EditReport: Europe’s enlargement trapped in vetocracy
Researchers urge the creation of an Enlargement Dispute Resolution Mechanism to stop member states from using vetoes as political leverage
The European Union’s long-stalled enlargement process, revived in the wake of Russia’s war on Ukraine, risks faltering again amid unresolved bilateral disputes between member states and candidate countries. A new report by Steven Blockmans and Butrint Berisha, From Stalemate to Solution: Rethinking EU Approaches to Bilateral Disputes in the Context of Enlargement, argues that without institutional reform, the EU’s credibility as a promoter of peace and integration could erode further.
The authors of the The International Centre for Defence and Security (ICDS), a leading think-tank in Estonia, propose the establishment of a European Enlargement Dispute Resolution Mechanism (EDRM) – a formal arbitration framework that would process disputes between members and candidates, as well as among candidate countries, under clear timelines and rules. This mechanism, they argue, would curb the growing trend of member states misusing their vetoes to extract concessions, a pattern exemplified by what they call Bulgaria’s blockade of North Macedonia and Hungary’s obstruction of Ukraine’s accession path.
The veto problem
The report notes that while dozens of disputes exist among candidate countries – ranging from border and minority issues to economic disagreements – the most politically toxic ones are those involving member states. “Member states can strategically misuse their veto power in the pre-accession process to gain political leverage,” the authors write. Such tactics, they warn, undermine the collective will of the Union’s 26 other members and turn enlargement into a hostage of domestic politics.
This “vetocracy” has not only slowed progress for aspiring members but also weakened the EU’s geopolitical posture at a time when it seeks to project unity in the face of external threats. Both Sofia’s ongoing demands on Skopje and Budapest’s piecemeal vetoes against Kyiv are cited as prime examples of enlargement becoming a political bargaining chip rather than a policy of integration.
From non-intervention to conditionality
Blockmans and Berisha trace the evolution of the EU’s approach to disputes. Before 2004, the Union largely relied on the integrative power of membership to resolve tensions, as seen in the reconciliation between the UK and Ireland over Northern Ireland. However, the accession of Cyprus without a settlement with Türkiye marked a turning point. Since then, the EU has required the prior resolution of disputes as a condition for accession – a rule that has often proved counterproductive.
The Cyprus case, the authors argue, imported an unresolved conflict into the Union and emboldened other member states to use vetoes for leverage. “The change in the power balance between Cyprus and Türkiye has been a negative source of inspiration,” they note, warning that similar dynamics now threaten the Western Balkans and Eastern enlargement tracks.
The report calls for a critical re-examination of this conditionality model, pointing to inconsistencies, policy stagnation, and growing populist resistance to enlargement. Current mechanisms – ranging from mediation under the UN and OSCE to recourse to the Permanent Court of Arbitration – are deemed insufficiently coordinated and overly reliant on political goodwill.
The authors advocate replacing ad hoc arrangements with a structured, principle-based system anchored in EU law. The proposed EDRM would distinguish between disputes linked to specific accession chapters – best handled within the EU’s legal framework – and broader political or identity issues, which should fall under external mediation or arbitration.
Bulgaria and Hungary in focus
Two case studies illustrate the stakes, according to the report. Accordingly, Bulgaria’s veto over North Macedonia’s negotiations, justified by disputes over language, history, and minority rights, has paralyzed Skopje’s accession path and discredited the EU’s promise of fair conditionality. Meanwhile, Hungary’s steady introduction of new demands against Ukraine – ostensibly about minority education rights but widely seen as political obstruction, has created a precedent for selective blackmail.
Both cases reportedly highlight how the absence of a structured dispute resolution system allows national politics to distort common policy. “The ability to manage and resolve such disputes,” the report stresses, “is not merely a technical requirement for enlargement but a strategic necessity in an increasingly conflicted geopolitical environment.”
The report fails to mention that Bulgaria no longer vetoes North Macedonia’s EU accession path. Sofia says conditions are embedded in the EU’s negotiation framework, agreed in 2022, when Bulgaria and North Macedonia reached a deal brokered by the French EU Presidency. Under the agreement, Bulgaria lifted its veto on Skopje’s EU path in exchange for constitutional amendments, which became a requirement at EU level for starting accession talks. However, the implementation has stalled due to opposition from VMRO-DPMNE, now leading the government in Skopje.
Hungary’s Szijjártó: More member states are blocking North Macedonia’s EU accession
Toward a strategic framework
To revitalise enlargement, the authors urge the European Commission to abandon its “habit of seeking unanimity at every interim step,” which they note is not required by EU law. Instead, the process should be guided by qualified majority voting and preventive diplomacy—what they term “early-warning mechanisms” to detect and defuse latent disputes before they escalate into blockades.
Ultimately, the report envisions the EDRM as part of a broader shift from reactive crisis management to strategic conflict prevention. By institutionalising arbitration and mediation, the EU could regain credibility as a fair broker and reassert enlargement as its core geopolitical tool.
Blockmans and Berisha conclude that without a consistent and principle-based mechanism, enlargement risks becoming a zero-sum contest of national interests – precisely the opposite of what the European project was designed to achieve.
Caption: European Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos (L) and European High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas (R) attend the weekly college meeting of the European Commission in Brussels, Belgium, 28 May 2025. EPA/OLIVIER HOSLET
Updated: October 10, 2025 - 06:32
