Skip to main content
Log in

Building European security in the Western Balkans: the diffusion of European norms in the context of inter-organisational interactions

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal of International Relations and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

European security is not the preserve of the European Union (EU). Other international organisations (IO) participate actively in the diffusion of European norms, ideas and practices. And yet, the impact of the EU-IOs interactions on domestic processes often fails to attract the attention of researchers. This article claims that the meaning ascribed to international norms in security matters is also constituted by the inter-organisational context in which the diffusion takes place. On the basis of the analysis of the EU’s conditionality dialogue with the chosen Western Balkan states, the article examines, first, how the EU, in international justice, amplifies the prescriptive power of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and how conditionality induces full compliance in this area; second, how the EU, in security and defence, conveys NATO norms and standards, promotes technical and political cooperation with the Alliance and, thus, indirectly fosters NATO accession; and third, how the EU, in multilateral diplomacy, distorts the principles and practices of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) by expecting Western Balkan states to relinquish their commitment to sovereign equality, thereby stirring up confusion in diffusion patterns. The findings suggest that the EU-IOs interactions and norm trajectories contribute to explain diffusion patterns in international security matters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The two states face post-conflict challenges and exhibit meaningful differences in their European course and international relations. Macedonia has been a candidate for accession to the EU since 2005 and has been ready to join NATO since 2008, but it is blocked by its dispute with Greece over the name of the country. In contrast, Serbia maintained an ambiguous relationship with the EU throughout the 2000s, because of the Kosovo issue, and does not plan to join NATO. In this article, ‘Macedonia’ designates the name of the country listed in the United Nations as the ‘Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’.

  2. The Council of Europe, with which the EU interacts massively, is not included in the analysis for it focuses on fundamental and minority rights. Please note that the ICTY, NATO and the OSCE have different legal status and that the term ‘organisation’ used in this article is not a legal designation. Unlike NATO, the OSCE, a treaty-based international organisation, has no international legal personality and has no member states (it has the so-called ‘participating states’). As for the ICTY, it is a subsidiary body of the United Nations (UN) established by the UN Security in 1993. The OSCE and the ICTY, in other words, are no international organisations in the legal sense.

References

  • Acharya, Amitav (2004) ‘How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism’, International Organization 58 (2): 239–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aybet, Gülnur and Florian Bieber (2011) ‘From Dayton to Brussels: The Impact of EU and NATO Conditionality on State Building in Bosnia & Hercegovina’, Europe-Asia Studies 63 (10): 1911–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbé, Esther, Oriol Costa, Anna Herranz Surrallés, Elisabeth Johansson-Nogués, Michal Natorski and Maria A. Sabiote (2009) ‘Drawing the Neighbours Closer … To What? Explaining Emerging Patterns of Policy Convergence Between the EU and Its Neighbours’, Cooperation and Conflict 44 (4): 378–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbé, Esther, Oriol Costa, Anna Herranz and Michal Natorski (2012) ‘Which Rules Shapes EU External Governance? Patterns of Rule Selection in Foreign and Security Policies’, in Sandra Lavenex and Frank Schimmelfennig, eds., EU External Governance: Projecting EU Rules Beyond Membership, 44–62, Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batt, Judy and Jelena Obradović-Wochnik, eds., (2009) ‘Introduction’, in War Crimes, Conditionality and EU Integration in the Western Balkans, 9–13, Paris: Institute for Security Studies.

  • Biermann, Rafael (2008) ‘Towards a Theory of Inter-Organizational Networking: The Euro-Atlantic Security Institutions Interacting’, Review of International Organizations 3 (2): 151–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, Rafael (2009) ‘Inter-Organizational in Theory and Practice’, Studia Diplomatica LXII (3): 7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, Tanja A. and Thomas Risse (2003) ‘Conceptualizing the Domestic Impact of Europe’, in Kevin Featherstone and Claudio M. Radaelli, eds., The Politics of Europeanization, 57–82, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, Tanja A. and Thomas Risse (2012) ‘When Europeanisation Meets Diffusion: Exploring New Territory’, West European Politics 35 (1): 192–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caparini, Marina (2003) ‘Security Reform and NATO and EU’, in SIPRI, ed., SIPRI Yearbook 2003, 237–60, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coppieters, Bruno et aleds., (2004) Europeanization and Conflict Resolution: Case Studies from the European Periphery, Gent: Academia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, Oriol and Knud Erik Jørgensen, eds., (2012) The Influence of International Institutions on the EU: When Multilateralism Hits Brussels, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (1997a) ‘Conclusions of the General Affairs Council’ (29 April), http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_PRES-97-129_en.htm?locale=en (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • Council of the European Union (1997b) ‘Joint Declaration on Political Dialogue Between the EU and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ (29 April), https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • Council of the European Union (2001) ‘Council’s Decision Adopting the Council’s Security Regulations, ref.2001/264/EC’ (19 March), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:101:0001:0066:EN:PDF (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • Council of the European Union (2003a) ‘European Security Strategy: A Secure Europe in a Better World’ (12 December), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:101:0001:0066:EN:PDF (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • Council of the European Union (2003b) ‘Joint Declaration on Political Dialogue Between the EU and Serbia and Montenegro, ref.12616/03’ (17 September), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_PRES-03-251_en.htm?locale=en (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • Council of the European Union (2004a) ‘Council’s Decision on the Principles, Priorities and Conditions Contained in the European Partnership with Serbia and Montenegro Including Kosovo as Defined by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999, ref.9354/04’ (9 June), http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%209354%202004%20INIT (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • Council of the European Union (2004b) ‘Draft Assessment Report on the EU’s Role vis-à-vis the OSCE, ref.15387/1/04’ (10 December), http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2015387%202004%20REV%201 (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • Council of the European Union (2005) ‘Conclusions on the Western Balkans, ref.8036/05’ (25 April), http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/kosovo/documents/eu_kosovo/conclusions_balkans_en.pdf (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • Council of the European Union (2006a) ‘Conclusions on the Western Balkans’ (15 May), http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/gena/89589.pdf (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • Council of the European Union (2006b) ‘Conclusions on the Western Balkans’ (20 March), http://eu-un.europa.eu/articles/fr/article_5815_fr.htm (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • Dobbels, Mathias (2009) ‘Serbia and the ICTY: How Effective Is EU Conditionality?’, Bruges, Belgium: College of Europe. EU Diplomacy Papers, No. 6/2009.

  • Dufourcq, Jean and David S. Yost, eds., (2006) NATO-EU Cooperation in Post-Conflict Reconstruction, Rome: NATO Defence College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Džihić, Vedran and Daniel Hamilton, eds., (2012) Unfinished Business: The Western Balkans and the International Community, Washington DC: Center for Transatlantic Relations Paul H. Nitze, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Džihić, Vedran and Angela Wieser (2011) ‘Incentives for Democratisation? Effects of EU Conditionality on Democracy in Bosnia & Hercegovina’, Europe-Asia Studies 63 (10): 1803–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbasani, Arolda, ed. (2013) European Integration and Transformation in the Western Balkans. Europeanization or Business as Usual? Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (1998) ‘Regional Approach Conditionality Report: Compliance with the Conditions Set Out in the Council Conclusions of 29 April 1997, ref. SEC (1998) 586’ (30 March), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:51998PC0586:EN:HTML (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • European Commission (2000) ‘Regional Approach Conditionality Report: Compliance with the Council Conclusions of 29 April 1997 & 21/22 June 1999, ref. SEC (2000) 168/2’ (9 February), http://www.esiweb.org/enlargement/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/ec-regional-approach-conditionality-report-2000-february.pdf (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • European Commission (2003) ‘Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Stabilisation and Association Report 2003, ref. SEC 342/2003’ (26 March), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52003DC0139&from=EN (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • European Commission (2004) ‘Main Administrative Structures Required for Implementation of the Acquis’ (7 June), http://www.esiweb.org/pdf/bulgaria_EC-admin%20structures%20for%20acquis-version070604.pdf (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • European Commission (2005a) ‘Serbia and Montenegro 2005 Progress Report, ref. SEC 1428/2005’ (9 November), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2005/1428/COM_SEC%282005%291428_EN.pdf (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • European Commission (2005b) ‘Analytical Report for the Opinion on the Application from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for EU Membership, ref. SEC (2005) 1425’ (9 November), http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/2005/package/sec_1425_final_analytical_report_mk_en.pdf (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • European Commission (2005c) ‘Enlargement Strategy Paper 2005, ref. COM (2005) 561 final’ (9 November), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52005DC0561&from=EN (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • European Commission (2007) ‘Serbia 2007 Progress Report, ref. SEC 1435/2007’ (14 November), http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2007/nov/serbia_progress_reports_en.pdf.

  • European Commission (2008) ‘Serbia 2008 Progress Report, ref. SEC 2698/2008’ (5 November), http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/press_corner/key-documents/reports_nov_2008/serbia_progress_report_en.pdf.

  • European Commission (2010) Questionnaire Delivered by the European Commission to the Republic of Serbia, Brussels: European Commission, http://www.seio.gov.rs/upload/documents/upitnik/srb_questionnnaire_engl.pdf (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • European Commission (2011) ‘Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2011–2012, ref. COM (2011) 666’ (12 October), http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/reports/104630.pdf (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • European Council (2008) ‘Report on the Implementation of the European Security Strategy, ref. S407/08’, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2011/package/strategy_paper_2011_en.pdf (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink (1998) ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, International Organization 52 (4): 887–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Government of the Republic of Serbia (2005) National Strategy of Serbia for the Serbia and Montenegro’s Accession to the European Union, Belgrade: Government of the Republic of Serbia, http://www.seio.gov.rs/upload/documents/nacionalna_dokumenta/national_strategy-pdf.pdf (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • Government of the Republic of Serbia (2007) ‘Action Plan for Implementation of the European Partnership Priorities (2 August)’, https://arirusila.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/serbia-eu-national-programme.pdf (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • Grabbe, Heather (2006) The EU’s Transformative Power: Europeanization Through Conditionality in Central and Eastern Europe, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Green Cowles, Maria, James A. Caporaso and Thomas Risse-Kappen, eds., (2001) Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, Florence (2009) ‘The ICTY and EU Conditionality’, in Judy Batt and Jelena Obradović-Wochnik, eds., War Crimes, Conditionality and EU Integration in the Western Balkans, 67–82, Paris: Institute for Security Studies.

  • Jonsson, Christer (1986) ‘Interorganization Theory and International Organization’, International Studies Quarterly 30 (1): 39–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, Knud Erik, ed. (2009) The European Union and International Organizations: A Framework for Analysis, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, Judith (2004) ‘International Actors on the Domestic Scene: Membership Conditionality and Socialization by International Institutions’, International Organization 58 (3): 425–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laatikainen, Katie Verlin and Karen E. Smith, eds., (2006) The European Union at the United Nations: Intersecting Multilateralisms, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, Christopher K. (2010) International Criminal Justice and the Politics of Compliance, Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Major, Claudia and Christian Mölling (2009) ‘More Than Wishful Thinking? The EU, UN, NATO and the Comprehensive Approach to Military Crisis Management’, Studia Diplomatica LXII (3): 21–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manners, Ian (2008) ‘The Normative Ethics of the European Union’, International Affairs 84 (1): 45–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marciacq, Florent (2012a) ‘The Political Geographies of Europeanisation: Mapping the Contested Conceptions of Europeanisation’, Journal of Contemporary European Research 8 (1): 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marciacq, Florent (2012b) ‘The Western Balkans and the EU in Multilateral Organisations: Foreign Policy Coordination and Declaratory Analysis’, Journal of Regional Security 7 (2): 119–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marciacq, Florent and Natalia Sanmartín Jaramillo (2014) ‘When the European Union Speaks on Behalf of Non-European Union States: A Critical Appraisal of the European Union’s Alignment Mechanism in Multilateral Fora’, European Security 23 (3): 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • NATO Security Committee (2001) ‘Directive on the physical security, ref. AC/35-D/2001’, http://www.nbu.cz/download/nodeid-891/ (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • NATO Security Committee (2005) ‘Directive On the Security of Information, ref. C/35-D/2002-REV2’ (4 February), http://www.nbf.hu/anyagok/jogszabaly/AC_35-D_2002-REV2.pdf (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • NATO Security Committee (2009) ‘Directive on Personal Security, ref. AC/35-D/2000-REV6’ (8 September), http://www.nbu.cz/download/nodeid-775/ (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • North Atlantic Treaty Organization (2003) ‘EU-NATO Concerted Approach For the Western Balkans, ref. 2003/089’ (29 July), http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2003/p03-089e.htm (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • North Atlantic Treaty Organization (2010) Strategic Concept, Brussels: North Atlantic Treaty Organization, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_82705.htm (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • Noutcheva, Gergana (2012) European Foreign Policy and the Challenge of Balkan Accession: Sovereignty Contested, Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, Johan P. (2007) Europe in Search of Political Order: An Institutional Perspective, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) (2006) ‘Rules of Procedure of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, ref. MC.DOC/1/06’, http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/vienna/documents/eu_osce/rules_of_procedure_en.pdf (accessed 18 May, 2015).

  • Park, Susan (2006) ‘Theorizing Norm Diffusion Within International Organizations’, International Politics 43 (3): 342–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, Ingo (2004) ‘The OSCE, NATO and the EU within the ‘Network of Interlocking European Security Institutions’: Hierarchization, Flexibilization, Marginalization’, in IFHS, ed., OSCE Yearbook 2003, 381–402, Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radaelli, Claudio M. and Romain Pasquier (2006) ‘Encounters with Europe: Concepts, Definitions and Research Design’, Tidsskriftet Politik 9 (3): 6–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichard, Martin (2006) EU — NATO Relationship: A Legal and Political Perspective, Adlershot and Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Republic of Macedonia (2005) Answers of the Republic of Macedonia to the EU Questionnaire Delivered by the European Commission, Skopje: Republic of Macedonia.

  • Schimmelfennig, Frank (2005) ‘Strategic Calculations and International Socialization: Membership Incentives, Party Constellations, and Sustained Compliance in Central and Eastern Europe’, International Organization 59 (4): 827–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schimmelfennig, Frank (2008) ‘EU Political Accession Conditionality After the 2004 Enlargement: Consistency and Effectiveness’, Journal of European Public Policy 15 (6): 918–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schimmelfennig, Frank and Ulrich Sedelmeier (2004) ‘Governance by Conditionality: EU Rule Transfer to the Candidate Countries of Central and Eastern Europe’, Journal of European Public Policy 11 (4): 661–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skovgaard, Jakob (2011) ‘Power Beyond Conditionality: European Organisations and the Hungarian Minorities in Romania and Slovakia’, Journal of International Relations and Development 14 (4): 440–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tocci, Nathalie (2007) The EU and Conflict Resolution: Promoting Peace in the Backyard, London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Ham, Peter (2006) ‘EU, NATO, OSCE: Interaction, Cooperation and Confrontation’, in Gunther Hauser and Franz Kernic, eds.,, European Security in Transition, 23–38, Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varwick, Johannes and Joachim Koops (2009) ‘Shrewd Interorganizationalism in the Making?’ in Knud Erik Jørgensen, ed., The European Union and International Organizations, 101–30, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl, Rainer (2008) ‘Europeanisation Beyond Supremacy’, in Jan Wouters, André Nollkaemper and Erika De Wet, eds.,, The Europeanisation of International Law: The Status of International Law in the EU and Its Member States, 17–37, The Hague and West Nyack: T.M.C. Asser Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, Antje (2004) ‘Contested Compliance: Interventions on the Normative Structure of World Politics’, European Journal of International Relations 10 (2): 189–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, Antje (2007) ‘Contested Meanings of Norms: A Research Framework’, Comparative European Politics 5 (1): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, Reuben and Christopher Hill, eds., (2011) National and European Foreign Policies: Towards Europeanization, London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, Jan, André Nollkaemper and Erika De Wet, eds., (2008) ‘Introduction: The ‘Europeanisation’ of International Law’, in The Europeanisation of International Law: The Status of International Law in the EU and Its Member States, 1–13, The Hague and West Nyack: T.M.C. Asser Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Interviews in the order of appearance in text

  • Serbian, Macedonian and the EU officials in Belgrade and Skopje, personal interviews by the author, March–September 2011.

  • Macedonian diplomat in Skopje, personal interview by the author, September 2011.

  • The EU official in Skopje, personal interview by the author, September 2011.

  • Macedonian diplomat in Skopje, personal interview by the author, November 2011.

  • Serbian official in Belgrade, personal interview by the author, October 2011.

  • Representatives of the six Western Balkans states to the OSCE in Vienna, personal interviews by the author, April 2011–February 2012.

  • The EU diplomat in Vienna, personal interview by the author, August 2011.

  • Macedonian diplomat in Vienna, personal interview by the author, July 2011.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers, the editors of JIRD as well as the guest editors of this Special Issue, Simone Tholens and Lisa Groß, for their comments on an earlier draft of this article. The usual disclaimers apply.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marciacq, F. Building European security in the Western Balkans: the diffusion of European norms in the context of inter-organisational interactions. J Int Relat Dev 18, 337–360 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2015.20

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2015.20

Keywords

Navigation