Tweet
GRAHAM BUTLER: "DURING THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, THE UNION COULD VERY WELL SEE NO NEW MEMBER STATES JOINING"
October 16 2014
We spoke with Graham Butler, Ph.D. fellow, lecturer of EU International
Relations Law at the University of Copenhagen and Narine Ghazaryan,
Ph.D, Lecturer in Law at Brunel University about the issues of the
association and enlargemnet of the European Union, Eurasian union and
about the role and perspectives of Armenia in those processes. Question
- Mr. Butler, it is a widespread opinion that the EU Association
Agreements open a large prospect of accession to the EU for the signing
country. Is this really true? Do those agreements really provide for
such a legal possibility of accession to the Union?
And if yes, what perspectives do the former Soviet countries have?
Answer - An EU Association Agreement, legally speaking, is simply
just that - an association, with potential for future co-operation
between the signatories and the Union. However, Association Agreements
do not always lead to accession to the EU. The Union has Association
Agreements with countries such as Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia,
and Egypt amongst others, and none of which could be argued to hold
aspirations towards eventual EU membership. At the same time, since
the fifth enlargement in 2004 when ten new states joined the European
Union, all ten had association agreements in place beforehand. The
same scenario was true for the 2007 accession of Bulgaria and Romania,
followed in 2013 by Croatia. Former Soviet countries for historic
reasons still retain elements of integration with a bloc they were
formerly a part of. It is the people of Armenia to decide what the
best is for their future, and should not be given an ultimatum for
which 'side' they should take. Question - Nonetheless, it seems that
the process of the accession to the EU is rather a complicated one.
Even the states which have singed them become a member of the Union
after a long time. Is the reason for such a situation political
or legal? Answer - For a state to become a member of the European
Union is a long drawn-out process, mainly because the Union has
particular standards in a whole range of areas that new states must
adhere to before their accession is finally agreed. The Union's own
on-going failures over the single currency at present and in the past
permitting underequipped states such as Greece into the Union has
tightened eligibility criteria, with a willingness for patience in
future accessions. There are both political and legal considerations
which must be observed during the entire process to cater for a smooth
accession to the Union. Question - The EU Association Agreements
are a base for the enlargement of the Union. One may assume that,
nevertheless, there may be some limitations. What kind of legal
limitations are there in the process of the EU enlargement? Answer -
The main political obstruction for a state wanting to accede to the
European Union, but cannot, would be that either one or a number of
existing EU Member States would be adamantly opposed to that state
joining. For a new state to join the Union, absolute unanimity from
the existing twenty eight Member States would be required, with every
existing state holding a veto. From a legal perspective, a state could
not go from simply ratifying an association agreement to a Member
States within a few years - it would first have to become an official
'candidate country', which in turn would lead to the opening of areas
of negotiation that would need to meet EU standards, ranging in areas
from freedom of movements of persons, goods and capital, to consumer
protection, energy policy, and environmental standards. The incoming
President of the European Commission who is set to take office later
this year has indicated already that during the next five years,
the Union could very well see no new Member States joining. Even if
Armenia were to take only baby-steps on having closer ties with the
European Union, it would be a long period of time before candidate
status or even accession would be a serious topic of discussion. N.
Ghazaryan: "In case of Armenia the Eurasian economic integration was
intensified to counterbalance or even prevent the European initiatives"
Question - Armenia is going to sign the agreement of accession to the
Eurasian Customs Union on October 10. Recently rather often an opinion
was being circulated that in case of signing the Association Agreement
it would not be possible to become a member of the Eurasian Customs
Union. What is your opinion regarding this process? Do you think that
there is really such a contradiction between the provisions of the
legal acts of two unions? And if yes, what contradiction? Answer -As
such it is not a matter of contradiction between the provisions of
the Association agreement and any other document that would be signed
for Eurasian integration. But rather it is a question of whether trade
cooperation on par with the DCFTA that was promised to Armenia would
have been possible between the EU and the Eurasian Customs Union. Up
to today the EU prefers to deal with countries on a bilateral basis
so far as trade deals are concerned. Besides, even if the EU decides
to deal with the Eurasian Customs Union or the Economic Union as a
trading block, the latter will have to become a functioning legal
organisation, which does not seem to be the case in many respects. It
could be argued that if the Customs Union is based on the WTO rules
(Kazakhstan and Belarus had to accept Russia's WTO tariff obligations),
then in terms of regulatory framework this should be beneficial for
any future common cooperation.
However, it is not clear how the Customs Union will deal with Armenia
and Kyrgyzstan, already members of WTO: what will be their level of
commitment? In any case, the real issue was no so much about competing
or incompatible economic frameworks of cooperation, but rather one of
a choice between political projects. The Eurasian economic integration
was intensified to counterbalance or even prevent (as it proves to be
the case with Armenia) the European initiatives. Question - Will there
be any legal possibility after October 10 for Armenia to sign the EU
Association Agreement or not? Answer -Signing an Association Agreement
with the EU would have signified close and privileged links, perhaps
even with a possibility of accession. Although the latter wouldn't have
been acknowledged in the agreement itself, by qualifying the country as
'European' similar to the Georgian Association Agreement (qualified
as Eastern European), at least theoretically the accession would be
possible based on the language of Article 49 TEU. However, belonging
to Eurasian Economic Union makes any such possibilities redundant,
as it implies complying with a whole set of new rules as far as trade
cooperation is concerned. Most importantly however it implies belonging
to a different political club. Preventing the signature of the AA
with Armenia by Russia was exactly for the purpose of excluding such
possibility in the future (i.e. the possibility of offering Armenia
a special relationship with the EU). Legally speaking the type of AA
that was on offer would make no sense from the EU perspective: why
offer close and privileged links, when the country in question not
only cannot make independent choices, but already embarks on journey
of establishing another privileged relationship. The interviews were
conducted by Sose Mayilyan Student at the Master's programme of the
Faculty of Law of University of Copenhagen
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2014/10/16/167349/
October 16 2014
We spoke with Graham Butler, Ph.D. fellow, lecturer of EU International
Relations Law at the University of Copenhagen and Narine Ghazaryan,
Ph.D, Lecturer in Law at Brunel University about the issues of the
association and enlargemnet of the European Union, Eurasian union and
about the role and perspectives of Armenia in those processes. Question
- Mr. Butler, it is a widespread opinion that the EU Association
Agreements open a large prospect of accession to the EU for the signing
country. Is this really true? Do those agreements really provide for
such a legal possibility of accession to the Union?
And if yes, what perspectives do the former Soviet countries have?
Answer - An EU Association Agreement, legally speaking, is simply
just that - an association, with potential for future co-operation
between the signatories and the Union. However, Association Agreements
do not always lead to accession to the EU. The Union has Association
Agreements with countries such as Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia,
and Egypt amongst others, and none of which could be argued to hold
aspirations towards eventual EU membership. At the same time, since
the fifth enlargement in 2004 when ten new states joined the European
Union, all ten had association agreements in place beforehand. The
same scenario was true for the 2007 accession of Bulgaria and Romania,
followed in 2013 by Croatia. Former Soviet countries for historic
reasons still retain elements of integration with a bloc they were
formerly a part of. It is the people of Armenia to decide what the
best is for their future, and should not be given an ultimatum for
which 'side' they should take. Question - Nonetheless, it seems that
the process of the accession to the EU is rather a complicated one.
Even the states which have singed them become a member of the Union
after a long time. Is the reason for such a situation political
or legal? Answer - For a state to become a member of the European
Union is a long drawn-out process, mainly because the Union has
particular standards in a whole range of areas that new states must
adhere to before their accession is finally agreed. The Union's own
on-going failures over the single currency at present and in the past
permitting underequipped states such as Greece into the Union has
tightened eligibility criteria, with a willingness for patience in
future accessions. There are both political and legal considerations
which must be observed during the entire process to cater for a smooth
accession to the Union. Question - The EU Association Agreements
are a base for the enlargement of the Union. One may assume that,
nevertheless, there may be some limitations. What kind of legal
limitations are there in the process of the EU enlargement? Answer -
The main political obstruction for a state wanting to accede to the
European Union, but cannot, would be that either one or a number of
existing EU Member States would be adamantly opposed to that state
joining. For a new state to join the Union, absolute unanimity from
the existing twenty eight Member States would be required, with every
existing state holding a veto. From a legal perspective, a state could
not go from simply ratifying an association agreement to a Member
States within a few years - it would first have to become an official
'candidate country', which in turn would lead to the opening of areas
of negotiation that would need to meet EU standards, ranging in areas
from freedom of movements of persons, goods and capital, to consumer
protection, energy policy, and environmental standards. The incoming
President of the European Commission who is set to take office later
this year has indicated already that during the next five years,
the Union could very well see no new Member States joining. Even if
Armenia were to take only baby-steps on having closer ties with the
European Union, it would be a long period of time before candidate
status or even accession would be a serious topic of discussion. N.
Ghazaryan: "In case of Armenia the Eurasian economic integration was
intensified to counterbalance or even prevent the European initiatives"
Question - Armenia is going to sign the agreement of accession to the
Eurasian Customs Union on October 10. Recently rather often an opinion
was being circulated that in case of signing the Association Agreement
it would not be possible to become a member of the Eurasian Customs
Union. What is your opinion regarding this process? Do you think that
there is really such a contradiction between the provisions of the
legal acts of two unions? And if yes, what contradiction? Answer -As
such it is not a matter of contradiction between the provisions of
the Association agreement and any other document that would be signed
for Eurasian integration. But rather it is a question of whether trade
cooperation on par with the DCFTA that was promised to Armenia would
have been possible between the EU and the Eurasian Customs Union. Up
to today the EU prefers to deal with countries on a bilateral basis
so far as trade deals are concerned. Besides, even if the EU decides
to deal with the Eurasian Customs Union or the Economic Union as a
trading block, the latter will have to become a functioning legal
organisation, which does not seem to be the case in many respects. It
could be argued that if the Customs Union is based on the WTO rules
(Kazakhstan and Belarus had to accept Russia's WTO tariff obligations),
then in terms of regulatory framework this should be beneficial for
any future common cooperation.
However, it is not clear how the Customs Union will deal with Armenia
and Kyrgyzstan, already members of WTO: what will be their level of
commitment? In any case, the real issue was no so much about competing
or incompatible economic frameworks of cooperation, but rather one of
a choice between political projects. The Eurasian economic integration
was intensified to counterbalance or even prevent (as it proves to be
the case with Armenia) the European initiatives. Question - Will there
be any legal possibility after October 10 for Armenia to sign the EU
Association Agreement or not? Answer -Signing an Association Agreement
with the EU would have signified close and privileged links, perhaps
even with a possibility of accession. Although the latter wouldn't have
been acknowledged in the agreement itself, by qualifying the country as
'European' similar to the Georgian Association Agreement (qualified
as Eastern European), at least theoretically the accession would be
possible based on the language of Article 49 TEU. However, belonging
to Eurasian Economic Union makes any such possibilities redundant,
as it implies complying with a whole set of new rules as far as trade
cooperation is concerned. Most importantly however it implies belonging
to a different political club. Preventing the signature of the AA
with Armenia by Russia was exactly for the purpose of excluding such
possibility in the future (i.e. the possibility of offering Armenia
a special relationship with the EU). Legally speaking the type of AA
that was on offer would make no sense from the EU perspective: why
offer close and privileged links, when the country in question not
only cannot make independent choices, but already embarks on journey
of establishing another privileged relationship. The interviews were
conducted by Sose Mayilyan Student at the Master's programme of the
Faculty of Law of University of Copenhagen
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2014/10/16/167349/