Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Co-evolution of EU’s Eastern Enlargement and LGBT Politics: An Ever Gayer Union?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The EU Enlargement and Gay Politics

Part of the book series: Gender and Politics ((GAP))

Abstract

The EU identifies and presents itself as an organisation founded on ‘fundamental values’ and as a defender and guardian of fundamental rights. The development of this ‘fundamental rights myth’ (Journal of Common Market Studies 48(1):45–66, 2010) has taken place against the broader backdrop of a globalisation of human rights discourse (Journal of Common Market Studies 48(1):45–66, 2010; McGill Law Journal 49(4):951–968, 2004). Fundamental values have also increasingly become the narrative driving EU foreign policy, including enlargement and neighbourhood policies. As Article 3(5) clarifies, ‘In its relations with the wider world, the [European] Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to […] the protection of human rights’. Article 49 sets forth respect for the so-called founding values—‘respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights’ (Art. 2 TEU)—as a precondition for EU membership.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 24.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 32.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Smismans (2010) debunks the EU’s idealised relationship with fundamental rights, highlighting that the EU was founded on ideas of economic cooperation, which sometimes threatened fundamental rights.

  2. 2.

    One must keep in mind that the EU’s exceptionalism on LGBT rights is part of the fundamental rights myth, and does not necessarily reflect the reality. One mechanism keeping this myth alive consists in continually identifying a ‘homophobic other’ both within and outside the borders of the EU (often in the ‘imagined East’). For more critical engagement with this East–West divide and LGBT issues, see Ammaturo (2015), Kulpa (2014), and Kulpa and Mizielińska (2011).

  3. 3.

    This chapter does not address the influence of local and regional LGBT activism on EU policy; for this perspective, see the chapter by Kristoffersson et al. (2016).

  4. 4.

    The fifth enlargement occurred in two waves. In the 2004 wave, the EU welcomed as new member states eight CEE countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia) and Cyprus and Malta. In the second wave (2007), two more CEE states joined: Bulgaria and Romania. The sixth enlargement round marked the accession of Croatia (2013).

  5. 5.

    For the sake of economy, we have opted to focus on changes made by the European Commission and the Council of the European Union. Although the European Parliament (EP) has played an important role in putting LGBT rights on the EU’s political agenda, its role within the EU enlargement process remains rather limited. Furthermore, adding all the resolutions and reports drafted by the EP to our timeline would result in an overcrowded figure with reduced readability.

  6. 6.

    At the time, known as the Commission of the European Communities.

  7. 7.

    This statement was further expanded with the Treaty of Lisbon (2007), and now states: ‘The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail’ (Article 2, TEU).

  8. 8.

    The Treaty of Lisbon changed the name of the EC Treaty to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and changed the numbering to Article 19, TFEU.

  9. 9.

    The ‘I’ in LGBTI stands for Intersex.

  10. 10.

    Two recent initiatives for change are worth mentioning here. The first is the horizontal Equal Treatment Directive, which would provide protection on all grounds mentioned in Article 19 of the TFEU (and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights) in all areas akin to Directive 2000/43/EC on racial discrimination. This horizontal directive, however, has been blocked in the council since 2009, with financial issues regarding accessibility criteria being the main stumble block. Additionally, there is movement within the Juncker Commission to introduce an EU-wide action plan (or framework strategy) to protect LGBT people from discrimination (Intergroup LGBT Rights 2014, 2015).

  11. 11.

    Although it is a rather odd condition, and it is not mentioned in any of the treaties, the EU has explicitly demonstrated that membership in the CoE is considered a necessary step towards accession (Kochenov 2008).

  12. 12.

    See the approval of the negotiations framework for Croatia: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/croatia/st20004_05_hr_framedoc_en.pdf.

  13. 13.

    The importance of chapters 23 and 24 for the EU enlargement process is further acknowledged in the framework of the negotiationsfor Montenegro (CONF-ME 2012, 2) and Serbia (CONF-RS 2014, 1).

  14. 14.

    In recent years, the EU has started using the acronym ‘LGBTI’ instead of ‘LGBT’ in order to include intersex individuals in their policy. To avoid confusion, in this chapter we use only the LGBT acronym except when directly quoting EU documents.

  15. 15.

    Face-to-face interview with representative of Mozaika on 19 October 2012 in Dublin; face-to-face interview with representative of the Campaign Against Homophobia on 19 October 2012 in Dublin; personal communication with EU official (European Parliament) on 19 October 2012 in Dublin.

  16. 16.

    Face-to-face interview with representative of Mozaika on 17 October 2012 in Dublin.

  17. 17.

    Skype interview with representative of Lithuanian Gay League on 4 December 2012.

  18. 18.

    Face-to-face interview with representative of ILGA-Europe, on 30 August 2012 in Brussels.

  19. 19.

    These backlashes were due not only to the lack of social learning during the pre-accession period, but also to the lack of an infringement mechanism in the EU’s legal framework to allow sanctioning of countries that breached the basic rules of democracy and human rights (Inotai 2012).

  20. 20.

    Backlashes also occurred in other countries. In Latvia (2006) and Hungary (2012), for example, the government amended the constitutional definition of marriage to that of a union between a man and a woman. In Romania, marriage has had a heterosexual definition, although this definition has never been codified in the constitution despite various attempts. While the Family Code remains outside EU competence, one interviewee remarked that ‘without pressure from the EU, politicians do not care anymore, and now [in some countries] the situation is worse than before’ (face-to-face interview with representative of the ACCEPT Association on 19 October 2012 in Dublin).

  21. 21.

    The Kaczyński brothers were in power from 2005 to 2010: Jarosław Kaczyński as prime minister (2005–2007) and Lech Kaczyński as president (2005–2010).

  22. 22.

    Skype interview with representative of Lithuanian Gay League on 4 December 2012.

  23. 23.

    For a discussion of Croatia’s troublesome cooperation with the ICTY during the accession process, see Boduszyński (2013, pp. 48–50).

  24. 24.

    Face-to-face interview with EU official, European Commission (DG Enlargement), on 29 May 2013 in Brussels; phone interview with Ulrike Lunacek, Member of the European Parliament and co-president of LGBT Intergroup, on 15 May 2013.

  25. 25.

    Face-to-face interview with EU official, European Commission (DG Enlargement), on 24 October 2013 in Zagreb.

  26. 26.

    Face-to-face interview with a representative of Iskorak on 20 October 2012 in Dublin; face-to-face interview with representative of the Croatian Labour Party (and founder of Iskorak) on 21 October 2013, Zagreb; face-to-face interview with representative of Zagreb Pride on 24 October 2013 in Zagreb.

  27. 27.

    Face-to-face interview with Representative of Zagreb Pride, on 24 October 2013 in Zagreb; Face-to-face interview with representative of Zagreb Pride on 29 October 2013 in Zagreb.

  28. 28.

    Face-to-face interview with independent Croatian activist on 12 June 2014 in Zagreb.

  29. 29.

    The right-wing party HDZ has never openly supported LGBT rights in Croatia. However, they have repeatedly told activists that their silence on the issue was a sign of their support, although they have publicly spoken against same-sex marriage(Vuletić 2013).

  30. 30.

    Informal conversation with LGBT activist from Split.

  31. 31.

    Face-to-face interview with representative of Zagreb Pride on 24 October 2013 in Zagreb; face-to-face interview with independent Croatian activist on 12 June 2014 in Zagreb.

  32. 32.

    The issue of state identity and the collective identity of the governing political elite was another factor that played a significant role during the fifth enlargement. In Poland, for example, LGBT rights were often discursively contrasted with the country’s national identity. As O’Dwyer (2012, p. 342) has shown, the EU pressure for LGBT rights caused the issue to be ‘framed as a question of national identity. Homosexuality mapped very easily onto a broader debate about Polish identity’.

  33. 33.

    Although the use of the word ‘backlash’ here is similar to that regarding the backlash that occurred in the fifth enlargement round, it is important to address one key difference between the Croatian and CEE cases. Whereas in CEE most of the backlash resulted from political (and state-sponsored) homophobia, the Croatian backlash was the result of a grassroots initiative.

  34. 34.

    This piece of legislation would give same-sex couples the same rights as married couples except for adoption. However, it does regulate those who already live with children(Milekic 2014).

  35. 35.

    Face-to-face interview with representative of Zagreb Pride on 24 October 2013 in Zagreb.

  36. 36.

    See Pearce and Cooper (2013, p. 324) for a timeline of international instruments addressing LGBT rights.

  37. 37.

    E.g. ILGA-Europe, BABELNOR, and IGLYO.

  38. 38.

    Face-to-face interview with representative of Labris, on 20 October 2012 in Dublin.

  39. 39.

    Face-to-face interview with representative of LGBT Forum Progress on 15 October 2012 in Dublin.

  40. 40.

    Skype interview with representative of Queer Montenegro on 20 August 2014.

  41. 41.

    Interview with former EU official, Brussels, May 2013.

  42. 42.

    When Pride took place in 2014, Prime Minister Aleksandar Vučić did not attend, nor did he defend the event. On the contrary, in a press conference afterwards, he thanked the opponents of the Pride for their tolerance and for refraining from violence.

  43. 43.

    Face-to-face interview with EU official, European Commission (DG Enlargement), on 6 March 2014 in Brussels.

  44. 44.

    Face-to-face interview with EU official, European Commission (DG Near), on 26 May 2015 in Brussels.

References

  • Ames, L. M. (2004). Beyond gay paree: What does the enlargement of the European Union mean for same-sex partners. Emory International Law Review, 18, 503–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ammaturo, F. R. (2015). The ‘Pink Agenda’: Questioning and challenging European homonationalist sexual citizenship. Sociology, online first. Retrieved from http://soc.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0038038514559324.

  • Ayoub, P. M. (2013). Cooperative transnationalism in contemporary Europe: Europeanization and political opportunities for LGBT mobilization in the European Union. European Political Science Review, 5(2), 279–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayoub, P. M. (2014). With arms wide shut: Threat perception, norm reception, and mobilized resistance to LGBT rights. Journal of Human Rights, 13(3), 337–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayoub, P. M. (2015). Contested norms in new-adopter states: International determinants of LGBT rights legislation. European Journal of International Relations, 21(2), 293–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayoub, P. M., & Paternotte, D. (2014a). Introduction. In P. M. Ayoub & D. Paternotte (Eds.), LGBT activism and the making of Europe: A rainbow Europe? (pp. 1–25). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • B92. (2012). Holding of gay pride parade still uncertain. [online] B92. Retrieved March 5, 2014, from http://www.b92.net/eng/news/society.php?yyyy=2012&mm=09&dd=29&nav_id=82413.

  • Bilić, B. (2016). Whose pride? LGBT ‘Community’ and the organisation of pride parades in Serbia. In K. Slootmaeckers, H. Touquet, & P. Vermeersch (Eds.), The EU enlargement and gay politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boduszyński, M. P. (2013). The trials and triumphs of Europeanization of Croatia: The unbearable weight of structure and state-building? In A. Elbasani (Ed.), (pp. 39–53). Oxon, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boersema, W. (2010). The tyranny of the majority. gays in Poland. In I. Dubel & A. Hielkema (Eds.), Urgency required: Gay and lesbian rights are human rights (pp. 280–283). Amsterdam: Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries (Hivos).

    Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, T. A. (2013). When Europeanization hits limited statehood: The Western Balkans as a test case for the transformative power of Europe. In A. Elbasani (Ed.), European integration and transformation in the Western Balkans: Europeanization or business as usual? (pp. 173–184). Oxon, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chetaille, A. (2011). Poland: Sovereignty and sexuality in post-socialist times. In M. Tremblay, D. Paternotte, & C. Johnson (Eds.), The lesbian and gay movement and the state: Comparative insights into a transformed relationship. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council Directive. 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council Directive. 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2010). Toolkit to promote and protect the enjoyment of all human rights by Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) people. Brussels, Belgium: European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2013). Guidelines to promote and protect the enjoyment of all human rights by Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) persons. Luxembourg: European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbasani, A. (Ed.) (2013). European integration and transformation in the Western Balkans: Europeanization or business as usual? Oxon, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enlargement strategy and main challenges 2006–2007 including annexed special report on the EU’s capacity to integrate new members, COM (2006) 649, final.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enlargement strategy and main challenges 2011–2012, COM (2011) 666, final.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enlargement strategy and main challenges 2013–2014, COM (2013) 700, final.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagan, A., & Slootmaeckers, K. 2014. Too proud to have pride? The EU’s (in)ability to promote LGBT equality in Serbia. Paper presented at ECPR Joint Sessions. Salamanca.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ficchi, L. (2011). Candidate countries facing a binding charter of fundamental rights: What’s new. In G. Di Federico (Ed.), The EU charter of fundamental rights: From declaration to binding instrument (pp. 109–121). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fouéré, E. (2016). The curious case of Macedonia: A personal insight of a former head of the EU delegation in Macedonia. In K. Slootmaeckers, H. Touquet, & P. Vermeersch (Eds.), The EU enlargement and gay politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freyburg, T., & Richter, S. (2010). National identity matters: the limited impact of EU political conditionality in the Western Balkans. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(2), 263–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, D. (2003). The politics of European integration and minority rights in Estonia and Latvia. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 4(1), 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • General EU Position: Ministerial Meeting Opening the Intergovernmental Conference on the Accession of Montenegro to the European Union. CONF-ME (2012) 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • General EU Position: Ministerial Meeting Opening the Intergovernmental Conference on the Accession of Serbia to the European Union. CONF-RS (2014) 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabbe, H. (2006). The EU transformative power: Europeanization through conditionality in Central and Eastern Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haughton, T. (2007). When does the EU make a difference? Conditionality and the accession process in Central and Eastern Europe. Political Studies Review, 5(2), 233–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillion, C. (2013). Enlarging the European Union and deepening its fundamental rights protection. European policy analysis. Stockholm: Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hina. (2013). REFERENDUM O GAY BRAKU Pusić: ‘Treba izići i glasati protiv, to je prvi korak prema diskriminaciji’. [online] Jutarnji. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from http://www.jutarnji.hr/pusic-o-referendumu-o-gay-braku–treba-izici-i-glasati-protiv–to-je-prvi-korak-prema-diskriminaciji-/1140304/.

  • ILGA-Europe. (2013). ILGA-Europe Rainbow Map (Index). [online] Retrieved May 29, 2015, from http://www.ilga-europe.org/sites/default/files/Attachments/side_b_-_rainbow_europe_index_may_20131.pdf.

  • ILGA-Europe (2015). Annual review of the human rights situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex people in Europe 2015. Brussels, Belgium: ILGA-Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inotai, A. (2012). A Hungarian perspective. In H. Swoboda, E. Stetter, & J. M. Wiersma (Eds.), EU enlargement anno 2012: A progressive engagement (pp. 69–76). Brussels, Belgium: European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intergroup on LGBT Rights. (2014). Juncker I Commission—Jourová commits to LGBTI Action Plan; Navracsics rejected over fundamental rights. [online] The European Parliament Intergroup on LGBT Rights. Retrieved June 1, 2015, from http://www.lgbt-ep.eu/press-releases/juncker-i-commission-jourova-commits-to-lgbti-action-plan-navracsics-rejected-over-fundamental-rights/.

  • Intergroup on LGBT Rights. (2015). Commissioner Jourová committed to LGBTI action plan in 2015. [online] The European Parliament Intergroup on LGBT Rights. Retrieved June 1, 2015, from http://www.lgbt-ep.eu/press-releases/commissioner-jourova-committed-to-lgbti-action-plan-in-2015/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+intergrouplgbt+%28The+European+Parliament%27s+Intergroup+on+LGBT+Rights%29.

  • Jacoby, W. (2001). Tutors and pupils: International organizations, Central European elites, and Western models. Governance, 14(2), 169–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahlina, K. (2015). Local histories, European LGBT designs: Sexual citizenship, nationalism, and ‘Europeanisation’ in post-Yugoslav Croatia and Serbia. Women’s Studies International Forum, 49, 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochenov, D. (2006). Democracy and human rights-not for gay people: EU Eastern enlargement and its impact on the protection of the rights of sexual minorities. Texas Wesleyan Law Review, 13, 459–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochenov, D. (2007). Gay rights in the EU: A long way forward for the union of 27. Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy, 3(3), 469–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochenov, D. (2008). EU enlargement and the failure of conditionality: Pre-accession conditionality in the fields of democracy and the rule of law. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korica, B. (2012). Banning of gay pride may damage Serbia’s European Union chances. [online] Gay Star News. Retrieved April 9, 2015, from http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/banning-gay-pride-may-damage-serbia%E2%80%99s-european-union-chances051012.

  • Kristoffersson, M., van Roozendaal, B., & Poghosyan, L. (2016). European integration and LGBTI activism—partners in realizing change? In K. Slootmaeckers, H. Touquet, & P. Vermeersch (Eds.), The EU enlargement and gay politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulpa, R. (2014). Western leveraged pedagogy of Central and Eastern Europe: Discourses of homophobia, tolerance, and nationhood. Gender, Place Culture A Journal of Feminist Geography, 21(4), 431–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulpa, R., & Mizielińska, J. (Eds.) (2011). De-centring western sexualities: Central and Eastern European perspectives. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutter, A., & Trappmann, V. (2010). Civil society in Central and Eastern Europe: The ambivalent legacy of accession. Acta Politica, 45(1–2), 41–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LGBT Forum Progress. 2013. Adopted strategy for improvement of quality of life of the LGBT persons. [online] ILGA-Europe. Retrieved August 20, 2014, from http://www.ilga-europe.org/home/guide_europe/country_by_country/montenegro/adopted_strategy_for_improvement_of_quality_of_life_of_the_lgbt_persons.

  • Manners, I. (2010). Global Europa: Mythology of the European Union in world politics. Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(1), 67–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Media Servis. (2013). Split položio ispit tolerancije i demokracije: ‘Vlado, poduzmite konkretne korake! Ljudska prava ne mogu čekati!’. Index. 8 Jun. Retrieved June 16, 2013, from http://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/split-polozio-ispit-tolerancije-i-demokracije-quotvlado-poduzmite-konkretne-korake-ljudska-prava-ne-mogu-cekatiquot/682267.aspx.

  • Milekic, S. (2014). Croatia to legalise same-sex partnerships. Balkan insight. [online] Retrieved from http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/croatia-to-legalise-same-sex-partnerships.

  • Mole, R. (2011). Nationality and sexuality: homophobic discourse and the ‘national threat’ in contemporary Latvia. Nations and Nationalism, 17(3), 540–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mos, M. (2014). Of gay rights and Christmas ornaments: The political history of sexual orientation non-discrimination in the treaty of Amsterdam. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(3), 632–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, K. (2014). Split Europe: Homonationalism and homophobia in Croatia. In P. M. Ayoub & D. Paternotte (Eds.), LGBT activism and the making of Europe: A rainbow Europe? (pp. 212–232). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • msnbc.com News Services. (2012). In unprecedented move, Croatian ministers to join disputed gay pride march. [online] Retrieved December 3, 2013, from http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/06/12085915-in-unprecedented-move-croatian-ministers-to-join-disputed-gay-pride-march.

  • Nenadović, M. (2012). Enlargement anno 2012. In H. Swoboda, E. Stetter, & J. M. Wiersma (Eds.), EU enlargement anno 2012: A progressive engagement (pp. 21–34). Brussels, Belgium: European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman Stanivukovi, S. (2012). Croatia as the 28th EU member state: How did we get here and where should we go from now? [online] Papiers d’actualité/Current Affairs in Perspective. Retrieved May 27, 2013, from http://www.fondation-pierredubois.ch/images/stories/papiers_dactualit/no1_2012_croatia.pdf.

  • Noutcheva, G., & Aydin-Düzgit, S. (2012). Lost in Europeanisation: The Western Balkans and Turkey. West European Politics, 35(1), 59–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nozar, W. (2012). The 100% union: The rise of chapters 23 and 24. In H. Swoboda, E. Stetter, & J. M. Wiersma (Eds.), EU enlargement anno 2012: A progressive engagement (pp. 87–96). Brussels, Belgium: European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, C. (2010). From conditionality to persuasion? Europeanization and the rights of sexual minorities in post-accession Poland. Journal of European Integration, 32(3), 229–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, C. (2012). Does the EU help or hinder gay-rights movements in post-communist Europe? The case of Poland. East European Politics, 28(4), 332–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, C., & Schwartz, K. Z. S. (2010). Minority rights after EU enlargement: A comparison of antigay politics in Poland and Latvia. Comparative European politics, 8(2), 220–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavelić, B. (2013). Anti-gay marriage ballot has Croatian liberals worried. [online] Balkan insight. 28 Nov. Retrieved November 28, 2013, from http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/anti-gay-marriage-ballot-has-croatian-liberals-worried.

  • Pearce, S. C., & Cooper, A. (2013). LGBT movements in Southeast Europe: Violence, justice, and international intersections. In D. Peterson & V. R. Panfil (Eds.), Handbook of LGBT communities, crime, and justice (pp. 311–338). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roseneil, S., & Stoilova, M. (2011). Heteronormativity, intimate citizenship and the regulation of same-sex sexualities in Bulgaria. In R. Kulpa & J. Mizielińska (Eds.), De-centring western sexualities: Central and Eastern European perspectives (pp. 167–190). Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slootmaeckers, K. (2014). From EU-induced institutional change to normative change: When organizations matter. Reviews & Critical Commentary. Retrieved from http://councilforeuropeanstudies.org/critcom/from-eu-induced-institutional-change-to-normative-change-when-organizations-matter/.

  • Smismans, S. (2010). The European Union’s fundamental rights myth. Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(1), 45–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stychin, C. F. (2004). Same-sex sexualities and the globalization of human rights discourse. McGill Law Journal, 49(4), 951–968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subotić, J. (2010). Explaining difficult states: The problems of Europeanization in Serbia. East European Politics & Societies, 24(4), 595–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subotić, J. (2011). Europe is a state of mind: Identity and Europeanization in the Balkans. International Studies Quarterly, 55(2), 309–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swiebel, J. (2009). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights: The search for an international strategy. Contemporary Politics, 15(1), 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2010 progress report, SEC (2010) 1332, final.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2013 progress report, SWD (2013) 413, final.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomovic, D. (2014). Montenegro plans to legalize gay marriages. [online] Balkan insight. Retrieved August 19, 2014, from http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/monenegro-plans-to-legalize-gay-marriages.

  • Vuletić, D. (2013). Out of the homeland: The Croatian right and gay rights. Southeastern Europe, 37(1), 36–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waaldijk, K. (2006). Legislation in fifteen EU member states against sexual orientation discrimination in employment: The implementation of Directive 2000/78/EC. In A. Weyembergh & S. Carstocea (Eds.), The gays‘and lesbians’ rights in an enlarged European Union (pp. 17–47). Brussels, Belgium: Institut d’Etudes Européennes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A. (2004). EU human rights policies: A study in irony. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

    Koen Slootmaeckers

  2. Leuven International and European Studies (LINES), KU Leuven – University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Heleen Touquet

  3. Leuven International and European Studies (LINES), KU Leuven – University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Peter Vermeersch

Authors
  1. Koen Slootmaeckers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heleen Touquet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Vermeersch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Politics and IR, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom

    Koen Slootmaeckers

  2. KU Leuven – University of Leuven, Leuven International & European Studies, Leuven, Belgium

    Heleen Touquet

  3. KU Leuven – University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Peter Vermeersch

Copyright information

© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Slootmaeckers, K., Touquet, H., Vermeersch, P. (2016). The Co-evolution of EU’s Eastern Enlargement and LGBT Politics: An Ever Gayer Union?. In: Slootmaeckers, K., Touquet, H., Vermeersch, P. (eds) The EU Enlargement and Gay Politics. Gender and Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-48093-4_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation