The Danger of Double Standards - Essay Example

GIVE A FULL CRITICAL ACCOUNT OF THE COHENHAGEN CRITERIA. CONSIDER, IN PARTICULAR, WHETHER THEY MIGHT CREATE “DOUBLE STANDARDS” AS SOME COMMENTORS HAVE SUGGESTED. INTRODUCTION: To properly understand the considerable transformation that has occurred in Europe, the eve of the collapse of the Berlin wall in 1989 must to be considered [1]. The separation between Western and Eastern Europe at the time appeared to be irreversible. Only a small minority of people would have predicted that Germany would unify, the Soviet Union would disintegrate, that Czechoslovakia would divide and that the European Union would, having enlarged for the fifth time, have 27 Member States, including countries from Central and Easter Europe [1]. Therefore, whatever criticisms and circumstances arise, that the progress of the past 20 years must not be negated. Examination shows that the constitutional predicament of this enlargement causes the danger of double standards, as concealed methods are deemed to be used in order to protect the selectiveness of the EU. In order to have membership to the European Union, Member States and their institutions must expand on approaches that can manage the transaction connecting deeper integration between Member States and widening to include new candidate countries. Therefore, the debate is whether the European Union is providing generosity or has amplified these double standards [2]. The criteria developed at Copenhagen European Council (1993) requires that a country has to have the capacity to maintain democratic governance and human rights, have a working market economy, and be able to recognize and agree to the requirements and objectives of the European Union. Many of these fundamentals have been explained over the course of the last fifteen years by legislation of the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament, in addition to European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice [3]. In spite of the dissimilarity among the old Member States of the European Union, the fifth enlargement was foreseeable as a new integrated Europe would not be able to limit itself to only Western Europe [4]. Therefore, the enlargement of the European Union can be seen as an amalgamated and incorporated development of Europe after the end of the Cold War, as the countries which were formerly linked to the Soviet Union or the Warsaw pact are now independent European countries, and also democratic, with a substantive market economy, and after working towards implementing membership criteria declared by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993, are able to join the European Union [2]. Therefore, the stipulations for membership of the European Union predominantly fall on the Copenhagen criteria. Consequently, the candidate countries are ordinarily expected to accomplish verified political criterion before European Union membership is granted, in addition to fulfilling further economic criteria and to be in the position to be able to assume the community acquis communautaire required for admission to the European Union [5]. These political criteria that must be completed before admission to the European Union, set forth by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993, declared that candidate countries must show that they have stable institutions, thereby guaranteeing democracy, rule of law, in addition to the respect for and protection of minorities and human rights [5]. THE CRITERIA EXPLAINED: Accession criteria means that any country looking for membership of the European Union (EU) has to abide to the perquisite conditions set forth by Article 49 (Treaty of Maastricht, 1992), which states that any country which will value the principles of the European Union may put forward an application to join, and the principles written in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union [6]will be upheld. In 1993, applicable criteria were developed by the Copenhagen European Council, and further reinforced1995 by the Madrid European Council [6]. The European Council at Copenhagen, in June 1993, set forth the fundamental objectives of the fifth enlargement [7]. They confirmed that any Central or Eastern European country who wished to become a member of the European Union only had to fulfil certain membership criteria to do so, this criterion was to become known as the Copenhagen criteria [8]. The European Council clearly stated that accession would only be accomplished by these countries when the requirements of membership, through the fulfilment of the political and economic criteria had been completed, would these countries be able to fully integrate into the European Union [7]. These membership criteria were further clarified in 1995 by the Madrid European Council . This council stated that the candidate countries must transform their administrative structures to be in line with the European Union and be able to implement the Union’s legislations through their administrative and judicial systems, to be able to move forward to integration [7]. Therefore, in order to become a member of the EU, the new Member State has to be eligible by being able to compile with three criteria. The first criterion is political. The institutions must be stable, thereby assuring democracy, no human rights violations, guarantee the rule of law, and the value of and protection for minorities. The second criterion is economic. The new Member States need to show the evidence of a power within the Union. The third criterion is acceptance of the Community ‘acquis’ [6]. This means the capacity to meet the requirements of membership, together with implementation of the plans for political, economic and monetary union. In addition, the countries have to be able to implement legislation to bring their laws in line with European law. If the European Council is to make a decision to start discussions, it is required that the political criterion is met. The required framework and apparatus are available for countries seeking membership to the European Union [6]. The framework established for EU discussions with candidate countries, is the stabilisation and association process. The aims are threefold: the stabilisation of the country, thereby utilising a rapid move towards a market economy; endorsement of regional cooperation; and ultimate EU membership [9]. The process therefore, offers the candidate countries assistance in furthering their capability to apply and implement EU law, including complying with European and international requirements. The EU will then put forward trade concessions, assistance for reconstruction, development and stabilisation, as well as ensuring mutual rights and obligations [9]. Yearly progress reports will be conducted to assess the moves every candidate country takes towards these commitments and obligations [3]. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA: Application of the Copenhagen criteria by candidate countries wanting to become Member States of the EU is assessed by Regular Reports, since 1997 [8]. These reports measure advancement in terms of legislation and processes which the countries have actually approved or implemented. This approach certifies identical management for all candidate countries and allows an objective evaluation of the circumstances in each country. The advancements made by each country in their journey to membership is checked using each criterion as a measure, and assessed with a standardised and thorough checklist, which ensures transparency. In addition, in making their assessments, the reports confer to and are cross-checked with, various other sources, preliminarily with information made available by the candidate countries, along with numerous sources from the European Parliament, Member State evaluations, and the research completed by international organisations and non-governmental organisations [8]. The Commission provides a explanation of their different institutions, parliamentary, executive and judiciary, to the candidate countries so they can assess the degree to which the political criteria is being adhered to, in addition to investigating how the different rights and freedoms are implemented in practice [8]. In consideration of human rights, the Commission evaluates the methods used by the candidate countries to show respect to and execution of the requirements of the major human rights conventions, particularly including the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Commission gives much necessary consideration to the execution of the different principles put forward in the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, as regards value towards minority rights and the protection of minorities [8]. The economic criterion contains two factors: the presence and continuation of a functioning market economy, and the capability to endure powerful demands and market forces within the EU. These two factors are measured through various sub-criteria’s which are defined in Agenda 2000. The presence and continuation of a functioning market economy necessitates that prices, in addition to trade, are moderated and that an implementable legal system, including property rights, has been put in position. Economic stability and agreement towards economic policy improves the performance of a market economy. The effectiveness of the economy is increased when a stable and expanded financial sector is ensured, with the lack of significant obstacles to market entry. The ability to endure powerful demands and market forces within the EU necessitates the continuation of a market economy and an established framework, in addition to an adequate quantity of human and physical capital. It will depend on the degree to which government legislation and policy can pressure competitiveness, to what amount of trade assimilation a candidate country can attain with the EU [8]. The capacity to implement the requirements of membership necessitates the embracing, execution and enforcement of the acquis. In their reports, the Commission investigates, for every one of the twenty-nine chapters of the acquis, the degree to which the required legislative measures have been undertaken to facilitate implementation of the acquis in each chapter, in addition to what still needs to be completed in this area. Moreover, the Commission considers the degree to which each candidate country has implemented administrative structures necessary to execute the acquis [8]. In addition to the above, the reports will also show recognition to the candidate countries that will be able to comply with the Copenhagen criteria in the predicted accession time span. They are the foundation on which the Commission advises the wrapping up of the negotiations with these candidate countries. The reports identify the sectors where additional hard work is needed or where reforms have to be happen, for all countries [8]. CRITIQUE AND ANALYSIS: Critics of further enlargement of the EU fear that the negative consequences will be as many as the positive ones. As the capabilities of the EU expand and increase with the enlargement in the international arena, it is predicted that social cohesion within the community will decline [10]. Innovative forms of partnership will be shaped in a further enlarged EU, and relationships will have to be built with nations with different cultural ideologies and religions than the European norm, such as Turkey who is on the thrush-hold of geographical Europe and whose majority religion is Muslim as apposed to the majority of Christians that the EU is currently made up from. Additionally, having direct neighbours like Russia, Turkey, the Ukraine and Belarus, means that the EU is linked to crisis areas. The further the EU draws near to these crisis areas the further need there is for the EU to expand on strategies as to how best to answer these challenges. An additional difficulty of the enlargement process is a perceived limit in public interest in some Member States [10]. As Turkey is in this crisis zone, much debate has been discussed as to whether Turkey should ideologically be allowed to join the EU, whether it is European enough to be allowed to proceed forwards with its application for EU membership. The considerations in this matter are that if Turkey is allowed to join the EU then one of the most influential countries in the Middle East will achieve stabilisation, and both Europe and the Middle East will receive beneficial rewards from this decision [11]. In addition both regions will receive thriving advantages, such as (it is theorised) the struggle in opposition to terrorism, which would be easier to apprehend, and that the conflict between Christianity and Islam will be eased by the union. However, if Turkey is not deemed ‘democratic’ or ‘European’ enough to become a member of the EU then there might be concern over the moderate government currently in power in Ankara being removed from power and thereby allowing fundamentalists to come to power, and letting the region becoming further destabilised [11]. Fulfilling the ‘fourth criterion’ as it could be described has created many further problems, this means that the EU must be in shape for future enlargement, this topic has also received much commentary. It has been theorised that the Copenhagen European Council, that the Heads of the State and the Government must put a great deal of demands not only on the candidate countries, but also on themselves, in order to prepare the EU for such an enlargement. This means that there has to be reorganization and restructuring completed within the EU institutions, without them losing consistency and unity, plus the capability to act twithin their former function [10]. Consequences of the Fifth Enlargement of the EU include the huge extension of the community from 15 to 27 states, meaning the EU population would be enlarged by 28%, from 375 million people to a staggering 500 million people, making it the largest global economy [2]. However, the GNP, it was theorised at this time, would not grow by more than about 4 percent [10]. Accession will denote that the aptitude of Europe as a player in the international arena will grow and develop, but only if the community can deal with effectively the domestic troubles stated above, which will inevitably also rise with enlargement, if not the consistency within the community will diminish and the disparities between the countries and regions will grow [10]. The major question therefore, is whether fresh structures for discussions about EU membership, and what candidate countries must do, need to be implemented, so that any additional integration includes the voices of the general population of EU citizens, making public opinion an important part of the process [10]. Woyke[10] is not the only commentator on this matter, Nicolai[12] states that by expanding the EU there is an even bigger requirement for having European citizens voices paid attention to in areas where it actually matters . Therefore, it may be concluded that the processes used during the fifth enlargement are no longer a sufficient structure and process for this type of political development. A proposal has been put forward to help develop the above incentives, where by a ‘congress’ of members of the Member State governments, the European Parliament, and in addition spokespeople from public society are represented, and hereby, this composition of representatives better ensures communication involving constituencies at all levels and the governments are represented in a superior method [10]. However, despite concurrence with Woyke[10], Nicolai[12] on the need for the European citizen’s voice to heard more frequently, and to provide more power in having their concerns met, Nicolai[12] also critiques the fifth enlargement and the Copenhagen criteria in a positive light. He [12] further states that the historical significance of European enlargement cannot be overestimated. He believes that enlargement is an exceptional chance to consolidate past mistakes, and make amends wherever possible, bringing to an end many years of unmerited division in Europe, thereby, bringing forth the ideals of Enlightenment: freedom, human rights and democracy [12]. Enlargement conducted so far has already ensured stability where before there was very little in the new Member States, together with bringing trust and development between and within the Member States, where before there was suspicion and decline. In addition, it has implemented clear and contemporary regulations for economies ensuring that they are now attractive for potential investors, bringing further opportunities for all European citizens [12]. By establishing the Copenhagen criteria the basic ideologies, principles and common values of the EU brought together to create a formula for successful accession into Europe, including freedom and democracy, free market economy, rule of law and rules of European law [12]. Immense admiration should be shown for the vigilant and specific nature of the negotiations, from both the EU and the candidate countries, whilst still adhering to the values of the current EU philosophy. Nevertheless, unambiguous and reasonable regulations have always been part of the Europeans way of proceeding with negotiations, according to [12]; these aspects also form the rule of law. In turn this can also give citizens assurance that all people and organisations will be taken care of equally under the same situation. Comprehensible and unbiased laws are the greatest protection against arbitrary rule and corruption [12]. The implementation of the Copenhagen criteria is fundamentally significant for the Union to enlarge, in order for the EU and therefore its citizens to gain strength from these happenings, rather than become weaker with them with the execution of European law. To be more precise the progress reports compiled annually need to look at the mass achievements of candidate countries and Member States to ensure that administrative capabilities are capable of the implementation of EU law, that the judicial system is of a high standard, that there is an equal field within the market, that the safety (including food safety) and security of European citizens is upheld; hence, in effect meeting the criteria of reliability, predictability and credibility [12]. Therefore, making EU enlargement a winning situation for both citizens and potential citizens alike [12]. A notable argument in literature in this area suggests that governments only want to unite international organisations when they are certain they can fulfil with ease the terms and conditions of membership [4]. In this regard Jensen [14] argues that the reasons that push a candidate country to make the decision to join the EU are also the reasons that push them to comply with the accession criteria. With this theory it would therefore be expected that only the wealthy, post-industrial democracies would have wanted to become members, such as Austria, Finland and Sweden. It would have discouraged a majority of the ten Member States who joined the Union in 2004 (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Malta and Cyprus, with Romania and Bulgaria joining in 2007) [2], as they are poorer and more agrarian than the standard EU country [14]. With this evidence Jensen [14] believes that the EU cannot be theorised in this way, as the incentives to join the EU are varied and expansive. The two biggest incentives are that there are nearly 500 million consumers in the market, and in addition the EU offers a huge collection of benefits for their members, with the Common Agricultural Policy and Cohesion Funds offering many subsidies. As stated above a majority of the new Member States who joined the EU in 2004, and have joined since, were poor, agrarian countries, meaning these Member State privileges are of enormous benefit to them as individual countries. Nevertheless, the benefits are considerable for these countries when they join the EU, however, so are the costs of membership [14]. These new members have to apply the acquis communitaire, which is the body of laws and regulations implemented through out the EU, and conform to the Copenhagen criteria. However, despite the enormous costs of applying these conditions and criteria’s before they are able to join, these poorer, agrarian countries comply as they see the benefits of membership as out weighing the costs of joining [14]. Nevertheless, these occurrences lead to questions as to why the EU is enlarging so quickly when the pre-requisites of membership are so high, and the capability of the new Member States to meet these pre-requisites are so low. [14] believes there are a number of causal issues for these stated outcomes, that indeed there is a built-in double standard with candidate countries being exposed to very high standards while existing Member States are allowed to backslide. It is argued therefore, that because of the changing results of super majoritarian voting needs, together with diverse programme setters, the burdens of joining are high but the demands of staying in are much less [14]. DOUBLE STANDARDS: These above considerations ponder on whether the Member States of the EU have the choice to overturn the reforms they have completed in compliance with the Copenhagen Criteria [14]. Because of the unanimous vote needed for admittance to the EU, the preliminary standards to which candidate countries need to uphold are always of a demanding standard and tend to increase with time. Nevertheless, following EU membership these standards are founded from a succession of super majoritarian voting procedures. In regards to breaches, the super majoritarian voting is likely to uphold tighter standards than majority voting would. Moreover, in regards to human rights cases and the rule of law, super majoritarian voting methods permit an EU Member State to undo authorised developments to a larger degree under the current laws. This means that Member States can backslide in consideration to Article 6(1), thereby creating a double standard [14]. If every Member State has comparable preferences in regards to interpreting Article 6 (1), then backsliding would not be such a large possibility. Yet, as the EU further enlarges counting as part of its members’ countries which are outliers in a variety of areas with regards to existing human rights records and matters relating to rule of law, the possibility of risk extends. Moreover, the capacity to backslide is not restricted toward the new Member States only. As the latest Member States join the EU and its basis increases and changes away from the primary choices of the more stringent Member States, long term members may see the benefit of the circumstances and disengage from some of the more expensive requirements of membership [14]. The consequence of this situation is that there is an increasing double standard as a result of the differences between the standards that candidate countries must comply to, and the standards that Member States must uphold. Therefore, it seems that this double standard is entrenched in the institutions that shape the establishment of the EU. All through its past, the EU has been founded on agreement and the defense of minority welfare. This has been imposed by the super majoritarian voting measures that are now the cause of institutionalized double standards [14]. The Member States’ governments possibly will gain from these conditions. The capability to reverse out of some of these more expensive requirements of membership without deciding to reverse membership therefore makes EU membership more acceptable to their citizens. Nevertheless, this backsliding, and it’s creation of double standards destabilizes the fundamental basic philosophies of the European Union [14]. It has been argued that the EU’s political criteria includes numerous factors that pertain to double standards, in regards to the presence of higher or more exhaustive prerequisite requirements to candidate countries for EU membership, than those placed on present Member States. The concept that has been demonstrated shows that candidate countries may be forced to comply with a dissimilar rule of inquiry and intervention in regards to their admittance into the EU from those countries that are already Member States, and in addition to what will be applicable when full membership is achieved, is both hazardous and probably conflict-ridden [15]. In conclusion, the need of democratic discussion on this matter, is severely lacking, by asserting that the result is irrevocable EU leaders are jeopardizing democracy, and undermining the principles of the EU [11]. These standards that have arisen within the EU are the result of much work carried out by European citizens to move towards democracy and freedom. This is the motivation, that is the objective of all EU citizens, and should be used in order to persist and additionally reinforce the values of the EU [16]. CONCLUSION: These above circumstances may point towards restrictions of EU enlargement, meaning that this expansion could be a problem of its own institutional framework to a certain extent, rather than an identity problem of what it means to be European, and what European identity means. This means that even countries who are likely to be seeking membership in the near future, such as Belarus, Croatia, Serbia or the Ukraine, and who will fulfil all the cultural criteria of being European may not be an acceptable addition to the EU from an institutional view-point. This implies that these countries admission to the EU, for the most part if they submit applications in such a way as is seems it is a group decision, i.e. all at the same time, then this happening could result in an undermining of EU values and ideology, as the Union continues to expand into countries which do not culturally possess the same ideology that Western Europe has; as this is fundamentally where the ideology originates from. As entrance into the European Union is declared through a unanimous vote, it would only mean that one Member State needs to dissent for that candidate country to be denied membership. In this regard, plus the strict accession criteria developed at the Copenhagen European Council in 1993, some candidate countries may be put off applying for membership to the EU. Nevertheless, the European Union seems to have been an exception to the rules normally applied to a country during an international organisation, as despite the very strict criteria and financial cost to the country the benefits seem to have been deemed worth the membership to such a powerful union. It must be assured that that European citizens have their concerns listened too, about financial issues, security benefits, citizen safety and administration issues, and further that these issues are met. European citizens must be able to believe that issues are being taken seriously. The citizens need to be able to believe that the EU is the greatest tool to embark upon matters such as food safety, international crime and issues with the environment, and that the EU is successful and competent in completing those requirements for its citizens [12]. Therefore the Copenhagen criteria, and all its accession criteria for candidate countries wishing to join the European Union, risk falling into the trap of encountering a double standard between the criteria they were made to adhere to when during the EU, and the criteria they can manipulate once their membership fulfilments have been implemented, and membership has been gained. Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken Bezuidenhoutseweg 67 Postbus 20061 2500 EB Den Haag Tel.: 070-3 486 486 Fax: 070-3 484 848 Internet: www.minbuza.nl REFERENCES: [1] [7] Balcerowicz L. Europe growing together. In: Curzon-Price V, Landau A & Whitman RG, editors. The enlargement of the European Union: Issues and strategies. London: Routledge, 1999.   [2] [13] Peterson JJ. Ukraine – On the Track towards EU. Institute for European Policy. 2009. Available from: http://www.europeum.org/doc/pdf/Ukraine_On_the_Track_towards_EU.pdf [3] [4]. Europa. Progress reports. 2009. Available from http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/how-does-it-work/progress_reports/index_en.htm [4] Downs GW, Rocke DM, & Barsoom PN. Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation? International Organization, 50(3), 379-406, 1996. [5] 15. Toktas S. EU Enlargement Conditions and Minority Protection: A Reflection on Turkeys Non-Muslim Minorities. East European Quarterly, Vol. 40, 2006. [6] [1].Available from http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/accession_criteria_copenhague_en.htm [7] [2]. Accession criteria. Available from http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/enlargement_process/accession_process/criteria/index_en.htm [8] 5].European Commission: Strategy Paper and Report 2003. The Copenhagen Criteria. Available from http://www.fifoost.org/EU/strategy_en_2002/node7.php [9][3]. The Stabilisation and Association Process. Available from http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/enlargement_process/accession_process/how_does_a_country_join_the_eu/sap/index_en.htm [10] [16] Woyke W. European Union Enlargement - Consequences and Problems. German Policy Studies. Vol 2. Issue: 1, 2002. [11][14] Goulard S. Europe: How wide? How deep?  Turkey and the European Union : seeking an illusion. 2004. Available from     http://www.epc.eu/en/ce.asp?TYP=CE&LV=177&see=y&t=42&PG=CE/EN/detail&l=4&AI=377y Fayard, Paris.  [12]12. Nicolai A. A Picture of Europe. State Secretary for European Affairs of The etherlands, at the Clingendael seminar on the Danish EU Presidency, 5 September 2002. Available from   http://www.minbuza.nl/nl/actueel/speeches,2002/09/a_picture_of_europe_address_by_atzo_nicolai_state_secretary_for_european_affairs_of_the_netherlandsx_at_the_clingendael_sem.html [13] Desmund D. Europe Recast. A History of European Union, Palgrare Macmillan 2004. [14] [9] Jensen C. Unanimity, backsliding and double standards: the double edged sword of super majoritarian voting in the EU. 2007. Available from http://www.unc.edu/euce/eusa2007/papers/jensen-c-12h.pdf [15] [8] Cremona, M. The enlargement of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2003. [16] 11. Erdogan assesses the EU Summit decision on Turkey and Cyprus. 2002. Available from http://news.pseka.net/index.php?module=article&id=2520 Read More