EU Enlargement Policy between the Chronological Precedence of the Western Balkans and the Geopolitical Urgency in the Eastern Neighborhood: a Realist Perspective

This study adopts a realist approach to explore how geopolitical factors influence the European Union’s (EU) decision to expand into neighbouring regions of strategic importance or vulnerability to major powers’ influence. It specifically examines the obstacles posed by the absence of a unanimous stance on „pre-scheduled” accessions, as seen in the earlier „eastern enlargement” rounds. It is argued that the present geopoliticized EU enlargement policy seems to be guided by realist factors, although it is characterized by an incongruity between strategic rhetoric and strategic actions. This inconsistency between expressed intentions and actual measures is more evident in the Western Balkans than in the Eastern neighbourhood. Through the selected, broadly set realist elements – groupism, egoism and power-centrism – the EU’s foreign policy strategy and behaviour are examined, searching for a gap between the discursive and practical domains in both regions. The research considers that the EU’s response has not predominantly been strategic but rather tactical, reflecting the enlargement policy’s longstanding deficiencies, coupled with the urgent need to extend commitments to the eastern partners facing immediate security threats. Such tendencies are disadvantageous for the Western Balkans, which became a lower priority for the EU despite its chronological precedence in the enlargement domain. While ideally, both enlargement regions should be granted an „accession timetable” along with on-ground democratic reforms, the authors highlight that due to differing geopolitical dynamics and pressure, the outcomes for the two regions may either diverge in terms of potential favouring of the new candidates or, perhaps more likely, converge – meaning that the accession of either region might be postponed once the geopolitical urgency subsides

Izbori za Evropski parlament u vreme krize - šta je drugačije ovog puta

The paper explores the European Parliament's capacities as an actor in the process of overcoming the contemporary EU crisis. It starts with a critical analysis of both formal and informal institutional arrangements introduced with the Lisbon Treaty and during the process of 2014 European elections preparation. It is argued that although the EP has gained powers concerning the election of the European executive chief, the EP increasingly loses its powers within policies that are the main generators of crisis. That is why the EP cannot play a significant role in overcoming the EU crisis nor can the citizens who elect it. Apart from institutional incapability, the role of the Parliament is further complicated by new circumstances - holding elections and constituting the EP under the conditions of increased politicization caused by the protracted crisis. The paper concludes that the EP, just as the EU itself, has been caught in a vicious circle where the crisis and politicization produce deep divisions, and divisions consequently preclude taking anti-crisis measures.Rad nastoji da ispita kapacitete Evropskog parlamenta (EP) kao aktera u prevazilaženju savremene krize EU. Najpre se kritički sagledavaju formalne i neformalne institucionalne novine nakon Ugovora iz Lisabona i poslednjih izbora za EP i ukazuje na činjenicu da Parlament i dalje uživa ograničena ovlašćenja. Naime, iako je dobio veću mogućnost uticaja na izbor šefa egzekutive, on ima sve manje mogućnosti kontrole i uticaja u politikama EU koje su glavni generatori krize. Stoga, Evropski parlament ne može da ima značajniju ulogu u izvođenju Unije iz krize, a time ni građani koji ga biraju. Pored institucionalnih nedostataka, ulogu Parlamenta otežavaju nove okolnosti - odvijanje izbora i konstituisanje EP u uslovima uvećane politizacije izazvane pre svega produženom krizom EU. U radu se zaključuje da se EP, kao i Evropska unija, našao u začaranom krugu u kojem kriza i politizacija proizvode duboke podele koje otežavaju preduzimanje mera za izlazak iz krize

The European Union in the Pandemics: Covid-19 crisis questioning the EU’s raison d’etre and the possible implications for further integration

More than sixty years ago, Ernst Haas defined political integration as the process of shifting distinct national political loyalties, activities, and expectations towards a new political centre. Neofunctionalists have considered crises as conducive to integration because these would trigger politicization, which would under the specified conditions, lead to spill-overs of integration into ever more policy sectors. In the last decade, we have been witnessing multiple crises hitting the EU. These crises, like the one triggered by the Covid-19 pandemics, caused different responses by the EU institutions, Member States, and the EU citizens. These responses are inseparable from the question looming around all previous EU crises: what is the EU’s Raison d’etre. The question of purpose has never been posed openly by neo-functionalism nor officially by the EU elites, but it seems unavoidable. Whether this new crisis will end in solving this issue is too early to say. Nevertheless, we seem able to analyze the EU’s responses to this point and to give an estimation of possible consequences for further integration. We argue that initial responses to the Covid-19 crisis have been mixed. The Commission has been pushing for the pro-integrationist solutions by proposing urgent funds and advocating for the EU’s health care sovereignty. The member states, on the other hand, have been challenging the EU’s purpose by the borders closure, re-introduction of the state aid, and prohibition of exports. Another aspect to examine would be the narratives used during the pandemics and the public opinion on the question of solidarity

Conflict between Stability and Democracy in the Serbia’s Eu Integration Process

Prvi od kriteriјuma iz Kopenhagena za pristupanje novih država članica Evropskoј uniјi definisanih 1993. godine јeste onaј politički – o neophodnosti uspostavljanja stabilnih instituciјa koјe garantuјu demokratiјu, vladavinu prava, ljudska prava i poštovanje i zaštitu manjina. Ovaј kriteriјum јe, međutim, ostao u senci u poslednjih nekoliko godina tokom koјih јe Evropska uniјa јedinu pažnju na Zapadnom Balkanu posvećivala pitanju regionalne stabilnosti ovog prostora. Tako se dogodio paradoks da se u Srbiјi, ali i drugim državama ovog regiona, u јednom procesu koјi bi trebalo da podrži demokratiјu, daјe podrška autoritarnim političkim liderima. Za tu podršku oni su se kvalifikovali svoјom spremnošću, makar deklarativnom, da se posvete unapređenju odnosa sa susedima. Istovremeno se toleriše očigledna poјava zarobljavanja države (engl. State Capture) manifestovana u raširenoј korupciјi, uzurpaciјi mediјa, samovolji poјedinaca i prenebregavanju instituciјa, kao i kršenju vladavine prava, uključuјući i ljudska prava. Nekoliko faktora koјi su se istovremeno stekli doprinelo јe ovakvom pristupu Evropske uniјe prema državama kandidatima za članstvo. Prvi јe sadržan u okolnostima višedimenzionalne krize u koјoј se EU našla od 2008. godine, koјa onemogućava Uniјi da se u punom kapacitetu posveti pitanju proširenja. Drugi јeste očigledan zamor od proširenja vidljiv u јavnom diskursu na prostoru Evropske uniјe, kako među političkim elitama, umerenim i ekstrem- nim političkim partiјama, tako i među građanima. Treći faktor јeste aktuelna dominaciјa Evropske narodne partiјe u svim političkim instituciјama Evropske uniјe. Njeni predstavnici daјu gotovo bezrezervnu podršku članovima njima srodnih, vladaјućih političkih partiјa u poјedinim zemljama na Zapadnom Balkanu, od čega јe Srbiјa verovatno naјbolji primer. Konačno, slaba demokratska osnova u zemljama kandidatima, kako na strani vlasti tako i unutar civilnog društva, omogućila јe nekritički, apologetski odnos prema čitavom procesu pristupanja. Članak zaključuјemo nekim opštim opservaciјama i otvorenim pitanjima o odnosu demokratiјe i procesa pristupanja.The first among the EU accession criteria, known as the Copenhagen criteria, has been the political one – securing the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. In the last few years, however, this criterion has been neglected by the EU which put all its attention to regional stability in the Western Balkans. This is how a paradox has happened contained in the fact that the process of EU integration that was supposed to uphold democracy started supporting authoritarian political elites in Serbia as well as in other Western Balkans countries. For this kind of support these elites have qualified by their declared readiness to improve their relations with neighboring countries. During that time, the EU has been tolerating the obvious indicators of state capture in the region, manifested in the widespread corruption, media usurpation, arbitrariness of individuals in power, circumventing the institutions, breaching the rule of law including human rights. The paper argues that there simultaneously exist several factors contributing to maintaining such an EU’s approach. First, the circumstances of the multidimensional crisis that hit the Union since 2008 prevails it to deal substantially with the enlargement process. Second, there is the obvious enlargement fatigue visible in the public discourse among the EU’s political elites, both mainstream and extreme political parties, as well as citizens. The third factor is an actual dominance of the European People’s Party in all of the EU’s political institutions whose representatives give their almost unreserved support to their political counterparts currently in power in the Western Balkans countries, Serbia being the most obvious example. Finally, a weak democratic foundation in candidate countries, both among those in power and the civil society, enabled an uncritical, apologetic stance towards the whole accession process. The paper concludes with some general observations and open questions about the relation between democracy and the accession process

Evropska unija u procesu politizacije

Since the end of the 1980s, the intensifying of the politicization process has been one of the important characteristics of the EU integration process. The politicization in the EU is understood as the way of contesting and decision-making on public issues, the way that is opposite to the elitist and technocratic mode of decision-making, typical for the first decades of EU integration. Thus, the politicization, and also the politicization in the EU, is grasped as complementary to the public character of modern politics, especially with democracy. The European union is conceptualized as an extremely compound and non-centralized political system of a non-state type with the elements of consensus democracy and with a deeply segmented society as its basis, divided by national and many transnational lines. Within that society, as well as within its political institutions, the politicization process has been developing which has been influencing the functioning of the system considerably. We explore the experiences of politicization in other compound, consensus democracies in Europe – Belgium and Switzerland – and by comparing the specific cases of politicization, we are searching for the possible specific characteristics of politicization in the EU that stem from its described nature. Also, we are analyzing the possible impact of such politicization on the future of integration and politics in the EU. Although not always contributing to deepening of integration, the politicization in the EU, under specific circumstances, could have a democratizing effect. It serves as the opportunity for stimulating the debates on important issues and articulating the will of the citizens while the adequate forms of participation in the political process are still missing in the EU. In addition, we discuss the potential impact of the politicization of European issues on the gradual creation of the European public sphere or the Europeanisation of the national public spheres, as well as on the Europeanisation of society and emergence of the European political identity among the EU citizens.Jedna od značajnijih karakteristika u razvoju evropske integracije od kraja 1980- ih godina jeste intenziviranje procesa politizacije. Politizacija u Evropskoj uniji se razume kao način raspravljanja i odlučivanja o javnim pitanjima suprotan elitističkom i tehnokratskom načinu donošenja odluka, uobičajenom naročito za prve decenije razvoja evropske integracije. Stoga se politizacija, pa i politizacija u Evropskoj uniji, shvata kao komplementarna sa javnim karakterom moderne politike, posebno sa demokratijom. Evropska unija je konceptualizovana kao izrazito složen i necentralizovan politički sistem nedržavnog tipa sa elementima konsensualne demokratije koji za osnovu ima duboko segmentirano društvo, ispresecano osim nacionalnim i mnogim transnacionalnim podelama. Unutar tog društva, kao i unutar političkih institucija, odvija se proces politizacije koja ima značajnog uticaja na funkcionisanje sistema. Rad nastoji da izuči iskustva politizacije drugih složenih, konsensualnih demokratija u Evropi – Belgije i Švajcarske – te poređenjem pojedinih slučajeva politizacije traga za posebnim karakteristikama politizacije u EU koje proističu iz njene opisane prirode, kao i o mogućem uticaju takve politizacije na budućnost integracije i politike u EU. Iako neće uvek doprineti produbljivanju integracije, politizacija u EU pod određenim uslovima može imati demokratizujući uticaj jer predstavlja način da se oživi rasprava o važnim pitanjima i artikuliše volja građana u nedostatku adekvatnih oblika učešća u političkom procesu EU. Dodatno, razmatra se potencijalni uticaj koji politizacija evropskih pitanja može da ima na postepeno kreiranje evropske javne sfere ili evropeizaciju nacionalnih javnih sfera, kao i na evropeizaciju društva i kreiranje evropskog političkog identiteta među građanima Unije

Elections to The European Parliament in Times of Crisis: This Time is it Different?

Rad nastoji da ispita kapacitete Evropskog parlamenta (EP) kao aktera u prevazilaženju savreme ne krize EU. Najpre se kritički sagledavaju formalne i neformalne institucionalne novine nakon Ugovora iz Lisabona i poslednjih izbora za EP i ukazuje na činjenicu da Parlament i dalje uživa ograničena ovlašćenja. Naime, iako je dobio veću mogućnost uticaja na izbor šefa egzekutive, on ima sve manje mogućnosti kontrole i uticaja u politikama EU ko je su glavni generatori krize. Stoga, Evropski parlament ne može da ima značajniju ulogu u izvođenju Unije iz krize, a time ni građani koji ga biraju. Pored institucionalnih nedostataka, ulogu Parlamenta otežavaju nove okolnosti – odvijanje izbora i konstituisanje EP u uslovima uvećane politizacije izazvane pre svega produženom krizom EU. U radu se zaključuje da se EP, kao i Evropska unija, našao u začaranom krugu u kojem kriza i politizacija proizvode duboke podele koje otežavaju preduzimanje mera za izlazak iz krize

The European Union in the politicization process

Једна од значајнијих карактеристика у развоју европске интеграције од краја 1980- их година јесте интензивирање процеса политизације. Политизација у Европској унији се разуме као начин расправљања и одлучивања о јавним питањима супротан елитистичком и технократском начину доношења одлука, уобичајеном нарочито за прве деценије развоја европске интеграције. Стога се политизација, па и политизација у Европској унији, схвата као комплементарна са јавним карактером модерне политике, посебно са демократијом. Европска унија је концептуализована као изразито сложен и нецентрализован политички систем недржавног типа са елементима консенсуалне демократије који за основу има дубоко сегментирано друштво, испресецано осим националним и многим транснационалним поделама. Унутар тог друштва, као и унутар политичких институција, одвија се процес политизације која има значајног утицаја на функционисање система. Рад настоји да изучи искуства политизације других сложених, консенсуалних демократија у Европи – Белгије и Швајцарске – те поређењем појединих случајева политизације трага за посебним карактеристикама политизације у ЕУ које проистичу из њене описане природе, као и о могућем утицају такве политизације на будућност интеграције и политике у ЕУ. Иако неће увек допринети продубљивању интеграције, политизација у ЕУ под одређеним условима може имати демократизујући утицај јер представља начин да се оживи расправа о важним питањима и артикулише воља грађана у недостатку адекватних облика учешћа у политичком процесу ЕУ. Додатно, разматра се потенцијални утицај који политизација европских питања може да има на постепено креирање европске јавне сфере или европеизацију националних јавних сфера, као и на европеизацију друштва и креирање европског политичког идентитета међу грађанима Уније.Since the end of the 1980s, the intensifying of the politicization process has been one of the important characteristics of the EU integration process. The politicization in the EU is understood as the way of contesting and decision-making on public issues, the way that is opposite to the elitist and technocratic mode of decision-making, typical for the first decades of EU integration. Thus, the politicization, and also the politicization in the EU, is grasped as complementary to the public character of modern politics, especially with democracy. The European union is conceptualized as an extremely compound and non-centralized political system of a non-state type with the elements of consensus democracy and with a deeply segmented society as its basis, divided by national and many transnational lines. Within that society, as well as within its political institutions, the politicization process has been developing which has been influencing the functioning of the system considerably. We explore the experiences of politicization in other compound, consensus democracies in Europe – Belgium and Switzerland – and by comparing the specific cases of politicization, we are searching for the possible specific characteristics of politicization in the EU that stem from its described nature. Also, we are analyzing the possible impact of such politicization on the future of integration and politics in the EU. Although not always contributing to deepening of integration, the politicization in the EU, under specific circumstances, could have a democratizing effect. It serves as the opportunity for stimulating the debates on important issues and articulating the will of the citizens while the adequate forms of participation in the political process are still missing in the EU. In addition, we discuss the potential impact of the politicization of European issues on the gradual creation of the European public sphere or the Europeanisation of the national public spheres, as well as on the Europeanisation of society and emergence of the European political identity among the EU citizens

Izbori za Evropski parlament - od nacionalnih izbora drugog reda do evropeizovanog drugorazrednog takmičenja

By analyzing the case of the 2019 European Parliament elections, the article examines the hypothesis about the second-order character of elections to the European Parliament. Moving within the theoretical framework that has been developing since the first direct EP elections in 1979, we critically examine the conditions in which the last electoral cycle took place and we look for the novelties that could have impacted the changing of this prevalent paradigm. Although we find certain changes that contribute to the 'Europeanization' of these elections, we conclude that the most previous hypotheses are still valid confirming that we are still dealing with the secondorder electoral contest. The last European Parliament elections, as well as the subsequent European chief executive election process, brought new circumstances that could even contribute to maintaining the second-order character of the EP elections.Rad nastoji da ispita tezu o drugorazrednom značaju izbora za Evropski parlament na primeru izbora iz 2019. godine. Oslanjajući se na teorijski okvir za posmatranje izbora za Evropski parlament kao drugorazredne nacionalne izborne arene, koji se razvijao od prvih neposrednih izbora 1979. godine, kritički se preispituju uslovi u kojima se odvijao poslednji izborni ciklus i novine koje su mogle uticati da se ovakva slika o izborima promeni. Autori zaključuju da je do određenih promena došlo, pre svega u pravcu "evropeizovanja" ovih izbora, međutim, da je još uvek validna većina pretpostavki da se radi o drugorazrednom izbornom takmičenju. Prilikom izbora iz 2019, kao i naknadne procedure izbora šefa izvršne vlasti Evropske unije, došlo je do novih okolnosti koje bi čak mogle i doprineti da se drugorazredni karakter izbora za Evropski parlament nastavi

The EU’s raison d’état in the Western Balkans: Can the new enlargement methodology help?

By employing the concept of raison d’état, the article questions the European Union’s role in the so-called Western Balkan region. While the region continues to be covered by the EU’s enlargement policy, we argue that the policy has been in paralysis. We explore whether the heightened geopolitical tensions in Europe have brought the EU to a turning point at which it would use its enlargement policy decisively to pursue its strategic interests in the region. We start with a theoretical discussion of raison d’état and its instrumentalization in the context of the European Union as a non-state actor. Then, we use the conceptual benchmarks of the raison d’état to analyze its empirical implementation through the EU’s relations with Western Balkan countries. We explore the EU’s available enlargement policy tools and the diverging positions within the EU towards enlargement. We pay special attention to the “New enlargement methodology” devised by the Commission in 2019. We argue that despite the Commission’s efforts to promote the EU’s common interest in the region framed in a geopolitical narrative, the diverging national interests still preclude the EU from aggregating its own and pursuing its raison d’état towards the region. The “new methodology” does nothing to overcome this situation. What is more, by insisting on a “stronger political steer” and by further facilitating the reversal of the accession process, the document pushes the Union further away from a common ground regarding the enlargement

Between Populism and Technocracy: How National Executives in Bulgaria and Serbia Manipulate EU Rule of Law Conditionality

This article explores how national executives in Serbia and Bulgaria address European Union (EU) rule of law conditionality by framing it within the populism/technocracy dichotomy. The rule of law remains one of the main problems of EU relations with the two countries. While acknowledging the nuances of pre- and post-enlargement Europeanisation, this article explores the technocratic and populist narratives exploited by the national executives in their interactions with the EU and their domestic public. Rather than positioning the current executives unequivocally either as populist or technocratic, we argue that the political elites act strategically in using both populist and technocratic techniques towards their publics when explaining interaction with the EU. We explore the extent this type of executive behaviour is determined by the countries’ formally different status. While we look for the levels of possible similarity and distinction in the two cases/countries stemming from their different EU membership status, our findings confirm the existence of strategic defensive populist and technocratic techniques applied towards the EU and the national public in both countries The aim of this strategy is to mitigate the impact of the EU rule of law pressure and to secure the persistence of the existing rule of law shortcomings within the process of European integration. Interestingly, our research did not identify substantial impact of the formally different status towards the EU of the two countries