Models of Differentiated Integration between the European Union and Third Countries and the Future of Turkey–EU Relations: A Neoliberal Approach
Studies and debates on the concept of “differentiated integration,” which has been a key feature of the political system of the EU for many decades, have come into prominence in the last decade in view of the multiple crises the EU has been facing. Whereas most of these studies dealt with internal differentiated integration within the EU, only a few studies focused on the “external” dimension of differentiated integration, which could be described as third countries’ differentiated levels of alignment with various parts of the EU’s acquis communautaire without participating in the EU’s central decision-making bodies. This study seeks to examine the development of different models of external differentiated integration between the EU and third countries based on the key premises and assumptions of neoliberalism and by focusing on the following three already established modes of external differentiated integration between the EU and third countries: European Economic Area, European neighborhood Policy, and Strategic Partnership. It further evaluates the latest developments in EU–Turkey relations and Turkey’s EU accession process in light of neoliberalism’s concept of “interdependence” and touches upon the possibility of the formation of a model of external differentiated integration between Turkey and the EU, outside the framework of the accession process by taking into account the recently established bilateral dialog mechanisms.
Avrupa Birliği’nin Üçüncü Ülkelerle Harici Farklılaştırılmış Entegrasyon Modelleri ve Türkiye-AB İlişkilerinin Geleceği: Neoliberal Bir Yaklaşım
Hâlihazırda AB’nin siyasi sisteminin önde gelen bir öğesi olan “farklılaştırılmış entegrasyon” kavramına yönelik analizler ve tartışmalar, özellikle geçtiğimiz on sene içerisinde AB’nin hala içinde bulunduğu çok katmanlı kriz dönemi ışığında artmıştır. İlgili çalışmaların çoğu, AB içerisinde vuku bulan farklılaştırılmış entegrasyon ile ilgilenirken, bu kavramın “dış boyutu” olarak nitelendirilen ve üçüncü ülkelerin AB’nin karar alma süreçlerine dahil olmadan AB müktesebatının farklı bölümleri ile farklı derecelerde uyum yakalamaları aracılığıyla meydana gelen “harici farklılaştırılmış entegrasyon” konusunda gerçekleştirilmiş çalışmalar son derece sınırlıdır. Bu çalışma, AB ve üçüncü ülkeler arasında harici farklılaştırılmış entegrasyon modellerinin geliştirilmesini neoliberal kuramın temel varsayımları temelinde açıklamayı ve bu kuramsal çerçevede AB ve üçüncü ülkeler arasında hâlihazırda gerçekleştirilen üç harici farklılaştırılmış entegrasyon modelini (Avrupa Ekonomik Alanı, Avrupa Komşuluk Politikası ve Stratejik Ortaklık) incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, aynı zamanda, neoliberalizmin odaklandığı “karşılıklı bağımlılık” kavramı ışığında Türkiye-AB ilişkilerinde ve AB katılım müzakereleri sürecinde son dönemde yaşanan gelişmeleri analiz etmektedir ve yakın geçmişte iki taraf arasında hayata geçirilen ikili diyalog mekanizmalarını dikkate alarak Türkiye ile AB arasında üyelik çerçevesinin dışında bir harici farklılaştırılmış entegrasyon modeli oluşturulması ihtimaline değinmektedir.
Neoliberalism has, above all, emerged as a reaction to realism and its assumptions concerning the constant existence of interstate security concerns, the suppression of economic and societal issues by military security and the military capability of states during the formation of international relations and consequently, the continuance of rarely occurring interstate collaborations and political integration as long as these would serve the interests of the most powerful states (Keohane & Nye, 1989, p. 24). The neoliberalist school directs attention particularly to the (predominantly economic) interdependence between the states (Keohane & Nye, 1987) and assumes the construction of an international system that to a great extent is based on the concept of “complex interdependence” (Keohane & Nye, 1989, p. 25–29). This system enables the existence of manifold interstate and transgovernmental and international communication channels and consequently, the existence of many other actors alongside the states and the blurring of any distinction between domestic and foreign policies. Under the terms of such a system, interdependencies among the states increase, negative externalities emerge, states’ sovereignty becomes constrained, and interstate cooperation becomes unavoidable.
Drawing on the key premises of neoliberalism it could be assumed that issuespecific (and above all, economic) interdependence among the member states of the European Union (EU) is likely to play a key role in the formation of dialog mechanisms between the EU and third countries on the basis of the principle of external differentiated integration, which could be described as third countries’ alignment with the EU acquis without acquiring participatory rights in the EU’s decision-making processes concerning the constant evolvement of the acquis (Gstöhl, 2016, p. 2–3). In view of the leading assumptions of neoliberalist theory, it could be predicted that the interdependence between the EU and non-member states is asymmetrical and that the institutional engineering of the models of external differentiated integration is predominantly set by the pattern of asymmetrical interdependence between the EU and third countries (i.e., by the less dependent partner).
This study sought to examine the development of different models of external differentiated integration between the EU and third countries based on the key premises and assumptions of neoliberalism and by focusing on the following three already established modes of external differentiated integration between the EU and third countries: European Economic Area, European Neighbourhood Policy, and Strategic Partnership. It further evaluated the latest developments in EU–Turkey relations and Turkey’s EU accession process in light of the neoliberalism’s concept of “interdependence” and touched upon the possibility to form a model of external differentiated integration between Turkey and the EU outside the framework of the accession process by taking into account the recently established bilateral dialog mechanisms.
The European Economic Area (EEA) is the most complex and thorough model of external differentiated integration between the EU and third countries. The EEA currently includes the 28 member states of the EU and the three European Free Trade Association (EFTA) states as “external members” of the agreement (Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein). By means of the EEA agreement, external members are provided with the four freedoms of the Single Market while being liable for alignment with the EU acquis in all policy fields relevant for the successful maintenance of the Single Market (EFTA, 1994), which could be described as the “legal conditionality” of the EEA. There is a clear asymmetrical interdependence between the EU and the EFTA states, particularly in economic terms, where the EU enjoys a more favorable position when compared with the external members of the agreement. This is also reflected in the asymmetric design (Kux & Sverdrup, 2000, p. 242) of the model that prevents EFTA countries from participation in formal decision-making processes while nevertheless calling them for the complete implementation of the already taken decisions.
The European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) is a dialog mechanism between the EU and the 16 countries that are located to the south and east of the EU’s territory. It is founded on the principle of “soft conditionality” (Lavenex, 2014, p. 886), which could also be described as “voluntary conditionality” as there is a direct, yet (for the ENP countries) optional, link between their alignment with the EU acquis in various policy fields and the level of cooperation with the EU, as well as the degree of incentives provided by the Union for these countries. The “integration/cooperation – interdependence” connection emphasized by neoliberal thought could also be observed in the relationship between the ENP countries and the EU. In agreement with the key premises of neoliberalism and the concept of complex interdependence, the 2003 European Security Strategy (ESS) pointed to the strong link between the internal and external dimensions of security and emphasized the need to create a “ring of well governed countries” (European Commission, 2003b, p. 7–8) in the EU’s periphery for the sake of the EU’s own security and stability. That the ENP is founded on “voluntary conditionality” instead of “legal conditionality” of the EEA could be explained as follows: 1) ENP countries were not provided with the short- and mid-term perspective of complete integration into the Single Market; 2) the interdependence between EFTA countries and the EU is stronger than the one between the EU and the ENP countries; 3) EFTA countries can either align their legislations with the EU acquis very easily; or 4) they have already aligned themselves with the EU norms and standards to a great extent.
If EEA is positioned on the one end of the spectrum related to different external differentiated integration models due its strict emphasis on “legal conditionality,” then the strategic partnership model could be positioned on the other extreme end of this spectrum in view of the absence of clear conditionality. Between 1995 and 2018, the EU initiated strategic dialog mechanisms with 10 countries, whereas in 2014, during the Ukrainian crisis, Russia was removed from the list of strategic partners. Currently, the EU has nine official strategic partners all of whom are countries that have the capacity to shape regional as well as global affairs to a great extent (Hess, 2012). Six of the nine strategic partners are positioned among the EU’s top 10 trading partners (European Commission, 2017f), which points to a more symmetrical economic relationship when compared with the relationship of the EU with the ENP as well as the EFTA countries (with the exception of Norway). As strategic partners are regarded as key regional/global actors and thus, are treated as equal partners by the EU, the strategic partnership models do not contain an explicit conditionality. However, strategic partners still partially align themselves with EU norms and standards by means of socialization processes (Hogenauer & Friedel, 2008, p. 267) and membership in the EU’s various agencies (Lavenex, 2015).
The asymmetrical interdependence between the EU and third countries that are parties to the external differentiated integration models stated above can also be observed in the dialog between Turkey and the EU. Although many functional/sectoral dialog mechanisms between Turkey and the EU have been established in recent years, Turkey’s EU accession process, which has until very recently shaped the general framework of the bilateral dialog between Turkey and the EU, has entered an explicit deadlock. Throughout the refugee crisis, many additional functional dialog mechanisms between Turkey and the EU were established, which greatly resemble the mechanisms formed for strategic partners and take the relationship outside the framework of Turkey’s accession process. In view of the constant interdependence between Turkey and the EU on the one hand, and the stagnation of Turkey’s EU accession negotiations on the other, the formation of a “permanent” model of external differentiated integration between Turkey and the EU outside the framework of the accession process is not unlikely.
