Gradual integration: An attractive alternative integration process for Turkey and the EU

European Foreign Affairs Review

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 311-331

  Karakas, Cemal ^a  

^a Leibniz Institut Hessische Stiftung Friedens und Konfliktforschung Peace Research Institute Frankfurt   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248033840     PISSN: 13846299     EISSN: 18758223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.54648/eerr2006028     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. See 'La Turquie aux portes de l'Europe', Le Figaro, 4 October 2005
2. Giles Merritt, 'Europe is going to need Turkey', International Herald Tribune, 9 October 2005, available at .
3. According to a poll by Eurobarometer, 52% of the EU population was opposed to the accession of Turkey. Only 35% favored membership, 13% had no opinion. cf. Eurobarometer 63, CEC, Brussels, September 2005
4. For a detailed overview of the concerns vis-à-vis Turkey's possible EU membership, see S. Wood and W. Quaisser, 'Turkey's Road to the EU: Political Dynamics, Strategic Context and Implications for Europe' (2005) 10 EFA Rev, pp. 147-173.
5. See interview with Austria's chancellor Schüssel in Die Welt, 20 October 2005.
6. Craig S. Smith, 'Identity crisis within the EU', The New York Times, 4 October 2005, available at .
7. th indent of the Presidency Conclusions on the European Council meeting in Brussels of 16-17 December 2004, available at , accessed 1 February 2005.
8. For a more detailed discussion on the Cyprus Question, see J. Van Westering, 'Conditionality and EU Membership: The Cases of Turkey and Cyprus' (2000) 5 EFA Rev, pp. 95-118.
9. The Negotiation Framework with the 35 chapters can be seen at .
10. cf. the 'Progress report on Turkey', available at , accessed 9 November 2005
11. as well as the 'Proposal for a Council decision on the principles, priorities and conditions contained in the Accession Partnership with Turkey', available at , accessed 9 November 2005.
12. See Graham Bowley, 'Reforms slowing in Turkey, EU says', International Herald Tribune, 9 November 2005, available at .
13. Alexandrine Bouilhet, 'Bruxelles déplore un ralentissement des réformes à Ankara', Le Figaro, 10 November 2005.
14. See Handelsblatt, 24 March 2006.
15. cf. A. Gates, 'Negotiating Turkey's Accession: The Limitations of the Current EU Strategy' (2005) 10 EFA Rev, pp. 381-397 at p. 384.
16. Andrea Gates rightly emphasizes that the EU's bargaining strategy makes extraordinary demands but offers no guarantees of any sorts, so that it is anything but sure that the Turkish government will indefinitely be willing and able to support all the substantial costs associated with EU-mandated reforms. cf. Gates, note 20 above, pp. 386-387.
17. See Dow Jones Europa Aktuell, 7 October 2005.
18. For a more detailed overview of the obstacles see K. Hughes, The Political Dynamics of Turkish Accession to the EU: A European Succes Story or the EU's most Contested Enlargement?, SIEPS Publication No. 9, 2004, pp. 30-61.
19. For a current overview, see A. Hatje, 'Grenzen der Flexibilität einer erweiterten Europäischen Union' (2005) 40/2 Europarecht, pp. 148-161.
20. cf. Art. 81, Agreement on the European Economic Area, Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC), No. L 1/3, 03. January 1994.
21. Another alternative to full membership, the Extended Associate Membership (EAM), was presented by researchers at the Institute for East European Studies in Munich, led by Wolfgang Quaisser and Steve Wood. In essence, the EAM primarily envisages membership in an extended European Economic Area (EEA) and a widening and deepening of cooperation on trade and economic policy - although with several limitations, especially with regard to free movement of persons and workers. The authors claim that the economic effects of this form of integration would largely correspond to those of full membership. They do not quite succeed, however, in providing evidence for this claim because they have attached many exceptions to their model. cf. Wolfgang Quaisser and Steve Wood, EU Member Turkey? Preconditions, Consequences, and Integration Alternatives, (Forost, München, 2004).
22. cf. K.T. zu Guttenberg, 'Die Beziehungen zwischen der Türkei und der EU - eine Privilegierte Partnerschaft', Hanns Seidel Stiftung No. 33 Aktuelle Analysen, 2004.
23. cf. the paper by the parliamentary group of the German Christian parties (CDU/CSU), Eine Privilegierte Parnerschaft als Alternative zu einer EU-Vollmitgliedschaft der Türkei, available at , accessed 16 December 2004.
24. cf. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 2 December 2005.
25. cf. the EP resolution on the Commission's 2005 enlargement strategy paper (2005/2206(INI), PE 364.920/v03-00, under .
26. cf. S. Krauss, 'The European Parliament in EU External Relations: The Customs Union with Turkey' (2000) 5 EFA Rev, pp. 215-237 at p. 225.
27. Eurostat Euro Indicators, News Release Nr. 38/2006, 22 March 2006.
28. The Commission estimates the cost of the membership at between EUR16 500-27 500 million per year for the period 2015-2025. cf. the chapter on Budget in the Commission's Enlargement Report on Turkey 2004.
29. See Die Presse, 6 September 2005.
30. The wholehearted support of the EU is anything but sure. The Turkish application for membership has consistently faced reservation especially from the European Parliament; its ratification of the Customs Union in 1996 was highly controversial. The debate on the Customs Union and the accession negotiations appear to be a useful tool on the EP's search for a legitimate role in foreign policy, enlargement as well as human rights. cf. G. Avci, 'Putting the Turkish EU Candidacy into Context' (2002) 7 EFA Rev, pp. 91-110 at pp. 98-99.