Legal analysis suggests EU accession unanimity rules are procedural, not treaty-bound, and political will, not law, stalls enlargement.
🔗 Read the article on balcanicaucaso.org
[This is an automatically generated summary, for reference only]
The article discusses the legal aspects of the European Union’s enlargement process, focusing on the persistent obstruction by Hungary regarding Ukraine’s accession. An interview with European law professor Christophe Hillion clarifies that the requirement for unanimity in intermediate stages of accession negotiations is merely an institutional practice, not a legal mandate under the EU Treaties. According to the Treaties, unanimity is only required at the very beginning of the process and for the final accession treaty ratification. Hillion argues that the current insistence on unanimous decisions for opening and closing every negotiation chapter is largely a political tactic to slow down or halt a process already agreed upon. He suggests that the practice could be changed to a qualified majority vote, but this requires a political will. Ultimately, the author concludes that member states have an obligation to cooperate to ensure the process continues, and the veto power should require a proportional justification to halt negotiations.
