ABSTRACT
The EU enlargement processes have presented numerous social and political ramifications. Among others, they have made more visible the hidden shortages affecting the democratic and constitutional frameworks of Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC). From this perspective, WP 7 (the ‘enlargement research team’) of the CHALLENGE project has analysed the externalization of JHA wrapping into the ENP, the implications of Europeanization over cross-border and regional co-operations and the politically motivated legislative and judicial efforts toward the adaptation by new EU member states to the EU acquis. The enhanced and integrated border management, which has counted with the financial support from the EU, and the visa restrictions, have often made more difficult the access to protection by asylum seekers to this region. These security measures have also favoured the emergence of anti-migration rhetoric, the practice of exclusionary policies towards refugees and the non-development of comprehensive integration policies, which to a certain extent have been based on the continuation of CEEC perceived status as ‘transit countries’. The revitalization of cross-border and people-to-people contacts under the Schengen regime has been accompanied with a kin-state policy providing ethnic preferences in entry, visa and residence proceedings. However, this ‘ethnic exceptionalism’ is not hindering the securitization against (mainly the regional) migrants and Roma citizens. The implemented ethnic profile, the introduction of biometrical identification or verification systems, the growing entitlement of security services and intelligence-driven law enforcement personal data exchange cannot have not been compensated by an effective democratic control. It is true that parliamentary scrutiny and watchdog NGOs, free accession to relevant information on state agents in present and in the past and the effective and autonomous judiciary protecting the fundamental rights of individuals have been under development. However, bilateralism in external relations, fragile democracy and formal rule of law regimes, heterogeneity and missing social cohesion commitments continue being real concerns in the accession processes because of the lack of substantial and objective evaluation criteria. In CEEC the main concerns are of an ethic, political and social nature rather than economic, and this cannot be considered as a common signal of ‘enlargement fatigue’. Instable governance, low level of participation in the elections, scepticism after membership and the high rate of xenophobia and racism as detected appearances should be taken into account not only in further enlargement assessment but also in the preparation of the next AFSJ multiannual programme (the Stockholm Programme).
