What impact does the European Union (eu) have on the development of the rule of law in South Eastern Europe (see)? The author of this article argues and shows that the eu has: 1) a positively reinforcing (healthy) effect with regard to judicial capacity and substantive legality, i.e. the alignment of domestic legislation with international standards, and 2) a negatively reinforcing (pathological) effect with regard to judicial impartiality and formal legality (the inner morality of law). The author explains the pathological impact of eu-driven rule of law reforms by referring to the eu’s deficient reform approach and to unfavorable domestic conditions, which in their interplay reinforce certain reform pathologies (legal instability, incoherence, politicization) that undermine the rule of law. The main argument is supported by a mixed method study. A quantitative indicator-based analysis measures rule of law development across four key dimensions on the basis of a variety of data (e.g. survey-based indicators, cepej data, and a unique dataset on legislative output). Additionally, the author draws on a number of qualitative interviews that he conducted with magistrates from see and representatives from the eu, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Council of Europe. The author concludes from these findings that external rule of law promotion in weak rule of law countries is not transformative, but rather reinforces systemic deficiencies that undermine the rule of law.

Recent scholarship has exposed the "eu's pathological power", which has undermined the creation of the rule of law in South Eastern Europe (see) and beyond. This paper discusses the "pathological turn" in Europeanization studies by identifying and providing evidence for several "pathologies of Europeanization", i.e. legal and political deficiencies related to rule of law reform, such as legal instability, lack of generality and enforcement, and increased politicization. These pathologies result, among others, from a deficient approach of the eu to rule of law promotion and assessment. In particular, the author highlights three main fundamental problems of Europeanization in the area of the rule of law: 1) valuing quantity over quality; 2) partisan empowerment of domestic change agents; and 3) biased assessment of the rule of law. These problematic issues are further clarified on selected country examples of reform failure from see and the 2012 "rule of law crisis" in Romania. It is argued that given the eu's inability to objectively assess and effectively promote the rule of law, the eu should either abstain from evaluating rule of law or radically revise its approach and methodology, for instance by following the policy advice provided in this paper.

No abstract

No abstract