欧盟成员国之争

IF 0.4 Q3 AREA STUDIES SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE Pub Date : 2022-05-03 DOI:10.30965/18763332-46010002
G. Dimitrov, K. Haralampiev
{"title":"欧盟成员国之争","authors":"G. Dimitrov, K. Haralampiev","doi":"10.30965/18763332-46010002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nIn 2020, the European Commission proposed a new framework of the EU’s enlargement policy, justified by the deficiencies of the Bulgarian and Romanian EU membership. This article provides empirical evidence from the accession negotiation process that Bulgaria and Romania didn’t belong to a common group, separated from the other post-communist societies, which joined the EU in 2004. Our analysis identified several patterns of accession, distinguished by the number of negotiation chapters closed and the pace at which that was accomplished, which are counter-intuitive. They all fall under the rule: exceptional final outcomes are achieved by countries, which accelerated to the greatest extent. The acceleration matters a lot but it didn’t count in the Fifth enlargement. This ought to be remedied in the case of the Western Balkan, since any discrepancy between a country’s performance and its political evaluation hampers the credibility of EU accession, which in turn diminishes pro-European efforts.","PeriodicalId":43126,"journal":{"name":"SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Race to EU Membership\",\"authors\":\"G. Dimitrov, K. Haralampiev\",\"doi\":\"10.30965/18763332-46010002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nIn 2020, the European Commission proposed a new framework of the EU’s enlargement policy, justified by the deficiencies of the Bulgarian and Romanian EU membership. This article provides empirical evidence from the accession negotiation process that Bulgaria and Romania didn’t belong to a common group, separated from the other post-communist societies, which joined the EU in 2004. Our analysis identified several patterns of accession, distinguished by the number of negotiation chapters closed and the pace at which that was accomplished, which are counter-intuitive. They all fall under the rule: exceptional final outcomes are achieved by countries, which accelerated to the greatest extent. The acceleration matters a lot but it didn’t count in the Fifth enlargement. This ought to be remedied in the case of the Western Balkan, since any discrepancy between a country’s performance and its political evaluation hampers the credibility of EU accession, which in turn diminishes pro-European efforts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43126,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30965/18763332-46010002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30965/18763332-46010002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

2020年,欧盟委员会提出了一个新的欧盟扩大政策框架,理由是保加利亚和罗马尼亚欧盟成员国的不足。本文提供了加入谈判过程中的经验证据,证明保加利亚和罗马尼亚不属于一个共同的群体,与2004年加入欧盟的其他后共产主义社会分离。我们的分析确定了几种加入模式,其特点是结束谈判的章节数量和完成谈判的速度,这与直觉相悖。它们都属于规则的范畴:国家取得了非凡的最终成果,并在最大程度上加速了这一进程。加速很重要,但在第五次扩大中没有考虑到。就西巴尔干而言,这一点应该得到纠正,因为一个国家的表现与其政治评价之间的任何差异都会阻碍加入欧盟的可信度,而这反过来又会削弱亲欧的努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Race to EU Membership
In 2020, the European Commission proposed a new framework of the EU’s enlargement policy, justified by the deficiencies of the Bulgarian and Romanian EU membership. This article provides empirical evidence from the accession negotiation process that Bulgaria and Romania didn’t belong to a common group, separated from the other post-communist societies, which joined the EU in 2004. Our analysis identified several patterns of accession, distinguished by the number of negotiation chapters closed and the pace at which that was accomplished, which are counter-intuitive. They all fall under the rule: exceptional final outcomes are achieved by countries, which accelerated to the greatest extent. The acceleration matters a lot but it didn’t count in the Fifth enlargement. This ought to be remedied in the case of the Western Balkan, since any discrepancy between a country’s performance and its political evaluation hampers the credibility of EU accession, which in turn diminishes pro-European efforts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE
SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
Democratic Continuity or Regression?: Croatia’s Post-EU Political Trajectory The Land of Milk and Honey?: Young Croatians’ Identities and Perceptions as Drivers of Migration Desire Beyond Serb-Croat Apologies: Testing a Model of Political Reconciliation in Post-war Croatia “Don’t Dig in the Graveyard”: The Cultural Representations of the Homeland War in Croatia Political Modernization and Democratization in Croatia: Facilitating and Inhibiting Factors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1