Dominating European integration theories are based on methodological individualism. They are largely EU-centric and tend to ignore the external environment, the broader international system, as well as the main external actors. There are obviously exceptions, such as various approaches inspired by International Political Economy and post-structuralism. Yet even several approaches described as alternative suffer from similar shortcomings. At a time when the international order is changing rapidly, this constitutes a major problem for the discipline’s relevance and its capability to understand how the changing international context will affect the European integration process. Liberal theories, such as liberal intergovernmentalism, neo-functionalism and post-functionalism, largely focus on pluralist domestic actors, and pay limited attention to external structures, and we know little about their relevance in a non-liberal world order. The paper calls for European integration theories to pay increased attention to the international structure and the actors that shape the international order, and how this in turn impacts the European integration process.

The European integration process developed under the umbrella of an economic and security order led by the United States. This is well known but rarely incorporated systematically in European integration theorizing and is often treated as an exogenous factor. Simplistic neo-realist theorizing about European integration as a component of balancing against the communist bloc was shown void in the 1990s, and since then, the mainstream integration theorizing has rather become more inward-looking. Even if the current US administration's hostile approach to the EU turns out as exceptional and the liberal international order is restored, increased theorizing is needed on how the international shapes the European integration process.

The paper revisits the 2004/2007 big Eastern enlargement of the EU to develop a framework that utilises the concept of ‘interaction’ at four levels. At the most general level, the model explores how the culture of interaction present in the international system affects the enlargement process. On the next level, it explores how the process is linked to the interaction pattern between the EU and its immediate surroundings. The third level explores interactions between EU member states and candidate countries. The fourth level is devoted to the EU's internal interaction culture.

The presentation – based on decision-making, factorial, and comparative analysis – is to qualitatively determine the likelihood of implementing four main proposals for reforming the European Union's institutional system, contained in the European Parliament's proposals for treaty amendments presented in 2023. The first proposal is to "more accurately reflect the bicameral system" by increasing the number of areas in which decisions are taken by qualified majority and the ordinary legislative procedure. The second reform is to merge the positions of the President of the Commission and the President of the European Council, which is intended to constitute a reversal of the current roles of both institutions. The third reform is to introduce a default rule for decision-making by qualified majority within the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), with the European Parliament acting as co-legislator. The fourth reform would consist of a slight strengthening of the role of national parliaments by introducing the “green card”.

The theoretical framework for the presentation comprises four approaches characteristic of intergovernmentalism: classical, liberal, new and the neo form. The latter, proposed elsewhere by the author of the presentation, is inherently normative, stemming from a neorealist perception of political reality by the governments of some member states and their related scholars. It should not, therefore, be treated as a continuum of intergovernmental thinking, but rather as an ad hoc approach, devoid of in-depth scientific insights. The main categories of these approaches will be characterized, and on this basis, two hypotheses will be presented as a starting point for analyzing the likelihood of implementing specific reforms. The first (H1) uses the strengthening of the position of member states in the EU decision-making system as its independent variable. It can therefore be assumed that if a given reform strengthens their role, it should be adopted. In the second hypothesis (H2), the independent variable is the conformity of a specific reform with the specific assumption of each approach: 'logic of competition' (H2a), ‘issue-specific asymmetrism’ (H2b), deliberativism (H2c), 'subhegemonic polycentrism' (H2d). Here, it should be assumed that if a given reform is consistent with the assumption, it should be implemented. The main idea of ​​the presentation is that in all intergovernmental perspectives the probability of implementing the indicated reforms is low, and even the probability of fragmented implementation of some of them is not high.

The European Union claims to be a community of law. Accordingly, if there is a viable project of critical approaches to European studies, legal scholars should be part of that project. Nevertheless, legal studies sometimes seem to carve a liminal existence in the field of European studies. This may be different in the field of critical legal studies. For example, the Routledge handbook on critical European studies does feature a single chapter on legal studies. Moreover, recently proposals have advanced for developing contributions of legal studies to the project of critical European studies. This paper discusses three current approaches to critical European legal studies, before introducing a comparative socio-legal study of perceptions and usages of rights generated by the EU both in its Member States and its neighbourhood.

Approaches assuming a critical perspective on European legal studies are numerous, but the paper will introduce three recent developments: the Hegelian project pursued by Armin von Bogdandy and Loic Azoulai reclaiming the normative value base of European constitutionalism, the project pursued by Marija Bartl’s connecting political economy and European legal studies in the pursuit of alternative visions of prosperity, the revival of history of European law recently connected with new approaches to European history by Brigitte Leuchtenberg and others. It continues by introducing socio-legal comparison as an alternative perspective, suitable for revealing perceptions and potential uses of EU-derived rights as a contribution to researching Europe and the Everyday.

Thus, the paper also suggests ways to overcome monodisciplinary approaches to European studies, as well as approaches focusing on one country as case study, or assuming a European level only perspective. It demonstrates how European legal studies can contribute to the critical project of European studies if they are multidimensional disciplinary and truly comparative.

European studies has long viewed civil society as core to the European project, treating civic actors as transmitters of democratic governance and European values. This assumption has not only plagued the academic literature, but also practitioner perspectives on democracy development over the last two decades. Recent events across Europe’s “periphery,” especially prospective EU member states in the Western Balkans, challenge this viewpoint. State-aligned, illiberal actors increasingly drive public discourse and occupy roles in governance for the sake of anti-democratic ends, while remaining legible as “civil society” within European academic and policy circles. This trend necessitates a new framework for understanding civil society’s evolving roles in contemporary governance.

This paper argues that so-called illiberal civil society should not be approached as an empirical anomaly, but as a structural blind spot in how Europe has been conceptualized and studied. By interrogating the notion of civil society across the disciplines of European studies, it shows that dominant analytical perspectives obscure the relational forms of power, informal coordination, and political brokerage that are essential aspects of governance in Europe's hybrid regimes today. The paper argues that these assumptions reify a dualistic view of Europe, in which normative commitments are analytically disconnected from actual practices of governance. Instead, I propose a relational view of civic autonomy, accountability, and legitimacy that better captures how civil society operates as a technology of governance rather than purely a democratic counterweight.

The theory-forward paper offers both epistemic critique and conceptual clarification, situating its interpretive analysis in Europeanization literature, governance theories, and empirical insights from the Western Balkans. By reconceptualizing illiberal civil society as constitutive of European governance, it provides a new perceptive on how Europe’s political order is conceptualized and studied from its peripheries while advancing debates on the durability of contemporary hybrid regimes in Europe.