EU External Governance and Minority
Rights Policy in the Republic of Serbia
Milos Giljen – 11248653
Master in Social Sciences
Department: Political Science
Track: Public Policy and Governance
Supervisor: Professor Jonathan Zeitlin
Second reader: Professor Dimitris Bouris
30,000 Words
23- 06- 2017
Index
Introduction (Pages 1-3)
Chapter One: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework (Pages 4-22) EU Conditionality and Limitations (Pages 4-8)
Minority Rights (Pages 9-14)
Modes of Governance (Pages 14- 19) Effectiveness (Pages 19- 22)
Chapter Two: Data and Methods (Pages 22-27) Case Selection (Pages 22-23) Methods (Pages 23-27)
o Document Analysis (Pages 24-26) o Interviews (Pages 26-27)
o Triangulation (Page 27)
Chapter Three: Empirical Findings (Pages 27-36) Modes of Governance (Pages 27-36)
Chapter Four: Effectiveness of EU External Governance (Pages 36-54) Rule Selection (Pages 36-37)
Rule Adoption (Pages 37-40) Rule Application (Pages 40-54)
o Recognition (Pages 42-44) o Autonomy (Pages 44-46)
o Language/Culture (Pages 46-48) o Motherland Connection (Pages 48-50) o Education (Pages 50-52)
o Employment (Pages 52-54)
Chapter Five: Conclusions (Pages 54-61)
Introduction
When many people think of Europe, they often visualize grand Parisian edifices and the narrow cobblestoned streets of Rome. Rather than delving into the potentially problematic and Western-centric nature of this idea of Europe, one can vehemently argue that the Western Balkans is a region of the European continent that is often overlooked and stigmatized. This stigmatization is often rooted in the Balkan's recent civil conflicts that are characterized by poisonous ethnonationalism and widespread ethnic cleansing. Of all the former Yugoslav republics, Serbia has arguably borne the label of being the Yugoslav Civil War’s most violent and nationalistic aggressor. Although this country’s negative reputation is characterized by pro-Serb nationalism, it also happens to be one of the most ethnically diverse states in the region. Contemporarily, the now independent Republic of Serbia has its eyes set on the European Union (EU) and has achieved full candidate status for EU membership. That said, the politics of the country have shifted into molding the country’s laws and regulations into fitting the EU acquis that stands as the prerequisite for accession into the bloc. One can argue that a pertinent part of embracing Western European values lies in the equal treatment of a country’s citizens regardless of their ethnicity and culture. In this sense, minority rights policy becomes a relevant topic when it comes to evaluating the synergy and harmony between the various citizens that reside in an ethnically heterogeneous country.
When discussing minority rights policy in the Republic of Serbia, it is apposite to think in the context of the EU. The goal of this master’s thesis is to reveal, explicate, and evaluate the efficacy of the modes of governance used by the EU in strengthening effective minority rights policy in the Republic of Serbia (van Kaathoven, 2013 ). More specifically, the external governance that this thesis will analyze is concentrated on the external dimension of the European Union and Council of Europe’s Joint Program for Promoting Human Rights and Minority Protection In South East Europe (MPEE). This research will elucidate the intricacies of the European Union’s external governance processes, and will ultimately evaluate the ability of the EU to utilize its power in regards to promoting an effective minority rights policy regime in the Republic of Serbia (RS).
Conventionally speaking, the most visible case of EU external action can be seen in the EU process of enlargement (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, 2009). The enlargement process has been referred to as the EU’s most successful foreign policy and is rooted in the projection of the EU acquis onto EU candidate countries (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig,
2009). The European Commission (EC) defines the acquis as the body of collective rights and obligations that are binding on all the EU member states. The EC also posits that for any candidate country to enter the EU bloc, they must accept the acquis and make it a part of their national legislation (European Commission, 2017). Ever since becoming a candidate for EU accession in 2008, the Serbian government has begun to mold its policies and political structure to fit the standards of the EU acquis, and ultimately enter the bloc. However, it can be argued that the adoption and structure of the EU acquis are not a sufficient tool for establishing and developing an effective minority rights regime in RS. No specific acquis deals with minority rights, and that the European Commission even states that it has no general power over the rights of minorities (European Commission, 2017). Although the acquis is considered weak towards minority issues, it is pertinent to remember that the adoption of EU acquis can still influence other factors that will ultimately have an effect on the structure of minority rights policy in RS. All of this being said, the EU’s lack of
legislation and specific stances towards minority rights has led it to rely on mechanisms that have been developed by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe (CoE) (Smith, 2003). This thesis will focus on the EU’s
cooperation with the latter, and more specifically, on the European Union and Council of Europe’s Joint Program for Promoting Human Rights and Minority Protection In South East Europe.
The MPEE is a program that is funded by the European Union and is based on the laws and conventions set up by the Council of Europe (Anon, 2017) The program relies on the rules and regulations outlined in the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCPNM) and the European Charter for Regional or Minority
Languages. These two legal instruments are the basis on which the MSEE operates, and are often the guideline documents that the EU uses in regards to its minority rights schema (Anon, 2017). The EU’s cooperation with the Council of Europe and the use of its guidelines are a form of rule selection that will be discussed to a greater extent later on in this thesis. In regards to the workings of the MSEE, the joint program has described its actions under three overarching components. The first element listed by the MPEE is “support to municipalities.” This component represents the ability of individual administrative districts in Southeastern Europe to address specific minority rights issues in their local context by seeking expertise and oversight from the MPEE (EUCE). The next component of the MPEE is described as “Good Practices.” This component describes the process of the MPEE evaluating and
small grants (EUCE). The final component of the MPEE’s work is dubbed “Legislative and Policy Changes,” and it is described as being carried out in a two-fold manner. On one side, the MPEE will provide central governments with advice on minority rights policy during the implementation of the project. During the final phase of the project in question, local level results and recommendations from the MPEE will be taken into account by governments for the purpose of addressing minority rights issues on a more systematic level (EUCE).
Although the previously introduced components offer insight into the workings of the MPEE, the goal of this thesis is to analyze these programs and actions in order to situate them into a much larger framework of external governance practices. To reach a more nuanced understanding of external governance; one must first delve into the different modes of external governance that are potentially occurring in the context of the European Union, the MPEE, and the Republic of Serbia. Once this is elucidated, it then becomes germane to observe how these external governance practices have molded minority rights policy in Serbia, and also to understand what types of explanations can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of certain MPEE modes of governance within the Serbian context. These observations will be taken a step further as the focus goes to a more local level to see if the establishment of certain norms and policies trickles down into the lives of actual minority citizens. All of this being said, the goal of this thesis can be separated into two main research questions:
What kind of actions and external governance has the EU and MPEE employed to change and develop minority rights policy in the Republic of Serbia?
How effective is EU external governance in regards to minority rights rule selection, rule adoption, and rule application in the Republic of Serbia?
It is noted that these research questions are inspired by those research questions found in a master’s thesis written by Kirsten van Kaathoven. This thesis was entitled EU External Governance of Anti-Corruption in Western Balkans, and the research questions found within were reformulated to fit the context of minority rights rather than political corruption.
Chapter One: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
When it comes to the Balkans, the region has often been characterized by the antagonistic relationships between the various ethnicities that inhabit the Peninsula. In this sense, it becomes germane to analyze the rights of minorities within Serbia; the most
populated and arguably most stigmatized ex-Yugoslav Republic. By evaluating the minority rights situation within the country, one can draw larger conclusions on whether or not it is possible for ethnic relations in the region to stabilize. If Serbia is able to create harmony between its majority Serb population and its ethnic minorities, it would paint a positive picture on whether or not the Western Balkans is capable of embracing the EU norms of freedom and access to rights for every European citizen. This being said, it becomes necessary to delve further into the ways that this minority rights situation is progressing on both a national and local level.
In order to fully grasp the intricate political exchanges occurring between the EU and the Republic of Serbia, one must first elaborate on the theoretical background that is
necessary to operationalize the tools and concepts needed to answer the research questions posed in this thesis. In regards to the EU external governance occurring in the Serbian context, one must outline and conceptualize the modes of external governance that will later be expounded in the results section of the thesis. However, it is first and foremost important to theorize minority rights, as this is the main focus and hallmark of this thesis work. Before this, it is also pertinent to delve further into how EU conditionality and EU limitations have an effect on minority rights policy in EU candidate countries. Along with conceptualizing and analyzing the framework behind minority rights and modes of external governance, this section of the thesis will also review and expand the available literature that has already touched upon the topics that will be discussed in this research.
EU Conditionality and Limitations
Now that the literature involving the components of minority rights has been assessed, it becomes pertinent to move the focus into the context of the EU and the candidate countries. More specifically, one must evaluate the literature that touches on how effective the EUs external governance has been at supporting active minority rights regimes in the candidate
states. Romania, Turkey, and Bulgaria will be the three country examples that will be the focus of the literature dealing with the EUs capacity to influence external policy during the accession process. The accession process is often described as the most useful external governance tool of the EU, which is why it will be at the center of the interactions occurring between the EU and candidate countries. Before observing the specific state examples, one should first explore the concept of conditionality, as it holds an important role in the molding of minority rights policy in the candidate countries. In addition to understanding
conditionality, the weaknesses of the EUs minority rights structure needs to be outlined in order to illuminate any failures occurring in the context of the three countries under observation.
When discussing the EU accession process, the term "conditionality" comes into full use. In candidate countries, the hope of entering the EU significantly causes a shift in the state’s political and institutional structure. During the accession process, the EU in a way makes a promise that these countries can enter the bloc, but only if they achieve the necessary reforms and prerequisites that the EU requires for any candidate country to fulfill. This being said, the term conditionality in this sense means that the candidate countries need to meet certain benchmarks and conditions to be eligible for entering the bloc. Furthermore, this conditionality urges states to adopt reforms and measures so that they can join the EU and enjoy the benefits and privileges that countries receive once they enter the bloc. If one delves further into the concept of conditionality, one can notice that several scholars have researched the way that conditionality and the promise of EU accession affect the policies being created in the candidate countries (Sasse and Hughes, 2003; Skersytė, 2012). In regards to the power of conditionality, Hughes and Sasse states that the power asymmetry that comes from the conditionality of accession is a powerful tool for influencing the law making in the candidate countries. This conditionality has been shown to be useful for "democracy promotion," and has been demonstrated to aid in the "Europeanisation" of the candidate countries' legal structure. However, Hughes and Sasse assert that in the area of minority protection, there is a deficit of research that shows how conditionality operates in practice (Sasse and Hughes, 2003). In Skercyte's thesis, conditionality is also put in the context of the candidate countries. Skercyte agrees that the conditionality of the accession process is an effective way to
influence policy change in candidate countries, but there is still a deficit of understanding the effectiveness of conditionality when it comes to human rights (Skersytė, 2012). Both of the discussed researchers agree that conditionality can be an effective tool, but they also agree that there are certain limitations in the EU's structure that problematize external governance
within the scope of minority and human rights. Before continuing with specific country examples, it is necessary to dive deeper into research that illuminates the EU limitations that complicate the adoption of positive minority rights policy in candidate countries.
Understanding how EU conditionality affects minority rights policy is germane for the research in this thesis, and luckily, there is a significant amount of scholars that have explored conditionality's relationship with minority rights (Sasse, 2005; Szöcsik, 2013). When it comes to the work of these scholars, the most important takeaway is their
explanation of the reasons why EU conditionality is problematic and arguably ineffective in the minority rights schema. According to Scozik's literature, the problems with EU
conditionality's ability to positively influence minority rights can be linked to three
fundamental reasons. The first reason is that the EU itself lacks a strong internal structure in regards to minority rights. The EU acquis does not specifically go into minority rights, and the EU has often borrowed minority rights standards from the Council of Europe rather than developing and adding specificity to its minority rights policy structure (Szöcsik, 2013). The second reason that conditionality can be ineffective is that candidate countries have their traditional practices in dealing with their national minorities, and this makes it difficult to make all the candidate countries adhere to a single standard (Szöcsik, 2013). In addition to this, there are minority rights problems within the wealthy EU countries as well, which makes the EU's expectations towards candidate countries undermined by double standards. Finally, the last issue of EU conditionality and minority rights is the EU's inconsistent application of minority rights pressure towards the different candidate states, and also a lack of transparency in the monitoring processes dealing with minority rights application (Szöcsik, 2013). In Sasse's literature, she also highlights how the EU has traditionally left out minority rights from its dialogue on fundamental freedoms and competencies (Sasse, 2005). In general, Sasse asserts that problems with EU conditionality affecting minority rights sprouts from the EUs lack of internal consensus on the specificities on minority rights(Sasse, 2005). Now that the concept of conditionality and the EUs flaws in the scope of minority rights have been explored, the next step is to view actual country examples to see how conditionality and EU limitations have affected minority rights policy. The states put under observation will be Turkey, Romania, and Bulgaria. Turkey is a current candidate state, but Croatia and Romania have already become members of the bloc. This being said, the observations for the latter two countries will be situated in the period where they were still candidate states working towards accession.
When it comes to Turkey, there have been some scholars that have observed how Turkey's goal of EU accession has changed the treatment of minorities within the country (Yilmaz, 2012; Tocci, 2005). Although Turkey has a problematic history with respecting ethnic minorities, Yilmaz has placed Turkey's recent minority rights policy in a rather
positive light. Yilmaz discusses how to goal of EU accession, and the reality of conditionality has created significant minority rights policy changes in Turkey. Yilmaz states however since 2001, Turkey has made significant improvements and modifications to its minority rights policy in hopes of pushing itself closer to the EU bloc. Historical issues such as Turkey's recognition of Kurds have even had positive progress ever since Turkey has achieved candidate country status (Yilmaz, 2012). Although positive progress has been made on the legal level, Turkey has had somewhat limited success in implementing minority rights policy on the local level. According to Yilmaz, the EU has been weak at creating further positive progress for minorities in Turkey. Yilmaz states the reason for this is "The decreasing credibility of EU conditionality, the lack of clarity in minority standards, the EU's exclusive focus on certain minorities, and the absence of clear benchmarks on implementation" (Yilmaz, 2012). In regards to the Europeanization caused by EU conditionality, Tocci also had a somewhat positive view on Turkey's process. Tocci agrees that there are a long ways to go, but that Turkey has made a significant amount of accession-driven reforms since 2001 (Tocci, 2005). She credits the positive change in Turkey to the EU accession process but also highlights that the EUs influence is limited due to problems with monitoring and using conditionality to create reforms at a steady and stable pace. All of this being said, it can most definitely be argued that Turkey has made positive progress in its minority rights policy, but it can also be posited that Turkey still has a long way to go in minority rights reform is due to problems with EU conditionality and the EUs limited influence on certain policy issues.
Moving into the Eastern European context, one can gain a further understanding of EU conditionality and minority rights policy by observing the former Warsaw Pact country of Romania. Just as with the Turkish case, there has been a great deal of research on Romanian minority rights policy and its relationship with EU conditionality/accession (Zhanarstanova 2005; Marin 2014). Similar to Yilmaz's positive view on the progression of minority rights in Turkey, Zhanarstanova asserted that shifts in Romanian minority rights policy have been effective and positive (Zhanarstanova 2005). In addition to this, Zhanarstanova posits that these positive changes in policy were significantly influenced by the EU and the accession process. The literature argues that the accession criteria were effective in pushing Romania to make reforms and that events such as Romania creating special representation rights in
Parliament for national minorities show that Romania's desire to enter the bloc prompted it to make significant changes on the human rights situation in the country. Marin, on the other hand, has a more cautious and critical view on minority rights within Romania. Just like previous scholars, Marin claims that the EUs lack of internal consensus on the structure of minority rights once again problematizes the progression of rights policy in the candidate countries. The EU's reliance on the Council of Europe's minority rights framework can be seen as positive, but the EU's lack of internal norms weakens its power in the minority rights framework of the candidate countries. This is visible in Romania case in the sense that there are still issues occurring between the majority Romanian population and the country's significant Hungarian minority (Marin 2014).
The final country example that will be observed through the framework of
conditionality and EU shortcomings is the Republic of Bulgaria. Similar to the previous two examples, there has also been a somewhat decent amount of literature on the Bulgarian minority rights case (Rangelov, 2010; Rechel 2008). When it comes to the works of these scholars, there was a substantial amount of criticism towards the EU's capability in helping establish effective minority rights policy in Bulgaria. According to Rangelov, any
inefficiencies are once again caused by the EU's internal inconsistency with minority rights law. The EU heavily criticizes Bulgaria's treatment of its Roma population, yet the double standards mentioned earlier are still present. The EU gives this criticism during the accession process, but it still lacks definitive minority rights criteria and is inefficient at helping
monitor minority rights rule implementation on the local level (Rangelov, 2010). The
heaviest criticism that Rangelov presents is that the EU's conditionality criteria are strict and critical towards Eastern European democracies, but their internal minorities still face
significant issues. This being said, EU conditionality's effect on minority rights in the Bulgarian case was hampered due to the loss of EU credibility caused by its own arguably hypocrisy (Rangelov, 2010). In Rechel's work, the EU's ability to affect minority rights policy in Bulgaria is also described as weak and ineffective. Rechel explains the reason for this being the EU's "lack of internal minority rights standards, over emphasis on the acquis communautaire, missing expertise on minority issues, the superficial monitoring of candidate states, a lack of concern for human rights, and a general failure in addressing public attitudes towards minorities"( Rechel 2008). All these criticisms and weaknesses will be germane once they are put into the context of the Serbian case later on in the research of this thesis.
Minority Rights
In regards to the word “minority”, a sufficient definition would be “a non-dominant group, not always numerically inferior to majorities, whose members possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics that differ from the rest of the population and show, if only
implicitly, a sense of solidarity directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language”(Dimitras, 2004). When it comes to minority rights, they are briefly mentioned in Article 2 in the Treaty on European Union. Besides this brief and non-detailed statement, the European Commission also makes a point to indicate in what sense it lacks power. In regards to minority rights, the European Commission has no authority involving the
recognition of national minorities, the autonomy of national minorities, and the regime that governs the use of regional or minority languages (European Commission, 2017). Briefly putting the EU’s limitations aside, it is important to challenge the utilization of the EU’s three listed limitations as the indicator for minority rights. Focusing only on recognition,
autonomy, and linguistic rights leave out many important factors that are necessary to create a detailed depiction of the minority rights situation in Serbia.
For the section on minority rights, this thesis will draw on the thesis work of Mirella Pejcic (Pejcic 2007). Pejcic’s thesis is entitled Minorities in Serbia and is mostly centered on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCPNM). Following Pejcic’s structure, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities will be used to define and conceptualize minority rights. This will be employed instead of a conventional theoretical framework because the FCPNM is utilized by the MPEE, and is the main internationally binding treaty that confronts issues dealing with minority rights in the European context (Pejcic 2007). In Pejcic’s interviews, she touched upon certain factors that were relevant in the schema she created for her minority rights framework. The factors she addressed were recognition, autonomy, language/culture, motherland connection,
employment, and education. By examining the text of the FCPNM and other available minority rights literature, one could understand the importance of the previous factors as the benchmark for analyzing the success of minority rights policy in RS.
In regards to the recognition of ethnic minorities, the entire FCPNM is based on the simple idea that minorities deserve to be recognized and protected by a set of rules that should be agreed upon in a transnational manner (Council of Europe, 1995). This being said, a plethora of literature has focused on the recognition of minorities, the importance of
recognition, and how recognition plays out in the context of individual countries (Dimitras, 2004; Verkuyten, 2006). Recognition is essential, as there have been close links showing that unrecognized minorities are more likely to live in poverty, and that lack of recognition denies minorities access to economic, social, and political development (Dimitras, 2004). Besides preventing groups of people from being denied access to development, minority recognition is paramount to a country that is promoting multiculturalism (Verkuyten, 2006). In a world where globalization has caused significant migration, multiculturalism has become a heated topic and a powerful standard for achieving synergy between the citizens residing in an ethnically diverse country. Although there has been a considerable amount of literature on minority recognition, it becomes relevant in Serbia’s case to observe literature that
specifically deals with minority recognition in Eastern Europe ( Hannum, 1993;
Penntassuglia, 2011). In the Serbian context, conflicts such as the war in Kosovo have shown that problems arise when a minority group feels alienated from a central government
(Pentasuglia, 2011). Following the breakup of Yugoslavia, the European Community began to create committees that examined whether the laws involving ethnic minorities outline recognition (Hannum, 1993). The fact that one of the primary minority issues addressed after the Yugoslav breakup was recognition shows that minority recognition is indeed the first factor to be observed when evaluating minority rights policy in RS.
When it comes to autonomy, it can often be described as a state of self-governance. This can be a contested and unspecific definition, and it should be noted that autonomy can potentially refer to a variety of political and cultural factors. For the purpose of this thesis, autonomy will be used in the geographic and political sense. Although the particular word “autonomy” is not used, Article 5 of the FCPNM states that “without prejudice or measures taken in pursuance of their general integration policy, the Parties shall refrain from policies or practices aimed at assimilation of persons belonging to national minorities against their will and shall protect these persons from any action aimed at such assimilation” (Council of Europe, 1995). This text implies autonomy includes minority groups not being forced into subduing their culture, language, or identity. Although this does not describe autonomy in the political sense, one could argue that freedom of culture, language, and identity are eventually bound to be expressed politically. In support of the FCPNM, there have been many sources that have touched upon the autonomy of national minorities (Wu, 2014; Benidikter, 2006; Wright, 1999). According to the literature by Xiaohui Wu, regional autonomy for
geographically concentrated minority groups is necessary for national unity, social harmony, and equality among ethnic groups (Wu, 2014). In the Serbian context, ethnic minorities are
often concentrated in particular regions, which means that regional autonomy will be a relevant factor for later discussion. Autonomy can be described as self-determination, and the right to self-determination and equality for groups of people has been a goal of the
international community ever since the formation of the UN (Wright, 1999). In regards to the fledgling Eastern European democracies, this commitment has often been followed with mixed results. In this sense, it becomes once again relevant to observe literature that focuses more on autonomy within the South Eastern European context (Smith, 2003; Jovanovic, 2013). According to Jovanovic, minority autonomy is problematized and looked at with caution in the Serbian context due to the breakaway of its former Albanian-dominated province of Kosovo (Jovanovic, 2013). Even though it is problematized in the Balkan context, minority autonomy will still be a major factor of observation due to the popular belief that giving more autonomy and self- determination to minority bodies provides significant assurances against complete cultural assimilation. It is also viewed as promoting minority representation and creating greater minority participation in the public life of the state (Smith, 2003).
The next factor combination that needs to be observed is language/culture, and the FCPNM becomes a valuable tool for doing so. Article 10 and 11of the FCPNM lay the framework for the linguistic rights of minorities, and also specify the sub-factors that go into it. Article 10 asserts that minorities have the right to use their language in daily life, the right to have signs and place names in their language, the right to have printed and electronic media in their language, and the right to have access to their language in administrative and bureaucratic settings (Council of Europe, 1995). Many scholars have focused on linguistic rights and the importance it holds for ethnic minorities (May, 2000; Riggins, 1992; Fishman, 1996). In a rather dramatic sense, Riggins describes the availability of minority language media as pertinent for the survival of an ethnicity (Riggins, 1992). Building off this bold claim, some would say that ethnic identity is contingent on language, so to ensure the
protection of the identity of ethnic minorities, one must also ensure the availability and use of their language (May, 2000). In this sense, one could even draw on an example from the United States and see how prejudice against the Latino community is partially due to the lack of respect, recognition, and regulation of their mother tongue (Fishman, 1996). This being said, it is much more useful to discuss once again authors that have observed language discrimination in the Eastern European context (Greenberg, 2011; Ramet & Valenta, 2016). In the Balkans, the disintegration of the Serbo-Croatian language into country specific regional languages has often been seen as one of the primary tools that the ex-Yugoslav
countries have been using to distance themselves from each other and reassert their cultural sovereignty (Greenberg, 2011). In this sense, one could see the importance that language use has in regards to the identity and expression of an ethnic population. Finally, one could conclude that the availability of minority languages is a pertinent factor for evaluating minority rights policy, as many would argue that post-socialist southeastern Europe is consistently rife with regional language disputes (Ramet & Valenta, 2016).
Building on the language factor, one must then observe education in both a linguistic and participatory sense. Looking back to the FCPNM, articles 12, 13, and 14 detail the criteria for successful ethnic minority education policy. Within these articles, the FCPNM outlines a list of factors that are relevant when it comes to education for ethnic minorities. These factors include the availability of textbooks in their minority language, instructors knowledgeable in the minority language, instruction in their minority language, and the ability for ethnic minorities to open up their private educational establishments (Council of Europe, 1995). In regards to minority education, several scholars have examined how
important the observance of educational rights is in the European context (Brind, Harper and Moore, 2008; Orozco, 1991; Gorter and Cenoz, 2011). According to Brind, Harper, and Moore, there are growing disparities in the access to quality education for minority children (Brind, Harper and Moore, 2008). However, these types of claims are problematic seeing that there are contradictory claims that discuss how educational support for regional and minority languages has been getting more recognition and attention (Gorter and Cenoz, 2011). Despite these contradictions, the observance of language rights for minorities is relevant on a world scale. An example of this far-reaching issue can be seen in the fact that the United States also has had a difficult time providing minority language education to its Latino minorities
(Orozco, 1991). Once again, the theme of this thesis makes it relevant to also focus on literature within the Eastern European and Serbian context (Paulston and Peckham, 1998; Tankersley, 2001). Paulston and Peckham highlight the important fact that many of these ethnic minorities have been situated in these countries for centuries and that the problem of educating them in their own language is not a new development whatsoever. In addition to this, Tankersley brings up an interesting case from the Macedonian context. According to Tankersley, dual language immersion for minority students can actually decrease conflict and promote inter-cultural friendships with the ethnic majority. In regards to education in
minority languages, it will be a relevant factor when it comes to analyzing rule implementation in RS.
The next element that will be used to illuminate minority rights is “motherland connection.” In article 17 of the FCPNM, it outlines that states should "undertake not to interfere with the right of persons belonging to national minorities to establish and maintain free and peaceful contacts across frontiers with individuals lawfully staying in other States, in particular those with whom they share an ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious identity, or a common cultural heritage" (Council of Europe, 1995). Essentially, this means that an ethnic minority should have the right to maintain significant connections with their mother state. A possible example of this would be the Russian minority in Estonia being allowed to maintain cultural ties and exchanges with the Russian Federation. Subsequently, there has been a variety of works touching upon the “motherland connection” that was implied in the FCPNM (Farinelli, 2014; Shlapentokh, Sendich and Payin, 2016; Nannavecchia, 2017). The first case brought up by the literature was the Catalan-speaking minority in Sardinia. The research explains how the geographical distance and lack of economic ties between the minority and their motherland have put a strain on their cultural identity and the expression of their language and cultural traditions (Farinelli, 2014). Apart from the Catalan community, the same motherland connection issues can be found in the post-soviet republics. The newly alienated Russian minorities in these countries desire to maintain a cultural connection to their motherland, but the ethnic majorities in these countries often meet anything involving Russian culture with hostility due to their Soviet pasts (Shlapentokh, Sendich and Payin, 2016). Minorities desire to connect with their motherland so much that even ethnic Italians living in Canada want a level of linguistic connection to their ancestor’s homeland across the ocean (Nannavecchia, 2017). Bringing it back to the Balkan context, one can see why
motherland connection is problematized due to fears of succession (Napoleoni and Deliso, 2007; Demjaha and Peci, 2014). The issue with the Balkans is that the desire for motherland connection often comes packaged with nationalism. Albanians in Serbia or Serbs in Bosnia often take this desire to connect with their motherland and culture to a greater extent. This desire for connection gets to the point where these communities want to succeed and reunite with their mother state (Demjaha and Peci, 2014). This fear of succession will be discussed later in the thesis when these factors of minority rights become observed on the local level.
The final observed factor involving minority rights will be employment. In article 4 of the FCPNM, it posits, " states should undertake to adopt, where necessary, adequate measures to promote, in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural life, full and effective equality between persons belonging to a national minority and those belonging to the majority. In this respect, they shall take due account of the specific conditions of the
persons belonging to national minorities" (Council of Europe, 1995). Although this article does not mention employment specifically, it still states that a government should be
advocating for minority equality in economic matters as well. This being said, a government will have the responsibility to make sure that areas with significant minority populations have proportionate employment representation in bureaucratic and public institutions. Thankfully, there is an immense amount of literature that examines employment discrimination towards minorities in Europe (Lamberts, 2012; van Balen et al., 2010). One of the most problematic issues involving employment discrimination against minorities is that a significant amount of observed countries in the European Union have not adopted enough comprehensive strategies to combat employment discrimination (Lamberts, 2012). If one questions whether this is an issue, it is important to know that there have been studies that show how people of minority backgrounds are more likely to be unemployed and not get careers (van Balen et al., 2010). It will be discussed later in the thesis how this employment discrimination is also rooted in the linguistic factor in the minority rights schema. One of the most problematic aspects of this minority employment situation is that it has arguably remained stagnant for years, and that significant improvement is still yet to be seen. Many of these studies are set in the Western European context, but as one can imagine, the Balkan region has its share of minority employment discrimination (Wolff et al., 2008; Ivanisevic, n.d.). In the Balkan context, refugees and ethnic minorities returning to countries they have fled from have been met with discrimination in the social and employment sense (Ivanisevic, n.d.). This is a unique case in the sense that the Western European countries may have employment discrimination against minorities, but there is post-war resentment that is visibly present in the post-Yugoslav countries. This employment discrimination becomes even more problematic when you have coercive institutions such as the police department not having enough regulation for
employing minority employees so that the staff employment statistics reflect the ethnic structure of the municipality (Wolff et al., 2008). All of this being said, employment
discrimination will be one of the most important factors when it comes to evaluating minority rights policy in multi-ethnic municipalities in RS.
Modes of Governance
Before exploring the distinct modes of external governance, it is first essential to deconstruct the term “governance.” According to Lavenex & Schimmelfennig, governance can be defined as institutionalized forms of coordinated action that aim at the production of
collectively binding agreements (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, 2009). In regards to external governance, it has traditionally been defined as the extension of the EU acquis outside of the bloc and is a result of the internal legislation of European norms and values to extend them onto third countries (Lavenex, 2004). Historically, the EUs most successful external
governance and action policies have been found in the process of extending the EU acquis for the purpose of enlargement (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, 2009). However, several literary works have now addressed why this view of EU external governance and enlargement has not necessarily been sufficient in illuminating the case of the Western Balkans, and more
specifically, the Republic of Serbia (Renner and Trauner, 2009; Dimitrova and Dragneva, 2009; Staal, 2014). The reason that traditional enlargement approaches are problematized in the Balkan case is primarily based on the enlargement fatigue experienced from the Bulgarian and Romanian expansion (van Kaathoven, 2013). These countries were rife with poverty and corruption, and their accession into the bloc called the European Union’s ability to take on former communist countries into question (van Kaathoven, 2013). This being said, the European Union’s promise of accession to the Balkan countries has often been questioned by the populace and has been rife with murky promises and non-specific dates. In addition to this, Russia’s growing influence in the region has offered an alternative set of norms and incentives that have been eyed by the Republic of Serbia as an alternative to the non-committal European Union. Later on in this thesis, domestic structure issues will be
addressed, but for now, it is more pertinent to focus on the external governance typology that will be used to define and deconstruct Serbia’s relationship with the EU and the M.PEE.
In the previous section, it was clarified that external governance is an extension of EU rules to third countries. However, there are different modes of external governance that can be used to classify and specify this external action phenomenon. The first mode of external governance that will be discussed is hierarchical governance. According to Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, “ hierarchical governance takes place in a formalized relationship of domination and subordination and is based on the production of collectively binding
prescriptions and proscription” (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, 2009). In addition to this, this type of governance asserts that there is a relationship between the “rulers” and the “ruled” that is typically an asymmetric exertion of power and influence (Lavenex and
Schimmelfennig, 2009). In the case of the Western Balkans, these countries retain full sovereignty, but the European Union can still exhibit hierarchical governance through informal mediums. For example, the European Union can provide the Western Balkans with much-needed incentives which will, in turn, prompt the candidate countries to introduce EU
rules, procedures, monitoring, and sanctioning mechanisms linked with hierarchy (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, 2009). In the Balkans, these incentives often come as a necessary relief for their ailing economies and sometimes-weak democratic institutions. In this sense, the fact that the RS is sovereign vis a vis the EU does not necessarily mean that it will play out that way in practice. All of this being said, whenever hierarchical governance is discussed in this thesis, it will be defined as a situation where the role of EU law is strong, and actions of the third country are restricted by predetermined obligations of the acquis, and these actions are subject to independent judicial review (Lavenex, Lehmkuhl and Wichman, 2009).
Regarding hierarchical governance, there has been a plethora of literature that delves further into its intricate workings (Hill, 2004; Mueleman, 2010; Klijn, 2008 ). Mueleman’s work goes into further detail on the different factors that play into hierarchical governance. He describes how this type of governance is focused on rule-following subordinates, and that any crises that hierarchical governance is confronted with often is solved with more rules and control (Mueleman, 2010). An example of this would perhaps be the European Union placing sanctions on a member state or candidate country to coerce them into changing a policy or law. This being said, hierarchical governance is the form of governance that people often associate with domineering and powerful central governments. However, scholars have now begun to theorize that hierarchical governance is actually on the decline (Hill, 2004). The reason for this decrease is that governments around the world are experimenting with new forms of horizontal governance rather than relying on the vertical approach typically associated with hierarchical governance (Klijn, 2008). The reason for this change has been contributed to the increasing role of societal actors, and a typical type of horizontal
governance can be seen in examples of public-private partnerships (Klijn, 2008). All of this being said, hierarchical governance remains relevant in the Western Balkans (Fagan, 2012; Renner and Trauner, 2009). In the Western Balkans, many of the democratic institutions remain relatively weak and have issues with regulation and keeping authority. In this power vacuum, the European Union has often employed certain methods of hierarchical governance that push these countries into adopting rules and regulations which may have never come if just left to their ailing institutions (Fagan, 2012). The EU has acknowledged that an efficient manner to keep stability in the region is to offer these countries the possibility of EU
membership. This being said, the role of extending the acquis and transferring rules from the top down approach is a phenomenon that is likely to keep occurring in the Western Balkan context (Renner and Trauner, 2009).
The next mode of external governance that will be theorized in this thesis is dubbed market governance. Within Lavenex and Schimmelfennig’s literature, market governance is defined as “competition between formally autonomous actors that have weak formal
relationships with each other” (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, 2009). In the European Union’s case, institutionalized market governance comes in the form of mutual recognition, and is seen in the application of the Single Market (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, 2009). Mutual recognition creates a regulatory framework where the consumer’s demands dictate what competitive services and products survive. Institutionalized mutual recognition or competitive pressure can then influence legislation and rule adoption in regards to production and service standards (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, 2009). When it comes to EU external governance, market governance is manifested in circumstances where there is no legal obligation to cooperate and accomplishing the acquis cannot be used as a standard. In other terms, cooperation in market governance is subject to negotiations and no systematic monitoring of compliance is taking place (Lavenex, Lehmkuhl and Wichman, 2009). Although market governance may seem a bit more abstract than hierarchical governance, there has still been a significant number of scholars that have studied market governance in the European context (Dunford, 1996, ; Nicolaïdis and Egan, 2001; Lavenex 2004). In Dunford’s literature, he chooses to focus on market governance in the context of economic disparities between different regions of Europe. In support of the theory of market governance mentioned above, Dunford does go into detail on how there are high regional disparities of wealth, which arguably sets up a fertile ground for non-hierarchical rule adoption for economically productive standards that can earn more profit for the ailing European economies (Dunford, 1996). In Egan and Nicolaidis’s work, new forms of institutionalism are described in the context of the European Single Market that is often brought into the discussion for market governance. The argument of dwindling hierarchical governance is addressed in the sense that the EU’s single market reforms have caused the standard setting to be handed off to independent European agencies (Nicolaïdis and Egan, 2001). Dwindling institutional hierarchy is pertinent seeing that market governance is strengthened and defined as being independent of traditional overarching institutions.
Lavenex explores this in the southeastern European context by explaining how the European Union has shifted to offering “everything but institutions” regarding its neighbor policy (Lavenex 2004). In the Balkans, market governance has already begun to mold the political and economic regulations within these potential member states (Lindstrom, 2011). Lindstrom describes how market governance has affected energy policy and has “started the
development of open markets and regulatory institutions to promote efficient, secure and sustainable energy” (Lindstrom, 2011). All of this being said, market governance is a mode of governance that will be necessary to observe to understand EU external governance processes in RS.
Finally, the last mode of governance that will be conceptualized is network
governance. First and foremost, network governance describes a relationship where the actors involved are formally equal (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, 2009). Lavenex and
Schimmelfennig note however that a network governance relationship does not exclude the possibility of power asymmetries, but it does imply that “in institutional terms, actors have equal rights and that no party can bind the other party to a measure without the
latter’s consent” (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, 2009). This means that rather than involving coercive action, network governance can be described as a set of voluntary and mutual agreements between two actors (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, 2009). Within Kaathoven’s thesis, she accurately writes that “In the EU’s external relations, network governance represents “strongly institutionalized and unified system[s] of on-going horizontal
coordination”, in which regulatory expansion is the result of co-ordination of national rules rather than the ‘top-out’ implementation of EU legislation and hence gives the involved parties more room to maneuver” (van Kaathoven, 2013). Straying further away from
hierarchical governance, network governance relies on voluntary agreements rather than the judicial review that is typically seen in hierarchical governance. It should be noted that network governance still can draw some inspiration and guidance from the EU acquis (Lavenex, Lehmkuhl and Wichman, 2009).
The last step in understanding the modes of external governance is to review the literature that expands on network governance’s role (Coen and Thatcher, 2007; Provan and Kenis, 2007; Dedeurwaerdere, 2005). In Provan and Kenis’ work, he goes into detail about the benefits of network governance and why it has garnered attention from more and more scholars. According to Provan and Kenis, the benefits of network governance include enhanced learning, more efficient use of resources, and an increased capacity to plan for and address complex problems (Provan and Kenis, 2007). Dedeurwaerdere expands this idea further and implies that network governance is responsible for the growing importance of NGOs, the private sector, scientific networks, and international institutions in the
performance of various functions of governance (Dedeurwaerdere, 2005). In his opinion, the aim of network governance should be to increase synergy between different sources of knowledge and power to address complex and interlinked problems (Dedeurwaerdere, 2005).
Thatcher supports the previous claims by dealing with the belief that changing patterns of delegation on the international scale signifies the shift from traditional forms of governance to the network governance described in Lavenex and Schimmelfennig’s literature (Coen and Thatcher, 2007). If one returns to the Balkan context, one can see that network governance has already begun to alter how policy and rules are created in the region (Kostovicova, Ker-Lindsay and Bojicic-Dzelilovic, 2013; Alberti, Fala and Sayed, 2008). Alberti, Fala and Sayed describe how networks of innovators and professional institutions have been formed to address problems of inefficient governance in the Balkan region (Alberti, Fala and Sayed, 2008). There are also examples of how environmental organizations and local municipalities in Sarajevo have started to work together to address environmental issues in a cooperative manner (Kostovicova, Ker-Lindsay and Bojicic-Dzelilovic, 2013). All of this being said, network governance will arguably be the most important mode of governance that will be observed when analyzing how the MPEE coordinates and works together with local municipalities in RS.
In order to summarize the previously discussed modes of governance, the table below has been borrowed from page 9 of Kirsten van Kaathoven’s thesis in order to simplify the theoretical framework behind the different modes of governance.
Effectiveness
It is one thing to theorize the modes of external governance occurring between the EU/MPEE and RS, but it is another thing to see whether these modes of governance are effective at positively changing minority rights policy in the Republic of Serbia. This being said, there will be three factors of effectiveness that will make up a germane part of this thesis ‘research. The three factors that will be observed are rule selection, rule adoption, and rule application.
The first measure of effectiveness that will be seen is Rule Selection. Rule selection mainly measures to what extent EU rules constitute the normative reference point of EU– third-country relations (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, 2009). This measure of effectiveness is most relevant at the level of international negotiation between the EU and third countries. In some cases, the selected rules between the EU and the third countries are not exclusively based on the norms and values that come from the EU’s internal legislative framework (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, 2009). However, Serbia’s case lies within the realm of EU enlargement, meaning that the EU acquis is sure to be the focus of any rule selection going on between the EU and Serbia. This being said, the effectiveness of EU governance will be seen from the scope of whether or not the Serbian government has selected the EU’s rules as its legislative template. These observations will, of course, have a particular focus on the realm of laws that have an effect on minority rights policy.
To add further understanding to rule selection, one should observe examples of it in practice (Barbé et al., 2009 ; Dimitrova and Dragneva, 2009). Barbe describes how the European Union encourages rule selection and transfer with its neighbors to create policy harmonization (Barbé et al., 2009). Barbe brings up a valid point that rule selection is
sometimes understood as a one- way process where the EU pushes its rule onto others, but in practice, this rule selection is often due to policy convergence that often provides benefits and coordination for both parties involved (Barbé et al., 2009). Dimitrova and Dragneva, on the other hand, puts the strength of rule selection into question by assessing how other powerful state actors have the ability to interrupt and problematize rule selection between the EU and a third country (Dimitrova and Dragneva, 2009 ). The most prominent example would be how Russia’s political influence has made it difficult for the selection of EU rules to occur in the Ukrainian context (Dimitrova and Dragneva, 2009). This being said, one can see that rule selection will be a multi-faceted concept that will require a great deal of document analysis in the Serbian context.
The second measure of effectiveness that will be observed is Rule Adoption. Lavenex and Schimmelfennig describe rule adoption as “whether EU rules selected for international negotiations and agreements are then also transposed into the third country’s domestic
legislation” (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, 2009). The relevance behind rule adoption lies in the fact that even though non-member countries may select EU rules through international negotiations, that does not necessarily mean that they will adopt it in their national
legislation. As for how it is measured, “rule adoption is indicated by the ratification of agreements with the EU or the adoption of laws and other legal documents that incorporate EU and joint rules”( Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, 2009). Once again, this ratification and adoption of laws are also focused on the domestic level when it comes to the evaluation of rule adoption.
Luckily, there is a fair amount of literature that focuses on rule adoption in the Eastern European context (Tanasoiu, 2012; Schwellnus, n.d.). In regards to rule adoption, Romania and Bulgaria have not completed it to the level that they should have. In fact, Bulgaria and Romania cannot even be considered as completely fulfilling the EU membership criteria (Tanasoiu, 2012). Many of the issues come from these countries’ inability to adopt the rules necessary for progression and democratization, which subsequently leads to corruption and nepotistic elites (Tanasoiu, 2012). In addition to Bulgaria and Romania, other countries in the EU have had issues with rule adoption for non-discrimination policies. More specifically, countries like Italy and Hungary have had issues with adopting non-discrimination rules, especially towards their Roma communities (Schwellnus, n.d.) These literary works are invaluable resources for the research of this thesis. The reason being that Serbia shares many similarities to Bulgaria and Romania and that the focus of the thesis is on minority rights.
The final measure of effectiveness that will be discussed in this section is Rule Application. Rule application signifies “whether and to what extent EU or joint rules are not only incorporated into domestic legislation but also acted upon in political and administrative practice” (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, 2009). This being said, it is pertinent to remember that rule adoption in no way means that these rules will always be applied. In this sense, rule application is arguably the most important factor when it comes to evaluating the
effectiveness of external governance. It is one thing to write a rule on a piece of paper, and it is another to make sure that the governmental institutions of one’s country are making sure that these rules and laws are being applied and enforced at the lowest local and municipal level.
Just as the two previous measures of effectiveness, rule application has been studied to see how it can complicate external governance (Börzel, 2011 ;Anastakis, 2005). According to Börzel, EU rule implementation in the Western Balkans has been extremely limited and somewhat ineffective. The reason for this is weak state capacity and ethnic conflicts that have reduced the willingness and ability for the Western Balkan countries to implement the rules of the acquis communitaire (Börzel, 2011). This is not only a Balkan issue, as Börzel also states that the European Union’s weak state-building capacity has limited the progression of the Western Balkan countries’ EU accession processes. Anastakis claims in his literature that the Western Balkan’s inability to efficiently adopt rules is rooted in the late historical
development of the region, the slow reforms, and divergence from the rest of Europe (Anastakis, 2005). All of this being said, the research and interviews constructed for the thesis will touch heavily on the local level of rule application, and also observe the factors Anastakis mentioned to get context into the situation present in the Republic of Serbia. To summarize the measures of effectiveness described above, the table below was
borrowed from Lavenex and Schimmelfennig’s literature to place the different rule processes in a simply understandable format.
Chapter Two: Data and Methods
Case Selection
When it comes to the definition of a case study, Bent Flyvbjerg defines it as “An intensive analysis of an individual unit (as a person or community) stressing developmental factors in relation to environment” (Flyvberg, 2011). This being said, the case study chosen
for this thesis research is the rights of minorities in the Republic of Serbia. In this research, Serbia minorities are the unit of analysis, the developmental factors are the progression of minority rights policy, and the environment is a European Union candidate country that is subjected to EU external governance and conditionality. Although it is important to
understand how the choice of Serbian minorities fits the definition of a case study, it is more pertinent to go into the actual reasoning behind choosing Serbia as the case country for this research. To understand the reasoning behind this choice, it is important to view Flyvbjerg’s description of the strategies for the selection of cases and samples. In regards to the decision to select Serbia and its minorities as the case study, one can say that an information oriented selection approach was used. More specifically, information oriented selection with a paradigmatic case selection.
The reason that the chosen case study in this research fits the typology of
paradigmatic case selection is that it was the most logical option for the understanding of minority rights on a larger and more impactful scale. Flyvbjerg states that the reason behind using a paradigmatic case selection is to develop a metaphor or establish a school for the domain that the case concerns (Flyvberg, 2011). Serbia is a Balkan country that has achieved EU candidate status, and a country that has an immense amount of ethnic diversity. If the Serbian case can be thoroughly analyzed and researched, then one can use it as a template for observing other similar domains. If the continent of Europe is looked at as a whole, then Serbia would belong to the subgroup of EU candidate countries. This being said, choosing the small country of Serbia as the focus of the research is useful in the sense that it can help create conclusions on a much larger scale. Along with Serbia, there are other countries in the Western Balkans that share a similar culture and level of ethnic diversity that Serbia exhibits. If one can draw conclusions on the situation of EU external governance and minorities in Serbia, then one can arguably use these results to draw conclusions on the Western Balkans as a whole. The countries are undeniably similar, so it can be hypothesized that information on minority living situations in Serbia could also be used to shed light on the status of minorities in Macedonia or Montenegro. Additionally, the Serbian case can even be used to draw conclusions on Western European countries. Western Europe has a high level of ethnic diversity and its own set of minority rights problems. If one can see effective policies and solutions for minority rights in Serbia, then it would not be too far-fetched to see if these policies and practices might be able to work in the Western European context. This being said, the case study of Serbia is indeed stratified in the sense that a small country is being observed to find insights about an entire region of Eastern Europe.
Methodology
The type of methodology used for this research will be a mixture of document analysis and personal interviews. The reason that these method types were chosen is that personal interviews offer extensive insight into what is occurring on the local level, and document analysis provides clarity on the actual laws and policies that are happening on the national and municipal level. When describing the intricacies of this thesis methodology, it is first important to discuss document analysis. For this research, a plethora of various materials will be used to illuminate the minority rights situation in Serbia.
Document Analysis
Before delving into the actual documents observed for this research, it is important to mention the actual way that the analysis of these documents occurred. The process of
document analysis used for the research is inspired and based on The Essential Guide to Doing Research by Zina O’Leary. In her guide, O’Leary breaks up the process of document analysis into eight separate steps. The first step listed by O’Leary is to gather relevant texts, and the workings of this step are self-explanatory. In the case of this research, a plethora of documents with keywords relating to minority rights and the EU were collected and then sifted through to have a sufficient amount of literature to support the claims of the research. The next step listed by O’Leary is to develop a management scheme, and for this thesis, this organization process involved separating and categorization selected texts based on the keywords and summaries they provide. The third step is to make copies for annotation, but this is relatively straightforward and not necessarily relevant to the success of the document analysis. The next two steps are to assess the authenticity of the documents and outline their agenda. For this thesis, only verified trusted databases were used to gather information, and the documents were separated by agenda in the organizational step of the analysis process. The last three steps of the analysis are to explore background information, ask questions about the document, and explore the content. The first step was done through researching the academic background of the researchers, and the latter two steps were achieved by carefully reading and outlining the documents under analysis. This being said, it is important to discuss the types of documents that were used in this research.
The external governance being observed in this research is centered on the MPEE, which means that the first logical step is to analyze the documents created and published by
the MPEE. The MPEE has an extensive amount of documents that offer insight into the actual policy support work that they are focusing on in the Republic of Serbia. The first types of documents that will be analyzed are the cross-country and regional reports that were compiled and created by the MPEE. These will provide a general understanding of the external governance that the MPEE is employing in the Serbian context. In addition to country reports, the MPEE has a variety of documents that describe the types of policy support that they are providing to their project partners in RS. Finally, the last types of MPEE documents that will be analyzed are documents that evaluate “good practices” that have manifested following the policy support offered to the minority groups within RS. The reason that all of these documents are pertinent for analysis is that they will be the most illuminating for the external governance of the MPEE. The documents originate from the MPEE itself, thus making them a precious primary source needed for the understanding of the MPEE’s relationship with local and municipal minority rights groups in the Western Balkans. All of this being said, there are other types of documents which will be necessary for the document analysis that is supporting the claims and results in this thesis.
Seeing that the external governance being deconstructed in this thesis is ultimately centered on the EU and Serbia, it becomes necessary to analyze documents that are
originating from these governmental bodies. This means that the country progress reports that the EU has created for Serbia’s accession process will be thoroughly analyzed for
components that shed light on the minority rights situation in Serbia. The EU progress reports are invaluable to the research seeing that these reports are a way to evaluate progress in accession, and it has already been solidified in this research that evaluating the accession process is paramount in understanding the strength of EU external governance in candidate countries. In addition to this, the European acquis will also be observed in order to set a base understanding of the accession factors that ultimately shape the contemporary policies and laws that are being created in RS. In regards to the RS, it also becomes germane to go into the legal framework of their country. Parts of the Serbian constitution will be deconstructed to put minority rights in the national context. The reason that the constitution and national legal policy will be observed is that this will offer the most useful insight into the rule adoption occurring in RS. It is one thing to say that the EU gives Serbia prerequisites for accession, and it I’s another thing to see whether the Serbian government is molding its country’s laws to fit these prerequisites. In addition to this, the laws occurring on municipal levels will be observed in order to differentiate the situation in the minority inhabited local municipalities from the highest level of the Serbian governmental system. The reason for this being that the
observance of these laws and orders will be an important component of evaluating the effectiveness of rule application. The document analysis described above addresses rule adoption, but the actual interviews conducted for this research will be the backbone for understanding rule application on the local level.
Interviews
Before going into the intricacies of the interviews conducted, it is first relevant to explain why interviews were chosen for this case in the first place. For this explanation, one can draw upon Oisin Tansey’s literature on process tracing and elite interviewing. If one desires to understand why interviewing was a good fit for this research, one should observe the uses of elite interviewing that Tansey outlines in his literature (Tansey, 2007)
The first listed reason was that elite interviewing could be used to corroborate what has been established from other sources. Seeing that the other portion of this research relies on
document analysis, the interviews collected can most certainly be used to corroborate the claims and information found within the analyzed documents. The next use of elite interviewing is to establish what a set of people think (Tansey, 2007). The individuals interviewed for this research are professionals that work for recognized minority bodies, and establishing what they think and feel is important for understanding the negotiations and discussions happening on a higher up political level in the Republic of Serbia. The following reason for the use of elite interviewing is to make inferences on a larger populations
characteristics (Tansey, 2007). This research did not have the capacity to provide interviews with hundreds of minority citizens, but by interviewing their community leaders, one can arguably draw inferences on what the group as a whole thinks or feels. Finally, the last reason for doing elite interviews is to reconstruct an event or a set of events (Tansey, 2007).
Although this reason is not overly relevant to this research, these interviews can most definitely provide insights to past events, especially conflicts with ethnic majorities and minorities that occurred during the Yugoslav wars. All of this being said, elite interviewing was a logical choice for developing and substantiating the claims discussed in the documents analyzed for this thesis. Also, the use of interviews is an efficient way to understand what is occurring on a local and personal level.
The questions that will be asked in these interviews are largely based on the
theoretical framework that was used to conceptualize minority rights earlier in the thesis text. This being said, the questions will focus on the factors of recognition, autonomy,
