https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5530-8745
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
With high interdependence, politicization, and unlikely enlargement, alternative options for EU–Turkey relations beg for consideration. This article argues that, first of all, conceptualization of a new model of EU–Turkey relations must thoroughly account for the evolution of the European project away from uniformity and towards more differentiation as a result of both integration and disintegration pressures. Secondly, an extended model of external differentiated integration has a potential to foster new, more dynamic EU–Turkey relations. However, its practical implementation is constrained by a number of challenges and scope conditions related to preferences and interests of key actors, namely EU institutions, member states and Turkey.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Note on contributors
Agnieszka K. Cianciara is deputy director of the Institute of Political Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences. She is associate professor at the Institute’s Department of European Studies. In 2017 she was visiting professor at Sciences Po Lyon. She was PI in the project ‘Europeanization of political parties and interest groups in the context of Eastern Partnership’ financed by the Polish National Science Centre (2013–2016). Under the FEUTURE project financed by the European Commission (Horizon 2020) she authored a Country Report (Poland) on EU–Turkey relations. She holds PhD and habilitation in political science from the Polish Academy of Sciences and double MA in European Studies from University of Warsaw and College of Europe. Her research interests include Europeanization, European Neighbourhood Policy, differentiated integration, EU – Turkey relations and interest representation in the EU. She has published in Journal of European Integration, Journal of Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, Perspectives on European Politics and Society and Yearbook of Polish European Studies.
Adam Szymański is associate professor at the Faculty of Political Science and International Studies, University of Warsaw. From 2004 to 2011 he was also an analyst in the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM). In 2012–2013 he was a TÜBITAK research fellow at Koç University in Istanbul. He is an expert in EU enlargement and Turkish politics and foreign policy. He is the author of numerous publications in English and Polish, including Constitutional System of Turkey, Warsaw 2006; Between Islam and Kemalism. Problem of Democracy in Turkey, Warsaw 2008; Turkey and Europe. Challenges and Chances, Warsaw 2011; European Union Enlargement. Contemporary Determinants and Prospects for the Continuation of the Process, Warsaw 2012; and Change in Enlargement Policy of the European Union – Institutional Approach, Warsaw 2014.
ORCID
Agnieszka K. Cianciara http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5530-8745
Adam Szymański http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6374-2736
Notes
1 Juncker, “State of the Union,” part 4.
2 Müftüler-Baç, “Turkey’s Future.”
3 De Neve, “The European Onion?”; Dyson and Sepos, Which Europe; Warleigh-Lack, “Differentiated Integration in the European Union”; Koening, “A Differentiated View”; Leruth, Gaenzle and Trondal, “Differentiated Integration and Disintegration”; Leuffen, Rittberger and Schimmelfennig, Differentiated Integration: Explaining Variation; Leruth and Lord, “Differentiated Integration in the European Union”; and Bellamy and Kröger, “A Demoicratic Justification.”
4 Lavenex, “Concentric Circles,” and Schimmelfennig, “Circles and Hemispheres.”
5 Schimmelfennig, “Brexit: Differentiated Disintegration.”
6 Leuffen, Rittberger and Schimmelfennig, Differentiated Integration: Explaining Variation.
7 European Parliament, “European Parliament Resolution of 6 July 2017,” Introduction.
8 Kirişci and Bülbül, “The EU and Turkey,” paragraph 2.
9 European Council, “EU-Turkey Leaders’ Meeting in Varna.”
10 Karakaş, “EU–Turkey: Integration”; Gstöhl, “Models of External Differentiation”; and Müftüler-Baç, “Turkey’s Future with the European Union.”
11 We do not rely solely on liberal intergovernmentalism (the approach taken by Karakaş). Instead we follow the theoretical framework proposed by Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier, who take into consideration different rationalist approaches. See Karakaş, “EU–Turkey: Integration,” and Schimmelfenning and Sedelmeier, “The Study of EU Enlargement.”
12 European Commission, “White Paper.”
13 Schimmelfennig and Winzen, “Eastern Enlargement,” 255.
14 Schimmelfennig, “EU Enlargement and Differentiation,” 682.
15 Full text of Prime Minister David Cameron’s Speech, paragraph 67.
16 Szymański, “What Kind of Union Does Poland Need.”
17 Leruth and Lord, “Differentiated Integration in the European Union,” 756 and Fossum, “Democracy and Differentiation.”
18 Bellamy and Kröger, “A Demoicratic Justification,” 628–29.
19 We do not refer here to the outdated concept of “privileged partnership.” It does not appear in the 2010s in debates on new models of EU-Turkey relations. It was proposed as an alternative to full EU membership for Turkey in the early 2000s, but it was soon abandoned even by its propagators (French and Austrian governments, German CDU/CSU). The proposal was politically motivated, it excluded the accession prospect even in the long run, and offered no substantial new benefits for Turkey. It did not envisage the impact on EU decision-making processes as well as sufficient Turkish participation in the EU institutions and policies. It should not be taken into consideration as a viable option for the EU’s future, which will be determined by differentiation and disintegration processes.
20 For more, see Preston, Enlargement and Integration.
21 Müftüler-Baç and Luetgert, “The European Union’s Alternative Models,” 14.
22 Warleigh-Lack, “Differentiated Integration,” 881–2.
23 Raik and Tamminen, “Inclusive and Exclusive Differentiation,” 45–46.
24 Müftüler-Baç and Luetgert, “The European Union’s Alternative Models,” 8.
25 See Tocci, “Turkey and the European Union,” 5–10.
26 See Dalay, “Turkey and Europe after Brexit,” and Pisani-Ferry et al., “Europe after Brexit.”
27 Gstöhl, “Models of External Differentiation,” 861.
28 Müftüler-Baç and Luetgert, “The European Union’s Alternative Models,” 12, and Turhan, “Thinking Out of the Accession Box,” 3–4.
29 Müftüler-Baç, “Turkey’s Future with the European Union,” 2.
30 Ülgen, “Avoiding a Divorce,” and interviews with Dr Günter Seufert and Dr Ioannis N. Grigoriadis.
31 Barker, “Despite Migration Deal.”
32 “EU Membership Talks with Turkey Should not be Halted, Juncker Says,” paragraph 2.
33 Karakaş, “EU–Turkey: Integration,” 1061.
34 Quaisser and Wood, “EU Member Turkey?” and Pisani-Ferry et al., “Europe after Brexit.”
35 Güsten and von Salzen, “Fall Yücel”.
36 Müftüler-Baç and Luetgert, “The European Union’s Alternative Models,” 10; Raik and Tamminen, “Inclusive and Exclusive Differentiation,” 47–9; and Pisani-Ferry et al., “Europe after Brexit,” 6–9.
37 Szymański, “Alternatives to EU Membership,” 61, an Atilgan and Klein, “EU Integration Models,” 8–10.
38 Karakaş, “EU–Turkey: Integration,” 1069.
39 Turhan, “Thinking Out of the Accession Box,” 2.
40 Karakaş, “EU–Turkey: Integration,” 1067.
41 Turhan, “Thinking Out of the Accession Box,” 4.
42 Erkuş, “EU Choosing to ‘Re-engage’,” part 2.
43 Müftüler-Baç, “Turkey’s Future,” 17–8.
44 Gstöhl, “Models of External Differentiation,” 862.
45 Müftüler-Baç, “Turkey’s Future,” 10–7.
46 Pierson, “The Path to European Integration.”
47 Lippert, “The Nexus Between Enlargement and Differentiation,” 8ff.
48 Özcan, “Merkel Conveys Germany’s veto.”
49 Müftüler-Baç and Luetgert, “The European Union’s Alternative Models,” 9.
50 Kücükkaya, “Gül’den AB yorumu ‘Bizim için en iyisi Norveç modeli’.”
51 Müftüler-Baç and Luetgert, “The European Union’s Alternative Models,” 9.