Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Pre-Copenhagen Criteria – The Debate on the Origin of the Accession Criteria
   1. The Debate on the Evolution of Accession Criteria: Shifting from Geopolitical to Political Criteria
   2. Democratic Principles in EU Accession: From Initial Prerequisites (1962) to Reinforcement (1973-1978) and Formalization (1993) of Democratic Values
3. Post-Copenhagen Criteria – The Many Faces of the Current Accession Criteria
   1. Institutionalization of EU Accession Criteria: Legal Framework and Ongoing Adjustments
   2. From Classical to Multi-Step EU Accession Procedures: Introducing Flexibility, Reversibility, and Uncertainty
4. Challenges and the Way Forward with the Accession Criteria
   1. Navigating the Challenges of Evolving Accession Criteria and Procedures
   2. Rethinking EU Accession: Reclaiming Normative Consistency and Prioritizing Democratic Values
5. Concluding Remarks

A. Introduction

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought the issue of EU en­large­ment back to the forefront of the European Union’s policy agenda. While Russia’s war has rekindled the en­large­ment process, it has also sparked debates about the long-term continuity and credibility of the process, raising questions about the con­sis­tency of EU membership priorities and values and the pressing security concerns overshadowing long-term democratic transformations.

Since the “big bang” Eastern en­large­ment, the European Union’s trans­for­ma­tive power become central to EU en­large­ment studies, focusing on EU conditionality and compliance with accession criteria (Europeanization research) rather than mere EU membership.^[1]Studies on EU en­large­ment involve two key research stages: the first one is an ontological examination of the incentives driving the en­large­ment process, that is the politics of … Continue reading Concerns have emerged re­garding post-accession compliance in certain EU Member States (e.g., Hun­gary, Poland) and the limited trans­for­ma­tive impact of EU accession criteria in Southeastern European countries (e.g., Bulgaria, Romania). The current complex en­large­ment process emphasizes the pivotal role of accession criteria and procedures in shaping the pathways to the EU membership process. The EU has evolved its accession procedures and criteria to ensure that as­pir­ing member states express their willingness and demonstrate their capability and commitment to meet the EU’s political, economic, and legal standards. The EU and its Member States consider stricter accession conditionality and additional obligations essential to (effectively) prepare as­pir­ing members thoroughly before they become full members. However, since 2008, the EU has faced internal challenges, often called the “polycrisis”. This situation temporarily slowed the en­large­ment process, placing it on a temporary standby. During this period, the EU’s focus on internal reform challenges disadvantaged candidate countries and the en­large­ment process.

Building on this context, our prior study in the 2000s examined the EU’s approach towards the Western Balkans. We acknowledged the EU’s ir­re­versible en­large­ment strategy in the region and noted that EU membership would have taken more time than initially predicted. We argued that the primary concern at that time was not whether but when to achieve EU membership.^[2]See Jano, D., EU–Western Balkans Relations: The Many EU Approaches, The Journal of the International University Institute of European Studies (IUIES) 2008 2(1), pp. 143 – 160. Two decades later, echoing the French President’s statement, the predominant question on the current EU en­large­ment is not whether and when to enlarge but how to enlarge efficiently amidst the dynamic shifts in the geopolitical landscape.^[3]French President Emmanuel Macron’s speech at the Globsec Conference in Bratislava stated, “For us, the question is not whether we should enlarge – we answered that question a year ago – nor … Continue reading The recent revival of the process underscores the need for a balanced approach that addresses both internal and external issues. The evolving landscape of EU en­large­ment, influenced by geopolitical events, security concerns, and internal challenges, necessitates carefully examining accession criteria and procedures.

This article explores the historical trajectory of EU accession criteria and procedures, unraveling the debates and shifts from pre- to post-Copenhagen eras. It scrutinizes the origins and evolution of membership norms, em­pha­siz­ing the transition from geopolitical con­sid­er­a­tions to political criteria. The examination spans democratic prin­ci­ples’ emergence in the accession process, tracing their development from initial prerequisites in the 1960s to for­mal­iza­tion in 1993 with the Copenhagen Criteria. The post-Copenhagen phase is dissected, detailing the institutionalization of accession criteria and the transformation of procedures from the classical to multi-step EU Accession Procedures. Unveiling challenges, the article navigates the complexities of evolving criteria, advocating for a re-evaluation to reclaim normative con­sis­tency and prioritize democratic values back into the EU accession process.

B. Pre-Copenhagen Criteria – The Debate on the Origin of the Accession Criteria

I. The Debate on the Evolution of Accession Criteria: Shifting from Geopolitical to Political Criteria

The genesis of accession criteria and procedures in the context of EU en­large­ment triggers continuous scholarly debate, with varying perspectives on its origins.

The mainstream view suggests that earlier en­large­ments lacked explicit criteria. Scholars like Daniel C. Thomas argue about the evolution and the changing nature of the EU membership norms over time. He identifies four critical junctures with normative shifts in the European Com­mu­nity’s self-definition that have consequently shaped the membership norms or triggered pressure for change in the existing accession criteria.^[4]“…identify four eras in the evolution of EU membership norms over seven decades. From the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957 through the end of 1961, the EEC defined itself as a … Continue reading The initial democratic prin­ci­ples were established as essential criteria for membership due to as­pir­ing states’ contested and illiberal political context and the role of non-state EU actors.^[5]See Thomas, D. C., Constitutionalization through en­large­ment: The contested origins of the EU’s democratic identity, Journal of European Public Policy, 2006 13(8), pp. 1190 – 1210. On the other hand, other scholars exploring the historical evolution of the European Com­mu­nity’s engagement with democratic and human rights have challenged the mainstream narrative, offering a different perspective on the origins and development of the EU’s democratic and human rights regimes. They argue that democratic standards have been a consistent set of core norms and values since the inception of the European Com­mu­nity or even earlier, supporting the idea of a firm commitment to democratic prin­ci­ples by the European Com­mu­nity. Hartmut Behr argues that EU accession and its political ideas and practices are intricately linked to the legacies of 19th-century imperial rule.^[6]See, for example, Behr, H., The European Union in the legacies of imperial rule? EU accession politics viewed from a historical comparative perspective, European Journal of International … Continue reading Gráinne de Búrca contends that the European Com­mu­nity has been devoted to democratic ideals since its establishment, inspiring and influencing the Statute of the Council of Europe (1949) and, notably, the draft treaty for a European Political Com­mu­nity (1953).^[7]De Búrca, G., The Road not taken: The EU as a global human rights actor, The American Journal of International Law, 2011 105(4), pp. 649 – 693. At the same time, Emma De Angelis and Eirini Karamouzi associate the formal establishment of democratic prin­ci­ples with the 1978 Declaration on Democ­racy, which played a crucial role in shaping the Com­mu­nity’s approach to en­large­ment and served as a mechanism for consolidating emerging democ­ra­cies within the European framework.^[8]See De Angelis, E./Karamouzi, E., En­large­ment and the historical origins of the European Com­mu­nity’s democratic identity 1961–1978, Contemporary European History, 2016 25, … Continue reading

Although there is no conclusive agreement on the origins of accession criteria, scholars generally acknowledge that core prin­ci­ples, although not explicitly articulated from the start, gradually became more concrete and formal over time, with increased scrutiny and comprehensive procedures.  Thus, the historical evolution of accession criteria for countries seeking EU membership has been complex and dynamic. It has transitioned from an initial emphasis on geographic requirements laid down in the treaties founding the European Communities,^[9]“The treaties which founded the European Communities only mentioned a geographical criterion. Articles 98 of the European Coal and Steel Com­mu­nity, Article 237 of the European Economic … Continue reading aiming to pursue peace and stability in Europe, to in­cor­po­rat­ing crucial political conditions such as democ­racy, the rule of law, and human rights. The initial emphasis on geography addressed practical con­sid­er­a­tions and post-war Europe’s geopolitical context (European Non-Communist states), laying the foundational prin­ci­ple for the evolution of subsequent accession criteria. As the European Com­mu­nity progressed toward more political co­op­era­tion and economic integration and other European countries expressed their desire to become a part of it, additional criteria, including democratic governance, economic stability, and shared values, became the com­mu­nity’s and membership’s integral norms to ensure compatibility. The shift in emphasis from geography to democratic norms reflected the founding members’ goal of preventing future conflicts among European nations and building a united Europe based on mutual interests and shared values. This transition marked a notable shift in the accession criteria of the European Com­mu­nity, moving from a geopolitically centered approach to more inclusive democratic eligibility standards.

II. Democratic Principles in EU Accession: From Initial Prerequisites (1962) to Reinforcement (1973-1978) and Formalization (1993) of Democratic Values

A debate on democratic prin­ci­ples in the EU association and accession process emerged during the 1960s in response to several European states expressing interest in joining the European Com­mu­nity. Although the first countries to join, Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, had no significant problems with their democratic credentials, the persistence of dictatorships and au­thor­i­tar­i­an­ism in Mediterranean countries (Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Turkey) prompted the Com­mu­nity to focus on crafting political terms for future relationships, being either association with or accession to the European Com­mu­nity.^[10]Greece was the first country to submit its formal application in June 1959, and sign the Association Agreement with the EEC in June 1961 but was suspended in 1967 during the ‘Junta coup … Continue reading In 1962, the Birkelbach Report initiated a formal change in the prerequisites for joining the European Com­mu­nity, indicating the political and institutional aspects of the accession or association process with the EC, em­pha­siz­ing democ­racy as an essential requirement for Com­mu­nity membership. Subsequent initiatives, including the Declaration on European Identity (1973), the Joint Declaration on Fundamental Rights (1977), and the Declaration on Democ­racy (1978), reinforced the notion of democ­racy and commitment to democratic values as a precondition for European Com­mu­nity membership.^[11]For more on the argument see De Angelis/Karamouzi (footnote 8). These initiatives, coupled with other declarations and resolutions by the European Parliament, the Commission, and the Council on the issue of democ­racy as a fundamental value, played a crucial role in shaping the political discourse, criteria, and decisions on EU accession, eventually leading to the for­mal­iza­tion of the now-known “Copenhagen criteria” for EU membership.^[12]See Thomas (footnote 4), p. 1206 – 1207; De Angelis/Karamouzi (footnote 8), p. 442 – 457. Established in 1993, the Copenhagen criteria not only codified existing en­large­ment practices^[13]See Kochenov, D., Behind the Copenhagen façade: The meaning and structure of the Copenhagen political criterion of democ­racy and the rule of law, European Integration Online Papers, 2004 8, … Continue reading but also constitutionalized the democratic values of the European Com­mu­nity.^[14]Thomas (footnote 4); Thomas, D. C., Constitutionalization through en­large­ment: the contested origins of the EU’s democratic identity, Journal of European Public Policy, 2006 13, pp. 1190 … Continue reading While they formally institutionalized the political, economic, and institutional aspects relevant to EU accession for the first time, they did not represent clear U-turns from preceding en­large­ment processes.^[15]Even here, scholars take different approaches and consider the formal endorsement of the accession criteria at the Copenhagen European Council of 1993 as a U-turn in the en­large­ment process … Continue reading Instead, they have been continuously and progressively elab­o­rated, becoming more articulate and systematic.^[16]For details see Hillion, C., The Copenhagen criteria and their progeny, in: Hillion, C. (ed.), EU En­large­ment: A Legal Approach, Hart/Oxford, 2004. Furthermore, the promi­nence and significance of the political, economic, and institutional criteria in advancing or impeding en­large­ment, along with the level of scrutiny applied, differs in their relative importance across the different rounds of en­large­ments.^[17]See: Wallace, H., Enlarging the European Union: Reflections on the challenge of analysis, Journal of European Public Policy, 2002 9(4), pp. 658 – 665; Kochenov (footnote 13).

C. Post-Copenhagen Criteria – The Many Faces of the Current Accession Criteria

I. Institutionalization of EU Accession Criteria: Legal Framework and Ongoing Adjustments

The Copenhagen criteria, established in 1993, serve as fundamental conditions for EU membership, assessing a country’s readiness to join the EU based on the institutional stability for democ­racy, a functioning market economy, and the ability to fulfill EU membership obligations.^[18]Accession criteria, also known as the Copenhagen criteria, were established by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 and strengthened by the Madrid European Council in 1995. They include stability … Continue reading Initially designed for Central and Eastern European Countries, these criteria have become standard accession conditions and crucial reference points for any en­large­ment policy or strategy. However, across various EU en­large­ment rounds, these criteria underwent incremental and asymmetric adjustments, guided by core prin­ci­ples and enriched with new elements. While not explicitly stated in the EU treaties, they supplement the provisions of Article 49 and Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU), indicating a more formalized and institutionalized approach to the EU en­large­ment process.^[19]See Hillion (footnote 16), pp. 20-22. Article 49 of the Treaty specifies that any European state respecting the values outlined in Article 2 (human dignity, freedom, democ­racy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, including the minorities’ rights) and committed to promoting them may apply for Union membership.^[20]Refer to the Summaries of EU legislation, En­large­ment Chapter 16, Treaty on European Union — Joining the EU, available at … Continue reading The replacement of the previous assertion that the EU is “open” to any European state with the phrase “may apply” and the introduction of a new sentence stating that “the conditions of eligibility agreed upon by the European Council shall be taken into account” suggest the potential reluctance and re-nationalization towards further en­large­ments as the Union is not obligated to accept all European applicant states, and the conditions of membership eligibility (Copenhagen criteria) are subject to further development by the European Council.^[21]See Thomas (footnote 4), p. 82; Limante, A., The Western Balkans on the Way to the EU: Revisiting EU Conditionality, in: Meškić, Z./Kunda, I./Popović, D.V./Omerović, E. (eds.) Balkan Yearbook of … Continue reading The original Copenhagen Criteria for EU membership, having only a single referencing provision in the treaties and an additional statement empowering the European Council to provide further details, have undergone continuous elaboration, growing into a detailed set of conditions through the EU Presi­dency and Council conclusions as well as Commission Opinions, Strategy Papers, Annual (Progress) Reports, Accession, and European Partnerships.^[22]Emerson, M./Lazarevic, M./Blockmans, S./Subotic, S., A Template for Staged Accession to the EU, European Policy Centre and Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2021, p. 17.

Over time, the accession criteria expanded significantly, including detailed provisions and additional obligations known as Copenhagen “Plus” Criteria or post-Copenhagen Criteria.^[23]The Copenhagen accession criteria, once broadly defined, have evolved to include details and specific mechanisms previously not explicitly defined, such as, for example, the introduction of the … Continue reading For instance, the detailed administrative capacity criteria, introduced in 1995 during the Madrid European Council, emphasized the role of administrative and judicial capacities and structures in im­ple­ment­ing the EU acquis effectively.^[24]See Dimitrova, A., En­large­ment, institution-building and the EU’s administrative capacity requirement. West European Politics, 2002 25(4), pp. 171 – 190. Furthermore, the 1994 Essen European Council’s Presi­dency Conclusions added to the accession criteria the good neighborliness conditionality, placing a strong emphasis on regional co­op­era­tion and good relations be­tween candidate countries and/or member states with the aim to prevent conflicts from entering the Union.^[25]“Being aware of the role of regional co­op­era­tion within the Union, the Heads of State and Government emphasize the importance of similar co­op­era­tion be­tween the … Continue reading This condition was re-affirmed in the 1999 Helsinki European Council, urging candidate countries to resolve any border disputes and other related issues.^[26]In this respect, the European Council stresses the prin­ci­ple of peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the United Nations Charter and urges candidate States to make every effort … Continue reading The good neighborliness condition is seen as a mechanism to address security concerns related to unresolved issues, such as border disputes and minority protection, in applicant countries.^[27]See Basheska, E., The Good Neighbourliness Condition in the EU En­large­ment, Contemporary Southeastern Europe, 2014 1(1), pp. 92 – 111, p. 99. The absorption capacity, often referred to as the “fourth” Copenhagen criteria, was first mentioned in the Copenhagen Council Conclusion of 1993,^[28]The Copenhagen Council Conclusion of 1993 refers to “[t]he Union’s capacity to absorb new members, while maintaining the momentum of European integration, is also an important … Continue reading yet with no significant impact on the timing of previous en­large­ments.^[29]See Petrovic, M., (What about) the further en­large­ment of the EU? In be­tween European en­large­ment fatigue and Balkan instability challenges, Australian and New Zealand … Continue reading Although the notion of absorption capacity remains somewhat ambiguous, it has gained importance over time, particularly in recent years.

The European Union introduced additional accession criteria that considered factors such as the political situation of candidate countries and/or past experiences with EU en­large­ments. The Western Balkan countries faced additional accession criteria, shaped by insights gained from prior en­large­ments and addressing politically sensitive matters with a significant security dimension.^[30]In the case of the Western Balkans, the EU’s special requirements included full co­op­era­tion with the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), as well as … Continue reading Initially, the EU’s primary focus in the region was on addressing the aftermath of the armed conflicts of the 1990s and promoting adherence to various political and peace agreements. To accomplish this, the EU conditioned the accession process to fulfilling international obligations (e.g., the full co­op­era­tion with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) and regional co­op­era­tion. Both criteria were crucial components of the Stabilization and Association process, integrated into the Stabilization and Association Agreement signed with the ex-Yugoslav countries, including Albania and excluding Slovenia. Other criteria included the resolution of bilateral disputes (such as the longstanding disagreement be­tween Greece and North Macedonia over the latter’s name) and statehood issues (most notably for Kosovo and Serbia). Over time, accession criteria have been enriched with new elements from the critical lessons learned from previous accession experiences. The rule of law and judicial reform became the primary focus for Western Balkan accession, informed by experiences with Bulgaria, Romania, and Croatia.^[31]See: Fagan, A./Sircar, I., Judicial Independence in the Western Balkans: Is the EU’s “New Approach” Changing Judicial Practices, MAXCAP Working Paper Series, 2015; Börzel, T. A., Building … Continue reading

II. From Classical to Multi-Step EU Accession Procedures: Introducing Flexibility, Reversibility, and Uncertainty

In terms of procedures, the accession process has shifted from the classical method to a multi-step and open-ended approach, dividing EU acquis chapters into clusters with intermediatory conditions, allowing greater flex­i­bil­ity or reversibility before proceeding further or stopping the process if regress occurs. The earlier accession process was characterized by the “classical Com­mu­nity method,” focusing on the applicant’s acceptance of the EU acquis and the negotiations of the transition periods,^[32]see Preston, C., En­large­ment and Integration in the European Union, Routledge/London, 1997. whereas the current process is more complex, introducing the multiplication of procedural steps and an increasing role of EU member states.^[33]See Hillion, C., EU En­large­ment: The evolution of EU law, in: P. Craig/G. De Búrca (eds.), The Evolution of EU Law, Oxford University Press/Oxford, 2011, pp. 188 – 216. Although the EU en­large­ment process is an “updated version” previously applied in the earlier en­large­ment rounds, it has nonetheless embraced a multi-step process with stages and reversibility and introduced mechanisms to steer and restrain the process at all stages and at any time. The classical procedure was characterized by a relatively straightforward process consisting of issuing the Commission opinion on the candidate’s readiness, the opening and closing of negotiations, the treaty signing and ratification, and then the accession of the candidate country. Often, the first two Copenhagen Criteria (the democ­racy and market economy) should be fulfilled before the opening of EU accession negotiations, whose primary focus is the adoption and implementation of the EU acquis (the third Copenhagen Criteria). The EU acquis is divided into various policy areas (chapters), the number and arrangement of which have evolved over time.^[34]Dudley, D., European Union membership conditionality: the Copenhagen criteria and the quality of democ­racy, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 2020 20(4), 525 – 545. The revised en­large­ment methodology has introduced a multi-step process, breaking down the acquis chapters into clusters, each marked by specific intermediatory conditions, and with fundamentals to be open first and close last, deciding the accession.^[35]See European Commission, A more credible, dynamic, predictable and political EU accession process – Commission lays out its proposals, Press release, 5 February 2020, Brussels, available at … Continue reading This new methodology and approach allow for greater flex­i­bil­ity and scrutiny at each stage, introducing conditions that must be met before proceeding further or stopping the process if conditions are not met or regress has been made, thus making the process reversible.^[36]See also Steunenberg, B./Dimitrova, A. L., Compliance in the EU en­large­ment process: The limits of conditionality, European Integration online Papers (EIoP), 2007 11(5), p. 11. Unlike previous rounds, the current accession negotiations are open-ended, with no guaranteed membership beforehand. The 2004 European conclusions made the process flexible and uncertain, introducing long transition periods, derogations, specific arrangements, or permanent safeguard clauses.^[37]See Council of the European Union, Presi­dency Conclusions, 16238/1/04 REV 1 CONCL 4, Brussels, 1 February 2005, available at … Continue reading Even though a country may open and close negotiations on different groupings of the acquis chapters (according to the new methodology as of 2020), the accession time may not be specified, and other exemptions may restrict membership entitlement.^[38]Ugur, M., Open-ended membership prospect and commitment credibility: Explaining the deadlock in EU-Turkey accession negotiations, Journal of Common Market Studies, 2010 48(4), pp. 967 – 992, … Continue reading The new methodology provides instruments for phasing negotiations throughout time, and the additional pre-accession requirements to resolve existing “open issues” with EU member states are all “temporal devices” that could halt the process and delay accession at any time. The case of Turkey best illustrates the complex multi-step and open-ended accession negotiations since it applied in 1959, signed an association agreement in 1963, faced rejection of its application for full membership in 1987, officially gained candidacy status in 1999 but initiated accession negotiations only in 2005, and from 2019 it is facing a suspension of accession negotiations as a result of the European Council decision.

D. Challenges and the Way Forward with the Accession Criteria

I. Navigating the Challenges of Evolving Accession Criteria and Procedures

A comprehensive examination of the European Union’s current accession procedures and criteria reveals several challenges.

The main criticism revolves around double standards and asymmetric po­si­tion­ing, where the minority protection and Member States’ veto on negotiations exemplify these claims.^[39]Throughout its entire history, the EU’s en­large­ment process has consistently been characterized as asymmetrical from the first en­large­ment, with the EU serving as a … Continue reading Some accession conditions have been perceived as very rigorous and excessively demanding, surpassing EU member states obligations under Com­mu­nity law or at least the degree of compliance with EU acquis, creating double standards or “super Member States.”^[40]The EU sometimes imposes double standards in some areas, mainly on the protection of ethnic minority rights, where candidates are asked to meet standards that the EU-15 have never set for themselves. … Continue reading Additionally, the pre-accession requirement to resolve any “open issue” be­tween an EU member state and a candidate country, coupled with the unequal power dynamics during accession negotiations, places the accession process at the discretion of the Member state’s will. The current EU legal framework has made it easier for individual member states to delay or block the accession process through the (mis)use of the veto power, enabling them to push their own national interests and block the accession process at any time, given that unanimous agreement among all member states is required at the various stages of the accession process.^[41]Hypothetically, the 27 member states have approximately 1900 occasions to block accession negotiations since each of the EU member states has at least 70 occasions to veto when deciding on the … Continue reading Accession delays were evident in 2019-2022, when France and, later on, Bulgaria vetoed the start of accession negotiations with North Macedonia over bilateral disputes despite the positive opinion from other EU institutions.^[42]For a critical analysis of making EU membership conditional on the settlement of bilateral disputes with concrete examples of issues in the Western Balkans, see Basheska, E., EU En­large­ment … Continue reading In contrast to employing the “delaying” or “blocking tactics,” the 2023 EU Council meeting witnessed an “accelerator tactic”—an unconventional practice to overcome a Member state’s opposition and attain unanimity through the absence of the Member state’s leader, given (s)he does not explicitly express opposition or cast a vote against it.^[43]The German Chancellor invited the Hungarian Prime Minister to temporarily leave the Council room during the discussions and the decision re­gard­ing the opening of accession negotiations with … Continue reading

Criticism also extends to the broad, inconsistent, and subject-to-in­ter­pre­ta­tion nature of the accession criteria and the continuously additional conditions that have made the accession process a dynamic moving target with no clear objectives and detailed timelines.^[44]Grabbe, H., European Union Conditionality and the “Acquis Communautaire”, International Political Science Review / Revue Internationale de Science Politique, 2002 23(3), pp. 249 – 268. Despite for­mal­iza­tion, the accession criteria have exhibited flex­i­bil­ity and continuous adjustments in meaning, scope, and function, introducing unpredictability and complicating the process for EU-as­pir­ing countries.^[45]See Hillion (footnote 16), pp. 16 – 17. The broad and all-inclusive nature of these criteria, extending beyond the core Copenhagen criteria, has introduced complexities, challenging the accession process. While designed to induce reforms and provide a comprehensive evaluation framework, the broad scope of conditions and the growing com­plex­ity have raised concerns about fairness and equity, unintentionally compromising their credibility as an effective tool for assessing the reform progress of the candidate countries.^[46]See Kochenov (footnote 13). To enhance the credibility of accession criteria, scholars suggest a more focused approach of strategically singling out specific conditions instead of the very numerous requirements currently in place.^[47]See Steunenberg/Dimitrova (footnote 36).

II. Rethinking EU Accession: Reclaiming Normative Consistency and Prioritizing Democratic Values

The failure of objective conditionality and inconsistency in applying the Copenhagen criteria, especially concerning certain candidate countries like Turkey or groups of countries like the Western Balkans, raises broader questions about the normative con­sis­tency of the EU’s conditionality strategy, po­si­tion­ing EU–candidate relations on a transactional or geopolitical axis outside the established accession framework with a tendency to prioritize (geo)political convenience over strict adherence to the Copenhagen norms.^[48]In the case of Turkey see e.g. Saatçioğlu, B., How closely does the European Union’s membership conditionality reflect the Copenhagen criteria? Insights from Turkey. Turkish Studies, 2009 … Continue reading The case in the Western Balkans has shown the limit of these conflicting objectives in the political conditionality of prioritizing geopolitical con­sid­er­a­tions over stricter demands for liberal democ­racy.^[49]See Richter, S., Two at one blow? The EU and its quest for security and democ­racy by political conditionality in the Western Balkans. Democratization, 2012 19(3), 507–534; Smith, N. R./Khaze, … Continue reading On a more general note, the post-2005 EU lacks a clear consensus on its identity as a political com­mu­nity of liberal democ­ra­cies and, thus, on the requirements for the type of state eligible for membership.^[50]“It is thus apparent that the Council was deeply divided by 2006 over the nature of the EU as a political com­mu­nity and thus over the definition of which neighbouring states were eligible … Continue reading This lack of the core normative consensus on membership norms necessitates re-establishing the core democratic values and standards as envisioned by the Copenhagen criteria to render the EU accession process credible and consistent. Adherence to the Copenhagen criteria should be the norm for accession, where candidate countries and the EU (including its member states) alike should commit to the prin­ci­ple of liberal democ­racy and deliver membership after plausibly fulfilling this standard.

Re­gard­ing the procedures of the accession process, innovative solutions of a staged approach^[51]The debate was first initiated in the autumn of 2021 (see: Emerson et al., (footnote 22) revised in 2023, Mihajlović, M./Blockmans, S./Subotić, S./Emerson, M., Template 2.0 for Staged Accession to … Continue reading combined with the use of transition periods have been proposed by civil society and think tanks. Staged accession involves the EU maintaining a firm stance on accession criteria (including democ­racy and the rule of law) while gradually integrating candidates with specific milestones, ensuring tangible progress and the option of reversibility in the event of setbacks in candidate countries.^[52]Ribera, E./Wirmer, A., What does future EU en­large­ment require to be a success? European Council Experts’ Debrief, Ninth Issue, Trans European Policy Studies Association (TEPSA), 29 … Continue reading In­cor­po­rat­ing transitional arrangements^[53]“Transitional arrangements—the parties also discuss whether (and how) some rules can be introduced gradually to allow the accession country or EU Member States (countries) time to adapt. This is … Continue reading aligns with the flex­i­bil­ity-differentiation prin­ci­ples inherent in the EU’s en­large­ment strategy. Such practices recognize the unique circumstances of candidate countries and allow for a phased implementation of membership obligations or opt-out from specific common EU policy fields. These arrangements have been systematically applied to previous en­large­ments, although to a lesser extent and form. The aim is to foster a cooperative and accommodative approach to accession, reflecting on the pragmatic need to manage the complexities of integrating diverse economies and legal systems.^[54]See Inglis, K., The Accession Treaty and its transitional arrangements: A twilight zone for the new members of the Union, in: Hillion C. (ed.), EU en­large­ment: A legal … Continue reading

Frank Schimmelfennig argues for a swift formal accession through dif­fer­en­ti­ated integration, that is, a partial membership or staged accession, which is not only a way to address the trade-off be­tween the urgency of en­large­ment and the thoroughness of reforms but also will allow candidate countries to participate in selected EU policies.^[55]Schimmelfennig, F., Fit through Flexibility? dif­fer­en­ti­ated Integration and Geopolitical EU En­large­ment, in: Von Sydow, G./Kreilinger, V. (eds.), Fit for 35? Reforming … Continue reading Still, the way forward is reclaiming the “fundamentals first”—adherence to the rule of law and democratic prin­ci­ples—as the core norm and common foundation of all EU en­large­ments, regardless of any new flex­i­bil­ity or staged accession^[56]The revised proposal for a stage accession highlights the importance of the EU’s “fundamentals first” and introduces certain temporary and proportional safeguards to ensure no democratic … Continue reading in the upcoming accessions.^[57]Costa, O., et al., Sailing on High Seas: Reforming and Enlarging the EU for the 21st Century, Report of the Franco-German working group on the EU institutional reform, Paris-Berlin. 18 September … Continue reading

E. Concluding Remarks

The integration of new member states into the European Union has emerged as a significant issue of the EU, reigniting debates on the accession process. The EU’s current procedures and accession criteria are complex, moving beyond the traditional linear stages to a multi-step approach marked by various conditionalities and safeguards clauses. The continuous shifts in the promi­nence of accession criteria, oscillating be­tween geostrategic cal­cu­la­tions and com­mu­nity-building norms, underscores its ongoing com­plex­ity. As the EU navigates future en­large­ments, a thoughtful debate is essential to address the evolving context, define priorities, and ensure the credibility of the accession process. The meticulous procedure and accession criteria are to be designed in a way that ensures as­pir­ing member states align fully with EU core values and standards. Upholding EU conditionality at the core values requires a delicate balance, em­pha­siz­ing the clear relationship be­tween democratic, economic, and acquis reforms and the membership rewards. Maintaining this linkage is imperative, as deviations from the core Copenhagen Criteria and their Membership goal risk undermining the credibility and con­sis­tency of the process. Any deviation may lead candidate states to perceive discriminatory practices, challenging the integrity of the EU’s commitment to en­large­ment.

In conclusion, this chapter aims to contribute to a comprehensive un­der­stand­ing of the complexities inherent in the EU accession procedures and criteria, guiding future discussions on the en­large­ment and consolidation of the European Union. We aimed to provide food for thought on the historical evolution of accession procedures and criteria and their complex dynamics, em­pha­siz­ing the need for a balanced approach to conditionality and the unwavering commitment to EU core values.