| Abstract [eng] |
The research paper Unanimity in the Council of the EU: The standpoint of the Baltic States examines the Baltic States position on unanimous voting in the Council of the European Union when decisions are being made toward Common Foreign and Security Policy. The unanimous voting when all the Member States have their veto right prompted a lot of criticism among the leaders of the Member States as well as the heads of the European Union institutions. The public discussions in media, conferences, and other formats are even more vocal when Russia started the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. There were difficulties for the European Union to react and adopt strict sanctions for Russia because Hungary used its veto right. These issues led to a discussion of whether the unanimous voting is still relevant in the context of the new reality and crises. Despite criticism, most of the Member States declare support for the unanimity or abstain from declaring the position. The Baltic States are among this group of countries. The aim of this study is to reveal the reasons why Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia support unanimity in the Council of the European Union and how decision-makers from these countries evaluate the challenges created by the requirement of unanimous voting. Based on anonymous interviews with representatives from the decision-making institutions of all three Baltic States, it is declared in the paper that the advantages that unanimity creates are more valuable for Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia than the risks and damage created by this voting rule. Interviewees claim that the veto right secures their national interest and is a valuable tool for negotiations because as small Member States, they are not very influential in case of qualified majority voting rule. Moreover, the representatives claim that one of the most important aspects that are created by unanimity is the unity of the European Union. In case of abandonment of veto rights and the extension of qualified majority voting in Common Foreign and Security Policy, interviewees express fear that their interests would not be safeguarded, and small countries would be outvoted by more influential Member States. In case of risks that would be created if voting rules do not change, the representatives of the Baltic States are convinced that Ukraine would not be able to join European Union because some countries would try to avoid more difficulties in the decision process. This is the main reason Baltic States are open to discussion and certain that current discussions will continue. In this paper, the explanation of the decision-making process in the Council of the European Union and the positions of Member States are based on the veto players theory by George Tsebeli. This theoretical approach suggests that a new veto player increases policy stability. In this 98 case, it might be more difficult to change the status quo. The veto players theory also suggests that the higher the voting rule threshold, the more policy stability is established. G. Tsebelis claim that in the context of various crises, the Council of the European Union cannot be efficient enough to react to the fast-changing environment. In this case, this argument explains the reason why the Baltic States do not deny the necessity of discussion, mainly due to Ukraine's membership in the European Union. The research can be developed by analysing the positions of more Member States who are not very vocal supporters of the extension of qualified majority voting to evaluate the main reasons countries abstain from expressing support for institutional changes in the European Union. |
