Written by: Tiago Gomes, Universidade Portucalense.
Abstract
This work seeks to understand the impact caused by the pursuit of Human Rights in countries outside the European Union carried out by the European Union itself. The work aims to obtain an understanding of the enlargement policy tool used by this entity in its external action that leads to increased protection of Human Rights in third countries that intend to join the EU, in the case under analysis, Albania.
The research resorts to the qualitative interpretation of primary sources produced by the European Union, namely, evaluation reports on the implementation of the criteria required by this organization for candidates for its membership. Secondary sources complement the analysis, namely scientific articles.
The result of the investigation reveals an empowerment of Human Rights in Albania after its candidacy, through its accession process, however the enlargement policy does not use its full potential in the promotion of Human Rights and proves to be below expectations, especially given the inherent conditionality (EU membership) imposed on.
1. Introduction
Human Rights (HR) are fundamental rights of all human beings, characterized as basic rights that guarantee individual freedoms to all individuals.
Over its long history, the European Union (EU), since its formation at the end of World War II, it has taken increasing steps towards a more evident applicability of human rights in the states that have joined it. A significant step forward was the creation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2000 at the Nice European Council, bringing together in a single text the civil, political, economic, social, and social rights previously expressed in various international, European, and national sources. This culminated in the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009, enshrining these rights in European law.
Thus, the EU, through its foreign policy, aims to ensure that its Member States (MS) respect human rights as a condition for integration into and remaining in the EU. One of the main tools used by the EU to implement human rights within each new MS is the so-called “Copenhagen Criteria,” which identifies the main criteria that must be met to allow new states to join the Union. These criteria include the requirement for the stability of state institutions that guarantee democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities.
In this context of integrating new MS, the EU seeks to achieve internal legislative standardization among all of them in accordance with European standards.
The latest country to join the EU was Croatia, the only western Balkan state that is part of the EU, while the remaining states in this region have the status of candidate states, including Albania, and others still have the status of potential candidate states, in the case of Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Having established this framework, the aim is to carry out an analysis of Albania’s application for EU membership, from 2009 to 2019, with regard to the implementation of internal legislation that promotes human rights, while simultaneously assessing the role played by the European Commission during the mandates of Durão Barroso and Claude Juncker as presidents of this institution, which were in force during that period. An evolutionary and comparative perspective of these two mandates is presented, with the aim of drawing conclusions regarding the impacts that EU foreign policy has had on Albania as a strategy for the promotion of human rights in that State.
The use of available primary sources such as official documents issued by the European Commission during the period under study will assess the evolution of this process within the scope of human rights. Additionally, secondary sources will be used for analysis and research in order to draw conclusions from other authors on the state of Albania’s EU accession process at the end of Juncker’s term as President of the European Commission, as well as on the topic of EU foreign policy and the theory of neofunctionalism, which will help in understanding the EU’s behavior regarding European enlargement policy as well as the behavior of third states with aspirations to integrate it and thus design the scope of research aimed at the promotion of human rights by the EU in Albania.
2. The EU Foreign Policy
The European Union defines its foreign policy as the strategy found to resolve conflicts and promote international understanding, based on diplomacy and respect for international rules.
This foreign policy, which is often associated with the expression “European security”, seeks to preserve peace, strengthen international security, promote international cooperation, develop and consolidate democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. In its foreign policy strategy, the EU seeks to achieve some of its objectives through tools aimed at third states, such as the promotion and consolidation of democracy and the promotion and implementation of human rights. The EU, by maintaining partnerships with key global players, including emerging powers and regional groups, seeks to ensure that these relationships are based on mutual interests and benefits that lead them in return to adopt measures that meet the demands invoked by the EU.
One of the tools the EU has most frequently used and directed at states on the European continent is the Enlargement Policy (EP). It aims to integrate a non-EU European state through the use of economic instruments that ultimately motivate the third state to join the organization, but aiming for internal political transformation in line with EU standards.
However, when discussing EU foreign policy, it is important to emphasize that the way in which its actions are defined is preceded by decisions by its member states in the Council of the European Union, which discuss and vote on these same actions. This can, in some ways, inhibit the EU as a whole from pursuing its external objectives. However, EU foreign policy would not be entirely at the mercy of the member states.
The 2009 Treaty of Lisbon created the European External Action Service (EEAS), under the authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy – replacing the High Representative for the CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy), now with broader functions. The High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy is now also the Vice-President of the European Commission. The High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy is the senior figure in the EEAS who, in practice, implements the CFSP envisioned by the Council. Indeed, it is the Council that identifies the EU’s strategic interests, determines its objectives, and lays down the general lines of the CFSP, a fact that demonstrates the legacy and dominant intergovernmental logic in this area. The Council of the EU (which the High Representative chairs, in its form as the Council of Foreign Ministers) takes these guidelines into account for the effective implementation of the CFSP.
Thus, the Treaty of Lisbon is a manifestation of the gradual process of integrating the foreign affairs, defense, and security policies of the member states. The EU sought to achieve greater coherence and unity in its actions in this area, and this objective was pursued in five areas: granting the Union legal personality, allowing it to represent the bloc externally and conclude agreements with third countries and international organizations; institutionalizing the European Council; creating the position of permanent President of the institution, which aims to provide greater continuity to the bloc’s external action, in contrast to the natural changes caused by rotating presidencies and their priorities; creating the role of High Representative, which unifies the CFSP and gives it hierarchical status while increasing its scope for intervention; and mitigating the unanimity rule in the decision-making process, which is replaced, in certain circumstances, by the qualified majority rule.
In short, it is clear that the EU is seeking to simplify its inter-institutional action, creating greater fluidity between the European Commission and the European Council, and reinvigorating its way of acting with the intention of providing greater coherence in its actions as an organization.
3. Neofunctionalism as the EU Approach to Enlargement
One of the theories that advocates the basic principles of European integration processes is the theory of neofunctionalism, which aims to assess the viability of this theory in this case study on a practical level.
David Mitrany, the leading author of the functionalist theoretical movement, proposes a pragmatic model that breaks with the traditional link between authority and a defined territory, reflecting on the best instruments for bringing nations together peacefully. The concept of authority becomes linked to activities based on areas where there is consensus among participants in the integration process. Thus, sovereignty is delegated through functions that are exercised jointly. These functions are executed through international institutions, led by technical elites, in which the interests of each nation are gradually integrated.
Thus, functionalist theory assumes that cooperation is a response to economies of scale in the provision of goods. It further argues that the only viable way to circumvent state sovereignty is by transferring specific state functions to specialized international agencies. It is on this basis that neofunctionalism emerges, highlighting Ernest B. Haas’s neofunctional theory, designed to explain integration processes, particularly European integration. Haas argues that integration is a process in which national political actors are persuaded to transfer their loyalties, expectations, and political activities—in essence, their sovereignty—to a new center, whose institutions have or demand jurisdiction beyond that of states (Haas, 1964). In his work, Haas identifies four basic motivations for achieving regional integration:
- desire to promote security in a given region by carrying out joint defense against a common threat;
- promote cooperation to achieve economic development and maximize well-being;
- interest of a stronger nation in wanting to control and direct the policies of its smaller allies, through persuasion, coercion or both;
- the common will to form the unification of national communities into a broader entity.
Following this idea, Haas stipulates that neofunctionalism developed the idea that government could be disaggregated into its component groups of actors. Rather than making assumptions about the interests of states, neofunctionalists conceptualize the state as an arena in which social actors operate to realize their interests. Thus, rather than explaining international politics as a game between states, neofunctionalists view international relations as the interaction of social actors. This freed neofunctionalists from the assumption that international relations are driven by the desire for state survival or economic gain. If groups within or between states believe that supranational institutions are more promising than national institutions in realizing their interests, the result will be regional integration.
Neofunctionalists identify a series of mutually reinforcing processes that lead to greater integration. These include the spillover effect between policies that are autonomous only in the short term; increasing reliance on non-state actors to implement such policies; a shift in citizens’ attachment to supranational institutions; and, as a result of each of these, a more intensive exploitation of the benefits of trade and, more broadly, of interdependence. Neofunctionalists pay close attention to how regional integration in one policy induces integration in other policies, either by opening new possibilities for cooperation or, more likely, by generating unforeseen problems that trigger further integration. They are particularly attentive to the dynamic effects that arise from supranational activism. Supranational actors project policy spillover as policy entrepreneurs negotiating agreements and co-opting national bureaucrats or interest group leaders.
Support for the integration process among economic and political elites was also considered very important. Indeed, this process was, in theory, facilitated by national interest groups operating in relevant economic sectors: benefiting from the integration process and the support of the High Authority (which later became the European Commission), they were tasked with lobbying their national governments to promote and deepen the European project. National elites would realize that some of the problems could not be effectively resolved at the domestic level and, therefore, would advocate for them to be addressed at the supranational level.
Neofunctionalism, however, predicts that the path to integration will be uneven. Crises may delay or even slow integration, but the guiding assumption is that, over time, policy spillover and supranational activism will produce an upward trend. The term “European integration” itself reflects the neofunctionalist premise that we are witnessing a process with a single direction.
The concept of functional spillover has been taken up by several authors who argue that EU foreign policy is increasingly intertwined with other policy areas, so integration in traditional policy areas may require greater integration into the Union’s external policies. A good example is the customs union, which was directly linked to trade policy and development policy, as access to the Community/Union market could only be decided jointly.
Ultimately, the aim of this theoretical view of neofunctionalism is to understand the motivations of both parties in cooperating, encompassing a set of areas of interest that, while not necessarily identical, nevertheless complement each other. The EU, on the one hand, by bringing in more states originating from the defragmentation of Yugoslavia following the Balkan War through economic cooperation, seeks above all to make them less prone to conflict and thus preserve security and peace near its borders. With enlargement, it includes them even within its borders, facilitating a swift response to any disruption to peace and security in these states following their accession to the EU. On the other hand, the MS seeks, through this process, to achieve greater economic strength that will propel it toward a significant improvement in the well-being of its population as a whole, thereby becoming economically stronger.
Through this economic and security symbiosis, the EU also seizes the opportunity to raise the ideal standards in the field of human rights required of new EU members throughout the application process. In light of neofunctionalist theory, the EU expects one of the spillover effects to occur in the field of human rights in candidate states for EU accession. To this end, diagnostic and evaluation reports are prepared, which the EU presents to potential candidates, outlining the current framework on fundamental rights in those states and what needs to be improved. Year after year, the same states are evaluated according to EU-defined criteria, simultaneously with the main area of interest: economics.
However, some authors argue that the spillover effect is not entirely plausible and could be interrupted, which would lead to a setback, an interruption, or even a reversal in integration with serious consequences for the integration process. Shared basic values, a certain degree of homogeneity in political, social, and economic development levels, a network of transactions, comparable decision-making processes, and compatibility of expectations are necessary for integration to occur through the spillover effect, as Groom points out in his work “Neofunctionalism: A Case of Mistaken Identity.”
4. The EU, an International Organization for the Promotion of Human Rights
The EU is a unique organization in that its Member States have created common institutions to which they delegate some of their sovereignty so that decisions on specific issues of common interest can be taken democratically at European level, which deepens the integration of the Member States into the EU.
Although the Treaty on the European Community (TEC), a law that consolidates the treaties between 1952 and 1957, originally did not contain any human rights clauses, as these were considered within the framework of the Council of Europe, the EU has long been committed to human rights to prevent repetitions of the atrocities committed in the Second World War.
The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon abolished the Three Pillars structure and reformed the distribution of competences between the Union and the Member States. The treaty also granted the Union legal personality, allowing it to conclude international agreements and act more coherently on the international stage.
In the EU, the five most important institutions that play a role in shaping human rights policy are: the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Court of Justice. The Fundamental Rights Agency is responsible for providing the institutions and competent authorities of the Union and its Member States with assistance and expertise on fundamental rights, to support them in taking measures or formulating courses of action on human rights issues. The European Ombudsman oversees the Union’s administration.
The protection of human rights is, first and foremost, a concern of each Member State. That is, these signatory states to the various treaties have primary obligations under international law to protect and promote human rights. They are directly accountable for these obligations and comply with international oversight mechanisms. However, the EU has agreed to act jointly on certain specific human rights issues, including combating racism and discrimination. The set of rights that form the concept of human rights are, in fact, ideas that defend respect and human dignity and recognize individuals equally.
Infected by this entrepreneurial wave regarding respect for human rights, Europe established the European Court of Human Rights as its interpreter in contentious issues arising from the States that make up the Council of Europe.
The EU also created its own human rights instrument in 2000, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which consolidates and enshrines the broad range of rights granted to EU citizens. However, it only became legally binding with the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009. This was a crucial step in deepening the integration of the member states, as European legislation thus takes precedence over the national law of each EU member state, that is, it prevails over their domestic laws. Indeed, this document encompasses all rights found in the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, the rights and freedoms enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, and other rights and principles arising from the common constitutional traditions of the EU countries and other international instruments.
In promoting human rights, the role of the European Commission stands out. It is the guardian of the EC/EU Treaties and negotiator of external agreements, mandated by the Council. Its members, although appointed by the Member States, perform their duties independently of them, as they are responsible for representing and promoting the Union’s interests. The Commission actively participates in international conferences and the work of international organizations, thus contributing, for example, to the promotion of universal human rights principles. It does so, for example, by integrating human rights into economic and trade relations and through the integration of human rights into development cooperation relations. It also represents the EU externally, for example, by conducting dialogue and participating in démarches on human rights issues with third countries, and manages support for numerous human rights projects specifically aimed at promoting human rights or assisting victims of human rights violations in third countries.
Thus, the importance of the European Commission in the promotion of human rights becomes quite clear, but it remains to be seen to what extent it is allowed to act and whether it has the necessary strength to make its voice heard, as ultimately, it is up to the European Council to have the final say.
5. Albania’s EU Application Process
With the end of the Cold War, the Balkan region has since sought to refocus its political and social activities, seeing the EU as an opportunity to offer general well-being to its populations, exhausted by the wars that occurred in that region throughout the 1990s. Note that in the specific case of Albania, it has also never experienced democratic regimes, subjugated to the Ottoman regime for half a millennium, and again subjugated to an ideology contrary to democratic principles—the communist regime—five decades later. But with a certain regional stabilization since the beginning of the 21st century, Albania has since sought to align itself with European standards. The EU agreed on the Stabilization and Association Process (SAP) with the Western Balkan countries in 1999, which provided a framework for European integration for Albania and other Western Balkan countries. Conditionality was established to encourage reforms in the field of human rights, among other areas.
With this process, both the EU and Albania and the other Western Balkan states have paved the way for a long negotiation process that meets the requirements demanded by the EU and at the same time does not excessively reduce the sovereignty of these States with a view to their integration and incorporation into the EU, an Organization with suis generis characteristics.
The use of this EU foreign policy instrument is based on bilateral contractual relations, financial assistance, political dialogue, trade relations, and regional cooperation. These contractual relations take the form of Stabilization and Association Agreements (SAAs). These agreements provide for political and economic cooperation, as well as the creation of free trade zones with interested countries. Based on common democratic principles, human rights, and the rule of law, each SAA establishes permanent cooperation structures.
In 2003, Albania was classified as a potential candidate for EU membership, and six years later, in 2009, it submitted its application for EU membership. The European Commission issued its opinion, which resulted in a set of recommendations to the candidate country aimed at achieving the necessary level of compliance with the accession criteria and, in particular, the twelve main priorities identified in the opinion, including those in the field of human rights. Although the European Commission states that “human rights are broadly respected in Albania” (Commission Opinion on Albania’s application for membership of the European Union, 2010), it specifically mentions in its opinion the areas in which human rights are substantially lacking, particularly regarding the Romani minorities and the failures in preventing and resolving issues related to domestic violence. Thus, the opinion concludes with a set of recommendations for Albania to adopt to enable its application to be accepted.
It is in this format of internal adjustments, under the advice of the European Commission, that the application process evolved, to the point where in 2012 it received the green light from the Commission for the next step, which would be carried out two years later with the granting of candidate country status by the Council in June 2014.
However, Albania would have to wait another five years to begin negotiations with the EU, following an unconditional recommendation from the European Commission the previous year, but conditional on progress being made in key areas such as the judicial system, the fight against corruption and organized crime, intelligence services, and public administration. In 2019, the Commission reiterated its recommendation to open accession talks in the Enlargement Package adopted in May 2019.
This long wait may in some way lead Albania to envision new forms of partnership with other significant state actors, such as China, which does not impose such comprehensive and detailed conditions as the EU. Obviously, the depth of the partnership does not resemble that of the EU, which goes far beyond trade and economics. However, it is quite plausible that this will gradually occur and cause a genuine lack of interest in joining the EU, not only among the political elite but also among civil society in general. China, led by Xi Jinping, is less ideologically constrained in its partnerships, and is already an economic partner in some sense, but one that the Albanian government has adopted with considerable caution: its Prime Minister, Edi Rama, has warned the EU not to be careless and “leave space for other countries to fill,” such as Russia, China, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and even radical Islamic states. Despite this, the importance given by the EU is clear, considering it a “safe zone”.
From the EU’s perspective, its credibility is beginning to suffer significantly, as despite recommendations from the European Commission and the European Parliament giving the green light to proceed negotiations with Albania, these are succumbing to the opposing will of some states within the European Council, which ultimately decide the fate of EU accessions. France, Denmark, and the Netherlands are some of the countries that are currently blocking Albania from joining the EU, despite the country having been praised for its efforts to combat corruption, which is part of the measures undertaken to reform its judicial system.
More than a loss of credibility for the EU as a whole, it is the loss of relevance for the European Commission in the context of important decisions to be taken by the European Council. This is because the European Commission was clear in its official communiqué to the European Council and other institutions, entitled “credible enlargement and greater EU engagement with the Western Balkans,” that Albania, together with North Macedonia, would be ready to be invited to open EU accession negotiations. The title itself is, in fact, a call to the EU itself not to disconnect from the Western Balkans and, more than that, an instructive guide on each of the Balkan states covered in this document. Seeing that this was, in some way, ignored by the European Council, is something incongruent with the EU’s structure and a possible source of demotivation and disinterest in Albania’s potential EU membership.
6. Human Rights in Albania Between 2009 and 2019
6.1 European Commission under President José Manuel Barroso
Albania submitted its application for EU membership in 2009, during Durão Barroso’s presidency of the European Commission, and over the following decade, the Commission issued reports containing information that noted Albania’s progress in meeting the EU’s membership criteria.
The first report produced by the European Commission after the announcement of Albania’s candidacy in 2010 was an opinion, assessing Albania’s viability as an official candidate for EU membership. Albania suffered a setback right away, as the negative opinion immediately derailed Albania’s ambition to become an EU member. Despite this outcome, the European Commission highlighted areas in which Albania needed reform and made recommendations to put it back on the path to accession.
Regarding human rights, the Commission notes that there are “…some gaps in legislation and in the implementation of existing strategies and action plans. Awareness and sensitivity to human rights standards on the part of the administration, the judiciary, and law enforcement authorities need to be strengthened.” In this regard, the Commission notes that human rights legislation in general needs to be significantly improved to better protect and guarantee: family members suffering from domestic violence; individuals subjected to discriminatory acts, namely “Roma, people with disabilities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people,” among others; gender equality, particularly in the area of employment; and children, due to the lack of specific legislation to protect them.
The commission also highlights the necessary administrative reforms that will enable positive change in the field of human rights, including the urgent need to appoint a new Ombudsman and the reorganization of the responsibilities of judicial bodies to prevent overlapping of these responsibilities, “reaching a level of complexity that jeopardizes the effective enjoyment of human rights…” Another major concern is the detention conditions and treatment of people held in police stations, both in pre-trial detention and in prison. It also highlights the importance of the media, noting that it is “…put at risk due to the prevalence of political influences and commercial interests.”
Having identified the main points for improvement, at the end of the document the Commission makes recommendations regarding the protection of the Roma ethnic group, women and children, stating that it is necessary to strengthen the protection of human rights regarding these individuals and to effectively implement anti-discrimination policies, a reference to non-heterosexuals and people with disabilities.
These recommendations are somewhat vague and do not provide concrete solutions, but the opinion essentially helps identify problems, which then guides Albania’s internal political actors making the necessary improvements.
Subsequently, a year later, the European Commission, in a report covering the period from October 2010 to September 2011, reveals little enthusiasm, particularly due to the scant attention paid by Albanian decision-makers to the area of human rights, as almost everything remains unchanged, with the exception of the protection of children and women victims of domestic violence. Regarding these two groups, the Law on the Protection of Children’s Rights and the National Strategy for Gender Equality and Combating Domestic Violence were adopted, respectively. The European Commission also expresses great concern for the Roma minority, the LGBT community, and people with disabilities, and insists on more protective legislative adaptations that encompass all these groups. It again mentions the issue of pre-trial detainees, although regarding actual prisoners, it highlights some improvements in prison conditions.
Albania is currently far from meeting the European Commission’s proposed human rights targets, and much progress will need to be made before it can achieve candidate status.
The following year, the Commission positively highlighted adherence to international human rights instruments by signing the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence in December 2011. However, this accession, as well as that of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, signed in December 2009, are pending ratification.
The Commission expresses concern regarding property rights and the right to a fair trial, something it has also mentioned since 2009. However, the focus of this analysis is primarily on vulnerable groups, such as women, children, the Romani minority, and the LGBT community.
Regarding children, the problem lies in the applicability of laws created to protect them, which cannot be fully implemented due to a scarcity of resources, primarily from private donors, and poor coordination between the central and local governments on this issue. Concerns remain regarding begging and child labor.
Two action plans are being drawn up to combat domestic violence and discrimination against the LGBT community, but nothing has progressed regarding these two groups.
Very limited progress has been made regarding Roma inclusion. The government has approved administrative decisions to facilitate birth registration procedures; however, there remains insufficient coordination between the various institutions involved in birth registration. Roma have benefited from the distribution of free textbooks for compulsory education, but financial constraints lead to high school dropout rates and low enrollment of Roma children in preschool. Implementation of the national strategy to improve Roma living conditions, the national action plan for the Roma Decade, and the operational conclusions of the December 2011 seminar on the inclusion of Roma and Egyptian communities in Albania’s EU integration framework remains very slow, due to inadequate resources and insufficient coordination between the institutions involved at the local and central levels.
The European Commission concludes in its report that there has been only moderate progress regarding human rights and highlights the importance of civil society and donors, who support human rights policies and that the Albanian State must prioritize them to ensure their sustainability.
As can be seen, despite Albania’s intention to join the EU and advance its candidacy, and knowing the demands of the Copenhagen criteria, it has shown little effort in the area of human rights, although it has shown some improvements in this area and shows intentions to improve in the future with the various Action Plan projects.
Despite this, the Commission announces what Albania most longed for: its recommendation for candidate status, albeit subject to the completion of essential measures in the areas of judicial and public administration reform and the review of parliamentary procedural rules. What emerges from this is the Commission’s limited importance given to human rights issues, although some human rights issues may underlie the judicial area, which still fails to encompass all of Albania’s ongoing failures in protecting the most vulnerable groups.
In the following report, which analyzes the period between October 2012 and September 2013, the most evident change is the introduction of several laws in the area of criminal law, particularly regarding the classification of offenses against individuals from the LGBTI community, individuals with disabilities, and offenses against Roma minorities. Rape and sexual violence within marriage were also considered crimes. The same happened with regard to children’s rights, with changes being implemented in criminal law stipulating that possession of child pornography and child trafficking would be criminally punishable.
Another important step was Albania’s ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence.
With these small steps, Albania is gradually intensifying human rights protection within its state, and thanks to this, combined with progress on the other parameters required by the EU, it has finally achieved EU candidate status. However, from now on, the road to the start of more direct negotiations with the EU will also be long, as, alongside the European Council’s announcement that Albania would become a candidate state, it is noted that Albania still faces challenges, one of which is in the field of human rights, namely the implementation of effective measures to strengthen the protection of Roma rights and anti-discrimination policies.
A normal warning from the body that decides whether a state should join the EU. But the change in the presidency of the European Commission in 2014, to Claude Juncker, would discourage all applications after the announcement that no further accessions would occur in the following five years in the speech given to the European Parliament after taking office as president of the European Commission.
6.2 European Commission under the presidency of Claude Juncker
With the new president’s inauguration, he claims he no longer seeks membership, but rather a deeper understanding of the EU’s internal relations (both institutions and Member States). This does not imply a discontinuation of its enlargement policy, but it clearly sends the wrong signal to the candidate states.
In the report prepared by the Commission that assessed the period from October 2013 to September 2014, still under the presidency of Durão Barroso, several improvements were made regarding the protection of women victims of violence, with the creation of an online portal for reporting and monitoring cases of gender-based violence increasing the number of reports in cases of serious offenses and domestic violence.
After the change of government in 2013, what followed saw a quantitative increase in the participation of women in the new government, with six out of nineteen positions, an increase of 17%, although the 30% quota of women in political parties has not yet been reached.
Regarding children, civil society involvement has helped increase child protection, and a resolution on children’s rights was adopted, with general principles and objectives and a one-year action plan. Regular hearings on children’s rights were held with civil society organizations. Civil society organizations provided training for child protection units.
With regard to people with disabilities and socially vulnerable people, legislation on the inclusion and accessibility of people with disabilities was approved in July, covering all groups of people with disabilities.
Regarding the rights of LGBT people, cooperation between government agencies and civil society organizations has strengthened, as reflected in the celebration of the International Day Against Homophobia in the capital, Tirana. The report also states that no homophobic rhetoric was evident among political actors.
Despite some progress in recent years, the Roma and Egyptian minorities still face severe constraints, particularly in access to housing, but also in access to the public health system, education, and social protection. This is what the Commission states in this area, although it concludes that regarding respect for fundamental rights, some progress has been made.
The subsequent report, between October 2014 and September 2015, shows no significant progress, which can be interpreted as stagnation in the area of human rights and fundamental rights. The same unresolved issues mentioned in the previous report remain, and worse still, it fails to mention significant changes in the legal framework that would strengthen human rights protection, despite stating that interethnic relations remain “good.”
2016 follows, and there is little new to add, other than the implementation of an action plan that had been designed years before, in defense of members of the LGBT community and with modifications also to the labor code aimed at protecting these individuals.
That same year, the European Commission produced a document summarizing the situation of each country that applied for membership, whether candidates or potential candidates. Regarding Albania, while recommending greater efforts by this country to protect human rights, particularly the Roma minority, it recommended that negotiations be opened for Albania’s accession to the EU, largely due to the constitutional changes made in July 2016, launching a process of profound reform of the judicial system. The Commission also states that “…fundamental rights continue to be widely respected in the country.” This is undoubtedly excellent news for Albania, despite knowing that accession will not occur until at least 2019, as Claude Juncker said.
From then until 2019, there were generally no significant developments in the field of human rights in Albania. The most notable is the stipulation of a 5% quota of social housing for vulnerable members of the Roma and Egyptian minorities following the Albanian parliament’s approval of the Social Housing Law, which prevents forced evictions. Juncker’s presidency, however, ended in 2019, without Albania having started accession negotiations, despite the recommendation made three years earlier and repeated in 2018.
7. Conclusion
In a very brief conclusion, it would be said that Albania has improved its standards of human rights protection within its territory, but still insufficiently, almost stagnating even since Juncker’s presidency. This is the most obvious idea that emerges after analyzing the European Commission’s multiple reports.
However, upon closer analysis, and in light of the neofunctionalism that underpins this research, some positive aspects can be observed in this expansion process. There was significant attention paid to the Roma minority, children, the LGBTI community and women due to gender inequality and their vulnerability in the context of domestic violence. Moreover, during the years following its candidacy, Albania signed several human rights treaties, although they were only ratified a few years later. It made several legal changes aimed at greater protection for women in cases of violence in general and the creation of mechanisms to facilitate reporting.
Children were also the focus of attention, and Albania was alerted to the need for legal revisions. These revisions ensured greater legal protection for children, but still had gaps to fill in the operational plan due to a lack of material and financial resources. The same was true for ethnic minorities and members of the LGBT community, as their legislation specifically included various forms of offenses against these individuals.
Several action plans were designed and subsequently put into practice, but very gradually, taking years for the plans to be implemented.
One thing to be welcomed was the change in mindset among political leaders, not only in their support for the introduction of stronger legal provisions within the framework of human rights, but also in their individual behavior, whose actions have repercussions. This led the Commission to highlight in one of its reports that speeches at various levels were made without derogatory references to members of the LGBT community. This is a small example of a spillover element in the area of political ethics that arose due to the necessary transformations required by the EU for Albania’s accession.
The question is, if there were no EU-imposed conditionality for Albania’s accession, would the EU’s soft power alone (the power of persuasion and non-coercive co-optation), without the pre-existing benefit of a defined benefit, be sufficient for such significant transformations as the European Neighborhood Policy? This is one of the other tools used by the EU in its foreign policy strategy.
It is not known, since the “carrot and stick” were already there (EU membership), but it is possible to find a parallel between this issue and Claude Juncker’s speech when he announced that the possibility of any membership would be ruled out until the end of his first and only term in office, that is, until the end of 2019. And there, as was seen in the previous sub-chapter, Albania has not shown much commitment to making much further progress since 2014 with regard to human rights.
The most relevant thing during Juncker’s presidency came not from Albania, but from the European Commission itself, which recommended opening negotiations for Albania’s accession.
Even so, the demoralization was notable in Albania given the lack of progress in the HR framework since then, generating confusion regarding the EU’s real commitment to the enlargement process, jeopardizing Albania’s previously established trust in European institutions, something that was not expected within the neofunctional theoretical framework.
The EU’s impact, however, is substantial. Albania was a target of the Union’s foreign policy even before its EU candidacy, with the SAP being one of the first agreements signed between these two entities. Focusing on the issue of human rights, several milestones in Albanian domestic policy stood out, increasing the protection of these rights in Albanian territory, always under the supervision of the European Commission, which examined each parameter in detail and developed a set of recommendations for developments in this area throughout the period under study. The impact was so great that it even led to the amendment of the Albanian Constitution to pave the way for the necessary legal reforms in its various legal instruments.
Regarding the evaluation of the enlargement policy on human rights, it is understood that it does not make the most of this tool for promoting human rights. Despite the various shortcomings consistently mentioned and repeated in the annual reports, it has not been shown to impede progress in the enlargement process, as seen with the European Commission’s 2016 recommendation to begin accession negotiations. Significant progress may have been made in the economic criteria that would have enabled this, but that was not the topic under discussion here. However, regarding the standards required by the EU regarding human rights, it is considered that they fall short of these same requirements.
In short, the integration process is underway, with some significant changes to the reality of the Albanian state. However, it cannot be definitively stated that the spillover effect has occurred in terms of the incorporation of stricter measures in its domestic legislation to defend human rights, comparable to those envisioned by the EU. It is notoriously a very complex process, and in practice, the spillover effect, in this case, did not materialize over the ten years under study, but we can perhaps speak of fragments of a single spillover that is expected to occur in its entirety in the future.
Despite this, two of the four basic motivations for achieving regional integration, listed in neofunctionalist theory and argued by Haas, seem quite clear: the verification of significant cooperation between the EU and Albania that will boost Albania’s economic development and general well-being; and the security importance of achieving Albania’s integration into the EU, as this will strengthen regional security in this geographical area, which is characterized by considerable geopolitical instability, such as the Balkans, especially since the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Perhaps with the carrot and stick (i.e., EU membership) back in sight following the end of Claude Juncker’s term at the end of 2019, more evident progress in the area of human rights can be expected in Albania, but this will also require a government more committed to an ideological stance in the defense of human rights. But for Albania, what remains clear is that ultimately its accession to the EU is substantially dependent on the political will of each Member State within the European Council, no matter how much effort it makes.
References
Beach, Derek (2015). Liberal international relations theory and EU foreign policy. Jorgensen, Knud Erik (Ed.). Aarstad, Asne Kalland (Ed.), Drieskens, Edith (Ed.), Laatikainen, Katie (Ed.) & Tonra, Bem (Ed.) (2015), European foreign policy (pp. 86-90). Sage Publications Ltd.
Bergmann, Julian & Niemann, Arne. (2015). Theories of European Integration. Jorgensen, Knud Erik (Ed.). Aarstad, Asne Kalland (Ed.), Drieskens, Edith (Ed.), Laatikainen, Katie (Ed.) & Tonra, Bem (Ed.) (2015), European foreign policy (pp. 169-171). Sage Publications Ltd.
Blockmans, Steven. (2014). Priorities for the Next Legislature: EU external action. CEPS Commentary, 29 September 2014.
Brady, Anne-Marie & Higashi, Hiromichi (2019). Are we real friends? Albania-China relations in the Xi Era. Sinopsis, research website.
Brenna, O’John & Gassie, Esmeralda, (2009). From stabilization to consolidation: Albanian state capacity and adaptation to European Union rules. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, Volume 11, Number 1.
Costa, Olivier (2020). The European Union and its foreign policy: History, institutions and decision-making process, pp. 73, 171-202. College of Europe.
European Commission (2010). COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL: Commission opinion on Albania’s application for membership of the European Union, 09 November.
European Commission (2011). Albania progress report, 2011 – COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL: Enlargement strategy and main challenges 2011-2012, pp. 14-21, 51-55, 12 October.
European Commission (2012). Albania progress report, 2012 – COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL: Enlargement strategy and main challenges 2012-2013, pp. 16-23, 52-55, 10 October.
European Commission (2013). Albania progress report, 2013 – COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL: Enlargement strategy and main challenges 2013-2014, pp. 10-12, 41-46, 16 October.
European Commission (2014). Albania progress report, 2014 – COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL: Enlargement strategy and main challenges 2014-2015, pp. 13-14, 45-51, 08 October.
European Commission (2015). Albania report, 2015 – COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS: EU Enlargement strategy 2015-2016, pp. 20-21, 56-61, 10 November.
European Commission (2016). Albania report, 2016 – Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: 2016 Communication on EU Enlargement Policy, pp. 21-23, 63-68, 09 November.
European Commission (2016). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: 2016 Communication on EU Enlargement Policy, pp. 12, 24-26, 09 November.
European Commission (2018). Albania 2018 report – Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: 2018 Communication on EU Enlargement Policy, pp. 25-30, 17 April.
European Commission (2018). A credible enlargement perspective for and enhanced EU engagement with the Western Balkans, Communication COM 65 final of 6.2.2018.
European Commission (2018). INSTRUMENT FOR PRE-ACCESSION ASSISTANCE (IPA II): REVISED INDICATIVE STRATEGY PAPER FOR ALBANIA (2014-2020) ADOPTED ON 03/08/2018, pp, 26-31, 03 August.
European Commission (2019). Albania 2019 report – Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: 2019 Communication on EU Enlargement Policy, pp. 14, 22-23, 29 May.
Lanoo, Karel (2014). The Juncker Commission: A bold bid to restore the College. CEPS Commentary, 11 September 2014.
Liesbet Hooghe & Gary Marks (2019). Grand theories of European integration in the twenty-first century. Journal of European Public Policy, 26:8, 1113-1133.
Macmillan, Catherine (2008). The application of Neo (Neo) Functionalist theory to justice and home affairs. Marmara Journal of European Studies, Volume 16, Number 1-2.
Mariano, KLP (2015). Appendix: Globalization, regionalism and theories of regional integration. In: Regionalism in South America: a new framework of analysis and the experience of Mercosur, pp. 205-272. Editora UNESP.
Madhi, Gentiola (2019). Western Balkans, struggling to meet EU criteria. Observatorio balcani e caucaso transeuropa, research website.
Panagiotou, Ritsa (2011). Albania and the EU: from isolation to integration. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 13(3), 357-374.
Rosamond, B. (2005). The Uniting of Europe and the Foundation of EU Studies: Revisiting the Neofunctionalism of Ernst B. Haas. The University of Warmick.
Smith, Karen E. (2014). European Union foreign policy: In a changing world. Polity Press, pp. 95-121.
Wolfgang, Benedek (2021). The Human Rights Policy of the EU towards West Balkan Enlargement States – problems of credibility and coherence. Verlag, Jan Sramek (Ed.) Außen- und sicherheitspolitische Integration im Europäischen Rechtsraum, Festschrift für Hubert Isak. (pp.263 – 280).
