BATI BALKAN ROMANLARI: NORMATİF GÜÇ AVRUPA'NIN TURNUSOL TESTİ?

Full text

THE CASE OF THE
WESTERN BALKAN ROMA:
A LITMUS TEST FOR
NORMATIVE POWER EUROPE?
Murat ÖNSOY
Assoc.Prof.Dr., Hacettepe University,
Faculty of Economics and Administrative
Sciences,
Department of International Relations
onsoymurat@hotmail.com
Zeynep ARKAN TUNCEL
Lecturer Dr., Hacettepe University,
Faculty of Economics and Administrative
Sciences,
Department of International Relations
zeynep.arkan@gmail.com
bstract: Viewed increasingly as a
‘normative’ power, the European Union
has come to dictate what is regarded as
‘normal’ or ethically superior behaviour
and standards not only in its domestic
realm, but also in its neighbourhood and beyond.
This ideational dimension of the European
Union’s foreign policy is most apparent in
enlargement policy, its most successful foreign
policy tool to date. This article argues that the
European Union’s ‘normative power’ is being
tested in its enlargement policy towards the
Western Balkans and analyses the extent of this
challenge through the Union’s enlargement
conditionality concerning the Roma, the most
discriminated and marginalised group in the
Western Balkans. By specifically focusing on the
protection and promotion of the rights of the Roma
in the Western Balkan countries, the article
contends that despite decades of efforts that have
dramatically improved the legal infrastructures of
the Western Balkan states and harmonised them
with the EU legislation, the overall picture is still
bleak and the Roma populations in the Western
Balkans continue to face discrimination in almost
all spheres of life.
Keywords: Western Balkans, European Union,
Normative Power, conditionality, enlargement,
Roma.
A
Hacettepe University
Journal of Economics
and Administrative
Sciences
Vol. 35, Issue 1, 2017,
pp. 41-65

BATI BALKAN
ROMANLARI: NORMATİF
GÜÇ AVRUPA'NIN
TURNUSOL TESTİ?
Murat ÖNSOY
Doç.Dr., Hacettepe Üniversitesi,
İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi,
Uluslararası İlişkiler Bölümü
onsoymurat@hotmail.com
Zeynep ARKAN TUNCEL
Öğr.Gör.Dr., Hacettepe Üniversitesi,
İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi,
Uluslararası İlişkilerBölümü
zeynep.arkan@gmail.com
z: Gün geçtikçe daha ‘normatif’ bir
güç olarak görülen Avrupa Birliği,
sadece kendi sınırları içinde değil,
aynı zamanda kendisine komşu
bölgeler ve dünyada da ‘normal’ ya
da etik olarak üstün görülen
davranış ve standartlar konusunda belirleyici
konumdadır. Avrupa Birliği dış politikasının bu
düşünsel boyutu, en açık haliyle Birlik’in en
başarılı dış politika aracı olan genişleme
politikasında görülmektedir. Bu makale Avrupa
Birliği’nin ‘normatif gücü’nün, Batı Balkanlar’a
yönelik genişleme politikası ve özellikle de
bölgede en fazla ayrımcılığa uğrayan ve
marjinalize edilmiş grup olan Romanlara yönelik
genişleme şartlılığı ile sınandığı iddia etmektedir.
Makale Batı Balkanlar’da yaşayan Romanların
haklarının korunması ve geliştirilmesi konusuna
odaklanarak, bölge ülkelerinin yasal altyapılarını
Avrupa Birliği mevzuatı ile uyumlulaştıran ve
iyileştiren sürece rağmen bölgede yaşayan
Romanlara yönelik ayrımcılığın her alanda devam
ettiğini savunmaktadır.
Anahtar Sözcükler: Batı Balkanlar, Avrupa
Birliği, normatif güç, şartlılık, genişleme,
Romanlar.
Ö
Hacettepe Üiversitesi
İktisadi ve İdari Bililer
Fakültesi Dergisi,
Cilt 35, Sayı 1, 2017,
s. 41-65

The Case of the Western Balkan Roma: A Litmus Test for…¨ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL
Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences ¨
Vol 35, Issue 1, 2017
43
INTRODUCTION
The end of the Cold War marked the beginnings of a new era for the Europe
Union (EU) as an international actor. Moving away from a relatively passive role, the
Union gradually transformed itself into a valuable actor that has contributed greatly to
the shaping of a new order in its neighbourhood and beyond.1 In fact, it “has been
actively setting the ‘rules of the game’, the norms of domestic and international
behaviour that should guide European states, as well as shaping the institutional
structure in which those states are increasingly embedded” (Smith, 2011: 300). While
there are doubts regarding the long-term vision and capabilities of the EU in its
common foreign and security policy (CFSP), its norm-setting character continues to
impact the Union’s domestic politics in the form of relations between its constituent
units, as well as its policy areas that have external goals and impact. The sphere of
external relations and, as part of it, enlargement policy is the most obvious example of
the latter.
The evolution of the EU as an international actor has followed a somewhat rocky
path. In terms of its external economic relations, the Union has flourished as an
effective global player on par with great powers such as the United States and China,
and is the largest trade power in the world. In terms of external political relations,
however, developing a ‘common’ policy to make a distinctive contribution in world
politics to complement its economic power has proven to be a slow and difficult
process. While co-operation between the Member States in foreign policy matters dates
back to the creation of European Political Co-operation in 1970, the efforts to forge a
common and effective EU level policy have been fledging, and foreign policy, in the
narrow and traditional sense of the term, has remained mostly under the auspices of the
Union’s Member States. As Giegerich and Wallace noted, “[t]he structures and
underlying assumptions of policy-making in this field today are marked by past
struggles over the balance between national sovereignty and effective capabilities”, as a
result, in the sphere of foreign policy “intergovernmentalism remains the norm”
(Giegerich, Wallace, 2010: 432). The predominantly intergovernmental nature of
foreign policy making implies that, despite increasing capacity for action as well as
internal and external demands and pressure for the EU to speak with a unitary voice in
the international fora, the Union still seems haunted by a capability-expectations gap in
materialising its foreign policy vision (Hill, 1993; 1998). The self-proclaimed objective
of the EU to be “an anchor of stability” and spreading prosperity and democracy in its
region remains far from being realised, particularly in the Southeastern part of the
continent (CEU, 2008: 1). To make the situation even worse, in the last decade, the EU
has been facing many challenges in the form of sharp economic downturns, widening
government deficits, and high levels of debt that constitute economic and financial
pressures that prevent further harmonisation of Member States’ interests and hinder the

ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL ¨Batı Balkan Romanları Normatif Güç Avrupa’nın Turnusol Testi
Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi ¨
Cilt 35, Sayı 1, 2017
44
success of the EU as an autonomous global actor (Reinhart, 2009; see also CEU, 2 003).
The Union’s ‘pull’ as a new form of polity with normative qualities and power seem to
be waning amid the financial crisis and its failure to present a united front in the face of
the ongoing refugee crisis. These constrain not only the role of the EU as a global
power, but also the success of its foreign policy tools – the most unique and successful
among them, its enlargement policy. As a result, the limitations of the EU as a benign
yet effective ‘force for good’ in its neighbourhood and beyond are becoming
increasingly apparent. This is particularly the case in the Western Balkans (WB) where
– despite improvements in the political situation since the early 2000s – the overall
picture is still bleak.
The WB is an important region for the EU both in terms of its enlargement goals
and as a theatre of operation. In the last decade, the countries of the WB 2 have been
undertaking EU-sponsored economic and political reforms that aim at bringing them
closer to the EU in line with the aim to stabilise the region through integration. Yet,
despite heavy and active engagement of the EU, as the Commission’s 2016
Communication on EU Enlargement Policy puts it, most countries in the region made
little progress on some major issues like the protection and promotion of minority
rights, particularly in relation to the rights of Roma minorities (EC, 2016a). At the same
time, the EU seems to have lost at least part of its credibility and attraction in the region
as a result of its interventionist policies and inconsistent discourse.
To shed light on an important dimension of the EU’s engagement in the WB
within the framework of its norm-driven foreign policy, this article focuses on a basic
cornerstone of EU’s enlargement policy: membership conditionality regarding the
protection and promotion of minority rights. In recent years, the importance of minority
rights has been highlighted by the EU in its 2013/2014 Enlargement Strategy, which
considered this component as a “fundamental value” that is “at the heart of the
accession process” (EC, 2014a). Yet, with the new EU approach of opening Chapters 23
(Judiciary and Fundamental Rights) and 24 (Justice, Freedom and Security) in the
beginning of accession negotiations, there remain challenges ahead for candidates and
potential candidates, and it is becoming increasingly clear that the EU needs a new and
more comprehensive approach to better support these countries in line with the new
requirements.
This study builds on the idea that the EU spreads its norms through several
means, among which norm diffusion through membership conditionality is a vital one.
To analyse the situation in the WB countries with respect to norm diffusion in the
enlargement process of the Union and to highlight the shortcomings of the EU’s policies
in the region, the article focuses on membership conditionality and the protection and
promotion of the rights of the Roma minorities. It contends that the WB states have

The Case of the Western Balkan Roma: A Litmus Test for…¨ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL
Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences ¨
Vol 35, Issue 1, 2017
45
been reviewing much of their domestic laws, regulations, and structures to comply with
the EU standards, as a result of which the backbone that is necessary to protect the
rights of the Roma minorities, the procedural diffusion of EU norms, has been
materialised. However, the implementation of this ambitious legal framework, which is
vital for ensuring the guarantee of all rights, is still far from being materialised.
1. CONCEPTUALISING THE EU AS A NORMATIVE POWER
The traditional definition of foreign policy involves acts decided on and
implemented by government representatives acting on behalf of states in line with the
assumption that “[s]tates have foreign policies; international organizations coordinate
national positions” (Giegerich, Wallace, 2010: 432). While the EU’s record in terms of
developing its own autonomous institutions and methods of ‘common’ foreign policy
making at the European level is far from impressive, its actual foreign policy output
goes beyond this narrow, state-centric traditional definition both in terms of its political
and economic dimensions. The EU is a credible and effective foreign policy actor, yet
its foreign policy is not limited to the aptly entitled CFSP: the Union is one of the most
influential actors in world trade and environmental protection; has a strong track record
in peace-building and conflict prevention; and is the largest donor of development aid in
the world. This implies that EU policies that have external goals and impact contain
many components of the Union’s wide policy portfolio, including a number of
supposedly ‘domestic’ policies (for details, see Bretherton, Vogler, 2006).
The increasing visibility and impact of the EU as a foreign policy actor has
rendered the international role and identity of the Union a very popular area of study for
scholars. Numerous studies, particularly in the last two decades, offered different
characterisations and depictions of the EU’s international role, contribution and identity,
focusing on the different facets of its external relations – the EU as a (vanishing)
mediator (Nicolaïdis, 2004), a global conflict manager (Whitman, Wolff, 2012), a
Kantian power (Kagan, 2004), an ethical power (Aggestam, 2008), a civilian or
civilising power (Duchêne, 1972; Sjursen, 2006) and a quiet superpower (Moravcsik,
2002), among others. These depictions often approach the EU’s identity as a
determinant of its foreign policy behaviour and “the EU’s role as an international actor
and its international identity are considered a function of the significance of the EU and
its member states in international affairs and of the effectiveness of its policy practice”
(Sedelmeier, 2004: 125). Moreover, these various depictions of the Union’s
international identity often build on a demarcation between civilian as opposed to
military means and tools that the EU possesses in its foreign policy, and compare the
EU to other global powers (usually in the form of nation states) in terms of its policy
output and performance.

ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL ¨Batı Balkan Romanları Normatif Güç Avrupa’nın Turnusol Testi
Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi ¨
Cilt 35, Sayı 1, 2017
46
In an attempt to go beyond this simple (and at times state-centric) differentiation
between civilian versus military means and capabilities, Manners, in his seminal article,
turned his attention instead to the ideational power that the EU possesses. Accordingly,
he described the EU as a normative power with an “ability to shape conceptions of
‘normal’ in international relations” (Manners, 2002: 239). According to him, the most
important dimension of the Union’s power rested on its ability to shape the norms,
standards and behaviour that are accepted to be ‘normal’ in world politics. He further
explained that, as a unique type of polity created and shaped by the experiences of post-
war Europe, the EU had an increasingly growing reliance on and commitment to
specific norms and values in its relations with the wider world and between its
constituent units, i.e., its member states (Manners, 2002).
In his work, Manners differentiated between core and minor norms which he
identified respectively as peace, liberty, democracy, the rule of law and respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms; and social solidarity, anti-discrimination,
sustainable development and, of particular importance in enlargement policy, good
governance. These norms and principles on which the EU is built form the normative
basis of the EU, inform its foreign policy vision and objectives, and predispose the
Union to act in a specific manner in its relations with the wider world (Manners, 2002:
242-243). More importantly, these norms also give the EU “the ability to define what
passes for ‘normal’ in world politics”, which is ultimately seen as “the greatest power of
all” (Manners, 2002: 253). Building on this, Manners explained in a somewhat
essentialist manner that “the most important factor shaping the international role of the
EU is not what it does or what it says, but what it is” (Manners, 2002: 252).
Yet, according to Manners, its normative foundations alone do not make the EU
a normative power; the spreading of EU norms is another a crucial part of the process.
He explained that there are six main ways to diffuse norms: contagion, informational
diffusion, procedural diffusion, transference, overt diffusion, and cultural filter. The
contagion of norms takes place as a result of the “unintentional diffusion of ideas from
the EU to other political actors”, for example through the EU leading as a ‘virtuous
example’ (Manners, 2002: 244-245; Coombes, 1998: 237-238). In the case of
informational or procedural diffusion, the EU plays a more active role in the
dissemination of norms. The main difference between these two forms of diffusion is
that procedural diffusion requires the formal institutionalisation of the relationship
between the EU and the other actor, for example in the form of a co-operation or
association agreement or as part of the EU’s enlargement process, while in the case of
informational diffusion, the dispersion of norms takes place through the EU’s strategic
or declaratory communications (Manners, 2002: 244). In the case of norm transference,
the diffusion of norms ensues “when the EU exchanges goods, trade, aid or technical
assistance with third parties through largely substantive or financial means” (Manners,

The Case of the Western Balkan Roma: A Litmus Test for…¨ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL
Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences ¨
Vol 35, Issue 1, 2017
47
2002: 245). A good example of this is the EU’s agreements with third countries,
according to which the procedural and transference diffusion of norms are facilitated by
conditionality (Manners, 2002: 245). Overt diffusion, on the other hand, refers to the
type of diffusion that takes place where the EU, its institutions, representatives or
missions are physically present on the ground, and involves the impact of EU presence,
in whatever form, in the host country. Lastly, cultural filter refers to the learning or the
adaptation of norms in third countries, and as such “is based on the interplay between
the construction of knowledge and the creation of social and political identity by the
subjects of norm diffusion” (Manners, 2002: 245; Kinnvall, 1995: 61-71). In relation to
these different types of norm diffusion, Manners maintained that the crucial part of the
process is “the absence of physical force in the imposition of norms” and the cultural
means of diffusion which render the EU a different type of international actor (Manners,
2004: 5): the EU is a normative power because it has normative aims as well as means.
In a latter work, Manners differentiated between different meanings of normative
power and explained that in order to understand the normative character of the EU, one
needed to analyse not only the principles it is founded upon, but also its actions and
impact (Manners, 2011). He also noted that the EU’s greatest normative power rested
on its ability to live (or possibly lead) by example (Manners, 2010: 36). Building on
this, Tuomas Forsberg explained that the concept of normative power Europe rested not
only on the EU’s behaviour in accordance with acknowledged norms or its normative
means of power, but also on its normative identity and interests, and the normative ends
achieved (Forsberg, 2011). In this framework, he explained that the concept of
normative power should be seen more of an ideal type that actors aim to attain, to which
the EU comes closest to in real life. Writing on this multi-dimensional understanding of
normative power, Manners (2013) himself noted that the concept of normative power
referred to a multitude of things at once: a normative form of power exercised by a
specific actor; a particular and ideational (i.e., non-material) form of power; and
normative power as an ideal type (of actor).
Over the years, the ideas that Manners put forward in the framework of
normative power Europe have heavily influenced the debates on the EU’s international
role and identity in both academic and policy making circles. Numerous analyses of the
EU as a normative power, particularly with respect to policy areas with external impact
and aims such as development aid and crisis management, were accompanied with a
fine-tuning of the original assumptions by different scholars such as Diez (2013; 2005),
Laïdi (2011), Tocci (2008) and Whitman (2011) as well as Manners himself (see, for
example 2013, 2015). On the whole, these scholars aimed to clarify the concept and
reveal the sources and reflections of the EU’s normative power, building mainly on the
various meanings of the term. According to some, like other international actors, the EU
did not have a nature or identity in the world just because of its existence or essence

ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL ¨Batı Balkan Romanları Normatif Güç Avrupa’nın Turnusol Testi
Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi ¨
Cilt 35, Sayı 1, 2017
48
(i.e., what it is); instead the Union’s ‘nature’ and identity are defined, produced and
reproduced in its social practices. In his critique, Diez (2005) noted that normative
power Europe is inherently a construct which not only denotes the EU as a specific kind
of actor in international politics, but also determines the nature of the relationship the
Union has with third parties – a highly asymmetrical one in the case of the WB states –
the type of power it exercises, and the tools that it uses in its foreign policy. In this
respect, he stated that (2005: 614) “[n]ot only is the success of this representation a
precondition for other actors to agree to the norms set out by the EU; it also constructs
an identity of the EU against an image of others in the ‘outside world’.” According to
him, this representation of the EU as a normative power has consequences with regards
to how the EU treats third states and the way in which certain standards regarding
adherence to these norms are set and scrutinised by the Union: “the discourse of the EU
as a normative power constructs a particular self of the EU (and it is indeed perhaps the
only form of identity that most of the diverse set of actors within the EU can agree on),
while it attempts to change others through the spread of particular norms” (Diez, 2005:
614). According to this, the EU is placed in a hierarchically superior position to those
that desire to join the ‘European family’ and as such is ‘entitled’ to inspect and assess
their progress in meeting the standards required. Taking this a step forward, in a latter
article, Diez (2013: 196) proposed the replacement of normative ‘power’ with the
Gramscian conception of ‘hegemony’ to better understand the complex nature “of the
power relations involved in the EU’s external relations” by “draw[ing] attention to the
conflation of norms and interests and the effects… of normative discourses on the
identity and preferences of the actors within a normative power’s sphere of influence.”
According to him, this move would ultimately restore the concept of normative power
by injecting it with a critical purpose that it was supposed to have from the very
beginning.
Parallel to this, a critical literature on normative power Europe has emerged in
the late 2000s, which aimed to shed light on the shortcomings of the concept and some
of the fallacies it contained. Echoing the words of Cooper (2003: 71-72), who defined
the expansion of the EU as “[t]he most far-reaching form of imperial expansion” on
grounds that it incited significant changes in the legal, economic and social structures of
third states “all in the name of becoming members of the Union,” these critical voices
ultimately aimed to show that the concept was not as innocent as it seemed and that it
was, in many ways, an instance of “liberal imperialism”. As one of the most vocal
proponents of such view, David Chandler argued that, in its enlargement policy towards
particularly the WB states – the Union’s “de facto ‘empire’ to the east” (2007: 594) –
the EU’s practice has been a case of asymmetric power exercise in covert terms: the EU
is engaged in the region to externally regulate and manage these states through its
efforts of statebuilding while at the same time denying that it is doing so. Chandler
stated that this power exercise in the form of “[s]tatebuilding has enabled the European

The Case of the Western Balkan Roma: A Litmus Test for…¨ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL
Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences ¨
Vol 35, Issue 1, 2017
49
Union to project its power in the therapeutic framework of the liberal peace and of the
capacity-building and empowerment of its eastern neighbours” (2007: 594).
In view of these differing conclusions regarding the nature of the Union’s power
and impact, this study argues that it is possible to rely on the concept of normative
power in relation to the EU’s WB enlargement, while taking into account its limitations.
The article contends that the EU’s power exercises in enlargement policy are ultimately
shaped by the norms and values on which it is built and thus are not influenced by the
specific interests of the EU or its constituent member states. In this respect, the
‘normative’ means (as opposed to those which rely on the use of force) and aims of the
EU’s enlargement policy render the Union a unique kind of actor in the region. While
the authors acknowledge that the EU has certain shortcomings and that “the technocratic
and administrative legitimisation of external intervention is not beyond criticism in both
normative and practical policy terms” (Chandler, 2010: 70), the EU still “represents a
new kind of power in international politics” (Diez, Manners, 2007: 173) and, despite its
limitations and flaws in execution, can still be labelled as a force for good in the WB.
2. EU’S NORMATIVE POWER IN THE WB AND MINORITY RIGHTS
PROTECTION
Following the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the largest financial contributor to the
region in the early 1990s (Palokaj, 2010) was the EU. It has also been the main
international actor in the WB for over a decade (Rupnik, 2011: 18, 24). In the early
1990s, in the period of ongoing conflict, a large part of the EU’s contribution to the
region was in the form of humanitarian aid. From the mid-1990s onwards, with the
calming down of the situation, the Union shifted its priorities to encompass political and
economic stabilisation as well as the consolidation of democracy and civil society.
Countries in the region were given the prospect of EU membership as a result of which
reforms were initiated that projected a fundamental change in the existing legal,
political and social environment. The strict conditionality attached to the accession
process led to uneven results in the region, drawing some countries closer to the EU
while leading others to a stalemate.
Issues concerning minorities are key features of the EU’s conditionality clauses
regarding the WB, and parallel to this, their protection and promotion have turned into
pivotal issues in the enlargement discourse since the early 2000s (Panebianco, Rossi,
2004: 9). Today, all the EU-initiated political reforms in the region first and foremost
target the thorough management of these issues. As part of EU membership
conditionality, governments are required to adopt laws and implement policies to
address a wide variety of minority-related issues (Archick, Morelli, 2014). As a key
issue in the EU’s recent enlargement discourse, minority rights promotion has

ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL ¨Batı Balkan Romanları Normatif Güç Avrupa’nın Turnusol Testi
Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi ¨
Cilt 35, Sayı 1, 2017
50
experienced a slow but steady development in the early 2000s. The improvements
concerning the situation of the minorities occurred parallel to the introduction of a
conditionality based framework. What is called the ‘Regional Approach’ introduced by
the General Affairs Council on 29 April 1997 (EC, 1997) associated any advancement
in the relations between the EU and WB to the improvement of democratic conditions
including the protection of minorities (Pippan, 2004: 224-225). The employment of the
principle of conditionality in the bilateral Stabilisation and Association Processes (SAP)
in 1999 was another important step (Vurmo, 2008: 21). The SAP provided a
comprehensive approach towards the WB states, setting out political and economic
conditions for enhanced cooperation with the EU and offering a mixture of trade
concessions (Autonomous Trade Measures), economic and financial assistance mainly
in the form of technical assistance (Community Assistance for Reconstruction,
Development, and Stability – in short the CARDS Program), and contractual
relationships (Stabilisation and Association Agreements – SAAs) (Sebastian 2008: 1-6).
As the most important instrument of the SAP, the SAAs were stepping stones with
frequent references to minority rights protection. SAAs set crucial criteria and priorities
for the WB states, including the protection of the rights of the minorities through which
certain improvements in their daily lives were made possible.
Financial instruments are also an essential part of EU conditionality in the WB.
The Union funded a variety of minority-related initiatives via the European
Commission, which is the institution responsible for the financial implementation of
minority rights-related initiatives in the WB. Various structural aid and assistance
programs have also been channelled to the region to support EU efforts to bring into
question the rights of minorities. EU economic assistance is made conditional upon
satisfying the Copenhagen Criteria and meeting the priorities of the Accession
Partnership. Until 2000, Albania, Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina had
benefited from EU funds for Central and Eastern European countries through the
Programme of Community aid to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (better
known as “Poland and Hungary: Assistance for Restructuring their Economies” – in
short the PHARE program): a program that was launched in 1992 originally for Poland
and Hungary in order to provide assistance for restructuring their economies. To receive
financial and technical support under PHARE, these WB states had to boost their
reform efforts and prove that there is “a credible commitment to democratic reforms and
progress in compliance with the generally recognized standards of human and minority
rights” in their countries (Tatham, 2009: 319). On the other hand, the OBNOVA
(meaning reconstruction, restoration in Serbo-Croatian) program which was primarily
concentrated on Croatia and F.R. Yugoslavia, similar to PHARE, funded projects
focused on reconstruction and rehabilitation between conflicting parties, and preventing
the resurgence of ethnic hostilities.

The Case of the Western Balkan Roma: A Litmus Test for…¨ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL
Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences ¨
Vol 35, Issue 1, 2017
51
In 2001 the WB obtained its own EU assistance program – CARDS (Community
Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation), replacing PHARE and
OBNOVA – which also functioned as the main financial instrument of the SAP.
CARDS was an important breakthrough in the context of minority rights promotion as
an instrument highlighting the role of minorities in the process of ensuring long -term
democratic stabilisation (Ferrari, Khan, 2010: 7). It identified the protection of minority
rights as a medium-term challenge to be addressed at the national and regional levels.
The CARDS regional strategy for 2002-2006 considered dealing with the concerns of
the minorities as a crucial requirement for the sustainable development and
democratization of the region (EC, 2001: 9).
The financing of the Roma initiatives was problematic until 2006 under CARDS.
Projects related to the Roma have not been made operational through activities or in
budgets (Ferrari, Khan, 2010: 9). This changed in 2007 as CARDS and PHARE
programs were replaced by the all-encompassing Instrument for Pre-Accession
Assistance (IPA), which offered funds to candidate and non-candidate countries of the
region. The main purposes of the IPA in the WB were to increase efficiency and
coherence of the aid provided, and to better prepare the countries for actual membership
within the EU through initiatives such as institution building, cross-border cooperation,
and regional development. Minority-related issues were articulated in all activities
planned under the IPA (cf. paragraphs 100 and 101 in EP, 2006: 15).
IPA consists of five distinctive components, among which Components I
(Transition Assistance and Institution Building) and IV (Human Resources
Development) concerned with the minorities (EC, 2015: 5; CEU, 2006: 85). In the
period between 2007 and 2013, the total pre-accession funding provided amounted to
EUR 11.5 billion, (Ferrari, Khan, 2010: 14) and around EUR 150 million in pre-
accession assistance has been provided through IPA to support the social inclusion and
integration of minorities (EC 2015, 5).
As stated in the Council Regulation establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession
Assistance, the assistance provided by the EU aims to support “the promotion and the
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and enhanced respect for
minority rights” (CEU, 2006: 85). The allocation of funding is based on the respect for
human and minority rights principles on the part of the candidate countries as well as
potential candidate countries (CEU, 2006: 90). Political, social and economic
requirements to have access to IPA funds are in line with the Copenhagen Criteria
(Ferrari, Khan, 2010: 17). At the strategic planning level of IPA, the documents refer to
minorities as specific priority areas, and to alleviate their situation, projects have been
developed to specifically support the rights of minorities to participate in public life
(EC, 2009: 9, 11).

ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL ¨Batı Balkan Romanları Normatif Güç Avrupa’nın Turnusol Testi
Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi ¨
Cilt 35, Sayı 1, 2017
52
IPA expired by the end of 2013, heaping severe criticism due to the lack of
comprehensive and consistent country-specific policies, as well as a well-structured
regional policy. As a follow-up, a new regulation called IPA II has been introduced for
the 2014-2020 period, which intended to overcome the problems faced in the previous
period. With a determination not to repeat the mistakes of IPA, IPA II has a more
strategic and targeted approach (Murati, 2015). This sectoral approach of dealing with
issues closely linked to enlargement strategy such as democracy and governance, rule of
law or growth and competitiveness, is intended to help the WB states reach the EU
standards.
The European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) and the European Instrument
for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) were two other instruments that
contributed to minority rights protection in the WB (Zink, 2007). EAR was the main EU
assistance program responsible for implementing most of the EU assistance to Serbia,
Kosovo, Montenegro and Macedonia. In a relatively short space of time (2000-2008),
EAR managed to improve the delivery of EU assistance in the aftermath of the Kosovo
crisis. Handing a portfolio of almost EUR 3 billion, EAR had a number of objectives,
the most important of which was the achievement of higher standards in human and
minority rights. Through EAR, several training programmes were developed to
introduce, train and assist the EAR staff in the inclusion of key minority issues. EIDHR,
on the other hand, was created with the aim of promoting minority rights, the respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the development of the rule of law in the
WB, and employed conditionality in a progressive manner to provide assistance to the
local population. Pursuing a bottom up strategy, EIDHR aimed at the promotion of
democracy and human rights through the strengthening of civil society. Over the years,
it funded several civil society projects through its country-based support schemes, and
identified certain thematic priorities including the discrimination against minorities and
indigenous peoples.
3. EU’S ROMA POLICY IN THE WESTERN BALKANS
Until the 1990s, issues concerning the Roma were largely absent from the
political discussion surrounding the enlargement of the EU (Vermeersch, 2010: 227)
and until the 2000s the Union was primarily preoccupied with the potentially
destabilising effects of their westward migration rather than issues pertaining to their
security and wellbeing. The accession of ten Central and Eastern European states to the
EU and the consequential rise of the Roma population in the EU from 2 to 10–12
million have altered the EU’s approach. This led to the internalisation of the Roma
problem as their status changed from that of migrants to a minority (McGarry, 2012:
129).

The Case of the Western Balkan Roma: A Litmus Test for…¨ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL
Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences ¨
Vol 35, Issue 1, 2017
53
Parallel to the ongoing membership process of the Central and Eastern European
states, the enlargement wave expanded to include the WB. Owing to the EU accession
process, the promotion of the rights of the Roma was identified as a key component of
the stabilisation and democratisation of the region and a conditional requirement for
achieving the ultimate goal of EU membership. The diffusion of European norms into
the region was an opportunity for the Roma who turned into a huge ethnic underclass
during the Yugoslav Wars, and had the lowest socio-economic status among all ethnic
groups according to every statistical indicator during the post-war reconstruction years
(Silverman, 1995). The EU has put in place a wide range of legal, policy, and financial
instruments to support the Roma in the region, in particular their social inclusion, which
became a key priority of the Accession Partnerships and European Partnerships
programs. The Council of the EU adopted several measures on the promotion of the
rights of the Roma to make better use of the structural funds, pre-accession instruments,
and European Neighbourhood and Partnership instruments (CEU, 2015). Prompted by
the desire to fulfil the EU’s conditionality requirements, the WB states acknowledged
the protection of their minorities as a priority issue, and expressed their commitment to
the EU demands, which explicitly targeted or included Roma.
The WB states participated in several EU and non-EU projects dealing directly
or indirectly with the Roma communities and their concerns. The 2005 European
initiative called the Decade of Roma Inclusion is one of the most important of its kind.
Signed by all the WB countries with the exception of Kosovo, the Decade is a Europe-
wide attempt to close the socio-economic gap between the Roma and the majority
populations in the signatory states. Starting as a non-EU initiative, it later became
tightly linked to the EU integration process and therefore to EU conditionality and
turned into a core element of EU activities on Roma-related issues (Sobotka,
Vermeersch, 2012: 803).
Growing concerns since 2007 regarding human rights and particularly the rights
of Roma, transformed the issue into a pivotal matter on the EU’s political agenda. The
Union developed a common approach for improving socio-economic conditions of
Roma and implemented more broadly-defined strategies. The European Council made
the issue of Roma inclusion part of its Conclusions, and invited the Commission to
examine its existing policies and instruments. The Council also encouraged candidate
countries to make use of all available means to improve the conditions of Roma
(European Council, 2007: 14). In 2008, the European Parliament adopted a resolution
called A European Strategy for Roma which recognised “the lack of progress in
combating racial discrimination against the Roma and in defending their rights to
education, employment, health and housing” in the candidate states (EP, 2008).

ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL ¨Batı Balkan Romanları Normatif Güç Avrupa’nın Turnusol Testi
Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi ¨
Cilt 35, Sayı 1, 2017
54
The austerity measures and budgetary cuts following the Euro crisis that started
in 2009 undermined the achievement of the objectives set toward Roma inclusion.
Although not officially abandoned, the Roma initiatives were de facto suspended. The
effects of the Euro crisis were heavily felt by the WB Roma. The Enlargement Strategy
and Main Challenges 2010-2011 Report of the Commission underlined that the Roma
constituted a “particularly vulnerable minority” regarding the effects of the economic
crisis (EC, 2010).
In May 2011, the Member State leaders adopted An EU Framework for National
Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020, which aimed at encouraging the
implementation of effective measures for the Roma to promote better inclusion and
closing the gap in living conditions between them and the majority populations (CEU,
2011). The Framework also called on candidate and potential candidate states of the
WB to develop national policies for the inclusion of Roma (Idrizi, 2011). Moreover, a
2011European Commission Communication stated that the EU’s Roma integration
goals are equally relevant to those countries of the WB that are in the accession process,
and that they should thus review their existing policies in line with these goals (EC,
2011b). As a first step, all states were invited to prepare national Roma integration
strategies by the end of 2011. The candidate and potential candidate countries of the
WB have also been invited to develop their own strategies for the integration of Roma,
along with action plans for implementing those strategies (Kocze et al., 2014). The
European Commission underlined the necessity of reviewing the national Roma
integration strategies and Action Plans that were developed by the WB states within the
framework of the 2005-2015 Decade of Roma Inclusion. The Commission has also
announced that it will do what is necessary to improve and better coordinate the use of
IPA funds towards Roma, directing these funds towards more strategic and result-
oriented policies (EC, 2011b: 173).
Finally, the priority attached to the protection of minorities in the accession
process is highlighted by the EU in its 2013/2014 Enlargement Strategy, which
considers this component as a “fundamental value” that is “at the heart of the accession
process” (EC, 2014a). As part of this new approach, the Union opens Chapters 23 and
24 – related to justice, fundamental rights, freedom, and security – at the beginning of
the negotiations, which implies a more careful examination of Roma issues by the
Union.
4. THE LIMITED IMPACT OF ROMA CONDITIONALITY IN THE
WESTERN BALKANS
Over the past decades, the EU developed a number of policy initiatives and
implemented numerous international assistance programs from which Roma in the
region benefited directly or indirectly. However, the mechanisms that are used for

The Case of the Western Balkan Roma: A Litmus Test for…¨ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL
Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences ¨
Vol 35, Issue 1, 2017
55
promoting the rights of Roma minorities have not achieved the desired level of
implementation, and the requirements set by the EU are far from being met (ERIO,
2012: 5-6).
The progress in the economic, social, and political situation of the Roma is
subject to governmental and non-governmental monitoring, including the annual
Progress Reports of the European Commission. On the other hand, the Roma Inclusion
Index 2015 is the most recent source that offers a list of indicators and tests the progress
or the lack thereof in Roma rights. Roma in the WB face very difficult living conditions,
especially in the fields of education, social protection, health care, housing, and
employment (Kushen, 2015). A brief analysis of EU Progress Reports, as well as non-
EU documents, reveals that the Roma remain one of the most vulnerable groups in the
WB and continue to face multiple, deep-seated social and economic disadvantages
(ERIO, 2012: 3, 5-6). This is mainly due to the fact that EU conditionality fell short of
guaranteeing the rights of the Roma minorities as it did not go beyond providing a
limited diffusion of EU norms in the WB states and the creation of the necessary legal
structures. According to Human Rights Watch, a significant portion of the Roma
populations in the WB lives in deep poverty (New European Democracies Project,
2010: 1). As stated by the European Asylum Support Office, poverty is the most
important influencing factor behind the decision of Roma in the WB to claim asylum in
EU Member States (EASO, 2013). The increasing number of Roma asylum seekers
indicates that the living conditions of the Roma are not getting better. According to the
IPA II 2014-2020 report of the European Commission (2015), poverty rate of Roma is
at average of 36% in WB countries in comparison to 11% non-Roma population.
According to the Roma Inclusion Index 2015, in Macedonia, for example, “Roma live
on 58% less income than the total population” (Kushen, 2015: 19).
A survey made on the housing situation of the Roma in the WB (Kling, 2011) as
part of the UNDP/WB/EC regional Roma survey provides striking information on the
situation of Roma households. According to the survey made through face to face
interviews with more than 50.000 Roma and non-Roma in the WB, the average square
meters per Roma individual is 13.6 m2 in the WB, as compared to 27.9 m2 of non-
Roma. The proportion of WB Roma households which live in ruined houses or slums is
34% in comparison to 7% of non-Roma. On the other hand, 19% of Roma households
do not have piped water inside their homes, compared to 7% of non-Roma.
According to the Roma Inclusion Index 2015, the life expectancy for Roma
people is between 12 to 25 years lower than the non-Roma in Serbia, Montenegro and
Macedonia (Kushen, 2015: 18). In some countries, as many as 90% of Roma live in
segregated neighbourhoods (Kushen, 2015: 17), living on between 40% to 58% lesser
income than the total population (Kushen, 2015: 18).

ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL ¨Batı Balkan Romanları Normatif Güç Avrupa’nın Turnusol Testi
Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi ¨
Cilt 35, Sayı 1, 2017
56
In the last two decades, Roma children have increasingly been at a disadvantage
in accessing and acquiring quality education in the WB. Their situation has been
highlighted by several reports, such as those produced by UNICEF (2007), the Council
of Europe (2006) and the European Commission (2014b), to name a few. Roma children
are excluded from mainstream schooling, segregated in special needs schools or not
accepted at schools at all because they lack birth certificates or they miss registration
days. Enrolment rates, retention rates and the quality of education of the Roma children
are far lower than that of the non-Roma in the WB region (UNICEF, 2009: 11). Access
to early childhood education among WB Roma are 0.2% in Kosovo, 3.9% in Serbia and
12% in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Council of Europe, 2006: 24). There is a huge gap
between the enrolment rates of Roma and non-Roma children in primary school. This
gap is greatest in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro, ranging from 45 to
50% (UNICEF, 2011: 15). Secondary education is another a major challenge for Roma,
with very high drop-out rates. Only 18% of WB Roma enrol in secondary school and
less than 1% attend university (Ivanov, 2006: 30). The proportion of young Roma adults
completing upper-secondary general or vocational education is only about 10%
(Council of Europe, 2006: 24). In Albania, “[l]ess than 50% of all Roma children go to
primary schools and only about 25% have completed the primary education” (Civil
Rights Defenders, 2014). “Romani leaders in the FYROM estimate that as many as ten
percent of school-aged Romani children never enrol in the first grade, half of those who
do drop out by the fifth grade, and only 35-40 percent finish eighth grade” (OSCE
HCNM, 2000: 67). In Serbia, one in eight Roma of working age is estimated to have
completed at least secondary education (De Laat, 2010: Figures 1, 2). In Bosnia and
Herzegovina, “[l]ess than 35% of the Roma children regularly attend school.” In
Montenegro, “76% of Roma are illiterate, 80% doesn’t speak the local language” (Civil
Rights Defenders, 2014).
Another connected problem is unemployment. Low skill levels resulting from
low levels of education coupled with frequent discrimination have led to extremely low
levels of employment. In Macedonia, 73% of Roma are unemployed (New European
Democracies Project, 2010: 4). Short- and long-term unemployment levels among the
Roma are significantly higher than in majority populations in the WB – two times
higher than the overall unemployment rates. According to a 2011 UNDP survey, less
than one-third of Roma had paid employment; among those that did, 67% were
employed in unskilled or semi-skilled jobs. The number of Roma employed in the
informal labour market is four times higher than that of non-Roma (UNDP, World Bank
and EC, 2011).
Housing is among the most common problems of Roma, with about 90% living
in households that are below national poverty lines. 45% of Roma live in households
that lack basic housing amenities such as an indoor kitchen, toilet, and shower or bath,

The Case of the Western Balkan Roma: A Litmus Test for…¨ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL
Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences ¨
Vol 35, Issue 1, 2017
57
as well as electricity. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the Roma is the biggest ethnic
minority, 50 to 70% live in unsafe residential buildings, generally in one-room huts with
no sanitary facilities and even among ruins (Krunić-Zita, 2010: 68). In Albania, only
28% of Roma have direct water supply inside their dwellings, as compared to 97% of
non-Roma (ODIHR, 2014: 19).
These problems were also identified in the most recent Progress Reports of the
WB states. In relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina, the 2014 Progress Report states that
“[t]he Roma remained the country’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged minority” (EC,
2016b: 27). The report on Macedonia identified that prejudice and discrimination
against Roma persist, particularly in the areas of employment, education and social
inclusion (EC, 2016c). The Report on Montenegro, despite noting some improvement,
identified similar problems in relation to the Roma population (EC, 2016d) The Reports
on Serbia (EC, 2016e) and Kosovo (EC, 2016f) also note that Roma communities
continue to face major challenges, notably difficult socio-economic circumstances, lack
of education, weak health care, and discrimination.
CONCLUSION
This study analyses the normative power and impact of the EU in the WB
regarding the promotion of the rights of Roma minorities through conditionality. It
argued that the Union is a distinct kind of actor and human rights defender in both its
internal and external spheres. On the other hand, the limitations of the EU as a benign
yet effective force for good in its neighbourhood and beyond are becoming increasingly
apparent in the WB. While the EU is successful in disseminating its norms through the
mechanisms of accession conditionality, the effects of EU norms and their
materialisation in the form of reforms and newly created legal structures do not help
alleviate the situation of the minorities in their everyday lives. This limitation of the
EU’s normative power aims and means is most apparent in the initiatives of the Union
targeting the Roma populations of the WB states. As a community, Roma people are
affected to a much higher degree than their non-Roma counterparts by the region’s
chronic problems such as unemployment, inadequate education, and access to health
services. In this respect, it is possible to conclude that despite ending the de jure
discrimination against the Roma, the pressure by the EU on the WB governments
through mechanisms of conditionality did not prevent the de facto discrimination and
unequal treatment of the Roma populations. The statistics prove that these populations
continue to face discrimination in almost all spheres of life. Consequently, beyond the
procedural diffusion of norms and the creation of legal structures encouraged by the EU,
conditionality mechanisms fell short of guaranteeing the rights of the Roma minorities
by putting an end to their discrimination and the prejudices surrounding them.

ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL ¨Batı Balkan Romanları Normatif Güç Avrupa’nın Turnusol Testi
Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi ¨
Cilt 35, Sayı 1, 2017
58
NOTLAR
1 For reasons of convenience, the term European Union will be used to refer to all three
communities that have been established since 1952.
2 This refers to Croatia (which became an EU member in July 2013), candidate states Albania, the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia, and potential candidate states
Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo.
REFERENCES
Aggestam, L. (2008), “Introduction: Ethical Power Europe?”, International Affairs, 84(1), 1-11.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2008.00685.x.
Bretherton, C., J. Vogler, (2006), The European Union as a Global Actor. Abingdon: Routledge.
CEU (Council of the European Union) (2003), “European Security Strategy: A Secure Europe in
a Better World”, Brussels, December, 12.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf, E.T.: 13.09.2015.
CEU (Council of the European Union) (2006), “Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17
July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)”, Official
Journal of the European Union, (L 210), July 31, 82-93.
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/tempus/documents/tempus_ipa.pdf, E.T.: 19.09.2015.
CEU (Council of the European Union) (2008), “Report on the Implementation of the European
Security Strategy: Providing Security in a Changing World”, Brussels, December 11,
S407/08.
https://www.satcen.europa.eu/pdf_key/report%20on%20the%20implementation%20of
%20the%20ess.pdf, E.T.: 15.06.2015.
CEU (Council of the European Union) (2011), “An EU Framework for National Roma
Integration Strategies up to 2020 - Council Conclusions” Brussels. May 24, 10658/11.
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2010658%202011%20INIT,
E.T.: 11.09.2015.
CEU (Council of the European Union) (2015), “Council Conclusions on inclusion of the Roma”,
Brussels, December, 8.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/gena/104561.pdf,
E.T.: 10.09.2015.
Chandler, D. (2007), “EU Statebuilding: Securing the Liberal Peace through EU Enlargement”,
Global Society 21(4), 593-607, DOI: 10.1080/13600820701562850.
Chandler, D. (2010), The EU and Southeastern Europe: the rise of post-liberal governance”, Third
World Quarterly, 31(1), 69-85, DOI: 1080/01436590903557330.
Civil Rights Defenders (2014), “Photo Competition about the life of Roma in the Western
Balkans”, Civil Rights Defenders, April 23.
https://www.civilrightsdefenders.org/news/photo-competition-about-the-life-of-roma-
in-the-western-balkans/, E.T.: 4.06.2015.

The Case of the Western Balkan Roma: A Litmus Test for…¨ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL
Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences ¨
Vol 35, Issue 1, 2017
59
Coombes, D. (1998), “Leading by Virtuous Example: European Policy for Overseas
Development” in B. McSweeney (ed.), Moral Issues in International Affairs: Problems
of European Integration, 221–245, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Cooper, R. (2003), The Breaking of Nations: Order and Chaos in the Twenty-first Century,
London: Atlantic Books.
Council of Europe (2006), “Education of Roma children in Europe”, Strasbourg: Council of
Europe Publishing. December.
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/roma/Source/TextsActivitiesISBN_EN.pdf,
E.T.: 15.09.2015.
De Laat, J. (2010), “Economic Costs of Roma Exclusion”, The World Bank, Europe and Central
Asia Human Development Department, April.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTROMA/Resources/Economic_Costs_Roma_Exc
lusion_Note_Final.pdf, E.T.: 6.09.2015.
Diez, T. (2005), “Constructing the Self and Changing Others: Reconsidering ‘Normative Power
Europe’”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 33(3), 613-636.
DOI:10.1177/03058298050330031701.
Diez, T. (2013), “Normative Power as Hegemony”, Cooperation and Conflict, 48(2), 194-210.
DOI: 10.1177/0010836713485387.
Diez, T., I. Manners (2007), “Reflecting on ‘Normative Power’ Europe”, in Felix Berenskoetter
and Mayne .J. (ed.), Power in World Politics, 173-188, New York: Routledge.
Duchêne, F. (1972), “Europe’s Role in World Peace”, in Richard J. Mayne (ed.), Europe
Tomorrow: Sixteen Europeans Look Ahead, 32-47, London: Fontana.
EASO (European Asylum Support Office) (2013), “Asylum Applicants from the Western
Balkans: Comparative Analysis of Trends, Push–Pull Factors and Responses”.
https://easo.europa.eu/wp-content/uploads/WB-report-final-version.pdf, E.T.:1.09.2015.
EC (European Commission) (1997), “2003rd Council Meeting: General Affairs”, Press Release.
Luxembourg, April 29-30. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_PRES-97-129_en.pdf,
E.T.: 15.09.2015.
EC (European Commission) (2001), “CARDS Assistance Programme to the Western Balkans:
Regional Strategy Paper: 2002-2006”.
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/financial_assistance/cards/publications/regional_str
ategy_paper_en.pdf, E.T.: 19.10.2015.
EC (European Commission) (2009), “Commission Decision of 2009 on a Multi-annual Indicative
Planning Document (MIPD) 2009-2011 for Kosovo (under UNSCR 1244/99)”.
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/mipd_kosovo_2009_2011_en.pdf, E.T.:14.09.2015.
EC (European Commission) (2010), “Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2010-2011”,
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council,
Brussels. November 9, COM(2010) 660.
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2010/package/strategy_paper_2010
_en.pdf, E.T.: 15.08.2015.
EC (European Commission) (2011a), “Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2012-2013,”
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council,
Brussels, November 9.

ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL ¨Batı Balkan Romanları Normatif Güç Avrupa’nın Turnusol Testi
Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi ¨
Cilt 35, Sayı 1, 2017
60
https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/euobs-
media/4cf131c09151a12142a60ba4fdf2fdc7.pdf, E.T.: 22.04.2015.
EC (European Commission) (2011b), “An EU Framework for National Roma Integration
Strategies up to 2020”, Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions, Brussels, April 5, COM(2011) 173 final.
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/discrimination/docs/com_2011_173_en.pdf,
E.T.: 23.07.2015.
EC (European Commission) (2014a), “EU Enlargement in 2014 and Beyond: Progress and
Challenges”, Press Release, Brussels, October 8,
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1100_en.pdf, E.T.: 15.09.2015.
EC (European Commission) (2014b), “Report on Discrimination of Roma Children in
Education”.
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/roma_childdiscrimination_en.pdf,
E.T.: 18.09.2015.
EC (European Commission) (2015), “Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA II): 2014-
2020: Multi-Country: Roma Decade 2020, Phase 1 (2015-2018)”,
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/droi/dv/52_instrument
preaccess_/52_instrumentpreaccess_en.pdf, E.T.: 15.11.2015.
EC (European Commission) (2016a), “2016 Communication on EU Enlargement Policy.
https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-
enlargement/sites/near/files/pdf/key_documents/2016/20161109_strategy_paper_en.pdf,
E.T.: 13.07.2016.
EC (European Commission) (2016b), “Bosnia and Herzegovina 2016 Report”, SWD (2016) 365
final.
https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/pdf/key_documents
/2016 /20161109_report_bosnia_and_herzegovina.pdf, E.T.: 13.07.2016.
EC (European Commission) (2016c), “The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2016
Report”, SWD (2016) 362 final. https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-
enlargement/sites/near/files/pdf/key_documents/2016/20161109_report_the_former_yu
goslav_republic_of_macedonia.pdf, E.T.: 13.07.2016.
EC (European Commission) (2016d), “Montenegro 2016 Report”, SWD (2016) 360 final.
https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-
enlargement/sites/near/files/pdf/key_documents/2016/20161109_report_montenegro.pdf,
E.T.: 13.07.2016.
EC (European Commission) (2016e), “Serbia 2016 Report”, SWD (2016) 361 final.
https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-
enlargement/sites/near/files/pdf/key_documents/2016/20161109_report_serbia.pdf,
E.T.: 13.07.2016.
EC (European Commission), (2016f), “Kosovo* 2016 Report”, SWD (2016) 363 final.
https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-
enlargement/sites/near/files/pdf/key_documents/2016/20161109_report_kosovo.pdf,
E.T.: 13.07.2016.

The Case of the Western Balkan Roma: A Litmus Test for…¨ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL
Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences ¨
Vol 35, Issue 1, 2017
61
European Council (2007), “Presidency Conclusions”, Brussels. December 14.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/97669.pdf,
E.T.: 13.06.2015.
Elbasani, A. (2008), “The Stabilisation and Association Process in the Balkans: Overloaded
Agenda and Weak Incentives?”, EUI Working Paper SPS, no. 3. European University
Institute, Department of Political and Social Science.
http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/8447/SPS_2008_03.PDF?sequence=1, E.T.:
13.05.2015.
EP (European Parliament), Council and Commission, (2006), “The European Consensus on
Development”, Official Journal of the European Union C46, 1-19, February 24.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:42006X0224(01)&from=EN, E.T.: 13.11.2015.
EP (European Parliament) (2008), “European Strategy on the Roma”, Resolution. January 31.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-
2008-0035+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN, E.T.: 13.11.2015.
ERIO (European Roma Information Office) (2012), “Roma in the Western Balkans”, European
Roma Information Office Newsletter Sep., Oct., and Dec. (4).
http://cloud2.snappages.com/ecc3fa83da15cf423fe3aaa342f545fa355b24f3/NL4-
October-December%202012%20ERIO.pdf, E.T.: 15.07.2015.
Ferrari, H., S.L.A. Khan (2010), “EU Financial Assistance to the Western Balkans: a minority-
focused Review of CARDS and IPA”, Report, London: Minority Rights Group
International. http://minorityrights.org/wp-content/uploads/old-site-downloads/
download -914-Dowload-the-full-report.pdf, E.T.: 11.07.2015.
Forsberg, T. (2011), “Normative Power Europe, Once Again: A Conceptual Analysis of an Ideal
Type”, Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(6), 1183-1204. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-
5965.2011.02194.x.
Giegerich, B., W. Wallace (2010), “Foreign and Security Policy. Civilian Power Europe and
American Leadership”, in H. Wallace, M.A. Pollack and A.R. Young (eds.) Policy-
Making in the European Union, 431-456, New York: Oxford University Press.
Hill, C. (1993), “The Capability-Expectations Gap, or Conceptualizing Europe’s International
Role”, Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(3), 305-328. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-
5965.1993.tb00466.x.
Hill, C. (1998), “Closing the Capabilities-Expectations Gap?” in J. Peterson, H. Sjursen (eds.) A
Common Foreign Policy For Europe?, Competing Visions of the CFSP, 18-38,
Abingdon: Routledge.
Human Rights Watch. (2014), World Report 2014: Events of 2013, New York: Seven Stories
Press, https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/wr2014_web_0.pdf, E.T.: 23.05.2015.
Idrizi, B. (2011), “The EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies – An
Opportunity to Revamp its Efforts in the Western Balkans and Pave the Way Forward”,
European Magazine: Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians October, 10-12. http://kfos.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/10/magazine-05-ENG.pdf, E.T.: 10.07.2016.

ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL ¨Batı Balkan Romanları Normatif Güç Avrupa’nın Turnusol Testi
Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi ¨
Cilt 35, Sayı 1, 2017
62
Ivanov, A. (2006), “At Risk: Roma and the displaced in South-East Europe”, UNDP Regional
Bureau for Europe and the CIS, June 2006.
https://issuu.com/undp_in_europe_cis/docs/vuln_rep_all, E.T.: 12.07.2015.
Kagan, R. (2004), Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order, London:
Atlantic Books.
Kinnvall, C. (1995), Cultural Diffusion and Political Learning, The Democratization of China.
Lund: Lund University Press.
Kling, M. (2011), “Housing situation in Numbers: Roma in Central and Southeast Europe:
UNDP/WB/EC Regional Roma survey 2011”.
http://www.romadecade.org/cms/upload/file/9461_file5_jaroslav.kling.pdf.
E.T.: 10.05.2015.
Kocze, A., A. Kullmann, A. Scharle, O. Szendrey, N. Teller, V. Zenta (2014), “Programming the
Structural Funds for Roma Inclusion in 2014-20”, Budapest: Open Society Foundations.
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/programming-structural-
funds-roma-inclusion-20140422.pdf, E.T.: 13.07.2015.
Krunić-Zita, L. (English: Alisa Jogunčić) (2010), “Evaluation of the National Action Plan for
Resolving Roma Issues in Areas of Employment, Housing and Health Care (short
version)”, In Evaluacija akcionih planova BiH za rješavanje problema Roma u
oblastima, 51-82, Tuzla: Harfo-graf.
http://www.bospo.ba/publikacije/Evaluacija_Romi.pdf.
Kushen, R. ed. (2015), Roma Inclusion Index 2015. Budapest: Decade of Roma Inclusion
Secretariat Foundation. http://www.romadecade.org/cms/upload/file/9810_file1_roma-
inclusion-index-2015-s.pdf, E.T.: 13.07.2015.
Laïdi, Z. (2011), “European Preferences and their Reception”, in Z. Laïdi (ed.) EU Foreign Policy
in a Globalized World, 1-20, Abingdon: Routledge.
Manners, I. (2002), “Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?”, Journal of Common
Market Studies 40(2), 235-258. DOI: 10.1111/1468-5965.00353.
Manners, I. (2004), “Normative Power Europe Reconsidered”, Paper presented at the CIDEL
Workshop, Oslo, October 22-23.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.465.3377&rep=rep1&type=p
df, E.T.: 14.07.2015.
Manners, I. (2010), “The Normative Power of the European Union in a Globalised World”, in
Zaki Laïdi (ed.) EU Foreign Policy in a Globalized World, 23-38, Abingdon:
Routledge.
Manners, I. (2011), “The European Union’s Normative Power: Critical Perspectives and
Perspectives on the Critical”, in R. G. Whitman(ed.) Normative Power Europe:
Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives, 226-247, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Manners, I. (2013), “Assessing the Decennial, Reassessing the global: Understanding European
Union Normative Power in Global Politics”, Cooperation and Conflict, 48(2), 304-329.
DOI: 10.1177/0010836713485389.
Manners, I. (2015), “Sociology of Knowledge and Production of Normative Power in the
European Union’s External Actions”, Journal of European Integration, 37(2), 299-318.
DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2014.990141.

The Case of the Western Balkan Roma: A Litmus Test for…¨ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL
Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences ¨
Vol 35, Issue 1, 2017
63
McGarry, A. (2012), “The Dilemma of the European Union’s Roma Policy”, Critical Social
Policy, 32(1), 126-136. DOI:10.1177/0261018311425201.
Moravcsik, A. (2002), “The Quiet Superpower”, Newsweek, 17 June,
https://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/quiet.pdf, E.T.: 13.09.2015.
Murati, A. (2015), “Western Balkans Countries road to EU with Roma Community on Board”,
European Western Balkans, February 19.
http://europeanwesternbalkans.com/2015/02/19/western-balkans-countries-road-to-eu-
with-roma-community-on-board/.
New European Democracies Project (2010), “Assessing Human Security in the Western
Balkans”, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), CSIS-EKEM Policy
Report 4, November 5.
http://csis.org/files/publication/101105.CSIS-EKEM_PolicyBrief4.pdf, E.T.: 6.06.2015
Nicolaïdis, K. (2004), “The Power of the Superpowerless”, in T. Lindberg (ed.) Beyond Paradise
and Power: Europe, America, and the Future of a Troubled Partnership, 93-120,
Abingdon: Routledge.
ODIHR (Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights) (2014), Best Practices for Roma
Integration: Regional Report on Housing Legalization, Settlement Upgrading and
Social Housing for Roma in the Western Balkans, Tirana: Pegi.
http://www.osce.org/odihr/115737?download=true, E.T.: 19.05.2015.
OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) High Commissioner on National
Minorities (HCNM) (2000), “Report on the situation of Roma and Sinti in the OSCE
Area”, The Hague. March 10. http://www.osce.org/hcnm/42063?download=true,
E.T.: 11.07.2015.
Palokaj, A. (2010), “Looking for the EU in the Balkans” EU Observer, February 22.
https://euobserver.com/news/29514, E.T.: 13.07.2015
Panebianco, S., R. Rossi (2004), “EU attempts to Export Norms of Good Governance to the
Mediterranean and Western Balkan Countries”, Jean Monnet Working Papers in
Comparative and International Politics, no. 53. http://aei.pitt.edu/6109/1/jmwp53.pdf,
E.T.: 13.07.2015.
Pippan, C. (2004), “The Rocky Road to Europe: The EU’s Stabilisation and Association Process
for the Western Balkans and the Principle of Conditionality”, European Foreign Affairs
Review, 9(2), 219-245.
Reinhart, C. (2009), “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Financial Crises”, VoxEU,
January 26. http://www.voxeu.org/article/economic-and-fiscal-consequences-financial-
crises, E.T.: 1.07.2015.
Rupnik, J. (2011), “The Balkans as a European Question”, in J. Rupnik (ed.) The Western Balkans
and the EU: ‘The Hour of Europe’ (Chaillot Papers, no. 126), 17-27, Paris: EU Institute
for Security Studies. http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/cp126-
The_Western_Balkans_and_the_EU.pdf, E.T.: 13.08.2015.
Sebastian, S. (2008), “The Stabilisation and Association Process: Are EU Inducements Failing in
the Western Balkans?”, Working Paper, no. 53. Madrid: FRIDE.
http://fride.org/download/WP53_EU_Western_Balkans_ENG_feb08.pdf, 17.05.2015.

ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL ¨Batı Balkan Romanları Normatif Güç Avrupa’nın Turnusol Testi
Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi ¨
Cilt 35, Sayı 1, 2017
64
Sedelmeier, U. (2004), “Collective Identity”, in W. Carlsnaes, H. Sjursen and B. White (eds.)
Contemporary European Foreign Policy, 123-140, London: Sage.
Silverman, C. (1995), “Persecution and Politicization: Roma (Gypsies) of Eastern Europe”,
Cultural Survival (Nationalism in Eastern Europe), 19(2).
https://www.culturalsurvival.org/print/4069, E.T.: 18.06.2015.
Sobotka, E., P. Vermeersch (2012), “Governing Human Rights and Roma – Inclusion: Can the
EU be a Catalyst for Local Social Change?”, Human Rights Quarterly, 34(3), 800–822.
DOI: 10.1353/hrq.2012.0050.
Sjursen, H. (2006), “The EU as a ‘Normative’ Power: How can this be?”, Journal of European
Public Policy, 13 (2), 235-251. DOI:10.1080/13501760500451667.
Smith, K.E. (2011), “Enlargement, the Neighbourhood and European Order”, In International
Relations and the European Union, The new European Union Series, edited by C. Hill ,
M. Smith, 299-323, New York: Oxford University Press.
Tatham, A.F. (2009), “Enlargement of the European Union”, Alphen van den Rijn: Kluwer Law
International.
Tocci, N. (ed.). (2008), “Who is a Normative Foreign Policy Actor? The European Union and its
Global Partners”, Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), World Bank and EC (European Commission).
(2011), Regional Roma Survey 2011.
http://www.eurasia.undp.org/content/rbec/en/home/ourwork/sustainable-
development/development-planning-and-inclusive-sustainable-growth/roma-in-central-
and-southeast-europe/roma-data.html, E.T.: 13.07.2015
UNICEF (2007), Breaking the cycle of exclusion: Roma children in South East Europe, Belgrade:
Publikum.
http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/070305-Subregional_Study_Roma_Children.pdf,
E.T.: 11.08.2015.
UNICEF (2009), Towards Roma Inclusion: A Review of Roma Education Initiatives in Central
and South-Eastern Europe, Geneva: UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern
Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States.
http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/ROMA_PAPER_FINAL_LAST.pdf, E.T.: 13.06.2015
UNICEF (2011), The Right of Roma Children to Education. Geneva: UNICEF Regional Office
for Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States.
http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/UNICEF_ROE_Roma_Position_Paper_Web.pdf,
E.T.: 7.07.2015.
Vermeersch, P. (2010), “Between Europeanisation and Discrimination: the Roma as a Special
Focus of EU Policy, Conference Proceedings”, in Romani Mobilities in Europe:
Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Conference Papers, 226-236, Oxford: University of
Oxford: Refugee Studies Centre, January 14-15.
https://romanimobilities.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/conference-proceedings1.pdf,
E.T.: 18.07.2015.

The Case of the Western Balkan Roma: A Litmus Test for…¨ÖNSOY, ARKAN TUNCEL
Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences ¨
Vol 35, Issue 1, 2017
65
Vurmo, G. (2008), “Relations of Albania with the EU” in B. Szent-Ivanyi. Paper prepared in the
framework of the Project “Integration Perspectives and Synergic Effects of European
Transformation in the Countries Targeted by EU Enlargement and Neighbourhood
Policies”.
http://idmalbania.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/RELATIONS-OF-ALBANIA-
WITH-THE-EU_-JUNE-2008.pdf, E.T.: 11.08.2015.
Whitman, R.G. (2011), “Norms, Power and Europe: A New Agenda for Study of the EU and
International Relations”, in R.G. Whitman (ed.) Normative Power Europe: Empirical
and Theoretical Perspectives, 1-22, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Whitman, R.G., S. Wolff, eds. (2012), The European Union as a Global Conflict Manager, New
York: Routledge.
World Bank. (2010), “Roma Inclusion: An Economic Opportunity for Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
Romania and Serbia”, Washington, DC: World Bank. http://www-
wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/06/13/000425
970_20120613154450/Rendered/PDF/696550ESW0P1180Economic0Opportunity.pdf,
E.T.: 13.07.2015.
Zink, R. (2007), “Delivering on Promises to the Western Balkans: The European Agency for
Reconstruction”, Newsletter, July.
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/ear/publications/main/documents/Agencyarticl
eREPRINT9July07.pdf, E.T.: 13.07.2015.