1 / 11

Norms as negotiation resource

Norms as negotiation resource. Summary Bürgin/Schimmelfennig (2007): Entrapped again: The Way to EU Membership Negotiations with Turkey; paper presented at University of Pittsburgh 25-27 January 2007. Scientific Controversy: How to explain the result of negotiations?.

kipp
Télécharger la présentation

Norms as negotiation resource

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Norms as negotiation resource Summary Bürgin/Schimmelfennig (2007): Entrapped again: The Way to EU Membership Negotiations with Turkey; paper presented at University of Pittsburgh 25-27 January 2007 Asst. Prof. Dr. Alexander Bürgin IUE

  2. Scientific Controversy: How to explain the result of negotiations? • Liberal Intergovermentalism • Convergence of interests • Structural negotiation power • Constructivist Supranationalism • Socialisation processes • Rationalist Supranationalism • Influence of supranational actors • Norms as negotiation resource Asst. Prof. Dr. Alexander Bürgin IUE

  3. Research question: Explaining the opening of accession negotiations with Turkey • Divergence of member state preferences in the late 1990s concerning membership of Turkey • How can the agreement on accession negotiations with Turkey be explained in the face of the widespread reluctance among governments? Asst. Prof. Dr. Alexander Bürgin IUE

  4. Thesis: Impact of norms explains the decision • Interaction among gvts was constrained by the EU’s community norms rather than by the member states’ relative bargaining power • Arguments based on community norms mobilized normative pressure – leading to the acceptance of accession negotiations with Turkey Asst. Prof. Dr. Alexander Bürgin IUE

  5. Arguments based on community norms • Promises of the past: Association agreement 1963, final goal of custom union • Standards of liberal democracy: EU obliged to consider all applications according to the same standards of liberal democracy; thus Turkey’s application cannot be dismissed by reference to socio-economic or cultural incompatibility • Credibility: Non-respect of agreements harmful for the image of the EU as reliable partner Asst. Prof. Dr. Alexander Bürgin IUE

  6. Luxemburg 1997 • Context: • Decision to open negotiation with CEEC • Position and Arguments • Strong majority against EU-membership of Turkey • Consensus: close relationship with Turkey • Result • No candidate status, but: accession possible if Copenhagen criteria are fulfilled • Opponents did not achieve to break with membership perspective Asst. Prof. Dr. Alexander Bürgin IUE

  7. Helsinki 1999 • Context • Bad relationship between Turkey and EU • Position and arguments • Consensus: need to ameliorate relationship • Government changed in Germany • Position change in Greece due to Cyprus • Result • Interest constellation explains candidate status • Widespread perception: Turkey will not achieve the standards and can be convinced of other option as membership Asst. Prof. Dr. Alexander Bürgin IUE

  8. Explanation for Candidate Status • Impact of norms: Promises of the past forbid a break with membership perspective 1997 • Interest constellation: explained the conferring of candidate status 1999 • Candidate status as new norm: Strong commitment that only the fulfilment of Copenhagen Criteria decide about opening of accession negotiations – supporters of Turkey could now depoliticise the debate Asst. Prof. Dr. Alexander Bürgin IUE

  9. Brussels 2004 • Context • Copenhagen 2002: decision about opening of negotiations based on Commission report • Positive Commission Report • Cyprus referendum failed because of Greek NO • Position and arguments • Opponents: Absorption capacity of the EU, recognition of Cyprus • Supporters: refer to agreement of 2002 (De-politicisation) • Result • Opening 2005 (custom union with Cyprus required) Asst. Prof. Dr. Alexander Bürgin IUE

  10. Brussels 2005 • Context • Negative referendum in France and NL • Positions and arguments • Opponents: inclusion of privileged partnership in negotiation framework, Cyprus as criteria • Result • Negotiation framework: full membership as goal • Recognition of Cyprus not part of the negotiation Asst. Prof. Dr. Alexander Bürgin IUE

  11. Explanation for Opening of accession negotiations • No convergence of preferences or socialization process among member states • Promises and Agreements of the EU raises the negotiation power of the supporters of Turkey’s accession to the EU • Outlook: As long as Turkey continue to comply with EU norms and keep its own promises the EU will not discard the membership perspective Asst. Prof. Dr. Alexander Bürgin IUE

More Related