4th May 2001
by
Aslan Gündüz
Istanbul Kultur University, School of Law
“ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION –A VIEW FROM THE EAST, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE CASE OF TURKEY”
Mrs. Lasok, Dear Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is moving, and very much pleasing for me to see that Domink Lasok has not been forgotten and his contributions to the European Legal Studies are continued to be appreciated in the University of Exeter. We, the people, are mortal but the institutions, which we have created or we have invested in, shall remain. Yet beneath even the monumental institutions lies the dedicated human labour and service. Professor Dominik Lasok had served his University well; he, among others, created and presided over the Centre for European Legal Studies. Now Professor Lasok is gone but the Centre is functioning. It is nice that the Centre has not forgotten him. It has created annual Dominik Lasok Lecture series in order to keep his name alive. As colleagues, students and friends of Professor Lasok we are very much pleased. Please allow me to thank the Centre, its Director Professor Betten, and all who have contributed to the creation of the lecture series.
When I received the invitation to give the first lecture, I accepted it without hesitation. Today I am here for the occasion. I have mixed feelings, yet. It is an honour for me to give the Dominik Lasok lecture, but it is impossible not to feel his absence in the very place where he spent so much of his life. It is very nice of you to come and it is my pleasure to be with you. Thank you all very much.
I think you would agree with me that the name Dominik Lasok stands for scholarship, friendship, loyalty, peace and positive action. His contributions to the European studies are legendary. He published extensively, he taught hundreds of students, he guided in a scholarly way various countries aspiring to membership to the European Union (“EU”). He has left behind hundreds of friends, former students, and colleagues not only in the United Kingdom but also in Turkey and Poland.
I personally had the pleasure of knowing him first when he came to Istanbul in 1987 to teach at the Marmara University's European Community Institute, which was set up in the same year, and shortly after Turkey had made its application to the European Community (“the EC”) for membership. Thereafter Dominik had been with us for eight consecutive years, giving various law courses to MA and PhD classes at Marmara University. He educated hundreds of students, most of whom now work for the government, universities or private companies. Dominik, with his deep-rooted experience, helped to shape the structure of the Institute from the very beginning and made it what it is today. He edited a comprehensive publication on how to harmonise Turkish law with EC law. He published articles on various aspects of a number of Turkish-EC relations. During the whole period, I had the honour of working with him, and of being a close friend to him, a friendship that I shall cherish as long as I live.
In 1996, in recognition of his distinct contributions, the University Senate bestowed upon Professor Lasok an Honorary Doctorate. His name is still held in high esteem in the University. He continues to live with us through his work, studies, and publications, and good friendships, which had made.
Today I shall talk about enlargement of the European Union from the perspective of the applicant countries, with special reference to Turkey, the very topic to which Dominik made substantial contributions. Professor Betten suggested the topic and I agreed. After my talk of about 45 minutes I would be happy to answer your questions.
Introductory Remarks about the Enlargement
The European Union (EU) has so far enlarged four times. It is enlarging again. But this time the enlargement is one of the most ambitious projects in the history of the EU. It is part of the restructuring of the European political and security architecture after the Cold War. It is different from the previous enlargements in a number of ways: First, with this enlargement the Union shall almost double the number of its member states, rising from 15 to 28. The EU’s territory shall expand substantially and its population shall rise by about 140 millions. Second, this enlargement shall have the effect of transforming the applicant states; that is why it shall be subject to different norms and standards, as compared with previous ones. Third, the candidates are different from present EU member states in their political background, and economic orientation. Fourth, the implications of enlargement for the candidates, for the EU, and for the region will be different.
In order to put things in their proper perspectives, it may be useful to have a quick look at the history of the EU enlargements so far. It is common knowledge that the first enlargement took place 22 years after the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community and 16 years after the EEC, viz, in 1973 when the UK, Ireland and Finland joined. The second came in 1981 when Greece was admitted. The Communities enlarged for the third time in 1986 when Spain and Portugal were taken in, at a time when the European Single Act too, was adopted. Turkey applied in 1987 for membership, and then Austria, Sweden, Denmark and Malta did the same. The EU gave a negative response to the Turkish application, while Austria, Sweden and Denmark were admitted in 1995; thus the fourth round of enlargements was completed. Malta had applied in 1990, it had withdrawn its application after the 26 October Election 1996 but re-activated its application in September 1998.
In 1990, the Communist Bloc, the archenemy of the West, collapsed. The Cold War ended. Europe became re-united. Europe now was very much different from what it had been for 45 years. The West was quick to respond to the challenge. In 1992, the Maastricht Treaty was signed whereby the EC transformed itself into the European Union, thus bracing itself for further enlargements. The Central and Eastern European States (CEES), disorganised and unfit for the integration, were, nevertheless, eager to join the EU. In 1993, the Copenhagen European Council confirmed the legitimacy of their bid to become members. Knowing that they could not integrate before they had changed, the Council laid down the necessary criteria for admission: the so-called Copenhagen Criteria. In the meantime the EU made the so-called European Agreements with those states in order to, so to speak, warm them up for the challenges of admission.[1] Encouraged by these developments, the ten CEESs officially expressed their desire to join the EU.[2] In December 1994, the Essen European Council determined a pre-accession strategy for them. In the Madrid European Council of December 1995 the Commission was asked to prepare a comprehensive report, about the capabilities of the applicants, which it drew up in 1997 under the name Agenda 2000.[3] In the Luxembourg European Council the member states acting on the Commission’s proposals in the Agenda 2000 took their historical decision of enlargement to the east; eleven applicant states, ten CEESs and Cyprus, were declared candidates. It was decided to open accession talks with them on 30 March 1998.[4] In the meantime the Commission, after having screened the progress by the applicants, issued 12 Progress Reports in which it evaluated the position of each applicant state (Reports about eleven candidate states and Turkey) in the light of the Copenhagen Criteria. It proposed that accession talks should be opened with a group of six states which were ready Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia and Cyprus (the first group). The Commission assigned the remaining five states, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, Slovakia and Latvia to the second wave of enlargement (the second group). The Commission was of the view that the second group states were not yet ready for accession talks. The Luxembourg European Council of 1997 agreed with the Commission; it decided not to start accession talks with the second group states for the time being but to proceed to accession negotiations with the first group on 30 March 1998.[5] Turkey, whose application for membership had been lying on the table since 1987, was ambiguously excluded, as it was not assigned to either of the enlargement rounds. In fact it treated Turkey differently, on the basis of Article 28 of the Ankara Agreement. It could not bring itself to declare Turkey as a candidate yet Turkey was considered within the enlargement process.
For the confirmation of its candidacy Turkey had to wait until 10 December 1999 when the Helsinki European Council openly declared that Turkey was a candidate. The Council also decided that the EU starts accession negotiations with the second group of states in early 2000.[6] Malta was added to the list of the states in the second group. Today we have 13 candidates altogether. The states in the two distinct groups, and Turkey! Accession talks are continuing with all candidate states except Turkey. In the Nice European Council of 2000, structural arrangements were decided to re-structure the EU institutions in order to pave the way for the admission of the twelve candidates; again Turkey was excluded.[7]
1. Nature and Importance of the Enlargement to the East
1.1 Written or Official Criteria for Admission
The enlargement to the East, as we have said before, is more important than, and different from, the previous enlargement in some ways. Let me explain it. First, this enlargement is subject to stricter conditions and norms. The currently required qualifications for membership are stricter than the previous ones. Previously the Rome Treaty had a short Article on the admission of new members, Article 237, which required the satisfaction of a simple pre-condition: being a European State. Thus, any economically developed European State with market economy orientation could apply. The integration itself was predominantly economic in nature. The Council of Ministers could dispose of such an application for membership with unanimity after consulting the Commission. Until the adoption of the Single European Act even the European Parliament (“EP”) had not had any part to play on new admissions.[8] In the fourth edition of their book Law and Institutions of the European Communities, published in 1987, Lasok and Bridge were able to write that:
“Accession of new members is available to European countries without any further qualifications. However, it can be assumed that further (unwritten) conditions apply, viz. that the applicant country must be in the eyes of the existing members a parliamentary democracy capable and willing to carry out the Community obligations.” [9]
With the conclusion of the Maastricht Treaty the integration has got new dimensions; it deepened. The EU was founded on three pillars: in addition to the three European Communities, it gained the pillars of Common Foreign and Security Policy, and of Justice and Home Affairs. The nature of Union was modestly defined in Article F of the Maastricht Treaty, which read that
“1.The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States, whose systems of government are founded on the principles of democracy.”
“2. The Union shall respect fundamental rights...”
However, the Maastricht Treaty did not change the conditions for admission; its Article O, which replaced Article 237 of the Rome Treaty, retained the previous formula almost verbatim. Yet, it was clear by implication that the nature and characteristics of the Union would also determine the nature of newcomers, and the conditions for membership.[10]
The 1993 Copenhagen European Council, the Member States, in anticipation of their decision to embrace the CEESs further clarified the conditions for admission, making the admission dependent on the achievement by the candidates of radical reforms as required the EU.
The Member States adopted the so-called Copenhagen criteria by which they hoped to transform the new candidates, and thus to test their eligibility. The criteria are brief but very compact:
“Membership requires that the candidate country has achieved stability of its institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union. The membership presupposes the candidate’s ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.” [11]
However, fundamental changes in the Treaty, which could give constitutional ground to the Copenhagen Criteria, were introduced only in 1997 by the Amsterdam Treaty, which partly amended the Maastricht Treaty. Thus today Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) re-defines the characteristics of the union as follows:
“1. The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States.”
The criteria for the admission of new members have been also re-defined. Article 49 TEU, which replaced Article O of the Maastricht Treaty, reads:
“Any European States which respects the principles set out in Article 6(1) may apply to become a member of the Union...”
Today the Copenhagen Criteria ought to be read as designed to give effect to the basic principles of the Treaty. So, any European state, which meets the requirements of the political leg of the Copenhagen Criteria, may apply for the membership. The Commission monitors and closely examines the position of applicants in the light of the said criteria and publishes Regular Reports on the progress they may have made. The EU may open negotiations with such candidates as have satisfied the political conditions, while the satisfaction of the remaining legs of the Copenhagen Criteria may be spread over a longer period of time before the final decision on admission is taken. The Applications shall be finally disposed of by the Council acting unanimously after having consulted the Commission and after the EP has given its assent. So, today, unlike in the previous enlargements, the EP has a definite say on new admissions, which makes the satisfaction of the political leg of the Copenhagen Criteria by the candidate states more compelling and urgent.