Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
CHAPTER 1
Unpacking the New Complexities
of EU–Turkey Relations: Merging Theories,
Institutions, and Policies
Ebru Turhan and Wulf Reiners
1.1 The New Complexities
of EU–Turkey Relations
More than 60 years after Turkey’s application for association with the
European Economic Community (EEC), relations between the Euro-
pean Union (EU)1and Turkey exhibit many unique features driven
by persistent ambivalences, intricacies, and growing interdependencies
across a wide array of issue areas. A tortuous, multifaceted love–hate
1Unless specified differently, the term ‘European Union’ refers also to the political
system of the ‘European Communities’ before the year 1993, when the European Union
was established under its current name.
E. Turhan (B)
Turkish-German University, Istanbul, Turkey
e-mail: turhan@tau.edu.tr
W. Reiners
German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik
(DIE), Bonn, Germany
e-mail: wulf.reiners@die-gdi.de
© The Author(s) 2021
W. Reiners and E. Turhan (eds.), EU-Turkey Relations,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70890-0_1
1
2E. TURHAN AND W. REINERS
relationship between the EU and its oldest associate member has subse-
quently emerged—a ‘curious love affair’ (Aydın-Düzgit & Tocci, 2015:
1). Starting from a broad definition of EU–Turkey relations as ‘the totality
of interactions within the international system’ (Buzan, 2009), the rela-
tionship extends not only to the disciplines of political science, economics,
and history but also to legal and sociological aspects. The multiple layers
of relations produce—and are subject to—a dense net of interdependen-
cies,2which make issue-specific cooperation and policy harmonization a
necessity (Moravcsik, 1997). The mutual policy sensitivity between the
EU and Turkey engenders costs and benefits for both sides across a broad
spectrum of areas including foreign and security policy, trade, migration,
energy, and the environment. Beyond that, EU–Turkey relations impact
the wider neighborhood and the global arena, be it the conflicts in the
Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, the transatlantic secu-
rity agenda, or the implementation of the United Nations (UN) 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development. Building on their respective capac-
ities, Turkey, an ‘emerging middle power’ (Öni¸s & Kutlay, 2017: 170),
and the EU share the aspiration to shape regional and international devel-
opments and bodies alike. In this, EU–Turkey relations have facilitated
cooperation among a broad set of actors, including state and non-state
actors, which operate in a complex multi-level setup and within multilat-
eral frameworks like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or
the Group of 20 (G20).
The strategic importance of EU–Turkey relations in (geo-)political,
economic, and societal terms does not exhibit a clear, linear develop-
mental path. Over many decades, the relationship has not only been
a complex one but has also featured many stop-and-go cycles. There
have been phases of rapprochement and progression, but also periods of
indifference or regression—sometimes dominated by dynamic changes,
sometimes by slow-moving developments or stagnation. Moments of
EU–Turkey cooperation have thus been followed by periods when the
actors drifted apart in non-concerted action—before new developments
reminded them of the need to jointly manage their interdependence and,
eventually, of their commonalities.
Today, the ebbs and flows in EU–Turkey affairs (Narbone & Tocci,
2007) have started to stagnate and cede their place to a ‘seemingly
2Interdependencies are here understood as ‘situations characterized by reciprocal effects
among countries or among actors in different countries’ (Keohane & Nye, 1977:7).
1 UNPACKING THE NEW COMPLEXITIES OF EU–TURKEY RELATIONS … 3
divergent relationship’ (Müftüler-Baç, 2016: 17) that lacks a sense of
basic mutual trust and reliability between these ‘key strategic partners’
(Delegation of the EU to Turkey, 2020). While phases of estrange-
ment have started to last longer, periods of consistent collaboration
without major disruptions have practically disappeared (see also Reiners
& Turhan, Chapter 16). Turkey is increasingly perceived by the EU
and its member states as an ‘unpredictable and unreliable partner’ and
as a conflict-inducing ‘hostile neighbor’ (Arısan-Eralp, 2019:3)thatis
gradually dissociating itself from the Union’s core norms and principles.
For Turkey, on the other hand, the EU is progressively regarded as an
enervated transformative power due to the resurgence of ‘illiberalism
as a driving force across Europe’ (Öni¸s & Kutlay, 2020: 198) and
as an emerging geopolitical rival steering power struggles in Turkey’s
neighborhood, including Libya, Syria, and the Eastern Mediterranean.
These new dynamics unfold against the background of the comatose
state of Turkey’s accession process, which constituted the institutional
substratum of the bilateral dialogue together with the 1963 Association
Agreement for many years. Following their commencement in October
2005, Turkey’s EU accession negotiations entered a long-term trance
in 2011 with only three negotiation chapters opened since then. The
EU–Turkey Statement issued after the joint summit on 18 March 2016
(widely referred to as the EU–Turkey refugee ‘deal’) incentivized Turkey
to cooperate on the management of irregular migration flows to Europe
through, inter alia, promises to ‘re-energize the accession process’
(European Council, 2016: para. 8). Despite this vow, Turkey’s accession
process entered a de jure freeze when the Council concluded in June
2018 that ‘Turkey has been moving further away from the European
Union and […] no further chapters can be considered for opening or
closing’ (Council of the EU, 2018: para. 35).
These developments have led to the gradual emergence of a paradigm
shift in EU–Turkey relations, placing a stronger focus on the possibilities
and opportunities of alternative forms of cooperation beyond the acces-
sion perspective, which has dominated the debates for decades. At the
same time, the failure to agree on the modernization of the EU–Turkey
Customs Union (CU) and the suspension of the EU–Turkey high level
dialogues on energy and economy in 2019 (Council of the EU, 2018:
para. 35; 2019a: para. 4) raise doubts about the prospect of an alternative
partnership model based on sector-specific functional cooperation.
4E. TURHAN AND W. REINERS
The paradoxical coexistence of increasing interdependence and the
divergence of normative and material preferences requires a systematic
re-assessment of the EU–Turkey relationship. The book at hand aims to
grasp this new complexity and ambiguity with a focus on the period after
2009 when the Treaty of Lisbon as the EU’s new constitutional basis
entered into force. It aims to view, explore, and decode the evolution
of the multifaceted, ever-evolving EU–Turkey relationship through three
entry points that offer partly complementary, partly competing visions
and explanations of the key drivers, actors, and processes that shape the
relationship: (1) Theories and concepts, (2) institutions, and (3) poli-
cies. The book is accordingly structured in three main parts in order to
unpack the conditions under which EU–Turkey relations have developed
from these three analytical and conceptual perspectives. It assesses both
cooperative behavior and joint approaches to challenges and solutions as
well as the circumstances of those periods when constructive dialogue and
integrated action to achieve common goals were not possible.
The investigation of the conditions and drivers that shape EU–Turkey
relations takes place on the basis of a set of guiding questions and their
synoptic, comparative analysis:
(1) How can existing theoretical and conceptual models grasp and
explain key turning points, periods, and trends in the evolution
of EU–Turkey relations?
(2) What roles did the central actors, forums, and institutional frame-
works play in EU–Turkey relations, and how did the preferences,
functions, and competencies of central EU institutions evolve in
this context?
(3) How did key policies and issue areas of EU–Turkey relations
develop and influence the relationship as a whole?
(4) How are the exogenous, endogenous, and bilateral determinants
of EU–Turkey relations read through the distinct perspectives of
the relevant theories, institutions, and policies?
(5) What impact has the EU–Turkey relationship had on the EU and
Turkey, respectively?
With the ambition to provide full access to a state-of-the-art under-
standing of EU–Turkey relations and their evolution over time, the
1 UNPACKING THE NEW COMPLEXITIES OF EU–TURKEY RELATIONS … 5
volume at hand combines analyses of institutions, policies, and theoret-
ical and conceptual approaches through a systematic approach. We start
from the understanding that the study of these interconnected dimen-
sions as distinct objects of investigation offers comprehensive coverage
of the interactions between the EU and Turkey. On this basis, comple-
mentary and comparative readings of this evolution become visible. To
illustrate, we aim to reveal similarities or differences across the preferences
and instruments of key EU institutions in their engagement with Turkey
and allow for an assessment of the role of institutional actors. We seek
to contrast different periods of EU–Turkey relations to show when and
how cooperation has developed, whereas progress might have stagnated
in other fields at the same time. We are interested in the influence of Euro-
pean and Turkish actors on each other, be it through accession-related
conditionality dynamics or through geostrategic considerations. Beyond
that, the objective is to contrast competing theoretical and conceptual
explanations for the key developments in EU–Turkey relations, ranging
from neoliberal to constructivist approaches. Ultimately, this complemen-
tary study is meant to generate a basis for extrapolation with a view to
the future trajectory of the relationship. It also provides insight into the
EU’s and Turkey’s relations with their neighbors and regional or global
powers and sheds light on the conditions for cooperation in international
relations more generally.
1.2 Key Determinants and Milestones
of EU–Turkey Relations
The identification of milestones and determinants of EU–Turkey rela-
tions (see Table 1.1) varies depending on the focus of the analysis. The
reading of the evolution of relations from an institutional perspective
such as the European Parliament, for instance, does not necessarily high-
light the same turning points and key drivers as an analysis of a specific
policy field like energy or foreign policy would do. Similarly, a view of
relations through alternative forms of partnership between the EU and
Turkey implies a time horizon different than that of a study of relations
from a historical institutionalist or constructivist angle. Despite the differ-
ences, most studies refer to a shared set of interconnected sources of
influence, which can be categorized into exogenous, endogenous, and
bilateral dimensions. In this context, exogenous determinants include
international law and multilateral frameworks as well as moments of
6E. TURHAN AND W. REINERS
Table 1.1 Milestones of EU–Turkey relations (1945–2020)
Date Milestone Dimension
1945, Oct 24 Entry into force of the UN
Charter signed by 12 European
countries, incl. Turkey, as
founding members
Multilateral
1948, Apr 16 Establishment of the OEEC
(later OECD) with 18 European
countries, incl. Turkey, as
founding members
Multilateral
1949, Aug 9 Accession of Turkey to the
Council of Europe
Multilateral
1952, Feb 18 Accession of Turkey to NATO Multilateral
1958, Jan 1 Entry into force of the Treaty of
Rome establishing the EEC
(followed by the Treaties of
Maastricht (1993),
Amsterdam (1999), Nice (2003),
and Lisbon (2009))
EU
1954, May 18 Turkey’s ratification of the
European Convention on
Human Rights
Multilateral
1959, Jul 31 Turkey submits application for
association with the EEC
Accession/Sectoral
1960, May 27 Coup d’état in Turkey Turkey
1963, Sep 12 Association (Ankara) Agreement Accession/Sectoral
1970, Nov 23 Additional Protocol annexed to
the Association Agreement
Accession/Sectoral
1971, Mar 12 Turkish Military Memorandum Turkey
1974, Jul 15 Coup d’état in Cyprus (‘Sampson
Coup’); Turkey’s ensuing
intervention in Cyprus
External crisis/Turkey
1980, Sep 12 Coup d’état in Turkey Turkey
1981, Jan 1 Accession of Greece to the EEC EU
1983, Nov 15 Unilateral declaration of
independence of the Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus,
recognized by Turkey but not by
the EEC
External crisis
1987, Apr 14 Application of Turkey for full
membership in the EEC
(rejected in 1989)
Accession
(continued)
1 UNPACKING THE NEW COMPLEXITIES OF EU–TURKEY RELATIONS … 7
Table 1.1 (continued)
Date Milestone Dimension
1990, Aug 2 Several EU member states and
Turkey join the US-led
multi-national coalition in the
Gulf War
External crisis
1993, Jun 22 Formulation of membership
criteria (‘Copenhagen criteria’)
by the European Council
(‘Copenhagen European
Council’)
Accession
1995, Dec 31 Entry into force of the
EU–Turkey Customs Union
(CU)
Sectoral/Accession
1997, Feb 28 Turkish Military Memorandum
leads to resignation of the prime
minister
Turkey
1997, Dec 13 Rejection of Turkey’s candidate
status (‘Luxembourg European
Council’)
Accession
1999, Sep 26 Formation of the Group of
Twenty (G20) incl., several EU
member states, the EU, and
Turkey
Multilateral
1999, Dec 11 Confirmation of Turkey’s
candidate status (‘Helsinki
European Council’)
Accession
2001, Mar 8 Adoption of the Accession
Partnership to coordinate
Turkey’s EU accession (revised
in 2003, 2006, and 2008)
Accession
2001, Mar 19 Adoption of the ‘National
Programme for the Adoption of
the Acquis’ (NPAA) by Turkey
(renewed in 2003 and 2008)
Accession
2001, Sep 11 Terrorist attacks on the United
States
External crisis
2002, Nov 3 Justice and Development Party
(AKP) wins general elections for
the first time and has stayed in
power since then
Turkey
(continued)
8E. TURHAN AND W. REINERS
Table 1.1 (continued)
Date Milestone Dimension
2002, Dec 13 European Council decision to
open accession negotiations with
Turkey without delay if Turkey
fulfils the Copenhagen political
criteria
Accession
2003, Mar 20 Invasion of Iraq by the US-led
multi-national coalition incl. EU
member states
External crisis
Since 2003 Participation of Turkey in
ERASMUS and follow-up
programs
Accession
2004, Apr 24 Referendum on ‘Annan Plan’ in
Cyprus rejects UN reunification
plan
Multilateral/External
crisis/Accession
2004, May 1 Enlargement of the EU,
accession of Cyprus
EU
2004, Dec 17 European Council confirms that
Turkey ‘sufficiently’ fulfils criteria
for opening accession
negotiations in October 2005
Accession
2005, Jul 29 Turkey signs the Additional
Protocol extending the Customs
Union to cover ten new EU
member states incl. Cyprus
Accession
2005, Oct 3 Start of ‘open-ended’ accession
negotiations with Turkey
Accession
2006, Dec 11 Council decision to suspend
negotiations on eight chapters
relevant to Turkey’s restrictions
concerning the extension of the
CU to Cyprus
Accession
2007, Jun–Dec France vetoes the opening of five
accession chapters of the acquis
EU/Accession
2007–2013 Instrument for Pre-Accession
(IPA I) allocates a grand total
of 4.795 million EUR for Turkey
Accession
2009, Dec 1 Entry into force of the Treaty of
Lisbon
EU
2009, Dec 8 Cyprus vetoes the opening of six
chapters of the acquis
EU/Accession
(continued)
1 UNPACKING THE NEW COMPLEXITIES OF EU–TURKEY RELATIONS … 9
Table 1.1 (continued)
Date Milestone Dimension
2010, Dec 17 Beginning of popular protests in
MENA countries, including
Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria,
known as the ‘Arab Spring’
External crisis
2011, Mar 15 Start of civil war in Syria External crisis
2012, May 17 Adoption of EU–Turkey ‘Positive
Agenda’ to give new impetus to
accession negotiations
Accession
2013, May 28 Beginning of ‘Gezi park’ protests
in Turkey
Turkey
2013, Dec 16 Signing of EU–Turkey
Readmission Agreement and
launch of the Visa Liberalization
Dialogue
Sectoral/Accession
2014–2020 Instrument for Pre-Accession
(IPA II) allocates a grand total
of 3.533 million EUR (excluding
the allocation for Cross-border
Cooperation)
Accession
2015, Mar 16 Launch of EU–Turkey
High-Level Energy Dialogue
Sectoral/Accession
2015 Over one million migrants
reached the EU irregularly by
primarily using the Eastern
Mediterranean route
External crisis
2015, Oct 15 EU–Turkey Joint Action Plan to
support Syrians under temporary
protection and to strengthen
cooperation in migration
management
External crisis/Sectoral
2015, Nov 29 EU–Turkey Statement: endorses
the EU’s commitment to provide
3 billion EUR for the EU
Refugee Facility for Refugees in
Turkey; calls for reenergizing the
accession process; approves the
organization of high level
economic & political dialogues
External
crisis/Sectoral/Accession
(continued)
10 E. TURHAN AND W. REINERS
Table 1.1 (continued)
Date Milestone Dimension
2016, Mar 18 EU–Turkey Statement:
mobilization of additional 3
billion EUR for the Refugee
Facility; commitment to
reenergize the accession process,
acceleration of the Visa
Liberalization Dialogue
External
crisis/Sectoral/Accession
2016, Jul 15 Attempted coup d’état in Turkey;
two-year state of emergency
Turkey
2017, Apr 16 Constitutional referendum
followed by the replacement of
the parliamentary system with an
executive presidency
Turkey
2017, Nov 27 EU–Turkey High-Level
Transport Dialogue Meeting
Sectoral/Accession
2018, Feb 9 Unfolding of dispute over
exploration and exploitation
rights of gas fields in the Eastern
Mediterranean
External crisis/EU/Turkey
2018, Jun 26 Council decision to suspend the
opening or closing of any
negotiation chapter; ban on the
start of negotiations for the
reform of the CU
Sectoral/Accession
2019, Jul 15 Council decision to suspend
further meetings of all high level
dialogue mechanisms and the
meetings of the Association
Council
Sectoral/Accession
2019, Oct 14 Council condemns Turkey’s
military operation in Syria, and
calls on the UN Security Council
to continue efforts in order to
stop unilateral action
External crisis/Multilateral
2019, Nov 27 Memorandum of understanding
between Turkey and Libya over
maritime boundaries in the
Eastern Mediterranean
External crisis/Turkey
2020, Jan 31 Withdrawal of the UK from the
EU (‘Brexit’)
EU
2020, Jul 13 Increasing tensions between the
EUandTurkeywithinNATO
over war in Libya; statements by
the EU Foreign Affairs Council
and Turkish Ministry of Foreign
Affairs
External
crisis/Turkey/EU/Multilateral
(continued)
1 UNPACKING THE NEW COMPLEXITIES OF EU–TURKEY RELATIONS … 11
Table 1.1 (continued)
Date Milestone Dimension
2020, Oct 1,
2020, Oct 16, and
2020, Dec 11
European Council deplores
unilateral actions by Turkey in
the Eastern Mediterranean;
stresses the option to adapt
restrictive measures; endorses the
‘conditional’ launch of a ‘positive
political EU-Turkey agenda’; and
calls for a ‘Multilateral
Conference’ on the Eastern
Mediterranean
External
crisis/Sectoral/Multilateral
Source Authors’ compilation
external crises and key international developments. In turn, endogenous
factors encompass internal developments within the EU and domestic
developments inside Turkey. Determinants that are directly tied to the
bilateral dialogue primarily refer to Turkey’s EU accession process as well
as concern sectoral cooperation beyond the enlargement context.
1.2.1 Exogenous Determinants: Multilateral Frameworks
and External Crises
International law and global or regional multilateral settings are among
the fundamental exogenous factors that have shaped EU–Turkey rela-
tions. They partly concern the joint membership of the EU or EU
member states and Turkey in intergovernmental and multilateral orga-
nizations and conventions such as the UN (1945), the Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development (1948), the Council of
Europe (1949), NATO (1952), the European Convention on Human
Rights (1953/4), and the G20 (1999). Turkey’s membership in these
organizations mostly helped the country legitimize its seemingly inherent
Western orientation (Müftüler-Baç, 1997;O˘guzlu, 2012) and strategi-
cally cooperate with EU member states in all major policy domains in
multilateral platforms. Lately, however, Turkey’s commitment to multilat-
eral setups such as NATO has been challenged by alternate orientations
that are gaining more independence and salience within Turkey (Eralp,
2019). Turkey’s purchase of Russian S-400 missiles is a case in point.
12 E. TURHAN AND W. REINERS
Beyond the joint engagement in international organizations and multi-
lateral forums, external shocks as well as key international and regional
developments have had strong impacts on EU–Turkey relations. In this
context, EU–Turkey cooperation and policy coordination have been
driven by the need to mitigate crisis-impelled externalities. At the same
time, divergences in visions and policy preferences between the EU, its
member states, and Ankara have become visible in times of external crisis,
too. Important external shocks for the evolution of EU–Turkey rela-
tions include changes to the post-Cold War international system that
sparked Turkey’s partly assertive, partly multilateral regional activism
(Sayari, 2000); the war in Kosovo in 1999 and the terror attacks of
11 September 2001, which reinforced Turkey’s function as a potential
regional security-enabler and bridge-builder for the EU (Turhan, 2012);
the London and Madrid terrorist attacks in 2003 and 2004 and growing
Islamophobia in the EU thenceforward (Müftüler-Baç, 2016); and the
1990–1991 Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War (Aydın-Düzgit & Tocci,
2015). Ankara’s response to the outbreak of the Arab uprisings in 2011
and the ensuing Syrian civil war largely diverged from its Western allies.
However, European and Turkish ambitions to control irregular migration
impelled a limited, interest-driven rapprochement between the EU and
Turkey in 2015/2016. A particularly complicated case for EU–Turkey
relations has been the crises related to Cyprus. Initially, in 1974, after
the Greek military coup and Turkey’s subsequent intervention on the
island, related developments in Cyprus were treated as a bilateral conflict
between Greece and Turkey. However, Greece’s accession to the Union
in 1981 turned the EU from an observer into a key actor in the evolution
of the dispute. Since then, the Cyprus conflict has become a key imped-
iment to Turkey’s accession process and deepening sectoral cooperation
between the EU and Turkey in trade and energy matters.
1.2.2 Endogenous Determinants: Internal EU and Turkish
Domestic Developments
EU–Turkey relations have been heavily influenced by developments and
adjustments concerning the constitutional and institutional architecture
of the EU, the preferences and domestic conditions of EU member
states, and Union-wide crises. Constitutionalizing acts that led to several
treaty revisions over the years (Treaties of Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam,
Nice, and Lisbon) altered the institutions and processes that generate
1 UNPACKING THE NEW COMPLEXITIES OF EU–TURKEY RELATIONS … 13
EU policies vis-à-vis candidate states and key third countries including
Turkey. The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 introduced
considerable changes to the functions and powers of existing EU institu-
tions—inter alia, the European Council, the European Parliament, and
the European Commission (see Peterson & Shackleton, 2012). The
provisions of the Lisbon Treaty also brought in the office of the High
Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
in juxtaposition to the establishment of the European External Action
Service, which jointly carry out the EU’s Common Foreign and Security
Policy (CFSP)—a policy domain of significant relevance for EU–Turkey
relations.
In addition to reforms in the political system, the enlargement of the
EU has influenced its relationship with Turkey primarily in two aspects.
First, each enlargement round has amplified the political and public
debates over the so-called ‘enlargement fatigue’ of the EU that under-
pins ‘a general post-accession reticence within the EU towards further
widening in favour of a greater focus on deepening integration across
Member States’ (House of Lords, 2013: 43). Turkey’s prolonged EU
accession process has thus become less appealing across European polit-
ical circles. Second, the accession of Greece and Cyprus to the EU in
1981 and 2004, respectively, undermined the bilateral feature of their
disputes with Turkey and transformed the disputes into regular items
on the EU agenda. Partly connected to these enlargements, EU–Turkey
relations have also witnessed the expanding impact of member states’ indi-
vidual preferences in the last two decades. This influence takes the form of
unilateral vetoes on negotiation chapters or on the launch of negotiations
on modernizing the EU–Turkey CU. In addition, national preferences of
individual member states and EU–Turkey relations have been connected
by a wide set of factors that have ranged from public opinion to nationalist
and Islamophobic tendencies to divergences over policy design and crises.
The EU’s efforts to manage irregular migration based on an externaliza-
tion strategy amid the failure to reform its own asylum and migration
policies and find internal solutions have had profound implications for
EU–Turkey relations. The European debt crisis (starting from 2009) and
the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the EU (2020) are
additional examples of the EU’s internal crises that have impacted EU–
Turkey relations: for instance, by influencing Turkey’s perception of the
EU and the debates about the future design of the bilateral relationship.
14 E. TURHAN AND W. REINERS
Domestic developments and transformations in Turkey have
contributed to the definition of the scope, components, and overar-
ching complexity of EU–Turkey relations, too. These internal milestones
for Turkey largely relate to influential shifts and continuities in political,
economic, and societal dynamics. In this context, Turkey’s party-political
landscape, Islamist-secularist struggles, the restructuring of civil–military
relations, successive constitutional reforms, as well as their effect on
Turkey’s progress toward compliance with EU norms and principles
have been of relevance. To illustrate, attempted or executed coup plots
against copious Turkish governments have acted as important ‘brakemen’
in EU–Turkey relations. The Turkish military’s fortified influence over
domestic politics after the coups in 1971 and 1980 brought about
the EU’s temporary suspension of its economic and military assistance
to Turkey (Ye¸silada, 2002) and delayed Turkey’s application for full
membership. On a similar note, intensified tensions and estrangement
between Brussels and Ankara emerged over passable actions after the July
2016 coup attempt and were coupled with the EU’s criticism of ‘back-
sliding’ in various issue areas, including public service, the independence
of the judiciary, and the freedom of expression in the post-coup political
landscape (European Commission, 2016). Beyond that, the election of
the Justice and Development Party (AKP, Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi)to
power in 2002, the 2013 Gezi Park protests, and the 2017 constitutional
referendum that led to the replacement of the parliamentary system with
an executive presidency are among the domestic developments with clear
implications for the EU–Turkey relationship.
1.2.3 Bilateral Determinants: Accession Process and Sectoral
Cooperation
A final category of major determinants of EU–Turkey relations covers
key events and developments that concern Turkey’s longstanding EU
accession process and the sectoral cooperation both within and outside
the accession framework. The Association Agreement between the EEC
and Turkey in 1963 (Ankara Agreement) envisaged the strengthening
of economic and trade relations between both parties. It foresaw the
establishment of a CU and the exploration of the possibility of Turkey’s
accession to the Community. Whereas Turkey’s initial application for full
membership in the EEC in 1987 was not accepted by the Community,
the EU–Turkey CU entered into force in 1995. After Turkey’s status as
1 UNPACKING THE NEW COMPLEXITIES OF EU–TURKEY RELATIONS … 15
an accession candidate country had been rejected in 1997, it was finally
acknowledgement by the Helsinki European Council in 1999. In the
following years, the commencement of accession negotiations in October
2005, as well as the selective opening of negotiation chapters, were among
the key milestones in the accession-related developments.3The provisions
of some of these milestones—for instance, the Ankara Agreement and
the CU—initially addressed sectoral cooperation and issue-specific policy
alignment between the EU and Turkey that were largely separate from
the enlargement context. At the same time, the Turkish side viewed these
sectoral initiatives, for the most part, as a leap toward full membership in
the EU.
Considering the deadlock in the accession process, on the one hand,
and growing issue-specific interdependencies, on the other, the EU and
Turkey gravitated more and more toward the establishment of functional
institutional mechanisms. In this context, the Readmission Agreement
of 2013 in conjunction with the initiation of the Visa Liberalization
Dialogue, the EU–Turkey Statement on the management of irregular
migration flows to Europe in 2016, EU–Turkey joint summits and lead-
ers’ meetings (since November 2015) as well as sectoral high level
dialogues on ‘energy’ (since March 2015), ‘counter terrorism’ (joint
consultations since June 2015), ‘political issues’ (since January 2016),
‘economy’ (since April 2016), and ‘transport’ (since November 2017)
are included among these additional formats. These functional structures
primarily envisage the deepening of interest-driven, sectoral cooperation
and policy alignment between the EU and Turkey parallel, or comple-
mentary, to Turkey’s stalled accession process. As these initiatives can de
facto promote Turkey’s sector-specific alignment with the EU acquis,they
can also indirectly support progress in Turkey’s accession process. Beside
these mechanisms, the EU–Turkey Association Council (54th meeting
in March 2019) and EU–Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (78th
meeting in December 2018) have been integral bilateral channels.
3As of November 2020, 16 of the 35 chapters have been opened, one of them is
provisionally closed. See for a detailed overview Table 11.1.
16 E. TURHAN AND W. REINERS
1.3 A Three-Dimensional Approach
to Advance EU–Turkey Studies
This volume is not the first endeavor that explores the multilayered
universe of EU–Turkey relations. Previous studies built on compara-
tive conceptualizations of Turkey as a partner for the EU across key
policies (Aydın-Düzgit & Tocci, 2015; Linden et al., 2012); its embed-
dedness in changing global, internal EU, or societal processes (Evin &
Denton, 1990; Müftüler-Baç, 1997,2016; Joseph, 2006); or the key
obstacles to Turkey’s full membership in the EU (Nas & Özer, 2017).
The existing literature has most prominently dealt with the relationship
through the spectacles of EU enlargement. The debate can be traced back
to the 1970s (Burrows, 1978) but accelerated after the Helsinki Summit
in 1999, when scholars started to rethink both the EU’s enlargement
policy (Sjursen, 2002; Schimmelfennig, 2001,2006; Schimmelfennig &
Sedelmeier, 2002) and the relationship between the EU and Turkey in
this new context (e.g., Eralp, 2000; Müftüler-Baç, 2000;Müftüler-Baç&
McLaren, 2003;Park,2000; Rumford, 2000;Öni¸s, 2003;Eder,2003;
Emerson & Tocci, 2004).
Since the official start of the accession negotiations with Turkey
in 2005, the literature has demonstrated an intensified interest in the
transformation processes inside Turkey that followed the accession nego-
tiations; be it from the perspective of EU conditionality (Schimmelfennig
et al., 2003; Tocci, 2007; Saatçio˘glu, 2009; Süleymano ˘glu-Kürüm, 2019)
or from the perspectives of ‘Europeanization’ and ‘de-Europeanization’
(Noutcheva & Aydın-Düzgit, 2012; Börzel & Soyaltın, 2012; Alpan,
2014; Tekin & Güney, 2015; Aydın-Düzgit & Kaliber, 2016; Süley-
mano˘glu-Kürüm & Cin, 2021). Studies on the ramifications of the EU’s
internal dynamics for Turkey’s accession process (Müftüler-Baç, 2008;
Müftüler-Baç & Çiçek, 2017; Turhan, 2012,2016), identity questions
(Rumelili, 2008,2011; Lundgren, 2006;Nas,2012), and Turkey’s
alignment with EU norms in various policy fields, inter alia, economy
(Togan & Hoekman, 2005;U˘gur, 2006), foreign and security policy
(Aydın & Akgül-Açıkme¸se, 2007;O˘guzlu, 2008; Yorulmazlar & Turhan,
2015), and migration policy (Bürgin, 2016; Yıldız, 2016), came into
prominence after the accession talks formally took off.
Reflecting on the ‘never-ending story’ of Turkey and the EU
(Müftüler-Baç, 1998) and the ‘open-ended’ nature of Turkey’s acces-
sion negotiations (Council of the EU, 2005: 5), we can observe, more
1 UNPACKING THE NEW COMPLEXITIES OF EU–TURKEY RELATIONS … 17
recently, a gradual re-orientation in EU–Turkey studies beyond the exclu-
sive understanding of EU–Turkey relations as just another case of EU
enlargement. An emerging array of studies scrutinizes potentials and chal-
lenges of alternative forms of partnership outside the accession context
(e.g., Müftüler-Baç, 2017; Turhan, 2017,2018; Saatçio˘glu et al., 2019;
Akgül-Açıkme¸se & ¸Senyuva, 2018). This trend is accompanied by schol-
arly debates on third countries’ selective alignment with the EU acquis
(widely referred to as ‘external differentiated integration’) after the with-
drawal of the UK from the EU (Schimmelfennig et al., 2015; Lavenex,
2015; Gstöhl, 2016;Leruthetal.,2019).
The book at hand not only builds on these existing studies but
also contributes to the state-of-the-art debate on EU–Turkey relations.
The volume has been finalized at a time when the ambivalences in
the EU–Turkey relationship have broadened. The book assesses the
new complexities that have generated the puzzling presence of both
increased sectoral interdependence, on the one hand, and progressively
diverging normative and (geo-)strategic preferences, on the other. Both
sides have witnessed internal developments that bear great potential to
affect the relationship: be it the post-coup political landscape in Turkey
with ongoing ‘backsliding’ in terms of the rule of law and fundamental
rights (European Commission, 2020) or be it the implications of Brexit
for the EU polity and the EU’s relations with third countries accompanied
by the rise of Euroskepticism and populism in EU member states. The
EU–Turkey relationship is a ‘moving target’ that has undergone a critical
transformation in recent years. Since the unfolding of the Syrian refugee
crisis in Europe in 2015 and the EU–Turkey Statement in March 2016,
the relationship has occupied a prominent space in political, public, and
academic debates. Turkey’s accession process to the EU might have come
to a formal pause in 2018. However, continuing and (partially) increasing
interdependencies across a wide set of policies including migration and
asylum, security, transport, economy, and trade make the relationship of
critical importance for the future of both sides. The EU and Turkey are
facing fundamental and immediate common challenges in the neighbor-
hood. These challenges concern the MENA region, Western Balkans, and
the Caucasus, economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, as well
as the management of irregular migratory flows. Beyond that, both actors
have to respond to universal megatrends ranging from climate change and
global power shifts in the international order to the impact of digitaliza-
tion. Entangled in this challenging setup, however, divergences between
18 E. TURHAN AND W. REINERS
the EU and Turkey dominate the field of foreign and security policy
orientations. The rise of a crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean is a case
in point, where conflicting legal views on gas fields (Aydınta¸sba¸setal.,
2020) imperil a spillover of hostile relations to other issue areas driven by
joint strategic interdependencies.
This book starts from the understanding that these developments
necessitate a comprehensive, scholarly re-assessment of the EU–Turkey
relationship in order to generate novel reference points for an assess-
ment of the future trajectory of EU–Turkey relations. At the same
time, the volume goes beyond a mere update of EU–Turkey relations
after critical junctures like the refugee ‘deal’. It is distinct from existing
analyses because of its handbook character that is derived from the three-
dimensional perspective that brings together the analytical lenses of (1)
theories and concepts, (2) institutions, and (3) policies. A particular
advantage of this design is the opportunity to combine and contrast
different angles of assessment. Following a systematic design, all parts
address the guiding questions concerning actors, forums, preferences,
competencies, issue areas, impact, explanations, and periods according
to their roles and relevance for the respective perspectives. In this way,
the distinct strengths of different approaches come together through a
multi-angled approach that is particularly suitable to examine EU–Turkey
relations as a ‘moving target’.
The first part of the book, ‘Theories and Concepts’, puts together
complementary and competing conceptual and theoretical approaches
with distinct analytical frameworks to study the overall evolution of EU–
Turkey relations. The chapters cover approaches from major theoretical
schools that are typically employed or referenced in EU–Turkey studies:
neoliberalism/liberal intergovernmentalism (Müftüler-Baç & McLaren,
2003; Turhan, 2012,2016; Reiners & Tekin, 2020), constructivism
(Neumann, 1999; Sjursen, 2002; Aydın-Düzgit, 2012), historical insti-
tutionalism (Camyar & Tagma, 2010; Bürgin, 2016;Icoz,2011), Euro-
peanization (Noutcheva & Aydın-Düzgit, 2012; Börzel & Soyaltın, 2012;
Alpan, 2014;Tekin&Güney,2015; Aydın-Düzgit & Kaliber, 2016;
Süleymano˘glu-Kürüm & Cin, 2021), rhetorical entrapment (Schim-
melfennig, 2009; Bürgin, 2010;Saatçio˘glu, 2012), and differentiated
integration (Turhan, 2017,2018;Müftüler-Baç,2017;Özer,2020). All
chapters include an assessment of the basic features and core assumptions
of the theory or concept under scrutiny, a brief review of the associ-
ated core literature and terminology, and the identification of key actors,
1 UNPACKING THE NEW COMPLEXITIES OF EU–TURKEY RELATIONS … 19
forums, institutional frameworks, and policies most relevant from the
respective perspective. They offer a thorough reading of the evolution and
key turning points of EU–Turkey affairs through the corresponding theo-
retical or conceptual spectacles and assess the strengths and limitations of
the respective approach in grasping and explaining EU–Turkey relations.
The second part of the book, ‘Institutions’, investigates the insti-
tutional machinery of EU–Turkey relations by analyzing the roles and
perspectives of the EU’s key institutions (European Council, European
Commission, European Parliament) relevant for agenda-setting, external
action, enlargement, crisis management, and for the adoption of the
Union’s common norms and values in the context of EU–Turkey rela-
tions. The study of these institutions is imperative to get a full picture
of the bilateral relationship. Cooperation and competition among them
not only shape the Union’s policies; these considerably interdependent,
ever-evolving institutions also link the EU to the international community
(Peterson & Shackleton, 2012: 8–9). In this vein, the contributions in this
part discuss the key documents produced by the institution(s) in dealing
with EU–Turkey relations and include a description of the respective insti-
tution’s internal structure, including actors, mechanisms, decision-making
processes, and (diverging) positions. These chapters thereby contribute
to the understanding of the evolution of the institutions’ functions and
preferences over time in influencing the bilateral dialogue.
Finally, the purpose of the third part of the book, ‘Policies’, is to offer
readings of EU–Turkey relations from the perspective of the issue areas
most relevant for the relationship: enlargement policy, trade and macroe-
conomic policies, foreign and security policy, migration and asylum
policies, and energy policy. These policy fields have been repeatedly
prioritized in official EU and Turkish documents and statements over
the past decade to show the importance of an EU–Turkey partnership
(European Commission, 2012; European Council, 2015; Council of
the EU, 2019b). The chapters focus on the major dynamics behind the
evolution of the respective policy over time and pay particular attention
to phases and conditions of policy convergence and divergence. The
analyses examine the key documents, speeches, and additional primary
sources in order to assess the drivers of change and both mutually
beneficial and detrimental initiatives.
20 E. TURHAN AND W. REINERS
1.4 Complementary and Competing
Perspectives: Theories, Institutions, and Policies
While the individual chapters of the volume work as stand-alone contri-
butions, they provide both internal references to other chapters of the
volume as well as external references suitable for a deepened study of
the subject. To help contrast parallels and differences, the chapters work
with similar instruments and elements such as references to relevant insti-
tutional frameworks, key concepts, and time periods. In regard to the
latter, the book covers the full history of more than six decades of EU–
Turkey relations: from the early days, marked by Turkey’s first application
for associate membership to the EEC in 1959, to developments in 2020.
Within this time frame, the edited volume pays particular attention to the
period after the Lisbon Treaty entered into force in 2009.
Clearly, there are limits to this study, and the book has to leave aspects
of EU–Turkey relations unaddressed. To illustrate, in our analysis of the
‘totality of interaction’, the volume does not offer an explicit focus on
transnational or inter-societal relations. In this line, no chapter explicitly
explores the impact of individual EU member states on EU–Turkey rela-
tions despite the great importance of the role of countries like Germany
(Le Gloannec, 2006; Turhan, 2012,2016,2019; Reiners & Tekin,
2020), Greece, and Cyprus (Güvenç, 1998;Öni¸s, 2001; Tsakonas, 2001;
Çelik & Rumelili, 2006; Dokos et al., 2018) or of the public opinion
in individual member states (Ruiz-Jimenez & Torreblanca, 2007).
However, the positions and policies of individual member states are
covered throughout the volume, for instance, in the chapters on liberal
intergovernmentalism (Tsarouhas, Chapter 2), the European Council
(Turhan & Wessels, Chapter 8), foreign policy (Torun, Chapter 13),
and energy (Sartori, Chapter 15). In this way, the volume also addresses
the repercussions of bilateral relations between Turkey and individual
member states on the relations between the EU and Turkey as a whole.
The same is true for important subjects like human rights, which are not
addressed as individual policy fields in this volume but are integral parts of
various contributions, including the chapters on historical institutionalism
(Icoz & Martin, Chapter 4), Europeanization (Alpan, Chapter 5), the
European Parliament’s role in EU–Turkey relations (Kaeding & Schenuit,
Chapter 10), and EU enlargement policy (Lippert, Chapter 11).
The ‘Theories and Concepts’ part of the book opens with the contri-
bution by Dimitris Tsarouhas, who examines EU–Turkey relations from a
1 UNPACKING THE NEW COMPLEXITIES OF EU–TURKEY RELATIONS … 21
liberal intergovernmentalist perspective in Chapter 2. He argues that the
three-step approach to integration espoused by the theory is key to under-
standing the development of EU–Turkey relations over time. Concrete
steps of integration and cooperation, ranging from the CU to the opening
of Turkey’s accession talks and the refugee ‘deal’ serve as examples to
demonstrate how a transactional, issue-specific character of EU–Turkey
relations has evolved over time and is unlikely to change any time soon.
The EU’s prioritization of sector-specific interests and the complexity of
bargaining between member states with asymmetric powers and diverging
preferences on Turkey’s EU vocation have played a central role in this
context.
In Chapter 3, Senem Aydın-Düzgit and Bahar Rumelili offer a crit-
ical assessment of constructivist approaches to EU–Turkey relations that
pinpoint the impact of norms, values, ideas, identities, and discourse.
Departing from a distinction between ‘thin’, ‘liberal’ constructivism, on
the one hand, and ‘thick’, ‘critical’ constructivism, on the other, they
outline the main tenets of the different variants of constructivism and
discuss the key premises in view of EU–Turkey relations. In doing so, the
chapter provides an encompassing overview of constructivist studies on
EU–Turkey relations over three periods, from 1997 to 2020. The chapter
closes with food for thought on the future of the constructivist research
agenda.
Gülay Icoz and Natalie Martin examine EU–Turkey relations in
Chapter 4through the lens of historical institutionalism. The authors
stress the analytical power and relevance of a theoretical perspective that
places significance on temporalities, critical junctures, and path depen-
dencies in explicating why Turkey’s accession process has endured despite
the absence of any major progress over the last decade. They argue that
individual member states’ and EU institutions’ vetoes on negotiation
chapters, the Arab Spring, and the illiberal drift within Turkey have served
as critical junctures that have slowed down or sped up Turkey’s acces-
sion negotiations at various points in time. Following this assessment,
the chapter shows how Turkey’s accession process has endured mainly
because of the EU’s security considerations, which have functioned as a
counterweight to normative concerns.
In Chapter 5,Ba¸sak Alpan presents a reading of the relationship from
one of the most prominent conceptual approaches in EU–Turkey studies,
the perspective of Europeanization. In her contribution she identifies four
phases of convergence and divergence between the EU and Turkey, which
22 E. TURHAN AND W. REINERS
are each characterized by a distinct combination of components along
the dimensions of polity, policy, and politics. Alpan argues that while the
Europeanization process considerably transformed polity, policy, and poli-
tics in Turkey until the launch of accession negotiations in 2005, selective
Europeanization and de-Europeanization dynamics have been intertwined
in all three domains from 2006 onward. A key feature of the study is
the analysis of the Turkish domestic debate on ‘Europe’ over time, which
shows how the EU has served as a point of reference for Turkey’s reforms
and domestic discourse, albeit with different connotations.
Frank Schimmelfennig presents the conceptual approach of rhetorical
entrapment in Chapter 6. The approach emphasizes the impact of argu-
mentative commitments on the behavioral preferences of self-interested
community actors. He argues that in the context of EU enlargement,
existing member states commit themselves to the Union’s accession rules
and ethos-based obligations. This ‘entrapment mechanism’ not only func-
tioned as a key driver of the Eastern enlargement but has also shaped
Turkey’s accession process, particularly in the run-up to the launch of
accession negotiations. At that time, he argues, opponents of Turkey’s
membership felt obliged to decide in favor of accession talks against the
background of ‘prior argumentative commitments’ and Turkey’s reform
endeavors to align with democratic community norms. Beyond that,
Schimmelfennig investigates why negotiations started to falter soon after
their onset and concludes that Turkey-skeptics were released from the
rhetorical trap once Turkey started to deviate from the path toward liberal
democracy.
In the final chapter of the first section of the book, Chapter 7, Funda
Tekin starts from the conception of Turkey as a unique accession candi-
date with a dubious accession perspective. On this basis, she examines the
relationship with the EU from the perspective of differentiated integra-
tion. Tekin argues that the multidimensionality of EU–Turkey relations
constitutes a state of conflictual cooperation that demands the consider-
ation of alternative forms of integration outside the accession context in
order to preserve and elevate existing forms of association between the
two sides. The chapter elaborates on whether prevailing variable geome-
tries in EU–Turkey relations can promote the formulation of a partnership
model that would offer a soft landing from the fallout of the accession
procedure. By embedding the concept of differentiated integration into
the key tenets of the main European integration theories, the contribution
1 UNPACKING THE NEW COMPLEXITIES OF EU–TURKEY RELATIONS … 23
also provides a strong cross-connection to other approaches presented in
this volume.
Part II of the book views EU–Turkey relations through the perspective
of ‘Institutions’. It starts with a contribution by Ebru Turhan and Wolf-
gang Wessels on the role of the European Council in framing EU–Turkey
relations (Chapter 8). Identifying the European Council as the key insti-
tution in determining EU–Turkey relations, they highlight its three main
functions within the EU system for shaping the relationship: ‘master of
enlargement’, ‘external voice and crisis manager’, and ‘agenda and direc-
tion setter’. Drawing on this categorization, Turhan and Wessels explore
the major turning points, shifts, and continuities in the central functions,
internal dynamics, and preferences of the key institution. The findings
suggest a growing trend toward a more conflictual and hostile relation-
ship between the European Council and Turkey as well as the expanding
‘bilateralization’ of the relationship. Still, with their central powers and
functions, the Heads of State or Government will remain a key driver of
the future trajectory of EU-Turkey relations, demonstrating an increased
interest in ‘thinking outside of the accession box’.
In Chapter 9, Alexander Bürgin reviews the European Commission’s
relations with Turkey across a selected array of policy areas. His anal-
ysis illuminates two central aspects of the Commission’s influence: the
Commission serves both as a ‘guardian’ of the constitutive rules of the
enlargement process and as an ‘agent of change’ in Turkish domestic
politics, even in times of severe estrangement and amid bilateral disputes
between the EU and Turkey. Bürgin shows how the Commission’s
management of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) has
promoted administrative capacity and policy-learning processes within
Turkey’s bureaucracy, which, in turn, has engendered continued selective
policy alignment despite the waning relevance of Turkey’s EU accession
process. In this context, he characterizes the Commission’s role as an
autonomous actor within the EU system and stresses its relevance for a
norm-based, unbiased assessment of EU–Turkey relations.
In Chapter 10, Michael Kaeding and Alexander Schenuit examine the
formal competencies, key procedures, and internal dynamics of the Euro-
pean Parliament (EP) in shaping EU–Turkey relations. Based on the
voting behavior of the members of the EP, they show how the Parlia-
ment’s position on Turkey and its relationship with the EU have evolved
over time. Following growing support for Turkey’s EU accession from
24 E. TURHAN AND W. REINERS
2005 to 2008, the EP has gradually developed into the only EU institu-
tion that openly lacks a political majority for the continuation of Turkey’s
accession process. The authors find that the EP has officially closed its
‘accession door’ for Turkey. At the same time, EP resolutions from 2005
to 2019 reveal the increasing relevance of new narratives for coopera-
tion with Turkey that can orient the future trajectory of the EU–Turkey
relationship.
Part III of the book deals with key ‘Policies’ in EU–Turkey relations.
In Chapter 11, Barbara Lippert explores the relationship through the
lens of one of the most influential and studied policy areas, namely the
EU’s enlargement policy. Her chapter presents the concepts, motives, and
criteria for EU enlargement and applies them to the Turkish case. In this
context, she addresses the aspects of Turkey’s potential EU membership
that are also of highest relevance for other areas of bilateral interaction,
such as the question of Turkey’s ‘Europeanness’, its ‘strategic value’, and
the role of ‘political order, democracy, and political culture’. Crucially, the
contribution maps how specific features of the EU–Turkey relationship
have played out from the period of pre-accession to the present accession
negotiations. Lippert concludes that they have made Turkey a unique and
(almost) dead case of EU enlargement policy.
In Chapter 12, Mehmet Sait Akman and Semih Emre Çekin examine
the macroeconomic and trade policy dimension of EU–Turkey relations.
The authors start from the question of to what degree and under what
circumstances the EU has functioned as an ‘anchor’ for the Turkish
economy. Their analysis reveals that the European anchor facilitated
Turkey’s far-reaching macroeconomic and trade policy transformation
until 2008. The establishment of the CU was particularly influential in
Turkey’s trade policy transformation. At the same time, they argue that a
comprehensive study of Turkey’s economic reforms should also take into
account the impact of the ‘multilateral track’ under the guidance of the
Bretton Woods institutions. The authors conclude that the EU’s role in
the economic arena is diminishing and that the ‘anchor’ function might
have been lost amid changing political circumstances, at least as long as an
upgrade of the CU does not bring new momentum to economic relations.
The compatibility of Turkish and EU foreign policy is the focus
of Zerrin Torun’s analysis in Chapter 13. Based on a critical assess-
ment of key international developments and Turkey’s alignment with
the EU’s CFSP, she distinguishes four periods from 1959 to 2020
featuring different constellations of convergence and divergence. Turkey’s
1 UNPACKING THE NEW COMPLEXITIES OF EU–TURKEY RELATIONS … 25
initial Western orientation after World War II, its increasing aspirations
to create a new regional order, its development of ‘soft power’ instru-
ments in the face of external shocks, and its progressively diverging
(geo-)strategic interests with the EU in Syria and the Eastern Mediter-
ranean are presented as the most influential drivers in this regard. The
chapter concludes that issue-specific future cooperation between both
parties based on ad hoc mechanisms might emerge as a counterweight
to Turkey’s decreasing convergence with EU foreign policy.
In Chapter 14, Ayhan Kaya investigates Turkey’s migration and asylum
policies from the perspective of Europeanization processes. Both before
and after the March 2016 EU–Turkey Statement on irregular migration,
this policy field constituted one of the most relevant and controversial
areas of cooperation. Kaya reveals how Turkey initially aligned and then
started to de-align its relevant policies and laws with or from EU norms
after the 1999 Helsinki Summit. In this context, he scrutinizes the impact
of key international developments, historical roots, Turkey’s EU accession
process, and recent crisis situations in the Middle East on Turkey’s asylum
and migration policies. Kaya shows how the Europeanization of migration
and asylum policies corresponds to Turkey’s internalization of a rights-
based approach up until the eruption of the Syrian civil war in 2011.
He argues that the path dependent, ethno-cultural, and religious logic in
receiving and welcoming Syrian refugees, a logic based on the discourses
of ‘guesthood’ and the ‘Ansar spirit’, has propelled de-Europeanization
dynamics.
In the final chapter of Part III, Chapter 15, Nicolò Sartori assesses the
EU–Turkey relationship from the perspective of energy relations. In his
contribution, Sartori places significance on the key energy policies of both
parties and the main bilateral dynamics in the energy domain. He argues
that energy security was often considered as a domain where mutual
interests bore great potential to trigger convergence between the EU
and Turkey. However, his analysis finds that significant differences remain
regarding both actors’ energy profiles and policy priorities. The chapter
identifies different periods of convergence, stagnation, and controversies
between the EU and Turkey, the latter related to the disputes in the
Eastern Mediterranean. In his contribution, Sartori also shows how new
dialogue formats on energy cooperation were institutionalized between
Turkey and the EU, despite Turkey’s ambition to exclusively connect the
field to the accession process.
26 E. TURHAN AND W. REINERS
In the concluding Part IV of the volume, we, the editors, aim to
harvest the conceptual, analytical, and empirical findings of the indi-
vidual chapters in view of an overall assessment of EU–Turkey relations
(Reiners & Turhan, Chapter 16). By taking up the guiding questions of
the volume, the chapter condenses key insights derived from theories and
concepts, institutions, and policies and reflects on the different periodiza-
tions of the relationship. In the next step, we assess EU–Turkey relations
against a set of fundamental, mutually reinforcing enablers of coopera-
tion and look at endogenous, exogenous, and bilateral determinants that
are likely to shape the relationship in the future. The synoptic analysis
also aims to translate the new complexities that epitomize the bilateral
dialogue for the academic and political debate. In this context, the chapter
not only presents terms of reference for the reinvigoration of cooperative
trends in EU–Turkey relations but also points out the up-and-coming
avenues for the future research agenda of EU–Turkey studies.
We hope, and are confident, that this volume can make a sustainable
contribution to advance the understanding of EU–Turkey relations, on
the one hand, and the development of EU–Turkey studies as a field of
analysis at the intersection of EU (integration) studies, International Rela-
tions, and global governance studies, on the other. The individual political
agendas of the EU and Turkey, as well as the common challenges at
the regional and global level, are too complex, intertwined, and impor-
tant to ignore the fundamental need for both intensified cooperation and
deepened analysis.
References
Akgül-Açıkme¸se, S., & ¸Senyuva, Ö. (2018). Türkiye-Avrupa Birli ˘gi ili¸skilerinde
gelecek senaryoları ve kamuoyu algıları. In S. Baykal, S. Akgül-Açıkme¸se,
B. Akçay, & Ç. Erhan (Eds.), Hukuki, siyasi ve iktisadi yönleriyle Avrupa
bütünle¸smesinde son geli¸smeler ve Türkiye-AB ili¸skileri (pp. 355–380). Ankara:
ATAUM.
Akman, M. S., & Çekin, S. E. (2021). The EU as an anchor for Turkey’s
macroeconomic and trade policy. Chapter 12, in this volume.
Alpan, B. (2014). ‘Europe-as-hegemony’ and discourses in Turkey after 1999:
What has ‘Europeanization’ got to do with it? Journal of Balkan and Near
Eastern Studies, 16(1), 68–85.
Alpan, B. (2021). Europeanization and Turkey’s EU accession: Three domains,
four periods. Chapter 5, in this volume.
1 UNPACKING THE NEW COMPLEXITIES OF EU–TURKEY RELATIONS … 27
Arısan-Eralp, N. (2019, November). The parlous state of Turkey–EU relations:
Searching for a bridge over troubled waters. TEPAV Evaluation Note.
Aydın, M., & Akgül-Açıkme¸se, S. (2007). Europeanization through EU condi-
tionality: Understanding the new era in Turkish foreign policy. Journal of
Southern Europe and the Balkans, 9(3), 263–274.
Aydın-Düzgit, S. (2012). Constructions of European identity: Debates and
discourses on Turkey and the EU. London: Palgrave.
Aydın-Düzgit, S., & Tocci, N. (2015). Turkey and the European Union. London
and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Aydın-Düzgit, S., & Kaliber, A. (2016). Encounters with Europe in an era of
domestic and international turmoil: Is Turkey a de-Europeanising candidate
country? South European Society and Politics, 21(1), 1–14.
Aydın-Düzgit S., & Rumelili, B. (2021). Constructivist approaches to EU–
Turkey relations. Chapter 3, in this volume.
Aydınta¸sba¸s, A., Barnes-Dacey, J., Bianco, C., Lovatt, H., & Megerisi, T. (2020).
Overview: Fear and loathing in the Eastern Mediterranean.https://www.ecfr.
eu/specials/eastern_med. Accessed 9 Sep 2020.
Burrows, B. (1978). A community of thirteen? The question of Turkish member-
ship to the EEC. Journal of Common Market Studies, 17 (2), 143–150.
Buzan, B. (2009). International relations. In I. McLean & A. McMillan (Eds.),
The concise Oxford dictionary of politics (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/978019920
7800.001.0001/acref-9780199207800-e-660?rskey=yGwPYX&result=716.
Accessed 10 Apr 2021.
Börzel, T. A., & Soyaltın, D. (2012). Europeanization in Turkey: Stretching a
concept to its limits? (KFG Working Paper Series, 36). Berlin: Freie Universität
Berlin.
Bürgin, A. (2010). Cosmopolitan entrapment: The failed strategies to reverse
Turkey’s EU membership eligibility. Central European Review of International
Affairs, 18(2), 35–56.
Bürgin, A. (2016). Why the EU still matters in Turkish domestic politics: Insights
from recent reforms in migration policy. South European Society and Politics,
21(1), 105–118.
Bürgin, A. (2021). The European Commission’s role in EU–Turkey relations.
Chapter 9, in this volume.
Camyar, I., & Tagma, H. M. (2010). Why does Turkey seek European Union
membership? A historical institutional approach. Turkish Studies, 11(3), 371–
386.
Çelik, A., & Rumelili, B. (2006). Necessary but not sufficient: The role of the
EU in resolving Turkey’s Kurdish question and the Greek–Turkish conflicts.
European Foreign Affairs Review, 11, 203–222.
28 E. TURHAN AND W. REINERS
Council of the European Union. (2005, October 12). Enlargement: Acces-
sion negotiations with Turkey: General EU position. 12823/1/05 REV 1.
Brussels.
Council of the European Union. (2018, June 26). General Affairs Council,
Council conclusions on enlargement and stabilisation and association process.
10555/18. Brussels.
Council of the European Union. (2019a, July 15). Turkish drilling activities in
the Eastern mediterranean: Council adopts conclusions. Press release. https://
www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/07/15/turkish-
drilling-activities-in-the-eastern-mediterranean-council-adopts-conclusions/.
Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Council of the European Union. (2019b, March 15). Press statement following
the 54th meeting of the Association Council between the European Union and
Turkey. Press release. Brussels. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/
press-releases/2019/03/15/press-statement-following-the-54th-meeting-of-
the-association-council-between-the-european-union-and-turkey-brussels-15-
march-2019/. Accessed 19 Nov 2020.
Delegation of the European Union to Turkey. (2020). ‘Turkey and
the EU must intensify dialogue’, says EP foreign affairs chairman
McAllister.https://www.avrupa.info.tr/en/pr/turkey-and-eu-must-intensify-
dialogue-says-ep-foreign-affairs-chairman-mcallister-10150. Accessed 2 Sep
2020.
Dokos, T., Tocci, N., Palm, A., & Kasapo˘glu, C. (2018, December). Greek–
Turkish relations and the Cyprus dispute: Impact on Turkey–EU scenarios
(FEUTURE Online Paper No. 27). https://feuture.uni-koeln.de/sites/feu
ture/user_upload/Online_Paper_No_27.pdf. Accessed 22 Nov 2020.
Eder, M. (2003). Implementing the economic criteria of EU membership: How
difficult is it for Turkey? Turkish Studies, 4(11), 219–244.
Emerson, M., & Tocci, N. (2004, August). Turkey as a bridgehead and spear-
head: Integrating EU and Turkish foreign policy (CEPS EU–Turkey Working
Papers, No. 1). https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.
454.8537&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2020.
Eralp, A. (2000). Turkey in the enlargement process: From Luxembourg to
Helsinki. Perceptions, 5(2), 17–32.
Eralp, A. (2019, May). Multilateralism matters: Toward a rules-based Turkey–EU
relationship. IPC-Mercator Policy Brief. https://ipc.sabanciuniv.edu/Con
tent/Images/Document/multilateralism-matters-toward-a-rules-based-tur
key-eu-relationship-5b7c27/multilateralism-matters-toward-a-rules-based-tur
key-eu-relationship-5b7c27.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2020.
European Commission. (2012, May 17). Positive EU–Turkey agenda launched
in Ankara. MEMO/12/359. Brussels.
1 UNPACKING THE NEW COMPLEXITIES OF EU–TURKEY RELATIONS … 29
European Commission. (2016, November 9). Commission staff working docu-
ment, Turkey 2016 Report. SWD(2016) 366 final. Brussels.
European Commission. (2020, Oct 6). Turkey 2020 report. SWD(2020) 355
final. Brussels.
European Council. (2015). Meeting of heads of state or govern-
ment with Turkey—EU–Turkey statement, 29/11/2015. Statements and
remarks. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/
11/29/eu-turkey-meeting-statement/. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.
European Council. (2016, March 18). EU–Turkey statement. Press release.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/
eu-turkey-statement/. Accessed 27 Nov 2020.
Evin, A., & Denton, G. (Eds.). (1990). Turkey and the European community.
Opladen: Leske +Budrich.
Gstöhl, S. (2016, September). ‘Brexit’ lessons from third countries’ differenti-
ated integration with the EU’s internal market. College of Europe Policy
Brief No. 14. https://www.coleurope.eu/system/files_force/research-paper/
gstohl_cepob_14-16_final.pdf?download=1. Accessed 27 Nov 2020.
Güvenç, S. (1998/99). Turkey’s changing perception of Greece’s membership
in the European Union: 1981–1998. Turkish Review of Balkan Studies, 12,
103–130.
House of Lords. (2013). Future of EU enlargement: Report—10th report of session
2012–13. London: The Stationery Office Limited.
Icoz, G. (2011). Turkey’s path to EU membership: An historical institutionalist
perspective. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 19 (4), 511–521.
Icoz, G., & Martin, N. (2021). Historical institutionalism and EU–Turkey
relations: Path dependence and critical junctures in the accession process.
Chapter 4, in this volume.
Joseph, J. S. (Ed.). (2006). Turkey and the European Union: Internal dynamics
and external challenges. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kaeding, M., & Schenuit, F. (2021). The European Parliament’s perspective on
EU–Turkey relations. Chapter 10, in this volume.
Kaya, A. (2021). Europeanization and de-Europeanization of Turkish asylum and
migration policies. Chapter 14, in this volume.
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. (1977). Power and interdependence (2nd ed.). New
York: HarperCollins.
Lavenex, S. (2015). The external face of differentiated integration: Third country
participation in EU sectoral bodies. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(6),
836–853.
Le Gloannec, A. M. (2006). Is Turkey Euro-compatible? French and German
debates about the ‘non-criteria’. Constellations, 13(2), 263–274.
30 E. TURHAN AND W. REINERS
Leruth, B., Gaenzle, S., & Trondal, J. (2019). Exploring differentiated disinte-
gration in a post-Brexit European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies,
57 (5), 1013–1030.
Linden, R. H., Evin, A. O., Kiri¸sci, K., Straubhaar, T., Tocci, N., Tolay, J.,
et al. (2012). Turkey and its neighbors: Foreign relations in transition. Boulder:
Lynne Rienner.
Lippert, B. (2021). Turkey as a special and (almost) dead case of EU enlargement
policy. Chapter 11, in this volume.
Lundgren, A. (2006). The case of Turkey: Are some candidates more ‘European’
than others? In H. Sjursen (Ed.), Questioning EU enlargement: Europe in
search of identity (pp. 121–141). Abingdon: Routledge.
Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of interna-
tional politics. International Organization, 51(4), 513–553.
Müftüler-Baç, M. (1997). Turkey’s relations with a changing Europe. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Müftüler-Baç, M. (1998). The never-ending story: Turkey and the European
Union. Middle Eastern Studies, 34(4), 240–258.
Müftüler-Baç, M. (2000). Through the looking glass: Turkey in Europe. Turkish
Studies, 1(1), 21–35.
Müftüler-Baç, M. (2008). Turkey’s accession to the European Union: The impact
of the EU’s internal dynamics. International Studies Perspectives, 9(2), 201–
219.
Müftüler-Baç, M. (2016). Divergent pathways: Turkey and the European Union:
Re-thinking the dynamics of Turkish–European Union relations. Opladen:
Barbara Budrich.
Müftüler-Baç, M. (2017). Turkey’s future with the European Union: An alter-
native model of differentiated integration. Turkish Studies, 18(3), 416–438.
Müftüler-Baç, M., & Çicek, A. E. (2017). A comparison of the European
Union’s accession negotiations with Bulgaria and Turkey: The role of bilateral
issues. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 25 (2), 180–196.
Müftüler-Baç, M., & McLaren, L. (2003). Enlargement preferences and policy-
making in the European Union: Impacts on Turkey. Journal of European
Integration, 25(1), 17–30.
Narbone, L., & Tocci, N. (2007). Running around in circles? The cyclical rela-
tionship between Turkey and the European Union. Journal of Southern Europe
and the Balkans, 9(3), 233–245.
Nas, Ç. (2012). Europeanisation of identity: The case of the rebuffed candidate.
In Ç. Nas & Y. Özer (Eds.), Turkey and the European Union: Processes of
Europeanisation (1st ed., pp. 23–44). Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.
Nas, Ç., & Özer, Y. (2017). Turkey and EU integration: Achievements and
obstacles. London: Routledge.
1 UNPACKING THE NEW COMPLEXITIES OF EU–TURKEY RELATIONS … 31
Neumann, I. B. (1999). Uses of the other: ‘The East’ in European identity
formation. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Noutcheva, G., & Aydın-Düzgit, S. (2012). Lost in Europeanization? The
Western Balkans and Turkey. West European Politics, 35(1), 59–78.
O˘guzlu, T. (2008). Middle Easternization of Turkey’s foreign policy: Does
Turkey dissociate from the West? Turkish Studies, 9 (1), 3–20.
O˘guzlu, T. (2012). Turkey’s eroding commitment to NATO: From identity to
interests. The Washington Quarterly, 35(3), 153–164.
Öni¸s, Z. (2001). Greek–Turkish relations and the EU: A critical perspective.
Mediterranean Politics, 6(3), 31–44.
Öni¸s, Z. (2003). Domestic politics, international norms and challenges to the
state: Turkey–EU relations in the post-Helsinki era. Turkish Studies, 4(1),
9–34.
Öni¸s, Z., & Kutlay, M. (2017). The dynamics of emerging middle-power influ-
ence in regional and global governance: The paradoxical case of Turkey.
Australian Journal of International Affairs, 71(2), 164–183.
Öni¸s, Z., & Kutlay, M. (2020). Reverse transformation? Global shifts, the core-
periphery divide and the future of the EU. Journal of Contemporar y European
Studies.https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2019.1708280.
Özer, Y. (2020). External differentiated integration between Turkey and the
European Union: The Customs Union and its revision. Turkish Studies, 21(3),
436–461.
Park, W. (2000). Turkey’s European Union candidacy: From Luxembourg to
Helsinki—To Ankara? Mediterranean Politics, 5(3), 31–53.
Peterson, J., & Shackleton, M. (2012). The EU institutions: An overview. In J.
Peterson & M. Shackleton (Eds.), The institutions of the European Union (3rd
ed., pp. 1–19). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reiners, W., & Tekin, F. (2020). Taking refuge in leadership? Facilitators and
constraints of Germany’s influence in EU Migration policy and EU–Turkey
affairs during the refugee crisis (2015–2016). German Politics, 29 (1), 115–
130.
Reiners, W., & Turhan, E. (2021). Current trends and future prospects for EU–
Turkey relations: Conditions for a cooperative relationship. Chapter 16, in
this volume.
Ruiz-Jimenez, A. M., & Torreblanca, J. I. (2007, May). European public opinion
and Turkey’s accession: Making sense of arguments for and against (EPIN
Working Paper No. 16). https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/
02/1494.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2020.
Rumelili, B. (2008). Negotiating Europe: EU–Turkey relations from an identity
perspective. Insight Turkey, 10(1), 97–110.
Rumelili, B. (2011). Turkey: Identity, foreign policy, and socialization in a post-
enlargement Europe. European Integration, 33(2), 235–249.
32 E. TURHAN AND W. REINERS
Rumford, C. (2000). From Luxembourg to Helsinki: Turkey, the politics of EU
enlargement and prospects for accession. Contemporary Politics, 6 (4), 331–
343.
Saatçio˘glu, B. (2009). How closely does the European Union’s membership
conditionality reflect the Copenhagen criteria? Insights from Turkey. Turkish
Studies, 10(4), 559–576.
Saatçio˘glu, B. (2012). The EU’s ‘rhetorical entrapment’ in enlargement recon-
sidered: Why hasn’t it worked for Turkey? Insight Turkey, 14(3), 159–176.
Saatçio˘glu, B., Tekin, F., Ekim, S., & Tocci, N. (2019, March). The future of EU–
Turkey relations: A dynamic association framework amidst conflictual cooper-
ation (FEUTURE Synthesis Paper). https://feuture.uni-koeln.de/sites/mon
teus/user_upload/FEUTURE_Synthesis_Paper.pdf. Accessed 22 Nov 2020.
Sartori, N. (2021). EU–Turkey energy dialogue: Moving beyond the accession
negotiations framework. Chapter 15, in this volume.
Sayari, S. (2000). Turkish foreign policy in the post-cold war era: The challenges
of multi-regionalism. Journal of International Affairs, 54 (1), 169–182.
Schimmelfennig, F. (2001). The community trap: Liberal norms, rhetorical
action and the Eastern enlargement of the European Union. International
Organization, 55(1), 47–80.
Schimmelfennig, F. (2006). The process of enlargement: Problems, interests and
norms. In J. Richardson (Ed.), European Union: Power and policy-making
(3rd ed., pp. 206–224). New York: Routledge.
Schimmelfennig, F. (2009). Entrapped again: The way to EU membership
negotiations with Turkey. International Politics, 46(4), 413–431.
Schimmelfennig, F. (2021). Rhetorical entrapment in EU–Turkey relations.
Chapter 6, in this volume.
Schimmelfennig, F., & Sedelmeier, U. (2002). Theorizing EU enlargement:
Research focus, hypotheses and state of research. Journal of European Public
Policy, 9(4), 500–528.
Schimmelfennig, F., Engert, S., & Knobel, H. (2003). Costs, commitment and
compliance: The impact of EU democratic conditionality on Latvia, Slovakia
and Turkey. Journal of Common Market Studies, 41(3), 495–518.
Schimmelfennig, F., Leuffen, D., & Rittberger, B. (2015). The European Union
as a system of differentiated integration: Interdependence, politicization and
differentiation. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(6), 764–782.
Sjursen, H. (2002). Why expand? The question of legitimacy and justification
in the EU’s enlargement policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40 (3),
491–513.
Süleymano˘glu-Kürüm, R. (2019). Conditionality, the EU and Turkey: From
transformation to retrenchment. Abingdon: Routledge.
1 UNPACKING THE NEW COMPLEXITIES OF EU–TURKEY RELATIONS … 33
Süleymano˘glu-Kürüm, R., & Cin, F. M. (Eds.). (2021). Feminist framing
of Europeanisation: Gender equality policies in Turkey and the EU. Cham:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Tekin, F. (2021). Differentiated integration: An alternative conceptualization of
EU–Turkey relations. Chapter 7, in this volume.
Tekin, A., & Güney, A. (2015). The Europeanization of Turkey: Polity and politics.
London: Routledge.
Tocci, N. (Ed.). (2007). Conditionality, impact and prejudice in EU–Turkey
relations.Rome:IAIandTEPAV.
Togan, S., & Hoekman, B. M. (Eds.). (2005). Turkey: Economic reform and
accession to the European Union. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Torun, Z. (2021). From convergence to divergence: The compatibility of Turkish
and EU foreign policy. Chapter 13, in this volume.
Tsakonas, P. J. (2001). Turkey’s post-Helsinki turbulence: Implications for
Greece and the Cyprus issue. Turkish Studies, 2(2), 1–40.
Tsarouhas, D. (2021). Neoliberalism, liberal intergovernmentalism and EU–
Turkey relations. Chapter 2, in this volume.
Turhan, E. (2012). The European Council decisions related to Turkey’s accession
to the EU: Interests vs. norms. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Turhan, E. (2016). Turkey’s EU accession process: Do member states matter?
Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 24 (4), 463–477.
Turhan, E. (2017, July 3). Thinking out of the accession box: The potential and
limitations of internal and external differentiated integration between Turkey
and the EU (CIFE Policy Paper No. 58). https://www.cife.eu/Ressou
rces/FCK/files/publications/policy%20paper/CIFE_Policy_Paper_58_Thi
nking_out_of_The_Accession_Box_EU_Turkey_Ebru_Turhan_2017_1.pdf.
Accessed 28 Nov 2020.
Turhan, E. (2018). Avrupa Birli˘gi’nin üçüncü ülkelerle harici farklıla¸stırılmı¸sente-
grasyon modelleri ve Türkiye-AB ili¸skilerinin gelece˘gi: Neoliberal bir yakla¸sım.
Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences, 27 (1), 95–120.
Turhan, E. (2019). German–Turkish relations revisited: The European dimen-
sion, domestic and foreign politics and transnational dynamics. Baden-Baden:
Nomos.
Turhan, E., & Wessels, W. (2021). The European Council as a key driver
of EU–Turkey relations: Central functions, internal dynamics and evolving
preferences. Chapter 8, in this volume.
U˘gur, M. (2006). The economic dimension of Turkey’s EU membership: A
stock-taking exercise at the start of accession negotiations. In J. S. Joseph
(Ed.), Turkey and the European Union: Internal dynamics and external
challenges (pp. 16–41). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ye¸silada, B. (2002). Turkey’s candidacy for EU membership. Middle East
Journal, 56(1), 94–111.
34 E. TURHAN AND W. REINERS
Yıldız, A. (2016). The European Union’s immigration policy: Managing migration
in Turkey and Morocco. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Yorulmazlar, E., & Turhan, E. (2015). Turkish foreign policy towards the Arab
Spring: Between Western orientation and regional disorder. Journal of Balkan
and Near Eastern Studies, 17 (3), 337–352.
Ebru Turhan is assistant professor at the Department of Political Science
and International Relations, Turkish-German University (TDU), Istanbul. She
also serves as a senior research fellow at the Institute for European Politics
(IEP) in Berlin. Turhan was the academic coordinator of the Jean Monnet
Module ‘INSITER-Inside the Turkey-EU Relations’ (2016–2019), co-financed
by the European Commission. Before joining the Turkish-German University in
September 2015, she was a Mercator-IPC fellow and post-doctoral researcher at
the Istanbul Policy Center (IPC) of the Sabancı University. Her current research
interests include EU–Turkey relations, external differentiated integration, EU
enlargement policy, German–Turkish relations, and decolonizing and degen-
dering knowledge. Turhan holds an M.A. in Contemporary European Studies
from the University of Bath and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University
of Cologne.
Wulf Reiners is senior researcher and head of the ‘Managing Global Governance’
(MGG) program of the German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut
für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE). He is also the coordinator of the Horizon 2020
project PRODIGEES (2020–2023) on digitalization and sustainable develop-
ment in Europe and emerging economies. Before joining DIE, he was assistant
professor at the Turkish–German University in Istanbul, academic coordinator of
the Jean Monnet Module ‘INSITER-Inside the Turkey-EU Relations’ (2016–
2017), researcher, lecturer, and project manager at the University of Cologne,
and Marie Curie Visiting Researcher at the University of Pittsburgh. He obtained
his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Cologne. His current
research interests include global governance, emerging economies, EU–Turkey
relations, EU external action, sustainable development, and digitalization.
1 UNPACKING THE NEW COMPLEXITIES OF EU–TURKEY RELATIONS … 35
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction
in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the
chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons
license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder.
