Thanking the Greeks: The Crisis of the Rule of Law in eu Enlargement Regulation

in Southeastern Europe
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

This paper showcases the weaknesses of eu enlargement law and demonstrates how one Member State – namely, Greece – is notable for abusing this weakness, for harming the candidate countries, the eu, and the institutions alike, for stripping the eu position of its predictability, and for undermining the eu Commission’s efforts. Accordingly, Greece has severely incapacitated the key procedural rule of law component of the eu’s enlargement regulation, turning it into a randomised political game and ignoring any long-term goals of stability, prosperity, and peace that the process is to stand for. Following a walk through Greece’s engagement throughout a number of enlargement rounds, the paper concludes that the duty of loyalty – which is presumably able to discipline Member States that undermine the common effort – should find a new meaning in the context of eu enlargement.

Sections

References

Arıkan.H. 2003. ‘Good Neighbourliness Condition for eu Membership: The eu Policy Towards the Cyprus Conflict and its Security Implications’Ankara Universitesi Sıyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi 58(4): 2547.

ArvanitopoulosC. (ed). 2009. Turkey’s Accession to the European Union: An Unusual Candidacy (Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag).

AthanasopulosH.2001. Greece, Turkey and the Aegean Sea (Jefferson, NC: McFarland).

BahcheliT.2003. ‘Cycles of Tension and Rapprochement: Prospects for Turkey’s Relations with Greece’ in Ismael. T. Y. and Aydın. M. (eds). Turkey’s Foreign Policy in the 21st Century: A Changing Role in World Politics (Aldershot: Ashgate): 16180.

———. 2004. ‘Turning a New Page in Turkey’s Relations with Greece? The Challenge of Reconciling Vital Interests’ in Aydin. M. and Ifantis. K. (eds). Turkish-Greek Relations: The Security Dilemma in the Aegean (London/NY: Routledge): 95122.

Basheska.E.2015. ‘The Position of the Good Neighbourliness Principle in International and eu law’ in Kochenov. D. and Basheska. E. (eds). Good Neighbourliness in European Legal Context (Leiden: Brill Nijhoff): 2456.

Berridge.G.1996. ‘The un and the world diplomatic system: lessons from the Cyprus and us-North Korea talks’ in Bourantonis. D. and Evriviades. M. L. (eds). A United Nations for the Twenty-First Century: Peace, Security, and Development (The Hague: Kluwer Law Intl): 10526.

Blokker.P.2006. ‘The Post-enlargement European Order: Europe “United in Diversity”?European Democracy and Autonomy Papers (1).

Bölükbaşi.D.2004. Turkey and Greece: The Aegean Disputes (London: Cavendish).

Bourne.A. K.2003. ‘European Integration and Conflict Resolution in the Basque country, Northern Ireland and CyprusPerspectives on European Politics and Society 4(3): 391415.

Çakir.A. E.2010. ‘Political Dimension: Always in the List of “Also-rans”: Turkey’s Rivals in eu–Turkey Relations’ in Çakir. A. E. (ed). Fifty Years of eu–Turkey Relations: A Sisyphean Story (London/NY: Routledge): 10–46.

Canefe.N. and Ugur.M. (eds). 2004. Turkey and European Integration: Accession Prospects and Issues (London/NY: Routledge).

CoE: Parliamentary Assembly. 2008. Working papers, Ordinary Session (Second part) 14–18 April, Volume iii: 37–41.

Cremona.M.2012. ‘Introduction’ in Cremona. M. (ed). Compliance and the Enforcement of eu Law (Oxford: oup): xl.

DavisR.1997. ‘The “Problem of de Gaulle”: British Reactions to General de Gaulle’s Veto of the uk Application to Join the Common Market’ J. Contemporary History 32(4): 45364.

EngertS.2010. eu Enlargement and Socialization: Turkey and Cyprus (ny: Routledge): 5265.

Grabbe. H. 2003. ‘Challenges of eu Enlargement’ in Lieven. A. and Trenin. D. V. (eds). Ambivalent Neighbours: The eu, nato and the Price of Membership (Washington, dc: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace): 67–89.

Grigoriadis. I. N. 2014. ‘The Changing Role of the eu Factor in Greek-Turkish Relations’London School of Economics and Political Science Hellenic Observatory, Symposium Paper, <http://www.lse.ac.uk/europeanInstitute/research/hellenicObservatory/pdf/1st_Symposium/GrigoriadisIoannis.pdf> [accessed on 31 October 2015].

Hillion. C. 2010. ‘The Creeping Nationalisation of the eu Enlargement Policy’sieps (6).

———. 2011. eu Enlargement’ in Craig. P. P. and de Búrca. G. (eds). The Evolution of eu Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: oup): 187–216.

———. and Wessel. R. 2008. ‘Restraining External Competences of eu Member States under cfsp in Cremona. M. and de Witte. B. (eds). eu Foreign Relations Law, Constitutional Fundamentals (Oxford: Hart Publishing): 79–121.

Hoffmeister.F.2006. Special Legal Aspects of the Cyprus Problem: Annan Plan and eu Accession (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff).

House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. ‘uk–Turkey Relations and Turkey’s Regional Role’, 81–85, <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmfaff/1567/1567.pdf> [accessed on 31 October 2015].

Hughes.E.2011. Turkey’s Accession to the European Union: The Politics of Exclusion? (London/ny: Routledge).

Kanarek.D. A.2003. ‘Case Law: Turkey and the European Union: The Path to Accession’cjel (9): 45774.

KaratasE.2011. ‘The Politics of Accession’ in Ker-LindsayJ., FaustmannH. and Mullen.F. (eds). An Island in Europe: The eu and the Transformation of Cyprus (ny: I.B. Tauris): 1341.

KochenovD.2005. ‘eu Enlargement Law: History and Recent Developments: Treaty-Custom ConcubinageEIoP 9(6).

———. 2008. eu Enlargement and the Failure of Conditionality (The Hague: Kluwer Law Intl).

———. 2011. ‘enp’s New Developments: Imitating Change – Ignoring the ProblemsComparative European Politics (9): 58195.

Laulhé ShaelouS.2010. The eu and Cyprus: Principles and Strategies of Full Integration (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff).

McCartan. G. 2002. ‘Frictions Emerge over Enlargement of European Union’ The Militant (1 July 2002) <http://www.themilitant.com/2002/6626/662666.html> [accessed on 18 November 2015].

Messineo. F. 2012. ‘Maps of Ephemeral Empires: The icj and the Macedonian Name Dispute’ cjicl (1): 16990.

Moravcsik. A. and Vachudova. M. A. 2003. ‘National Interests, State Power, and eu Enlargement’East European Politics and Societies 17(1): 4257.

Nicolaïdes. P. et al. 1999. A Guide to the Enlargement of the European Union (Maastricht: eipa).

Pace. M. 2006. The Politics of Regional Identity: Meddling with the Mediterranean (Abingdon/ny: Routledge).

PrestonC.1997. The Enlargement and Integration of the European Union: Issues and Strategies (London/ny: Routledge).

RodinS.2012. ‘The European Union and the Western Balkans: Does the Lisbon Treaty Matter?’ in Bindi. F. and Angelescu. I. (eds). The Foreign Policy of the European Union, 2nd edn (Washington: Brookings Institution Press): 15371.

RumeliliB.2008. ‘Transforming the Greek-Turkish conflicts: the eu and “what we make of it”!’ in Diez. T., Stetter. S. and Albert. M. (eds). The European Union and Border Conflicts: The Power of Integration and Association (Cambridge: cup): 94128.

ŠabičZ.2002. ‘Slovenia and the European Union: A Different Kind of Two-Level Game’ in LindenR. H. (ed). Norms and Nannies: The Impact of International Organizations on the Central and Eastern European States (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield): 91127.

SmithK. E.2003. ‘The Evolution and Application of eu Membership Conditionality’ in CremonaM. (ed). The Enlargement of the European Union (Oxford: oup): 10540.

SpiteriS.2002. ‘Greece: without Cyprus no eu enlargement’eu Observer (13 June) <http://euobserver.com/enlargement/6615> [accessed on 31 October 2015].

Tocci. T. 2002. ‘Cyprus and the European Union Accession Process: Inspiration for Peace or Incentive for Crisis’Turkish Studies 3(2): 10438.

———. 2004. eu Accession Dynamics and Conflict Resolution: Catalysing Peace Or Consolidating Partition in Cyprus (Aldershot: Ashgate).

Tsakonas.P. J.2009. ‘How Can the European Union Transform the Greek-Turkish Conflict’ in Arvanitopoulos. C. (ed). Turkey’s Accession to the European Union: An Unusual Candidacy (Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag): 10720.

TsardanidasC. and StavridisS.2011. ‘Greece: From Special Case to Limited Europeanization’ in WongR. and HillC. (eds). National and European Foreign Policies: Towards Europeanization (London/NY: Routledge): 11130.

TulmetsE.2008. ‘A “Soft Power” with Civilian Means: Can the eu Bridge its Capability-Expectations Gap in the enp?’ in Delcour. L. and Toulmets. E. (eds). 2008. Pioneer Europe? Testing eu Foreign Policy in the Neighbourhood (Baden-Baden: Nomos): 13358.

UilenreefA.2010. ‘Bilateral Barriers or Good Neighbourliness?’Clingendael European Papers, 15–22, <http://www.clingendael.nl/publication/bilateral-barriers-or-good-neighbourliness-role-bilateral-disputes-eu-enlargement> [accessed on 31 October 2015].

VachudovaM. A.2005. Europe Undivided (Oxford: oup).

WallS.2013. The Official History of Britain and the European Community: From Rejection to Referendum, 1963–1975, vol 2 (ny: Routledge).

WallaceW.2003. ‘Looking after the Neighbourhood: Responsibilities for the eu-25Notre Europe Policy Paper No. 4.

8

 See, for instance, Uilenreef 2010, with regard to the impact of the bilateral dispute between Slovenia and Croatia on the eu integration efforts of the latter.

26

Shaelou 2010: 60, for instance, notes that after Cyprus’ accession to the Union, the aim of recognition of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkey and the normalisation of the relations between Cyprus and Turkey was to be achieved by exerting political pressure, as well as through the ‘technical requirements deriving from binding instruments of [eu] law’.

32

Tocci 2002: 108, for instance, argues that a settlement of the dispute was effectively a condition in the Opinion on the application of Cyprus. See also Bourne 2001: 394.

43

 Quoted in McCartan 2002.

52

Thus, on 16 February 1994, the Greek government placed a total embargo on Macedonia, with the sole exception of food and pharmaceuticals. On 22 April 1994 the Commission brought an action against Greece in front of the ecj, claiming that the Member State misused its powers by failing to justify the unilateral measures prohibiting trade: see Case C–120/94 Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic [1996] ecr I–1513. With the conclusion of the ‘un Interim Accord Between the Hellenic Republic and the fyrom’, un Doc 95−27866 of 13 September 1995 (Interim Accord), Greece lifted the trade restrictions and the Commission decided to withdraw its application.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 28 28 8
Full Text Views 7 7 7
PDF Downloads 1 1 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0