Europeanization and the Rule of Law: Towards a Pathological Turn

Abstract

Recent scholarship has exposed the "eu's pathological power", which has undermined the creation of the rule of law in South Eastern Europe (see) and beyond. This paper discusses the "pathological turn" in Europeanization studies by identifying and providing evidence for several "pathologies of Europeanization", i.e. legal and political deficiencies related to rule of law reform, such as legal instability, lack of generality and enforcement, and increased politicization. These pathologies result, among others, from a deficient approach of the eu to rule of law promotion and assessment. In particular, the author highlights three main fundamental problems of Europeanization in the area of the rule of law: 1) valuing quantity over quality; 2) partisan empowerment of domestic change agents; and 3) biased assessment of the rule of law. These problematic issues are further clarified on selected country examples of reform failure from see and the 2012 "rule of law crisis" in Romania. It is argued that given the eu's inability to objectively assess and effectively promote the rule of law, the eu should either abstain from evaluating rule of law or radically revise its approach and methodology, for instance by following the policy advice provided in this paper.

The litmus test of pride: analysing the emergence of the Belgrade “Ghost” pride in the context of EU accession

“…Indeed, rather than analysing the domestic impact of the EU in candidate countries, this article has shown that it is through the particular usage of LGBT rights within the transnational context and the interaction between domestic and international politics that the meaning of the LGBT equality norms and Pride in particular has been re-interpreted. Thus, extending the 'pathological turn' in the Europeanisation literature (see Mendelski 2016), this article has demonstrated that instrumentalisation and politicisation of reforms is not only the result of the EU's flawed outcome-focussed monitoring system, but is also a product of the particular configuration of international and national politics.…”

“…Second, in terms of the Europeanisation of LGBT rights literature, the presented analysis challenges the widespread belief that the EU has been a force of good that improved LGBT equality in candidate countries. Doing so, the analysis also furthers the recent 'pathological turn' of the more general Europeanisation via enlargement literature (see Mendelski 2016), despite not explicitly drawing on it. It is argued that that the domestic instrumentalisation and politicisation of reforms are not only a result the EU's outcome-focussed monitoring mechanism, but also a product of the intertwining of national and international politics.…”

“…Indeed, as Mendelski (2016) has shown when progress is measured by outcomes rather than by processesas is done with a litmus test -, reforms might become 'instrumentalised' and politicised by local elites to serve ulterior motives. Hence, it is argued that the EU Enlargement's homocolonialist practice of making LGBT rights, and particularly LGBT Pride, a 'standard of civilisation' or a litmus test for modernity and Europeanness produces important challenges for local LGBT activists and politics, leading to adoption of seemingly…”

Europeanization of Good Governance in Romania: Where and Why Does it Fail, and What Can Be Done About it?

“…The call for more judicial independence has resulted in more independent but less accountable judicial councils, anti-corruption structures and courts (Transparency International 2012; Mendelski 2016a). The demand for a "solid track records" in fighting high-level corruption cases has increased the number of convictions (efficiency), but has undermined the procedural quality of anti-corruption policies (Mendelski 2016a). The demand for more judicial capacity has created expensive information and court administration systems (based on Western technology and software) which expensive to maintain and relies on continuous foreign assistance.…”

“…One of the key findings of this contribution is that EU-driven rule of law, administrative and anti-corruption reforms tend to reproduce the existing mode of bad (fragmented) governance. Thus, it can be claimed that the EU has not only transformative but also "pathological power" (Mendelski 2015;Mendelski 2016a). This negative impact on governance is attributed to the EU's questionable approach to reform, which is based on 1.)…”