1.0 Introduction
The European Union is guided by a number of provisions that are based on diverse values that are embraced by this union. These provisions are generally categorized into seven articles. One of the most significant provisions that guide the relationships of the member states of the European Union is associated with Article 2. Article 2 provides that the European Union is founded on the critical values of respect for freedom, democracy and dignity of persons, as well as the rule of law, equity and human rights. In this respect, it is expected that the member states of the European Union should embrace pluralism (for example, the minority are not excluded in any manner), there is no discrimination of any type, justice prevails, harmony is present among the people, as well as the presence of gender equality. When these values are not embraced by a given member state, Article 7 of the Treaty of the European Union can be invoked. Basically, Article 7 of the Treaty on the European Union is associated with the procedures with respect to the treaties of the EU to suspending specific rights from a given member country. A member country cannot be suspended but its rights in being member of the European Union can be suspended Closa, Kochenov and Weiler, 2014). This essay is aimed at discussing critical the role of Article 7 TEU in the EU’s enforcement of its values against ‘recalcitrant’ member states. In the context of this essay, recalcitrant’ member states are member states of the European Union that endeavor to breach the core values under Article 2. In undertaking this analysis, the essay also incorporates some discussion of recent developments of Article 7.
2.0 The Role of Article 7 TEU in the EU’s Enforcement of Its Values against ‘Recalcitrant’ Member States
Article 7 TEU has become an important article that helps the European Union to enforce member countries to comply with Article 2 TEU; however, it should be noted that Article 7 TEU also guides the relationships of the member states. The article is typically enacted in the event the European Union identifies that a specific member is consistently breaching the founded values of union; the values that are breached in this case include the respect of the dignity for a person, the freedom of persons, democracy and rule of law. In this regard, the European Council, which is majorly headed by head of states/governments, the president of the European Commission and the president of the European Council, has the power of voting to suspending the rights associated with the European Union membership. With the exclusion of the member country in question, the identification of a breach would require the unanimity of all the member states. The role of Article 7 TEU in terms of enforcing values against recalcitrant can be discussed with reference to 3 sub-articles under Article 7. The sub article 7.1 attempts to identify the existence of a breach based on 3 steps that were initiated by European Commission as of 2014 (Bogdnady et al., 2012). It should be noted that the European Commission is the executive branch of the European Union and mainly submits proposals for novel legislations to the Council of the European Union as well as the European Parliament. The European Commission is also responsible for implementing policies, administering the budget, ensuring adherence to the European law and negotiating international contracts. The three sub articles, including the three steps mechanism for identifying a serious breach of the values under Article 2 TEU, are discussed in breadth below.
Article 7.1
Article 7.1 is the first sub article under Article 7 TEU. This article was improved recently with the adoption of three steps with respect to identifying a serious breach of values under Article 2. These steps were initiated by the European Commission as has been evident earlier. The first step as regards the identification of a potential violation of the major values of the European is the initiation of a proposal to figure out a Clear Risk of Serious Breach of the European Union values by the European Parliament, European Commission or 1/3 of the member countries as informed by Carrera, Guild and Hernanz (2013). For instance, at the moment, there are 28 member countries of the European Union; if 1/3 of these countries, that is, at least 10 member countries, introduce the proposal of finding a Clear Risk of Serious Breach, the process of identifying the potential breach of such values by a given member state can begin. The next step is to approve this proposal by at least 2/3 of the European Parliament’s members. The third step in terms of identifying a potential breach is where the member state in question is summoned to answer to the Council of the European Union in which the council would issue recommendations; the council can also vote to identify a violation of the major values based on 4/5 of the council (Krajewski et al., 2009). Besides this provision being important to member states since the accused member country can avoid immediate suspension of its rights as a member of the European Union, the provision is also effective in enforcing values against a recalcitrant member state since warning is provided such that fear is imposed due to possible suspension of rights in the event does not heed to the guidelines of the council. It is observed that a number of recommendations by the European Council are provided under Article 7.1 in which the accused member can easily rectify its mistake if such recommendations or guidance are followed effectively. In other words, as argued by Baeten, Vanhercke and Coucheir (2010), a serious breach of the core European Union values would not amount to the suspension of critical rights as a member of the union; the breach should be serious and persistent for a country in question to be denied its rights in being the member of the European Union. It is also after the serious and persistent breach of such core values of respecting human dignity, freedom and democracy among other rights that other Article 7.2 and Article 7.3 can be invoked, which are likely to lead to a potential suspension of membership rights.
For instance, assume that the government of country X has violated the rule of law, which is one of the key values under Article 2, by reducing the separation of power between the executive and judiciary such that the judiciary is not independent. In this regard, a proposal to figure out a Clear Risk of Serious Breach can be begun by the European Parliament, European Commission or 1/3 of the member countries. If this proposal is approved by at least 2/3 of the European Parliament, the European Commission would summon the accused country to appear before the council for recommendations/guidelines as well as the identification of breach; in order to identify the existence of a serious breach of the value in question, at least 4/5 of the European Council should vote for the existence of a breach. However, at this point in time, the Council does not vote to impose the sanctions on country X for not adhering to the European Union’s values since persistence of serious breach of the core values has not been confirmed. However, the warning provided by the council upon the recommendations may act in favor of preventing the accused country from engaging against the violation of the rule of law. In other words, the rule of the law would be highly embraced.
Article 7.2
Article 7.2 is also an essential article in as far as enforcing the European Union values against the recalcitrant member states is concerned. According to Article 7.2, if there a serious and persistent violation of the major values under Article 2, that is, the member state in question fails to heed to the guidance of the council, the European Commission or 1/3 of the member states, after the approval by at least 2/3 of the members in the European Parliament, would call again the country in question to answer to the European Union Council. At this stage, the Council of the European Union would resolve to advance in a unanimous manner to the final sub article under Article 7 (Müller, 2013). It should be noted that the European Parliament has about 751 members, and therefore, approval 2/3 of the majority would imply the approval by at least 250 members of that parliament. Article 7.2 is stricter than Article 7.1, and therefore, it is highly effective in ensuring European Union values are enforced even among the recalcitrant member states.
For example, assume that the member country X continues to violate the rule of law by failing to separate the powers of the executive and the judiciary such that the executive has powers over the decisions made by the judiciary. In this regard, 1/3 of the member countries or the European Commission can again summon the accused country to appear the council to answer to a number of questions; it should be noted that the European Commission or 1/3 of the member countries can summon the accused country to appear before the council once 2/3 of the parliament has approved the proposal of persistent and serious breach of the core values. At this stage, the council can vote unanimously to move to invoke the final Article. If the council decides to advance to the next article, the accused country has no opportunity to rectify its predicaments; it faces a high probability of the relevant sanctions being imposed on such a country, and thus may encourage a country to embrace the core values under Article 2 TEU.
Article 7.3
This is the last sub article in relation to Article 7. In regards to this sub article, when the Council decides unanimously that the country in question is persistently breaching the major values under Article 2 TEU, the Council would then vote by majority (4/5) to suspending the rights of the indicted state. These include among other rights to the voting right within the council till the duties that are in question are met to sufficient levels (Baeten, 2012). Since the rights are suspended until a country fulfill all the duties, it is arguable recalcitrant member countries would be encouraged to comply with Article 2 since it is by rectifying the situation (upholding the core values of Article 2) that the sanctions can be lifted.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Assume that the council has decided to invoke Article 7.3 by voting that the country X has continued to violate the rule of law. In this regard, the Council can vote by majority, that is, 4/5 of the members of the European Council that the rights of membership be suspended in regards to the country in question. The country’s sanctions can only be lifted if the country resolves to fulfill all the duties, that is, resolving to upholding all the values under Article; as such, Article 7 is naturally effective in enforcing the European Union values against recalcitrant member states.
Therefore, Article 7 plays a critical role in ensuring that the fundamental rights of justice, respect of human dignity, freedom, democracy and inclusivity (minority societies and persons of different gender) are considered and upheld. In the absence of such a provision (Article 7), these fundamental values, as provided in Article 2, would hardly be upheld since there would be no sanctions for violating them. Furthermore, since the violation of these values to a serious level would hardly be noticed due to lack of absolute measurements with respect to such aspects, it is critical to take into consideration the first warning. Therefore, countries that might have engaged in a serious breach of such values without their knowledge of a concrete breach of such values would quickly learn about their breach, and therefore, readjust various structures in the government to ensure such values are upheld. This further reduces the common frustrations that are likely to emerge among countries which may apportion blame on the intention of such a provision in demoralizing countries against the aspiration to adopt all the values of the European union, including the economic values.
3.0 Recent Developments in Relation to Article 7 TEU
The Article 7 TEU has experienced a significant development in the recent past. While the European Union was established as early as mid 1970s, some of the provisions associated with the European Union treaties were established in the recent past. One of the provisions that were established recently is in relation to Article 7 TEU. In the past, while all countries were required to abide by various provisions of the union, including Article 2 TEU, it was not clear as to how a non-compliance country would be intervened. Closa, Kochenov and Weiler (2014) attempted to evaluate the development of Article 7 TEU with reference to the fall of the Berlin Wall. When the Berlin Wall fell, the European Union started to consider enlarging to the Eastern Bloc countries. However, there was a concern about the ability of the European Union in interceding in the event the major values of Article 2 were not respected; as such, there was a need to initiate a specific system for intervening in the event of the aforementioned violation prior to enlarging to Eastern Bloc countries. In this regard, a treaty was established in Amsterdam (Known as Amsterdam Treaty) which demanded that the rights of a country can be suspended if it violates the European Union’s values as evident in Article 2 TEU. The Treaty of Amsterdam majorly focused on amending and improving the Treaty on European Union. The Amsterdam’s Treaty was signed as of 1997 but started to be applied in 1999.
However, Article 7 TEU was considered ineffective at the beginning. For instance, the provision was considered strict and harsh in terms of punishment and approach. The harshness of the provision was realized when it was enacted for the first time on Austria in 2000 with respect to a political coalition with the far right (Toggenburg and De Witte, 2004). For instance, it was argued that the provision did not provide any warning sign as to whether a member state has engaged in behavior that indicates the violation of values associated with Article 2 TEU (Kochenov and Jakab, 2016). It based on such a strict provision that a number of member states considered Article 7 TEU to be excessive, and as such, these states issued the threat of cutting diplomatic contacts with other member countries. In this vein, there was a need for the provision to be altered such that immediate suspension is not imposed on the violators; in other words, a warning sign was a need to provide a warning prior to full suspension. This, therefore, led to the introduction of Article 7.1 in which it was termed as the Treaty of Nice given that the establishment of the treaty took place in Nice. The Treaty of Nice was signed by all leaders associated with the European Union as of 2001 but was applied in 2003. The Treaty of Nice required the Council (4/5 of the Council) to identifying a potential breach as well as making recommendations to the member country to correct the breach prior to taking action against such a country.
In the most recent year, that is, in 2014, the European Commission initiated mechanism of 3 steps of identifying the systematic threats to the values of the European Union. These three steps, as introduced by the European Commission, include proposing to establish a Clear Risk of Serious Breach about the European Union values; this proposal can be done by different institutions of the European Union. Among the institutions that can propose the establishment of Clear Risk of Serious Breach is the European Commission, the European Parliament or 1/3 of the European Union member countries; any of the three bodies can initiate the proposal. The second step would involve the approval of such proposal by 2/3 of the parliament. The final step involves summoning the county in question before the European Council to answer a number of questions. Besides offering the recommendations, the council can also vote by 4/5 to recognize the breach (Müller, 2013; Vaszkun and Koczkás, 2018).
It is therefore observed that Article 7 TEU has undergone several changes in the past to adopt the present form. The major reason for the changes in regards to this Article is insufficiency identified with the initial version of the same act or related acts. For instance, it was identified that it was difficult to intervene in the situation where a specific member country violates the core values of the European Union; as such, prior to expanding the European Union, which would result in difficulties of intervening situations of non-compliance to Article 2, a mechanism for intervention was deemed essential, and as such, it gave rise to Article 7. However, this provision (Article 7) was considered very strict and harsh, and would discourage countries from aspiring to meet the political, economic and social targets of the European Union. As such, a less-harsh provision was demand such that the harsh one of immediate suspension of rights is eradicated. It is based on such frustrations that saw the alteration of the prevailing provision to include the aspect of warning among the member countries that are considered to violate the core values of the European Union. It is arguable that the change of Article 7 is likely to be experienced in the future so as to meet new demands by the member countries. For instance, the law remains unclear as to how a member state can be expelled in the event of a consistent breach of the core values of the European Union. Furthermore, the suspension of the rights as a member of the European Union are not considered harsh enough in punishing violators of such critical values in the society. Therefore, there is a need to adopt new laws or provisions that discourage completely the member countries from engaging in behaviors that lead to the violation of human rights, including the freedom of expression, respect, dignity and inclusivity in the society among other important human values.
4.0 Conclusion
This essay has evaluated the role of Article 7 TEU in the enforcement of EU its values against recalcitrant’ member states. It is evident that Article 7 TEU is an effective provision that helps the European Union to enforce the member countries to comply with Article 2. In other words, due to fear of significant rights (such as voting rights in the Council) being suspended, countries attempt to uphold the key values stated under Article 2 among them the freedom of people, inclusivity even among the minority groups, respecting the dignity of individuals, and upholding the rule of law among others. Furthermore, Article 7 TEU has been improved currently to an extent that the excessiveness that was associated with provision has been addressed; at least, warnings are providing to violators of such rights prior to suspending the rights of member states in question. The essay further shows that the insufficiency of Article 7 and related articles led to the development of Article to the present form of today. For example, in order to intervene situation of violating the core values of European Union, a mechanism needed to be established in which Article 7 as established in Amsterdam, was considered effective. However, the insufficiency of the Treaty of Amsterdam, especially after enacting the provision on Austria, led to establishment of Article 7.1, which provided a warning prior to imposing sanctions on the accused country.
Stuck on your essay?
