Tag Archives: rule of law

The Gates to Schengen Remain Locked for Bulgaria and Romania

France and Germany have officially announced that they will block the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area, Euractiv reports. The main deficiencies in both countries that they outline are the absence of a satisfactory juridical and administrative environment in the fields of security and justice, persisting corruption at different levels and worrying levels of organised crime.

This letter does not come as a surprise to this blogger. I have time and again noted that both Bulgaria and Romania are facing significant challenges in the reform of the judiciary and the fight against corruption and organized crime. Two questions, however, linger on.

The first question is whether Bulgaria and Romania were fit to become Member States in 2007. The European Commission believed so, and so did France and Germany at the time. However, this leads to the logical conclusion that both countries in fact experienced a deterioration of the rule of law since accession.

The second question is whether Bulgaria and Romania can actually, at any point in the future, join the Schengen area. This is not an absurd question, since if separate Member States reaffirm their right of individual assessment of the quality of the judicial systems of candidates, it may turn out that both Bulgaria and Romania are assessed against unachievable standards that surpass the present level of rule of law in the Schengen area. Again, this is a logically derived possibility.

France and Germany should understand that answering both questions will have its consequences for the level of solidarity and cohesion in the European Union.

 

 

On Turkey and the Criteria for Accession

In recent days both Turkish and European politicians have spoken in favor of the Turkish accession to the European Union. Egemen Bağış, Turkey’s chief EU negotiator, sought to unblock Ankara’s accession bid by calling on European Union countries to call referenda on the country’s EU membership. Germany’s ex-foreign minister Joschka Fischer has predicted that Austrian, French and German opposition to Turkey joining the European Union will melt away with time.

In both cases the main argument is the strength of the Turkish economy and the demographic profile of the population – Turkey’s median population age is just 28 compared to 42 in the Union and its economy grew by around 11 percent in the first half of this year compared to the EU’s 1-2 percent.

But this will not suffice. The criteria for accession are now legally binding (art. 49 TFEU), and they include the so-called “political criteria” that are especially hard to meet. The “political criteria” include stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.

Turkey must strive to cover these criteria in the first place. No level of economic development can substitute for the lack of democracy or respect of human rights. The Turkish narrative must be centered on the promotion of democratic values, and only after that – on economic development. Otherwise Turkey will only position itself as a valuable trading partner and an immigration source, but not as a potential Member State.

Is the European Union Losing Leadership on Human Rights?

For a long time the European Union has been considered a beacon of human rights protection, democracy and rule of law in the world. Now there are worrying signals that this leadership is weakening.

Susi Dennison and Anthony Dworkin from the European Council on Foreign Relations have written a policy brief proposing an EU human rights strategy for a post-western world. I had a very informative and interesting discussion with Anthony Dworkin on this policy brief. Below is a brief account of the main findings and policy recommendations.

The Problem

The European Union and the US are losing their influence in the world. The military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have to some extent delegitimised the idea of democracy promotion for many, and led people to associate the concept with that of regime change. The success and growing assertiveness of authoritarian capitalist countries, and China in particular, have broken the link between liberal democracy and economic and social development. According to Mr. Dworkin as a result the West has less influence and less ability to try and affect what’s happening. For example China is now much more successful than Europe in winning support for its position on human rights resolutions in the United Nations.

I asked Mr. Dworkin if he believes that the China model is sustainable in the long term given the rising economic inequalities there. He said that China is changing rapidly and that it’s too soon to say if it’s sustainable.

The European Difficulties

In the European Union there are a number of reasons for this relative loss of leadership on the promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. First, there is some loss of confidence in the ability of the European Union to make a difference in the world in terms of human rights protection. Certain instruments, such as sanctions, simply don’t work very well. EU Member States have sometimes sacrificed their long-time commitment to human rights and democracy in their pursuit of geopolitical interests. For example Member States in the Mediterranean states have been most keen to engage with regimes in North Africa, while forgetting about the human rights perspective. Certain immigration policy measures may have a serious impact on the legitimacy of the European Union in the developing countries. The expulsion of Roma from France has most likely exacerbated that trend.

The Road Ahead

The authors of the policy brief outline a number of very practical policy recommendations that certainly deserve further consideration and discussion. The European Union needs a new, strategic approach for the promotion of human rights and democratic values. This approach must be realistic in the first place. It needs to take into account the shifting world balance of power. In a nutshell the EU must break down the abstract package of democracy and human rights to emphasise those issues that are most relevant to particular societies. The EU must set clear enough priorities – key issues on which to make progress with separate countries. The authors call these “pressure points”, relating to fundamental values on which the EU can reasonably expect to have an impact. In doing that the EU should rely primarily on a policy of graduated engagement using concerted pressure on key concerns and, wherever possible, offering specific incentives for carefully chosen objectives.

The tools for this new policy approach are already available. There are also some new opportunities – such as the use of trade relations to advance human rights, where some Internet restrictions for example may be considered contrary to WTO rules. There are also important partnerships with developing countries that must be explored, such as Brazil, India, Indonesia and South Africa. Turkey in particular may be a valuable partner because of its closeness to the EU and its growing role as an influential regional power in the Middle East.

The Institutional Dimension

For the new approach to work there must be high level alignment of different EU policies with the priorities of the promotion of human rights and democracy. Mr. Dworkin sees here a role both for the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and the President of the European Council. There must be a clear statement on these priorities and very senior level policymakers must be engaged in the process. A structure in the European External Action Service can also provide coordination.

This post is written specially for the Day of Multilingual Blogging. The Bulgarian version of this blog post is here. This blog has been published in both Bulgarian and English since February 2009.

Bulgaria: Rule of Law or a Police State?

There is an interesting article by Vesslein Zhelev in WAZ.EUobserver.com talking about the present state of Bulgarian democracy. It is probably one-sided, but asks important questions.

Rule of law Monitoring: Bulgaria and Romania

There is a new publication by CEPS: “Safeguarding the Rule of Law in an Enlarged EU: The Cases of Bulgaria and Romania” by Susie Alegre, Ivanka Ivanova and Dana Denis-Smith.

The report has one synthesizing section and two separate sections of findings for Bulgaria and Romania. The Bulgarian part is written by Ivanka Ivanova from the Open Society institute.

The report presents an accurate picture of ongoing efforts to ensure rule of law in both countries. It correctly notes that the ultimate legal instrument in case of systemic breach of rule of law is article 7 TEU when there is a clear threat of a serious breach of the common values of the Union. The authors think that more specific criteria and procedural guidance is needed to make article 7 functional.

A major recommendation in the report is that monitoring of the rule of law in the EU should focus on criminal justice.

In the Bulgarian section there is an understandable omission regarding political parties’ legislation – as the really deplorable amendments in the Elections Act were finalized after the publication of the report.