Chilosi, Alberto (2009): Perspectives of the ENP, and Perspectives of the EU: Neighbourhood, Enlargement, and Unanimity. Published in: Aussenwirtschaft , Vol. 64, No. 3 : pp. 253-268.
Download (94kB) | Preview
The paper considers the state of the ENP policy in the framework of the present institutional impasse of the EU. Even if the Lisbon Treaty enters in force, an acceptable functioning of the EU with 27 members can hardly be compatible with the permanence of the unanimity vote for the most important decisions, such as budgetary issues or enlargement. Further enlargement under these circumstances can be seen both as difficult and ill-advisable: a higher number of members (and more heterogeneous) increases the probability that the requirement of unanimity may lead to disruptive strategic behavior. Thus enlargement of the market, and legal approximation, can best take place, realistically speaking, in the framework of ENP. At the same time the assistance to recognized prospective members, who probably will not be able to enter in the foreseeable future, could well perform a role not too different from that of ENP, amounting substantially to a kind of ENP in disguise. In both cases we have the use of the typical instruments for the preparation of enlargement, but with some different stated objectives, and a different framework for financial assistance. So long as enlargement seems concretely possible the prospect of membership may continue to have additional incentive effects.The momentum for reform may however be lost if eventually the process is seen as never-ending. Some greater approximation to membership status can be provided by an extended ENP policy, but it seems highly unlikely that the internal dynamics of the EU will allow even the most compliant of the neighbours to enjoy the same economic advantages of actual membership, as the pa radigm of “everything but institutions” would imply.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Perspectives of the ENP, and Perspectives of the EU: Neighbourhood, Enlargement, and Unanimity|
|Keywords:||European Neighbourhood Policy, EU Enlargement, European Union|
|Subjects:||F - International Economics > F1 - Trade > F15 - Economic Integration|
|Depositing User:||Alberto Chilosi|
|Date Deposited:||07. Nov 2010 22:44|
|Last Modified:||31. Dec 2015 13:10|
BUITER, WILLIAM (2006), Intervention on Turkey Country Economic Memorandum: Promoting Sustained Growth and Convergence with the European Union, 9 March 2006, CEPS report of event posted 27 February 2007, Internet: http://www.ceps.be/Article.php?article_id=516 (as of July 29, 2009).
CHILOSI,ALBERTO (2007),The European Union and its Neighbours: Everything but Institutions?, The European Journal of Comparative Economics, 4 (1), pp. 25-38, Internet: http://eaces.liuc.it/18242979200701/ 182429792007040102.pdf (as of July 20, 2009).
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (2004), European Neighbourhood Policy Strategy Paper No. 12/5/2004, Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/ world/ENP/pdf/strategy/strategy_paper_en.pdf (as of July 1, 2009).
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (2007), Communication from the Commission: A Strong European Neighbourhood Policy No. 5/12/2007.
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (2008), Turkey 2008 Progress Report No. 5/11/2008, Internet: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2008:2699:FIN:EN:PDF (as of June 30, 2009).
DELCOUR, LAURE (2007), Does the European Neighbourhood Policy Make a Difference? Policy Patterns and Reception in Ukraine and Russia,European Political Economy Review, Issue 7 (Summer), pp. 118–155.
ECONOMIST (2005), Meet the Neighbours, The Economist, June 23, 2005.
EGGERT, JAN (2006), Observations on the EU Anti-Dumping Regulation FTA Position for the Expert Meeting, Brussels, 11 July 2006, Internet: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_129812. pdf (as of July 30, 2006).
EHLERMANN, CLAUS-DIETER and YVES MÉNY (eds.) (2000), Reforming the Treaties’ Amendment Procedures: Second Report on the Reorganisation of the European Union Treaties, Submitted to the European Commission on 31 July 2000, Florence: Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, Internet: http://www.iue.it/RSCAS/Research/Institutions/2nd rapport_UK.pdf (as of July 1, 2009).
EMERSON, MICHAEL (ed.) (2005), Democratisation in the European Neighbourhood. Brussels: CEPS, Internet: http://shop.ceps.eu/BookDetail. php?item_id=1267 (as of July 30, 2009).
EMERSON, MICHAEL, GERGANA NOUTCHEVA and NICU POPESCU (2007), European Neighbourhood Policy Two Years on: Time Indeed for an ‘ENP plus’, CEPS Policy Brief No. 126/March.EURACTIV (2008), EU Offers Ukraine Partnership, but not Membership, 23 July 2008.
EUROPEAN UNION (2002), 2421st Council meeting – General Affairs, Luxembourg, 15 April 2002.
EUROPEAN UNION (2006), Consolidated Versions of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, Official Journal of the European Union, 29.12.2006.
EUROPEAN UNION (2008), Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Official Journal of the European Union.
KURPAS, SEBASTIAN, CAROLINE GRØN and PIOTR MACIEJ KACZYNSKI (2008),The European Commission After Enlargement: Does more Add up to Less?, CEPS Special Report, February 2008.
PATTEN, CHRIS and JAVIER SOLANA (2002), Wider Europe 2002, letter addressed to the Brussels 30 September 2002 General Affair Council, Internet: http://www.lfpr.lt/uploads/File/2002-10/Letter.pdf (as of July 15,2009).
PRODI, ROMANO (2002), A Wider Europe – A Proximity Policy as the Key to Stability, Sixth ECSA World Conference, Jean Monnet Project, Brussels,5/6 December 2002.
ROYAL NORWEGIAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (1995), Norway, The European Economic Area (EEA) and the EU’s Internal Market, October 1995.
SENIOR NELLO, SUSAN (2009), The European Union: Economics, Policies and History, London: McGraw-Hill.
SHUMYLO, OLGA (2006), Ukraine and the European Neighbourhood Policy.Ensuring the Free Movement of Goods and Services, CEPS Working Document No. 240.