Moving the Needle: Legal Aspects of the New EU Enlargement Methodology and its Influence on Western Balkan Integrations

https://doi.org/10.63189/SLVX5894

Introduction

The process of European integration has played a crucial role in reshaping the European continent, the European Union (EU), and its member states since the end of World War II. This integration process is based on European states fulfilling specific conditions to seek EU membership. These countries must meet certain political and economic criteria and possess the administrative and institutional capacity to implement the EU acquis. Successfully meeting these accession criteria results in full EU membership for candidate states, bringing greater stability and prosperity not only to the new members but also to the EU as a whole. Although this process is not a one-way path, as demonstrated by the United Kingdom’s departure, EU membership remains the primary foreign policy goal for most European countries that are still outside the Union.

Progressive Expansions of EU Membership

The first enlargement of the European Community (the precursor to the EU) occurred in 1973 when Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom joined. This enlargement also set the tone for future expansions by demonstrating that the European project could be attractive to other Western European countries, even those with different political traditions. Greece joined the European Community in 1981, becoming its tenth member; Portugal and Spain joined in 1986, marking another critical enlargement. Both countries had recently transitioned from authoritarian regimes to democratic governments (Portugal in 1974 and Spain in 1975), and their accession underscored the community’s role in consolidating democracy in Southern Europe. The community officially became the EU in 1993 with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, and a further 1995 enlargement brought Austria, Finland, and Sweden into the group. This wave of enlargement was significant because it involved neutral countries that had remained outside the Cold War-era integration efforts. Their accession reflected the end of the Cold War and the increasing attractiveness of EU membership, even for countries that had traditionally maintained a neutral stance in global affairs. The 2004 enlargement is often referred to as the ‘Big Bang’ because it was the largest single expansion in EU history. Ten countries joined: the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. This enlargement was a historic moment, as it marked the reunification of Western and Eastern Europe after decades of Cold War division. Bulgaria and Romania joined in 2007, further expanding the Union’s reach into Eastern Europe. These countries’ accession highlighted the EU’s ongoing commitment to integrating post-communist countries, despite concerns about corruption, governance, and economic development. The most recent enlargement occurred in 2013 with Croatia’s accession as the 28th member state.^[1]  Croatia’s membership was significant as it marked the first expansion since the onset of the global financial crisis, which had raised questions about the EU’s capacity to continue enlarging. The successive waves of EU enlargement have profoundly transformed the Union, expanding its geographical scope, political influence, and economic power. From the inclusion of Western European countries in 1973 to the integration of post-communist states in 2004 and beyond, each wave of enlargement has brought both opportunities and challenges. As the EU continues to navigate complex issues such as economic disparities and geopolitical tensions, the legacy of these enlargements remains central to its identity and future trajectory. The EU’s ability to integrate new members while maintaining its core values of democracy, human rights, and economic cooperation will continue to be a defining feature of its evolution.

The State of EU Integration of Western Balkan Countries

The European Union’s integration of the Western Balkans remains a key strategic objective, though progress has been uneven across the region. Countries like Serbia and Montenegro are the furthest along in the accession process, having opened several chapters in their negotiations with the EU. Albania and North Macedonia have also made strides, with the EU formally agreeing to start accession talks with both countries in 2020, though the process has faced delays. The other EU partners in the region are at earlier stages of integration. The EU remains committed to the region’s integration, seeing it as essential for stability and prosperity in Southeast Europe. However, the pace of progress is influenced by both the countries’ internal reforms and the EU’s own readiness to expand, amid growing scepticism about enlargement within some member states.

Тhe enlargement policy crisis

The European Union has been widely recognised for its successful enlargement policy, which has expanded its membership from six founding countries in 1957 to 27 today. However, in recent years enthusiasm for further enlargement has diminished, leading to what is commonly referred to as ‘enlargement fatigue’. This shift in sentiment has been exacerbated by the deep economic crisis and the ongoing need for reforms within the EU. Since 2014, the narrative surrounding EU enlargement has evolved from ‘fatigue’ to ‘resistance’,^[2] reflecting a growing reluctance among existing member states and their citizens to admit new members, despite the potential benefits of expansion. An iconic example of this resistance is the French constitutional revisions of 2005 and 2008, which established a requirement for France to hold a referendum on any future EU enlargement after Croatia. However, this requirement can be bypassed if both houses of the French Parliament approve the ratification of an Accession Treaty with a three-fifths majority.^[3]  Such developments highlight the growing complexities that will inevitably affect future EU enlargement.

A possible solution: the EU’s new enlargement methodology

The European Commission’s 2020 communication, “Enhancing the Accession Process – A Credible EU Perspective for the Western Balkans”, emerged after challenging negotiations between EU member states and the Commission. These talks sought to resolve the stalled accession discussions with Albania and North Macedonia. Despite receiving a recommendation to begin accession talks in 2018, both countries faced delays due to a lack of consensus among EU members, particularly due to objections from France and the Netherlands. This led to the adoption of a revised methodology in early 2020. However, the adoption of the new enlargement methodology was not solely motivated by these circumstances. The EU has been contending with numerous internal difficulties and external challenges for years, including the economic crisis, the aftermath of Brexit, geopolitical challenges, and the migration crisis. As a result, the new methodology has been perceived as a response to the ‘spill-over effects’ or, in this case, internal disintegration stemming from the inner EU circles that were hit hard by ‘polycrises’ to the outer EU circles.^[4]

The 2020 communication emphasises the need to improve the effectiveness of the accession process, with a particular focus on fundamentals such as the rule of law, political and economic criteria, and public administration reform. The EU has expressed concerns about the state of the rule of law in the Western Balkans and has called on political leaders in the region to demonstrate stronger commitment to tangible and sustainable reforms. As a result, supporting democratic reforms, aligning with core European values, and adhering to the highest EU standards have become central to membership negotiations, with even greater emphasis than in previous approaches, such as the 2012 New Approach on the rule of law.

Key innovations in the new methodology include the introduction of clusters that group negotiation chapters, with the most important being the Fundamentals cluster. This cluster covers key chapters like Judiciary and Fundamental Rights (Chapter 23) and Justice, Freedom, and Security (Chapter 24), as well as related areas such as Public Procurement, Statistics, and Financial Control. Unlike previous frameworks, the Fundamentals cluster will be opened first and closed last, ensuring that progress in these critical areas is maintained throughout the negotiation process. Furthermore, no other clusters will be opened until the Fundamentals cluster is addressed, and the progress in this cluster will determine the overall pace of negotiations.

The new methodology also introduces reversibility, meaning that if a candidate country backslides on reforms, progress can be reversed and benefits may be withdrawn. The strengthened conditionality ties progress in negotiations to the fulfilment of specific benchmarks, particularly in Chapters 23 and 24, which are cross-checked against anti-corruption policies. The reversed qualified majority voting (QMV) mechanism is also introduced, allowing the Council to take swift action in response to developments.

In terms of documentation, the new approach calls for roadmaps to be developed, replacing the previous action plans used in earlier negotiations. These roadmaps, particularly for Chapters 23 and 24, will serve as benchmarks for opening accession talks with Albania and North Macedonia, ensuring that the rule of law and democratic reforms are prioritised from the start. This approach builds on the expectations set in the 2012 New Approach, emphasising the importance of establishing and promoting core democratic institutions early in the process.

Finally, the new methodology includes clear procedures for sanctioning or corrective measures, similar to the Article 7 TEU procedure.^[5] This ensures that if a candidate country fails to meet its obligations, there is a structured sequence of steps leading to the imposition or lifting of corrective measures by the Council, making the accession process more stringent and accountable.

The EU’s new negotiation methodology includes measures to address serious or prolonged backsliding in candidate countries, where legislation or actions regress from previously achieved European standards. In response to such issues, the EU can adjust or reduce pre-accession financial assistance, excluding support for civil society. This aligns with the rule of law conditionality regulation, which links EU funding to adherence to rule of law standards for both member states and candidate countries.

The New Methodology for the Western Balkans aims to stabilise states’ commitment to EU values, but the Union must clarify the scope of the rule of law and balance political will with deeper involvement.^[6] The EU-Western Balkans Zagreb Summit in May 2020 expressed strong support for the region’s European future, but avoided using terms like ‘accession’ or ‘membership’. It is, however, unlikely that due to the new methodology the accession will become a genuine societal choice rather than just a technical process.^[7] While some positive aspects of the new enlargement methodology are evident, it is unlikely to significantly accelerate the integration process. The new methodology has not produced the anticipated results in strengthening relations between the region’s countries and the EU, nor in driving reforms and progress in the accession process.^[8] The geopolitical and broader political context will likely play a crucial role in shaping the EU integration of Western Balkan countries, with the accession process increasingly dependent on the candidate countries’ own pace and quality of reform implementation.

^[1] See: Successive waves of EU enlargement. [Online]. Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/enlargement/ (Accessed: 27 August 2024).

^[2] Economides, S. (2020) From Fatigue to Resistance: EU Enlargement and the Western Balkans, Dahrendorf Forum IV. Working Paper No. 17.

^[3] For more on the lack of public support for EU enlargement, see: Zhelyazkova, A., Damjanovski, I., Nechev, Z., Schimmelfennig., F. (2019), European Union Conditionality in the Western Balkans: External Incentives and Europeanisation, in Džankić J., Keil, S., Kmezić, M. (eds.) The Europeanisation of the Western Balkans: A Failure of EU Conditionality? London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 15-37.

^[4] Vlajković, M. (2022) The Importance of Reshaping the European Identity for the European Integration Process of Serbia, International Organizations: Serbia and Contemporary World, 1/2022, p. 497.

^[5] Pejović, A. A. (2021) ‘Rule of Law Through The Mirror Glass – Is The New 2020 Enlargement Methodology a Pre-Accession TEU Article 7 Mechanism?’, Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, 69(3), pp. 647-673.

^[6] Vlajković, M. (2020) Rule of Law – EU’s Common Constitutional ‘Denominator’ and a Crucial Membership Condition on the Changed and Evolutionary Role of the Rule of Law Value in the EU Context. EU 2020 – Lessons from the Past and Solutions for the Future, pp. 235-257.

^[7] Đemalović, U.  (2020) ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: The EU and the Western Balkans After the Adoption of the New Enlargement Methodology and the Conclusions of the Zagreb Summit’, Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy, 16(1), pp. 179-196.

^[8] POLICY BRIEF 2 New EU Enlargement Policy: Novelties of Accession Methodology and Global Challenges, [Online]. Available at: https://www.cepeuch.com/images/documents/CEP_policy_bref_2.pdf (Accessed: 27 August 2024).