RESEARCH PAPER

Marjan Velkovski

 SECURITY HORIZONS · ISSN 2671-3624 · Scientific Article · 2023

DOI: 10.20544/ICP.8.1.23.P13

EU integration has emerged as a transformative force in shaping Europe's political landscape. As countries aspire to attain EU membership, they must undergo a comprehensive process of harmonization with EU norms and standards. This paper explores the relationship between EU integration and the erosion of sovereignty from the perspective of candidate-member states, analyzing the underlying dynamics and implications with a particular focus on the transfer of decision-making powers from the national to the supranational level. The erosion of sovereignty in EU integration is primarily driven by the need for candidate-member states to align their legislation, policies, and regulations with EU directives and regulations, which entails limiting the candidate-member states' ability to independently determine domestic policies. While these harmonized policies foster economic integration, they restrict candidate-member states' autonomy in shaping national policies according to their specific needs and priorities. However, it is essential to acknowledge that political elites of candidate-member states willingly engage in the accession process that results in relinquishing certain aspects of sovereignty in exchange for advantages such as access to the single market and participation in EU decision-making processes. In conclusion, EU integration offers both benefits and challenges regarding candidate-member states' sovereignty. While it extends advantages such as economic cooperation and stability, concerns persist regarding the erosion of sovereignty and the ability to independently shape domestic policies. Striking a delicate balance between integration and the preservation of national sovereignty remains an ongoing and complex task throughout the EU’s accession process.

The process of European Union (EU) integration has been a central and transformative force in shaping the political landscape of Europe, particularly since the end of WWII. As countries aspire to become EU members, they are subjected to adopting EU policies and regulations (Börzel & Risse, 2012), and must navigate a comprehensive and rigorous harmonization process with EU norms. While EU integration offers numerous benefits, such as enhanced economic cooperation and political stability, it captures the decision-making capacity and raises concerns regarding sovereignty for these aspiring candidate-member states.   The concept of sovereignty emerges with the formation of contemporary nation states introduced in 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia. Ever since, sovereignty in all its variations is under constant and growing challenge as a result of the economic globalization, communications, and the rapid inter-state transfer of people, ideas, and capital. The forms of state sovereignty are preserved, yet sovereignty is redefined, emphasizing the importance of the legal framework of the state form, while abandoning its political content of self-governance and autonomy (Chandler, 2006). Traditionally defined, sovereignty encompassed self-determination, absolute authority over territory and people, legal equality of states, and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states; however, it has undergone a redefinition in the context of globalization and regional integration. The increasing interconnectedness of nations, the rise of supranational institutions, and the proliferation of international agreements have all challenged the traditional notion of sovereignty diminishing its significance in the international arena (Bellamy, 2003). The EU, as a prime example of regional integration, embodies this challenge, as candidate-member states are being subjected to a complex web of shared decision-making processes and common policies. EU integration involves the establishment of common policies and regulations across various domains, including trade, agriculture, justice, home affairs and foreign policy. While these harmonized policies aim to foster economic integration and level the playing field, they also limit the autonomy of candidate-member states in shaping their national policies according to their specific needs and priorities. It is essential to note that sovereignty erosion in EU integration is not a passive process imposed upon candidate-member states. Instead, it is a negotiated outcome, wherein the respective political elites of candidate states willingly engage in the accession process, recognizing both the benefits and trade-offs associated with EU membership. They make decisions to relinquish certain aspects of sovereignty in exchange for access to the single market, financial assistance, and participation in the decision-making processes that shape the future of the continent. This paper aims to explore and critically examine the intricate relationship between EU integration and the erosion of sovereignty from the perspective of candidate member states. By analyzing the mechanisms, implications, and dynamics of EU integration, it seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities that arise during the EU accession process in the context of eroding sovereignty. The hypothesis of this paper is that the EU integration process through the politics of state-building in candidate-member states creates entities without the capacity for self-regulation and autonomy, resulting in a transformation of the notion of state sovereignty. The delicate balance between the advantages of integration and the preservation of state sovereignty poses ongoing and complex challenges for candidate member states on their path towards EU membership. The contents of this paper are structured in four sections. The first focuses on the notion of EU integration and the mechanisms used to build EU member-states from Western Balkans states. The second part briefly brings into focus the concept of state sovereignty in the context of the EU’s politics of enlargement. The third part analyzes the implications of the EU integration process over candidate-member states’ sovereignty. The last part summarizes the key insights from the theoretical and empirical analysis in the hope to contribute to a larger academic debate related to the implications of the EU integration process through the EU’s politics of enlargement. From a methodological aspect, the study relies on analyzing information from secondary sources, such as international documents, reports, analyses from NGOs and think tanks, as well as statements and opinions of official representatives and institutions. This approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of the viewpoints held by both local and international actors involved in the process.

European integration is the outcome of a deliberate and selective merging of  national sovereignty among European nation-states after WWII. Ever since, numerous  regional organizations have been established to encourage and facilitate cooperation in  Europe, such as the EU being the most significant among them. Starting with six member  states in the 1950s, the EU expanded to include 27 European states currently, with other  European countries expressing their desire to join, and the United Kingdom becoming the  first country to leave the EU in 2020. While maintaining close ties with various other  organizations like NATO, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE),  and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the EU has emerged as the  most influential and significant embodiment of European integration (Peterson, 2001).  The main factor behind the establishment of the EU as an independent political  entity has been the determination to establish an internal European market, characterized  by the absence of trade barriers and functioning as a global capitalist market. In addition,  the European Commission, a combined executive and civil service body of the EU,  maintains exclusive authority to propose legislation. The aspiration to establish this  internal market was initially outlined in the EU's foundational treaties, but only started to  materialize with the implementation of the 1987 Single European Act (SEA) (European  Union, 1987). The adoption of the SEA brought significant changes to the EU's institutions  and the regulations governing their relationships and resulted in an altering of the decision making dynamics within the EU, giving autonomy to the European Commission in various  policy sectors. The 1993 ratification of the Maastricht Treaty expanded the powers of the  European Parliament and introduced interstate cooperation in areas such as foreign policy,  home affairs and justice, resulting in transformation of the decision-making process  requiring unanimous agreements. EU’s unsuccessful management of the Yugoslavian  conflict in the 1990s challenged this reformed decision-making process and additionally  drew criticism of the Maastricht Treaty and the endorsement of a Common Foreign and  Security Policy. The Maastricht Treaty also imposed significant financial constraints on  member-states governments seeking to join the single monetary union. Despite significant  pressure to expand the EU and include new states from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE),  the 1999 Amsterdam Treaty made only minor adjustments to the EU's constitutional order,  extending the qualified majority voting; however, concerns arose regarding the future  political cohesion of a larger union, especially with the prospect of granting membership to  less economically advanced CEE states compared to the existing member-states. In  contrast to the CEE countries, which strongly established their sovereignty after the fall of  communism and gradually transferred it during the accession process, Western Balkans’  states faced a different dynamic. The issues of sovereignty in Bosnia and Herzegovina  (BiH), Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Kosovo are far more complex. These states  have encountered domestic and external challenges and have undergone multiple  disintegrations since the Yugoslavian dissolution. When examining the EU's involvement  in Western Balkans, one observes a conflict between the EU integration process and its  efforts to build an EU Member-state (Chandler, 2010). In other words, the EU’s state building efforts in the Western Balkans go beyond simply implementing measures to institution-building and concentrate on essential governance functions, which directly  affect state sovereignty (Bieber, 2011).  

The EU’s integration process or Europeanization seen through the EU’s enlargement politics represents a multifaceted and complex endeavor affecting the political, economic, and social aspects of candidate-member states’ political order and society. Börzel and Risse (2012: 192) offer a definition of Europeanisation based on the traditional understanding, describing it as a collection of causal mechanisms that explain how EU policies, institutions, and political processes influence the internal structures of member states. However, the Eastern enlargement process brought about the necessity to expand the application of this concept to states that were obliged to adjust their policies and institutions to meet the requirements for EU accession. The process of Europeanisation for prospective members heavily relies on conditional incentives, which is a result of the inherent asymmetry in the process (Sedelmeier, 2012).   The EU enlargement politics involves intense dialogue and negotiations between the candidate state and EU, covering a wide range of issues, including political, economic, legal, and social matters, including the adoption of the EU acquis communautaire. The "Community acquis" refers to a set of shared rights and responsibilities that unite all EU member states. It is a dynamic collection of laws, including primary and secondary legislation, as well as legal precedents set by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). By adopting the acquis, non-EU countries are encouraged to assess the compatibility of their own laws and standards with those of the EU, under the pretext of sharing common values. Moreover, exporting the acquis helps foster a favorable legal atmosphere between EU and non-EU countries, facilitating investment flows and progressive opening up of markets (Petrov, 2008). This involves transposing EU directives into national laws, adapting administrative procedures, and ensuring compliance with EU standards. The process of aligning regulations and policies according to EU standards is an essential part of the EU integration process, necessary to ensure harmonization across member states and facilitate the single market. The candidate states are required to undertake comprehensive reforms to amend or adopt legislation, establish regulatory bodies, and strengthen administrative capacity. This alignment can be broadly categorized into three stages: pre-accession, negotiation, and implementation stage. The first stage involves political, economic, and institutional reforms aimed at preparing the candidate state for EU membership. During this stage, the EU provides financial and technical assistance for supporting reforms through the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (European Commission, 2007) for identifying policies requiring alignment with EU standards. EU’s integration efforts are also visible through the Stabilization and Association Process (“Overview - Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance,” 2021) and the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe (“Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe,” n.d.). The negotiations stage covers various policy areas or chapters which reflect the EU acquis and involves discussions, technical assessments, and potential modifications to the candidate's legislation to ensure compatibility with EU norms. After negotiations are concluded and the candidate-member state signs the accession treaty, the implementation stage begins. This phase focuses on implementing the necessary legislative and institutional changes to align with EU standards. Throughout the accession process, EU institutions and decision-making procedures play a crucial role in ensuring democratic governance, fostering cooperation, and facilitating the implementation of EU laws. The European Commission is the EU’s executive body responsible for proposing legislation, implementing policies, managing the budget, and representing the EU in international affairs. In the integration process, the Commission plays a leading role in monitoring candidate-member states' progress toward meeting EU criteria, conducting negotiations, and assessing the compatibility of national policies with EU standards. The European Council also plays a significant role in the integration process by defining the general objectives and guidelines for accession negotiations with candidate-member states. It monitors the negotiation’s progress and takes key decisions related to enlargement. The Council of the European Union, representing the member states' governments, in the context of integration, plays a critical role during the negotiation stage. It approves the opening and closing of negotiation chapters, discusses, and adopts legislative acts proposed by the European Commission, and sets the EU's common positions for international negotiations. Next is the European Parliament which represents EU citizens' interests and exercises democratic control over EU institutions. While its involvement in the integration process is limited compared to other institutions, it also plays a significant role by providing input and scrutiny during the negotiation stage, approves final accession treaties, and has the power to reject a candidate-member state's accession. The CJEU is responsible for ensuring uniform interpretation and application of EU laws. In the integration process, CJEU also plays a key role in ensuring that candidate member states align their national legislation with EU law and aspiring states become subject to CJEU’s authority, which can override national legal decisions, further compromising national sovereignty.   Overall, EU institutions and decision-making procedures form a complex framework that aims to present the integration process as democratic and transparent, in line with the EU’s principles, and providing the necessary checks and balances to safeguard EU member states’ interests. However, three decades of efforts on integrating Western Balkans into the Union, reveal that the approach within the framework of EU state-building is not guided according to idealist integration principles, yet with instrumentalizing the concept of failed states (Woodward, 2017) and accomplishing foreign and geopolitical interests of involved statebuilders.  

The connection between the process of European integration and sovereignty goes  back to the early phases of Europe’s economic reconstruction after WWII. At the time this  process served as a tool for Western European states to reclaim their sovereignty back.  Proponents of federalism believed that European cooperation held the potential to  eliminate national sovereignty entirely because they viewed the concept as closely  intertwined with conflict, imperialism, and political turmoil, therefore obsolete in the  context of economic globalization and the growing interdependence among states  (Malanczuk, 1997). In fact, globalization and social differentiation indeed contributed to  greater global interconnectedness; nevertheless, also limited states' capacity to develop  independent social, economic, foreign and defense policies, hindering their ability to  establish and foster a national identity that can uphold the common good and political  institutions that support it. For instance, in the aftermath of the Yugoslavian break-up, a  complex relationship was developed between the EU and the newly independent states in the region. In the context of statehood, the states were required to comply with EU decision-making, simultaneously lacking key features associated with states. Namely, BiH’s post-war institutional framework was agreed upon at the Dayton negotiations with guidance from US State Department’s lawyers. The establishment of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro resulted from extensive negotiations led by Javier Solana, EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, under the Belgrade Agreement. In Kosovo’s case, its constitution was drafted by the team working with UN mediator Martti Ahtisaari aiming to create provisions for independence (Bieber, 2011). The Macedonian experience shows similar features of heavy EU involvement and disregarding the principle of sovereignty, having in mind the 2001 Ohrid Framework Agreement which led to a series of constitutional amendments, the 2015-2016 Przino process and the Prespa Agreement that changed the country’s constitutional name despite the failed referendum and for the sake of NATO membership and EU integration (Vankovska, 2023). Considering the advantages of integration, theorists, and politicians as well, speak of certain trade-offs believing that the idea of sovereignty is outdated in the XXI century, claiming that these benefits can only be realized if sovereignty is shared with EU institutions (Ikenberry & Krasner, 2001). Recently, Macron, the French President reaffirmed his ideas about European sovereignty in economic and industrial contexts (Bryant, 2023).   The critics of the European superstate project claim that the discourse surrounding sovereignty has not completely hindered the initiatives of European leaders. In fact, EU leaders have started to redefine the essence of the EU polity by incorporating the concept of sovereignty, a development that is closely intertwined with the politicization of the EU (Jabko, 2020). EU membership requires candidate countries to align their trade policy by adopting the EU’s external trade tariffs and agreements, which limits the ability to independently negotiate deals with other countries. Moreover, the agricultural and rural policies are also subject to changes through the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, which diminishes the candidate countries' control over their agricultural sector. Adopting the euro as a national currency is also one of the requirements for EU membership; however, this step relinquishes the candidate countries' control over monetary policy, as it is determined by the European Central Bank. The process requires alignment of candidate countries' justice and home affairs policies with EU standards as well. This includes cooperation in areas such as border management, law enforcement, migration, and judicial reforms. Candidate countries have to adopt EU legislation, participate in joint operations, and cooperate with EU agencies, thereby reducing their autonomy in these areas. Also, EU membership entails a common foreign and security policy, and as part of the integration process, candidates are expected to align their foreign policies with the EU's positions and participate in the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy. This often means coordinating positions on international issues and supporting EU stances, even if they might differ from the candidate countries' national interests. The current established model of EU governance faces practical and ethical challenges, as the ability and authority of existing states to exercise supreme control within their borders, regulate access, and represent their citizens abroad have become increasingly difficult to maintain and justify. This discourse additionally puts pressure on candidate member states’ sovereignty. The EU exercises regulatory power over these states while avoiding self-reflection on its own management processes, which are presented as technocratic or administrative conditions for enlargement. This discourse places responsibility for the integration process and any issues that arise on the institutional frameworks of candidate states, suggesting that their political processes and interactions with society produce non-rational or politically immature outcomes. It calls for increased EU involvement in assisting institutional change and state-building, reinterpreting limits as a signal for the EU to be more proactive. In addition, the discourse of governance focuses on technical and administrative capacity rather than liberal democratic legitimacy, emphasizing the EU's authority to judge the capabilities of candidate states. It critiques sovereignty not by undermining formal political and legal equality, but by advocating for external expertise to develop and strengthen governance institutions. In this process, the EU acts as the primary exporter of governance through the enlargement process, actively shaping the institutions of candidate states (Chandler, 2010). In the context of Western Balkans, sovereignty concerns have frequently impeded the adherence of these states to EU regulations, either by creating hurdles to policy adoption or by fostering superficial compliance through the formal transfer of policies without proper implementation. Put differently, sovereignty became an obstacle in the integration process and resulted in being eroded by requiring changes to domestic legislation, which leads to a partial transfer of sovereignty. Assigning an unelected representative with executive authority to impose legislation and dismiss elected officials, such as in the Bosnian case, is becoming controversial as time goes on since the High Representative’s powers are deemed to be fundamentally inconsistent with the democratic principles and sovereignty of BiH. There are also potential negative consequences, as it creates a situation where local politicians lack the motivation to make difficult but essential political compromises, due to the awareness that if no agreement was reached, the High Representative has the authority to enforce legislation (European Commission for Democracy through Law, 2005).

From the Western Balkans states’ perspective, the EU integration process involves a discernible erosion of sovereignty. As these countries align their laws, policies, and practices with EU standards, they progressively transfer decision-making authority to the supranational level in various aspects of the country’s competencies. The process is  marked by inherent asymmetry, and the adaptation of EU policies and norms often occurs with limited regard for the concerns and interests of the citizens in candidate-member states. While the transfer of sovereignty is expected as part of integration, the decision making and policy harmonization processes often lack sufficient transparency and citizen engagement. This lack of inclusivity can lead to a perceived disregard for the voices and preferences of citizens affected by this process. While erosion of sovereignty may be viewed as a loss of sovereignty, it is also important to consider the broader context. EU integration offers candidate-member states numerous benefits, such as access to the single market, increased economic opportunities, security cooperation, and the ability to participate in shaping EU policies, and pooling of sovereignty is seen as a necessary trade off for these advantages and for contributing to stability, prosperity, and security of EU as  a whole. In conclusion, the erosion of sovereignty through the EU integration process is a complex and nuanced phenomenon. It reflects a delicate balance between shared decision making and the preservation of national interests. Each member state, including those in the Western Balkans, faces a unique set of circumstances and negotiates the transfer of  sovereignty based on its specific needs and priorities. However, the one-size-fits-all approach may not adequately address the unique challenges and aspirations of these states, potentially leading to policies that do not fully resonate with their citizens. This disconnect can further exacerbate the perception that the adaptation process is conducted without  proper consideration for the well-being and preferences of the people affected. As the integration process continues, it is important to maintain an ongoing dialogue on  sovereignty, ensuring that the benefits of integration are maximized while safeguarding the democratic legitimacy and national interests of member states. 

• Bellamy, R. (2003). Sovereignty, Post-Sovereignty and Pre-Sovereignty: Three Models of the State, Democracy and Rights within the EU. In N. Walker (Ed.), Sovereignty in Transition (pp. 167–190). London: Hart Publishing. Retrieved July 5, 2023, from http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781472562883.ch-007.

• Bieber, F. (2011). Building Impossible States? State-Building Strategies and EU Membership in the Western Balkans. Europe-Asia Studies, 63(10), 1783–1802. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2011.618679.

• Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2012). When Europeanisation Meets Diffusion: Exploring New Territory. West European Politics, 35(1), 192–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2012.634543.

• Bryant, L. (2023, April 11). Macron Outlines Need for European Sovereignty. Retrieved July 5, 2023, from https://www.voanews.com/a/macron-outlines-need-for-european-sovereignty/7046219.html.

• Chandler, D. (2006). Empire in Denial: The Politics of State-Building. Pluto Press (UK).

• Chandler, D. (2010). The EU and Southeastern Europe: The Rise of Post-Liberal Governance. Third World Quarterly, 31(1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590903557330.

• European Commission for Democracy through Law. (2005). Opinion on the Constitutional Situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Powers of the High Representative. Retrieved from https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/CDL-AD(2005)004-e.aspx.

• European Union. (1987). The Single European Act. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/the-single-european-act.html.

• Ikenberry, G. J., & Krasner, S. D. (2001). Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities. Foreign Affairs, 80(5), 158. https://doi.org/10.2307/20050266.

• Jabko, N. (2020). Sovereignty Matters: The Mainstreaming of Populist Politics in the European Union. In Research in Political Sociology (pp. 149–173). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0895-993520200000027016.

• Malanczuk, P. (1997). Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law. London: Routledge.

• Peterson, J. (2001). European Integration. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 4923–4925. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01261-4.

• Petrov, R. (2008). Exporting the Acquis Communautaire into the Legal Systems of Third Countries. European Foreign Affairs Review, 13(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2008002.

• Overview - Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance. (2021, October 8). Retrieved from: https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement policy/overview-instrument-pre-accession assistance_en#:~:text=The%20general%20objective%20of%20the.

• Sedelmeier, U. (2012). Is Europeanisation through Conditionality Sustainable? Lock-in of Institutional Change after EU Accession. West European Politics, 35(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2012.631311.

• Stabilization and Association Process. (1999).retrieved from:  https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement policy/glossary/stabilisation-and-association-process_en.

• Stability  Pact  for  South-Eastern  Europe.  (n.d.). Retrieved from: https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement policy/glossary/stability-pact-south-eastern-europe_en.  

• Vankovska, B. (2023). Constitutions Octroyées And International State-Building: The Macedonian Case in Focus. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 1 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2023.2167179.

• Woodward, S. (2017). The Ideology of Failed States: Why Intervention Fails. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316816936.