Aspectos Generales de la Sociedad Anónima

The previous intricate theoretical and conceptual discussions have no doubt already alluded to the fact that - the EU (and its foreign policies) are particularly complex objects of study for interested scholars - owing not least to the institution’s multifaceted, supranational nature and the diverse, cross-pillar structure of its foreign policies such as the ENP. Moreover, compared to studies of long-established nation state entities for example, the EU is still an institution in its relative infancy today and thus, the availability of concrete empirical sources and extensive data - both quantitative and qualitative - tends to be few and far between. When such straightforward research concerns are added to the many and varied conceptual and theoretical lenses (and related theoretical schools-of-thought) by which to analyse and research a wide range of EU phenomena as discussed in depth above, concerns relating to research design undoubtedly gain yet another additional layer of complexity. Thus, when researching the EU therefore, perhaps more than most studies of particular polities and their associated phenomena, the challenges for scholars in terms of research design, methodology and operationalization are perceived by many to be exceptionally acute (Nyikos & Pollack, 2003; 1).

Indeed, in the case of the present research - guided by an overarching central research question encompassing two specific components (see below) - the need for a clear road map of the research to be carried out, re-joined to the theoretical and conceptual discussions within the context of the overarching explanandum guiding the entirety of the thesis- is patently clear. While this chapter addresses this task - effectively detailing the specific strategy that this work will take with respect to answering the central research question in full - it is important to note that this chapter does not seek to present the central research question and its constituent components or the application of a security governance perspective as being best suited to a conventional, systematic methodological research design approach. Instead, in the first instance, the explanatory and exploratory nature of the central research question at hand; the rather amorphous character of its two constituent components and the loose and fluid character of both the method and theoretical framework to be employed in the next research chapters (4 & 5) seem to warrant a more ‘eclectic’, ‘tangential’ approach towards such issues of methodology. The

3

purpose of this chapter therefore is to make better sense of the overall approach of this thesis, by way of operationalizing the central research question and its two constituent components as detailed in Chapter 1; linking the conceptual and theoretical discussions in Chapter 2 to both the central research question and the final two research chapters (4 & 5); and thus, subsequently, developing a sound, strategic approach, detailing the nature of the inquiry being carried out and reported in Chapters 4 and 5.

Desk-top Research

The first point to be mentioned in this context however, relates to the overriding method of data-collection that will be utilised throughout both Chapters 4 and 5. The main sources of information used to appropriate each of the constituent components of the overarching, central research question will primarily consist of key EU and ENP documents and proclamations (written communications, legislation, treaty content, dialogues, speeches, conversations, statements etc.) and crucial academic and scholarly works already printed, within circulation and widely available. The use of such sources, while clearly a mixture of both primary and secondary, is not so clearly equitable with a particular methodological approach concerning methods as such - although their respective uses in studies of the EU is often commonplace given the oft-noted constraints of accessing information and sources within the EU. Perhaps the most similar ‘umbrella of methods’ however, to the above use of such sources is that of ‘desk-top research’; simply, research carried out by the gathering, collation, interpretation and analysis of sources primarily already ‘in print’ - that is to say, readily available secondary sources such as scholarly and academic texts and the published reports and statistics of think- tanks, NGO’s and the like; plus, more primary-leaning sources such as the official documents and proclamations made by various actors and agents from government to international organisations and everything in between. Despite the somewhat banal and unimaginative research connotations that the term desk-top research has based on its name however, it in fact represents an ideal ‘catch-all’ terminology to define the comprehensive nature of data gathering, and further denotes the wide variety of sources

that can used by scholars to research phenomena, such as that undertaken in the present research. Indeed, in not seeking to ‘reinvent the wheel’ with respect to adopting a focus on a question or a case that necessitates the use and interpretation of self-sought primary sources - beyond what is readily available in document and proclamation form - implies that desktop research is indeed most suited to this particular study. The real novelty of the research carried out in this thesis therefore, is in the application of an adapted, theoretically grounded analytical lens - as discussed at length above - rather than in the actual sources of information or the way in which such information is collected or gathered. To say that the use of such information is somehow limited in terms of methods - given its rather humble origins in comparison to that of some studies of the EU - is therefore misplaced.

How did the EU respond after the Arab Spring, with respect to reforming the ENP and can security governance aspects of the policy be revealed to have been relevant to this response?

Born out of a tributary interest in 2015’s on-going call for reform of the ENP by the EU, as detailed in Chapter 1, the above, overarching, central research question guiding this thesis looks primarily to the past and focuses broadly on (i) the EU’s policy response after the Arab Spring and (ii) security governance aspects of the ENP that may or may not have been relevant to this policy response. For simplicity’s sake - as already mentioned throughout this thesis - it is indeed easier to think of, and to operationalize the above central research question - as two, separate but closely inter-linked components; (i)

how the EU responded and indeed (ii) possible reasons as to why the EU responded in such a manner. More specifically, these components, when re-formulated into particular questions of interest in their own right become; (i) how ‘substantive’ were the changes made to the ENP, by the EU, following its post-Arab Spring reform of the policy? and, (ii) can security governance aspects of the policy be revealed to have been relevant to this response? Thus, this following section will seek to operationalize the above central research question, by way of distinguishing between these two constituent components;

grounding them within the theoretical and conceptual discussions of Chapter 2 and relating them backwards to the central research question as a whole, but also forwards to the main discernable research expectations of the final research chapters (4 & 5). Taking each re-formulated component in turn, how will the primary research of this thesis be carried out in Chapters 4 and 5 and in what manner will such research relate to the central research question and its associated constituent components guiding this thesis?

How ‘substantive’ were the changes made to the ENP, by the EU, following its post-Arab Spring reform of the policy in 2011?

Representing the first component of the overarching research question guiding this thesis, the assessment and analysis of such a problematique will thus be taken up in Chapter 4. Indeed, the central research question of this thesis itself first implies a focus on how the EU responded after the Arab Spring, with respect to reforming the ENP. As we have already seen above in Chapter 1, the EU set about to ‘substantively’ reform the policy following the revolts - indeed this reform representing its main response to the Arab Spring vis-à-vis the ENP with respect to policy. In order to fully account for the entirety of the EU’s response to the Arab Spring in such a policy sense however - beyond simply re-stating the now well known fact that the EU responded by reforming the ENP - it seems pertinent to further ask and answer how substantive such reform actually was. Such a question therefore strikes at the very heart of the nature of the EU’s response to the Arab Spring - indeed, what format did its reform of the ENP actually take? What key changes were actually made to the policy? And, more importantly, were these changes in any way fundamental or meaningful - were they indeed ‘substantive’? Thus, by focusing on such questions, a clearer, more concise and comprehensive account of the EU’s post- Arab Spring reform of the ENP can be achieved - as is patently necessary given the focus of the second research component developed from the central, overarching research question - seeking to give likely reasons, relating to security governance, as to why the EU indeed responded in the manner that Chapter 4 will conclude. How then will Chapter 4 be structured and managed in order to achieve these research aims?

Chapter 4 will focus primarily on the key goals of the ENP and the nature of the changes made to them, by the EU, during its reform of the policy post-Arab Spring. As noted in Chapter 1, the ENP’s main goals in a security governance sense are (i) democracy promotion, (ii) mobility and migration management and (iii) conflict management. Chapter 4 will therefore take each of these in turn and utilise the following framework for their analysis - (i) a brief overview of the significance of such a goal in the context of the ENP’s initial formulation and in terms of EU foreign policy more generally, (ii) a detailed account of the nature of the goal prior to the Arab Spring, (iii) an overview of the most common criticisms directed towards the goal pre-Arab Spring, (iv) the changes made to the goal, by the EU, post-Arab Spring, (v) an assessment of the changes made to the goal in terms of assessing how ‘substantive’ such changes actually were. This section now turns its attention to each of these key components of Chapter 4 - detailing them more concretely and linking their relevance directly back to the overall focus of this thesis.

(i) In order to be able to go on to analyse each ENP goal in more detail, vis-à-vis the changes made to each goal by the EU following the Arab Spring, and to make a further assessment of those changes in terms of their ‘substantive’ nature, it is first necessary to situate the significance of each goal in the wider context of the ENP and EU foreign policy more generally. Using key ENP documents and proclamations, the significance of each goal to the EU, in the specific context of the ENP can be detailed first - providing a background if you will for the proceeding analysis of each goal in turn. Indeed, as discussed above, the goals of the ENP are closely linked to the EU’s actions and role abroad - the EU’s actorness having been discussed at length in Chapter 2 and representing a formative theoretical notion in respect to the research aims of this thesis more generally - and thus, the focus on the ENP’s goals specifically in Chapter 4 should come as no great surprise.

(ii) Owing then to the ‘comparative’ nature of the assessment and analysis of the changes made by the EU to ENP’s key goals after the Arab Spring in terms of their ‘substantiveness’ (discussed below) - it is therefore necessary next to provide a detailed account of each goal in the context of their post-Arab Spring conception. For each ENP

goal to be analysed vis-à-vis their respective changes and ‘substantive’ nature in Chapter 4 therefore, the main characteristics of that goal (its discursive construction, institutional features and components relating to its primary instrument for example) prior to the Arab Spring will therefore be detailed, constituting a further layer of understanding upon which the substantial analysis phase of Chapter 4 can be based.

(iii) Again, the ‘comparative’ nature of the assessment and analysis of the changes made by the EU to the ENP’s key goals after the Arab Spring in terms of their ‘substantiveness’ (discussed below) - is one that will rely heavily on an assessment of whether or not the changes made to each goal during the reform have been able to overcome historic shortcomings and limitations related to each goal evident pre-Arab Spring. In order to be able to do this, it is therefore also necessary to include a section for each goal dedicated to providing examples of key, common criticisms that have often been directed towards each goal by different agents including, but not limited to; the EU’s own self-reflections on the limits of its ENP goals, scholarly and academic criticism in this regard, and the concerns of think-tanks and other independent bodies interested in the ENP’s development specifically. By accounting for such varied sources of common criticism directed towards the ENP, the goals of the ENP effectively become problematized -

whereby yet another layer of understanding about the nature of such goals more generally can be garnered, and, once more, an effective backdrop for the analysis phase of Chapter 4 will clearly emerge.

(iv) Once the above ‘historical’ and ‘background’ elements of each goal have been given, a more thorough analysis of the EU’s actual reform of those particular goals after the Arab Spring be undertaken. Firstly, this denotes accounting for the actual changes made by the EU to each of the goals, following its reform of the policy including, but again not limited to; discursive changes, the creation of new institutional bodies and developments relating to a specific goal’s primary instrument. Given the scope and scale of this thesis, only the key changes made by the EU to the ENP can be discussed in this section, whereby their significance in this regard will be clearly noted where necessary throughout Chapter 4. Again, the EU’s own proclamations and documents relating to its actual reform of the policy post-Arab Spring will be used throughout these sections,

while academic and scholarly assessments of such changes will also be utilised here to provide a more full-bodied account of such incidences of policy change.

(v) Finally, an analysis of how ‘substantive’ the changes made to each goal of the ENP, by the EU, following its reform of the policy post-Arab Spring will take place, the final element necessary to gain a comprehensive understanding of how the EU responded to the Arab Spring, with respect to reforming the ENP - the first necessary component of the overarching research question guiding this work. Thus, for each goal discussed in Chapter 4, a broadly ‘comparative’ approach will be adopted in the final section for each goal respectively - contrasting the changes made to such goals following the Arab Spring with their pre-Arab Spring formulation. Such an approach is made possible by the extent to which the key elements constituting each goal will have been detailed in Chapter 4 prior to this point, and is based on the fact that there already exists a useful ‘benchmark’ for appropriating how extensive such changes have actually been. Indeed, the EU’s own claim that the changes made to each goal following the Arab Spring represented the ‘substantive’ nature of its reform of the ENP more generally, implies that any such assessment of the nature of the changes made to the ENP must also attempt to appropriate such a strong claim.

In the final sections for each goal detailed in Chapter 4, ‘substantive’ will be thus defined as the significant modification or expansion in the nature and scope of the goals/instruments of the ENP following the Arab Spring. Moreover, ‘substantive’ change will denote instances whereby such change has clearly led to specific outcomes or consequences for the ENP - namely, did such change equate to real, observable and tangible overcoming’s of the historic limitations and shortcomings associated with each of the ENP’s main goals, and of the ENP and EU foreign policy more generally? Indeed, while the EU may have ‘changed’ a particular aspect of a particular ENP goal for example (and later defined such change as ‘substantive’ itself) - the mere existence of such a ‘change’ does not necessarily imply that it was undeniably ‘substantive’ in any way, no matter how novel that change may appear to be on paper. In assessing the ‘substantive’ nature of the changes made to each goal by the EU following the Arab Spring therefore, each change must be shown to have had real and tangible consequences

for the ENP in practice and additionally, must include significant re-imaginings and re- formulations of each of those goals on paper. If the changes made to the ENP following the EU’s reform of the policy post-Arab Spring do not meet such criteria therefore, then such changes can not have been assessed to have been ‘substantive’.

In terms of the actual sources of data used for such an assessment of change, as noted above, key EU and ENP documents and proclamations will be utilised, while academic and scholarly assessments of such change will also be synergised into such accounts where they exist and are relevant. As a result, for each goal of the ENP discussed in detail in Chapter 4 - in the final analysis of the chapter itself - a clear and concise answer to the first constituent component of the overarching central research question can be given -

how ‘substantive’ were the changes made to the ENP, by the EU, following its post-Arab Spring reform of the policy in 2011?

The overall aim of chapter 4 therefore is threefold. First, it details the changes made, by the EU, to the ENP in the wake of the Arab Spring - with a particular emphasis on those concerning the key goals and associated instruments of the policy (as substantiated and detailed with respect to their significance in the context of the ENP, the nature of their formulation pre-Arab Spring and an account of their respective oft-stated historic limitations and shortcomings). Second, it then appropriates these same changes in terms of how ‘substantive’ they actually were, or have come to be - by way of a broadly