The Role of Argumentative Coherence in the EU’s Justification of Minority Protection as a Condition for Membership
METADATA ONLY
Loading...
Author / Producer
Date
2005
Publication Type
Report
ETH Bibliography
yes
Citations
Altmetric
METADATA ONLY
Data
Rights / License
Abstract
This paper analyses the justification of the EU’s enlargement policy in the field of minority protection. Starting from the assumption that policies can be justified by different
types of arguments referring to utility, particular values or universal rights, the paper argues that in complex argumentations often more than one type is deployed, so that coherence between
different justifications is an important legitimising factor, whereas argumentative incoherence can lead to unintended feedback effects. In the case of minority protection, the EU's
justification shifted from stressing the policy’s utility, namely preventing ethnic conflict in the region, to promoting it as a “European standard”, although minority protection is not part
of the EU’s internal acquis. This incoherence triggered a discursive “realignment strategy”, linking the external policy back to established EU norms such as non-discrimination, respect for
diversity, and the fight against racism and xenophobia. However, this does not suspend the tension between the different internal and external approaches to minority protection, giving rise
to potential “backlash” after accession.
Permanent link
Publication status
published
External links
Editor
Book title
Enlargement in perspective
Journal / series
Volume
2
Pages / Article No.
247 - 274
Publisher
ARENA, Centre for European Studies
Event
Edition / version
Methods
Software
Geographic location
Date collected
Date created
Subject
Organisational unit
03714 - Schimmelfennig, Frank / Schimmelfennig, Frank