- 日本EU学会年報 (ISSN:18843123)
- vol.2004, no.24, pp.96-124,313, 2004-09-30 (Released:2010-05-21)
This article explores how the EU reached it decision to finalise accession negotiations with 10 candidate countries at the Copenhagen European Council in December 2002. At the time of the Helsinki European Council in December 1999, there was an apparent lack of consensus on the three crucial questions concerning enlargement—‘timing’ of the conclusion of accession negotiations and the date of the accessions, with ‘how many’ candidate countries, and how to ‘finance’ enlargement. It was extremely hard to find solutions that might satisfy both the current member states and candidate countries. This article analyses when, how and why these questions were solved, and how these painful accession negotiations were able to be finalised at Copenhagen.As for the question of the ‘timing’, most of the EU member states had initially been extremely reluctant to set any specific ‘Target Date’ to conclude the negotiations, while the candidate countries had constantly been demanding the EU to present such a date. The only ‘commitment’ that the EU made at Helsinki was to indicate that it would be ‘in a position to welcome new Member States from the end of 2002’. However, it turned out that the EU had to step up its commitment by a proposal after the Commission and the French Presidency to create the ‘Road Map’, a detailed scenario to finalise the negotiations, which was endorsed in the Nice European Council in December 2000. Although creating the ‘Road Map’ and setting a ‘Target Date’ were not precisely identical, it turned out that implementing the ‘Road Map’ directed the EU almost inevitably to refer to 2002 as the EU's goal to finalise the accession negotiations with the most prepared countries. Also, the pressure from the European Parliament to set the date of the accession as 2004 had a great influence on the conclusion of the negotiations by the end of 2002.The question of ‘size’ was settled in two stages: when the EU decided to conclude the accession negotiations with the most prepared candidates by the end of 2002, the question of the size was almost automatically settled. Then, having to admit the considerable progress of the accession negotiations under the Road Map, the Laeken European Council in December 2001 named 10 countries which were likely to finalise the negotiations by the end of 2002.The finalisation of the negotiations on the chapters with budgetary implications—‘Agriculture’, ‘Regional Policy and Co-ordination of Structural Instruments’ and ‘Finance and Budgetary Provisions’—was by far the most difficult. Although the EU claimed that their common positions were agreed at the Brussels European Summit in October 2002, the candidate countries were far from being satisfied by the deal. The negotiations were therefore on the brink of collapse. However, two factors contributed the finalisation of accession negotiations with the 10 candidate countries at the Copenhagen European Council in December 2002: the Danish Presidency played a role as an honest broker to find a compromise between current member states and the candidate countries, and EU member states were ‘entrapped’ to keep their ‘commitment’ at the Laeken European Council to finalise the negotiations by the end of 2002.