researchers. A part of this theoretical research was already published in an academic collection of texts regarding IR theories. I.4: Methodology and data used In seeking to select the most appropriate methodology for the purpose of testing the hypothesis of the structural mutation occurring in the Eastern dimension of Romania’s foreign policy, the thesis draws upon the work of Mike Weed, entitled ‘Meta interpretation: a method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research”. Arguably, this quintessential work on methodology has been chosen as a guiding reference in that meta-­‐interpretation approach provides synergistic insights in the interpretation of qualitative research within an eclectic theoretical environment and not only conclusions which are nothing but the sum of the parts, but also in that it serves as an instrument for the employment of the case-­‐study method, in order to discover the conditions under which a specified outcome occurs, and the mechanisms through which this occurrence takes place. On another hand, the rationale behind opting for an eclectic analytical framework and therefore in trying to uncover various insights of the structural mutations occurring in the Eastern dimension of Romania’s foreign policy exercise is represented by the fact that the entwined and recombined instruments employed by a broad portfolio of research traditions can help in developing a more complex model of the traditional diplomatic praxis, without obscuring the complexity of the process for the sake of conformity to the theoretical or methodological tenets characterizing individual school of thought and research traditions. In this context, the thesis will pivot on the analysis of the country’s behavioural dynamics through a dichotomist dialogue between rationalist and ideational approaches, which can hamper the understanding of the motives and even the nature of a certain foreign policy alignment. Yet, without minimizing the explanatory power of the grand theories of International Relations, (Realism and Constructivism) which explain the behaviour of a state as being determined by the geometry of the international environment itself and by the interactions between states, the research will also engage the power of FPA analytical mechanisms (decision making theory and role theory) which could explain the role of various domestic inputs in a state’s foreign policy formulation and praxis and namely the multilevel and multidimensional theories of foreign policy analysis. Finally, it worth noting that in order to reconstruct and systematically analyse the structural mutations occurring in the Eastern dimension of Romania’s foreign policy exercise, the research process will focus on collecting and selecting data from a wide-­‐range of sources: academic literature, archival documents, interview transcripts or original interviews. The main problem associated with this specific task is to ensure the quality and integrity of the analysis, in the context that the research data used is usually already synthesized and interpreted. In this context, due to the impossibility to re-­‐conduct the original research process in order to validate some specific interpretations, the thesis will exclude or marginalize any interpretations (even academic) that might seem flawed or inadequate. 4 I.5: Thesis organization The study consists of five chapters. The introductory chapter will refer to the background of the study, will present to the objectives and aims of the study while identifying the theoretical and practical contributions of the thesis and pointing out the methodology and data used within the research process. Chapter Two forms the theoretical canvas for the research, and attempts to place the thesis within a broader academic spectrum, in order to illustrate the analytical frameworks as defined by two dominant theoretical lenses in International Relations and two theories of Foreign Policy Analysis. In this context, the chapter endeavours to identify what might be defined as the analytical pillars used for the rest of the text, namely the concepts of security, sovereignty and identity respectively. Chapter Three builds on the insights garnered in the previous chapters and analyses Romania’s foreign policy exercise in several Eastern files of relevant importance: USSR/Russia, Moldova, Ukraine, Central Asia, Southern Caucasus, Turkey, China, Greater Middle East, etc. In this context, it will argue that the ways in which the country managed its security, sovereignty and identity in the post-­‐Cold war period, mutated into a paradigm shift of foreign policy making which – in its turn – led to alignment mutations in the state’s diplomatic praxis. Moreover, the chapter investigates the endogenous and exogenous factors that instituted the state’s behavioural dynamics in the international environment between 1989 and 2010. Chapter Four will place theory and history in close connection in order to uncover the mechanics responsible fro the country’s foreign policy trajectories and alignments, by employing the analytical power of the theoretical approaches in several case studies. Chapter Five contains the study’s conclusions, and attempts to draw the various theoretical and practical strands together in an integrated whole. It points out the implications thereof for academics but also for practitioners of international relations. II. THEORY SYNOPSIS – LITERATURE REVIEW Either the typology or classification, Realism is probably the most widely known IR theory, often conflated with the idea of rationality in international political behaviour and equally associated with concepts like geopolitics, balance of power, Realpolitik (a term coined by Germany’s Chancellor Otto von Bismarck 1871-­‐
1890 meaning ‘politics of reality’), raison d’état (a term coined by the Cardinal Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu during the Thirty Years War (1618-­‐1648), and whose complex meaning involves concepts as overarching national goals, national interests, or national ambitions. At the theoretical core the of the anarchical and geometrically fragmented Realist landscape lies power, conceptualized as some sort of a mythical energy of creation and destruction and therefore sought by all actors. However, despite the catalytic role of the pursuit for power in the Realist school of thought, in particular the motivations that determine states to seek power split the camp into several distinct typologies or denominations. Following the cognitive path of different motivations, John Mearsheimer -­‐ a leading figure of Realism – groups the adherents of this theoretical approach into Classical and Structural Realists by employing a simple method of selection: their answer to the question ‘Why states want power?’ (2007:72). For Classical Realists like Hans Morgenthau (1948) the answer lies in human nature, because, in their vision, ‘everyone is born with a will to power hardwired into them’ (Mearsheimer, 2007: 72) and the struggle for 5 achieving it occurs both at domestic and international level (the difference consisting in magnitude and in ritualization). Power, in Classical Realism, is conceived as the only element which can ensure the states’ physical survival and security and which can protect them from becoming subservient to the will of others or to lose their prosperity. The result of this intersection of perceptions and needs makes the competition for power accumulation a natural state of affairs in international politics. In contrast, for Structural Realists – human nature has little to do with why states want power. Instead, argues Mearsheimer, ‘it is the structure or architecture of the international system that forces states to pursue power. In a system where there is no higher authority that sits above the great powers, and where there is no guarantee that one will not attack another, it makes eminently good sense for each state to be powerful enough to protect itself in the event it is attacked’ (2007:72). The conceptualization of power is equally distinct: if for Classical Realists, power is an end in itself, for Structural Realists, power is a only the means to an end and the ultimate end is survival. Furthermore, unlike Classical Realist multidimensionality, Structural Realism is characterized by a bi-­‐
dimensional systemic infrastructure whose exerted pressure determines the types of actions between the uni-­‐dimensional, rational, unitary, abstract and characterless units of which the system is comprised. The bi-­‐dimensionality of the Neo-­‐Realist systemic construction is structurally generated by the seminal intersection of the vectors of anarchy and distribution of power. The ‘self-­‐help’ nature of the international system, determines the uni-­‐dimensional actors of the Neo-­‐Realist realm to seek power, conceptualized as the only means to ensure their security. The Structural Realist denomination is however far from being a monolithic construction. In particular, there is a significant divide among its adherents, mainly reflected – in Mearsheimer’s opinion – in the answer to a second question that concerns realists: how much power is enough? (2007:72). Defensive realists like Kenneth Waltz (1979), Robert Jervis (1978, 1999), Stephen Walt (1987, 1988, 2000), Jack Snyder 1991, Charles Glaser (1994/95), Stephen Van Evera (1999) capture the dynamics of the international politics with the dialectic mechanism of security dilemma, in which the attempts by one state to increase its security (the thesis) has the effect of decreasing the security of others (anti-­‐thesis). The synthesis spiral process of action reaction which will couple the perceptions of one actor’s own vulnerability with uncertainty about another actor’s actions and intentions and which can lead even defence-­‐oriented, status-­‐quo states to engage in arms races and conflict spiral. In addition, Defensive Structural Realists consider that states shouldn’t try to maximize their power assets, because in reaction, the system an “invisible” recalibration force of the system will try to bring the balance back. The pursuit of hegemony is foolhardy. The other Structuralist camp, Offensive Realists like John Mearsheimer (2001) ‘take the opposite view; they maintain that it makes good strategic sense for states to gain as much power as possible and, if the circumstances are right, to pursue hegemony. The argument is not that conquest or domination is good in itself, but instead that having overwhelming power is the best way to ensure one’s own survival’ (Mearsheimer, 2007: 72) The Realist denomination with the clearest focus on hegemonic stability is Rise and Fall Realism which centres on the idea that practices and rules of the international system are confined to the set of values, preferences and interests of the ‘most powerful members of the social system’ which succeed themselves as leaders in the realm of international politics (Gilpin, 1981: 9) In the logic of the expected utility mechanism, Rise and Fall Realism sees the raison d’être of the international system as ‘deriving from actors’ natural behaviour to enter social relations and create social 6 structures in order to advance particular sets of political, economic, or other types of interests’ (Gilpin, 1981: 9). International system is thus created by the intersection of the actors’ vectors of preference and therefore its structure and distribution of benefits will mimic the dominant pattern of interests of the current cycle of power. Unlike other Realist typologies, Rise and Fall Realism does not rely on the balance-­‐of-­‐power and on the static systemic polarity from the conceptual heritage associated with a (self-­‐defined) Realist tradition, but on the dynamics of the uneven or differential growth of power among states that are the main cause for conflict. In this section I will examine the core assumptions, theoretical constructions and perspectives of 6 different strands of the realist tradition (as defined by Elman and Elman 2002, 2003 and Elman 2008, see fig. 1.1) and, the texts of ancient and modern writers, contrast their ideas and explanatory mechanisms regarding the states’ behaviour in the international environment: Classical Realism, neo-­‐Realism, neoclassical, rise and fall, offensive structural and defensive structural Realism since, despite the shared pessimistic outlook about the continuity of inter-­‐group strife, each realist typology is rooted in different assumptions and provides different explanations for the causes of the state’s behaviour in the international environment. Classical Realism Neoclassical Realism Rise and fall Realism Neo-­‐Realism Offensive structural Realism Defensive structural Realism Figure II.1: Classification of the Realist typologies (from Elman 2008, 16) Constructivism is a theoretical perspective in the philosophy of social sciences (Guzinni, 2000) concerned on actor’s cognitive transactions and self-­‐awareness and their place in the international politics. By claiming that individual and society are mutually dependent and dynamically interwoven, Constructivism rejects rationalist theories’ material focus and argues that the international environment in which states act and interact is simultaneously social and ideational as well as material (Holsti, 2004: 19; Ruggie, 1998: 33) and that all three dimensions have an identical level of importance in the study of IR (Reus-­‐Smit, 2005: 196). Yet, springing from a broad portfolio of approaches, Constructivism does not constitute a monolithic perspective, but a flux of partially convergent theoretical streams flowing in the conceptual rift between rationalism and reflectivism. Thus, positioning itself within the spectrum of paradigms on a theoretical dimension situated between the rationalist and reflectivist accounts, Constructivism aspired to seize this ‘middle ground’ (Adler, 1997: 321, Risse, 1999: 1) by constructing a via media through the interparadigmatic Third Debate (Wendt, 1999: 39 -­‐ 40) which will emerge as a common view for the understanding of the international politics. 7 As with Realism, in this section I will explore and identify the central tenets, core assumptions and mechanisms of the plurality of theoretical approaches to the study of IR, which, based on the common assumptions that reality and knowledge are socially constructed (Guzzini, 2000: 149) found a place under the broad conceptual umbrella of Constructivism. In addition I will try to classify the existent Constructivist variants and denominations through the use of ontological, epistemological, methodological and normative filters. Built upon an anthropomorphic structure – which allows the drawing of an analogy between societal individual and the states, Role Theory allows the import of various concepts, theoretical constructions and patterns from sociological and socio-­‐psychological theories into FPA and thus, empower analysts to open up the ‘black-­‐box’ of the state, in a period when the mainstream theories focused on Structuralist approaches. Although significantly overlapping with Social Constructivism, role theory could bring significant integration between FPA and IR, especially with the meta-­‐theory of constructivism (Thies, 2009: 36), through its focus on the domestic constituents and domestic definition of national role concepts. Therefore, in this sub-­‐chapter I will review and discuss the core-­‐concepts of the theory, both the ones articulated initially by Holsti like role performance, national role conceptions, role prescriptions and position (1979: 240) but also, the following theoretical upgrades that set the stage for future theoretical advancement of the Role Theory, like role enactment (role sets, role selection, role involvement and interrole conflict), role expectations, role demands, role location and audience. Moreover, I would also analyse the ontological recalibration of Role-­‐Theory from individualism to holism adopted by Elgstrom, Aggestam or Harnish who incorporated a structural dimension of roles – mentioned yet underdeveloped in Holsti’s original work (role perceptions). For instance, while Aggestam accounted both for the individual and for the structural sources of national roles (Aggestam 2006: 14-­‐18), Harnisch built upon the and idea emphasizing cognitive or institutional structures as ‘causes for certain roles and on the idea that roles are ‘embedded’ in certain social ‘orders/arrangements’ which in turn give meaning and reasons for specific action (2010: 3). Last but not least, the Decision Making Models are, in practice, three applicable conceptual constructions – which could be employed as analytical framework for understanding, analysing and refining the foreign policy actions and dynamics: the Rational Actor, Organizational Behaviour, and Governmental Politics models articulated by Graham Allison in its (1971) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (1971) Allison – and significantly upgraded in the (1999) edition which he co-­‐authored with Phillip Zellikow. The main thesis of this theoretical approach is that – although it is highly impossible to come to a complete understanding of the situation and to a complete and accurate account of the non-­‐visible determinants that triggered the actions of an actor at a given moment – the employment of a theoretical portfolio that combines the three conceptual lenses will bring the scholars relatively close to the full awareness of all influential factors that shaped a certain decision in a certain historical moment. Since all models are based on a different level of analysis and each should be understood as a snapshot that captures only a certain ‘dimension’ of a complex multi-­‐layered picture, the employment of all three conceptual constructions is required in order to obtain a ‘closest-­‐to-­‐complete’ treatment of a policy case. As a result, by applying the models to a given case, I aim to build a substantiate framework for considering foreign policy actions, that would allow one to improve one’s understanding of a political situation by uncovering both proximate and adaptive elements of the decisions associated with the behavioural matrixes of various actors during a certain alignments. 8 III. The Eastern Dimension of Romania’s Foreign Policy 1989-­‐2010 III.1: Introduction Throughout its contemporary and modern history, Romania’s political, economical, institutional and cultural evolution can be defined as a continuous tale of reinvention involving constant and complex structural mutations tributary -­‐ to the most extent -­‐ to the constantly changing sources of exogenous hegemonic influence in the region (the Habsburg Empire, the Russian and the Ottoman Empires, the USSR, the Russian Federation, up to the nowadays EU). The successive exposure to the broad portfolio of antagonistic influences and to the subsequent normative collisions occurring from their political, cultural or social layering, together with its symbolic geographic positioning in the Eastern Europe – a paradoxical region ‘of simultaneous inclusion and exclusion, Europe but not Europe’ (Wolff, 1994:7) contributed to the development of a dichotomy between Romania’s main Byzantine ethos and its peripheral European self. As a result, Romania’s struggle to cope with its incomplete European identity lays at the very foundation of the state’s modern transformation process – which began with the political birth of the United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia (and later on with the United Principalities of Romania). Although a relatively successful attempt to solidify an European identity can be recorded during the time of the Kingdom of Romania (Great Romania) – mostly due to the institution of monarchy acting as a catalyst for Europeaness, the conflicting identity symptoms will make a successful comeback soon after World War II, during what i
might be conceptualized as Redivided Romania while reaching a significant magnitude in the time of Communist Romania. Post-­‐communist Romania of the early 1990s found itself in the process of developing a new European identity but arguably failed to escape the derogatory stereotype of its provincial Europeaness even after the country’s accession to the European Union in January 1st, 2007. For instance, the setting-­‐up of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) aimed to help Romania and Bulgaria ‘remedy shortcomings in the area of judicial reform and the fight against corruption and to monitor progress in these areas’ acted as a conceptual Iron Curtain which split EU 27 into 25+2 in terms of a corruption identity in-­‐group, although – according to Transparency International Corruption Perception Index from the period 2007-­‐2010 – Romania’s (and Bulgaria’s) records of transparency and integrity were, in the given time-­‐frame, similar or even inferiour to those of Greece or Italy. Similarly, the labour force restrictions imposed to Romanian and Bulgarian workers, the EU’s subsequent reports on justice and internal affairs signling out Bucharest (and Sofia) as the laggards of the EU judicial system and the indigenous establishment(s) as key players in the low progress in the successful implementation of an EU anti-­‐corruption ethical and technical toolkit, or the more or less direct threats from Brussels regarding the activation of the safeguard clause (like for instance in order to enforce the adoption of the National Integrity Agency law), had a serious impact in deepening the ideational rift that placed Romania’s identity at the periphery of the European identity. In parallel with this process, the complex succession of geocultural and socio-­‐political cohabitation mutations fuelled the ideational expansion of both an overarching national interest notion and of an archetypal tradition of survival (see for instance Deletant, 1992; Gallagher, 2001: 87; Boia, 1997: 155-­‐156) that moulded the country’s foreign policy behaviour throughout time and whose collateral effect was the establishment of a relatively non-­‐monolithic perceptions over the right to exercise sovereignty. In this context, Romanian foreign policy between 1990-­‐2010 can be conceptualized as a by-­‐product of the country’s pursuit to obtain security guarantees and to enhance its economic prosperity, tributary to the 9 intersection of global and regional political vectors (Washington, Moscow, Brussels) and to the systemic recalibration that dominated the post-­‐Cold War international relations. As a result, Bucharest’s foreign policy dynamics are circumscribed to several structural mutations, materialized through certain dominant alignments converging from the state’s pursuit for certain foreign policy deliverables. III.2: Multi-­‐Layered invasively overlapped foreign policy files: USSR/Russia – Moldova – EU – US – WBA Under this frame of reference I have identified several major chronological trends in Romanian diplomatic matrix, which – although expressed under the form of a Washington -­‐ (Western Europe/Brussels) -­‐ Moscow axis – had – due to their significant invasive overlapping – a major role in the definition of the Eastern dimension of Bucharest’s foreign policy. More specifically, the (1990 – 1991) period was characterized by the regional and global geometry of insecurity and by a light Finlandization of Romania’s foreign policy, the (1991 – 1995) period involved a structural mutation from the inertia of Cold War institutions to the change of perspective towards West, the (1995 – 1996) period was characterized by what I defined as ‘the NATO aetiology of electoral dependencies in the US, Russian Federation and Romanian politics’. Moreover, the period (1996 – 2000) was conceptualized by a drive for security by politics of voluntary servitude, (2001 – 2004) by a foreign policy aimed at balancing the divergences between various epicentres of power, followed in the (2005 – 2007) by a diplomatic exercise tributary to the logic of the bifocal ‘suivisme’ – several processes like Europeanization, Americanization, Gazpromization and Black Sea Regionalism had a major impact on Bucharest foreign policy and finally by the period (2007 – 2010) when Bucharest foreign policy dynamics converged into filling the post-­‐EU accession foreign policy vacuum via regionalism, energy rivalries, peripheral perspectives and the exposure to Russia’s structural vulnerability. Together with the multi-­‐layered invasively overlapped foreign policy files, Romania’s foreign policy agenda tackled also a series of less invasive or non-­‐invasive (although more or less overlapped) files, like CIS countries (Ukraine, Central Asia, Southern Caucasus, China, Greater Middle East (Israel, Arab World, Iran, etc.). III.2.1 [1990 – 1991]: The geometry of insecurity and the light Finlandization of Romania’s foreign policy The external subversion theory of the revolution -­‐ a mental construction aimed to help a nominal group of persons involved in the bloodshed to escape any repercussions of the December deaths by transferring part of the guilt to unidefined exogenous actor(s). A reasonably acceptable hypothesis: during the 1989 events, Romania could have been targeted by intelligence activities or even active measures-­‐type of intelligence warfare, yet not to the extent that Soviet, American, French or Hungarian security services played the key role in the unfolding of the events. Between 1989-­‐1991 Romanian-­‐Soviet relations were circumscribed to an asymmetrical, allegedly colonial-­‐
like pattern of interactions, arguably as a by-­‐product of the new leadership’s endeavours to use the perception of the support given by the neighbouring superpower, in order to legitimize its actions and political preferences, to strengthen its control over the country and to act as a strong deterrent for possible manifestations of alleged Hungarian irredentism. The 1991 Romanian-­‐Soviet Treaty -­‐ articulated on the political backbone of the Kvitsinsky Doctrine -­‐ incorporated a famous ‘security clause’ which denied the right of the signatories to enter alliances 10 perceived as hostile by the other and was an expression of Kremlin’s expected utility preferences, coherently forcing Romania to enter a social relation and create a social structure in order to advance its particular sets of political, economic and military interests, thus to trigger a chain bandwagoning in order to place Eastern Bloc countries under a new security bloc – built upon the foundations of the defunct Warsaw Pact -­‐ under its leadership. Romania’s decision -­‐ a faux bandwagoning aimed to extract support from its patron (mostly in terms of security guarantees). Despite some vocal rhetorical and symbolical support along a pan-­‐Romanian discourse, rulers in Bucharest displayed ‘extreme caution’ on the subject of the Moldovan independence (Crampton, 1994: 452) and eventually stopped ‘short of supporting’ the nationalist movements within Moldova, in order not ‘to upset the Soviet Union, which was in the process of restructuring itself’ (Benishev, 2013: 29), a behaviour that led eventually to a dampening of the Moldovan pan-­‐Romanians’ initial enthusiasm (King, 1999: 146). By recognizing ‘the existing border’ between Romania and the URSS, the1991 treaty reinforced ‘the lack of overt support for Moldovan independence’. Bucharest’s hesitant behaviour towards Chisinau cannot be delinked by Romanian establishment’s fear of having to face ‘the risk of international isolation’ and a renunciation at a security alternative, in a moment when Romania’s aspirations for EU an NATO inclusion were part of a rather implausible scenario, given its ‘unstable relations with western institutions’, IMF, NATO or EU (Papakostas, 2009: 7). III.2.2 [1991 – 1995] From the inertia of Cold War institutions and to the change of perspective towards West NATO enlargement dynamics, its dissociation from Central European integration, West’s concessions towards Russia, Kremlin’s support for the de facto independence of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR), possibly highlighting that it’s ‘geopolitical position was still being negotiated’ (Stoicescu, 2006: 176), had a complex influence on Bucharest’s rhetoric from 1993-­‐1994, to the extent it germinated into an alleged dual foreign policy focus, of a ‘double speak’ (Stoicescu, 2006: 175), of an ‘ambivalent policy’ (Soare, 2010: 98) or, as Tudoroiu defines it of some ‘politics of ambiguity’ (2008: 390-­‐391). By 1995 Romania began to genuinely follow a path towards West, because a Russia in disarray and with its economy spinning out of control, was unable to offer either political, either economical support to Bucharest. Moreover, Moscow’s impotence in the Yugoslav war, revealed that it was unlikely for Kremlin to act as a security provider for Romania in a possible conflict, like for instance with Budapest, a scenario which – in Washington – appeared as having a high degree of probability (Matyas, 1996: 47). The absence of real central authority attributes in the post-­‐Soviet Russia left Romania relatively dependent on the aid coming from the IMF, CEE and Western states (Tudoroiu, 2008: 391) in order to compensate the lack of reforms and in order to ensure macroeconomic stabilization. In the early 1990s Romania searched security options under the political umbrella of France which was strongly committed to deterring any Hungarian threats to Romania’s territorial integrity and thus taking seriously its commitment to become a ‘privileged advocate of Romania within the European structures’ (Pascu, 2007: 36). However, between 1994-­‐1995 Romania’s diplomatic exercise was tributary to a combination of three main processes: 11 •
the intensification of the administrative, bureaucratic and military meetings as a result of the country’s participation into the PfP •
the mutations that affected the country’s behavioural dynamics towards the parties involved in the Yugoslav crisis •
the relation with Russia, that was slowly staining reaching a climax during the abrupt ceasing of the negotiations over a bilateral interstate treaty in 1996. Pro-­‐West rhetoric of the Romanian administration, began to remove some doubts regarding the country’s alignment (Carothers, 1997), thus creating the proper climate for Romania to get involved in various cooperation actions with NATO members (Szonyi, 1997: 12, 23), although of rather peripheral impact in terms of military cooperation, in comparison to Poland, Hungary or Czech Republic -­‐ visibly sponsored by Germany in their race towards Western-­‐ensured security and thus wearing different labels of eligibility for NATO membership (Szayna and Asmus, 1995). III.2. 3 [1995 – 1996] The NATO aetiology of electoral dependencies in the US, Russian federation and Romanian politics Contrary to the relatively conventional beliefs stating that the role of foreign affairs doesn’t translate into electoral outcomes, NATO enlargement did play – in the period 1995-­‐1996 – a key role in the electoral mathematics of the incumbent presidents during US, Russian and Romanian Presidential elections. In this context, while Bill Clinton and Ion Iliescu tried to use NATO enlargement and the highly coherent attitudes and beliefs of pivotal voting blocks towards the process in order to enhance their electoral prospects, Boris Yeltsin attempted to reduce the issue to the status of a peripheral topic, unable to germinate into a disruptive element that will impact his re-­‐election bid. Among the foreign policy deliverables generated by the electoral mechanics were: the induced stalemate of the NATO expansion process itself (tributary to a Clinton-­‐Yeltsin matrix of dynamic compromises), the genuine alignment of Bucharest towards Washington (and, due to the still stuck in a Cold War mind-­‐warp of the Russian and Romanian elites, the gradual staining of the Romanian-­‐Russian relations) and last, but not least, the formalization of the Romanian-­‐Hungarian relations through the signing of a intestate treaty, that (at least temporarily) put an end to the high-­‐profile diplomatic crisis between the two states III.2. 4 [1996 – 2000] The drive for security and the politics of voluntary servitude The government efforts to secure NATO and EU membership – reached, in the period 1996-­‐2000 such a monopolizing magnitude, that it prevented the development of any other vectors of foreign policy. Romania’s foreign policy dynamics from the period 1996-­‐2000 was the direct by-­‐product of an altercasting process, with US/NATO and EU providing cues to elicit certain behaviour, therefore projecting a portfolio of identities and roles to be undertaken by Bucharest. Aware that Romania’s performance wouldn’t lead to fulfilling the necessary criteria for accession and that the accession would be a – in the end – the fruit of a political concession, Bucharest leadership accepted to circumscribe Romania’s behavioural dynamics to a policy of voluntary servitude in order to advance its institutional accession goals. A complex transition begins to take place in all sectors. A direct collateral effect of this situation was the degrading of the Romanian-­‐Russian relations – already encumbered by misunderstandings and political tensions over the issue of the Romanian treasury, sent in 12 1916 to Moscow for safekeeping, confiscated by the Bolsheviks and never returned (Cioculescu, 2009: 139) – to the extent that Russia began to express open animosity towards Bucharest’s transformation into what Soare defines as ‘an agent of NATO and EU principles, norms and values’ (2010: 100). III.2.5 [2001 – 2004] Balancing the divergences between various epicentres of power In the period 2000-­‐2004 – marked by severe transatlantic divergences – Romania’s behavioural dynamics were characterized by a complex balancing between the two Western epicentres of power, in what can be conceptualized as an acceptable prioritization of its foreign policy objectives: focusing on getting US support for its NATO candidature, despite the risk of alienating some EU states and possibly to jeopardize their sustenance for a non-­‐security related, longer-­‐term objective: EU accession The 2003 Romanian-­‐Russian treaty reveals Bucharest’s acceptance of a certain asymmetrical bilateral relation and the continuity of Russia’s tradition over the iron principle according to which ‘no concession is acceptable for Russia, but all the concessions are binding for its partners’ (Trandafir, 2011: 289). Romanian – Moldovan bilateral relation from that period was deeply linked with some big powers’ geopolitical interests in the region and tributary Chisinau and Bucharest’s different geo-­‐political perspectives (2006:1). III.2. 6 [2005 – 2007] The logic of the bifocal ‘suivisme’ and the impact of Europeanization, Americanization, Gazpromizationii and (Wider) Black Sea Regionalism on Romanian foreign policy EU integration continued to be the backbone of Romania’s foreign policy architecture, Bucharest’s diplomatic exercise from the period 2005-­‐2007 reveal no prominent structural mutations in relation to the previous political cycle, continuing to oscillate between the already established minimalist ‘suivisme’ of Brussels’s foreign policy perspectives and the proactive ‘voluntarism’ associated with its ‘NATO first’ perspective in terms of European security infrastructure. Although Romania – confined to its aspirant member status – was forced to download some EU perspectives and priorities – it assigned variable magnitude to their modelling force in the adaptation of its foreign policy and thus limited their materialization, in most cases, according to its own portfolio of preferences and identity ‘marked by cultural and historical biases’ for instance in the cases of Russia, Ukraine or Moldova (2012:157). Bucharest’s foreign policy deliverables and paramount designs in the Wider Black Sea Area were by-­‐
products generated by the Americanization (and to a peripheral extent by the Europeanization of the indigenous diplomacy and thus projections of Washington’s (and Brussels’) regional preferences and interests (into which Romania incorporated its own goals and aspirations in its anticipation to be rendered the main promoter of these interests), rather than indigenously articulated preferences. Romanian-­‐Russian relations evolved as an collateral effect of the structural mutations and overlapping patterns of interests that shaped the topography of the region and, to a certain extent, of the common denominator binding various energy groups with a high politics agenda from Russia, EU and US. Russia’s 13 hydrocarbon deficit and its policies of Schroederization and Gazpromization played a key role in the failure of Bucharest’s endeavours to implement imported US energy perspectives for the region. III.2. 7 [2007 – 2010] Filling the post-­‐EU accession foreign policy vacuum via regionalism, energy rivalries and peripheral perspectives and the exposure to Russia’s structural vulnerability Overestimating both Washington’s interest Europe – which was becoming of rather ‘subsidiary importance’ (Severin, 2012: 3) for an US preoccupied more about the spectral shift associated with the transition of the international system’s center of gravity from the Atlantic to the Pacific – but also EU member-­‐states’ commitments regarding solidarity in matters of energy supply and arguably encouraged by the political collisions that swept the Union following the gas disruption generated by the 2006 and 2009 Russian-­‐
Ukrainian gas disputes – Bucharest tried to upload its Americanized (and visibly anti-­‐Russian) energy perspective into NATO’s and EU’s institutional framework (energy NATO, etc). The cartelization and collusion of EU energy market, personal or group benefits, aspects of national prosperity and subsequent electoral effects (most of them linked with Russia’s Gazpromization policy) led -­‐ in some key EU capitals (Paris, Berlin, Rome or Amsterdam) – to a decreased appetite to antagonize Moscow over its energy policies and interests in the Caspian region and in Europe and therefore to the absence of any tangible deliverables for Bucharest which – stimulated by economical and political incentives – was trying to bandwagon with various US/EU regional stakeholders. In this period Bucharest began to develop a Romanian protectorate in Moldova, which – due to the collisions with Kremlin’s interests in the region – created new convulsions in Moscow. Not in the position to re-­‐engage into an aggressive project of national unification with Moldova (Csergo and Goldgeier, 2013: 115) it followed a policy of ‘consolidation in the Western organizations and security structures, also promoting regional cooperation projects’ (Milevschi, 2012: 164). III. 3 MULTI-­‐LAYERED NON-­‐INVASIVELY OVERLAPPED FOREIGN POLICY FILES III.3.1 Ukraine With only marginal exceptions, the architecture of the Romanian-­‐Ukrainian relations between 1989 and 2010 took the form of sinusoidal ups and downs, ranging from relatively often derailments, political disruptions to intermittent stances of rapprochement. Beyond the behavioural dynamics, the main foreign policy deliverables were in fact by-­‐products generated by dominant exogenous influences of the two states’ foreign policies and, to a lesser extent, by the succession of the domestic political regimes in the two countries. Moreover, in the period 1989 – 2010 the matrix of controversies suffered an important decrease on territoriality in favour of economical rivalries over Danube-­‐Black sea waterways or hydrocarbon reserves. 14 III.3.2 Turkey The major conclusion of the analytical rendition on Romanian-­‐Turkish relations is that most of the behavioural dynamics, foreign policy deliverables and paramount designs in which the two countries were involved – starting from Black Sea Regionalism and Caspian energy transport projects and culminating with the two countries endeavours to acquire a regulatory role in the region or to strengthen the political and security role of the Black Sea structures – were, to a high extent, tributary to the existence of a matrix of exogenously articulated influences, preferences and ascribed socialization patterns. Ankara’s growing uncertainties vis-­‐à-­‐vis its European aspirations and its discontent towards Washington, coupled with Romania’s voluntary servitude towards US’ regional interests and Turkey’s increased interest towards Russia’s endeavours in the Wider Black Sea Region, triggered relevant mutations in the articulation of Bucharest’s foreign policy outcomes, materialized through an upgrade of its role within the NATO. On another hand, the big differences on foreign policy – notably on US and Russia – have not prevented economic cooperation between Romania and Turkey. Ankara was from the mid till late 2000s Bucharest’s first non-­‐EU trade partner and a key export market for the indigenous industries (yet with the mention that Romanian companies often used Turkey as a re-­‐export hub for Iran, due to transport or payment related aspects triggered by the various restrictions and sanctions against Teheran).
III.3.4 China In the period 1989-­‐2010 Romanian-­‐Chinese relations were tributary – with the exception of a minimal interlude between 1992 and 1996 – both to the exogenous pressures exerted by one or more epicentres of power that imposed their hegemonic influence and preferences on Bucharest’s foreign policy dynamics and to Beijing’s policy of capital and trade fluxes reorientation throughout the analysed period. In particular, by 1996-­‐1997 the overstretched prevalence of NATO and – of even bigger extent – of EU accession process in Romania’s foreign policy monopolized Bucharest foreign policy resources to such extent, that only marginal and thus modest institutional capacities were left for the design and formulation of alternative diplomatic projects, outside those engulfed in the mainstream foreign policy frameworks drafted in Brussels or Washington. A key moment in the evolution of the bilateral relations was represented by Chinese president Hu Jintao’s visit to Bucharest, which acted as a catalyst for bilateral trade development (although severely unbalanced against Romania) and for the arguably aggressive expansion of Chinese investments in Romania in the form of manufacturing companies, that allowed Beijing to directly access EU market and, therefore to circumvent the extremely restrictive EU anti-­‐dumping legislation. In particular, despite Romania’s strategic partnership with the US and despite the fact that many of Bucharest’s foreign policy deliverables were extensions of Washington’s interests, Romania approached a relatively benign stand in report to the colliding interests between Beijing and Washington, in terms of political and commercial relations or in the issues of Taiwan and Tibet. III.3. 5 GREATER MIDDLE EAST III.3.5.1 Israel The topography of the Romanian-­‐Israeli relation in the period 1989-­‐2010 was tributary to the structural overlapping between endogenous elements (elite reproduction and not elite replacement that characterized post-­‐Revolutionary Romania and which led to the perpetuation of the foreign policy reflexes 15 and of the informal and formal networks and relations or the existence of a sensitive and influential Romanian Jewish community in Israel which was able to act as a catalyst for bilateral cooperation) and exogenous factors (NATO expansion, unipolarity and US behavioural dynamics in the Wider Black Sea Area and Greater Middle East). With Romania embarking on a Euro-­‐Atlantic path, the importance of Romanian-­‐Israeli relations raised exponentially in Bucharest’s agenda, with the successive regimes from Bucharest realizing that a positive relation with Jerusalem might abet its credentials on Capitol Hill and thus trigger important positive mutations in Washington’s perspectives and matrix of political interactions. A key role in this security equation was played, in this context, also by the Jewish Communities that acted as a transmission-­‐belt role in Romania’s quest to recalibrate its image and voice within the US Congress. The transformation of US’ state of mind in the aftermath of 9/11 to a foreign and defence policy perspective that resembled more to the one shaped by Israel and Romania’s unconditional support for Washington’s security designs, led to the development of a strong military and security cooperation between Bucharest and Jerusalem, whose magnitude sometimes transcended the level of the bilateral political relations. III.3.5.2 Arab World (Kuwait, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Qatar, Yemen) and Iran The fall (and execution) of Ceaușescu during December 1989 riots and violence meant that the cardinal force that cultivated the pro-­‐Palestinian and pro-­‐Arab credentials and acted as the main catalyst for political and socio-­‐economic cooperation between Romania, Iran and the (non-­‐US alligned) Arab world, ceased to exist. Moreover, in the aftermath of the events, the new leadership – trying to exhibit democratic and European pedigree – oriented Romania’s trade fluxes towards convertible (mostly Western) markets and gradually renounced at the development of the indigenous oil, chemical and export-­‐oriented industries that supplied most of Romanian exports to developing countries. In this context, Bucharest found no incentives in pursuing privileged relations with the Arab world, despite of the fact that following the Ba’athist Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Romania established diplomatic relations with United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain, states with an immense economic potential for absorbing Romanian imports. In general, by mid 1990s and till late 2000s, Romania’s behavioural dynamics towards the Arab World and Iran took place under the form of an altercasting process – implemented through institutional, organizational or legal means – through which Washington or EU provided Bucharest cues, norms and expectation to elicit certain behaviour. However, although politically, Romanian leadership aligned the country with US and EU articulated preferences and perspectives, in the economical realm, indigenous companies’ behaviour wasn’t necessarily circumscribed to the governmental rhetoric and actions. By 2006, faced with the perspective of EU single-­‐market pressures, Romanian government embarked itself a quest to resuscitate the latent relations with the Arab states from the Middle East and Iran. The materialization of these endeavours remained – despite some revamping of the bilateral trade fluxes – at a modest level for the next years, in comparison with the level they recorded in throughout the 1980s. 16 III.3.6 Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) The analysis of the topography of Romania’s relations with the CIS states from Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan) reveals the existence of asymmetrical geometries of cooperation, mostly fuelled (with the exception of Turkmenistan where the relation was to some extent a by-­‐product of the ‘Americanization’ of Romania’s foreign policy) by the nature and structure of domestic constituents of these countries. In this context, the relatively autonomous Kazakhstan evolved as Bucharest’s paramount partner in the Central Asia, with the energy sector and adjacent industry representing the backbone of the bilateral partnership, the hydrocarbon-­‐rich Turkmenistan as a possible strategic partner in Romania’s conceptualization of the EU energy architecture, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan were left at the periphery of Bucharest’s diplomatic interests, while Uzbekistan ended up in some sort of a conceptual limbo between the two groups. On another hand, the analysis of the bilateral trade turnover reflected that, following Romania’s accession to the EU, trade flows originating from or directed to Central Asia began generally manifested a positive trajectory, highlighting a certain level of consolidation of Romania’s foreign policy in report to the European Union’s strategic perspective towards Central Asia. During first years following Azerbaijan’s declaration of independence – marked by the military conflict from Nagorno-­‐Karabakh and by a recessionary period of the Azerbaijani economy – the new Bucharest establishment’s affinities with Russia and Armenia, and its governmental policy of minimal political involvement with states situated in non-­‐neighbouring regions of dissolution, kept Baku at the periphery of Romania’s foreign policy agenda. Between 1995 and 2010 Romania and Azerbaijan signed over 50 bilateral agreements, conventions and protocols, tackling a plethora of topics, from sectorial cooperation to strategic partnership. Romanian – Azerbaijani security relations have developed along US-­‐led path, in the sense that both countries actively participated in US-­‐led NATO missions in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq and provided the coalition forces over-­‐flight, refuelling and landing rights for aircrafts bound for Afghanistan and Iraq while directly participating with troops in the theatres of war from Afghanistan and Kosovo. Moreover, Romania has been a strong advocate of Baku’s future membership within NATO, with which Azerbaijan developed an Individual Partnership Action Plan since 2004. Furthermore, as of January st
1 , 2009, Romania has taken over from Turkey the mandate for NATO Contact Point Embassy (CPE) in Azerbaijan, later being awarded also the 2011-­‐2012 and 2013-­‐2014 periods as well. Despite of a relatively intense political interaction and of overall good political relations, Romanian-­‐
Armenian bilateral relations did not produce the expected results in the economic sphere – as the divergent institutional and security perspectives severely hindered the bilateral cooperation. In particular, while Romania embarked on a Euro-­‐Atlantic path and focused its political and economic fluxes towards states sharing the same perspectives, Armenia opted for an organic partnership with Russia and joined Russian-­‐
led CSTO security alliance. Moreover, Armenia’s foreign policy rhetoric and actions – mainly coordinated with Russia’s interests and influence (Poghosyan, 2011: 196) – and its positions in international and even regional structures (including the Black Sea Cooperation frameworks) – being either coincidental, either close with Moscow’s own positions eventually lead to the isolation of Armenia in an ‘increasingly globalized’ Southern Caucasian region (Mirzoyan, 2010: 53) and thus in the creation of an economic rift between Bucharest and Yerevan. For Romania – which throughout 2000s enjoyed privileged relations with Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey – the importance of the Armenian equation stayed roughly at rhetorical level and this only because of the 17 relatively positive perception of the Armenians in the Romanian psyche and more or less tributary to the influential yet small Armenian community in Romania. In this context, although Armenia’s commitments to closer relations with NATO and the political accomplishments of the Armenian diaspora in the US, which – at least formally – managed to ‘anchor’ Yerevan to the conceptual ‘hydrocarbon heaven’ of the Southern Caucasus, generated strong echoes in Bucharest, the political and economic materialization of the Armenian-­‐Romanian relationship was significantly inferior to Bucharest’s relations with Azerbaijan, Turkey or Georgia. Since late 1990s and till late 2000s, Romanian-­‐Georgian relations became a by-­‐product of the bilateral relations of both states with US and Russia, shaped by the mutations of the national interests during a systemic reorientation of the international relations context. On one hand, frustrated that the renewed alliance with Kremlin did not lead to the reintegration of the secessionist provinces to Georgia and that the economy of the country – although made some important progress on basic market reforms – was still far from reaching a self-­‐supporting, sustainable growth and prosperity, Shevardnadze began, by the end of 1990s, to distance Tbilisi from Moscow (refusing to renew its CSTO membership, replacing Russian border guards with Georgian troops and retracting its agreement to host Russian military bases). Moreover, Washington Administration’s 2003 National Security Strategy stating that US energy security and global prosperity would be strengthened by expanding the numbers of hydrocarbon suppliers, including those in the Caspian region – which eventually led to the transformation of the Black Sea into an strategic energetic hub stimulated the bilateral relations between Tbilisi and Bucharest. The advert of pro-­‐American and visibly anti-­‐Russian presidents Basescu and Saakashvili in the two countries created a new openness at the level of political dialogue. The main result of this situation materialized through Georgia and Romania’s vocal support for energy transport initiatives aimed to bypass Russia (and Iran) – in which they tried to secure themselves a transit role (Georgescu, Munteanu et al., 2012: 283) and thus to reduce their dependency on Russian energy exports – like the US endorsed Baku-­‐Tbilisi-­‐Ceyhan corridor and the larger Trans-­‐Caspian projects (with an emphasis on Nabucco) and which became the core of their foreign energy strategies. However, with Nabucco entering in a political and economic limbo, in 2010 – Bucharest and Tbilisi, together with Baku signed the memorandum that shaped the legal framework for the development of the AGRI project, which envisaged the envisaged construction of two terminals for liquefied natural gas -­‐ one in Georgia, another in Romania and worked towards its materialization. Moreover, Romania became the leading voice in supporting Georgia’s European Integration and Euro-­‐
Atlantic aspirations, creating – together with Czech Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria, Sweden and Slovakia – the New Group of Georgia’s friend to assist Tbilisi both in these endeavours and its quest to solve the conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. During NATO’s 2008 Bucharest Summit Romania fully backed up the arguments put forward by the US for the membership of Georgia and despite the lack of support from various EU countries, mainly France and Germany, not eager to provoke Russia in any way (Weaver, 2013: 18) and which arguably fuelled the August 2008 South Ossetian war. Following Georgian-­‐Russian war from 2008, Romania aligned itself with NATO and EU in not openly condemning Kremlin for its military intervention on Georgian territory, sent the biggest team of observers in the EU Civil Monitoring Mission in Georgia (Georgescu, Munteanu et al., 2012: 283) and pledged for granting MAP status to Tbilisi in the Lisbon NATO Summit from 2010. Moreover, following the events in Georgia, Romania sent to Tbilisi humanitarian aid amounting to approximately EUR 1.2 million, mainly consisting in medical supplies from the State Reserve, medicine and medical equipment from the reserves of Romanian Ministry of Public Health, airlifted by a carrier provided by Romanian Ministry of Defence. Of note, as by virtue of its EU membership – Romania must contribute 0.17% of its GNI to development 18 assistance – Bucharest has chosen Tbilisi, together with Belgrade and Chisinau as recipients of Romanian assistance (Marin, 2013:3). With the domestic dynamics in the post-­‐1989 Afghanistan revealing exacerbations of sectarianism, Islamic extremism and ethnic cleansing and with the civil war being used as an instrument for territorial reunification and centralization in a state that lacked any institutional framework for allowing bilateral political dialogue, Romania’s relations with Afghanistan throughout the 1990s and early 2000s were basically inexistent. Subsequently, the rise of Taliban, the clashing interests of the regional powers (Iran, Pakistan, Central Asian states), the hard-­‐core Islamisation of Afghanistan and the high degree of ruralisation, offered no incentives fro Bucharest to reconsider its alignment. Romania’s interest with Afghanistan came as a collateral effect of its role in US foreign policy dynamics in the post 9/11 period. IV. Case Studies By placing data and theory in close proximity -­‐ this section aims to uncover the mechanisms, the logic, the reasoning and the details that determined or accompanied Romania’s behavioural patterns in some specific international situations. In this context, the analysis will invoke the employment of the theoretical approaches presented in the first section of the paper, a selection that has the potential to capture the mentioned key aspects that could render fine-­‐grained answers to various questions regarding the state’s international alignment in a particular contextual stance. The chosen case study topics were: Romanian – Soviet treaty of 1991 (I), Romania’s decision to act as ‘a de facto NATO ally’ in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks (II) and Romania’s decision not to recognize Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence (III) V. Conclusions The major conclusion of this analytical rendition on the Eastern dimension of Romania’s foreign policy, is that – with the exception of the period 1989-­‐1995 when Romania’s foreign policy relations were circumscribed to an inertial matrix of cooperation – from 1995 and until 2006, Bucharest had no coherent foreign policy towards East and all existent interactions and alignment were in fact by-­‐products of the overstretched prevalence of NATO and EU accession processes in Romania’s diplomatic exercise. The main factors that led to this situation were, on one hand, the monopolization of Romania’s foreign policy resources by the European and Euro-­‐Atlantic integration processes – which left only marginal and modest institutional capacities for the design and formulation of other diplomatic projects – and on another, the fact that Washington and Brussels imposed an altercasting socialization pattern to Bucharest, by providing cues to elicit a certain behaviour and by ascribing it roles, identities and ways of conduct that were congruent with their interests, goals and perspectives. The focus on the political topography revealed that the altercasting process was projected either directly – through bilateral interactions – either indirectly through sets of institutional, normative, legal, organizational or technical interfaces (life PfP, MAP, IMF and World Bank Agreements, acquis communautaire, etc.). On another hand, after 2006 – when Romania’s EU accession was about to be materialized – Bucharest’s behavioural dynamics towards East manifested a superior consistency, yet not in the form of a new cardinal projection of a lucid foreign policy strategy, but roughly in the sense of a marginal revamping of the country’s relations with its former trade partners from the Middle East, North Africa and Asia – which gradually went into some sort of a conceptual limbo, during the 1990s. 19 However, despite the positive trends recorded in the resuscitation of the bilateral cooperation, from 2007 and until 2010 – when the state was able to use superior institutional capacities for the articulation of new diplomatic vectors towards East, but also to upload national preferences into EU’s foreign policy framework – all of Bucharest’s foreign policy deliverables and paramount designs – starting from Black Sea Regionalism and Caspian energy transport projects aimed to bypass Russia and culminating with Romania’s endeavours to acquire a regulatory role in the region or to strengthen the political and security role of the Black Sea structures, by promoting a ‘political umbrella’ model under the form of the Black Sea Forum – were in fact were by-­‐products generated by the ‘Americanization’ (and to a peripheral extent by the ‘Europeanization’ of the indigenous diplomacy and thus projections of Washington’s (and, minimally, of Brussels’) regional preferences and interests (into which Romania incorporated its own goals and aspirations in its anticipation to be rendered the main promoter of these interests), rather than indigenously articulated preferences. A major advancement made by the thesis in the study of Romania’s foreign policy towards East is represented by recalibration of the existent analytical framework by engulfing bilateral interactions in a multi-­‐layered and sometimes overlapped matrix of foreign policy processes, especially when some of those had a highly invasive dimension. In practice, this germinated into the analysis of Soviet/Russian, Moldovan or Wider Black Sea Area foreign policy files, not through an independent revision of the bilateral interactions, but through the entangled endosymbiosis between them and other foreign policy files (like NATO, EU, US, Balkans or Hungary), on a case-­‐to-­‐case basis and which managed to render fine-­‐grained explanations of Romania’s behavioural patterns towards East, even in the absence of visible, congruent matrixes of interactions between actors. Among the conclusions highlighted by the remodelling of the analytical architecture, is the structural mutation of Romania’s competitive nationalism towards Moldova – from a relatively intrusive targeting of Moldovan nationhood with an aggressive policy of unification, to a quiescent and concealed unionist project, articulated in the more neutral framework of European integration. In short, as a result of to the ‘Europeanization’ of its foreign policy’s behavioural dynamics, Bucharest’s nationalism suffered a significant decrease in territoriality in favour of nation-­‐building through the employment of kin state policies (foreign aid, benefit laws and citizenship policies), articulated by other EU member states. Of note, however, is that although the means were ‘Europeanized’ the policy itself – allowing an important number of non-­‐EU citizens to bypass the restrictive EU legislation – was nevertheless ‘non-­‐European’. Another significant finding of the research, is that it severely challenged the orthodox image of the Russian Federation and namely that of a superpower making use of its energetic weapon in order to advance allegedly neo-­‐imperialist ambitions or in order to implement punitive or rewarding policies towards various states into the one of an extremely vulnerable state posing as a big power, forced to carry out neo-­‐
Brezhnevist policies of ‘Gazpromization’, ‘Schroederization’ and ‘Restoration’ in order to veil its structural, economic and security weaknesses, to ameliorate them and to project and define itself as an ascending superpower into an envisaged multipolar geometry (see Roth, 2010). In this context, the thesis claimed that Kremlin’s hydrocarbon deficit – generated by the fact that the Russian energy extraction sector reached a plateau level both in oil and gas production and by the lack of funding to seriously develop alternative projects – forced Moscow to operate not from a position of an energetic superpower, but from a position of incertitude, which generated aggressiveness as an organic reaction of its and its establishment survivalist goals. The analysis of Romania’s foreign policy through a the conceptual lenses of a multi-­‐layered matrix of overlapped foreign policy processes, unveiled the existence of an aetiology of (electoral) dependencies which had significant foreign policy outcomes in Romania’s diplomatic exercises. Among these, variables like the active umbrella organizations of the American-­‐Hungarian community (especially those established 20 by the ‘Fiftysixers’), the vocal pro-­‐Hungarian caucus in the US Congress, Clinton’s decision not to expose Yeltsin to any NATO-­‐related disruptions during the latter’s electoral campaign in exchange for Kremlin’s supportive behaviour towards NATO-­‐Russia dialogue framework and Individual PfP or the impact of the sizeable Polish-­‐American voting block, representing 10% of the overall US electorate situated in the swinging Midwestern states, had a relatively high impact in the recalibration of Bucharest’s foreign policy. On another hand, the thesis revealed an interesting finding: Romania’s positioning towards Kosovo’s declaration of independence was the by-­‐product of an expected differential growth of power in the Black Sea Region (in the post George W. Bush era) and thus, through implications, an important means through which Romania advanced its GME and WBSA policies and responded to the dynamics of the power relations in these regions. Moreover, the thesis unveiled that Romania’s overall drive for security and welfare was responsible for the politics of voluntary servitude from the 1996-­‐2000 period, for the balancing between EU and US between 2000 and 2004 and for the ‘bifocal suivisme’ from 2005-­‐2007, as it acted as a catalyst for exogenous altercasting, a process through which EU and US attributed Romania certain roles, or identities, while communicating their behavioural expectancies through institutional, diplomatic, attitudinal or rhetorical cues. Among the individual by-­‐products of these processes are Romania’s bilateral relations with Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Georgia or Afghanistan and, to a lesser extent the relations with the states from the Greater Middle East and China. By placing data and theory in close proximity – the analytical section of the thesis – investigated the mechanisms, the logic, the reasoning and the details that determined or accompanied Romania’s behavioural patterns in some specific international situations: the Romanian-­‐Soviet treaty of 1991, Romania’s ‘de facto NATO member’ alignment in the aftermath of 9/11 and Romania’s position towards Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence. Tributary to the belief that the existent split between FPA and IR Theory is to a large extent artificial being triggered by the different ontological and epistemological preferences of the two differences (the agent-­‐
structure debate or individualism-­‐holism – as reflected in the works of Kubalkova (2001) and Hudson’s (2005) – the thesis managed to substantiate that through a conceptual overstretching that would diminish the normative pitfalls and theoretical flaws of their anthropomorphic fallacy, IR theories can be used in order to explain foreign policy dynamics. The limitations of the theoretical constructions considering states as agents and not as structures can be overcome in order to unveil complex causal mechanisms. In this context, organizational, institutional, socialization and behavioural theories managed to provide interesting and compelling explanations as to why or how it was possible for a certain pattern of interactions to occur at a given moment. For instance, the explanations for Romanian-­‐Soviet Treaty of 1991 ranged from a coagulation of a cooperative framework determined by dictates of interest and power or as an alliance formation – triggered by the invisible recalibration force of the system in the last moments of the bipolar world (Neo-­‐
Realism), as a by-­‐product of the proximate threat determinant and thus as a way to obtain security guarantees in order to alleviate a Hungarian threat to its territorial integrity or as a faux bandwagoning through which Romania tried to extract greater support from its patron rather than to switch sides (Defensive Realism), as a method to ‘buy time’ in order to mobilize resources to contain the aggressors that populated the realm (Offensive Realism) or as an expression of Kremlin’s expected utility preferences, coherently forcing Romania to enter a social relation and create a social structure in order to advance its particular sets of political, economic, or other types of interests (Rise and Fall Realism). 21 Moreover, the treaty episode could be theoretically seen as a political outcome shaped by systemic forces and filtered through the transmission belt of the relevant domestic actors in the logic of the balance of interests or as a means through which Moscow aimed to trigger a chain bandwagoning reactions in order to place Eastern Bloc countries under a new security bloc under its leadership (Neo-­‐Classical Realism), as the result of Romania’s aversion towards its inclusion of a buffer-­‐zone in the context of a diachronic concept of keeping Soviet Union out of Europe, as a manifestation of its security perceptions tributary to the construction of Bucharest’s self-­‐identity in relation to the conceived identity of the Kremlin, Hungary and the West, or as a Russian response to a learned identity arguably generated by prior systemic victimization (Constructivism), as an expression of Romania’s coding and development of its lurker NRC and of Hungary’s, US and West (with the exception of France) role prescriptions (Role Theory) and last but not east, as the result of Bucharest’s maximized utility preference in ensuring the state’s territorial status-­‐quo in the absence of any other realistic opportunity, like NATO or WEU, as the predictable output distilled from pre-­‐
established routines, budgetary limitations, organizational learning, goals and their prioritization and SOPs, or as a process germinating from the viewpoints, opinions and desires of individual elites and their social networks (Decision Making Models Theory). In the same theoretical framework, the ‘9/11’ case study can be conceptualized as a behavioural matrix responsive to the dynamics of structural pressures and thus expected to generate systemic rewards (Neo-­‐
Realism), as the expression of the search for an offshore source of security in order to balance against the occurring threat deriving from Russia’s shift from a defence-­‐dominant stand to an offense-­‐dominant position in early 2000s or as a behaviour determined by systemic pressures yet also tributary to domestically generated preferences (Defensive Realism), as a form of buck-­‐passing the burden of balancing Russia to US-­‐led military organization or as a balancing manifestation through alliance formation (Offensive Realism), as a reflection of Bucharest’s quest for obtaining security deriving from domestic constituents’ interests and perspectives and as a way through which Bucharest aimed to exploit its ‘advantage of backwardness’, in the sense of benefiting from a diffusion of economic and military technologies from NATO, and thus to contribute to the regional redistribution of power and to rise as a regional challenger and to arguably develop its own spheres of influence (Rise and Fall Realism). Analysed through the Neo-­‐Classical Realist conceptual lenses, ‘9/11’ was translated as a decision to bandwagon with the US due to the fact that such alignment was perceived as the ‘wave of the future’ by the indigenous leadership and because by 2001 Romanian establishment was allowed to extract important resources in order to follow a NATO-­‐first foreign policy path, but also because it followed the logic of an established path-­‐dependency conceptualization. In addition, other theoretical perspectives revealed the episode as a way to mediate an identity change through the reproduction of the actions of the older members of the organization (Constructivism), as a process of altercasting, through which US projected an identity and roles to be assumed by NATO candidate countries, congruent with Washington’s interests and goals (Role Theory), or as a coherent behaviour selected by the government to maximize the actor’s ‘strategic goals and objectives’, as a constrained behaviour delineated by NATO’s organization’s program, routines, informal and formal charters, goals and procedures, ascribed to Romania through PfP and MAP or as a capture of a relatively monolithic governmental decision (Decision Making Models Theory). Last but not least, Romania’s alignment towards Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence could be understood as coherent balancing triggered by the fact that international organizations, values, rules and regulations have no binding dimensions for the big powers, which are the ones that dictate them and bend them whenever it suits their interests, sovereignty making no exception from the rule (Neo-­‐Realism), as a malfunction of the existent structural architecture populated by status-­‐quo states and a reflection of the fact that although in certain cases, particular groups might escape the dilemma such an escape is not universally possible (Defensive-­‐Realism), as the reaction of as a status-­‐quo state that seeking to defend the 22 current favourable distribution of capabilities and to prevent the accumulation of power by Hungary (Offensive Realism) or as a position of Romanian leadership’s perspective regarding a differential growth of power in its regional subsystem, through an expected US decline (Rise and Fall Realism). Furthermore, the Kosovo issue can be explained as a form of rational ‘underbalancing’ and as a manifestation of Bucharest’s jackal conceptual backbone (Neo-­‐Classical Realism), as a variation of Wendt’s security dilemma and thus of a social structure composed of intersubjective understandings in which states are so distrustful that they make worst-­‐case assumptions about each others' intentions, and as a result define their interests in self-­‐help terms’ (Constructivism), as a reflection of an interrole conflict between several positions requiring contradictory role enactments (Role Theory) as the result of expected utility maximization, as the result of pre-­‐established standard operating procedures and thus against any changes that would be rendering the Helsinki status-­‐quo and its territorial guarantees insufficient for a state’s security or as a failure of the ‘Europeanized’ elites to mitigate their European values In the political haggle against the inertial, security oriented political forces (Decision Making Models Theory). Engaging the methodological instruments employed by the IR and FPA body of literature, the research managed to trace important explanations and to render fine-­‐grained understandings of Romania’s behavioural dynamics in the three case studies, and although none of the theories was able to generate compelling individual accounts for all three situations, the chosen interplay of analytical tools allowed the thesis to identify structural, domestic, perceptual and notional mutations associated with the actor’s actions or alignment deriving from the conceptual overlapping of the empirical, rational, sociological or psychological content within a multi-­‐layered interpretational matrix. The inclusion of IR theories into the research process allowed the analysis – despite the anthropomorphic limitations of Neo-­‐Realism, Offensive Realism and Constructivism and group-­‐agenture conceptualization of Rise and Fall Realism – to explore important dimensions that offered extremely complex accounts of the international interactions, by introducing structural mechanisms and systemic recalibration processes into the orthodox interaction frameworks of FPA, while the less known Structural Defensive Realism and Neo-­‐
Classical Realism theoretical approaches proved to be – due to their conceptualization of the domestic constituents as the transmission belt through which systemic pressures are filtered in order to generate foreign policy outcomes – important explanatory alternatives that could be employed in foreign policy analysis to the detriment of the theories populating this academic realm. Last, but not least, in order to analyse Romania’s behavioural pattern through the conceptual lenses of the IR and FPA theories, I have updated the selected analytical toolkit with a new theoretical NRC concept circumscribed to the Role Theory’s sets of assumptions, propositions and values (the lurker NRC) and – with the aim to at least partially answer to Zehfuss (2002) criticisms of the theory – I have tweaked the pre-­‐
determined identity construction process of Alexander Wendt’s Social Constructivism by highlighting that the conceptualization of identity as a multi-­‐layered construction is an ideational construction that could offer a better account of identity change than the idea of a portfolio of role identities and by substantiating that identity acquiring could take place also through transitivity, not only through direct interaction between self and other. 23 REFERENCES 1.
ADAMS, Karen Ruth. "Conquering Myths. Testing Realist, Liberal, and Constructivist Arguments About State Vulnerability to Conquest." In Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Boston, MA, 2002. 2.
ADIGBUO, Richard. "Beyond IR Theories: The Case for National Role Conceptions." Politikon 34, no. 1 (2007). 3.
ADLER, Emanuel. "Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics." European Journal of International Relations 3, no. 3 (1997): 319-­‐63. 4.
ADLER, Emanuel. "Constructivism." In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlesnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons. London, UK: Sage Publications, 2007. 5.
AGGESTAM, Lisbeth. "Role Conceptions and the Politics of Identity in Foreign Policy." ARENA Working Papers 1999, no. 8 (1999). 6.
AGGESTAM, Lisbeth. "Role Theory and European Foreign Policy: A Framework of Analysis." In The European Union’s Roles in International Politics: Concepts and Analysis, edited by Ole Elgstrom and Michael Smith. London, UK: Routledge, 2006. 7.
AKLAEV, Airat R. "Dynamics of the Moldova Trans-­‐Dniester Ethnic Conflict (Late 1990s to Early 1990s) " In Ethnicity and Power in the Contemporary World, edited by Kumar Rupesinghe and Valery A. Tishkov. Tokyo, JP: United Nations University Press, 1996. 8.
ALBATS, Yevgenia. KGB State within a State. London, UK: I.B. Tauris and Co Ltd., 1995. 9.
ALECU DE FLERS, Nicole, and Patrick Müller. "Applying the Concept of Europeanization to the Study of Foreign Policy: Dimensions and Mechanisms." In GARNET Conference – The European Union in International Affairs, Panel B.3 Brussels, Belgium, 2010. 10.
ALLISON, Graham. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1971. 11.
ALLISON, Graham, and Morton Halperin. "Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm " In American Defense Policy -­‐ Seventh Edition, edited by Peter L. Hays, Brenda J. Vallance and Alan R. Van Tassell. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press, 1997. 12.
ALLISON, Graham, and Phillip Zelikow. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis 2nd Edition. London, UK: Pearson Longman, 1999. 13.
AMBROSIO, Thomas. Irredentism: Ethnic Conflict and International Politics. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001. 14.
ANASTASAKIS, Othon. "Greece and Turkey in the Balkans: Cooperation and Rivalry?" In Greek-­‐Turkish Relations in an Era of Detente, edited by Ali Carkoglu and Barry Rubin. New York, NY: Routledge, 2005. 15.
ANDERSEN, Christoffer M. "Romania’s Response to the Dissolution of Yugoslavia." Master Thesis. Central European University, Budapest, HU (2006). 16.
ANDREESCU, Gabriel. "Pages from the Romanian–Hungarian Reconciliation, 1989–1999: The Role of Civic Organizations." Institute of International Education, 2001. 17.
ANGELESCU, Irina. "Punching Below Its Weight? Europeanization and Romanian Foreign Policy." In European Union Studies Association Conference. Boston, MA: http://www.euce.org/eusa/2011/papers/7j_angelescu.pdf. (2011). [accessed June 30, 2014] 18.
ANGELESCU, Irina. "New Eastern Perspectives? A Critical Analysis of Romania’s Relations with Moldova, Ukraine and the Black Sea Region." Perspectives 19, no. 2 (2011b). 19.
ANTALL, József. Modell És Valóság [Model and Reality. Vol. II. Budapest, HU: Athenaeum Nyomda Rt, 1994. 20.
ANTALL, József. "A Historian in World Politics -­‐ Selected Speeches." edited by Géza Jeszenszky. Budapest, HU: József Antall Foundation, 2008. 21.
ARBATOVA, Nadia Alexandrova. "Unfolding the Black Sea Economic Cooperation: A View from Russia." Xenophon Paper -­‐ International Centre for Black Sea Studies no.2 (2007). 22.
ASHLEY, Richard K. "The Poverty of Neorealism." International Organization 38, no. 2 (1984): 225-­‐86. 23.
ASMUS, D. Ronald. Opening NATO’s Door. How the Alliance Remade Itself for a New Era. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2002. 24.
AYDIN, Mustafa. "Regional Cooperation in the Black Sea and Integration in the Euro-­‐Atlantic Structures." In The Role of the Wider Black Sea Area in a Future European Security Space, edited by Jean Dufourcq and Lionel Ponsard. Rome, IT: NATO Defense College, 2005. 25.
AZRAEL, Jeremy R. The KGB in Kremlin Politics. Available from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a228341.pdf RAND/UCLA Centre for the Study of Soviet International Behaviour, (1990). [accessed January 12, 2014] 26.
BACANU, Petre Mihai. "Cine a tras? [Who has been shooting?]." Romania Libera December 18, 1992, 1-­‐2. 27.
BACANU, Petre Mihai. "Responsabilitatea sangelui varsat [the Responsibility of the Shed Blood]." Romania Libera December 22, 1993, 2. 28.
BACESCU, Angela. Din Nou in Calea Navalirilor Barbare [Again in the Path of Barbaric Invasions]. Cluj-­‐Napoca, RO: 24 Zamolxis, 1994. 29.
BADESCU, Paraschiva. "The Conflict in Transnistria/Moldova -­‐ after 20 Years." Journal of European Studies and International Relation 3, no. 1 (2012). 30.
BALEANU, Virgil George. A Clear and Present Danger to Democracy: The New Romanian Security Services Are Still Watching. Sandhurst, UK: Conflict Studies Research Centre Paper, Royal Military Academy, 1996. 31.
BALEANU, Virgil George. "In the Shadow of Russia: Romania's Relations with Moldova and Ukraine." Sandhurst, UK: Conflict Studies Research Centre Paper, Royal Military Academy, 2000. 32.
BALMACEDA, Margarita. Energy Dependency, Politics and Corruption in the Former Soviet Union: Russia's Power, Oligarch's Profits and Ukraine's Missing Energy Policy, 1995-­‐2006. London, UK: Routledge, 2008. 33.
BARAN, Zeyno. "EU Energy Security: Time to End Russian Leverage." The Washington Quarterly 30, no. 4 (2007). 34.
BARANY, Zoltan. The Future of NATO Expansion: Four Case Studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 35.
BARNETT, Michael N, and Jack S. Levy. "Domestic Sources of Alliances and Alignments: The Case of Egypt, 1962-­‐1973." International Organization 45, no. 3 (1991): 369-­‐95. 36.
BARYSCH, Katinka. "Should the Nabucco Pipeline Project Be Shelved?" Centre for European Reform -­‐ Policy Brief (2010). 37.
BENDOR, Johnathan, and Thomas H. Hammond. "Rethinking Allison's Models." American Political Science Review 86, no. 2 (1992). 38.
BENES, Vit. "Role Theory: A Conceptual Framework for the Constructivist Foreign Policy Analysis?" In Third Global International Studies Conference “World Crisis. Revolution or Evolution in the International Community?” University of Porto, Portugal, 17-­‐20 August 2011. 39.
BENISHEV, Varban. "Cooperation, No Cooperation -­‐ Theoretical Insights from Post-­‐Communist Europe." Central European University, Budapest, HU (2013). 40.
BESCHLOSS, Michael R. and Strobe Talbott. At the Highest Levels: The inside Story of the End of the Cold War London, UK: Little, Brown and Company, 1993. 41.
BIDDLE, Bruce J. "Recent Developments in Role Theory." Annual Review of Sociology 12, no. 1 (1986). 42.
BIDDLE, Stephen. "Recasting the Foundations of Offense-­‐Defense Theory." In Offense-­‐Defense Theory: Retrospectives and Future Directions. Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University’s Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs and Georgetown University’s Centre for Peace and Security Studies, 2000. 43.
BIDELEUX, Robert, and Ian Jeffries. The Balkans -­‐ a Post-­‐Communist History. New York, NY: Routledge, 2007. 44.
BITKOVA, Tatiana. "The Place of Romania and Russia in the Context of East-­‐West Relations: Political and Cultural Aspects." Romanian Review of Political Sciences and International Relations 11, no. 2 (2014). 45.
BLAJ, Laura. "Ukraine’s Independence and Its Geostrategic Impact in Eastern Europe." Debatte: Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe 21, no. 2-­‐3 (2013). 46.
BOIA, Lucian. Istorie si Mit in Constiinta Romaneasca [History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness. Bucharest, RO: Editura Humanitas], 1997 and also BOIA, Lucian. History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness. Budapest, HU: Central European University Press, 2001. 47.
BODA, Iosif. Cinci Ani La Cotroceni [Five Years at Cotroceni Palace]. Bucharest, RO: Editura Evenimentul Românesc, 1999. 48.
BOOTH, Ken, and Nicholas J. Wheeler. The Security Dilemma: Fear, Cooperation and Trust in World Politics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, 2008. 49.
BOOTH, Ken, and Nicholas J. Wheeler. "Uncertainty." In Security Studies -­‐ an Introduction, edited by Paul D. Williams. New York, NY: Routledge, 2008b. 50.
BOSTINARU, Victor. "Foreword." In Romania – Israel Diplomatic Documents Vol. 1 1948 -­‐ 1969, edited by Dumitru Preda and Victor Bostinaru. Bucharest, RO: Ministry Of Foreign Affairs -­‐ Department of Diplomatic Archives 2013. 51.
BOTAN, Igor. "The Negotiation Process as a Way to Postpone the Solution." In Moldova–Transdniestria: Working Together for a Prosperous Future, edited by Denis Matveev, Galina Selari, Elena Bobkova and Bianca Cseke. Chisinau, MD: Cu Drag Publishing House, 2009. 52.
BRAITHWAITE, Rodric. Afgantsy: The Russians in Afghanistan 1979–89. London, UK: Profile Books Ltd 2011. 53.
BRANDSTATTER, Susanne. "Checkmate." TV Arte (2004). 54.
BROOKS, Stephen. "Dueling Realisms." International Organization 51, no. 3 (1997): 445-­‐77. 55.
BROWN -­‐ FLEMMING, Suzanne. "Faith, Action and Inaction During the Holocaust." Religion in Eastern Europe XXVI, no. 2 (2006). 56.
BROWN, James. Hopes and Shadows: Eastern Europe after Communism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999. 57.
BROWN, James F. The Grooves of Change: Eastern Europe at the Turn of the Millennium. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2001. 58.
BRZEZINSKI, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Bucharest, RO: Editura Univers Enciclopedic, 200. 59.
BUGAJSKI, Janusz. Cold Peace: Russia’s New Imperialism. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004. 60.
BUGAJSKI, Janusz, and Ilona Teleki. America's New Allies: Central-­‐Eastern Europe and the Transatlantic Link -­‐ 25 Significant Issues Series 28(2). Washington DC: Centre for Strategic and International Studies, 2006. 61.
BUKKVOL, Tor. "Ukraine and the Black Sea Region." In Politics of the Black Sea: Dynamics of Cooperation and Conflict, edited by Tunc Aybak. New York, NY: I.B. Tauris and Co Ltd., 2001. 62.
BUKOVSKI, Vladimir. "L’Empire du moindre mal'." Libre Journal 1, no. September-­‐October (1990). 63.
BURAKOWSKI, Adam. "În Decembrie 1989, Iliescu si Brucan au cerut ajutor militar de la sovietici [in December 1989, Iliescu and Brucan pleaded for a soviet military intervention]." Revista 22 XXI, no. 1039 (2010). 64.
BURKE, James F. "Romanian and Soviet Intelligence in the December Revolution." Intelligence and National Security 8, no. 4 (1993): 26-­‐58. 65.
BURKE, James F. "The December 1989 Revolt and the Romanian Coup D‘Etat." Available from http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_texts/revolution/. (1994). [accessed January 12, 2014] 66.
BUSHEK, Erhard, and Werner Mikulitsch. Uniunea Europeana Si Drumul Spre Rasarit [the European Union and the Road Towards East]. Iasi, RO: Editura Institutul European, 2005. 67.
BUTTERFIELD, Herbert. History and Human Relations. London, UK: Collins, 1951. 68.
BUZAN, BARRY. People, States, and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-­‐Cold War Era. London, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991. 69.
CALDWELL, Dan. "Bureaucratic Foreign Policy-­‐ Making." American Behavioral Scient 21, no. 1 (1977). 70.
CALKA, Marek. The Warsaw -­‐ Kyiv -­‐ Moscow Security Triangle. Edited by Margarita Balmaceda, On the Edge: Ukrainian-­‐
Central European-­‐Russian Security Triangle. Budapest, HU: Central European University Press, 2000. 71.
CANA, Petrisor. "Reabilitare dupa 23 de ani. SRI a ridicat un monument al luptătorilor antiterorişti, în locul în care au fost ucişi „teroriştii” din decembrie 1989 [Rehabilitation after 23 Years. Romanian Domestic Intelligence Service has built a monument of the antiterrorist fighters, in the place where the 1989 "terrorists" were murdered." Evenimentul Zilei: Available from http://www.evz.ro/detalii/stiri/reabilitare-­‐dupa-­‐23-­‐de-­‐ani-­‐sri-­‐a-­‐ridicat-­‐un-­‐monument-­‐al-­‐luptatorilor-­‐antiteroristi-­‐in-­‐lo-­‐
10167.html#ixzz2ss7LbLYB. (2012). [accessed January 22, 2014] 72.
CAPELLE -­‐ POGACEAN, Antonella. "Hongrie/Roumanie: Rivalités et Synergies Dans La Marche Vers L’Europe [Hungary/Romania: Rivalries and Synergies in the March Towards Europe]." Politique étrangère 61, no. 4 (1996). 73.
CAREY, Henry F. "Post-­‐Communist Right Radicalism in Romania." In The Revival of Right Radicalism in Romania, edited by Peter and Leonard Weinberg Merkl. London, UK: Frank Cass, 1997. 74.
CAREY, Henry F. "Conclusion: Ambiguous Democratization?" In Romania since 1989 -­‐ Politics, Economics, Society, edited by Henry F. Carey. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2004. 75.
CARLSNÆS, Walter. "Foreign Policy." In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnæs. London, UK: Sage Publications, 2002. 76.
CAROTHERS, Thomas. "Romania -­‐ the Political Background." In Democracy in Romania, edited by Leo Tindemans. Stockholm, SE: International IDEA, 1997. 77.
CARR, Edward Hallett. The New Society. London, UK: Macmillan, 1951. 78.
CARR, Edward Hallett. The Twenty Years' Crisis 1919-­‐1939. London, UK: MacMillan, 1981 [1939]. 79.
CASIER, Tom. "Classical Realism." In International Relations Theory -­‐ Course Notes: University of Kent at Canterbury, Brussels School for International Studies, 2007a. 80.
CASIER, Tom. "Structural Realism." In International Relations Theory -­‐ Course Notes: University of Kent at Canterbury, Brussels School for International Studies, 2007b. 81.
CASTEX, Michel. Un Mensonge Gros Comme Le Siècle: Roumanie, Histoire D’une Manipulation. Paris, FR: Albin Michel, 1990. 82.
CATALINAC, Amy L. "Identity Theory and Foreign Policy: Explaining Japan’s Responses to the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 U.S. War in Iraq." Politics & Policy 35, no. 1 (2007). 83.
CAVERLEY, Johnathan. "Power and Democratic Weakness: Neoconservatism and Neoclassical Realism." Millennium -­‐ Journal of International Studies. Available from http://mil.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/04/13/0305829810366473.full.pdf+html no. Online first. (2010). [accessed May 10, 2014]. 84.
CEAUSESCU, Nicolae. "Address to the Nation -­‐ Romanian Radio and Television." (December 20, 1989). 85.
CELAC, Sergiu. "Romania, the Black Sea and Russia." In The EU and Romania: Great Expectations, edited by David Phinnemore. London, UK: The Federal Trust, 2006. 86.
CERNAT, Vasile. "Ethnic Conflict and Reconciliation in Post-­‐Communist Romania." In Peace Psychology in the Balkans: Dealing with a Violent Past While Building Peace, edited by Zala Volčič Olivera Simić, Catherine R. Philpot New York, NY: Springer, 2012. 87.
CHAFETZ, Glenn. "The Struggle for a National Identity in Post-­‐Soviet Russia." Political Science Quarterly 111, no. 4 (1997). 88.
CHAFETZ, Glenn, Hillel Abramson, and Suzette Grillot. "Role Theory and Foreign Policy: Belarusian and Ukrainian Compliance with the Nuclear Non-­‐proliferation Regime." Political Psychology 17, no. 4 (1996). 89.
CHATTERJEE, Partha. "The Classical Balance of Power Theory." Journal of Peace Research 9, no. 1 (1972): 51-­‐61. 90.
CHAVERO POZO, José Javier. "La Revolución Rumana De 1989." Papeles del Este, Transiciones Poscomunistas. 2, no. 1 26 (2001): 2-­‐17. 91.
CHECKEL, Jeffrey T. "The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory." World Politics 50, no. 2 (1998): 324-­‐48. 92.
CHIFU, Iulian. "Parteneriat Strategic.Sistemul De Parteneriate Strategice Al României Strategic Partnership. The System of Romania's Strategic Partnerships." Centre for Conflict, Prevention and Early Warning -­‐ Occasional Papers 5, no. 9 (2012). 93.
CHIRILA, Victor. "Relaţiile Republicii Moldova Cu România [Romania’s Relations with Moldova]." In Evoluţia Politicii Externe a Republicii Moldova (1998-­‐2008) [Evolution of Moldova’s Foreign Policy (1998-­‐2008)], edited by Igor Sarov and Igor Ojog. Chisinau, MD: Asociatia pentru Politica Externa -­‐ Cartdidact, 2009. 94.
CHRISTAKOUDIS, Apostolos. "Black Sea Economic Co-­‐Operation (BSEC):Objectives, Opportunities, Development." Études Balkaniques 3, no. 1 (2000). 95.
CHRISTENSEN, Thomas J. Useful Adversaries: Grand Strategy, Domestic Mobilization, and Sino-­‐American Conflict, 1947-­‐
1958. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. 96.
CHRISTIANSEN, Thomas, Knud Erik Jorgensen, and Anje Wiener. The Social Construction of Europe. London, UK: Sage Publications, 2001. 97.
CHRISTOPHER, Warren. "A Democratic and Undivided Europe in Our Time”, Address by the U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Cernin Palace, Prague, Czech Republic, March 20." 1996. 98.
CIOCULESCU, Serban Filip. România Postcomunistă În „Ecuația” Strategică a Vecinătăților: Balcanii, Marea Neagră Şi Orientul Mijlociu Extins. Bucharest, RO: Editura Universitatii Bucuresti, 2009. 99.
CIUHANDU, GHEORGHE. "Romania: From Revolution to European Integration." Michigan Paper Series http://www.ii.umich.edu/UMICH/ces/Home/Resources/Michigan%20Paper%20Series/Ciuhandu_Romania_from_Revolution.p
df, no.1 (2008). [accessed January 14, 2014] 100.
COLTON, Timothy J. Yeltsin: A Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2008. 101.
COMAN, Ramona. "Mechanisms of Europeanisation and Compliance in Judicial Politics: Understanding the Past and Anticipating the Future." Polish Political Science Review. Polski Przegląd Politologiczny 1, no. 1 (2012). 102.
COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE -­‐ "Document of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE." Copenhagen: http://www.ena.lu/europe/organisation-­‐securitycooperation-­‐europe/conference-­‐human-­‐
dimension-­‐csce-­‐copenhagen-­‐1990.htm, June 29, (1990). [accessed January 21, 2014] 103.
CONSTANTINESCU, Emil. Timpul Daramarii. Timpul Zidirii. Vol.Iii: Lumea in Care Traim [the Time of Tearing Down. The Time of Edification: The World in Which We Live]. Bucharest, RO: Editura Universalia, 2002. 104.
CONSTANTINESCU, Emil. Timpul Daramarii. Timpul Zidirii. Vol.I: Cele Doua Fete Ale Zidului [the Time of Tearing Down. The Time of Edification: The Two Sides of the Wall]. Bucharest, RO: Editura Universalia, 2002a. 105.
COPELAND, Dale. "The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism." International Security 25, no. 2 (2000): 187-­‐212. 106.
COPELAND, Dale. "A Realist Critique of the English School." Review of International Studies 29, no. 3 (2003): 427–41. 107.
COTTEY, Andrew. "The Visegrad Group and Beyond: Security Co-­‐Operation in Central Europe." In Subregional Co-­‐
Operation in the New Europe, edited by Andrew Cottey, 69-­‐89. London, UK: MacMillan, 1999. 108.
CRACIUN, Andrei. "Cum a reactivat Militaru divizia KGB care a condus România [How has Militaru managed to reactivate the KGB group that ruled over Romania]." Adevarul March 14, 2010a. 109.
CRACIUN, Andrei. "Lista spionului Militaru în vremea lui Iliescu [The list of the spy Militaru in the time of Iliescu]." Adevarul March 15, 2010. 110.
CRAMPTON, R.J. Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century – and After. New York, NY: Routledge, 1994. 111.
CRAWFORD, Keith. East Central European Politics Today: From Chaos to Stability? Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1996. 112.
CROISSANT, Michael, and Bülent Aras. Oil and Geopolitics in the Caspian Sea Region. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999. 113.
CROWDER, Ashby. "Legacies of 1968: Autonomy and Depresion in Ceausescu's Romania (1965-­‐1989)." College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University, 2007. 114.
CROWTHER, William. "Romania." In Handbook of Political Change in Eastern Europe, edited by Sten Berglund, Joakim Ekman and Frank Aarebrot. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2004. 115.
CROWTHER, William. "Moldova's Post-­‐Communist Transition: Ambiguous Democracy, Reluctant Reform." In The EU and Moldova: On a Fault Line of Europe, edited by Ann Lewis. London, UK: The Federal Trust, 2004b. 116.
CROWTHER, William, and Oana-­‐Valentina Suciu. "Romania." In The Handbook of Political Change in Eastern Europe, edited by Sten Berglund, Joakim Ekman, Kevin Deegan -­‐ Krause and Terje Knutsen. Cheltenham, UK: Edwar Elgar Publishing, 2013. 117.
CSERGO, Zsuzsa. Talk of the Nation: Language and Conflict in Romania and Slovakia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2007. 118.
CSERGO, Zsuzsa, and James M. Goldgeier. "Kin-­‐State Activism in Hungary, Romania and Russia: The Politics of Ethnic Demography." In Divided Nations and European Integration, edited by Mabri. Tristan James, John McGarry, Margaret Moore and Brendan O'Leary. Philadelphia, PN: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013. 119.
DANILOVIC, Vesna. When the Stakes Are High -­‐ Deterrence and Conflict among Major Powers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2005. 27 120.
DAVID, Steven R. "Explaining Third World Alignment." World Politics 40, no. 2 (1991): 233-­‐56. 121.
DELETANT, Dennis. "Ethnos and Mythos in the History of Transylvania: The Case of the Chronicler Anonymus." In Historians and the History of Transylvania, edited by Lazlo Peter. New York, NY: East European Monographs, Boulder, 1992. 122.
DELETANT, Dennis. Ceausescu and the Securitate: Coercion and Dissent in Romania, 1965-­‐1989. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1995. 123.
DELETANT, Dennis. Ceausescu Si Securitatea. Constrangere Si Disidenta În Romania Anilor 1965-­‐1989. Bucharest, RO: Humanitas, 1998. 124.
DELETANT, Dennis. Romania under Communist Rule. Portland (OR): Centre for Romanian Studies, 1999. 125.
DELETANT, Dennis and Mihail Ionescu. Romania and the Warsaw Pact: 1955-­‐1989. Vol. Working Paper nr. 43 Cold War International History Project, 2004. 126.
DENCA, Sorin Stefan. "Europeanization of Foreign Policy: Empirical Findings from Hungary, Romania and Slovakia." Journal of Contemporary European Research 5, no. 3 (2009). 127.
DESPRE, Francois. "L’ile Aux Serpents: Source De Contentieux Entre La Roumanie et L’Ukraine [the Serpents' Island: Source of Disputes between Romania and Ukraine]." Balkanologie -­‐ 6, no. 1-­‐2 (2002). 128.
DEVLEN, Balkan, and Ozgur Ozdamar. "Neoclassical Realism and Foreign Policy Crises." In Rethinking Realism in International Relations, edited by Annette Freyberg-­‐Inan Ewan Harrison and Patrick James. Baltimore, MR: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009. 129.
DIACONESCU, Cristian. "The EU Gate to Black Sea Regional Cooperation -­‐ a Romanian-­‐Turkish Common Ground." Turkish Policy Quarterly 8, no. 1 (2009). 130.
DINU, Marcel. 42 De Ani În Diplomaţie. Ambasador Sub Patru Preşedinţi [42 Years in Diplomacy. Ambassador under Four Presidents]. Bucharest, RO: C. H. Beck, 2009. 131.
DONNELLY, Jack. Realism and International Relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 132.
DONNELLY, Jack. "Realism." In Theories of International Relations, edited by Andrew Linklater Scott Burchill, Richard, Devetak, Jack Donnelly, Matthew Paterson, Christian Reus-­‐Smit and Jacqui True. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005. 133.
DOTY, Roxanne Lynn. "Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-­‐Positivist Analysis of U.S. Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines." International Studies Quarterly, 37, no. 3 (1993). 134.
DOYLE, Michael W. Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. New York, NY: W. W. Norton, 1997. 135.
DREZNER, Daniel W. The Sanctions Paradox: Economic Statecraft and International Relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 136.
DUMBRELL, John. Clinton's Foreign Policy 1992-­‐2000: Between the Bushes, 1992-­‐2000. New York, NY: Routledge, 2009. 137.
DUNAY, Pál. "Theological Debates on Nato in Hungary." Foreign Policy 3, no. 1 (1997). 138.
DURA, George. "EU Membership Gives Romania New Opportunities in Its Relations with Moldova." Eurojournal -­‐ Centre for European Policy Studies (2007). 139.
DURANDIN, Catherine. "La "Révolution" De 1989 [Romania: The "Revolution" of 1989]” by Catherine Durandin, Writer and Historian Interviewed by Pierre Verluise. Diploweb, la revue géopolitique Available from http://www.diploweb.com/english/romania/durandin1.htm (2002). [accessed January 12, 2014]. 140.
DURANDIN, Catherine. “Le Cia En Guerre [the Cia at War]”. Paris, FR: Grancher, 2003. 141.
DUSCIAC, Dorin. "Republic of Moldova: Eastern Partnership's New Hope." Politicke Vedy/Political Sciences 17, no. 2 (2014). 142.
DUTCEAC Segensten, Anamaria. Myth, Identity and Conflict. London, UK: Lexington Books, 2011. 143.
EBON, Martin. KGB -­‐ Death and Rebirth. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1994. 144.
EILSTRUP-­‐SANGIOVANNI, Mette "The End of Balance-­‐of-­‐Power Theory? A Comment on Wohlforth Et Al.'s `Testing Balance-­‐of-­‐Power Theory in World History' " European Journal of International Relations 15, no. 2 (2009): 347-­‐80. 145.
ELGSTROM, Ole, and Michael Smith. "Introduction." In The European Union's Roles in International Politics: Concepts and Analysis, edited by Ole Elgström and Michael Smith. London, UK: Routledge, 2006. 146.
ELLISON, Charles "No Polish Jokes on Romney’s Tour." The Philadelphia Tribune, August 5, 2012. 147.
ELMAN, Colin. "Realism." In Security Studies -­‐ an Introduction, edited by Paul D. Williams. New York, NY: Routledge, 2008. 148.
ELMAN, Colin, and Miriam Fendius Elman. "How Not to Be Lakatos Intolerant: Appraising Progress in IR Research." International Studies Quarterly 46, no. 2 (2002): 231-­‐62. 149.
ELMAN, Colin, and Miriam Fendius Elman. Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003. 150.
EMERSON, Michael, T. Huw Edwards, Ildar Gazizullin, Matthias Lücke, Daniel Müller-­‐Jentsch, Vira Nanivska, Valeriy Pyatnytskiy, Andreas Schneider, Rainer Schweickert, Olexandr Shevtsov, and Olga Shumylo. The Prospect of Deep Free Trade between the European Union and Ukraine. Brussels, BE: Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels, Institut für Weltwirtschaft (IFW), Kiel, International Centre for Policy Studies (ICPS), Kyiv, 2006. 151.
ERDOGDU, Erkan. "Bypassing Russia: Nabucco Project and Its Implications for the European Gas Security." Energy Market Regulatory Authority, Republic of Turkey, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge MPRA Paper No. 26793 (2010). 28 152.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. "Regular Report from the Commission on Romania’s Progress Towards Accession." Brussels, BE, 1999. 153.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. "General Report on the Activities of the European Union." Luxembourg, LX: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission, 2005. 154.
EYAL, Jonathan. Military Relations. Edited by Alex Pravda, The End of the Outer Empire: Soviet-­‐East European Relations in Transition, 1985-­‐90, London, UK: Sage Publications, 1992. 155.
EYAL, John. "NATO's Enlargement: Anatomy of a Decision." In The Challenge of NATO Enlargement, edited by Anton Bebler. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999. 156.
FAI-­‐PODPLINIK, Judith. "One Goal, Many Paths: Internal and External Struggles of the Hungarian Émigrés." In Anti-­‐
Communist Minorities in the U.S. Political Activism of Ethnic Refugees edited by Ieva Zake. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. 157.
FALIN, Valentin. "The New World Disorder?" New Perspectives Quarterly 7, no. 2 (1990): 22-­‐26. 158.
FALLS, Donald R. "Nato Enlargement: Is Romania Ready to Join the Alliance?" Air University -­‐ Air Force Institute of Technology,2000, http://web.mit.edu/ssp/publications/working_papers/wp_00-­‐3.pdf, [accessed March 23, 2015] 159.
FATI, Sabina and Armand Gosu. "Iliescu a actionat pentru apararea intereselor URSS-­‐ului [Iliescu’s actions were meant to defend USSR’s interests]." Evenimentul Zilei Available from http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-­‐arhiva-­‐1262128-­‐iliescu-­‐actionat-­‐
pentru-­‐apararea-­‐intereselor-­‐urss-­‐ului.htm, no. July 26. (2004). [accessed January 7, 2014] 160.
FAWN, Rick. "Perceptions in Central and South-­‐Eastern Europe " In Kosovo: Perceptions of War and Its Aftermath, edited by Mary Buckley and Sally Cummings. London, UK: Continuum, 2001. 161.
FEARON, James. "The Offense-­‐Defense Balance and War since 1648." In Annual Meetings of the International Studies Association. Chicago, Illinois 1995. 162.
FEDERAL RESEARCH DIVISION. Romania: A Country Study. Whitefish, MO: Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2004. 163.
FELKAY, Andrew. Out of Russian Orbit; Hungary Gravitates to the West. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1997. 164.
FENG, Liu and; Zhang, Ruizhuang "The Typologies of Realism." Chinese Journal of International Politics 1, no. 1 (2006): 109-­‐34. 165.
FINNEMORE, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. "Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics." Annual Review of Political Science 4, no. 1 (2001): 391-­‐416. 166.
FLECK, Robert K., and Christopher Kilby. "World Bank Independence: A Model and Statistical Analysis of Us Influence." Review of Development Economics 10, no. 2 (2006): 224-­‐40. 167.
FRASER, Cameron. "The Politics of EU-­‐Russia Energy Relations." EU-­‐Russia Energy Relations -­‐ EU-­‐Russia Centre Review 1, no. 9 (2009). 168.
FRATIANNI, Michele, and John Pattison. "Who Is Running the IMF: Critical Shareholders or the Staff?" In Multidisciplinary Economics: The Birth of a New Economics Faculty in the Netherlands, edited by Peter de Gijsel and Hans Schenk. Berlin: Springer, 2005. 169.
FREY, Bruno S, and Friedrich Schneider. "Competing Models of International Lending Activity." Journal of Development Economics 20, no. 2 (1986): 225-­‐45. 170.
FRITZ, Paul, and Kevin Sweeney. "The (De)Limitations of the Balance of Power Theory." International Interactions 30, no. 1 (2004): 285–308. 171.
FROST, Howard. "Europe’s Past, Europe’s Future. Eastern Europe’s Search for Security." Orbis Winter edition (1993). 172.
FUNDERBURK, David B. Pinstripes and Reds: An American Ambassador Caught between the State Department and the Romanian Communists. Washington (D.C.): Selous Foundation, 1987. 173.
GALLAGHER, Tom. "Feeble Embrace: Romania’s Engagement with Democracy, 1989– 94." Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politic 12, no. 2 (1996). 174.
GALLAGHER, Tom. Danube Détente -­‐ Romania’s Reconciliation with Hungary after 1996 -­‐ Available from http://balkanologie.revues.org/222.(1997). [accessed June 20 2014]. 175.
GALLAGHER, Tom. "Building Democracy in Romania: Internal Shortcomings and External Neglect." In Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe. Vol.2: International and Transnational Factors, edited by Jan Zielonka and Alex Pravda. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2001. 176.
GALLAGHER, Tom. "Balkan but Different: Romania and Bulgaria’s Contrasting Paths to NATO Membership 1994-­‐2002." Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 20, no. 4 (2004). 177.
GALLAGHER, Tom. Theft of a Nation: Romania since Communism. London, UK: Hurst & Co., 2005. 178.
GARTHOFF, Raymond .The Great Transition: American-­‐Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1994. 179.
GARVER, John W. "China’s U.S. Policies." In China Rising: Power and Motivation in Chinese Foreign Policy, edited by Yong Deng and Fei-­‐Ling Wang. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Inc., 2005. 180.
GAUPP, Peter. Staaten Als Rollenträger : Die Rollentheorie Als Analyse-­‐Instrument Von Aussenpolitik Und Internationalen Beziehungen [States as a Roller Support: The Role Theory as an Analytical Tool of Foreign Policy and International Relations]. Bern, SW: Liebefeld, 1983. 29 181.
GEORGESCU, Alina-­‐Alexandra. "Romanian Foreign Policy Change: From Isolation to Dependence (1989-­‐1994) ". Paper presented at the EFPU Research student conference on European Foreign Policy, on July 2, 2004: London School of Economics – Department of Foreign International Relations, 2004. 182.
GEORGESCU, Stefan, Marilena Munteanu, Tabriz Garayev, and Costel Stanca. "The Importance of Relations between Georgia and Romania for the Progress of Energy Projects." Constanta Maritime University Annals 18, no. 2 (2012). 183.
GHEORGHIU, Simion. "Politica Externa Post-­‐Decembrista a Romaniei (1991): "Fratii Nu Trebuie Sa Locuiasca in Mod Obligatoriu in Acelasi Apartament.[Romania’s Post-­‐Decembrist Foreign Policy (1991): Brothers Shouldn’t Necessarily Live In The Same Flat]" Studii Materiale de Istorie Contemporana -­‐ Institutul de Istorie Nicolae Iorga 9, no. 1 (2010): 231-­‐35. 184.
GHICA, Luciana and Marian Zulea. Politica De Securitate Naţională [National Security Policy]. Iasi, RO: Editura Polirom, 2007. 185.
GHOSE, Gauvav, and Patrick James. "Third-­‐Party Intervention in Ethno-­‐Religious Conflict: Role Theory, Pakistan, and War in Kashmir, 1965." Terrorism and Political Violence 17, no. 1 (2005). 186.
GILBERT, Alan. Must Global Politics Constrain Democracy? Great-­‐Power Realism, Democratic Peace, and Democratic Internationalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999. 187.
GILPIN, Robert. War and Change in World Politics Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981. 188.
GILPIN, Robert. "The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism." In Neorealism and Its Critics, edited by Robert O. Keohane, 301-­‐22. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1986. 189.
GILPIN, Robert. The Political Economy of International Relations Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987. 190.
GILPIN, Robert. "The Theory of Hegemonic War." Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18, no. 4 (1988): 591-­‐613. 191.
GILPIN, Robert. Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. 192.
GLASER, Charles L. "The Security Dilemma Revisited." World Politics 50, no. 1 (1997): 171-­‐201. 193.
GLASER, Charles L. "The Causes and Consequences of Arm Races " Annual Review of Political Science 3, no. 1 (2000): 251-­‐76. 194.
GLASER, Charles L., and Chaim Kaufmann. "What Is the Offense-­‐Defense Balance and Can We Measure It?" International Security 22, no. 4 (1998): 44-­‐82. 195.
GLAZOV, JAMIE. "Frontpage Magazine Symposium: Secrets of Communism’s “Collapse”." FrontPage Magazine http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jamie-­‐glazov/symposium-­‐secrets-­‐of-­‐communism%E2%80%99s-­‐
%E2%80%9Ccollapse%E2%80%9D/, no. (2010). [accessed January 12, 2015] 196.
GOLDGEIER, James M. Not Whether but When: The U.S. Decision to Enlarge NATO. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1999. 197.
GOLDMAN, Marshall. Putin, Power and the New Russia Petrostate. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2008. 198.
GOLONKA, Marta, Radek Pyffel, and Daniel Timoner. Partners or Rivals? Chinese Investments in Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, PL: Central and Eastern Europe Development Institute, 2012. 199.
GONCHAR, Michael, Vitali Martyniuk, and Olena Prystayko. "2009 Gas Conflict and Its Consequences for European Energy Security." EU-­‐Russia Energy Relations -­‐ EU-­‐Russia Centre Review 1, no. 9 (2009). 200.
GORBACHEV, Mikhail. Memoirs. London, UK: Doubleday, 1996. 201.
GOSU, Armand. "Politica Răsăriteană a României: 1990-­‐2005 [Romania's Foreign Policy Towards East: 1990 -­‐ 2005]." Contrafort 1, no. 135 (2006): 1-­‐7. 202.
GOVRIN, Yosef. Israeli-­‐Romanian Relations at the End of Ceausescu Era. New York, NY: Routledge, 2002. 203.
GRAY, Collin. "New Weapons and the Resort to Force." International Journal 30, no. 2 (1975): 238-­‐58. 204.
GRAZIOLI, Stefano. "L’asse Mosca-­‐Berlino È Il Perno Del Continente [The Moscow-­‐Berlin Axis is the pivot of the continent]." Limes, no. Available from 1 http://limes.espresso.repubblica.it/2008/05/13/lasse-­‐mosca-­‐berlino-­‐e-­‐il-­‐perno-­‐del-­‐
continente/?p=617. (2008). [accessed August 13, 2014] 205.
GRIECO, Joseph. "Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold." In The New International Relations, edited by Barry Buzan and Gerald Segal. London, UK: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1995. 206.
GUILLEMOLES, Alain. "Les leçons de la ‘guerre du gaz [The Lessons of the Gas War]." Politique Internationale 1, no. 123 (2009). 207.
GURAN, Petre. "Special Basarabia. O unire imposibilă: România Şi Republica Moldova [Special Basarabia. An Impossible Union: Romania and Republic of Moldova." Digi24 HD, 2013. 208.
GUSTAVSSON, Jakob. The Politics of Foreign Policy Change. Explaining the Swedish Reorientation on EC Membership. Lund, SE: Lund University Press, 1998. 209.
GUZZINI, Stefano. Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy. London, UK: Routledge, 1998. 210.
GUZZINI, Stefano. "A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations." European Journal of International Relations 6, no. 2 (2000): 147-­‐82. 211.
GUZZINI, Stefano. “Realisms at War”: Robert Gilpin’s Political Economy of Hegemonic War as a Critique of Waltz’s Neorealism Copenhagen Peace Research Institute Working Papers, 2002 Available from http://www.diis.dk/graphics/copri_publications/copri_publications/publications/11-­‐2002.pdf. (2002). [accessed May 7 2011]. 30 212.
GUZZINI, Stefano, and Anna Leander. "Wendt's Constructivism: A Relentless Quest for Synthesis." In Constructivism and International Relations: Alexander Wendt and His Critics, edited by Stefano Guzzini and Anna Leander. New York, NY: Routledge, 2006. 213.
HACKING, Ian. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. 214.
HALL, Richard A. "Rewriting the Revolution: Authoritarian Regime-­‐State Relations and the Triumph of Securitate Revisionism in Post-­‐Ceausescu Romania ", Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1996. 215.
HALL, Richard A. "Rewriting the Revolution: Authoritarian Regime-­‐State Relations and the Triumph of Securitate Revisionism in Post-­‐Ceausescu Romania." In Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University, 1997. 216.
HALL, Richard A. "The Uses of Absurdity: The Staged War Theory and the Romanian Revolution of December 1989." East European Politics and Societies 13, no. 3 (1999): 501-­‐42. 217.
HALL, Richard A. "The Securitate Roots of a Modern Romanian Fairy Tale: The Press, the Former Securitate, and the Historiography of December 1989." Radio Free Europe -­‐ “East European Perspectives,” 4, no. 7-­‐9 (2002). 218.
HALL, Richard A. The 1989 Romanian Revolution as Geopolitical Parlour Game: Brandstatter’s “Checkmate” Documentary and the Latest Wave in a Sea of Revisionism Available from http://homepage.mac.com/khallbobo/RichardHall/pubs/checkmate040405.html. (2005). [accessed December 14 2009]. 219.
HALL, Richard A. "High Time to Unpack Already: Why the Restless Journey of the “Soviet Tourists” of the Romanian Revolution Should Come to an End." Available from http://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/04/.(2013). [accessed December 20, 2013]. 220.
HALL, Richard A. "The Dynamics of Media Independence in Post-­‐Ceausescu Era." In Post-­‐Communism and the Media in Eastern Europe, edited by O'Neill Patrick. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2013a. 221.
HARNISCH, Sebastian. "Role Theory: Operationalization of Key Concepts." Heidelberg University Available from http://www.uni-­‐
heidelberg.de/md/politik/harnisch/person/publikationen/harnisch_2010_role_theory_conceptualization_of_key_concepts.pdf. (2010). [accessed November 20, 2014]. 222.
HARNISCH, Sebastian, Cornelia Frank, and Hanns W. Maull. Role Theory in International Relations. London, UK: Routledge, 2011. 223.
HARNISCH, Sebastian, and Hanns W. Maull. "Introduction." In Germany as a Civilian Power? The Foreign Policy of the Berlin Republic, edited by Sebastian Harnish and Hanns W. Maull. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2001. 224.
HARRINGTON, Joseph F., Karns Edward and Karns Scott. "American-­‐Romanian Relations, 1989-­‐1994." East European Quarterly 29, no. 2 (1995). 225.
HASLAM, Jonathan. No Virtue Like Necessity: Realist Thought in International Relations since Machiavelli. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002. 226.
HEIKKI, Patomaki, and Colin Wright. "“After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical Realism." International Studies Quarterly 44, no. 2 (2000). 227.
HENRIKSON, Allan K. "Good Neighbour Diplomacy Revisited." In Holding the Borders in a Global World, edited by H. Heather Nicol and Ian Townsend-­‐Gault. Vancouver, BT: University of British Columbia, 2005. 228.
HERNER-­‐KOVÁCS, Eszter. "Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Ethnic Lobby Success in the United States: The Case of HHRF." Minority Studies 15, no. 1 (2013): 199-­‐223. 229.
HERTZ, John. Political Realism and Political Idealism. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1951. 230.
HERTZ, John. The Nation-­‐State and the Crisis of World Politics. New York, NY: David McKay, 1976. 231.
HILL, Fiona. Energy Empire: Oil, Gas and Russia’s Revival. London, UK: The Foreign Policy Centre, 2004. 232.
HOBBES, Thomas. De Cive [English Version]. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1983. 233.
HOBBES, Thomas. Leviathan. Edited by C.B. Macpherson. New York, NY: Penguin, 1986. 234.
HOLSTI, Kalevi Jaakko. "National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy." International Studies Quarterly 14, no. 3 (1970). 235.
HOLSTI, Kalevi Jaakko. Why Nations Realign: Foreign Policy Restructuring in the Post-­‐war World. London, UK: Allen and Unwin, 1982. 236.
HOLSTI, Ole R. "Theories of International Relations." In Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations, edited by Michael J. Hogan and Thomas G. Patterson. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 237.
HOPF, Ted. "Polarity, the Offense-­‐Defense Balance, and War." American Political Science Review 85, no. 2 (1991): 475-­‐
93. 238.
HOPF, Ted. "The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory." International Security 23, no. 1 (1998): 171-­‐200. 239.
HORN, Gyula. ""A History Lesson for Everyone " In Romaniai Magyar Szo, edited by Tibor Inczefi, 1992. 240.
HOUGHTON, David Patrick. "Reinvigorating the Study of Foreign Policy Decision Making: Toward a Constructivist Approach." Foreign Policy Analysis 3, no. 1 (2007): 24-­‐45. 241.
HUGHES, Barry. Continuity and Change in World Politics. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000. 242.
HUNTINGTON, Samuel P. "U.S. Defense Strategy: The Strategic Innovations of the Reagan Years." In American Defense Annual 1987-­‐1988, edited by Joseph Kruzel. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1987. 31 243.
ICENER, Erhan. "Romania and Turkey: Friendship and Partnership on the Way to EU Membership." In The EU and Romania: Great Expectations, edited by David Phinnemore. London, UK: Federal Trust for Education and Research, 2006. 244.
ILIESCU, Ion. Revolutie si reforma [Revolution and Reform]. Bucharest, RO: Editura Enciclopedica, 1994. 245.
ILIESCU, Ion. Moments of History, Documents, Speeches, Comments, June 1990-­‐September 1991. Bucharest, RO: Editura Enciclopedica, 1996. 246.
ILIESCU, Ion. Revolutia Romana [the Romanian Revolution]. Bucharest, RO: Presa Nationala, 2001. 247.
ILIESCU, Ion. "Letter of Application on NATO Membership from the President of Romania to the Secretary General of NATO." Occasional Papers 3, no. 1 (2002). 248.
INGEBRITSEN, Christine, Iver B. Neumann, Sieglinde Gstöhl, and Jessica Beyer. Small States in International Relations. Seattle, WS: University of Washington Press, 2006. 249.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PUBLICATIONS. Us-­‐Saudi Arabia Diplomatic and Political Cooperation Handbook. Washington, D.C., 2009. 250.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PUBLICATIONS -­‐ "Russia Foreign Policy and National Security Yearbook." Washington D.C. 1999. 251.
IONESCU, Mihail. "Romania's Westernization and NATO Membership -­‐ a Historical Approach." Occasional Papers 3, no. 1 (2002). 252.
IONESCU, Mihail. Romania-­‐NATO Cronologie 1989-­‐2004 [Romania -­‐ NATO Chronology 1989 -­‐ 2004]. Bucharest, RO: Editura Militara, 2004. 253.
IONESCU, Mihail. "Wider Black Sea Region Cooperation: A Historical Survey." In The Role of the Wider Black Sea Area in a Future European Security Space, edited by Jean Dufourcq and Lionel Ponsard. Rome, IT: NATO Defense College, 2005. 254.
IONESCU, Mihail. România -­‐ Uniunea Europeană: Cronologie: 1989-­‐2005 [Romanian -­‐ European Union: Chronology 1989-­‐2005]. Bucharest, RO: Editura Militara, 2006. 255.
IONESCU, Mihail. "The Development of the Military Relations between Romania and Israel." In The Middle-­‐East and the Cold War -­‐ Proceedings of Israeli-­‐Romanian International Seminars. Tel Aviv, IR: Israeli Defense Forces-­‐Department of History, The Institute for Military History, 2006b. 256.
IORDACHI, Constantin. "Politics of Citizenship in Post-­‐Communist Romania: Legal Traditions, Restitution of Nationality and Multiple Memberships." In Citizenship Policies in the New Europe, edited by Rainer Baubock, Bernhard Perchinig and Wiebke Sievers. Amsterdam, NL: Amsterdam University Press, 2009. 257.
IORDACHI, Constantin. "The Quest for Central Europe: Symbolic Geographies and Historical Regions." In Regional and International Relations of Central Europe, edited by Zlatko and Petr Drulák Sabic. London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan, 2012. 258.
ITU, Ioan. "Armata trage in propriul minister [the Army Is Firing Upon Its Own Ministry]." Tinerama January 8-­‐14, 1993. 259.
IVAN, Ruxandra. "Patterns of Cooperation and Conflict: The Relations between Romania and Ukraine, 1992-­‐2006 " In Beyond the borders. Ukraine and European Neighbourhood Policy Conference. Rzeszow and Krakow, PL: University of Information Technology and Management and Tischner European University, June 7-­‐9, 2006. 260.
IVAN, Ruxandra. La Politique Étrangere Roumaine (1990–2006). Brussels, BE: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 2009. 261.
IVAN, Ruxandra. "Black Sea Regional Leadership in Romanian Foreign Policy Discourse." In New Regionalism or No Regionalism?: Emerging Regionalism in the Black Sea Area, edited by Ruxandra Ivan. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 2012. 262.
JABRI, Vivienne. "Reflections on the Study of International Relations." In Trevor C. Salmon and Mark F. Imber. New York, NY: Routledge, 2008. rd
263.
JACKSON, Robert, and Georg Sorensen. Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches (III Edition). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007. 264.
JERVIS, Robert. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976. 265.
JERVIS, Robert. "Cooperation under the Security Dilemma." World Politics 30, no. 2 (1978): 167-­‐214. 266.
JERVIS, Robert. "The Future of World Politics: Will It Resemble the Past?" International Security 16, no. 3 (1992): 39-­‐73. 267.
JERVIS, Robert. "Hans Morgenthau, Realism, and the Study of International Politics. (Sixtieth Anniversary, 1934-­‐1994: The Legacy of Our Past.)." Social Research 61, no. 4 (1994): 853-­‐77. 268.
JERVIS, Robert. "Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate." International Security 24, no. 1 (1999): 42-­‐63. 269.
JERVIS, Robert, and Jack Snyder. Dominoes and Bandwagons: Strategic Beliefs and Great Power Competition in the Eurasian Rimland. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1991. 270.
JESZENSZKY, Géza. "Hungary’s Foreign Policy Dilemmas after Regaining Sovereignty." Society and Economy 29, no. 1 (2007). 271.
JONES, Christopher M. "Bureaucratic Politics and Organizational Process Models." In Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association. Hilton San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, March 26-­‐29, 2008. 272.
JUNEAU, Thomas. "Neoclassical Realist Strategic Analysis: A Statement." In European Consortium on Political Research Graduate Student Conference. Dublin, Ireland, 2010. 273.
KANJI, Omario. "Security." In Beyond Intractability, edited by G. and H. Burgess. Denver, CO: Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, 2003. 32 274.
KATZENSTEIN, Peter. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1996. 275.
KATZENSTEIN, Peter J. "Introduction." In The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, edited by Peter J Katzenstein. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1996. 276.
KAUFMAN, Robert G. "To Balance or Bandwagon?’ Alignment Decisions in 1930s Europe." Security Studies 1, no. 1 (1992): 417–47. 277.
KAVALIAUSKAS, Tomas. Transformations in Central Europe between 1989 and 2012: Geopolitical, Cultural and Socioeconomic Shifts. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2012. 278.
KAY, Shean. "Nato and the Future of European Security." Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1998. 279.
KELLEY, Judith. Ethnic Politics in Europe: The Power of Norms and Incentives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. 280.
KEOHANE, Robert O. "Alliances, Threats, and the Uses of Neorealism." International Security 13, no. 169-­‐176 (1988). 281.
KERSTEN, Charles. "Rethinking Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment." The Yale Journal of International Law 34, no. 1 (2009). 282.
KING, Charles. "Make Way for Romania." Christian Science Monitor 88, no. 236 (1996). 283.
KING, Charles. The Moldovans: Romania, Russia, and the Politics of Culture. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1999. 284.
KING, Charles. "Making Time in the Middle Ground: Contested Identities and Moldovan Foreign Policy " In Ideology and National Identity in Post-­‐Communist Foreign Polices, edited by Rick Fawn. Portland, OR: Frank Cass, 2004. 285.
KINIKLIOGLU, Suat. "The Anatomy of Turkish-­‐Russian Relations." Insight Turkey 8, no. 2 (2006). 286.
KIRSTE, Knut, and Hanns W. Maull. "Zivilmacht Und Rollentheorie [Civilian Power and Role Theory]." Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 3, no. 2 (1996). 287.
KNIGHT, Amy W. The KGB: Police and Politics in the Soviet Union. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman, 1988. 288.
KOSMINSKY, Jay P; Michael Johns. "Bush to Gorbachev: Choose between Saddam and the West." Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum 280 (1990). 289.
KOSTECKI, Wojciech. "Prevention of Ethnic Conflict -­‐ Lessons from Romania." Berghof Occasional Paper 19 (2002). 290.
KOZHANOV, A. Nikolay. "U.S. Economic Sanctions against Iran: Undermined by External Factors." Middle East Policy Journal XVIII, no. 3 (2011). 291.
KRAMER, Heinz. A Changing Turkey: The Challenge to Europe and the United States. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 2000. 292.
KRASNER, Stephen. "Are Bureaucracies Important? Or Allison Wonderland." Foreign Policy 7, no. 1 (1972). 293.
KRASNER, Stephen. Structural Conflict: The Third World against Global Liberalism. Berkeley, CA: University of California, 1985. 294.
KRASTEVA, Anna. "Francophonie et démocratisation post-­‐communiste [Francophony and Post Communist Democratisation]." Hermès 1, no. 40 (2004). 295.
KRATOCHWIL, Friedrich. Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989. 296.
KRATOCHWIL, Friedrich. "Constructing a New Orthodoxy?; Wendt’s Social Theory of International Politics and the Constructivist Challenge." In Constructivism and International Relations: Alexander Wendt and His Critics, edited by Stefano Guzzini and Anna Leander. New York, NY: Routledge, 2006. 297.
KRAUS, Michael, and Ronald D. Liebowitz. Russia and Eastern Europe after Communism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996. 298.
KROTZ, Ulrich. "National Role Conceptions and Foreign Policies: France and Germany Compared." Program for the Study of Germany and Europe Working Paper 2, no. 1 (2002). 299.
KRUGLASHOV, Anatolii. "Troublesome Neighbourhood: Romania and Ukraine Relationship " Nowa Ukraina -­‐ New Ukraine 11, no. 1 (2011). 300.
KUBALKOVA, Vendulka. "Introduction." In Foreign Policy in a Constructed World, edited by Vendulka Kubálková. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2001. 301.
KUNZ, Barbara. "Power, Vision and Order in World Politics: A Neoclassical Realist View." In NISA-­‐conference Power, Vision, and Order in World Politics. Odense, DK, University of Southern Denmark, 2007. 302.
KUT, Sule, and Asli Sirin. "The Bright Side of the Balkans Politics: Cooperation in the Balkans." In Is Southeastern Europe Doomed to Instability?, edited by Dimitri A. Sotiropoulos and Thanos Veremis. New York, NY: Routledge, 2002. 303.
KUZIO, Taras. "Guam as a Regional and Security Organisation." In National Security and Foreign Policy of Azerbaijan Conference. University of Toronto, Canada, 2008. 304.
LABS, Eric J. "Do Weak States Bandwagon?" Security Studies 1, no. 1 (1992): 383–416. 305.
LE PRESTRE, Philippe G. "Defining Foreign Policy Roles after the Cold War." In Role Quests in the Post-­‐Cold War Era, edited by Philippe G Le Prestre. Montreal, CA: McGill-­‐Queen‟s University Press., 1997. 306.
LEBOW, Richard Ned "Classical Realism." In International Relations Theories Discipline and Diversity edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, 52-­‐70. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007. 33 307.
LEFEBVRE, Stephane. "Changes in the Romanian Armed Forces." IHS Jane’s Intelligence Review 7, no. 1 (1995). 308.
LEGRO, Jeffrey W., and Andrew Moravcsik. "Is Anybody Still a Realist?" International Security 24, no. 2 (1999): 5-­‐55. 309.
LEMKE, Douglas. "Great Powers in the Post-­‐Cold War World: A Power Transition Theory Perspective.” In Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century, edited by Thazha Varkey Paul, James Wirtz and Michel Fortmann. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004. 310.
LESSER, Ian O., Bruce R. Nardullli, and Lory A. Arghavan. "Sources of Conflict in the Greater Middle East." In Sources of Conflict in the 21 St Century, edited by Zalmay Khalilzad and Ian O. Lesser. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1998. 311.
LÉVESQUE, Jacques The Enigma of 1989 -­‐ the Ussr and the Liberation of Eastern Europe. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997. 312.
LEVY, Jack S., and William R. Thompson. Hegemonic Threats and Great Power Balancing in Europe, 1495-­‐1999 University of New York, Available from http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/seminars/levy.pdf .(2003). [accessed May 7 2011]. 313.
LIN, Y. Christina. "The Prince of Rosh: Russian Energy Imperialism and the Emerging Eurasian Military Alliance of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation." ISPSW Institut für Strategie-­‐ Politik-­‐ Sicherheits-­‐ und Wirtschaftsberatung Berlin, Germany (2010). 314.
LINDEN, Carl A. "Romanian Foreign Policy in the 1980s: Domestic – Foreign Policy Linkages." In Domestic Policy in Eastern Europe in the 1980s: Trends and Prospects, edited by Sharon L. Wolchik Michael J. Sodaro, 47-­‐80. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 1983. 315.
LO, Bobo. “Russia’s Crisis – What It Means for Regime Stability and Moscow’s Relations with the World. London, UK: Centre for European Reform, 2009. 316.
LO, Bobo. "Russia’s Crisis – What It Means for Regime Stability and Moscow’s Relations with the World." Policy Brief, Centre for European Reform (2009). 317.
LUPU, Corvin. Politica Romaniei de integrare in organismele Euro-­‐Atlantice [Romania's Euro-­‐Atlantic Acession Policy. Sibiu, RO: Editura Alma Mater, 2000. 318.
LYNN-­‐JONES, Sean M. "Offense-­‐Defense Theory and Its Critics." Security Studies 4, no. 4 (1995): 660-­‐91. 319.
LYNN-­‐JONES, Sean M.. Does Offense-­‐Defense Theory Have a Future? Universite du Montreal, Available from http://www.cepsi.umontreal.ca/uploads/gersi_publications.filename/Lynn-­‐Jones.pdf .(2001). [accessed May 15 2011]. 320.
LYNN-­‐JONES, Sean M. "Preface." In Offense, Defense and War, edited by Michael E. Brown, Owen R. Cote Jr., Sean M. Lynn-­‐Jones and Steven E. Miller. Boston, MT: The MIT Press, 2004. 321.
MAIOR, George Cristian. Noul Aliat. Regandirea Politicii De Aparare a Romaniei La Inceputul Secolului Xxi [the New Ally. Rethinking Romania's Defence Policy at the Begining of the Xxith Century]. Bucharest, RO: Editura RAO, 2009. 322.
MANOLI, Panagiota. "Greece’s Engagement with the Black Sea Economic Cooperation." Xenophon Paper -­‐ International Centre for Black Sea Studies 2 (2007). 323.
MANOLI, Panagiota. The Dynamics of Black Sea Subregionalism. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2012. 324.
MANU, Florel. "Armata română, împotriva lui Militaru [the Romanian Army against Militaru]." Adevarul March 17, 2010. 325.
MARCH, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. "The Logic of Appropriateness." ARENA Working Papers 1, no. 9 (2004). 326.
MARCH, James G., and Herbert A. Simon. Organization. New York, NY: Wiley, 1958. 327.
MARIANI, Bernardo, and Chrissie Hirst. Arms Production, Exports and Decision-­‐Making in Central and Eastern Europe. London, UK: Saferworld, 2002. 328.
MARIN, Georgiana. "Romania and Central Asia." EUCAM National Policy Series 12, no. 1 (2013). 329.
MARKUS, Ustina. "Ukraine Plods On." In Annual Survey of Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union: 1997 -­‐ the Challenge of Integration, edited by Peter Rutland. Armonk, NY: East West Institute, 1998. 330.
MCDONALD, Matt. "Constructivism." In Security Studies: An Introduction, edited by Paul D. Williams. London, UK: Routledge, 2008. 331.
MEARSHEIMER, John J. "Back to the Future -­‐ Instability in Europe after the Cold War." International Security 15, no. 1 (1990): 5-­‐56. 332.
MEARSHEIMER, John J. "The False Promise of Institutional Institutions." In The Perils of Anarchy, edited by Michael E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-­‐Jones and Steven E. Miller. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995. 333.
MEARSHEIMER, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York, NY: W. W. Norton, 2001. 334.
MEARSHEIMER, John J. "Structural Realism." In International Relations Theories Discipline and Diversity edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007. 335.
MELESCANU, Theodor. "The National Security of Romania—Priorities and Legitimate Concerns." Central European Issues 1, no. 1 (1995). 336.
MELESCANU, Theodor. The Rebirth of the Romanian Diplomacy: 1994-­‐1996. Cluj-­‐Napoca, RO: Editura Dacia, 2002. 337.
MEREUTA, Mihai. "Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Romania and Ukraine." Codrii Cosminului Political Journal 17, no. 1 (2011). 338.
MICU, Mircea. "Romanian Foreign Policy in the Context of Transatlantic Divergences." Romanian Journal of Political Science 7, no. 2 (2007). 34 339.
MICU, Mircea. "Romanian Security in an Evolving European Context." Romanian Journal of European Affairs 10, no. 2 (2010). 340.
MICU, Mircea. "The Europeanization of Romanian Foreign Policy: Mitigating European and National ‘Misfits’ in the International Criminal Court and Kosovo Cases." Romanian Journal of European Affairs 11, no. 4 (2011). 341.
MICU, Nicolae. "The Policy of Romania Towards the BSEC and the Black Sea Region." Xenophon Paper -­‐ International Centre for Black Sea Studies 2 (2007). 342.
MIHAI, Florin. "Spionul Militaru, înlocuit prin răzmerița cadrelor [the spy Militaru replaced through a mutiny]." Jurnalul National February 19, 2010. 343.
MIHAILESCU, Serban. "Finalitatea Integrarii Europene -­‐ Un Punct De Vedere Romanesc [The Finality of the European Integration -­‐ a Romanian Point of View]." In Romania Si Viitorul Europei [Romania and the Future of Europe], edited by Adrian Nastase. Bucharest, RO: Editura Autonoma Monitorul Oficial, 2001. 344.
MILAN, Brglez. "Reconsidering Wendt’s Meta-­‐Theory: Blending Scientific Realism with Social Constructivism." Journal of International Relations and Development 4, no. 4 (2001). 345.
MILEVSCHI, Octavian. "Romania: From Brotherly Affection with Moldova to Disillusionment and Pragmatism." In Moldova: Arena of International Influences, edited by Marcin Kosienkowski and William Schreiber. Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, 2012. 346.
MILOSAN, Alexandru-­‐Ioan, and Xueyu Wang. "Foreign Policy Analysis between China, Romania and the EU." Recent 13, no. 1 (2012). 347.
MINISTRY OF ECONOMY AND TRADE OF LEBANON -­‐ Economic Research Unit. Lebanese Exports to Romania: Beirut, LB, 2012. 348.
MINISTRY OF ECONOMY OF ROMANIA -­‐ DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN TRADE. Information by Country: Iraq: Bucharest, RO, 2011. 349.
MINISTRY OF ECONOMY OF ROMANIA -­‐ DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN TRADE. Practical Business Guide for Azerbaijan: Bucharest, RO, 2012. 350.
MINISTRY OF ECONOMY OF ROMANIA -­‐ DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN TRADE. Practical Business Guide for Kuwait: Bucharest, RO, 2013. 351.
MINISTRY OF ECONOMY OF ROMANIA -­‐ DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN TRADE. Practical Business Guide for Kazakhstan: Bucharest, RO, 2014. 352.
MINISTRY OF ECONOMY OF ROMANIA -­‐ DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN TRADE. Iran Business Handbook: Bucharest, RO, 2014. 353.
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE. "Military Strategy of Romania." (2000). 354.
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, SUPREME COUNCIL OF NATIONAL DEFENSE. "Concept Regarding the National Security of Romania." (1991). 355.
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, SUPREME COUNCIL OF NATIONAL DEFENSE. "Integrated Concept Regarding the National Security of Romania." (1994). 356.
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, SUPREME COUNCIL OF NATIONAL DEFENSE. "Romania's National Security Strategy -­‐ Democratic Stability, Durable Economic Development and Euro-­‐Atlantic Integration " (1999). 357.
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, SUPREME COUNCIL OF NATIONAL DEFENSE. "Romania's National Security Strategy." (2001). 358.
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, SUPREME COUNCIL OF NATIONAL DEFENSE. "Romania's National Defense Strategy." (2006). 359.
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, SUPREME COUNCIL OF NATIONAL DEFENSE. "Romania's National Security Strategy." (2006). 360.
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, SUPREME COUNCIL OF NATIONAL DEFENSE. "Romania's National Security Strategy." (2007). 361.
MIROIU, Andrei and Simona Soare. "Politica De Securitate a Romaniei (1878-­‐2006) [Romania's Security Policy (1978-­‐
2006]." In Politica De Securitate Nationala. Concepte, Institutii, Procese [National Security Policy. Concepts, Institutions, Processes], edited by Luciana Ghica and Marian Zulean. Bucharest, RO: Editura Polirom, 2007. 362.
MIRZOYAN, Alla. Armenia, the Regional Powers, and the West. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 363.
MITROKHIN, Vasili and Christopher Andrew. The Mitrokhin Archive: The KGB in Europe and the West. London, UK: Gardners Books, 2000. 364.
MODELSKI, George, and William R. Thompson. "Long Cycles and Global War." In Handbook of War Studies, edited by Manus Midlarsky. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman, 1989. 365.
MONTEN, Johnathan. "Thucydides and Modern Realism." International Studies Quarterly 50, no. 1 (2006): 3-­‐25. 366.
MORALES HERNANDEZ, Javier. "The Influence of Identities on National Interests: The Case of Russia's Security Policy." 47th International Studies Association (ISA) Annual Convention, San Diego, California, USA -­‐ March 22-­‐25 (2006). 367.
MORGENTHAU, Hans. Politics among Nations -­‐ the Struggle for Power and Peace. 3rd Edition ed. New York, NY: Knopf, 1973 [1954] [1948]. 368.
MORGENTHAU, Hans J. Truth and Power: Essays of a Decade 1960–70. New York, NY: Praeger, 1970. 35 369.
MOSES, Alfred. "Romania's NATO Bid." The SAIS Review of International Affairs 18, no. 1 (1998). 370.
MOSHES, Arkady. "Littoral States and Region-­‐Building around the Black Sea." In The Black Sea Region: Cooperation and Security Building, edited by Oleksandr Pavliuk and Ivanna Klympush-­‐Tsintsadze. New York, NY: East West Institute, 2003. 371.
MOTOC, Iulia and Serban Filip Cioculescu. Manual De Analiza a Politicii Externe [Analytical Manual of Foreign Policy]. Iasi, RO: Editura Polirom, 2010. 372.
MULLER, Liana. "Romania's Way into the E.U.", University of Vienna -­‐ Department of European Studies, 2002. 373.
MULLER, Sean. "The Conflict between Basescu and Tariceanu a Governmental System Viewpoint " Sfera Politicii [Political Sphere] 1, no. 126-­‐127 (2007). 374.
MUNDELL, Robert A, and Alexander K. Swoboda. "Monetary Problems of the International Economy." edited by Robert A Mundell and Alexander K. Swoboda. Chicago, MI: University of Chicago Press, 1969. 375.
MUNGIU -­‐ PIPPIDI, Alina. "Cat de revolutionara a fost revolutia romana?[How Revolutionary Was the Romanian Revolution?]." Revista 22 XV, no. 881 Available from http://www.revista22.ro/cat-­‐de-­‐revolutionara-­‐a-­‐fost-­‐revolutia-­‐romana-­‐
3416.html.(2007). [accessed January 21, 2014] 376.
MUNTEANU, Emil. "O revolutie neaprobata [an Unapproved Revolution]." Romania Libera I, no. 3 (March 12, 1990): 69-­‐70. 377.
MUNTEANU, Igor. "The Policy of Moldova Towards the Black Sea Region and the BSEC." Xenophon Paper -­‐ International Centre for Black Sea Studies 2 (2007). 378.
NANAY, Julia. "Russia’s Role in the Eurasian Energy Market: Seeking Control in the Face of Growing Challenges." In Russian Energy Power and Foreign Relations: Implications for Conflict and Cooperation, edited by Robert W. Orttung, Jeronim Perović and Andreas Wenger. London, UK: Taylor & Francis, 2009. 379.
NASTASE, Adrian. "Viziune Asupra Viitorului Europei [Vision Regarding the Future of Europe]." In Romania Si Viitorul Europei [Romania and the Future of Europe], edited by Adrian Nastase. Bucharest, RO: Editura Autonoma Monitorul Oficial, 2001 380.
NASTASE, Adrian. De La Karl Marx La Coca Cola. Bucharest, RO: Nemira, 2004. 381.
NASTASE, Adrian. Dimensiunile Politicii Externe În Tratatele României. [Foreign Political Dimension in Romanian Treaties]. Bucharest, RO: Regia Autonomă Monitorul Oficial, 2005. 382.
NASTASE, Adrian. Romania Dupa Malta [Romania after Malta] 1st Volume. Bucharest, RO: Editura Fundatia Europeana Titulescu, 2006. 383.
NASTASE, Adrian. Romania Dupa Malta [Romania after Malta] 4th Volume. Bucharest, RO: Editura Fundatia Europeana Nicolae Titulescu, 2007. 384.
NASTASE, Adrian. Romania Europeana [the European Romania]. Bucharest, RO: Editura MondoMedia, 2007b. 385.
NASTASE, Adrian. Romania Dupa Malta [Romania after Malta] 10th Volume. Bucharest, RO: Editura Fundatia Europeana Titulescu, 2012. 386.
NATION, Craig, and Dmitri Trenin. Russian Security Strategy under Putin: U.S. And Russian Perspectives. Carlisle, PA: US: Strategic Studies Institute 2007. 387.
NELSON, Daniel. "Post-­‐Communist Insecurities and the Romanian Case." In Romania, after Tyranny, edited by Daniel Nelson. Oxford, UK: Westview Press, 1992. 388.
NELSON, Daniel. "Post-­‐Communist Romania’s Search for Security." In The Volatile Powder Keg, edited by Stephen F. Larrabee. Washington D.C.: The American University Press, 1994. 389.
NELSON, Daniel. "Romanian Security." In Romania since 1989: Politics, Economics and Society, edited by Henry F. Carey. Boulder, CO: Lexington Books, 2004. 390.
NICHOL, Jim. "Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Security Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests." Congressional Research Service RL 30679 (2009). 391.
NICHOL, Jim. "Kyrgyzstan: Recent Developments and U.S. Interests " Congressional Research Service RL 97-­‐690 (2013). 392.
NIEBUHR, Reinhold. Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1932. 393.
NIEBUHR, Reinhold. Reflections on the End of an Era. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1934. 394.
NIEBUHR, Reinhold. The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness: A Vindication of Democracy and a Critique of Its Traditional Defence. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1944. 395.
NIKOLAOS, Tzifakis. "The Yugoslav Wars’ Implications on Romanian Security." Southeast European Politics 2, no. 1 (2001). 396.
NIKOLOV, Krassimir. "The Black Sea Cooperation and Bulgaria: Context, Concepts and Actors." In Europe on the Black Sea Shore, edited by Krassimir Nikolov. Sofia, BG: Bulgarian European Community Studies Association, 2007. 397.
NIKOLOV, Krassimir, and Kaloyan Simeonov. "The Effect of EU Accession on Bulgaria." In Enlarging the European Union: Effects on the New Member States and the EU. Brussels, BE: Trans European Policy Studies Association, 2009. 398.
NOUTCHEVA, Gergana, and Dimitar Bechev. "The Successful Laggards: Bulgaria and Romania’s Accession to the EU." East European Politics and Societies 22, no. 1 (2008). 399.
NURIYEV, Elkhan. The South Caucasus at the Crossroads: Conflicts, Caspian Oil and Great Power Politics Berling, DE: Lit Verlag, 2007. 36 400.
Ó BEACHÁIN, Donnacha, and Abel Polese. "Introduction." In The Colour Revolutions in the Former Soviet Republics, edited by Donnacha Ó Beacháin and Abel Polese. Oxon, UK: Routledge, 2010. 401.
ONUF, Nicholas. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989. 402.
ORBAN, Anita. Power, Energy, and the New Russian Imperialism. Westport, CT: Praeger Security International, 2008. 403.
OZHIGANOV, Edward. "The Republic of Moldova: Transdniester and the 14th Army." In Managing Conflict in the Former Soviet Union: Russian and American Perspectives edited by Aleksei Arbatov, Abram Chayes, Antonia Chayes Handler and Lara Olson. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1997. 404.
PACEPA, Ion MIhai. Red Horizons. London, UK: Heinemann, 1988. 405.
PACEPA, Ion MIhai. Mostenirea Kremlinului [Inheritance of the Kremlin]. Bucharest, RO: Venus, 1993. 406.
PALAGHIA, Mihai. "Turiştii Sovietici erau din forţele speciale ale URSS“ [Soviet Tourists Were Members of the Special Soviet Forces] Interview by Cristian Delcea." Adevarul, no. http://adevarul.ro/news/eveniment/mihai-­‐palaghia-­‐turistii-­‐sovietici-­‐
erau-­‐fortele-­‐speciale-­‐urss-­‐1_50ad0eae7c42d5a6638e02de/index.html [cited March 4, 2012]. 407.
PALAN, Ronen. "A World of Their Making: An Evaluation of the Constructivist Critique in International Relations." Review of International Studies 26, no. 4 (2000): 575-­‐98. 408.
PANAITE, Sergiu, Victoria Nedelciuc, and Ovidiu Voicu. "Reacquiring of Romanian Citizenship: A Policy with Vision?" Soros Foundation and Authority for Citizenship (2011). 409.
PAPACOSTEA, Şerban. "Post-­‐Scriptum La O Controversa [Post-­‐scriptum to a controversy]." Revista 22 XXII, no. 1097 Available from http://www.revista22.ro/post-­‐scriptum-­‐la-­‐o-­‐controvers259-­‐10158.html. (2011). [accessed January 2, 2014]. 410.
PAPACOSTEA, Şerban. "Sfârşitul unei tiranii şi începutul unei mistificări istorice. Revelaţiile unui document ignorat [The end of a Tyranny and the beginning of a historic mystification. The revelations of an ignored document]." Revista 22 XXI, no. 1085 Available from http://www.revista22.ro/sfrsitul-­‐unei-­‐tiranii-­‐si-­‐nceputul-­‐unei-­‐mistificari-­‐istorice-­‐revelatiile-­‐unui-­‐
document-­‐ignorat-­‐9584.html.(2011). [accessed January 2, 2014] 411.
PAPADIMITRIOU, Dimitris, and David Phinnemore. Romania and the European Union: From Marginalisation to Membership? Oxon, UK: Routledge, 2008. 412.
PAPAKOSTAS, Nikolaus El. "Romanian Foreign Policy Post Euro-­‐Atlantic Accession: So Far So Good." Institute of International Economic Relations, Athens, GR, 2009. 413.
PAPAVA, Vladimer, and Michael Tokmazishvili. "Russian Energy Politics and the EU: How to Change the Paradigm." Caucasian Review of International Affairs 4, no. 2 (2010). 414.
PARVULESCU, Cristian. "Renewing Politics; the Electoral Reform – a Stage of the Political Class Restructuring." Political Sphere 1, no. 101 (2003). 415.
PASCU, IOAN MIRCEA. "Romania and the Yugoslav Conflict." International Security 3, no. 1 (1993). 416.
PASCU, IOAN MIRCEA. Extinderea NATO: Cazul Romaniei (Raport Personal) [NATO Enlargement: The Romanian Case -­‐ Personal Report]. Vol. Available from http://ioanmirceapascu.ro/media/pdf/extinderea-­‐nato-­‐ioan-­‐mircea-­‐pascu.pdf [accessed January 20, 2014). Bucharest, RO: Editura Proiect, 2007. 417.
PASCU, Ioan Mircea. "Un Document Fabricat [A Forged Document]." Revista 22 XXII, no. 1099 (2011): http://www.revista22.ro/un-­‐document-­‐fabricat-­‐drept-­‐la-­‐replica-­‐10157.html [cited January 2, 2014]. 418.
PASCU, Ioan Mircea. "Relatia României Cu Rusia [Romania’s relation with Russia]" In Discutia Saptamanii, edited by Dan Tapalaga. Available from http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-­‐politic-­‐2486727-­‐video-­‐ioan-­‐mircea-­‐pascu-­‐regreta-­‐desfiintarea-­‐
firului-­‐rosu-­‐moscova-­‐vorbeste-­‐despre-­‐misiunea-­‐cand-­‐ion-­‐iliescu-­‐semnat-­‐tratatul-­‐urss-­‐pledeaza-­‐pentru-­‐relatii-­‐economice-­‐
rusia.htm: BBC Romania.(2008). [accessed January 2, 2014]. 419.
PAUL, Thazha Varkey. "Introduction: The Enduring Axioms of Balance of Power Theory and Their Contemporary Relevance." In Balance of Power -­‐ Theory and Practice in the 21st Century, edited by Thazha Varkey Paul, James Wirtz and Michel Fortmann. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004. 420.
PAVLIUK, Oleksandr. "Ukraine and Regional Cooperation in Central and Eastern Europe." Security Dialogue 28, no. 3 (1997). 421.
PENCEA, Sarmiza, and Iulia Monica Oehler-­‐Sincai. "Main Trends of Trade Flows between Romania and China in the Last Decade." Romanian Economic and Business Review 7, no. 3 (2012). 422.
PHILLIPS, Ann. Power and Influence after the Cold War -­‐ Germany in East-­‐Central Europe. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000. 423.
PHILLIPS, Andrew Bradley. "Constructivism." In International Relations Theory for the Twenty-­‐First Century, edited by Martin Griffiths. New York, NY: Routledge, 2007. 424.
PHINNEMORE, David. "Stuck in the 'Grey Zone'? -­‐ Fears and Frustrations in Romania's Quest for EU Membership." In Perspectives on the Enlargement of the European Union, edited by Cameron Ross. Leiden, ND: Koninklijke Brill nv, 2002. 425.
PHINNEMORE, David. "Moldova: A Step Too Far for EU Enlargement." In ECPR -­‐ 3rd Pan-­‐European Conference on EU Politics. Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey, 2006. 426.
PLESHAKOV, Constantine. There Is No Freedom without Bread!: 1989 and the Civil War That Brought Down Communism. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009. 427.
POGHOSYAN, Tevan. "Armenia's Foreign and Security Policy: Is Complementarity Possible?" In Reassessing Security in 37 the South Caucasus: Regional Conflicts and Transformation, edited by Annie Jafalian. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2011. 428.
POP, Adrian, Gabriela Pascariu, George Anglitoiu, and Alexandru Purcarus. " Romania and the Republilc of Moldova: Between the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Prospect of EU Enlargement," Pre-­‐Accession Impact Studies I III, no. 5 (2005). 429.
POP, Liliana. "Romania’s Foreign Policy after EU Enlargement: A Country in Search of a Role." Institute for the Study of European Transformations -­‐ London Metropolitan University, 2009. 430.
POP-­‐ELECHES, Grigore. "Romania's Politics of Dejection." Journal of Democracy 12, no. 3 (2001). 431.
POPA, Cosmin. "Under the Sign of an Historical Contretemps -­‐ a Try to Re-­‐Evaluate Romanian -­‐ Russian/Soviet Relations." Sfera Politicii [Political Sphere] 95-­‐96, no. 1 (2001). 432.
POPA, Silviu Daniel. "NATO Influence on Romanian National Security in the Post Cold War Era." Naval Postgraduate School -­‐ http://hdl.handle.net/10945/5856 (2002) [cited June 30, 2014] 433.
POPESCU, Gabriel. "Transcending National Space: The Institutionalization of Cross-­‐Border Territory in the Lower Danube Euroregion." In The ASGHATE Research Companion to Border Studies, edited by Doris Wastl-­‐Walter. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2011. 434.
POPESCU, Irinel. “Târgu Mureş 1990: Conflict Între maghiari şi români sau reactivarea fostei Securităţi? [Targu Mures 1990 -­‐ Conflict between Romanians and Hungarians or the Reactivation of the Former Securitate?]." Adevarul.ro Available from http://adevarul.ro/news/eveniment/video-­‐targu-­‐mures-­‐1990-­‐conflict-­‐maghiari-­‐romani-­‐reactivarea-­‐fostei-­‐securitatii-­‐
1_50ad5cfc7c42d5a66393b50c/index.html. (2010). [accessed January 3, 2014] 435.
POPESCU, Liliana. "A Change of Power in Romania: The Results and Significance of the November 1996 Elections." Government and Opposition 32, no. 2 (1997). 436.
POPESCU, Liliana. "Europeanization of the Romanian Foreign Policy." Romanian Journal of European Affairs 10, no. 4 (2010). 437.
POPESCU, Marina. "The Parliamentary and Presidential Elections in Romania, November 2000." Electoral Studies 22, no. 2 (2003). 438.
POPESCU, Oana. "The Current State of Relations between Romania and Kosovo and Prospects for Evolution." In Kosovo Calling” – International conference to launch the position papers on the Kosovo’s relationship with EU and regional non-­‐
recognising countries, edited by Kosovo Foundation for Open Society and British Council. Prishtina, KO, 2012. 439.
PORCH, Douglas. "Military ‘Culture’ and the Fall of France in 1940." International Security 24, no. 4 (2000). 440.
PORTOCALA, Radu and Olivier Weber. "Les Cinq Actes D’une Manipulation [The five acts of a manipulation]." Le Point 922, no. 1 (1990). 441.
POSEN, Barry. "Measuring the European Conventional Balance: Coping with Complexity in Threat Assessment." International Security 9, no. 3 (1984): 47-­‐88. 442.
POSEN, Barry. The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain and Germany between the World Wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984b. 443.
POSEN, Barry. "The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict." Survival 35, no. 1 (1993): 27-­‐47. 444.
POTI, Lazlo. "The Hungarian -­‐ Ukrainian Russian Triangle." In On the Edge: Ukrainian-­‐Central European-­‐Russian Security Triangle, edited by Margarita Balmaceda. Budapest, HU: Central European University Press, 2000. 445.
POULAIN, Loic. "China's New Balkan Strategy." Central Europe Watch -­‐ Centre for Strategic and International Studies 1, no. 2 (2011). 446.
POUSSENKOVA, Nina. "All Quiet on the Eastern Front." Russian Analytical Digest 33, no. 1 (2008). 447.
POWELL, John. Encyclopaedia of North American Immigration. New York, NY: Facts on File Inc., 2005. 448.
PRISACARU, Ghiorghi. "The National Strategy Preparing Romania's Accession to the European Union." Romanian Journal of International Affairs 2, no. 4 (1996). 449.
PUSCAS, Vasile. Romania Spre Uniunea Europeana. Negocierile De Aderare (2000-­‐2004) [Romania Towards Eu. Accession Negotiations (2000-­‐2004)]. Iasi, RO: Editura Institutul European, 2007. 450.
PUSCAS, Vasile. "Indentitatea Internationala a Ue [Eu's International Identity]." In Romania Si Viitorul Europei [Romania and the Future of Europe], edited by Adrian Nastase. Bucharest, RO: Editura Autonoma Monitorul Oficial, 2001. 451.
RABONTU, Cecilia Irina, and Ana Gabriela Babucea. "The Tendency of the International Trade of Romania and China -­‐ a Comparative Analysis." European Scientific Journal 10, no. 13 (2014) 452.
RACHERU, Madalina Ileana. “Teme de politica externa a Romaniei. Relatiile bilaterale Romania-­‐Georgia (2004-­‐2009) [Romania’s Foreign Policy Files. The bilateral Romanian-­‐Georgian Relations (2004-­‐2009)], Sfera Politicii Journal, 2009, no.139, http://www.sferapoliticii.ro/sfera/139/art11-­‐racheru.html [accessed January 13, 2014]. 453.
RAFIAH, Zvi. "Israel and the United States." In Turkish-­‐Israeli Relations in a Trans-­‐Atlantic Context -­‐ Wider Europe and the Greater Middle East -­‐ Conference Proceedings, edited by Bruce Maddy-­‐Weitzman and Asher Susser. Tel Aviv, IR: The Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, 2005. 454.
RATESH, Nestor. Romania: The Entangled Revolution. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers, 1991. 455.
RATHBUN, Brian. "A Rose by Any Other Name: Neoclassical Realism as the Logical and Necessary Extension of Structural Realism." Security Studies, no. 17 (2008): 1. 38 456.
REISCH, Alfred. "Central and Eastern Europe’s Quest for NATO Membership." RFE/RL Research Report 2, no. 28 (1993). 457.
REKOSH, Edwin. "Romania: A Persistent Culture of Impunity." In Impunity and Human Rights in International Law and Practice, edited by Naomi Roht-­‐Arriaza. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995. 458.
REUS-­‐SMIT, Christian. The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity, and Institutional Rationality in International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999. 459.
REUS-­‐SMIT, Christian. "Constructivism." In Theories of International Relations (Iiird Edition), edited by Scott Burchill, Andrew Linklater, Richard Devetak, Jack Donnelly, Matthew Paterson, Christian Reus-­‐Smit and Jacqui True. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005. 460.
RIEFFEL, Lex. Restructuring Sovereign Debt: The Case for Ad-­‐Hoc Machinery. Wasington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2003. 461.
RIHACKOVA, Vera. In Views on American Foreign Policy -­‐ the Atlanticism of Political Parties in Central and Eastern Europe, edited by David Kral, Vera Rihackova and Tomas Weiss. Prague, CZ: EUROPEUM Institute for European Policy, 2008. 462.
RIZEA, MARIAN. Raportul Comsiei Senatoriale Privind Actiunile Desfasurate in Revolutia Romana Din Decembrie 1989, Vol. I [Report of the Senatorial Commision Regarding the Development of the Actions from the December 1989 Romanian Revolution, Vol. I]. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9CqWMwAnBxMZUJudWMwYnBkbEU/edit: [accessed January 14, 2014], 2013. 463.
ROMAN, Petre. "A existat o legătură cauzală între puciul de la Moscova şi mineriada din septembrie [There Was a Causal Link between the Moscow Putsch and the September Mineriad]." Available from http://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/general/articol/video-­‐petre-­‐roman-­‐existat-­‐o-­‐legatura-­‐cauzala-­‐puciul-­‐moscova-­‐mineriada-­‐
s, edited by Ciprian Stoleru. Historia.ro. (2011).[accessed August 21, 2013]. 464.
ROMANIAN COMMISSION FOR STATISTICS OF ROMANIA. "Romanian Statistical Yearbook." Bucharest, RO, 1994. 465.
ROMANIAN COMMISSION FOR STATISTICS OF ROMANIA. "Foreign Trade Statistics." Bucharest, RO, 1995. 466.
ROMANIAN INSTITUTE FOR STATISTICS, Statistical Yearbook. Bucharest, RO, 2008. 467.
ROPER, Stephen. Romania: The Unfinished Revolution. Amsterdam, NL: Overseas Publishers Association NV, 2000. 468.
ROSE, Gideon. "Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy." World Politics 51, no. 1 (1998): 144-­‐77. 469.
ROSLYCKY, Lada, and Jon Boonstra. "Ukraine: Changing Governments and Persistent Security Concerns in the Region." In Establishing Security and Stability in the Wider Black Sea Area, edited by Peter M.E. Volten and Blagovest Tarshev. Amsterdam, NL: IOS Press, 2007. 470.
ROTH, Eduard Rudolf. "The Limits of Gazpromization." Strategic Monitor 1, no. 3-­‐4 (2010). 471.
ROTH, Eduard Rudolf. "The Ontological Pessimism and the Pitfalls of History." In Established Powers, Emergent Powers – Theory and Practice in a Hastened International World, edited by Serban Filip Cioculescu and Silviu Petre. Bucharest, RO: Editura Militara, 2014. 472.
RUBENSTEIN, Joshua and Alexander Grobanov. Annals of Communism -­‐ the KGB File of Andrei Sakharov. London, UK: Yale University Press, 2005. 473.
RUS, Raluca. Intre mit si realitate. Lupta pentru tara sfanta [between Myth and Reality. The Battle for the Holy Land]. Iasi, RO: Editura Lumen, 2009. 474.
RUSSU, Corneliu, and Marius Bulearca. "Chinese Economic Reform and the Romanian-­‐Chinese Economic Relations." Gas and Oil Ploiesti University's Bulletin LXI, no. 4 (2009). 475.
RUTLAND, Peter. "Russia as an Energy Superpower." New Political Economy 13, no. 2 (2008). 476.
SARBIN, Theodore R., and Vernon L. Allen. "Role Theory." In Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd Ed., edited by Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson. Reading, MA: Addison-­‐Wesley Publishing Company, 1968. 477.
SCHIMMELFENNIG, Frank. The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe: Rules and Rhetoric. London, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 478.
SCHMIDT, Brian C. "Realism as Tragedy." Review of International Studies 30, no. 3 (2004): 427–41. 479.
SCHROEDER, Paul W. "Historical Reality Vs. Neo-­‐Realist Theory." International Security 19, no. 1 (1994): 108-­‐48. 480.
SCHUMAN, Frederick Lewis. International Politics: The Western State System in Transition. New York, NY: McGraw-­‐Hill, 1941. 481.
SCHWELLER, Randall L. "Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In." International Security 19, no. 1 (1994): 72-­‐107. 482.
SCHWELLER, Randall L. "Neorealism’s Status-­‐Quo Bias: What Security Dilemma?" In Realism: Restatements and Renewal, edited by Benjamin Frankel. London, UK: Frank Cass and Co., 1996. 483.
SCHWELLER, Randall L. Deadly Imbalances: Tripolarity and Hitler’s Strategy of World Conquest. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1998. 484.
SCHWELLER, Randall L. "Managing the Rise of Great Powers: History and Theory." In Engaging China: The Management of an Emerging Power, edited by Alastair Iain Johnson and Robert S. Ross. London, UK: Routledge, 1999. 485.
SCHWELLER, Randall L. "The Progressiveness of Neoclassical Realism." In Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, edited by Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman. Cambridge, NY: MIT Press, 2003. 486.
SCHWELLER, Randall L. "Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing." International Security 29, no. 2 (2004): 159-­‐201. 39 487.
SEAGLE, Adriana. "Why Do States Join Military Alliances? The Case of Romania." Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2008. 488.
SECARES, Vasile. "Opening Remarks." In The Role of the Wider Black Sea Area in a Future European Security Space, edited by Jean Dufourcq and Lionel Ponsard. Rome, IT: NATO Defense College, 2005. 489.
SEKHRI, Sofiane. "The Role Approach as a Theoretical Framework for the Analysis of Foreign Policy in Third World Countries." African Journal of Political Science and International Relations 3, no. 10 (2011). 490.
SEREBRIAN, Oleg. "Roumanie Et Moldavie: Quelles Relations Après Le 1er Janvier 2007? [Romania and Moldova: What st
Relations after January 1 2007?]." Revue Regard sur L'Est Available from http://www.regard-­‐
est.com/home/breve_contenu.php?id=703.(2006). [accessed August 13, 2014]. 491.
SEVERIN, Adrian. "Romania Endeavour’s to Join NATO." In The Challenge of NATO Enlargement, edited by Anton Bebler. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1999. 492.
SEVERIN, Adrian. "Identitate Europeana -­‐ Identitate National-­‐Statala [European Identity -­‐ Nation-­‐State Identity]." In Romania Si Viitorul Europei [Romania and the Future of Europe], edited by Adrian Nastase. Bucharest, RO: Editura Autonoma Monitorul Oficial, 2001. 493.
SEVERIN, Adrian. "Nato Enlargement and the Eastern Neighbourhood " In NATO and the Global Structure of Security: The Future of Partnerships Conference, Bucharest, RO: National School for Political Studies and Public Administration, November 8-­‐10, 2012. 494.
SHAFIR, Michael. "Ceausescu's Overthrow: Popular Uprising or Moscow-­‐Guided Conspiracy?" Radio Free Europe: Report on Eastern Europe 1, no. 3 (1990a): 15-­‐19. 495.
SHAFIR, Michael. "Preparing for the Future by Revising the Past." Radio Free Europe: Report on Eastern Europe I, no. 41 (1990b): 29-­‐42. 496.
SHAFIR, Michael. "He HDFR Congress: Confrontations Postponed." RFE/RL Research Report 2, no. 9 (1993). 497.
SHAFIR, Michael. "Hungary and Romania: A Possible Light at the End of the Tunnel." Transition 2, no. 19 (1996). 498.
SHEN, Raphael. The Restructuring of Romania's Economy -­‐ a Paradigm of Flexibility and Adaptability. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1997. 499.
SIANI-­‐DAVIES, Peter. The Romanian Revolution of December 1989. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005. 500.
SIMON, Jeffrey. "Europe’s Past, Europe’s Future. Does Eastern Europe Belong in NATO?" Orbis winter ed (1993). 501.
SIMON, Jeffrey, and Hans Binnendjik. "Romania and NATO. Membership Reassessment at the July 1997 Summit." National Defense University -­‐ Strategic Forum 101, no. 1 (1997). 502.
SIMONI, Serena. Understanding Transatlantic Relations: Whither the West? New York, NY: Routledge, 2013. 503.
SISLIN, John, and Frederic Pearson. Arms and Ethnic Conflict. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001. 504.
SLAVESCU, Ioan. "Gorbachev Denies 1989 Revolution Involvement." Nine O'Clock April 16, 2010. 505.
SMITH, C. Keith. Russia and European Energy Security: Divide and Dominate. Washington, D.C.: The Center for Strategic and International Studies Press, 2008. 506.
SMITH, Julianne. "The NATO-­‐Russia Relationship: Defining Moment or Déjà Vu?" CSIS/IFRI project “Europe, Russia, and the United States: Finding a New Balance Center for Strategic and International Studies and L'Institut Français des Relations Internationales (2008). 507.
SMITH, Karen. "A ‘Mixed Media’ Approach to International Relations." Politicon 30, no. 1 (2003): 83-­‐96. 508.
SMITH, Nicholas R. "Europeanization through Socialization: The EU’s Interaction with Civil Society Organizations in Armenia." Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-­‐Soviet Democratization 19, no. 4 (2011). 509.
SMITH, Steve. "The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science." British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2, no. 3 (2000): 374-­‐402. 510.
SNEGUR, Mircea. "Special Basarabia. O unire imposibilă: România si Republica Moldova [Special Basarabia. An Impossible Union: Romania and Republic of Moldova." Digi24, HD, 2013. 511.
SNYDER, Glenn D. "Process Variables in Neorealist theory." Security Studies 5, no. 3 (1996): 167-­‐92. 512.
SNYDER, Jack. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991. 513.
SNYDER, Jack. "One World, Rival Theories." Foreign Policy November/December, no. 145 (2004): 53-­‐62. 514.
SNYDER, Jack, and Robert Jervis. "Civil War and the Security Dilemma." In Civil Wars, Insecurity, and Intervention, edited by B. Walter and J. Snyder. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1999. 515.
SOARE, Simona. " The Romanian-­‐Russian Bilateral relationship in the Aftermath of Romania’s Euro-­‐Atlantic Integration." Monitor Strategic 1-­‐2, no. 1 (2010): 93-­‐121. 516.
SOARE, Simona. "Still Talking Past Each Other: Romanian–Russian Relations." Russian Analytical Digest 1, no. 125 (2013). 517.
SOBOL, Tanya D. "An Ngo's Fight to Save Ukraine's Danube Delta: The Case for Granting Nongovernmental Organizations Formal Powers of Enforcement." Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 17, no. 1 (2006). 518.
SOCOR, Vladimir. "The Limits of National Independence in the Soviet Bloc: Romania’s Foreign Policy Reconsidered." Orbis 20, no. 3 (1976): 701-­‐32. 40 519.
SOCOR, Vladimir. "Isolated Moldova Being Pulled into Russian Orbit." RFE/RL Research Report December 17, no. 1 (1999). 520.
SOLOMON, Gerald B. H. The NATO Enlargement Debate, 1990-­‐1997: Blessings of Liberty. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998. 521.
SPERO, Joshua B. Bridging the European Divide -­‐ Middle Power Politics and Regional Security Dilemmas. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers 2004. 522.
SPOOR, Max. "Rural Poverty, Cotton Production and Environmental Degradation in Central Asia." In Climate Change and Sustainable Development – New Challenges for Poverty Reduction, edited by Mohamed M.A. Salih. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2009. 523.
STAN, Lavinia. Transitional Justice in Post-­‐Communist Romania -­‐ the Politics of Memory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2013. 524.
STANCIU, Cezar. "Europeans against Europe: The Practice of Foreign Isolationism and Seclusion in Stalinist Romania." Slovo 20 1, no. 1 (2008): 17-­‐32. 525.
STARK, David and Laszlo Bruszt. Postsocialist Pathways: Transforming Politics and Property in East Central Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 526.
STEANS, Jill, and Lloyd Pettiford. Introduction to International Relations: Perspectives and Themes. London, UK: Pearson Longman 2005. 527.
STERN, Jonathan. "The Russian-­‐Ukrainian Gas Crisis of January 2006." In Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. Available from http://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-­‐content/uploads/2011/01/Jan2006-­‐RussiaUkraineGasCrisis-­‐
JonathanStern.pdf.(2006). [accessed January 10, 2014]. 528.
STOENESCU, Alex Mihai. Istoria loviturilor de stat in Romania, Vol. 4, Revolutia Din Decembrie 1989, o tragedie romaneasca [the History of the Political Coups in Romania, Vol. 4, the December 1989 Revolution]. Bucharest, RO: RAO, 2004. 529.
STOICESCU, Ruxandra Maria. "Liminality in International Relations: A Comparative Analysis of Discursive Articulations in the Geopolitical Visions of Romania, Turkey and Ukraine." Institut de Hautes Etudes Internationales et du Développement -­‐ Geneve, CH, 2006. 530.
STRUYE DE SWIELANDE, Tanguy. "Caucase et Asie Centrale: La Guerre Pour Le Controle Du Rimland [Caucasus and Central Asia: The War for the Control of the Rimland]." Les Cahiers du Réseau Multidisciplinaire d’Etudes Stratégiques 4, no. 1 (2007). 531.
STRYKER, Sheldon. "Traditional Symbolic Interactionism, Role Theory, and Structural Symbolic Interactionism. The Road to Identity Theory." In Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited by Jonathan Turner. New York, NY: Springer, 2006. 532.
STRYKER, Sheldon, and Anne Statham. "Symbolic Interaction and Role Theory." In Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd Ed., edited by Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson. New York, NY: Random House, 1985. 533.
STUART, Douglas. "Symbol and (Very Little) Substance in the Us Debate over NATO Enlargement." In Will NATO Go East? The Debate over Enlarging the Atlantic Alliance edited by David G. Haglund. Kingston, OT: Queen's University Centre for International Affairs, 1996. 534.
SUVOROV, VIKTOR. Spetsnaz: The inside Story of the Soviet Special Forces. New York, NY: W. W. Norton, 1988. 535.
SZABO, Matyas. ""Historic Reconciliation” Awakens Old Disputes." Transition 2, no. 5 (1996). 536.
SZASZDI, Lajos. Russian Civil-­‐Military Relations and the Origins of the Second Chechen War. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2008. 537.
SZAYNA, Thomas S. NATO Enlargement 2000-­‐2015. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2001. 538.
SZAYNA, Thomas S., and D. Ronald Asmus. "German and Polish Views of the Partnership for Peace." RAND Documented Briefings Available from http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/DB146.html (1995). [accessed January 20, 2014] 539.
SZIGETVARI, Tamas. "EU-­‐Turkey Relations: Changing Approaches." Romanian Journal of European Affairs 14, no. 1 (2014). 540.
SZONYI, Istvan. "Partnership for Peace -­‐ a Scheme for Adaptation." NATO Research Fellowships Programme Available from http://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/95-­‐97/szonyi.pdf. (1997). [accessed Jan 21, 2014] 541.
TALBOTT, Strobe. The Russia Hand: A Memoir of Presidential Diplomacy. New York, NY: Random House, 2003. 542.
TALIAFERRO, Jeffrey W. "Security Seeking under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited." International Security 25, no. 3 (2000/2001): 128-­‐61. 543.
TALIAFERRO, Jeffrey W. "State Building for Future Wars: Neoclassical Realism and the Resource-­‐Extractive State." Security Studies 15, no. 3 (2006): 464-­‐95. 544.
TALIAFERRO, Jeffrey W., Stephen E. Lobell, and Norrin M. Ripsman. Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 545.
TANNENWALD, Nina. "Ideas and Explanation: Advancing the Theoretical Agenda." Journal of Cold War Studies 7, no. 2 (2005): 13-­‐42. 546.
TASPINAR, Omer. Turkey’s Middle East Policies: Between Neo-­‐Ottomanism and Kemalism. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace., 2008. 547.
TEODORESCU, Filip. Un risc asumat: Timisoara, Decembrie 1989, [an Assumed Risk: Timisoara, December 1989]. Bucharest, RO: Viitorul Romanesc, 1992. 41 548.
THE GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA -­‐ "FSN’s Statement to the Country." 1. Bucharest, RO, December 22, 1989. 549.
THE GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA. "Government Resolution 21/September 2001 Regarding Romania’s Participation Along with NATO Member States in the Actions for Combating International Terrorism." The Official Monitor of Romania, 2001. 550.
THE GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA. "Emergency Ordinance No. 31/2002." The Official Monitor of Romania, no. 214, March 28, 2002. 551.
THE MINISTRY OF ENERGY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION. "Russian Federation's Energy Strategy for the Period up until 2020 and beyond." (2003). 552.
THE MINISTRY OF ENERGY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION. "Russian Federation's Energy Strategy for the Period up until 2030 and beyond." (2009). 553.
THE PARLIAMENT OF ROMANIA. "Declaration Regarding the Ribbentrop-­‐Molotov Pact and Its Consequences for the Country." Official Monitor no.136, July 27 (1991). 554.
THE PARLIAMENT OF ROMANIA. "Declaration Regarding the Referendum in Ukraine." Official Monitor no.241 November 29 (1991). 555.
THIES, Cameron. "Role Theory and Foreign Policy." International Studies Association Compendium Project Foreign Policy Analysis Section, no. Available from http://myweb.uiowa.edu/bhlai/workshop/role.pdf.(2009). [accessed November 20, 2014]. 556.
THUCYDIDES. History of the Peloponnesian War. Edited by John H. Finley Jr. New York, NY, 1951. 557.
TOFT, Peter. "John J. Mearsheimer: An Offensive Realist between Geopolitics and Power." Journal of International Relations and Development 8, no. 1 (2005): 381-­‐408. 558.
TOMESCU, Odette, and Ronaldo Hatto. "Comment conjuguer l'elargissement De l’Union Europeenne et la securite de ses frontieres? Le chapitre Roumano-­‐Moldave [How to understand the enlargement of the European Union and the security of its borders? The Romanian-­‐Moldovan chapter]" Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Internationales (2005). 559.
TOMESCU, Odette, and Ronaldo Hatto. "Frontières et Identités: La Roumanie et La Moldavie Dans L’Europe Élargie [Borders and identities. Romania and Moldova in an Enlarged Europe]." Études internationales 36, no. 3 (2005b). 560.
TRANDAFIR, Miruna Madalina. "Dilemmas of Romanian Post-­‐December Foreign Policy. Relations with Russia." Studia Universitatis -­‐ Petru Maior Series Historia 11, no. 1 (2011): 283-­‐93. 561.
TRIMBLE, Jeff. "Spreading the Word: The KGB's Image-­‐Building under Gorbachev." Discussion Paper P D-­‐24: Harvard University -­‐ The Joan Shorenstein Center, February 1997. 562.
TRONDL, Jarle. "Is There Any Social Constructivist–Institutionalist Divide? Unpacking Social Mechanisms Affecting Representational Roles among EU Decision-­‐Makers." Journal of European Public Policy 8, no. 1 (2001). 563.
TSANTOULIS, Yannis. "Geopolitics, (Sub)Regionalism, Discourse and a 'Troubled Power' Triangle in the Black Sea." In The Security Context in the Black Sea Region, edited by Dimitrios Triantaphyllou. New York, NY: Routledge, 2010. 564.
TUDOR, Ioan. "Balkan Security Problems and Perspectives: A Romanian View." Balkan Forum 1, no. 4 (1993). 565.
TUDORACHE, Ovidiu-­‐Adrian. "The Foreign and Security Policy of Romania in Relation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at Hamburg University, Fuehrungsakademie der Bundeswehr, Hamburg, 2004. 566.
TUDOROIU, Theodor. "From Spheres of Influence to Energy Wars: Russian Influence in Post-­‐Communist Romania'." Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 24, no. 3 (2008): 386-­‐414. 567.
TURCSÁNYI, Richard. "Central and Eastern Europe’s Courtship with China: Trojan horse within the EU?" EU-­‐Asia at a Glance -­‐ European Institute for Asian Studies January (2014). 568.
U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION. "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America." (2003). 569.
UNGUREANU, Mihai-­‐Razvan. "Remarks on a Security Concept for the Black Sea Area." In The Role of the Wider Black Sea Area in a Future European Security Space, edited by Jean Dufourcq and Lionel Ponsard. Rome, IT: NATO Defense College, 2005. 570.
UNGUREANU, Mihai-­‐Razvan. "The Common Foreign and Security Policy -­‐ What Can Romania Bring?" In The EU and Romania: Great Expectations, edited by David Phinnemore. London, UK: The Federal Trust, 2006. 571.
UNITED NATIONS -­‐ "Treaty on the Relation of Good Neighbourliness and Cooperation between Romania and Ukraine ". New York, NY: United Nations, Vol. 2159, 1997. 572.
UNITED NATIONS -­‐ "Treaty between Romania and Ukraine on the Romanian-­‐Ukrainian State Border Regime, Collaboration and Mutual Assistance on Border Matters." New York, NY: United Nations, Vol. 2277, 2003. 573.
UNITED NATIONS -­‐ "A /45/ 50 Letter from the Permanent Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-­‐General, July 12 Available from https://disarmament-­‐
library.un.org/UNODA/Library.nsf/16ca34e7129f6fe08525755c00525c61/29d3ee65b9729a6e85257566007a10cd/$FILE/A-­‐45-­‐
312.pdf. (1990). [accessed January 20, 2014]. 574.
UNITED NATIONS -­‐ COMTRADE DATABASE. "Trade Data Extraction Interface." http://comtrade.un.org/data/ (2014). 575.
UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE -­‐ Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. "Report on the Likely Significant Adverse Transboundary Impacts of the Danube -­‐ Black Sea Navigation Route at the Border of Romania and the Ukraine, July 16." New York, NY: Available from http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/eia/documents/inquiry/Final%20Report%2010%20July%202006.pdf. (2006). 42 [accessed February 12, 2014] 576.
UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE -­‐ Espoo Convention Committee Meeting-­‐ Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. "Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, October 14." Geneva, SH: Available from http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2008/sc3wp3/SC3-­‐52-­‐pres03e.pdf. (2008). [accessed May 10, 2014] 577.
URBAN, Jan. "Czechoslovakia: The Power and Politics of Humiliation." In Spring in Winter, edited by Gwyn Prins. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1990. 578.
VAHL, Marius. "Borderland of Europe (11): Transforming Transnistria?" Centre for European Policy Studies. Brussels, BE (2007). 579.
VALERIANO, Brandon, and Kwang Teo. "The Tragedy of Offensive Realism: Testing Aggressive Power Politics Models." In The Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association. Portland 2007. 580.
VAN EVERA, Stephen. "The Cult of the Offensive and the Origins of the First World War." International Security 9, no. 1 (1984): 58-­‐107. 581.
VAN EVERA, Stephen. "Offense, Defense, and the Causes of War." International Security 22, no. 4 (1998): 5-­‐43. 582.
VAN EVERA, Stephen. Causes of War: Power and the Roots of Conflict. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999. 583.
VAN HOUWELINGEN, Pepijn. "(Classical) Realism in the 21st Century." In Political Studies Association Annual Conference. Edinburgh, UK: Royal Holloway, University of London, 2010. 584.
VASQUEZ, John A. The Power of Power Politics: From Classical Realism to Neotraditionalism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 585.
VICO, Giambattista, and Leon Pompa. Vico: Selected Writings. Edited by Leon Pompa. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982. 586.
VOGEL, Sandor. "A Külpolitikai Doktrina Kérdése Romániában [the Issue of Foreign Policy Doctrine in Romania." In The Effects of Enlargement on Bilateral Relations in Central and Eastern Europe, edited by Pál Dunay, Monika Wohlfeld, Oleksandr Pavliuk and Wojciech Zajaczkowski. Paris, FR: WEU Institute for Security Studies, 1997. 587.
VON CLAUSEWITZ, Carl. On War [Vom Kriege] -­‐ 1837. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984. 588.
VON GLASERSFELD, Ernst. "An Exposition of Constructivism: Why Some Like It Radical." In Constructivist Views on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, edited by Robert Benjamin Davis, Carolyn Alexander Maher and Nel Noddings. Amherst, MA: Scientific Reasoning Research Institute, University of Massachusetts, 1989. 589.
WAGNER, Robert. "EU, NATO and Romania. Beyond Sultanism." In EU, NATO and the Relationship between Transformation and External Behaviour in Post-­‐Socialist Eastern Europe, edited by Reimund Seidelmann. Baden-­‐Bande, GE: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2002. 590.
WALKER, Stephen G. "National Role Conceptions and Systemic Outcomes." In Psychological Models in International Politics, edited by Lawrence Falowski. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1979. 591.
WALKER, Stephen G. Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1987a. 592.
WALKER, Stephen G. "Role Theory and the International System: A Postscript to Waltz’s Theory of International Politics?" In Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis, edited by Stephen G Walker. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1987b. 593.
WALKER, Stephen G. "Symbolic Interactionism and International Politics: Role Theory’s Contribution to International Organization." In Contending Dramas: A Cognitive Approach to International Organizations, edited by Martha Cottam and Chih Y. Shih. New York, NY: Praeger, 1992. 594.
WALKER, Stephen G., and Sheldon W. Simon. "Role Sets and Foreign Policy Analysis in Southeast Asia." In Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis, edited by Stephen G Walker. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1987. 595.
WALT, Stephen M. "Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power." International Security 9, no. 4 (1985): 3-­‐43. 596.
WALT, Stephen M. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987. 597.
WALT, Stephen M. "Testing Theories of Alliance Formation: The Case of Southwest Asia." International Organization 42, no. 2 (1988): 275-­‐316. 598.
WALT, Stephen M. "Alliances, Threats and Us Grand Strategy: A Reply to Kaufman and Labs." Security Studies 1, no. 1 (1992): 448-­‐82. 599.
WALT, Stephen M. Revolution and War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996. 600.
WALT, Stephen M. "The Enduring Relevance of the Realist Tradition." In Political Science: State of the Discipline, edited by Ira Katznelson and Helen V. Milner. New York, NY: W. W. Norton, 2002. 601.
WALTZ, Kenneth. Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1959. 602.
WALTZ, Kenneth. "The Stability of a Bipolar World." Daedalus 93, no. 3 (1964): 881-­‐909. 603.
WALTZ, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics London, UK: McGraw Hill, 1979. 604.
WALTZ, Kenneth. "Reflections on Theory of International Politics: A Response to My Critics." In Neo-­‐Realism and Its Critics edited by Robert O. Keohane. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1986. 605.
WALTZ, Kenneth. "War in Neo-­‐Realist Theory." In The Origins and Prevention of Major Wars, edited by Robert Rotberg and Theodore Raab. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1989. 606.
WALTZ, Kenneth. "Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory." Journal of International Affairs 44, no. 1 (1990): 21-­‐37. 607.
WALTZ, Kenneth. "The Emerging Structure of International Politics." International Security 18, no. 2 (1993): 44-­‐79. 43 608.
WALTZ, Kenneth. "Evaluating Theories." American Political Science Review 91, no. 4 (1997): 913-­‐17. 609.
WALTZ, Kenneth. "Intimations of Multipolarity." In The New World Order, edited by Birthe Hansen and Bertel Heurlin. London, UK: MacMillan, 2000a. 610.
WALTZ, Kenneth. "Structural Realism after the Cold War." International Security 25, no. 1 (2000b): 5-­‐41. 611.
WALTZ, Kenneth. "Evaluating Theories." In Realism and the Balance of Power: A New Debate, edited by John A. Vasquez and Colin Elman. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002. 612.
WATTS, Larry L. "Romania and NATO: The National Regional Security Nexus." In Almost NATO -­‐ Partners and Players in Central and Eastern European Security, edited by Charles Krupnick. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2003. 613.
WATTS, Larry L. "Civil-­‐Military Relations: Continuity or Exceptionalism?" In Romania since 1989 -­‐ Politics, Economics and Society, edited by Henry F. Carey. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2004. 614.
WATTS, Larry L. "Control and Oversight of Security Intelligence in Romania." In Democratic Control of Intelligence Services edited by Hans and Maria Caparini Born. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 2007. 615.
WEAVER, Carol. The Politics of the Black Sea Region – EU Neighbourhood, Conflict Zone and Future Security Community. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2013. 616.
WEBER, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1968. 617.
WEINER, Anje. "Constructivist Approaches in International Relations theory: Puzzles and Promises." In ConWEB -­‐ Webpapers on Constitutionalism & Governance beyond the State, 1-­‐28. 2006. 618.
WEINER, Robert. Romanian Foreign Policy and the United Nations. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers, 1984. 619.
WEINER, Robert. "Romanian Bilateral Relations with Russia and Hungary: 1989–2002." In Romania since 1989: Politics, Economics, and Society, edited by Henry F. Carey. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2004. 620.
WELT, Cory. "Balancing the Balancer: Russia, the West, and Conflict Resolution in Georgia." Global Dialogue 7, no. 3-­‐4 (2005). 621.
WENDT, Alexander. "Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Poli." International Organization 46, no. 2 (1992): 391-­‐495. 622.
WENDT, Alexander. "Collective Identity Formation and the International State." American Political Science Review 88, no. 2 (1994): 384-­‐96. 623.
WENDT, Alexander. "Constructing International Politics." International Security 20, no. 1 (1995): 71-­‐81. 624.
WENDT, Alexander. Social Theory of International Politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 625.
WIENER, Anje. "Constructivist Approaches in International Relations Theory: Puzzles and Promises." Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica [Review of Italian Political Science] 37, no. 1 (2007): 25-­‐54. 626.
WIESSEL, Eli, Tuvia Friling, Radu Ioanid, and Mihail Ionescu. International Commission for the Study of the Holocaust in Romania -­‐ Final Report. Iasi, RO: Editura Polirom, 2004. 627.
WIGHT, Colin. "Meta-­‐Campbell: The Epistemological Problematic of Perspectivism." Review of International Studies 25, no. 1 (1999). 628.
WILLIAMS, Michael C. The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 629.
WILTON, John. "Soviet Policy in Eastern Europe Post 1985: 'Sinatra Doctrine' or 'Mozart Doctrine'?" Politologicka Revue 1, no. 2 (1997): 87-­‐98. 630.
WISH, Naomi Bailin. "National Attributes as Sources of National Role Conceptions: A Capability -­‐ Motivation Model." In Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis, edited by Stephen G. Walker. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1987. 631.
WOEHREL, Steven. "Russian Energy Policy toward Neighbouring Countries." Congressional Research Service RL34261 -­‐ CRS Report for Congress of United States of America (2009). 632.
WOHLFELD, Monika. "Central Europe and the Yugoslav Wars (August, 31 -­‐ September 7)." In Halki International Seminars, 1996. 633.
WOHLFORTH, William. The Elusive Balance, Power and Perceptions During the Cold War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993. 634.
WOLFF, Larry. Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994. 635.
WOODS, Ngaire. "The United States and the International Financial Institutions: Power and Influence within the World Bank and the IMF." In Us Hegemony and International Organizations, edited by Rosemary Foot, Neil MacFarlane and Michael Mastanduno. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003. 636.
XIN, Chen. "Trade and Economic Cooperation between China and CEE Countries " Working Paper Series On European Studies -­‐ Institute Of European Studies Chinese Academy Of Social Science 6, no. 2 (2012). 637.
ZAGORCHEVA, Dessie. "Correspondence: NATO and Democracy." International Security 26, no. 3 (2001). 638.
ZAKARIA, Fareed R. "Realism and Domestic Politics: A Review Essay." International Security 17, no. 1 (1992): 177-­‐98. 639.
ZAKARIA, Fareed R. "Realism and Domestic Politics." In The Perils of Anarchy: Contemporary Realism and International Security edited by Michael E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-­‐Jones and Steven E. Miller. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995. 640.
ZAKARIA, Fareed R. From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America’s World Role. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 44 University Press, 1998. 641.
ZEHFUSS, Maja. Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 642.
ZIMMERMAN, Warren. "Chapter 11 -­‐ Yugoslavia: 1989-­‐1996." In U.S. And Russian Policymaking with Respect to the Use of Force, edited by Jeremy R Azrael and Emil Payin. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1996. 643.
ZUBOK, Vladislav M. A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2007. 644.
ZVEREV, Alexei. "Ethnic Conflicts in the Caucasus 1988–1994." In Contested Borders in the Caucasus, edited by Bruno Coppieters. Brussels, BE: Vrije Universiteit Brussels University Press, 1996. i
As under the 1947 Treaty of Paris the Allies did not acknowledge Romania as a co-­‐belligerent nation – despite its war contribution against the Axis in the period August 23, 1944 May 12, 1945 – the country was eventually restored to the borders of January 1, 1941, with the exception of the border with Hungary, which was reverted to its pre-­‐World War II status quo. This confirmed the 1940 loss of its former provinces of Bessarabia, Hertza and Northern Bukovina (thus of an area of 2
50,762 km ) to the Soviet Union but also the provisions of the Treaty of Craiova, which returned Southern Dobrudja to Bulgaria (and which put an end to the roughly 27 years of colonization endeavours of Bucharest). Under these circumstances, the pan-­‐Romanian hinterland established by the 1918 Union, was once again redivided. ii
Gazpromization denotes a complex doctrine and behavioral dynamics employed by Russian Administration during Putin and Medvedev eras, with both local and externalized dimensions. While local Gazpromization involved an aggressive acquisition of private Russian assets through state owned companies and the removal of foreign companies from the national extraction sector, externalized Gazpromization – mentioned above – is circumscribed to a convoluted portfolio of manifestations, tributary to the place of the implementation and namely if within or outside Russia’s ‘near abroad’. In the case of EU states, Gazpromization mainly consists in obtaining political concessions for Moscow’s policies and behavioural dynamics, through the exploitation of the focus on profit maximization and market strengthening of the EU energy holdings with a hidden power politics dimension, which can exert an important influence at any level of the indigenous administration. In some cases, it also incorporates the acquisition by Russian entities of share packages at energy companies managing or owning energy infrastructure, deposits, port infrastructure or distribution networks. In the case of CIS states or young democracies Gazpromization implicates the exploitation of the target-­‐state’s energetic vulnerabilities or of Moscow’s direct control of the indigenous energy infrastructure in order to interfere with the local politics by favouring some elites with the aim of being conceded or granted various economic or political benefits. The political recalibration process often relies on a structural atopy within the indigenous political realm (a strong corruption network which can be developed or adjusted and/or a strong ex-­‐Soviet intelligence infrastructure which can be easily activated or resuscitated). Schroederization is a variant of Gazpromization, implemented in Germany and with the potential to be implemented in other states, consists in the coopting of a key political elite in an important position within a Russian state-­‐owned energy entity (or in an equation of energetic profit), with the aim for the elite to exert its political influence in order to crystalize a network of interests that would serve Moscow’s strategic interests in the development of a project, policy or specific foreign policy alignment. 45