CC BY
17POLITICAL SCIENCES
UDC 327.7
OVERVIEW OF EU CRISIS MANAGEMENT IN LIGHT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Sultanova N.
Advisor to the rector on international affairs, Azerbaijan Technical University
Abstract
The objective of the study: to investigate the crisis management of EU in light of COVID-19 pandemic and to analyze the work of its institutions in terms of solidarity and coherence.
Research methods: the methodological framework of the conducted research in the article is based on different approaches. Common methods for a research activity have been applied, namely text (primary and secondary sources) and discourse analysis, historical and comparative analysis, deduction and generalization. The accuracy of the research as well as the legitimacy of conclusions is based on the combination of these methods.
Research results: in this article an analysis of preparedness of the world in general and EU in particular with response to pandemic provides a different approach to the understanding of the functioning of EU institutions in times of crisis.
Scientific novelty: The novel coronavirus challenged the world affairs and it is difficult to predict the potential repercussions of Covid-19. Unprecedented measures taken by EU Member States have not been deeply explored and thus require a deeper analysis.
Practical significance: conclusions of the article can be used in research and teaching activities, especially in courses addressing contemporary international relations and crisis management.
Keywords: European Union, crisis, foreign policy, integration, COVID-19
Introduction
Many scholars predict the long-term impact of COVID-19 pandemic on global economy. Due to shortcomings of the rapid international response and lack of coherent reaction over the coronavirus spread, national governments had to apply restriction measures individually. It has spread throughout European Union (EU), which eventually had to undertake major lockdown measures over the European continent. EU's initial inaction was highly criticized. However, at present, EU demonstrates solidarity in crisis management via its main institutions, as well as other mechanisms (Integrated Political Crisis Response, Corona Response Team, etc). Today coordination in the EU foreign policy is needed more than ever. EU could strengthen its institutions, in light of a new crisis, drawing lessons from the past and adapting its them to new circumstances.
The EU has experienced various crises lately which called into question its institutional efficiency. Enlargement related problems, migration crisis, numerous conflicts, Brexit and the spread of novel corona-virus tested still challenge the solidarity of its Member States. In such a situation which might be a threat for the overall integration process, there is a need for coherent policy. Many scholars agree that eventually when the disease is defeated, the post-COVID19 world will be more multipolar, more competitive, and less globalized.
This article will focus on the formation of EU institutions and reforms which provided Brussels with huge institutional set in different areas. New policies set up to address different crises quite often create an ambiguous situation when EU institutions gains more power to manage crises, however, this very situation
diffuses additional challenges related to implementation or accountability. Also exploring how this pandemic situation affected overall world politics, the article will analyze the EU's crisis management policy. Inconsistent measures caused decline of trust between countries, not only in the EU but also in the whole world itself. This demonstrates that the level of readiness was overall insufficient. More coherent actions could have been taken within the framework of crisis management. In the end, conclusions are made about what is put at the stake because of novel virus and lessons learnt are to be taken into consideration for future issues.
Historical background
Since the 2000s EU seems to be perennially challenged by unprecedented crises. Crises of Eurozone, migration, Brexit and others defied shared values of the Union. They challenge the unity of the EU, impose threats upon Schengen Area of Free Movement, lead to economic implications and endure problems of societal integration caused by migration. Along with internal problems, EU faces external challenges, such as strained relations with USA, China, Russia as well as instabilities within the Eastern Partnership region. Both internal and external problems lead to loss of confidence in core EU principles and foster Euroscepticism among EU citizens.
Many problems that EU is facing today are deeply rooted in the history of its formation. The Union was created not in a single day but through a series of binding treaties and harmonization of laws. In the aftermath of the World War II, a small number of countries had very specific reasons to delegate part of their sovereign rights to one common body. Over the time, the nature of relations between the European countries evolved and the number of member states grew.
Until the Lisbon treaty, there had been numerous attempts to set up an efficient institutional mechanism and in fact most of EU institutions were established back in 1957 by the Treaties of Rome when the European Economic Community and Euroatom were born. [11] They the were carried over and further evolved by Merger Treaty in 1967. [14] After signing the Single European Act in 1986 and the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 EU approached closer to the idea of a supranational organization but it was still to figure out its common foreign and security policy. [13, 16] Along with shaping its own foreign and security policy EU also developed further its relations with NATO, UN and other international and regional organizations.
By Lisbon treaty Member States agreed to delegate on a certain level its national functions to a centralized body. [15] After series of enlargements and the institutional reforms, EU grew into an important player on world arena that strives to demonstrate truly coherent foreign policy in today's globalized world. However, the institutions created over these years were not built for short-term crisis management but rather for long-term conflict prevention. EU is governed by its seven main institutions (the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the Court of Auditors) as well as advisory bodies and different agencies.
Hence trying to become a global actor, EU needed to act coherently within its own borders. Growing number of members revealed a serious challenge: unlike the initial "core" countries, "newcomers" had distinctive traditions of economic development (in case of post-
soviet countries) and different approach to the foreign policy. [1] For them foreign policy was and quite often continues to be viewed as "national domain". The question is whether EU institutions will be able to function efficiently despite of these "sovereign" instincts of its Member States.
Moreover, foreign policy is being challenged due to the fact that the decision-making process in EU is to be realized on institutional level with no "centralized leadership". EU legislation has evolved over these years into a complex and strong set of responsibilities shared (sometimes overlapping) between different institutions.
Many suggest today that it is more correct to speak about the crisis of governance rather that the governance of crises. Within EU "national" is still opposed to "supranational". There is a need to deal with mistrust and antagonism between Member States in order to enjoy the benefits of coherent common European policy. Along with political will, efficient crisis management depends at the same time on many other factors such as historical background (especial with reference to relations of some Member States), public opinion, time, resources, etc.
2019-20 pandemic of novel coronavirus
COVID-19 disease, which is commonly known as Coronavirus gradually spread all over the world and as of March 11, 2020 received a status of pandemic by WHO. [18] By the time the article was being prepared, the number of coronavirus cases in the world was still growing and even if numbers differ depending to the sources, it is relevant to have one reference (in this article it is Johns Hopkins University) to have general updated knowledge on the current.
At first, Chinese authorities attempted to cover up the outbreak, later on drastic containment measures have brought the epidemic under the control in the country. It should be underlined that WHO was challenged by Ebola, SARS and other outbreaks from the past and since then the organization was working on global preparedness mechanism. However, it is today being heavily criticized for persistent gaps in funding and lack of coordination between headquarters and regional offices.
The balance of risks and opportunities the world faces today has changed. Shortcomings of the urgent international response and inability of providing coactive reaction demonstrated to which extent the countries of the globalized world are challenged. National governments worldwide applied restriction measures and today around one third of the world population is on lockdown of some degree. Will there be an impact on modern power structures of the world and if so, will it change the balance between the great powers? In fact, the world is battling with the pandemic but we don't see much of coherence in that fight.
COVID-19 was named a "global equalizer" putting all countries at risk and challenging their economies. In fact, these kinds of threats mobilize people to seek effective solution from their national governments and not from international organizations (UN, WHO etc.) or other actors. This shows, as realists have always been arguing, how in a globalized world, no matter what, nation state is still a central political actor. [17] Moreover, due to different reasons, international cooperation in this kind of situation, faces some issues (for instance, unwillingness of countries to share costs) which eventually may lead to "deglobalization" where countries consider an interdependence less of an asset and more of a vulnerability. There may even be retreat trends where countries will try to gain back the control
and national "self-help". Some scholars suggest that today's situation with COVID-19 may trigger nationalistic trends where nation states will adopt measures to protect, first of all, their national interests.
The impact of pandemic is already showing itself on slowing global economy and decline in international trade. Henry Kissinger, renowned American politician, is suggesting that USA must put its efforts in enhancing global resilience to infectious disease, heal the world economy and safeguard the principles of the liberal world order. [10] It goes without saying that not only USA, but the whole world was challenged by the virus and now countries need to manage it in order to shape their own future.
This pandemic questioned crisis management mechanisms of all countries of the world, but it is difficult to provide a legitimate comparative analysis over the efficiency of undertaken measures in different countries. The information on deaths, reported number of infected and recovered cases is being presented and updated by different sources. However, it cannot be considered fully trustworthy due to the lack of a unique internationally accepted standard for measuring. Moreover, different healthcare systems, demographic indicators (age, density, number of population etc.) and other factors also complicate the comparative analysis.
COVID-19 outbreak in EU
Taking into consideration the globalization, the COVID-19 disease that appeared in China (patient zero was tracked to Wuhan province of China on 1 December, 2019) has inevitably spread throughout European continent. Europe was considered as a center of Pandemic on March 13, 2020.
Distribution of laboratory confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the EU/EEA and the UK, as of 28 April, 2020 (data from European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control).
This led to a major lockdown policy over the European continent. Member States referred to different measures to fight the pandemic such as restricting outside activities, cancelling international flights, closing borders, restricting entries, banning public gatherings and even declaring state of emergency.
The pandemic challenged EU institutions and relations between its Member States. Scholars started to talk about EU existential crises before the virus spread over its territory- skeptical views were related with the economic crisis, migrant and refugee flows, Brexit. Enlargements and further EU growing revealed the differences between its member states and once again challenged the concept of solidarity. [2] Coronavirus is another item in that list of problems challenging once again the credibility of EU institutions and also Schengen area. Similarly like before, when some countries unilaterally sealed off their frontiers to protect themselves from migration influx, the same happened with regards to the spread of the virus. It turned out to be governments' decisions rather than EU coordinated approach. Unilateral ban for exportation of medical equipment from Germany and Czech Republic raised concerns over compliance with single market concept. [3]
Out of EU Member States, Italy and Spain were stricken the most and were forced to take measures on their own to combat the spread of virus. EU, as it already happened before, didn't demonstrate a coordinated approach in crisis situation. Obviously, unwillingness of Member States themselves to give the Union enough powers to act in a more coordinated manner in certain areas remains the main reason for lack of solidarity.
EU inaction was highly criticized. It only started to deal with the global crises in mid-March. Ursula von der Leyen, the President of European Commission, called for «all for one» spirit and suggested borders' closure. Later on, she also reiterated that EU budget for the next year will have to be elaborated as a new "Marshall Plan" since Europe required a more stringent recovery strategy. [4]
While new recovery plan is going to be dealt with later, at present EU demonstrates surprising solidarity in crisis management. Teleconferences are being regularly held among EU leaders and heads of relevant institutions, i.e. European Council, European Commission, Eurogroup, European Central Bank, High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy etc. meet to discuss viable solutions. Along with European Commission, EU presidency also joined the coordination measures to tackle the outbreak by initiating the Integrated Political Crisis Response arrangements, which is a special mechanism created to support the Presidency in dealing with natural or man-made cross-sectorial disasters. [12]
Corona Response Team is another mechanism initiated by the European Commission. [7] This team is composed by the President of the European Commission herself and five commissioners in charge of different fields. Medical field, mobility and economy are three major areas covered by it. Overall it can be underlined that today we witness the coordination within and
between institutions. Some even considered the collaboration between the European Council and European Commission as truly "encouraging development".
So, after initial inactive phase, today we see coordination of actions to solve crises related problems. Getting EU citizens back to their homes safely, ensuring flow of vital supplies across borders, enhancing global response and countering disinformation are among the main issues to be addressed. [ 6]
EU calls today for a cooperation on easing coro-navirus restrictions in order to avoid possible tensions among member states. Unlike of autonomous decisions over closure of borders by some EU Member States, Union's officials call for a "systematic" approach in reopening of borders in near time.
Recovery Plans
Pandemic affected almost every aspect of European society. Despite the fact that all Member States were affected, there is a great disparity in the level of the spread of the coronavirus. However, it is evident that the restrictive measures cannot last forever. Moreover, even after gradual lifting of those measures the virus will still continue circulating. So until the vaccine is not discovered, recovery measures demand first of all stability and thorough monitoring of the statistics of new cases. If EU confinement measures proved to be not so coherent, the Union today puts more efforts to have a more solid and comprehensive recovery strategy. The return to normal will not be immediate and containment measures will be mitigated according to different factors. Joint European Roadmap on alleviating these measures presented by Presidents of European Commission and European Council outlined three sets of criteria necessary to relax the restrictive measures: epidemiological criteria, sufficient system capacity and appropriate monitoring capacity. It also defined four key areas for action such as "a fully functioning Single Market, an unprecedented investment effort, acting globally, and a functioning system of governance". [5]
While the document sets out the mentioned criteria, it is also understandable that time and conditions will vary from one country to another, depending on how severe the impact is. Yet with reference to ending restrictive measures, the roadmap came up with main common guiding framework of actions for both EU and Member States. It is once again reiterated that Member States must demonstrate respect and solidarity, have coordinated set of actions based first of all on reliable scientific evidence.
One of the important implications of the spread of the virus was the question of the reintroduction of border control (both internal and external). Gradual measures to return to the borders free Schengen zone must also be undertaken in a coordinated way. The risk of a new wave of the virus needs to be taken into the account when deciding when and to what extent external borders must be reopened.
Commission was requested, in order to explore in depth the situation in Member States and prepare a proposal on dealing with the most affected ones, via the specially created recovery fund. [9]
Another major implication was an unprecedented
in EU history economic and social shock. Here also a new temporary mechanism to support employment was introduced by European Commission, namely "Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency" (SURE). [8]
Conclusions
Pandemic of novel Coronavirus has affected the balance of power in existing world order and will have harsh repercussions in the post pandemic period. The reaction of countries to this pandemic revealed an interesting situation where states prefer to rely on their own forces and less on organizations (be they international or regional ones). COVID-19 became a test for a legitimacy of all governments, for their capability to protect their citizens. Coordination and joint strategy failed initially in EU.
Will this crisis reshape relations between the Member States within EU? There was a lot of criticism over EU's inactive stance with response to virus rapid spread over Italy, Spain and other Member States. However, let us recall that, when EU Member States closed their national borders due to the 2015 migrant crisis, many predicted the collapse of the Union. It is most likely, that this lack of coordination will not shake the integration process strongly enough to question its future existence. On the contrary, recalling the creation of the European Economic Community was laid upon the willingness to ensure peace and stability after the WWII, EU could strengthen its institutions in light of a new crisis.
This crisis revealed the need for enhancing EU governance in healthcare system in order to make it more agile, visible, sustainable and "centralized". There is a need for an executive structure to rapidly identify the risks and plan measures on a Union level.
Of course, this was a force majeure not easily predicted and no single country could have been fully prepared to face it, but EU needs to take into the consideration lessons learned from previous crisis by adapting its institutions to new circumstances and thus establishing positive institutional changes. One of these could be the creation of a robust centralized crisis management body that will have sufficient powers to give adequate instructions.
REFERENCES:
1. Aggestam, L. and Johansson, M., 2017. The Leadership Paradox In EU Foreign Policy. Gothenburg: y University Association for Contemporary European Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Journal of Common Market Studies.
2. Berend, T., 2019. Against European Integration. London: Routledge.
3. Biscop, S., 2020. Take Me To Your Leader! Or How The EU Could Emerge Stronger From The Corona Crisis - Egmont Institute. [online] Egmont Institute. Available at: <http://www.egmontinsti-tute.be/take-me-to-your-leader-or-how-the-eu-could-emerge-stronger-from-the-corona-crisis/> [Accessed 15 April 2020].
4. Coronavirus: EU Internal Borders Could Stay Shut | DW | 03.04.2020. [online] Available at:
<https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-eu-internal-bor-ders-could-stay-shut/a-53002172> [Accessed 15 April 2020].
5. Ec.europa.eu. 2020. Joint European Roadmap Towards Lifting COVID-19 Containment Measures. [online] Available at: <https://ec.eu-ropa.eu/info/sites/info/files/communication_-_a_euro-pean_roadmap_to_lifting_coronavirus_contain-ment_measures_0.pdf> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
6. EEAS - European External Action Service -European Commission. 2020. Coronavirus: Joint Statement By The High Representative And Canada's Minister Of Foreign Affairs. [online] Available at: <https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/77551/coronavirus-joint-statement-high-representative-and-canada%E2%80%99s-minister-for-eign-affairs_en> [Accessed 15 April 2020].
7. European Commission 2020. Coronavirus Response. [online] Available at: <https://ec.eu-ropa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/health/coronavirus-response_en> [Accessed 17 April 2020].
8. European Commission 2020. Council Regulation On The Establishment Of A European Instrument For Temporary Support To Mitigate Unemployment Risks In An Emergency (SURE) Following The COVID-19 Outbreak Brussels, 2.4.2020 COM(2020) 139 Final 2020/0057(NLE). [online] Available at: <https ://eur-lex. europa. eu/legal-con-tent/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2020%3A139%3AFIN> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
9. European Council. 2020. Conclusions of the President of the European Council Following the Video Conference of the Members of the European Council, 23 April 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-re-leases/2020/04/23/conclusions-by-president-charles-michel-following-the-video-conference-with-mem-bers-of-the-european-council-on-23-april-2020/> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
10. Kissinger, H., 2020. The Coronavirus Pandemic Will Forever Alter The World Order. [online] Searchnewworld.com. Available at: <https://www.searchnew-world.com/search/search2. html?par-tid=rolbng&p=Henry+Kissinger&subid=004> [Accessed 25 April 2020].
11. Rome Treaty , Official Journal of the European Union, Treaty Establishing the European Community (Consolidated Version), , 25 March 1957, available at: https://www.refworld.org/do-cid/3ae6b39c0.html [accessed 28 April 2020]
12. The EU Integrated Political Crisis Response -IPCR - Arrangements. 2016. Brussels: Council of the European Union.
13. The Single European Act , Official Journal of the European Union. 1985. . [online] Available at: <https ://eur-lex. europa. eu/legal-con-tent/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Axy0027> [Accessed 28 April 2020].
14. Treaty Of Brussels (Merger Treaty) ,Official Journal of the European Union. 1967. [online] Available at: <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-con-
tent/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3A4301863> [Accessed 28 April 2020].
15. Treaty Of Lisbon Amending The Treaty On European Union And The Treaty Establishing The European Community 2007/C 306/01, Official Journal of the European Union. 2007. [online] Available at: <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-con-tent/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:TOC> [Accessed 28 April 2020].
16. Treaty of Maastricht , Official Journal of the European Union, Treaty on European Union (Consolidated Version), , 7 February 1992, Official Journal of the European Communities C 325/5; 24 December 2002, available at: https://www.refworld.org/do-cid/3ae6b39218.html [accessed 28 April 2020]
17. Walt, S., 2020. The Realist's Guide To The Coronavirus Outbreak. [online] Foreign Policy. Available at: <https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/09/corona-virus-economy-globalization-virus-icu-realism/> [Accessed 16 April 2020].
18. Who.int. 2020. Statement on the Second Meeting Of The International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee Regarding The Outbreak Of Novel Coronavirus (2019-Ncov). [online] Available at: <https://www.who.int/news-room/de-tail/30-01 -2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emer-gency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)> [Accessed 15 April 2020].
FEATURES OF FUNCTIONING OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT BODIES IN AUTONOMOUS
REGIONS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION
Egorenkov D.,
candidate of political science, associate Professor, acting head of the Department of management development of education, Saratov regional Institute development of education
Zarubina N.
senior lecturer of the Department education development management, Saratov regional Institute development of education
ОСОБЕННОСТИ ФУНКЦИОНИРОВАНИЯ КОЛЛЕГИАЛЬНЫХ ОРГАНОВ УПРАВЛЕНИЯ В АВТОНОМНЫХ ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНЫХ УЧРЕЖДЕНИЯХ
Егоренков Д.А.,
кандидат политических наук,
доцент, исполняющий обязанности заведующего кафедрой управления развитием образования,
Саратовский областной институт развития образования
Зарубина Н.Л.
старший преподаватель кафедры управления развитием образования, Саратовский областной институт развития образования
Abstract
The article is devoted to some issues of public administration of education. The article considers the collegial management bodies of an educational organization. The competence and powers of the Supervisory Board as one of the representative collegial management bodies of an Autonomous educational institution are studied.
Аннотация
Статья посвящена некоторым вопросам государственно-общественного управления образованием. Рассмотрены коллегиальные органы управления образовательной организации. Изучены компетенция и полномочия наблюдательного совета как одного из представительных коллегиальных органов управления автономного образовательного учреждения.
Keywords: public administration, Autonomous educational institution, Supervisory Board.
Ключевые слова: государственно-общественное управление, автономное образовательное учреждение, наблюдательный совет.
На современном этапе государственно-общественное управление образованием выступает необходимым условием повышения качества образования и эффективной реализации федеральных государственных образовательных стандартов. Взаимодействие государства и общества в сфере образования регулируется рядом нормативных правовых актов Российской Федерации.
В соответствии со статьями 3, 89 Федерального закона от 29 декабря 2012 г. № 273-Ф3 «Об образовании в Российской Федерации» (далее - Закон № 273-ФЗ) одним из принципов государственной политики в области образования является демократический, государственно-общественный характер управления образованием [1].
Как следует из Письма Минобрнауки России от 22 октября 2015 г. № 08-1729 «О направлении
