Conference Agenda

On 1 May 2004 the European Union (EU) expanded from 15 to 25 member states. Celebrating the historic Eastern enlargement of the Union, the-then President of the European Commission Romano Prodi remarked that ‘the divisions of the Cold War are gone’ and Le Monde declared ‘Europe – a new continent’ (European Commission, 2004). Nevertheless, perceptions of an East-West divide remain. 20 years after accession, Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) are still referred to as ‘new’ member states and their agency has been repeatedly erased or disregarded in academic and policy debates. With enlargement firmly back on the Union’s agenda, the questions about the future of European integration and the functioning of the Union have taken centre stage again. Understanding CEE member states’ policy preferences and influence on EU politics is of paramount importance. With the aim to challenges outdated approaches to analysing the role and impact of CEE, the paper advances a novel perspective to study why and how CEE matters for the development of EU enlargement policy and the future of European integration.

This conference paper examines the maritime strategic component of the European Union's Eastern enlargement, focusing on the experiences of Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania in the 2004 and 2013 enlargements. This research plans to shed light on their lessons, challenges, and opportunities to ascertain how these could inform the cases of Georgia and Ukraine in the Black Sea.

The research question can be formulated as follows, “To what extent have Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania contributed to the maritime dimension of the Eastern enlargement, and how has this impacted the Union's overall strategic posture?", and explores the multifaceted relationship between maritime strategies and the EU's integration of these three countries.

The paper employs a comparative analysis, drawing on case studies to assess the maritime contributions of each nation. Firstly, the accessions of both Bulgaria and Romania has likely moved the EU's strategic focus from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea. Similarly, the Croatian membership is hypothesised to have improved the EU's maritime capabilities in the Adriatic by reinforcing the Union's role in Balkan maritime governance.

This paper will prioritise a field research methodology, including over twenty semi-structured elite interviews, and will pair them with extensive historical and strategic research on parliamentary papers, policy documents.

Their experiences provide optimistic scenarios, but challenges for Ukraine and Georgia could potentially include complex geopolitical dynamics in the Black Sea region that will need alignment with EU maritime policies. Conversely, economic growth through expanded maritime trade, improved regional cooperation, and active participation in shaping the EU's Black Sea maritime strategy represent their potential opportunities. As these two Black Sea nations navigate the path towards accession, the experiences of their counterparts could provide a roadmap for leveraging maritime attributes to shape regional dynamics and contribute meaningfully to the EU's broader maritime strategy.

In conclusion, this research plans to provide a nuanced understanding of the strategic maritime component of the Eastern enlargement by providing valuable insights for policymakers, civil servants, and academics working at the crossroads between maritime strategy and EU policy. The analyses of these three case studies could shed light on the intricate interplay between maritime strategies, geopolitical dynamics, and the upcoming strategic trajectory of the European Union in its Eastern flank.

Abstract

This paper examines the prospects of the EU enlargement in the new geopolitical context, faced with major geo-economics shifts, triggered by the war in Ukraine. It examines the challenges of the EU enlargement, from a historical perspective and revisits the critical junctures of the post-1989 period. The lessons drawn from the early 1990s concerning the EU enlargement process, the lack of cooperation in EU foreign policy and defence, and the historical conceptualization of the process of Europeanization, can give us important views on the role which the EU aims to play in the future. Thus, however, would require a re-invention of the ideological EU project shifting away from the neoliberal doctrine to a broader social type of EU able to address the collective interest of its citizens.

This paper therefore reflects on the period of 1989 as a critical moment when Eastern and Central Europe both closed the legacies with the past and opened up to new European perspectives. The socialist planning and the international solidarity with the developing world were transformed into a new doctrine by pushing a new type of individualism within the context of the globalized liberal market economy. At the same time, the EU expanded its powers following the 1991 Maastricht Treaty and passed authorities to the non-majoritarian institutions, led by non-elected experts. This has become a persistent challenge to the EU democratic legitimacy and the EU demoicracy-in-the-making. The political stability driven by re-organized and re-structured political parties, aligned with strong national parliaments which should provide on democratic legitimation has remained amidts the executive force of powers. By the early 1990s, these ideological transformations had set the political-economic context and exposed the EU inter-institutional tension in identifying where the final authority lies. In this context, this paper discuss the challenges and prospects to the EU enlargement.

This paper offers a new perspective on the EU enlargement, by re-visiting the historical context of the 1990s, aiming to understand the functioning of the EU in general. It argues that the historical lessons of the past are important avenues for understanding the challenges to the ‘geopolitical’ Europe, and the EU's strategy towards collective decision-making. By re-visiting the context where different tensions of soveregnity are taking place on the nation-state level from 1989 onwards, this paper contributes to the general debate on the EU's democratic legitimacy as well and suggests further avenues for analysing the future of the EU.

This paper investigates how civil society organisations (CSOs) navigate and reshape geopolitical narratives within the European Union’s evolving candidacy framework. By highlighting the performed inclusivity of EU narratives, it offers a nuanced perspective on the socio-political dynamics of accession processes and promotes a more pluralistic interpretations of the EU's borderlands. Focusing on Georgia's EU candidacy application, it examines how CSOs, situated in semi-peripheral and inter-imperial contexts, address the complexities of accession processes, structural inequalities, and the exclusionary practices embedded in performed inclusivity.

The analysis unfolds in three parts. First, it situates the study within the broader context of the politicisation of EU candidacy narratives, framing performed inclusivity as a key analytical lens to address how geopolitical narratives construct and perpetuate exclusion. Second, it investigates how CSOs challenge and reshape EU-Georgian relations through cultural and strategic engagements, highlighting their efforts to contest the EU’s limited geopolitical framing of Georgia’s candidacy. By leveraging geopoliticisation, CSOs craft alternative strategic narratives that foreground inclusion and agency within the accession framework. Finally, the paper analyses the performative dimensions of EU-CSO relations, revealing how inclusivity narratives often conceal exclusionary practices. It offers a nuanced understanding of the socio-political dynamics of accession processes, advocating for more pluralistic interpretations of the EU’s borderlands.