Cross-Border Regionalism in European Integration Strategies: A Conceptual Dimension

Dynamics of Integration Processes

Integration sentiments in Europe had the idea of Europe- anism as their initial foundation, which is based on the myths about the civilizational superiority of Western European peoples, inherited from antiquity and established in the practices of the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment. But the realization that the experience of the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire was far from positive in any way forced to look for other integration pillars. One of them was the idea of “Paneurope”, actively developed in the 1920s and 1930s by R. von Coudenhove-Kalergi, A. Brian and others. In the post-war context, it was replaced by three different versions of the idea of federalism. “Federalism by installment” by J. Monnet was based on the ideas of gradually carried out economic integration. In the 1980s, it was supplanted by the radical federalism of A. Spinelli with an emphasis on political integration and the personalist federalism of R. Aron, U. Mounier, and D. Rops. Collectively, they pioneered a neo-federalist approach. At the same time, the search for integration projects was conducted along economic lines. In the late 1930s, German economists began to lay the theoretical foundation for the corresponding strategy; it was a longterm integration project under the banner of “economic community”. But opportunities for its implementation arose only after the defeat of the Third Reich within the context of the implementation of the “Marshall Plan”. US aid in restoring the economic potential of Europe was also intended for the Soviet Union, but the USSR refused it, as it had its own plans for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Therefore, the “Marshall Plan” became a factor in the European split.

The theoretical foundation of European integration is provided by the concept of “Europe of Regions”. The term was coined by the Swiss writer and public figure D. de Rougemont, who advocated the decentralization of management functions on a European scale. In order to strengthen the role of regions in integration processes, the European Regional Development Fund was created in 1975, which aimed at minimizing differences in the levels of development of countries and the development of regional infrastructure. The Assembly of European Regions, which has been operating since 1985, united 300 territorial communities with a population of about 400 million people at the end of the century. The “Declaration on Regionalism” adopted by it is based on the principles of capital concentration, joint financing of targeted programs, priority of individual rights over the rights of the community. One of the main principles was the principle of subsidiarity that lies in the transfer of specific management decisions to the level closest to the person. It actually reoriented the solution of social problems to the regional level. The regions were recognized as active subjects of EU policy and had the right to independently enter the international arena. The budget policy was formed “upwards”, from the region to the state. At the same time, the regions had different statuses, which were determined independently. The Committee of the Regions, established in 1994 under the Maastricht Agreement, was a consultative body comprising representatives of European regional and local authorities. The main attention was paid to problematic regions, which are taken care of by the European Regional Development Fund.

Since the second half of 2011, the European Union is going through hard times - the financial crisis is deepening and expanding, but not all states are ready to implement austerity measures to overcome it. There are insurmountable institutional and political differences between the federal core and the countries that refuse to join the euro zone. As F. Heissburg noted in the pages of the “Le Monde” newspaper, “those who closely followed the decline in the 1980s, and then the collapse of the Soviet empire, cannot help but draw some striking analogies to the current situation in the European Union. In both cases, we observe a loss of economic viability and an erosion of economic growth, despite all the differences between these two systems” [8]. T. Snyder quite precisely defined the role of the EU and its prospects in 2003. “The European Union, he noted, is attractive not because of its common achievements (acquis communautaire), but because of the way of life it offers (savoir-faire). That is why it was convinced that the significance of this attractive ideal for Ukrainians will only grow” [9, p. 366].

Features and Forms of Cross-Border Regionalism

Regardless of the fate of the European Community in the future, we can confidently say that its contribution to the modern world structure and to the search for new forms of integration is incomparable. After all, new forms of integration and new models of movement of goods, services, capital and people have emerged and established themselves on the EU soil. This is where cross-border regions appeared, which are border territories with economic, cultural, transport, ecological cooperation, which embodied the thousand-year experience of “free cities” on a large territory from Italy to the Netherlands. And although the legal forms of cross-border cooperation are not clearly established and properly regulated, varying from a “joint partnership agreement” to a “partnership with the legal entity rights”, one cannot help but see as an effective form of cooperation “across borders” was born before our eyes. Cross-border regions are represented as a “further improvement” of new economic development indicators. Their boundaries are determined by modern practices of regionalism, and their emergence is connected with the desire of regional elites to focus on their economic and political interests. A noticeable reorientation towards transnational projects is gradually taking place in some state strategies.

R. Kalitchak defines cross-border regionalism as an integrated form of coordination of cooperation between neighboring states implemented in compliance with national legislation and relevant international agreements. The motivational drivers of such cooperation are: economic - the search for additional investment resources, latest technologies, sales markets, capable of improving the economic situation of the region; historical and cultural - joint actions regarding the preservation and spread of minority languages, cultural assets, historical heritage; political - enabling autonomous actions of the regions in the international arena; public - aimed at establishing closer ties between residents of border regions and active implementation of various exchange programs [13, p. 76]. Cross-border regionalism can manifest itself in various forms - localism and provincialism, subculturalism and traditionalism, ethno-national communication and cultural interaction, transnational integration and economic cooperation.

Cross-border regionalism is able to influence the activities of states and become an effective factor in the formation of internal regional policy at the expense of external cooperation. It is also a kind of “subnational diplomacy” as a reaction to drastic changes in the modern world, as it is obvious that national states do not have mechanisms for solving global problems. The cross-border space is characterized by a state of “fluidity”, which is manifested in the flexibility of rules and narratives, as well as the mobility of center-periphery forms of interaction. The regions are regarded in the discourse of cross-border regionalization as “spaces of contact”, spatial structures with higher priority than states, “exemplary forms of state cross-border intervention”, “institutionalized entrepreneurs”, “self-governing political subjects that retain the potential for independence, democracy and rescaling” [14, pp. 77-91].

The concept of “cross-border region” unites three components: the space bounded by the peripheries of the regions, the subjects of integration strategies, and the contacts that are established as a result of their local practices. Cross-border regions can be functional and territorial. The first exists on the basis of labor, cooperative and other relations between economic subjects; this type also includes “working communities” and regional councils (regionalrat), which are popular in the West. Euroregions are an example of territorial cooperation. Thanks to the experience of cross-border cooperation and regulatory coherence at the level of international conventions, Euroregions are characterized by the presence of institutionalized cooperation between adjacent national authorities, represent national associations or coalitions of municipalities and regions. Organizationally, Euroregions usually have a council, a presidency, specialized working groups and a secretariat. Institutionally, they represent “active enterprises”, which naturally combine macro-objective and micro-subjective functions and processes [17, pp. 389-397].

The Euroregion is considered a form of international integration and cross-border relations, which ensures the joint development of economic, cultural and humanitarian cooperation, the implementation of cross-border economic projects, addressing employment, infrastructure and environmental issues. V. Dergachev defines Euroregions as border communities of international cross-border cooperation of European countries in the sphere of economy, culture, education, transport, ecology, which are established on the basis of the subsidiarity principles. Euroregions operate as a result of the redistribution of power between the central government and border communities, which are empowered to independently regulate their activities and conclude interregional cross-border agreements in accordance with national legislation [18].

Cross-border regions are now a sufficiently established form of integrative interstate interaction and, at the same time, a model of a new territorial, to some extent “suprastate”, level of governance. The appearance of “large regions” marks a significant change in the traditional roles of states. Of course, they remain key players on the political scene, but lose their monopoly as almost the only bearers of legitimacy. “Centers of power” are shifting both downward, to the level of regions, communes and municipal entities, and upward and outward, to the level of cross-border relations. This entails the emergence of new forms of multi-layered diplomacy, multi-level governance and corresponding identity. The politics undergoes international legalization at all levels with the emergence of modern forms of interaction, coordination and representation. At the same time, politics itself is undergoing active regionalization. New social movements with regionalist and locally oriented guidelines are emerging. Party structures are formed according to the regional principle. At first glance, these processes are clearly positive, because they are accompanied by the formation of territorial forms of network democracy. But issues emerge at the organizational level - the public capriciously intertwines with the private, the number of new political actors grows uncontrollably. After all, the very existence of the EU - a multi-layered network structure - creates the problem of coordinating actions, with no shortage of pessimistic expectations about its future.

Although the practice of cross-border cooperation has a rather long history, not all of its theoretical parameters are adequately defined. The content of this term varies from a set of projects designed to implement the joint development of territories adjacent to each other, to the sum of already adjusted coordination mechanisms of multi-level cooperation in the economic, political, and cultural areas. As for the concept of “cross-border region”, it can mean either: 1) the territory of border or cross-border cooperation between parts of several states; 2) a specific form of such a community with its own infrastructural, ecological and humanitarian interaction mechanisms; 3) a tool for the integration of a particular country into supranational structures; 4) a training ground for testing the possibilities of cross-border cooperation; 5) a kind of "umbrella project" for the implementation of bilateral or multilateral sectoral agreements, etc. V. Kolosov defines the main features of the cross-border region as follows: a) administrative and socio-economic integrity of territorial units along each side of the border; b) commonality and complementarity of the main and jointly solved socio-economic problems [19, p. 74].

Three different, although not clearly defined, terms for cross-border cooperation have taken root in the Western

European tradition. The most frequently used term “crossborder cooperation” refers to direct cross-border cooperation of regional and local authorities along both sides of borders. The concept of “interregional/transborder cooperation” has broader meaning, which is cross-border (interregional) cooperation, the purpose of which is to spread integration processes to large groups of regions, not necessarily territorially connected. The term “transnational cooperation” is also used as a neutral and polysemantic term, most often in relation to countries or large interconnected territories.

The Place of Ukraine in the Pan-European Space

In July 1993, Ukraine joined the “European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities”, which now part of the country's legislation. The concepts of “Euroregion” and “cross-border region” have been defined in the thesaurus of socio-humanitarian studies in their own way. The Law of Ukraine on Cross-Border Cooperation (June 2004) enshrines the definition of the Euroregion as “an organizational form of cooperation between administrative and territorial units of European states, carried out in accordance with bilateral or multilateral agreements on cross-border cooperation” [20]. The concepts of “Euroregion” and “cross-border region” are often equated. This is not entirely correct, although the Euroregion is the most common form of cross-border cooperation. According to I. Stu- dennikov, the concept of “Euroregion” is dominated by the political and legal component, while the main categorization factor for the cross-border region is the presence of homogeneous natural and geographical conditions, as well as common historical and ethnocultural development of the local community within spatial and temporal boundaries. In other words, the cross-border region is a historical-geographical and geopolitical phenomenon, while the Euroregion is an institutional form of cross-border cooperation [21, p. 116]. And although this distinction criterion is quite blurred (because the Euroregion is also a historical-geographical phenomenon in the spatial sense), one can agree with the emphasis on the political and legal constant in the definition of the Euroregion. It is obvious that the concept of “cross-border region” is broader in meaning, because cross-border cooperation can be carried out outside the Euroregions.

The purpose of cross-border cooperation is to reduce the “barrier functions” of borders in favor of contact functions. The “opening” of borders is a powerful lever for mutual coordination of state policies, a tool of increasing the role of consultations and joint actions in the fields of economy, culture and ecology, as well as expanding the possibilities of service infrastructure. Ultimately, this gives the effect of spatial coordination of strategies, development of the regions' identity and use of the advantages of diversity, decentralization of decision-making, as well as strengthening of local democracy. This minimizes the consequences of the “closedness” of interstate borders implemented by totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, as well as the artificial “marginalization” of certain territories. The priorities of cross-border cooperation within the Euroregions include the creation of an effective economic and socio-cultural space, ensuring national security in the face of globalization, maintaining the transparency of borders in the context of investment development, as well as establishing migration control.

Euroregions play a significant role in bringing Ukraine closer to the integrated European space. Fulfilling the requirements of the acquis communautiare (EU legal system) is a direct path to the establishment of a stable democracy, the creation of a competitive market economy, and the formation of effectively functioning civil society structures. The movement of Ukraine towards the EU cannot but be a long process, and the experience gained in the cross-border cooperation regions is truly invaluable. With the emergence of Euroregions, the concept of political and cultural neighborhood acquires a new meaning. Public institutions that justify the concepts of a special kind of local neighborhood (Parisian “Culture”, Polish “Borussia”) introduced the concept of “open regionalism”, within the framework of which the local and universal are juxtaposed, and the rules of intercultural dialogue are developed. Nostalgic historical and cultural versions of “neighborhood” are based on, in particular, in Poland, as an expression of para-imperial aspirations “to return to one's borders” and “supremacy” over the former “kresy” [23, pp. 75-82].

Russian aggression significantly influenced the trend of events in Europe and the world, forcing EU politicians to think seriously about the prospects of the European Union and the possibilities of its expansion. In a political and ideological sense, the West entirely supports Ukraine in the ongoing conflict. “The UN General Assembly clearly expressed its position on March 27, 2014, declaring support for the sovereignty, political independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.” This resolution was supported by 100 states, 58 abstained and only 11 voted against. The joint statements of the members of the G7 repeatedly condemned the annexation of Crimea and stated that the actions of the Russian Federation aimed at destabilizing the situation in Eastern Ukraine are “unacceptable and must be stopped.” Similar resolutions were adopted by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the governing structures of the European Union - the European Council, the European Parliament, and the European Commission. At the G20 summit (November 2014), the leaders of the USA, Japan and Australia decided to join their efforts in solving the Russian-Ukrainian conflict [25, pp. 15-16].

Ukraine, however, is vitally interested in materializing declarations of support to a greater extent in concrete actions, and most importantly, accompanying them by guarantees of Ukraine's acceptance into the EU, at least in the distant future. The German political scientist S. Meister quite frankly sheds light on the reasons for the absence of the latter. He believes that the European Union is currently experiencing the biggest crisis since its creation - nationalist views are growing in the member states, populist groups are gaining support with anti-European slogans. There is a clear consensus among the German elites and in German society that EU enlargement is impossible today. The Union is overburdened by recent enlargement, has internal integration issues, which makes many influential people say: “We don't want another problem inside the European Union.” Many representatives of German enterprises cooperate with Russia, and the latter skillfully manipulates discourses to create a “fifth column” in Germany. After all, the image of Ukraine in Europe is very bad. The Ukrainian elite has not yet demonstrated the ability and desire to reform the country. As a result, there is growing skepticism whether the country really has the potential for change. On the other hand, S. Meister argues that Ukrainian society has already done a lot to show its commitment to European norms and principles, and expects solidarity from the European Union in a critical situation. “If we do not support Ukraine enough, if it does not succeed, it will be the end of the EU as a reliable foreign policy player attractive to other states. Ukraine is really a litmus test for the European Union in terms of adherence to its principles, values and norms, as well as the possibility of exporting them to stabilize its own region” [26].

As a system of socio-political relations and the outcome of globalization of modern nations, the cross-border cooperation stands out not only as an area of interaction between different cultures, searches for ethnic and cultural self-identification. It is also a sphere of conflict of interests of state structures, church institutions, national movements, political parties and public associations. The struggle of ideas at this level is inevitable, and it determines the of competitive atmosphere between national projects, political and scientific discourses, and cultural memory models. A complex palette of mutual influences and “mutual repulsion” can provoke conflicts of values, distorted heterostereotypes, as well as generate antino- mianism as a form of social consciousness. In the work “Nationalism Reframed” (1996), the outstanding theoretician of nationalism R. Brubaker proved that the “nationalizing state” creates a potentially conflictual “triadic configuration” - a field of constant sharp struggle, which involves external interested political actors. And then it is not so important whether the dividing lines are drawn by a sincere selective perception of otherness or by cynical distortions [28, pp. 149-173]. As Ya. Hrytsak showed, the Brubaker model explains what is happening in Ukraine much more accurately than any other. “We have a Russian and Russian-speaking population in the South and East of Ukraine, which resists Kyiv's nationalistic policy and strives to be as close as possible to Moscow. As a result, we have a rather paradoxical phenomenon: despite significant linguistic, regional and other differences, Ukraine is divided, but does not split” [29].

According to O. Pakhliovska, “this Manichean approach to reality, this rigorous dualism of the division into “West” and “East” was among the reasons for the failure of the Russian strategy in Ukraine. Kremlin political technologists worked to divide Ukraine into the allegedly Orthodox Russian-speaking “East” and the allegedly Catholic Ukrainian-speaking “West” without understanding elementary things: Ukraine is indeed divided, but in a different way. There are two Ukraines - European and Soviet. The first is a European multi-confessional, albeit Orthodox, multicultural universe, while the second is a mono-confessional and mono-cultural Soviet model. Moreover, in both realities, we find citizens of Ukraine of different nationalities, primarily Ukrainians, Russians and Jews, but they form two directly opposite worlds.” After all, just as it was a century ago, Ukraine finds itself at the center of this planetary conflict between the West and the East, the terrain of endless dialogue between them. The confrontation with Russia is where a rupture of civilizations occurs, a permanent process of their convergence and their divergence [30, pp. 358, 364].

Therefore, the cross-border space requires increased attention in the context of the formation of marginal, hybrid identity and culture, the presence of asymmetry in the demographic, economic, and political spheres. This is a dualistic phenomenon, which is characterized both as a contact zone between several border regions and as a mental construction resulted from the transformation of global integration processes and the destruction of the modern idea of the “state-nation-territory” triad. “The cross-border area appears as a contact, network space, where social and cultural-political mobility sets the rhythm for political processes” [31, p. 44]. In a modern hybrid situation, in which the processes of globalization and integration are not only accompanied by the same powerful manifestations of regionalization and localization, but also intertwine with them in a way, establishing new networks and problematic areas, the attention to the cross-border should double up. Essentially, all the states of the modern world were caught between these two poles of civilizational progress, and none of them today can form national interests without taking into account the complex interaction of global centripetal and regional centrifugal processes.

Conclusions

The issue of the stability of the pan-European regional space, which Ukraine aspires to enter, sets particularly high demands on the development of a universal theory of regionalism and its modified versions taking into account local features. This applies to cross-border cooperation to a great extent, because the movement towards multi-regionalization of the world has started in its direction, real opportunities are being created to equalize the living standards of the population to the average European indicators, mobilize local resources and jointly solve problems by states, on which national security directly depends. In the end, kind of “training grounds” of adaptation of European legislation and state support mechanisms to the realities of those countries outside the European Union are formed in the common cross-border space. However, the pace and efficiency of movement in the European direction will depend to a decisive extent on how ready each of the participating states is to go “their part of the way”.

Ukraine has taken many steps towards integration into the European and world space. However, the process of its entry into Europe was not as simple as it seemed. Its success and effectiveness are largely determined by how quickly our people will be able to get rid of the syndrome of lack of confidence in their own abilities and learn new priorities of political, scientific, cultural and educational life in the European space. The course of integration into

European structures imposes serious obligations on us, requires the development and consistent implementation of policies that would meet European standards. Identification processes are too complex and ambiguous in the modern world. Separatist sentiments are spreading, increasingly reaching the level of outright terrorism. Under these conditions, the entire thinking population of the planet should be guided by the logic of the “do no harm” principle. Every nation has the right to self-determination, but every nation is fully responsible for its conscious choices.

[2] Shulha, M. (2010). Criteria for European identity. Political Management, 2, 139-147.