Fake, partial and imposed compliance: the limits of the EU's normative power in the Western Balkans

Abstract

This paper examines the EU's external power through the prism of perceptions by non-EU countries of the aims of EU foreign policies, as shown in the Western Balkans. The paper argues that the EU's policy in the Western Balkans lacks a strong normative justification, which affects the degree of compliance with the EU's demands in areas related to state sovereignty. The perceived lack of legitimacy opens up political space for domestic actors to contest the positions taken by the EU on normative grounds. The Western Balkan countries have responded by giving preference to internal sources of legitimacy and asserting domestic reasons for fake compliance, partial compliance or non-compliance with the EU's conditions, with the latter provoking imposed compliance. The EU's transformative leverage in the region has been much weaker to date in comparison with that in Central and Eastern Europe prior to EU accession. The paper also makes the case for widening the debate about EU foreign policy to include contributions that focus on the external impact of the EU's actions. It links the study of EU foreign policy to the literature on Europeanisation that developed in the context of the EU's enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe.

Europeanisation in new member and candidate states

“…and low state capacity and lower levels of economic development make accession a more distance prospect. The specific nature of the EU's political conditions also makes it easier for nationalist politicians for which they create adjustment costs, to challenge their legitimacy (Noutcheva 2009). In view of these generally unfavourable conditions, more limited Europeanisation effects could be therefore expected in these countries.…”

Reclaiming the local in EU peacebuilding: Effectiveness, ownership, and resistance

“…The issue of whether EU norms and values are perceived as legitimate by the EU's counterparts tends to be overlooked (however, see Noutcheva, 2009). Yet, focusing on the perceptions of non-EU countries and societies can provide a better understanding of the lack of compliance with EU reforms and why the EU struggles to have a longlasting impact beyond its borders.…”

Diffusion, contestation and localisation in post-war states: 20 years of Western Balkans reconstruction

“…However, the 'domestic side' of norm diffusion is often reduced to domestic conditions that might mitigate external norm promotion activities -either as adoption costs (Schimmelfennig 2005), in the form of domestic filters (Manners 2002), or as a rather fixed cultural match (Checkel 1999(Checkel , 2001. In the Western Balkans, where EU conditionality seems less successful compared to the candidate countries in Eastern Europe (Bieber 2011b), a polarised political arena, weak state structures or widespread clientelism and corruption (Schimmelfennig 2008;Noutcheva 2009;Freyburg and Richter 2010) are discussed as domestic conditions that limit the 'transformative power of Europe' in the region. However, norm diffusion models remain static and the concern for how 'conditionality' impacts the processes remains the dominant analytical framework of the EU-Western Balkans interaction (Bieber 2011a;Džihić and Wieser 2011).…”

“…International norm diffusion is discussed here according to the domestic organisational, political and cultural scope conditions for successful norm transfer Davis 2000, 2005;Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier 2005;Schimmelfennig et al 2006), and evaluated in terms of full, partial or no compliance (Noutcheva 2009). This is also reflected in the EU External Governance literature, where diffusion is viewed as successful transposition of EU law and norms in national frameworks beyond the realm of membership (Lavenex 2004;Lavenex and Schimmelfennig 2009).…”

“…Much has been written about the Western Balkans as a test for the liberal peacebuilding enterprise (Ignatieff 2003;Gheciu 2005;Chandler 2006; Aggestam and Björkdahl 2014;Kappler 2014), and as a laboratory for the limits and potentialities of Europeanisation (Noutcheva 2009;Freyburg and Richter 2010;Bieber 2011a;Elbasani 2013). Undoubtedly, powerful international actors have been heavily involved in the statebuilding process in the region and have contributed to preventing the recurrence of violence through its firm presence on the ground.…”