1. No category

When could new “potent small states” emerge?
A case of the Czech Republic
Paper prepared for the 7th Pan-European International Relations Conference,
Stockholm 9-11 September 2010 (draft version)
Stepanka Zemanova, University of Economics, Prague
Introduction
More than twenty years ago, at the end of the Cold War, a book titled „ Impotent
Superpower - Potent Small State“ (1988), written by a Norwegian scholar,
diplomat and human rights field-worker and activist Jan Egeland,1 explored the
capabilities of West European small states to develop effective foreign policies
within the field of human rights protection. Based on a comparison of Norway,
as an example of a small state constrained by its scarce resources and political
power, and the USA that could capitalize on both political and economic
strengths, it concluded that it seemed justified to ask “whether traditional
assumptions of a positive correlation between economic, military and diplomatic
resources on the one hand, and ability to influence external human rights
situations, on the other, are wrong” (p. 3). When answering the question it
brought an optimistic conclusion that, despite constraints deriving from the
smallness, small states may possess a potential of promoting international
human rights, be able to get results both at bilateral and at multilateral level and
contribute to positive changes in various parts of the world.
Since the end of the Cold War the group of states promoting human rights in
their foreign affairs has not been limited to Western ones any more. Some new
democracies have been trying to join their path, too. E.g. the Czech Republic has
been developing human rights and humanitarian policies since the peaceful split
of Czechoslovakia in 1993. In so doing she has been capitalizing on a long
humanist tradition in the Czech and Czechoslovak foreign policy as well as on
its own totalitarian experience, that was brought to an end by a velvet coup
d’état in the late 1989. However, is the long humanist tradition combined with
1
Egeland’s career includes e. g. the service as State Secretary in the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
United Nations Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Secretary
General of the Norwegian Red Cross o Chair of Amnesty International in Norway, and Vice-Chair of the
International Executive Committee of Amnesty International or director of the Norwegian Institute of
International Affairs.
Potent small states
more than 40 years lasting non-democratic experience sufficient to create
preconditions for successful human rights promotion and humanitarian solutions
in the Czech foreign policy? Can it really help the Czech Republic to join the
club of reputable “potent small states” that has been dominated by Western
nations such as the Scandinavian countries and Netherlands so far? To answer
these questions is the aim of the following paper.
The paper consists of two main parts. Part 1(sections 1.1 – 1.3) addresses the
issue of potent small state theoretically. It elaborates the concept of potency
from various perspectives in order to identify its basic components that can be
used for case studies. Part 2 (sections 2.1-2.4) applies the detected criteria on the
Czech human rights foreign policy, discusses its strengths and weaknesses and
attempt to asses whether it could become a potent small state along the lines of
Norway or the Netherlands in future.
1. Potent small states from a theoretical perspective
1.1 Why is a “potent small state” “small” and “potent”?
The term “potent small state” used by Egeland for the first time in an article of
1984 combines a classic concept of political science and the theory of
international relations - “smallness” of a state - with a new element of
“potency”. Smallness is an integral part of scholarship on states and their
capabilities since the 18th century. Nowadays it is usually identified with limited
resources and limited power that constrain possible foreign policy activities and
choices. It may be characterized by several objective quantitative categories
reflecting either physical size (number of inhabitants, size of the territory) or
economic performance (gross domestic product) of a state as well as by
subjective criteria including the fact whether a state is perceived or perceives
itself to be small. In addition, it is possible to define small states negatively as
those who simply do not fall to the category of great powers, middle powers or
micro-states (Neumann – Gstöhl 2006: 4-17).
As far as the main topic of this paper is concerned, smallness appears as an
endogenous, predetermined and almost stable category which does not need to
be a subject of a debate. The question is whether new small Central or East
European democracies, such as the Czech Republic, can became “potent” or
whether they can achieve such results and recognition as e.g. Norway and other
Nordic states or Netherlands do in the field of human rights protection.
2
Potent small states
Unlike smallness, potency is a category newly introduced by Egeland, but also
mentioned by other authors under different names such as effectiveness and
sufficiency, purposiveness Hasenkamp 2004: 1,336; Landmann2006: 126).
Egeland defines in his book (1988: 5) potency rather implicitly when speaking
about “a potential for promoting international human rights” and for
undertaking of a “long-term human rights campaign for international human
rights standards” that are, despite the modest small-state standards, consistent,
effective and “perceived as credible and worth of support”. In his earlier article
on the topic he elaborates the concept more thoroughly as “a combination of two
factors: a) the most effective influence on actual behaviour where and when it is
most needed, and b) the most efficient use of the global stock of material and
political resources for human rights work” (Egeland 1984:208) that is
“perceived as morally just and long term efficient”(ibid.: 209).
Thus, it can be concluded that potency involves two basic capabilities of a small
state human rights foreign policy: 1) the capability to achieve results and 2) the
capability to achieve recognition. These capabilities are manifested both in
decision-making and in human rights foreign policy implementation. They are
closely related although any of them can be considered neither for necessary not
for sufficient condition of the other.
1.2 Potency as the capability to achieve results and recognition – moving the
concept forward
Although it might seem easier to operationalize the capability to achieve results
as an objective part of potency, the opposite is true. The development of
analytical tools which would cover this area is, for the time being, at the very
beginning. Of course, the analysis of human rights foreign policy making and
implementation as such could draw lessons from general political analysis.
However, evaluation of results shows numerous specifics and requires original
approaches.
Just a mere comparison of human rights foreign policy goals with its
achievements (that could be termed simply the capability to meet targets) needs
to cope with a range of problems. The achievements cannot be captured only
from the perspective of countries taking account of human rights in their foreign
policies but (above all) from the perspective of target subjects. Given that the
targets are becoming parts of parallel operation of many other actors and
3
Potent small states
influences, it is difficult to isolate them, to adhere to the ceteris paribus
principle and to avoid the danger of post hoc, ergo propter hoc logical mistake.
Moreover, the achievements of human rights foreign policy depend on the way
how its goals are initially formulated. This means that with the awareness of the
necessity to defend the activity in different arenas, politicians may choose the
goals in such a way so that they were sufficiently legible and visible for other
subjects, although they know they are not optimal for addressing problems to be
solved. In addition, they may try to distort the results when presented to various
national and international political entities and to the public.
As obvious from the above mentioned definitions Egeland tries to avoid
difficulties connected with the straightforward understanding of the capability to
achieve results as the capability to meet targets with the introduction of two
additional criteria - effectiveness and efficiency (1984:208). They may be
accepted as useful with certain reservations. Effectiveness mirrors the adequacy
of objectives. However, the question still remains who and how determines what
is and what is not adequate or reasonable in the field of human rights protection
or from what position to decide about it.
Regardless of their actual size and economic potential,2 small states in the
definition of objectives always face constraints resulting from their smallness.
They cannot interfere in any urgent cases. In their struggle for effectiveness
efficiency must be taken into account simultaneously in order that they
concentrate their limited forces to a few niche-areas where they can capitalize on
their absolute and comparative advantages based in skills, contacts, knowledge
etc. From an economic point of view this means to invest the limited resources
in the most promising alternatives.
However, a thorough quantitative analysis is excluded for several reasons, too.
First, the achievements of human rights foreign policy are usually immaterial,
and therefore difficult to quantify. Second, costs of human rights foreign policy
are not limited to related expenditure. They also include a non-material
component of e.g. time and skills of people who implement the chosen
activities. In addition, the implementation of selected targets creates the socalled opportunity costs reflecting that some foreign policy alternatives had to
recede and possible losses occurring as a result of human rights foreign policy
2
These variables may vary in their values substantially as obvious from comparisons of e.g. Norway and the
Netherlands on one side and the Czech Republic, Slovakia or Slovenia on the other.
4
Potent small states
making, e.g. in a case when some steps lead to disturbances in economic
relations.
With regard to the just made reservations, the capability to achieve results could
be redefined as the capability to identify goals, that really matter and that it is
effective to pursue, and the capability to meet them. These variables do not offer
a single insight into the foreign policy as the notion whether certain goals of
ethical foreign policy may vary in relation to the character, personal attitudes
and values of the observer. However discursive analysis of documents issued by
governments, international organizations as well as other international and
national bodies, public statements and public debates together with public
opinion pools may show whether the goals are perceived as relevant and
effective in various international and national fora and allow comparisons across
small countries as well as across international arenas.
The recognition of a small state as potent, is as subjective as the evaluation of
results. The advantage of this situation is that it is detectable with the use of
similar analytical tools. Especially the analysis of international and national
discourses can detect whether ethical agendas of small state foreign policies
seem to other actors of international relations and to domestic audience like
morally just, credible or long term efficient.
1.3 How to become really potent?
As obvious, potency of ethical foreign policy comprises of its real conduct as
well as of its image inside and outside the relevant small state. Variables
affecting the conduct or quality of ethical foreign policy have been subjects of
fairly intensive scholarly inquiry. Egeland (1988: 13) distinguishes in this
context “two broad categories independent variables: (a) underlying motives
and interests, and (b) institutional variables such as governmental, nongovernmental, and inter-governmental sectors which are directly or indirectly
involved in the decision-making process”. Underlying motives and interest can
be decomposed further to three categories that include “(a) national self interest
(i.e. optimization of such goals as political and diplomatic influence, economic
and trade profits, and perceptions of „national security‟; (b) international,
national and even group norms and principles (i.e. perceptions of what is „right‟
and „wrong‟ in foreign policy form an ethical rather than a self interest
perspective); (c) knowledge and tradition (i.e. the ability to learn from past
5
Potent small states
experiences, build a national „institutional memory‟, and draw upon accumulate
expertise in the formulation and implementation of foreign policy)” (ibid.).
In general, underlying motives are manifested at the very beginning of the
decision-making process when finding is reached that human rights should
become a part of a state’s foreign policy on the basis of social demand and in
accordance with identity of society that lives there. At the same time it is also
reflected in fundamental decisions that predetermine the nature of human rights
foreign policy – e.g. what position human rights are supposed to take in the
foreign policy making (Mower 1987: 2, Baehr 2000: 74).
The outputs of the decision-making process, respectively, the general nature of
human rights foreign policy are summarized in a monograph by Alfred Glenn
Mower (1987: 2) into five crucial variables. They include:
a) reason – why an ethical rights foreign policy is pursued;
b) priority – how it relates to other foreign policy agendas;
c) definition – which human rights it focuses on, what international
instruments (treaties, declarations etc.) are considered to form the base of
human rights foreign policy;
d) goals – whether the policy aims only to improve the international
standard of human rights protection and to help the most needy people or it
tries to influence the situation in human rights breaking countries as well;
e) (geographical) scope – whether the policy is oriented towards
improvement in countries with severe human rights atrocities which
countries is the attention paid especially to, whether it is global in its nature
or limited only to a group of countries and which criteria do influence the
selection of particular states.
In addition, Jack Donnelly (2000: 315-320) suggests distinguishing between
nationalist and internationalist attitudes to international human rights protection.
The attitudes manifest themselves in two aspects – in the integration of human
rights to the system of values and in a state’s reluctance or preparedness to
accept international human rights pressures and to open itself to international
scrutiny. States tending to nationalist attitudes are characterized by
subordinating human rights under the principle of non-interference into
domestic affairs and associated with refusing criticism and control executed by
other states or international bodies. Simultaneously, they closely connect human
rights with their national culture which usually leads to prioritizing relativist
accounts. In contrast, internationalist attitudes are characterized by readiness to
6
Potent small states
cooperate, primacy of human rights over state sovereignty at least in certain
aspects and embedding universal human rights in ethic and values of particular
society.
Miao-ling Hasenkamp (2004: 283-284) and Kathryn Sikkink (2004: 10-12)
emphasize tools prevailing in human rights foreign policy realization. They
examine congruently whether a state prefers the level of bilateral relations with
the target country instead of multilateral arenas represented especially by
international organizations or it acts more likely at multilateral level or whether
both levels are nearly well-balanced. Furthermore, it may be useful to
distinguish between political and financial forms of human rights support. They
differ as for their visibility, flexibility and intensity of the unfolded pressure. At
the same time they are usually called into action with the use of different
procedures and different institutions, such as ministries of foreign relations in
the first case and ministries of development or economic cooperation, eventually
humanitarian funds and development agencies in the later one.
Egeland (1988: 14) portraits the process of ethical foreign policy as a three-step
sequence comprising of interests and motives, institutional variables and actual
ethical policy record with a feedback in form of ever-improving knowledge and
evolving tradition. His model can be further extended with the above mentioned
criteria identified by other authors as far as the nature of ethical foreign policy is
concerned. This is showed in figure 1.
+
-
Norms / principles
Decision-making process
State: Executive leaders,
Parlamentarians, State
bureaucracy
NGOs: Private groups,
New Media, Academia
IGOs:Intergovernmental
bodies / standards
Actual ethical policy
Self-interest
Institutional variables
Interests and motives
Figure 2: Extended Egeland’s model of ethical foreign policy making
reason
priority
definition
goals
scope
nationalism /
internationalism
bilateral /
multilateral tools
Knowledge and tradition
Adopted according to: EGELAND, J. (1988): Impotent Superpower – Potent Small State, Potentials
and Limitations of Human Rights Objectives in the Foreign Policies of the United States and Norway. Oslo:
Norwegian University Press. p. 14. Variables in italics added.
7
Potent small states
The image of ethical foreign policy is given primarily by its actual conduct. As
already discussed above, actual conduct reflects to some extent the capability to
define and implement the policy appropriately. However, other factors are also
playing an important role when the image of an ethical foreign policy is
constructed. Several authors, such as Andrew Williams, Jan Egeland and
Andrew Clapham, refer to coherence or consistency in this context. Williams
(2005: 6-11) emphasizes the need for coherence between internal and external
environment. He finds a policy to be coherent when it corresponds with the
conception and interpretation of human rights in domestic affairs of particular
states, does not reduce the internal notion of human rights significantly and does
not diverge from their internal definitions.
In contrast, Egeland (1988) pays attention solely to external affairs. Within this
field he focuses especially on temporal and spatial consequences. Regarding the
temporal dimension a stable conception of human rights which does not depend
on such factors as the changes of governing parties is typical for a coherent
approach. Spatial coherence means an application of the same criteria to all
political partners. Clapham (1999: 636-640) adds consistency of particular state
bodies’ activities and of available sources and conditions.
Finally, as human rights foreign policy belongs to a wider complex of foreign
policy agendas (whether value-based or value-neutral), consistency with other
agendas may represent an important feature. The credibility in such fields such
as peace-making and peace-keeping, crisis management or development
assistance contributes to generally good reputation of a state which helps to open
new possibilities and perspectives also for human rights foreign policy. Bad
record and in some other policy field may cause image degradation and thus act
as an obstacle.
As contemporary debates on soft power in international relations and on the new
public diplomacy tell us the image of a state does not emerge only passively but
that it may be designed and cultivated also actively by public communication
(Tuch 1990: 3; Melissen 2005: 7-12, Peterková 2008: 6-7). Thus, to get an
international profile it is useful, that a state, whose ethical policy gets results and
is not undermined by any kind of inconsistence, avoids the danger of being
invisible or still considered as impotent by accompanying its policy with
unambiguous and clear messages to foreign and domestic pubic. These
messages cannot be reduced to a mere presentation of achievements. They have
to include a great narrative (or several smaller stories) that would link the nature
8
Potent small states
of the ethical foreign policy in terms of its reason, priorities, definition, goals,
scope, tools and outputs, to identity, history, tradition and general foreign policy
mission of the country (Leonard and Small 2003; Bátora 2005: 16). With
regard to the whole set of variables introduced in this and in the previous section
a comprehensive model of a potent small state ethical foreign policy can be
suggested now in figure 3.
achievements
reason,
priority,
definition,
goals, tools
potent small
state
general
narrative /
naratives
consistency
Image of EFP
presentation
of
achievements
Results of HRFP
features of
decisionmaking
process
HRFP
self-interest
vs. norms
and
principles
Institutional variables
Interests and motives
Figure 3: A comprehensive model of a potent small state human rights foreign
policy (HRFP)
Knowledge, tradition
1.4 What does the experience of “already potent” small states suggest?
As showed in previous sections in a closer look real potency is given by the
following capabilities:
1) to define human rights foreign policy with regard to internal and external
constraints the state faces as well as with the awareness of its comparative
advantages,
2) to capitalize on history, tradition, previous achievements when looking for
attractive narratives that would informing the public on human rights
foreign policy,
3) to achieve goals and to popularize achievements,
4) to be consistent and coherent in different senses of these words.
9
Potent small states
Small states that have managed to exceed their limited foreign policy options
and to become potent, such as Norway or the Netherlands were able to
demonstrate each of them at least partially. Their human rights foreign policies
were initiated by a clear mission statement, 3 regularly updated in subsequent
formal policy documents. The policies have been linked to international human
rights standards from the very beginning. Political and civil rights, on the one
hand, and economic, social and cultural, on the other, have been considered
indivisible and of equal importance. Both countries have combined multilateral
approaches with bilateral initiatives. Within multilateral approaches, each has
been able to define a set of thematic priorities where it has concentrated its
efforts and tried to move international agenda forward. In bilateral relations
where the constraints deriving from smallness are clearest, individual initiatives
have been combined with joint action with other members of international
society (Baehr 2000: 52-53, 61-68).
Information on human rights promotion as an important part of foreign policy
mission has been disseminated both at the domestic level and abroad from the
very beginning. In both cases it has been possible to achieve relatively high and
stable public support in the internal environment which reflects in part protestant
political culture and a high degree of solidarity within society. Simultaneously,
human rights foreign policy has been linked to long-term foreign policy
tradition, which serves also as broader context providing great narratives of
Dutch openness to the world, strong interest in events abroad and internationalist
idealism or of on-going Norwegian international peace facilities. Links were
established also to prominent of national history such as the Dutch lawyer Hugo
Grotius or the Norwegian polar explorer and humanist Fridtjof Nansen (Baehr
2000: 50; Bátora 2005: 7; Henrikson 2006: 4-5; Weisová – Cabada 2009: 109,
Zemanová 2008: 68-69).
Over time the general information has been complemented with more detailed
data on results of the daily work. Today they are easily accessible e.g. via the
internet in form of communication to public on interim issues 4 as well as more
comprehensive studies such as the regular reports on Norway’s efforts to
promote human rights or Dutch human rights strategies (The Norwegian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2009: 8-9).
3
Memorandum Human Rights and Foreign Policy of 1979 in the case of the Netherlands a White Paper No. 93
(1976-1977) on "Norway and the Protection of International Human Rights“ of 1977.
4
See e.g. www.government.no – Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Human Rights ; www.norway-un.org
section The Big Issues – Human Rights; www.minbuza.nl – sezon Key Issues – Human Rights;
10
Potent small states
In both cases the policy capitalizes on good results in other policy fields such as
peace broking or disarmament in the case of Norway or international legal
initiatives in the case of the Netherlands. Among these areas one seems to be of
special importance in connection with human rights for its simplicity, clear
measurability and comparability to other states. It is the official development
assistance expressed as the ODA/GNP ratio that has been exceeding 0.7% for
many years. Meeting the target value of this variable, declared by the UN almost
four decades ago and revitalized in the context of the Millennium Goals, that
appears unique even today allows both Norway and the Netherlands to present
themselves as leaders in international development and solidarity although in
absolute terms their contribution is of lesser importance than those of bigger
states and the ratio alone does not tell anything about the real impact of ODA.
Despite the fact that smaller states are generally supposed to cope more simply
with conflicts of interests and ethical choices in their foreign policies (Egeland
1984: 2008-209) they cannot avoid them absolutely. Thus, both Norway and the
Netherlands, although attempting to pursue a human rights policy consistent
over time, always show a certain degree of incoherence. Recent Dutch domestic
restrictions of political and civic rights in the context of the fight against
terrorism and Islamic extremism or tightening of immigration and asylum policy
are two examples of incoherence between internal and external environment.
Norway’s whaling activities represent a case of human rights policy incoherence
with other foreign policy agendas. This cases of incoherence, resulting in split
image deteriorations, are partially compensated by explaining and advocacy
within the public diplomacy framework (Bátora 2005:7; Weisová – Cabada
2009: 130-133, 157-159)
2. The Czech Republic - an emerging potent small state?
2.1 The new shape of the Czech human rights foreign policy since 1993
The Czech human rights foreign policy since the establishment of a new
independent state in 1993 developed in a significantly different context than the
Norwegian or Dutch ones. It was launched at the period of transition from
totalitarian to democratic regime combined with transformation of
underperforming economy. The lack of resources typical for a small county was
perceived (and has been still perceived) more urgent than in the two later cases.
As a consequence, it could not benefit from a high degree of solidarity and postmaterialism of domestic society.
11
Potent small states
In external affairs Norway and the Netherlands had to adapt their already
established policies to new (and of course more favourable) international
context. For the Czech Republic (and former Czechoslovakia until 1992) the end
of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Eastern communist block meant
fundamental transformation of its foreign policy including human rights agenda.
In its previous policy within this field, nationalist attitudes, aimed at preventing
international pressures and criticism for violations of political and civic rights,
dominated. The new internationalist direction chosen with the aim to return to
democratic Europe, to which the former Czechoslovakia belonged in the
interwar period and shortly after World War II., lead first to a broad formal and
practical acceptance of international human rights mechanism and international
scrutiny.
Of course, this happened in accordance with the most fundamental foreign
policy goal – the return of the country to the elite club of European democracies
and the confirmation of its belonging to transatlantic civilization circle,
symbolically expressed with country’s accession to relevant international
structures such as the NATO, Council of Europe, OECD or the EU. The
pressure of these organizations, especially of the Council of Europe, where the
acceptance of European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms is an assumption of full membership, and of the EU, that included
respect to human rights into the Copenhagen criteria of new member admission,
supported the change significantly, but were not the only factor in play.
The linkage of the new political elites, and the last Czechoslovak and the first
Czech president Václav Havel as its head, with human rights issues, which had
played an important role in the formation of Czech dissent since the late 1970s,
strengthened the Czech ambitions. The Czech Republic could not satisfy with a
role of mere recipient of international commitments who repeatedly tries to
prove its improving domestic record at the international stage. There has always
been also a struggle for an active participation in international human rights
protection at the multilateral level which lead gradually to an active involvement
in international monitoring bodies and their political and legal initiatives. The
combination of the need to response to new incentives from international
organizations and of own engagement formed the first thematic priorities of the
Czech Republic – minority rights, fight against racism and the Roma question,
torture and cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment, improvement of human
12
Potent small states
rights monitoring mechanisms and thematic procedures in human rights
protection etc.
In bilateral relations specific initiatives were limited by the already mentioned
lack of. Thus, human right promotion in external relations of the Czech Republic
(and Czechoslovakia to 1992) were dominated by support to human rights
defenders such as Dalai Lama or persecuted people such as Salman Rushdie and
episodic public criticism and condemnation of non-democratic regimes (Šedivý
1997: 100-102).
In the late 1990s a significant territorial issue was added through the
engagement in Cuba. Here the Czech Republic emphasized probably for the first
time its own transition experience that should form the base of its specific
contribution to human rights protection in the following years. It also tried to
capitalize on the above average knowledge of the domestic environment in Cuba
and long ties and interpersonal contact established at the time when
Czechoslovakia was the most active economic partner of Cuba among the soviet
satellites. The discrete support to opposition movements in Cuba was combined
with initiatives at multilateral level, e.g. with co-sponsorship and sponsorship of
resolutions on situation of human rights in Cuba in the former UN Commission
on Human Rights (Pštross 2004: 216; Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2001).
However, as obvious from the official Czech foreign policy concepts of 1999
and 2003 (Government of the Czech Republic 1999, Government of the Czech
Republic 2003) human rights principles together with basic principles of modern
West European democracy were understood rather as a general value framework
of the Czech foreign policy than as a separate agenda. The still limited active
human rights foreign policy, therefore, lacked clear mission statement and in its
emerging bilateral dimension also precise definition of objectives and
instruments. This changed first during the following decade, especially thanks to
the creation of the so-called TRANS programme.
2.2 The need of an active small state foreign policy and the Czech transition
promotion programme
As a full member of key (formerly West) European organizations since 2004
when the process of its return to Europe finished on 1st May 2004 with the first
wave of the Eastern enlargement of the EU, the Czech Republic has been forced
to define its place in relation to other members of these organizations and to
search for the roles it could play here in future. As a small state with an open
13
Potent small states
economy it has been struggling particularly with a problem of visibility and
attractiveness for its foreign partners (Peterková 2008: 7; Bátora 2005: 7).
At the same time it has been facing the fact that it finds itself in a new reference
group and is compared with other states than before. Prior the accession it
belonged to a limited group of candidate countries. Here it could from the
position of a more advanced and more rapid one in the ongoing transition.
Today (although it is still distinguished between the old members and the new
members) it must keep pace with many more advanced states, better established
on the international scene. Visible foreign policy success that can be achieved
inter alia in the field of human rights foreign policy appears almost as a
necessity.
The new trend could not be recorded in foreign policy concepts as the latest one
for the years 2003-2006 was adopted in 2003 and a new one has been missing
since then. However, the regular reports on the Czech foreign policy published
by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs classified this policy repeatedly as one of the
Czech priorities. In 2005 the Czech Republic expressed its readiness to develop
its human rights foreign policy agenda with the creation of a new financial tool,
the so-called transition promotion programme (TRANS). The programme logo
is recorded in figure 3.
Figure 3 – The Czech Transition Promotion Programme – logo
Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2010a). Available at:
http://www.mzv.cz/jnp/cz/zahranicni_vztahy/lidska_prava/transformacni_spoluprace_1/koncepce_transformacni
_spoluprace.html (1.9.2010).
.
After five years of programme operation it is possible to say that the programme
represents the specific Czech contribution to bilateral human rights protection,
although not uncontroversial. As stated above, the comparative advantage or
value that the Czech Republic could add in the field of human rights was first
formulated in relation to Cuba as support to democratization processes with
possible transmission of specific Czech experience. Together with the creation
of TRANS programme it was extended to a set of priority countries including
14
Potent small states
(next to Cuba) Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, Georgiea, Iraq, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Burma/Myanmar.5
As obvious, the general targets of the programme exceed the area of
internationally protected human rights as they include democracy promotion.
This leads to clashes with the binding international legal norms of respect to
sovereignty and non-interference into domestic affairs. One could admit that the
norms have been already partially broken as far as a set of basic human rights is
concerned. However this is not true in regard to the change of the nature of
domestic regime. Thus, the policy is accepted by countries that undergo
transition processes and need help but not by those still under totalitarian rule.
As indicated by Bílková and Matějková (2010: 126) there are reservations both
inside the Czech Republic and outside – e.g. within the EU, although similar
agendas are included also in other member states human rights policies and
foreign aid – especially in the British and Swedish ones (ibid: 141). This
situation forces the key actors of transition promotion, the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and non-governmental bodies involved in the programme
implementation, to search for its authorisation and legitimization.
Paradoxically, the thematic priorities of the transition promotion are defined in a
more narrow way and, in principle, they correspond with major topics of current
Czech human rights policy in multilateral fora. Most of them could be easily
linked to current international human rights standards. The include:
-
civil society and human rights defenders,
free and independent media including internet,
rule of law and principles of good governance,
free elections,
equality and non-discrimination (Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2010b: 4-6).
The reservation to human rights policy could be alleviated with the development
to the EU’s Agenda for Action on Democracy support in EU external Relations
that was adopted under Swedish presidency in November 2009.
Despite the just mentioned problems it may be concluded that the Czech
Republic has proven the capability to define human rights foreign policy with
regard of its constraints and that is also succeeded in identifying its comparative
5
According to an up-dated vision of the transformation co-operation concept of 2010 priority countries include
the states of Eastern Partnership of the EU (Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine), Western Balkan (Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo) Burma/Myanmar and Cuba (Program transformační spolupráce 2010: 1).
15
Potent small states
advantages. The current shape of human rights is summarized in figure 4 with
the use of the above described analytical tools.
Figure 4: The Czech human rights foreign policy
Human Rights Foreign Policy
reason
priority
definition
scope
nationalism /
internationalism
tools
past totalitarian experience, new presence in
democratic European structures
not discussed intensively, human rights considered to
be in accordance with security interests, sometimes
clash with economic needs of the Czech Republic
rhetorically both political and civic rights and
economic, social and cultural rights, in practice more
political and civil rights, special emphasis on civic
society, human rights defenders, free media, free
elections...
small group of priority countries
internationalism
bilateral + multilateral, financial + political
2.3 Vulnerabilities of the Czech human rights foreign policy
Looking back to almost two decades of the Czech human rights foreign policy a
long list of achievements could be completed. They reach from successful
initiatives in international bodies over active participation in international
negotiations on new human rights instruments to concrete case of financial
support to students from priority totalitarian countries at the Czech universities.
However, the real impact of the Czech foreign policy within the human rights
area is difficult to evaluate. Even the method of discursive analysis, which has
already been suggested as a possible analytical tool to assess effectiveness, fails
because the discourse is limited to small groups of professionals somehow
participating in human rights foreign policy making and implementation. A
broader public debate on human rights foreign policy or transformation
promotion has been missing (Bílková – Matějková 2010: 139-140).The
persisting need to explain and justify the policy suggests that the external degree
of acceptance is low. The same could be concluded from several Czech
unsuccessful candidacies to international human rights bodies such as the 2001
candidacy of an outstanding Czech specialist in human rights and international
law Dalibor Jilek to the UN Commitee on the Rights of the Child.
16
Potent small states
One of the possible reasons of this state may be the insufficient promotion of the
Czech human rights and transition policies. The information disseminated by the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic in its publications and via
World Wide Web pages is predominantly of technical nature. Unlike the earlier
examples of Norway or the Netherlands, there is in not any public promotion
and no everyday reporting on human rights issues solved by the ministry or the
government.
Furthermore, there are only two medium-sized stories explaining the origins and
evolution of the Czech human rights foreign policy – one links it to the past
totalitarian experience and the other emphasise the commitment to human rights
within the former Czech dissent. The Czech Republic has not been able to
exploit its long humanist tradition of the Czech nation that offer linkages e.g. to
medieval Bohemian king George of Poděbrady and his proposal of peaceful
coalition of European Christian or the father of modern education John Amos
Comenius who, next to his pedagogical work, also theorized on perpetual peace
in the world (Kumpera 1999).
In addition, various types of inconsistence contribute to the unsatisfactory image
of the Czech foreign policy within the field of human rights, too. Reports of
human rights monitoring mechanisms as well as of non-governmental
organizations involved in human rights protection discover the incoherence
between internal and external affairs e.g. in the Roma question that, despite
considerable efforts of the Czech administrative, continues to be a sensitive
political and social issue.
The inconsistence of state bodies and their activities could be demonstrated on
several examples of tension between the government, the president and the
parliament. Within the field of human right protection they include the
reluctance to ratify some treaty instruments – recently The Rome Status of the
International Criminal Court (Hasenkopf 2009). The image of human rights
policy is also endangered by controversial activities of some representatives also
in other agendas and areas – the questioning of the global warming by the Czech
president Václav Klaus or the fall of the Topolánek government caused by
internal political strives that sharply damaged the Czech EU presidency in 2009.
Of cause, in some areas the record of the Czech Republic seems to be smooth.
The Czech human rights foreign policy shows both temporal and spatial
consistency, although double standards cannot be fully avoided. There are also
17
Potent small states
other foreign policy agendas that could contribute to good reputation of human
rights foreign policy, such as the achievements of the Czech anti-chemical
defence specialist in international peace-keeping mission and war operations or
the deployment of the Czech whippers and specially trained fire-fighters in the
aftermath of natural catastrophes, their extent seems to be still rather limited.
Unfortunately, unlike the above discussed potent small states of Western
Europe, the image cannot be improved by excellent record in official
development assistance. Before the fall of socialism in Central and Eastern
Europe, former Czechoslovakia provided its development assistance to many
countries of the third world. In 1970s and 1980s it belonged to prominent donors
in the Eastern block. In accordance with the logic of the Cold War it clearly
prioritized socialist states or non-aligned ones. After the collapse of the
communist regime the ideologically burdened aid programme, discredited both
in the West and in the eyes, of the Czech and Slovak public was ended. As a
transition economy Czechoslovakia became a recipient of official assistance
provided both by international organizations on a multilateral base and at
bilateral level by highly developed Western states. Around 1992 the government
considered the revitalization of the ODA programme. However, the initiative
was interrupted by the dissolution of federation (Jelínek 2003, Czech
development agency S.l.).
In March 1995 the government of the Czech Republic adopted a resolution
concerning renewal of the Czech ODA. It envisaged a conceptual approach to
ODA reflecting the urgency and relations between potential recipient countries
and the Czech Republic and emphasising either countries verging on democracy
and the full respect to human rights as well as on market economy or countries
where the reorientation in this direction may be effected positively by foreign
assistance (Government of the Czech Republic 1995: enclosure, articles 6,8)
Yet, in practice the fragmentation of the ODA organizational base hampered the
realization of such approach. Particular governmental departments implemented
especially smaller isolated project with limited contribution to improvement of
economic and social situation in target states (Plešinger et al 2005, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic 2002).
An assessment of the Czech ODA achievements carried out and discussed by the
Czech government in September 2001 detected several shortcomings almost in
all phases of ODA realization. They occurred already in the phase of planning
and project preparation in a form of the lack or unified methodology and
18
Potent small states
permeated also financing (falling behind planed volumes), statistics and
evaluation. Furthermore, the geographical scope of the Czech ODA including
more than 40 countries was too large in the conditions of a relatively small
transition state. The system was fragmented also in term of sectors it covered.
The ministry of foreign affairs appeared insufficient in fulfilling its coordinating role both vis-a-vis other governmental bodies and the nongovernmental sector and unlike NGOs it did not manage to win wider awareness
and support of the Czech public, too (Government of the Czech Republic, 2001).
In a response to the analysis the government acknowledged a new concept of the
Czech ODA for the period of 2002-2007 based on the principles of partnership
(instead of the outworn donor – recipient approach), effectiveness and
transparency. Simultaneously the reform proposal reflected a shift of global
development paradigm from the liberal export oriented Washington consensus
guiding the development policy since the late 1970s to a human oriented one
understanding the development as expanding individual capabilities, increasing
quality of life an extending real freedom of people inhabiting particular
countries of the third world. Further changes were envisaged in the Guidelines
of the foreign development assistance after the Czech Republic admission to the
EU (Government of the Czech Republic, 2004) approved by the government
shortly before 1 May 2004. However the Guidelines did not succeed in
improving the inconvenient organizational base of the Czech ODA, especially in
overcoming its fragmentation.
In 2007 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic announced a
transformation of the Czech official development assistance (ODA) system,
which is still ongoing. From the qualitative point of view this was a new step in
a sequence of arrangements carried out with the aim to change the way of
providing the development assistance. The former ones, initiated during the
years 2002 and 2004, were merely reforms in their nature although the
conception of development assistance for the period of 2002-2007 pointed out
numerous shortcomings in the functioning of the system with the lack of
effectiveness and transparency on their top. However, actual results of the
transformation are for the time being difficult to assess.
In 2005 the Czech Republic graduated within the system of the World Bank
from a recipient to a donor country. At the end of 2007 similar graduation
followed within the European Bank for reconstruction and development. By that
time the Czech ODA/GNP ratio oscillated around 0.1% which is (despite the
19
Potent small states
rapid increase from 0.017% in 2000 – Czech Development Agency S.l.) one of
the best results among the new EU member states (but not significantly better
than e.g. Slovak or Slovenian ones). The outlook in the incoming years is not
optimistic because the Czech Republic currently carries out a series of saving
measures in order to restore healthy state finance. Any substantial increase in
the ODA/GNP ration cannot be expected for the time being.
2.4 The Czech Republic as a future potent small state?
From the perspective of four capabilities forming potency, the current record of
the Czech Republic is mixed. The only criterion that has been fulfilled
completely is the capability to define human rights foreign policy with regard to
internal and external constraints. Relatively good performance as far as the
capability to meet targets is deteriorated by the insufficient public presentation
of results. Presentation and communication with the domestic and foreign public
fails also in the overall popularization of the Czech human rights policy and in
its support by great historical narratives despite the fact that the Czech humanist
tradition offers several narratives directly applicable.
The coherence and consistence are problematic to some extent. The Czech
human rights policy shows relatively high stability in its thematic priorities,
territorial scope as well as available sources. However, these strengths are
undermined by reluctance and missteps in other policy fields often caused by
internal political frictions and disputes between state authorities. Key findings
regarding four capabilities are summarized in figure 5.
Figure 5: Basic Components of Potency: Czech Balance
Capability
define human rights foreign policy with regard to internal and external
constraints the state faces as well as with the awareness of its comparative
advantages
capitalize on history, tradition, previous achievements when looking for
attractive narratives informing the public on human rights foreign policy,
achieve goals and to popularize achievements
be consistent and coherent in different senses of these words.
Czech
record
+
+++-
20
Potent small states
As far as the process of human rights foreign policy making and implementation
are concerned, institutional variables, respectively, the futures of the decision
making process represent the most serious weakness, too. As already mentioned
the Czech Republic sometimes faces also the conflicts of self-interests and
principles and norms in its foreign policy and in some cases these conflicts are
solved at the expense of the later. However, as the Norwegian and Dutch
examples show this is a natural phenomenon in foreign-policy making and such
behaviour is tolerated by international community to some extent. The strong
and weak points of the Czech human rights foreign policy are summarized in
figure 6.
Figure 6: Strengths and weaknesses of the Czech human rights foreign
policy
achievements
presentation of
achievements
general
narrative /
naratives
Image of HRFP
HRFP
reason,
priority,
definition,
goals, tools
Results of HRFP
features of
decisionmaking
process
Institutional variables
Interests and motives
self-interest
vs. norms
and
principles
?
knowledge, tradition
strengths
weakness
What has not been discussed so far but should be added undoubtedly when
dealing with the Czech human rights policy and its potency is that the Czech
Republic has not cleared its intention to become a potent small state with an
ethical foreign agenda. It has referred to human rights as to a value framework
of its foreign affairs or as a priority. Nevertheless, it never declared that it should
be a profile agenda highlighting the Czech Republic as a small state at the
international stage. This is a crucial difference from Norway and the
Netherlands, whose intensive engagement started, as already mentioned, with
clear mission statements. In current world where the soft power plays
increasingly important role it may be a mistake. Indeed, as Joseph Nye (2004: x)
suggests: “When you can get others to admire your ideals and to want what you
21
Potent small states
want, you do not have to spent so much on sticks and carrots to move them in
your direction. Seduction is always more effective than coercion, and many
values like democracy, human rights, and individual opportunities are deeply
seductive.“
Conclusion
If one asks, after a more detailed insight into the Czech human rights policy,
whether the Czech Republic is a potent small a state at present, no must be
answered inevitably. During the last two decades (and especially in the last
decade) the Czech Republic did much within this area and built a solid base of
the objective components of potency. Of course, it is necessary to continue and
to remove remaining gaps but the perspective seems to be good in this regard.
What appears as a crucial shortcoming today is the lack of interest in the
subjective component. The effort to be recognized as a potent small state is
limited which constraints the further development of the policy overall. It cannot
capitalize on its long traditions and the tradition itself does not guarantee
success.
If the question is whether the Czech Republic could become a potent state, it is
possible to say yes with certain reservations. Future shape of the Czech human
rights foreign policy and its image will derive from the developments in internal
affairs, especially on the degree of political consensus and the reduction of
tensions between various institutions. It will also depend on economic
performance which determinates available resources of the policy. Last but not
least, it will go hand in hand with the improvements of the Czech public
diplomacy and with better communication strategy of governmental bodies
responsible for the human rights foreign policy making. Within the framework
of these activities should explicitly declare its aspirations that may be deduced
from a series of sub-references in foreign policy documents and statements
today but lacks an unambiguous and clear background.
To estimate when the state could joint the club of potent small countries is, on
the contrary, a heavy task. The experience of Norway or the Netherlands shows
that it is a long process. However, saying that the Czech Republic would achieve
full membership in this imaginary institution in ten or twenty years would be
mere guessing.
22
Potent small states
The author greatefully acknowledges funding from Ministry of Education, Youth
and Sports of the Czech Republic and the Faculty of International Relations,
University of Economic Prague (research plan MSM6138439909).
Štěpánka Zemanová, PhD holds a Ph.D. degree from the University of
Economics, Prague. She is currently an assistant professor at the Jan Masaryk
Centre of International Studies and senior research fellow at the Department of
World Economy (both Faculty of International Relations, University of
Economics, Prague). Her research interests cover European integration and
political and economic aspects of international human rights protection. She is
the author of Europeanization of human rights foreign policy (Oeconomica,
2008) and editor of Human Dimension of International Politics (Oeconomica,
2004). In addition, she has published numerous articles on international human
rights protection, Europeanization, sanctions policy of the EU and the Czech EU
presidency.
23
Potent small states
References
BAEHR, Peter R. (2000): Trials and Errors: The Netherlands and Human
Rights. In: FORSYTHE, D. P., ed. (2000): Human Rights and Comparative
Foreign Policy. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, pp. 49-86.
BÁTORA, Jozef (2005): Public Diplomacy in Small and Medium-sized States:
Norway and Canada. Discussion Papers in Diplomacy. The Hague: Netherland
Institute
of
International
Relations
Clingendael.
Available
at:
http://ccges.apps01.yorku.ca/old-site/IMG/pdf/13_Batora.pdf (28.8.2010).
CLAPHAM, Andrew (1999): Human rights 'conditionality' in relation to entry
to, and full participation in, the EU. In: ALSTON, P., ed. (1999): The EU and
Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 627-686.
Czech Development Agency (S.l.): Zahraniční rozvojová spolupráce České
republiky. Available at: http://www.rozvojovestredisko.cz/about_rspol.php
(2.9.2010).
DONNELLY, Jack (2000): An Overview. in: Forsythe, D. P., ed.: Human Rights
and Comparative Foreign Policy. Tokyo: United Nations University Press 2000,
pp. 310-334.
DRULÁK, Petr - DRULÁKOVÁ, Radka (2007), Tvorba a analýza zahraniční
politiky. Praha: Oeconomica.
EGELAND, Jan (1988): Impotent Superpower – Potent Small State, Potentials
and Limitations of Human Rights Objectives in the Foreign Policies of the
United States and Norway. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.
EGELAND, Jan (1984): Human Rights – Ineffective Big States, Potent Small
States. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 207-213.
FORSYTHE, David P., ed. (2000): Human Rights and Comparative Foreign
Policy. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Government of the Czech Republic (1995): Usnesení vlády České republiky ze
dne 15. března 1995 č. 153 + P k zásadám pro poskytování zahraniční pomoci.
Available at:
http://racek.vlada.cz/usneseni/usnweb.nsf/0/7897B04C221A1F30C12571B6006
BDB3E (18.11.2008).
24
Potent small states
Government of the Czech Republic. (1998). Koncepce zahraniční politiky na
léta 1998-2002. Available at: www.vlada.cz:
www.vlada.cz/assets/cs/vlada/historie/prehled/1993-2007/19980722/koncepcezahranici.doc. (16.8.2009).
Government of the Czech Republic (2001). Usnesení č. 908/2001 k Analýze a
zhodnocení realizace zahraniční rozvojové pomoci České republiky za období
let 1996-2000. Available at:
http://kormoran.vlada.cz/usneseni/usneseni_webtest.nsf/web/cs?Open&2001&0
9-12 (16.8.2009).
Government of the Czech Republic (2005): Usnesení vlády České republiky č.
1311 z 15. listopadu 2005 o Pravidlech pro výběr a financování bilaterálních
projektů v rámci zahraniční rozvojové spolupráce České republiky. Available at:
http://kormoran.vlada.cz/usneseni/usneseni_webtest.nsf/web/cs?Open&2005&1
0-12 (18.11.2008).
Government of the Czech Republic (2004): Usnesení vlády České republiky z
31. března 2004 č. 302+P k institucionálním změnám a k zásadám poskytování
zahraniční rozvojové pomoci po vstupu České republiky do EU. Available at:
http://www.mpsv.cz/files/clanky/1632/uv_302_2004.pdf (18.11.2008).
HASENKAMP, Miao-ling (2004): Universalisation of Human Rights? The
Effectiveness of Western Human Rights Policies towards Developing Countries
after the Cold War Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang
HASENKOPF, Pavel (2009): K ratifikaci Římského statutu mezinárodního
trestního soudu Českou republikou. Available at:
http://www.fragmenty.cz/archiv/iy138.htm (1.9. 2010).
HENRIKSON, Alan K.: (2006):What Can Public Diplomacy Achieve?
Discussion Papers in Diplomacy. The Hague: Netherland Institute of
International Relations Clingendael. Available at:
http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2006/20060900_cdsp_paper_dip_c.pdf
(2.9.2010).
JELÍNEK, Petr (2003). Rozvojová pomoc Visegrádských států. Available at:
Visegrad.info: http://www.visegrad.info/?q=cs/node/7 (16.8.2009).
KUMPERA, Jan (1999): Poselství J.A. Komenského pro vzdělanost a humanitu
dneška. Available at: http://www.vialucis.cz/Komensky.htm (2.9.2010).
25
Potent small states
PETERKOVÁ, Jana (2008): Veřejná diplomacie malých států a realita české
republiky, Mezinárodní vztahy. 43: 2, pp. 5-24
MELISSEN, Jan (2005): Wielding Soft-power. The New Public Diplomacy. The
Hague: Netherland Institute of International Relations Clingendael. Available at
http://www.nbiz.nl/publications/2005/20050500_cdsp_paper_diplomacy_2_meli
ssen.pdf (28.8.2010).
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. (2002). Zpráva o zahraniční
politice české republiky za rok 2001. Available at:
http://www.mzv.cz/jnp/cz/zahranicni_vztahy/vyrocni_zpravy_a_dokumenty/zpr
ava2001.html (1.9.2010).
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. (2002). Response to the
Global Challenges of the New Millenium. Report of the Foreign Development
Cooperation of the EU. Available at: http://mfa.cz/aid (18.10.2008).
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. (2002). Response to the
Global Challenges of the New Millenium. Report of the Foreign Development
Cooperation of the EU. Získáno 6. listopad 2008, z http://mfa.cz/aid.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic (2010b): Popis programu
Transformační spolupráce. Available at:
http://www.mzv.cz/jnp/cz/zahranicni_vztahy/lidska_prava/transformacni_spolup
race_1/koncepce_transformacni_spoluprace.html (1.9.2010).
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic (2010a): Koncepce
transformační spolupráce (TRANS). Praha. Available at:
http://www.mzv.cz/jnp/cz/zahranicni_vztahy/lidska_prava/transformacni_spolup
race_1/koncepce_transformacni_spoluprace.html (1.9.2010).
MOWER, Alfred Glenn (1987): Human rights and American Foreign policy.
Westport: Greenwood Press.
NYE, Joseph (2004): Soft Power. The Means to Success in World Politics. New
York: Public Affairs.
PLEŠINGER, Jan - KAPLAN, Michal - JELÍNEK, Petr- EXNEROVÁ, Věra
(2005): Zahraniční rozvojová pomoc ČR. Available at:
http://www.rozvojovka.cz/index.php?id=228&idArt=3 (6.8.2008).
PŠTROSS, Tomáš (2004): Problematika lidských práv v české zahraniční
politice. In: Pick, Otto - Handl, Vladimír, eds. (2004): Zahraniční politika České
26
Potent small states
republiky 1993-2004. Úspěchy, problémy a perspektivy. Praha: Ústav
mezinárodních vztahů. Pp. 211-226.
SIKKINK, Kathryn (2004): Mixed Signals. U. S. Human Rights Policy and
Latin America. New York: Cornell University Press.
ŠEDIVÝ, Jiří (1997): Černínský palác v roce nula. Praha: Ivo Ţelezný.
The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2009): The Role of Human Rights
in Norwegian Foreign and Development Policy. Available at:
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Vedlegg/Menneskerettigheter/HR_Foreig
nPolicy_Report022010.pdf (1.9.2010).
TUCH, Hans N. (1990): Communicating With The World: The Story Of The
Us Foreign Information Agency. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
WAISOVÁ, Šárka – CABADA, Ladislav (2009): Etika a mezinárodní politika.
Plzeň: Aleš Čeněk.
WILLIAMS, Andrew. (2005): EU Human Rights Policies. A Study in Irony.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WHITE, B. (2004): Foreign Policy Analysis and the New Europe, In:
CARLSNAES, W.; SJURSEN, H..; WHITE, B., eds. (2004): Contemporary
European Foreign Policy. London: SAGE Publications. Pp. 11-31.
ZEMANOVÁ, Štěpánka (2007): Zahraniční politika v oblasti lidských práv.
Postup a metody analýzy. Mezinárodní vztahy 42: 1, Pp. 25-47.
ZEMANOVÁ, Štěpánka (2008): Evropeizace zahraniční politiky v oblasti
lidských práv. Praha: Oeconomica.
27