Pre-accession monitoring and minority protection in the republic of Macedonia.
Marina, Andeva ; Bojan, Marichikj
Introduction
The enlargement of the European Union is a key political process,
mainly important for the countries with the aspiration to join and also
for the international relations of Europe in general. Scholars define
enlargement as a process of gradual and formal horizontal
institutionalization. (1) The far-reaching implications from the EU
enlargement go around the questions of political shape of Europe in
whole and its members-state in specific, their institutional building
and integration process. The transformation of the EU from an
exclusively west European organization into the centre of gravity of
pan-European institutional-building makes it a dominant locus of
domestic policy-making and transnational relations for the entire
region. (2) As Schimmerlfennig and Sedelmeier point out, the literature
on EU enlargement has focused primarily on three dimensions which all
concern the process leading to enlargement: 1) applicants'
enlargement politics (3); 2) member state enlargement politics (4); and
3) EU enlargement politics. (5) In this paper, we combine the first and
the third dimension, in the case of the Republic of Macedonia, looking
through the issue of EU conditionality and progress results completed by
this applicant country considering only the political criteria and the
protection minorities in specific.
1. EU political conditionality in three phases
The EU democratic conditionality for the Western Balkans (WB) has a
unique contour (6), broadest scope and highest extent hitherto. Beside
these general 'Copenhagen' criteria the conditionality for the
countries from the former Yugoslavia started even before their
independence, namely during the process of the Yugoslav state
dissolution, when EC/EU attributed to its institutions and officials
dominant role for the state recognition and peace negotiation efforts.
The constant 'conditionality' mode of the approximation of the
WB towards the EU was just developing over time with the Stabilization
and Association Process (SAP) (7) and the so called
'pre-pre-accession' conditionality which was unique model of
conditionality towards any potential candidate countries. (8)
For analytical reasons, we propose organization of three phases of
the EU political conditionality towards the Republic of Macedonia that
are crucial for following the Europeanization of the country. These
phases are distinct from each other less chronologically and much more
in their quality and nature of the conditionality towards the WB
countries. Substantially, these stages of the EU conditionality will be
crucial for analyzing the European Commission (EC) Progress Reports for
2013 regarding the Political criterion for accession, the Fundamental
rights and minorities protection in particular.
1.1. Statehood Recognition
The first, the statehood formation phase, comprises the period from
the State recognition of WB countries in 1991 to the Stabilization and
association process in 1999. Within this period the European Community
did not have a clear perspective what exactly is the preferred type of
relationship with the WB countries but played pivotal role in framing
the conditions for their international recognition. This occurred for at
least two reasons.
First, as the Yugoslav crisis was regarded as European Security
problem (9) EC organized several sessions of the Peace Conference on
Yugoslavia in the Hague, Brussels and London in the period from
September 1991 until August 1992 with intention of either preserve the
Yugoslav edifice as con-federal or provide seize fire and state
recognition of the Yugoslav countries under conditions of legitimate
statehood in compliance with the fundamental principles of EU. (10) The
legitimate statehood was related to adoption from Yugoslav Republic of
the so called 'post-Cold-War European order', (11)
encompassing the United Nations Charter, Charter of Paris and the
Helsinki Final Act, and three pivotal principles of the International
society: inviolability of state borders, peaceful dispute settlement
between the states and disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. (12)
Second, EC/EU sought for just and principle-based process of State
recognition and therefore on 27th August 1991 the Council of Ministers
adopted a declaration to establish, as a part of the Peace Conference
for Yugoslavia, an Arbitration Commission with a task to resolve all the
legal questions emerging from the Yugoslav dissolution and help the EC
Member States with the state recognition of the Yugoslav republics. (13)
This Commission summoned five Presidents of Constitutional Courts of
five EC member states (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Belgium) who
were supposed to deliver their opinions on questions formulated by the
Chairman of the Peace Conference and the other participants on the legal
aspects of the dissolution of Yugoslavia and emerging state recognition.
(14) The Arbitrary Commission delivered ten opinions on different issues
among which it declared that only Macedonia and Slovenia (Opinion No. 6
and 7 respectively) meet the criteria for immediate state recognition
(15) while Croatia (Opinion No. 5) meets but with serious shortcoming on
the status of the 'Serbian minority'. (16) The extended
problem with Macedonian recognition was related to the dispute of this
country with Greece over the use of the name Macedonia which turned out
to be very important for the recognition.
This phase of conditionality was not so intensive until 1997 when,
the General Affairs Council of the EU decided to commence the SAP for WB
as a framework for mutual relations and potential EU membership. (17)
This decision was followed by formulating the practical meaning of each
element in the Copenhagen political criteria referring to the level of
compliance needed in the context of WB. These general criteria were
necessary in order the Commission to propose conclusion of the
Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) between the EU and a
specific WB country, which will render that country a potential
candidate for membership. (18) The criteria encompass the following
elements: 1) Democratic principles (19); 2) Human rights, rule of law
(20); 3) Respect for and protection of minorities; (21) 4) Market
economy reform; 22
1.2. Pre-pre-accession conditionality
The second, 'pre-pre-accession' (23) phase encompasses
the period from the official initiation of the SAP and the Stability
Pact in 1999 until the granting of the official EU membership candidate
status for the WB countries. (24) From the moment the SAP was initiated
(25) it sought for stabilizing the Balkan region regarding security,
politics and economy which would pave the way for future EU accession.
Only in 2003 at the Thessaloniki EU-Western Balkan Summit, an explicit
commitment to the future EU perspective of all the WB countries was
spelled out (26) and coupled with all the instruments for EU-zation and
development (27) such as 'European Partnerships' that set the
agenda for legislative and policy priorities; and the available
financial instruments to their support (28) (CARDS29, trade
opportunities etc). This momentum exerted serious influence on
intensifying the EU functional logic in some WB countries. However, it
was a period when in Macedonia there was an ethnic conflict in the
period of February--August 2001 which would not be resolved without
direct involvement of the EU diplomacy and sponsorship of the Ohrid
Framework Agreement (OFA) that resolved the position of the Albanian
ethnic community in Macedonia and was rendered main milestone for the EU
Accession prospects of the country. (30)
Further on, the EU has laid down additional--specific for the needs
of this region--political criteria although related to the SAP. (31) Due
to such a strict conditionality approach Macedonia signed its SAA on
April 9th 2001 whereas it entered into legal force on April 1st 2004.
Macedonia was granted an EU candidate status by the European Council in
December 2005. (32)
1.3. Pre-accesion conditionality
The third, 'pre-accession' phase paints the events from
2005 on that demonstrate different dominant discourses in the WB
countries shaped over the influence of social antagonisms and struggles
for EU as a dominant political reference for activity. The crucial
events suggest that the threshold of the conditionality and its
implementation towards WB countries actually elevates as these countries
transformed into serious candidates for EU accession. This phase
practically encompasses the most difficult sequence of the EU-WB
relations from a candidate status to and through the accession
negotiations and eventually an EU membership. All of the WB countries
have had a wide range of challenges on the way. Most interestingly, the
toughest tasks for the WB countries stemmed from the specific conditions
EU posed to the region aforementioned in the previous phase (33). For
Macedonia, the good neighborly relations and the political criteria
appeared to be hard-to-overcome obstacles. This, Macedonia was granted
with the EC recommendation for opening accession negotiations, however
these talks are not opened yet due to the name issue with Greece and the
recent democratic backlash. (34)
2. EU (Political) Conditionality and minority rights protection
The discourse on EU conditionality and monitoring process has been
very much in the centre of EU enlargement debates for the
'wish-tobe' EU member countries. Although it was rarely
studied in specific parameters, 'conditionality' is usually
perceived as the core substance of the EU policy towards the candidate
countries and a new dimension of the Europeanization research scope.
(35)
After the end of the Cold War the Heads of States and Governments
within the European Council, for a first time in the history of the EU
enlargement, to lay down general but clear requirements that are to be
met in order a candidate country to be accepted in membership. (36) The
criteria, known as 'Copenhagen criteria' and they were
formalized as: (37) 1) political criterion: stability of institutions
guaranteeing democracy, rule of law, human rights and respect for and
protection of minorities; 2) economic criterion: existence of a
functioning market economy, as well as the capacity to cope with
competitive pressures and market forces within the Union; 3) criterion
for the acquis communautaire: ability to take on the obligations of
membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and
monetary union; 4) absorption capacity of the EU: the Union's
capacity to absorb new Members, while maintaining the momentum of
European Integration, is also an important consideration in the general
interest of both the Union and the candidate countries. (38)
The first set of criteria are composed of the fundamental rules
that give legitimacy to a state to become credible candidate and
commence the accession negotiations which would gradually result in
candidate's full or pre-dominant transposition of the acquis
communautaire (the second and third criteria). Therefore, for analytical
reasons many authors exploit the dichotomy of the so called
'political (democratic) conditionality' as a strategy to
promote the fundamental principles of human rights, stable democratic
institutions, rule of law and minority rights. (39) This conditionality
precedes the second type, acquis conditionality which encompasses the
gradual transposition of all the principles, rules and procedures within
the acquis communautaire and refer to the second and third set of
criteria for membership. (40) The democratic conditionality, in this
form, means that its content must be observed in the candidate country
in order to upgrade the institutional ties with the EU and advance
towards the accession stage of commencing the accession negotiations.
(41) The uropean Commission (EC), through its instruments for progress
reporting and recommendations towards the candidate countries and EU
institutions is in charge for conducting the entire process. (42)
Subject of our analysis will be only the impact of the democratic
(political) conditionality on the political discursive processes and
discursive rule adoption of EU as a positive political reference for
policy change. Policies towards minorities' protection constitute
an elements of the EU 'political conditionality', thus they
represent the 'soft areas' of the acquis. (43) In this sense
minority conditionality is understood as a construct of a political
judgment. (44) The EU is based on a consensus politics and therefore
minority issues, within the EU, have had to be tackled in a fractionated
way, almost by 'stealth'. (45) The EU addresses discrimination
and social inclusion, cultural diversity, Roma issues, and other issues
relevant to minorities; however the commitment to initiatives on
minorities as such is unsuccessful. In the Charter of Fundamental Rights
of the European Union (CFREU), membership to a national minority is
mentioned only as a ground for prohibited discrimination. (46) The
minority protection can be viewed as an outcome of anti-discrimination
policies. (47) For the EU, the protection of minorities is essentially a
political criteria. While other Copenhagen criteria were quickly merged
into the rules of the Treaties (the Treaty of Amsterdam, which encoded
them in art. 6 of the TEU), the respect and the protection of minorities
were not positivised until 2009. 'Respect for and protection of
minorities' is outlined significantly in the Copenhagen political
criteria, however in EU laws are not directly translatable into the
acquis communautaire.
3. Making progress: towards Macedonian minorities' protection
policies
The Republic of Macedonia, as a multicultural state, is
characterized by the following elements: 1) a unitary state where the
relationship with the ethnic communities is direct; 2) a non territorial
principle of accommodating minorities; 3) and a country that passed
through a transition period. (48) The country was under a huge test for
a successful transition and for implementation of a framework for
minority rights' accommodation. As scholars point out, the most
complicated and most difficult case of transition is definitely that in
multiethnic societies, (49) and this was observed especially in the case
of Macedonia. The main aim when accommodating ethnic group diversity is
to design a state organization structure that is capable of accepting
these diversities through different mechanisms and instruments. (50) Few
important aspects distinguish the model of minorities' protection
in Macedonia which will be analyzed through the EC Progress Reports
(PRs). Following the focus of this paper, we will observe to what extend
the PRs influence the development of the minorities' protection
model. We will not go in details in describing the elements of the model
itself, nor the legal provisions and framework in regards; for purely
comparative analysis purpose, we will present the main issues raised in
each of the PRs and see if the negative issues repeat over time and if
new shortcomings are signalized.
As emphasizes before, the EU conditionality is explicitly expressed
by the PRs, containing an examination and assessment made by each of the
countries regarding the Copenhagen criteria and, in particular, the
implementation and enforcement of the EU acquis. The EC started its
evaluation with the first Progress Report (PR) in 2006. This report
(covering the period from 1st of October 2005 to 30th September 2006) as
the other PRs which followed, it is measured on the basis of decisions
taken, legislation adopted and measures implemented in the country. The
main issues raised in what concerns the protection of minorities in the
PRs are divided here into four main components: 1) overall situation; 2)
institutional capacity and legal framework; 3) cultural rights
(linguistic rights, education); and 4) political participation and
representation in public administration. The table 1 summarizes all PRs
and the main elements of the evaluation--the negative remarks--divided
into the four areas. It covers a period from 2006 to 2013 (with the
latest PR of October 2013).
PRs focus on the legal provisions in the OFA and their progress
towards their implementation. The Ohrid Framework Agreement (OFA) from
2001 plays a central importance in the EC assessment. The OFA is shown
as the most important category of country's success and
'deemed essential for the stability of the country'. The
rationales behind this particular attention to this agreement are the
following: 1) OFA is the most important political agreement for
minorities' protection; 2) OFA built a model aiming for
inter-ethnic conflict resolution in 2001 and minorities'
protection; 3) OFA was negotiated with the strong influence of the EU.
As presented in the table in the first (2006) PR, non-majority
communities remain significantly under-represented in the public
administration, contrary to the 'equitable representation'
principle underlined in the OFA; the dialogue and trust-building between
the communities was evaluated something that should be further developed
to achieve sustainable progress; and Roma community especially
'continues to cause concern'. The second PR, focused further
on the equitable representation noting progress on its implementation
across the public sector (especially in the judicial authorities and the
army). This report also marked positively some of the Committees for
interethnic relations (Committees), set up at local level which
contribute 'effectively to participation by all communities in
public life'.
Nevertheless, minorities' integration, according to this
report, is 'quite limited'; some minorities remain
disadvantages in the education and employment sector (army and police);
and not all committees for interethnic relations have been constituted
in the concerned municipalities, marking the existing ones as not
effective. This report also emphasis the issue on over-employed public
administration, where the members of the non-majority communities are
employed without taking into consideration the actual necessity of human
resources. (51)
Great concern expressed by the Commission and presented in the PRs,
is the functioning of the Secretariat for the Implementation of the
Ohrid Framework Agreement (SIOFA) (52). The SIOFA, continually was
assessed as a body with lack of a sound administrative capacity. (53) In
regards to the institutional capacity, attention has been given also to
the agency for protecting the rights of minorities which represent less
than 20% of the population (the Agency) because of its limited
resources, beside its visibility efforts (54); not sufficient capability
to act according to law. The Committees are also frequently mentioned in
the PRs because of their scarce financial sources, lack of clearly
defined competences and inefficient work.
In terms of protection of cultural rights and right to education in
the minority language, 2010, 2011 and 2012 PRs continue to emphasis the
question on the lack of adequate education in minority language and
problems in regards to the recruitment of a competent teaching staff. In
line with this, are also the negative remark noted in the 2010, 2011 and
2012 PRs, in regards to the European Charter for Regional and Minority
Language which was still not ratified by the country. (55)
Many of the critical and negative issues underlined in the first
three PRs repeat through the PRs which follow. The under-representation
of Roma and Turks is an issue which was not resolved and pointed out in
almost every PR. Another aspect which is constantly repeating are the
inter-ethnic tensions especially noted in the education system and the
regular negative report on the use of minority language and lack of
adequate legal protection and regulation. The last PR issued by the EC
(October 2013) underlined the necessity of progress on systematic issued
relating to decentralization, non-discrimination, equitable
representation, use of language and education. As a recommendation, EC
pointed out that the ongoing review of the OFA must continue and
recommendations should be implemented since the first review phase (56)
did not prove any significant results.
The elaboration of the conditionality principle application
specifically in the field of minority protection in the EC PRs aims to
help candidate countries 'to pursue necessary reforms and eliminate
persisting shortfalls'. (57) In the case of the PRs on Macedonia,
an interesting analysis of the discourse used in the PRs, indicates that
there are two fundamental shortcomings from which the pre-accession
monitoring process greatly suffers. (58) Stajic points out that PRs
'lack of clarity about the minority protection standards to which
Macedonia needs to adhere' and 'inferior quality of both
analyses and assessment of indicator findings'. (59) As it was seen
from the short analysis above on all aspects concerning minority
policies in the PRs, attention has been given to the criticalities,
however no comprehensible recommendations has been given further on
necessary improvements and overcoming existing deficient policies.
Concluding remarks
This paper examined the scholarly definition of the EU enlargement
and conditionality concepts. It put across the many aspects and elements
of the unique contour of the EU democratic conditionality for the
Western Balkans and in some extend for the Republic of Macedonia,
presenting it through three main phases: 1) statehood recognition; 2)
pre-pre-accession; and 3) pre-accession. Many challenges have been
encountered by the WB countries for fulfilling the specific EU
conditions. In that regards, Macedonia met many obstacles, such as the
neighborly relations and internal political and inter-ethnic tensions,
which have affected the overall process of EU approximation. In the case
of the Macedonia, the EU enlargement is be illustrated as a gradual and
conditional process subject to external and internal factors.
What has been examined in specific, by this paper, is the EU
conditionality applied in regards to minority policies in Macedonia. The
paper illustrated in brief the EC evaluation on the progress of the
country concerning implementation and improvement of minority protection
issues and inter-ethnic dialogue and relations. Dividing the elements of
analysis and evaluation in four areas, this paper, gave a clear panorama
of the EC Progress Report from 2006 until this date. Since the aim of
the comparative analysis and description of the PRs were to see only the
possible recommendations given by the EC and the critical and negative
comments, it was seen that several aspects which were underlined in the
reports were repeated continually. Political conditionality in the
context of minority policies in Macedonia has two main important
characteristics. The first one is the fact that at EU level there is a
clear lack of unified standards; as mentioned, under the EU umbrella no
explicit norms are in force which apply and constrain countries for
their implementation and enforcement, and therefore uses as argument the
(non)compliance with UN, Council of Europe and OSCE legal instruments
and recommendations. The second, is the particular internal
characteristics that this specific country faced, firstly as a part of
the WB family and second in particular as a country aiming at managing
inter-ethnic conflict under the auspices of the EU. Accordingly, the EU
minority conditionality in Macedonia could be seen as a custom-made
process. If we assume that the progress is measured according to the
reports delivered by the EU, we can certainly say that the
'minority political criterion' aimed at stabilizing the
minority protection framework is far from a successful conclusion. EU
monitoring results are ad hoc activities which are used, to some degree,
for political pressure and are therefore not necessarily a conditio sine
qua non for country' accession to the European Union.
Bibliography
Andeva, Marina (2013), "Challenging National Cultural Autonomy
in the Republic of Macedonia", in Nimni, E., Osipov, A, and Smith,
David J. (eds.), The Challenge of Non-Territorial Autonomy, Bern: Peter
Lang, 213-229.
Bache, I. and Stephen George (2006), Politics in the European
Union, Second Edition, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Blockmans, S. and Adam Lazowski (eds.) (2006), The European Union
and Its Neighbours: A legal appraisal of the EU's policies of
stabilization, partnership and integration, The Hague: TMC Asser Press.
Caplan, R. (2005), Europe and the Recognition of New States in
Yugoslavia, New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
EU (2000), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
Official Journal of the European Communities, 2000/C 364/01
[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf], 1 October 2013.
European Commission (2002), Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
Stabilisation and Association Report, [http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/
pdf/the_former_yugoslav_republi c_of_macedonia/ com02_342_en.pdf], 15
October 2013.
European Commission (2006), The Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia 2006 Progress Report,
[http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2006/nov/fyro
m_sec_1387_en.pdf], 14 September 2013
European Commission (2007), The Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia 2007 Progress Report,
[http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2007/nov/fyro
m_progress_reports_en.pdf], 16 September 2013
European Commission (2008), The Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia 2008 Progress Report,
[http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/press_corner/keydocuments/reports_nov_2008/the_former_yugoslav_republic_of_m
acedonia_progress_report_en.pdf], 19 September 2013
European Commission (2009), The Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia 2009 Progress Report,
[http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2009/mk_rap
port_2009_en.pdf], 22 September 2013
European Commission (2010), The Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia 2010 Progress Report,
[http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2010/package
/mk_rapport_2010_en.pdf], 22 September 2013
European Commission (2011), The Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia 2011 Progress Report,
[http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2011/package
/mk_rapport_2011_en.pdf], 25 September 2013
European Commission (2012), The Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia 2012 Progress Report,
[http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/package
/mk_rapport_2012_en.pdf], 20 October 2013.
European Commission (2013), The Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia 2013 Progress Report,
[http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2013/package
/mk_rapport_2013.pdf], 20 October 2013.
European Parliament (2012), Declaration and Recommendations, 10th
Meeting, 7 June 2012,
[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201206/2
0120611ATT46615/20120611ATT46615EN.pdf], 22 October 2013
Graziano, P. and Maartenn P. Vink (eds.) (2007), Europeanization:
New Research Agendas, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Greenberg, M.C., John H. Barton and Margaret E. McGuinness (2000),
Words over war: mediation and arbitration to prevent deadly conflict,
Oxford and Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Hanson, Alan (2000), "Croatian Independence from Yugoslavia,
19911992", in Greenberg et al. (eds.), Words over war: mediation
and arbitration to prevent deadly conflict, Oxford and Lanham: Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, 76-109.
Kacarska, Simonida (2012), "Minority Policies and EU
Conditionality--The Case of the Republic of Macedonia", in Journal
on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, Vol. 11, No. 2, 60-79.
Macedonian Centre for European Training (2013), TTAodoeume na
riopmoKaAoeama Peeoxyuuja, KoMnapamuena anaxma na Hmeuimaume na
EeponcKama KoMucuja 2010-2013 [Fruits of the Orange Revolution,
Comparative analysis of the European Commission Progress Reports 2010
-2013], [http://mcet.org.mk/wp
content/uploads/downloads/2013/10/Progress-Report-Comparative
Analysis-2010-2013-final.pdf], 16 October 2013.
Maurer, Leopold (2012), "Progress of the Negotiations",
in Andrea Ott and Kirstyn Inglis, eds., Handbook on European
Enlargement: A Commentary on the Enlargement Process, The Hague: TMC
Asser Press
Ragazzi, M. (1992), "Conference on Yugoslavia Arbitration
Commission: Opinions on Questions Raising from the Dissolution of
Yugoslavia", in International legal Materials, no. 31(6),
1488-1526.
Sasse, G. (2009) "Tracing the Construction and Effects of EU
Conditionality", in B. Rechel (ed.), Minority Rights in Central and
Eastern Europe, London and New York: Taylor & Francis, 18-25
Schimmelfennig, Frank and Ulrich Sedelmeier (eds.) (2005), The
Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe, Ithaca and London:
Cornell University Press.
Schimmerlfennig, Frank and Sedelmeier, Ulrich (2002),
"Theorizing EU enlargement: research focus, hypotheses and the
state of research" in Journal of European Public Policy, 9,
500-528.
SETimes.com, "Ohrid agreement faces criticism, 11 years
later", [http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/seti mes/features/2012/08/22/feature-03], 22 October 2013;
Stajic, Dalibor (2013), Minority protection in the Republic of
Macedonia under the Weight of EU Conditionality: Pre-accession
monitoring as a mechanism of furthering compliance?, EC Policy Brief N.
2, [http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_32521-1522-2-30.pdf7130313111515], 18
October 2013.
Szasz, P. (1992), "Documents Regarding the Conflict in
Yugoslavia", in Introductory note, International Legal Materials,
31(6), 1421-1426.
Andeva Marina, Marichikj Bojan *
* Andeva Marina, PhD, is a Researcher and Project Manager at the
Institute of International Sociology in Gorizia (ISIG) since 2009.
E-mail: andeva@isig.it.
Bojan Marichikj, MA, LLM, LLB, is a Senior Researcher/Analyst at
the think-tank Macedonian Centre for European Training (MCET) since
2011. E-mail: bojan@mcet.org.mk
(1) Frank Schimmelfennig and Ulrich Sedelmeier (eds.), The
Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe, Ithaca and London:
Cornell University Press, 2005
(2) Frank Schimmerlfennig and Ulrich Sedelmeier, "Theorizing
EU enlargement: research focus, hypotheses and the state of
research" in Journal of European Public Policy, 9, 2002, pp.
500-528.
(3) The basic question is why and under which conditions do
non-member states seek accession to a regional organization.
(4) The main question is under which conditions does a member state
of a regional organization favours or oppose enlargement to a particular
applicant country.
(5) Under which conditions does the regional organization admit a
new member, or modify its institutional relationship with outside
states. This dimension is divided in two 1) marco, EU as a polity and
concerns the question of candidate selection and patterns of national
membership; and 2) micro, concrete substance of the organizational rules
that are horizontally institutionalized, specific outcomes of accession
negotiations and the nature of pre-accession conditionality or
association policies.
(6) Blockmans, S. and Adam Lazowski (eds.), The European Union and
Its Neighbours: A legal appraisal of the EU's policies of
stabilization, partnership and integration. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.,
2006, 323
(7) Institutional and political framework initiated by the European
Commission in 1999 for assistance of the countries for the Western
Balkans to meet the criteria relevant to transform their status from
'potential candidates' to official candidate countries for EU
membership, with promise for eventual membership attached. See Steven
Blockmans and Adam Lazowski (eds.), The European Union and Its
Neighbours: A legal appraisal of the EU's policies of
stabilization, partnership and integration, The Hague: TMC Asser Press.
2006, p. 326.
(8) Kirstyn Inglis, "EU enlargement: membership conditions
applied to future and potential Member States", in Steven Blockmans
and Adam Lazowski (eds.), op.cit., p. 78
(9) Alan Hanson, "Croatian Independence from Yugoslavia,
1991-1992", in M.C. Greenberg et al. (eds.), Words over war:
mediation and arbitration to prevent deadly conflict, Oxford and Lanham:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000, p. 80
(10) For all the diplomatic efforts on Yugoslav dissolution during
1991 see P. Szasz, "Documents Regarding the Conflict in
Yugoslavia", in Introductory note, International Legal Materials,
31(6), 1992, pp. 1421-1422.
(11) R. Caplan, Europe and the Recognition of New States in
Yugoslavia, New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, p.
24
(12) Ibidem
(13) Ragazzi, M., "Conference on Yugoslavia Arbitration
Commission: Opinions on Questions Raising from the Dissolution of
Yugoslavia", in International Legal Materials, 31(6), 1992, p. 1488
(14) Ibidem, pp. 1488-1489
(15) Ibidem, p. 1492
(16) Ibidem
(17) See P. Szasz, op.cit.
(18) Kirstyn Inglis, op.cit., p. 78.
(19) Representative Government and accountable executive;
Government and public authorities acting in consistence with the
constitution and law; Genuine separation of powers between the
executive, parliamentary and judiciary; and Free and fair elections
...'. Ibidem, p. 79
(20) Freedom of expression and independent media; right of assembly
and protest and association; respect for privacy, family, home and
correspondence; right to property; means for redress against
administrative decisions; due process of law (fair trial and access to
justice); equal protection and treatment by the law etc. Ibidem
(21) Adequate chances for using their own language before the state
institutions and authorities; protection of refugees and displaced
persons returning to area where they are an ethnic minority.'
Ibidem
(22) Macroeconomic institutions able to ensure a stable economic
environment; liberalization of prizes, trade and payments; transparent
and stable legal and regulatory framework; demonopolization and
privatization of Public-owned enterprises; competitive and prudently
managed banking sector. Ibidem, p. 80
(23) Term adopted by Inglis, see Kirstyn Inglis, op.cit.
(24) Croatia in 2004, Macedonia in 2005, Montenegro in 2010, Serbia
in 2012, Albania got recommendation for candidate status in 2012, Bosnia
and Herzegovina and Kosovo are not yet candidate countries.
(25) Steven Blockmans, "Western Balkans (Albania,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia and Serbia and Montenegro,
including Kosovo)", in Steven Blockmans and Adam Lazowski (eds.),
op.cit., pp. 325-326
(26) Ibidem, p. 327
(27) For the instruments see more in Ibidem, pp. 336-355
(28) Irresistibly resembling to the Accession Partnerships of the
CEECs but with hesitation to mention the word Accession. See Ibidem, pp.
346-347.
(29) The Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and
Stabilization as financial framework for endorsing SAP and SAA. See
Ibidem, p. 340.
(30) Since the First Annual SAA report in 2002
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/the former yugoslav republic of
macedonia/com023 42 en.pdf
(31) Non-exhaustive list: a) full cooperation in delivering the
indicted war criminals and documents on demand of the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY); b) good neighborly
relations principle, that sought to embrace the principles of the UN
Charter, Helsinki Final act and Paris Charter for New Europe; c) full
endorsement and implementation of the peace agreements (Dayton Peace
Agreement and Ohrid Framework Agreement); d) return of refugees and
displaced persons, readmission of citizens of WB countries illegally
residing in the EU; and other country specific conditions defined by the
EU. Kirstyn Inglis, op.cit., pp. 80-81
(32) Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/candidatecountries/the former yugoslav
republic of macedonia/relation/index en.htm
(33) Full cooperation with the ICTY; good neighborly relations;
full endorsement and implementation of the peace agreements; return of
refugees etc.
(34) Details available at http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key
documents/2013/package/brochures/the former yugoslav republic of
macedonia 2013.pdf
(35) Frank Schimmelfennig and Ulrich Sedelmeier (eds.), op.cit., p.
2
(36) Kirstyn Inglis, op.cit., pp. 62-63
(37) As quoted in Ibidem, p. 63
(38) Ibidem
(39) Frank Schimmelfennig Stefan Engert and Haiko Knobel, "The
Impact of EU Political Conditionality", in Frank Schimmelfennig and
Ulrich Sedelmeier (eds.), op.cit., p. 29
(40) Ibidem, p. 30
(41) Ibidem
(42) Ibidem, pp. 30-31
(43) Simonida Kacarska, "Minority Policies and EU
Conditionality--The Case of the Republic of Macedonia", in Journal
on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012, p.
59.
(44) G. Sasse, "Tracing the Construction and Effects of EU
Conditionality", in B. Rechel (ed.), Minority Rights in Central and
Eastern Europe, London and New York: Taylor & Francis, 2009, p. 20
(45) M. Weller et al (eds.), The Protection of Minorities in Wider
Europe, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008
(46) See Art. 21(1), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union. Official Journal of the European Communities, 2000/C 364/01.
(47) A legal frame of reference has been created also with the
extension of the anti-discrimination provisions in the Treaty on the
European Union (TEU) and the adoption of the Council Directive on
implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons
irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (the Race Directive).
(48) L.D. Frckoski, "Certain aspects of democracy in
multiethnic societies", in Perceptions: Journal of International
Affairs, IV (4), 2000
(49) F. Palermo, J. Woelk, Diritto Costituzionale comparato dei
gruppi e delle minoranze, (2nd edition), Milano: CEDAM, 2011
(50) For more see Marina Andeva, "Challenging National
Cultural Autonomy in the Republic of Macedonia", in Nimni, E.,
Osopov, A, and David J. Smith (eds.), The Challenge of Non-Territorial
Autonomy, Bern: Peter Lang, 2013, pp. 213-229.
(51) See Ixodoeume na lopmoxaAoeama Peeoxyunja, KoMnapamuena
anaxusa na M3eemmaume na Eeponcxama KoMucuja 2010-2013 [Fruits of the
Orange Revolution, Comparative analysis of the European Commission
Progress Reports 2010-2013], Foundation Open Society Macedonia and the
Macedonian Centre for European Training,
[http://mcet.org.mk/wpcontent/uploads/downloads/2013/10/Progress-Report-
Comparative-Analysis-2010-2013-final.pdf], 16 October 2013.
(52) SIOFA was established to ensure an effective and full
implementation of the Framework Agreement and stability of the country
by promoting the peaceful and harmonious development of society,
respecting the ethnic identity and interests of all Macedonian citizens.
(53) Dalibor Stajic, Minority protection in the Republic of
Macedonia under the Weight of EU Conditionality: Pre-accession
monitoring as a mechanism of furthering compliance?, EC Policy Brief N.
2, 2012, [http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas
32521-1522-2-30.pdf?130313111515], 18 October 2013.
(54) See European Commission, The Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia 2012 Progress Report,
[http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/package/mk_rapport_2012_en.p df], 20 October 2013.
(55) Ibidem
(56) A review of the OFA was seen necessary in 2012, and welcomed
by the EU. See "Ohrid agreement faces criticism, 11 years
later", SETimes.com [http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en
GB/features/setimes/features/2012/08/22 /feature-031, 22 October 2013;
and European Parliament, "Declaration and Recommendations",
10th Meeting, 7 June 2012, p. 5
[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201206/20120611ATT46615/20120 611ATT46615EN.pdf], 22 October 2013
(57) Leopold Maurer, "Progress of the Negotiations", in
Andrea Ott and Kirstyn Inglis (eds.), Handbook on European Enlargement:
A Commentary on the Enlargement Process, The Hague: TMC Asser Press,
2002, p. 122
(58) Dalibor Stajic, op.cit., p. 12
(59) Ibidem, pp. 12-13
Table 1--Overview of the negative remarks and issues in the Progress
Reports on protection of minorities in Macedonia
Overall Institutional
situation capacity and
legal framework
Progress 2006 dialogue; trust-
Reports building
2007 minorities' Committees not
integration is effective
quite limited'
2008 ECRML not
ratified; SIOFA
lack administrative
capacity
2009 SIOFA lacks
administrative
capacities; the
Agency lacks
functionality
2010 tensions in inter- ECRML not ratified;
ethnic political SIOFA fails to
dialogue report its
activities and
progress
2011 ECRML not ratified;
SIOFA with no competent
personnel; Committees
lack of financial
sources and clear
competences; the Agency
not efficient
according to law
2012 ethnic tensions ECRML not ratified;
OFA review; SIOFA
further capacity
building; Agency-limited
human resources
2013 rare initiative OFA implementation;
promoting first phase of OFA
interethnic review; necessity of
harmony; ethnic coordination between
tentions SIOFA and other
government
institutions;
SIOFA lacks
administrative
capacity
cultural rights Representation
Progress 2006 under-represented
Reports non-majority
communities
2007 over-employed public
administration
2008 use of minority employments of
language by small ethnic groups are
ethnic groups not politicized
adequately covered
by law; no consensus
on the use of flags
2009 small progress use under-represented
of minority language non-majority
of small ethnic communities; over-
groups; lack of employed public
consensus on the use administration
of flags without adequate
competences
2010 no adequate education over-employment,
in minority language lack of adequate
no competent teaching competences and
staff; no consensus on working facilities;
the use of flags under-represented
non-majority
communities
2011 No adequate no. of employed
education in members of ethnic
minority language groups are on
not; no clear payrolls without
monitoring mechanism defined tasks and
for the Law on the responsibilities
use of minority
language
implementation;
ethnic segregation
in schools
2012 same as in 2011 not-equitable
representation in
public
administration
2013 same as in 2011 and under-
2010; necessity representation of
for state financing non-majority
of the strategy communities
for integrated
education
