Dr Maxine David

Lecturer in European Politics

Qualifications: PhD

Phone: Work: 01483 68 6159
Room no: 05 AC 05

Office hours

Office hours vary - please see:

  • Module Handbooks
  • Office Door - 05AC05
  • E-mail updates

Further information


Dr Maxine David is a Lecturer in the School of Politics, University of Surrey, UK. She convenes and leads modules at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, including on International Intervention, Foreign Policy Analysis, Globalisation and Eastern Europe. She is a regular guest lecturer at the American University in London, where she lectures on EU actorness in the context of a globalising world. For the past three years, she has taught a module on International Intervention at the Summer School of the Centre for Comparative Conflict Studies, Faculty of Media and Communication, Belgrade. She is Co-Editor of the Journal of Contemporary European Studies (JCER)

Her research to date has focused on the foreign policies of Russia, the UK and the European Union. She was joint coordinator and co-editor of a project mapping the 27 EU Member States relations with Russia and wrote the chapter on UK and Irish relations with Russia. A Special Issue with Journal of Contemporary Studies was published in 2011, which covers 15 of these relations. In May 2013 an edited collection, National Perspectives on Russia: European Foreign Policy in the Making?,  covering the entirety of the bilateral relations was published with Routledge. 

She is particularly interested in the role of structure, both domestic and international, and its effects on the capacity of states to operate as independent actors. She is currently working on articles related to the use of Social Media in Russia, Russia's relations with the WTO and regional trading organisations as well as on Russia's interactions within the UN in relation to the crisis in Syria.

Maxine is also one of the key members of a British Academy-funded project called: On the Receiving End: towards more critical and inclusive perspectives on international intervention. As part of the Surrey team, she works with partners in Serbia and Palestine, documenting the lived experiences of those on the receiving end of interventionist actions and ensuring an exchange of knowledge and practice between the different academic communities. A Special Issue, International intervention: assembling critical perspectives, will be published in 2014 for which Maxine is acting as both Editor and co-author.

Research Interests

  • European Union External Relations
  • Foreign Policy Analysis
  • Russian Foreign Policy
  • IR Theory
  • International Intervention

Areas of Dissertation Supervision

  • Foreign Policy
  • Russia
  • European Union
  • Eastern Europe
  • European Enlargement

Research Collaborations

with Tatiana Romanova, St Petersburg State University, Russia Modernisation in Russia

with Prof. M Breen-Smyth, British Academy International Partnership Scheme, On the Receiving End: Towards More Critical and Inclusive Perspectives on International Intervention

with Jackie Gower, King's College London and Hiski Haukkala, University of Tampere, Finland National Perspectives on Russia: European Foreign Policy in the Making?



Forthcoming July 2013 'The Empowering Use of Social Media in Russia: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back' Russian Analytical Digest (RAD)

May 2013, 'Ireland and the UK' in M David, J Gower & H Haukkala (eds) National Perspectives on Russia; European Foreign Policy in the Making, London: Routledge.

May 2013 with Gower, J & Haukkala, H ‘Introduction’ in M. David, J, Gower & H. Haukkala (eds) National Perspectives on Russia: European Foreign Policy in the Making? London: Routledge.

May 2013 with Gower, J & Haukkala, H ‘Conclusion in M. David, J, Gower & H. Haukkala (eds) National Perspectives on Russia: European Foreign Policy in the Making? London: Routledge.

2012, with R Guerrina ‘Gender Norms and the EU’s Normative Power in the External Dimension’, Special Issue of Women’s Studies International Forum.

2012 ‘Nothing To See Here: The 2012 EU-Russia Summit’ e-International Relations. Available at: http://www.e-ir.info/2012/06/26/nothing-to-see-here-the-2012-eu-russia-summit/

2011, ‘A Less than Special Relationship - the UK’s Russia Experience’, Special Issue Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 19, 2: 189-200

2011 with Gower, J & Haukkala, H, ‘Introduction: The European Union and Russia’, Special Issue Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 19, 2:183-8

24 Nov 2010 ‘EU Flexes Its Global Muscles’, Public Service.co.uk. Available at: http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=15281

Feb 2008, ‘Exploiting Marginality: The Case of Russia’ in Parker, N (ed) The Geopolitics of Europe’s Identity: Centers, Boundaries and Margins.  Basingstoke, Hants: Palgrave



New Technologies: Empowering Citizens in Russia

Russia in the WTO

You Call It Intervention: We Call It War: mapping the conceptual terrain

The United Nations: A Return to the Old World Order?

Journal articles

  • David M. (2014) 'New Social Media: Modernisation and Democratisation in Russia'. Perspectives on European Politics and Society: journal of intra-european dialogue,


    The EU–Russia Partnership for Modernisation (P4M) seemingly indicated a shift in the relationship from a basis in a democratising discourse to a modernising one. This article argues that despite Russia's view of modernisation as being about economic growth and innovation, for the EU democratisation remained an important priority. Which vision, however, has been vindicated? To answer this question, the focus is on the use of computer-mediated communication, occasioned by the questions asked since mass public demonstrations began in Russia in late 2011 about whether those protests were evidence of Russia undergoing its own ‘spring’ in the way seen in many parts of the Arab world in 2010. These comparisons were drawn primarily because of the perceived role of new technologies in helping ordinary Russians to mobilise and publicise protest. Looking at modernisation through the prism of social media is revealing of the extent to which Russians use modern technology and of the extent to which Russia is democratising. The article concludes that there is evidence of modernising and democratising effects but that an increasingly repressive government approach looks like creating effective obstacles to the EU and Russian visions of modernisation alike.

  • David M, Guerrina R. (2012) 'Gender and European External Relations: Dominant Discourses and Unintended Consequences of Gender Maisntreaming'. Women's Studies International Forum,


    This paper presents a critical assessment of the unintended consequences of gender mainstreaming when applied to European external relations. It seeks to address two distinct but interrelated questions: 1) has gender mainstreaming, as a strategy and political objective, fulfilled its potential? and 2) what kind of gender order is emerging in the context of a wider European equality agenda, which includes external relations within its remit. Using discourse analysis it will identify the dominant gender discourses in European external relations and foreign policy documents and compare this to the overarching aims of equality principles enshrined within the Treaties. It will look specifically at the European Neighbourhood Policy as it provides a useful starting point and areas of comparison given its similarity, in terms of power relations between the EU and third countries, to the process of enlargement.

  • David M. (2011) 'A Less than Special Relationship - the UK’s Russia Experience'. Journal of Contemporary Studies, 19 (2), pp. 201-212.


    This article examines the UK’s post-Cold War relations with Russia, arguing that three factors have defined the relationship: the mix of a values and interests approach, leadership, and external pressures. These have resulted in the emergence of three distinct phases, each underpinned by the same objectives but with different ideas on how to achieve them. The effects of the UK’s special relationship with the USA are also examined, concluding that the UK’s transatlantic orientation had the positive benefit for the EU of insulating it from the worst effects of a troubled bilateral relationship, showing bilateralism does not always signal trouble for multilateral arrangements.

  • David M, Gower J, Haukkala H. (2011) 'Introduction: The European Union and Russia'. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 19 (2), pp. 183-188.


  • David M, Gower J, Haukkala H. (2013) National Perspectives on Russia. European Foreign Policy in the Making?. London : Routledge, Taylor & Francis


    This book presents a ground-breaking comparative study of the bilateral relations of all 27 EU member states with Russia and an assessment of their impact on the EU’s efforts to conduct a coherent and effective policy towards its most important neighbour. While there has been a lot of research on European foreign policy, there has been much less on the role that national foreign policies play in it. Based on a common analytical framework, this book offers a detailed analysis of ‘national perspectives on Russia’ and how they interact with and affect policymaking at the EU-level. The authors provide deep insights into the relationship between individual states and Russia looking at a range of policy areas: economics, trade, energy, security, culture and education. They are not only interested in examining policy failure but also probing the possibilities of seeing national foreign policies and the bilateralism with third parties that they often entail as a potentially positive resource for the European Union. As Russia is an example of a particularly hard case for EU foreign policy, this book yields important insights concerning the possibilities as well as limits of developing a common EU policy in the future. It will be of interest to students and scholars of European politics, EU Studies, Russian politics, foreign policy studies and international politics.

Book chapters

  • David M, Gower J, Haukkala H. (2013) 'Introduction'. in David M, Gower J, Haukkala H (eds.) National Perspectives on Russia. European Foreign Policy in the Making? London : Routledge Article number 1
  • David M, Gower J, Haukkala H. (2013) 'Conclusion'. in David M, Gower J, Haukkala H (eds.) National Perspectives on Russia. European Foreign Policy in the Making? London : Routledge, Taylor & Francis Article number 18


    This book has set out to capture and analyze the multitude of EU member state bilateral relations – what we also call national perspectives – with one of the EU’s main ‘strategic partners’, the Russian Federation. This mapping exercise then enabled us to assess the extent to which bilateral member state relations constitute a challenge to the development of a coherent and effective EU Russia policy. Certainly, there is ample evidence in the chapters supporting the dominant assumption in the literature that tensions exist between bilateral initiatives and multilateral approaches. However, there is also sufficient evidence to suggest that in certain aspects of the EU—Russia relationship the bilateral relationships do play a constructive role.

  • David M. (2013) 'Ireland and the United Kingdom'. in David M, Gower J, Haukkala H (eds.) National Perspectives on Russia. European Foreign Policy in the Making? London : Routledge Article number 4


    As two islands situated separately from the European mainland and at an appreciable distance from Russia, the United Kingdom and Ireland are relatively independent of Russia and its politics. That said, both are as susceptible to the pressures of the globalising world and thus, for both, Russia is a state that warrants attention, albeit in the case of each, for quite different reasons. Close geographically and historically, Ireland and the UK are nevertheless vastly different foreign policy actors, not least by virtue of the one having been colonized by the other. They are distinguished today by disparities in size, resources and global influence and inevitably these factors too result in each having quite different relations with Russia. Those differences extend to each state’s relationship with the EU as well: Ireland’s reputation within the EU is a positive one, that of a committed and well-adapted member state; the UK, meanwhile, is most often characterized as an ‘awkward’ partner, whose attitude to EU membership is ambivalent at best. This chapter seeks first to identify the basis for and nature of Irish and British relations with Russia. In the case of Ireland, the relationship is primarily an economic rather than political one. For the UK, both economics and politics figure highly and interactions between the UK and Russia are more intensive and extensive than in the Irish case. It is of little surprise, therefore, that the UK has experienced far more problems in its relations with Russia than has Ireland. With the nature of the relationships established, I move on to consider Irish and British relations with the EU. In examining the impact of these bilateral relationships with Russia on the EU, I argue that neither case presents many problems for the EU, albeit for quite different reasons. The chapter concludes with a short discussion on the contribution of each member state to EU-level attempts to adopt a unified Russia policy.

  • David M. (2008) 'Exploiting Marginality: The Case of Russia'. in Parker N (ed.) The Geopolitics of Europe's identity. Centers, boundaries and margins. Basingstoke : Palgrave MacMillan , pp. 67-84.


    This chapter examines the progress of Russia’s foreign policy after 1991 to discover how Russia managed to extract concessions and compromises within Europe not simply there for the taking. I employ Hermann's concept of foreign policy, whereby 'the essence of foreign policy is a sequence of exchanges' (1995:256). This is in the tradition of the early Snyder, Bruck and Sapin (1954) work on action-reaction-interaction modeling, which emphasized the importance of understanding the way actors define their situation. With foreign policy a 'sequence of exchanges', how other actors define Russia's international position in relation to them is as crucial as how Russia defines its position. I argue that where Russia's foreign policy objectives are at stake, the European definition of self sets the context for Russian maneuvering. In choosing to seek influence within Europe, Russia finds its right for influence is not necessarily acknowledged by 'Europe', since its Europeanness is disputed. Russia may consider itself to be an integral part of Europe, but does Europe concur? I first set out my main hypotheses, claiming that Russia has found in relative weakness a high degree of strength, maneuvering effectively in Europe, taking advantage of opportunities to achieve its foreign policy objectives. Next, I discuss the treatment of ‘Europe’, seen as representing a post-modern order where traditional norms and values are challenged (Cooper, 2004). Russian maneuvering in relation to the EU is then examined in respect of economics, political strategies and norms. The final section examines Russia-NATO relations during the 1999 Kosovo Crisis, arguing that Russia successfully walked a fine line between traditional loyalties and the necessity of keeping the door open in its relations with NATO. It was revealed to be as weak relative to NATO, but demonstrated nonetheless that it could still have an important role in Europe.

Internet publications

  • David M. (2014) Russia must co-operate with investigation of MH17 or risk wearing the blame.
  • David M. (2014) One nation, one voice: press control and propaganda in Putin’s Russia.
  • David M. (2014) On Ukraine, Putin has outfoxed the West at every turn.
  • David M. (2014) Russia or EU? Ukraine torn by the horns of a dilemma.
  • David M. (2014) East or West? Battle lines clear in struggle for Ukraine’s future.
  • David M. (2013) Dreams of a new Europe dashed in Ukraine.
  • David M. (2013) It’s the Syrian people that matter, not British politics.
  • David M. (2013) Fatal attraction: Russia’s flawed friendship with Syria.
  • David M. (2013) Now is not the time to play at Cold War politics with Putin.
  • David M. (2013) @Russia.com: Online & Offline Protest.
  • David M. (2010) EU Flexes Its Global Muscles. Public Service


Pedagogical Principles

Maxine's approach to teaching is most clearly embedded in the Problem-Based Learning literature, which facilitates the application of theory and requires students to take responsibility for their own learning. Most importantly, it relegates her increasingly to the role of a facilitator versus a transmitter of knowledge, and encourages independent and deep learning through collaborative practices. 

The classroom is treated as a collaborative learning arena. This is perhaps most noticeable in the FHEQ level 6 module Case Studies in Globalisation where classes are fully discursive and collaborative.  Students responded well to the teaching style, making comments such as: 

  • “Seminar discussions are excellent. Great debate and discussion and a great environment for learning”;
  • "I liked the way she got us involved teaching a class. Peer reviews on each other. Providing each other with useful criticisms. Group work and analysing the effect this has on us as individuals”;
  • “Lots of group discussions – new ideas”.

Such comments result from putting students centre stage and ensuring building blocks are in place from the first year of UG academic study. 

Further evidence of Maxine's commitment to best pedagogical practice lies in the fact that she received the Vice Chancellor's Excellence in Teaching award in April 2012. As a result, in the 2013-14 academic year, she will lead a School of Politics initiative to run a project with students, commec=ncing in October 2013 and run through the academic year. It is entitled: Building a Research Culture from Day 1, Year 1 and its aims are fourfold:
1) To help students make the transition from A level to degree level work;
2) To promote active (vs passive) learning processes;
3) To build the research culture (incorporating enquiry, evaluation, argument, synthesis) necessary to Politics;
4) To address the typical resistance to Study Skills modules. Their position in the driving seat means students make their own connections between skills development and discipline.


Module Leader Responsibilities 

  • International Intervention I (MA)
  • The EU and Its Neighbourhooed (MA)
  • Case Studies in Globalisation (Level 6)
  • Foreign Policy Analysis (Level 5)
  • Contemporary International History (Level 4)

Previously supervised UG and MA dissertations include:

  • The Limits of Hegemony: The USA, Turkey and the EU
  • The EU: A Partner or Victim of Russian Energy Politics?
  • Liberal Intergovernmentalism and the Codification of ESDP at Nice
  • EU Development Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy
  • The History of EU Security and Its Future Role
  • Turkey, an Ordinary Candidate for EU Membership?
  • CFSP: the EU as a Global Actor
  • Identity Construction in Central Europe since 1989
  • Security and the Need for Cooperation: The Case of Russia

Departmental Duties

I am Undergraduate Programme Director


Maxine is responsible for delivery of International Intervention in a Globalised World, one of three courses at the Summer School run by the Center for Comparative Conflict Studies. CFCCS is a research and educational center at the Faculty of Media and Communications (FMK), Belgrade Singidunum University.

She is a Guest Lecturer at the American University in London.


Executive Committee member designate of University Association of Contemporary European Studies (UACES)

Co-Editor of the Journal of Contemporary European Studies (JCER)

Member of:

  • BISA
  • ISA
  • PSA


September 13 Panel Organiser: Russia's External Relations: Study and Practice, UACES 43rd Annual Conference

September 2012 Panel Organiser: The EU-Russia Partnership for Modernisation: Realising the Potential, UACES 42nd Annual Conference

April 2011 Workshop co-organiser Engagement and Impact: How To Connect Communities, Pre-conference event for PSA, London 18 April 2011

April 2011 Workshop organiser and Chair Russia’s Place in the Post-Soviet World, Pre-conference event for PSA, London 18 April 2011

April 2011 Academic Convenor (with R Guerrina, S Usherwood and T Capelos)   PSA Annual Conference, London, 19-21 April 2011

June 2010 Workshop Co-organiser, Responsibility 2 Rebuild: Linking Infrastructure Development, Governance and Democratisation. Funded by the Institute for Advanced Studies, University of Surrey

April 2010 Workshop Co-organiser, Bilateral Relations with Russia and the Impact on a Common EU Policy towards Russia. Funded by UACES and European Security

May 2005 Workshop Organiser, The EU and Russia after the 2004 Enlargement: Lessons for Cooperation and Integration Funded by UACES

Page Owner: lis1md
Page Created: Friday 29 May 2009 09:20:12 by t00350
Last Modified: Friday 24 October 2014 10:44:38 by sr0025
Assembly date: Thu Aug 27 23:11:05 BST 2015
Content ID: 5381
Revision: 22
Community: 1186