Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKochenov D
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-20T12:50:25Z
dc.date.available2018-11-20T12:50:25Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.identifier.issn1827-8361
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.eurac.edu/documents/edap/2007_edap02.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10863/7356
dc.description.abstractAlthough minority protection was one of the Copenhagen political criteria and thus was at the core of the conditionality principle presupposing a fair assessment of the candidate countries' progress towards accession to the European Union on the merits, the Commission simultaneously promoted two contradicting approaches to the issue throughout the whole duration of the pre-accession process. They included, on the one hand, de facto assimilation and, on the other hand, cultural autonomy, thus being entirely contradictory. This paper is dedicated to outlining the main differences between the two key approaches to minority protection espoused by the Commission in the course of the latest enlargements' preparation. It also outlines the harmful effects of such an unbalanced approach to minority protection in the course of enlargement preparation on the future functioning of the EU enlargement law and, in particular, on the likely application of the conditionality principle in the future enlargement rounds.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherEURAC researchen_US
dc.rights
dc.titleCommission's approach to minority protection during the preparation of the EU's Eastern enlargement: is 2 better than the promised 1?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.date.updated2018-11-20T11:28:21Z
dc.language.isiEN-GB
dc.journal.titleEuropean Diversity and Autonomy Papers - EDAP
dc.description.fulltextopenen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record