EU ACCESSION EXPERIENCE AND PERSPECTIVES: THE CASE OF SLOVAKIA AND BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

On 1 May 2019 the European Union marked 15 years since the gradual launch of its (South-) Eastern enlargement oriented on Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe as well as Mediterranean states. SCHIMMELFENNIG [5: 186-188] reminds us that “in early 1990, the EC [as a predecessor of the European Union encompassing twelve members – authors’ remark] proposed to conclude association agreements without referring to, let alone promising, future membership. [...] Furthermore, the EC as a whole, and some of the reticent members in particular, used diverse delaying tactics to deflect the CEECs’ [Central and Eastern European countries’ – authors’ remark] demands for full membership. On the one hand, they were offered alternative arrangements like French President Mitterrand’s “European Confederation” or Prime Minister Balladur’s “Stability Pact” for Europe as well as several ideas of “membership light” (that is, excluding the more cost-intensive Community policies). On the other hand, the urgency of other issues (such as the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty on European Union or accession negotiations with the EFTAns [additional European Free Trade Association aspirants for the EFTAn enlargement, having “reversed their initial decision to stay out of the common market” [6: 186] – authors’ remark]) has often provided a welcome opportunity to place the issue of Eastern enlargement at the end of the agenda”. Recently, “urgency of issues” could be linked to the post-crisis Roadmap for a More United, Stronger and more Democratic Union targeting the European Union’s (EU) democratic, institutional and policy framework, or the pending withdrawal [alias Brexit] negotiations with the United Kingdom; yet, in February 2018 the European Commission “reaffirmed the firm, merit-based prospect of EU membership for the Western Balkans in its Communication A credible enlargement perspective for and enhanced EU engagement with the Western Balkans” [7: 1]. EU enlargement symbolises a multidimensional “Europeanisation” process due to the spectrum of (frequently mutually incompatible) interests (that are subject to modification in the course of time) of a number of actors, as BAUEROVÁ [8: 204] puts it. In our article titled Visegrad meets Visegrad: the Visegrad Four and the Western Balkans Six (2015) we claimed that enlargement of the EU over the recent decade has not just expanded its territory or increased the headcount of its Single Market; by almost doubling the number of its members the Union faces multifaceted implications beyond any doubt. The CEECs, having been challenged by multiple transformation, assumed their rights just like * This paper results from: scientific research conducted at the University of Economics in Bratislava in the framework of the KEGA project No. 002EU-4/2015 (Department of International Trade, Faculty of Commerce of the University of Economics in Bratislava), the VEGA research project No. 1/0654/16 (Institute of Economics and Management, University of Economics in Bratislava) and the VEGA research project No. 1/0812/19 (Institute of Economics and Management, University of Economics in Bratislava); chapters: [1] [2] as well as an earlier chapter [3]; and is linked to the Ph.D. thesis titled Reflection of V4 Interests in the Context of V4 Presidencies in the Enlarging and Reforming European Union as a Prerequisite for Agenda-shaping in terms of the Netherlands – Slovakia – Malta (2016 – 2017) Presidency Troïka, successfully defended by PhD. Dubravka Kovačević in 2019 and supervised by Assoc. Prof. PhD. Denisa Čiderová, as well as the Master thesis [4] successfully defended by Ms. Beata Fejesová in 2013 and supervised by Assoc. Prof. PhD. Denisa Čiderová. 1 University of Economics in Bratislava, Faculty of Commerce, Dolnozemská cesta 1, 852 35 Bratislava, Slovak Republic 2 University of Economics in Bratislava, Faculty of Commerce, Dolnozemská cesta 1, 852 35 Bratislava, Slovak Republic ERAZ 2019 Conference Proceedings 246 obligations associated with EU membership upon completion of transitional periods intended to allow for as much a smooth integration process as possible; EU accession reinforced their prestige internationally to the extent of intensity of their participation. Bearing in mind that the process of Europeanisation (alias “EU-isation”) could be EU-driven or domestically-driven [9: 8-9], our focus will be on the EU accession experience and perspectives in the case of the (among the Visegrad Group countries most integrated) Slovak Republic, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, respectively, in the light of the 2019 Communication on EU Enlargement Policy released on 29 May 2019.