Since the foundation of the Federal Republic, successive German governments have referred to the promotion of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law as the underlying principles of German foreign policy. Notwithstanding Germany’s deep-rooted commitment to democracy support as a foreign policy goal both individually and as an EU member state, its support for democracy in third countries remains understudied and undertheorized. Turkey’s two-fold standing as an EU candidate experiencing democratic backsliding and as a strategic partner for Germany/the EU in various issue areas makes it a key case through which to scrutinise a key EU member states' practice of democracy support in a multi-level setting. By conceptualising democracy support as a moving target driven by Germany’s role as a ‘status quo power’ (SQP) in the EU, we trace the extent, transformation, and consequences of Germany’s promotion of democratic norms in Turkey. Concerning democracy support we specifically focus on issues related to the "rule of law" and "fundamental rights", as indicated in Chapter 23 of the EU acquis. Our data rely on semi-structured interviews with German officials and policy makers and a qualitative content analysis of official statements, documents, and media reports on Turkey. We argue that Germany’s role as SQP in the EU has also guided its external democracy support policies which aimed to preserve and safeguard the existing stability and order of the EU and European integration. As such, Germany’s promotion of democratic norms in Turkey has followed an ambivalent pattern, with efforts only intensifying when anti-democratic processes in Turkey fundamentally challenged the strategic interests of the established European order. The findings of the paper thus contribute to theoretical and empirical discussions on the conceptualization and practice of the EU and its key Member States as global (normative) actors in the contested international order, whilst adressing the question of whether and in how far “the law” remains a desirable element of European integration and EU external action.

The European Union (EU) is a complex creature – not only in terms of its laws and policies but also spatiality. The territory of the EU formally comprises the territories of the Member States, whereas the Member States’ territories spread outside the European continent leading to the EU territory assuming global proportions. In terms of the EU’s ‘presence’ through various notions of influence – norms, policies, values, economic power, even military assistance – the geopolitical space that the EU fills is much larger than the combined territories of the EU Member States.

The EU forms the core, or centre, of the EU legal space. The EU is the origin of the norms exported to, or autonomously adopted by third countries. The core of the EU legal space is, moreover, keenly guarded by the EU’s decision-making autonomy allowing little if any third country influence on the making of EU laws and policies. The periphery – the countries outside the EU – form the ‘concentric circles of EUropean integration. Via the EU’s norms export to the neighbourhood countries, a legal space is created in which norms of EU origin operate but with different sets of principles giving effect to the rules, supported by different institutional structures, and with different implementation and enforcement mechanisms ensuring their uniform effect. Through the concepts of core and periphery, this paper seeks to unravel the concept of the EU legal space in an attempt to provide a framework for understanding the nature of the EU’s normative influence and ‘integration through law’ in the EU’s neighbourhood.

Team Europe was launched in April 2020 with its original aim to support the EU’s partner countries in the fight against the pandemic by pulling together financial resources of member states and all EU institutions. Today the concept is more broadly understood as referring to collective action of the EU towards its international partners, with an important implementing role for so-called Team Europe Initiatives (TEIs). TEIs seek to strengthen cooperation among and joint action between various stakeholders including the EU, its member states, financial institutions, implementing agencies, partner countries, civil society and the private sector. Team Europe is also repeatedly put in relation to another recent EU initiative – Global Gateway – as a means to foster geopolitically relevant coordination and Global Gateway flagship initiatives. As new political initiatives, little empirical insights have so far been generated as to how TEIs function on the ground and to what extent they contribute to achieving the EU’s goals of greater visibility and impact. This paper presents a comparative analysis of five TEIs and explores the balance between technical efforts to strengthen collective effectiveness of the EU on the ground and foreign policy considerations of the EU’s visibility and influence. It argues that Team Europe is by far the most successful initiative so far to promote greater coordination between member states and the EU institutions in partner countries and could even lead to 'EU Integration by stealth'.

EU neighbouring regions are of strategic importance for the EU: the EU’s prosperity, stability and security depend on regional dynamics. Many post-communist and post-totalitarian countries in the EU’s neighbourhood were able to achieve stability and prosperity via integration with the EU. Yet, the security, political, and economic situation in those countries is very unstable. For example, post-Yugoslav countries suffer from lasting ethnic and political tensions. In Eastern Partnership countries, the security situation is unstable due to either ongoing (Ukraine) or frozen (Moldova and Georgia) conflicts initiated by Russia. Despite this, many neighbours share strong membership aspirations and achieved some progress in adjusting their standards to those of the EU. In June 2022, Ukraine and Moldova were granted the European Union (EU) candidacy status amidst Russian full-scale aggression against Ukraine. The European Commission in its opinion, explained this decision by the progress made by these countries in acquis approximation and alignments with democratic standards. Many, at the same time, argued that this decision was made mainly to express solidarity with Ukraine in the context of Russia’s aggression and that this decision may undermine the EU’s credibility among Western Balkan countries. Some works suggest that the European Council’s decision, in December 2022 to grant Bosnia and Herzegovina candidate status alongside Moldova and Ukraine, reflects that geopolitical considerations have more weight in the logic of EU enlargement decision-making, as opposed to the conditionality-driven approach emphasizing reforms. In this article, we aim to answer: Does the logic of European enlargement decision-making become more geopolitical than meritocratic? We address this question by comparing European integration dynamics in two regions: Western Balkan and Eastern Europe tracing countries’ progress against the enlargement criteria. To that end, we compare progress in the fundamental elements of cooperation – the rule of law and democratic institutions. The analysis covers the progress in the two regions since signing the Association (and Stabilization) Agreements. By addressing the research question, this article relates to a broader phenomenon of enlargement and the factors that impact this process.