What makes the rule of law resilient to threats and crises? A three-day event by the Institute for Democracy in Skopje

What are the factors that make the rule of law resilient to threats and crises? Can countries with fragile institutions emerge stronger from serious political and democratic challenges? Does the European Union accession process truly promote resilient institutions, or does it merely encourage short-term performativity?

These questions were the focus of the three-day conference organized by the Institute for Democracy “Societas Civilis” – Skopje (IDSCS), in partnership with the Institute for European Politics (Institut für Europäische Politik – IEP) from Berlin. The event, held from May 5 to 7 in Skopje, marked the launch of the project “RESILIO-ACCESS: Resilience Observatory on the Rule of Law in EU Accession Candidates is funded by Stiftung Mercator.

The event brought together experts from academia, think tank representatives, civil society organizations, policy makers, and other key stakeholders from the country and abroad working on issues related to the rule of law and EU integration.

The conference was opened by Marko Troshanovski, President of the Institute for Democracy, who expressed gratitude for the support of the project donor, Stiftung Mercator, and the partners from Berlin-Institut für Europäische Politik – IEP. He emphasized that the inclusion of candidate countries in the rule of law mechanisms in the EU enlargement process is a positive step, as it places us on the same footing as member states, enabling all to be assessed by the same criteria. This, he noted,  is crucial for fostering a stronger sense of belonging of the region to the EU. He explained that the RESILIO model embodies this principle of equality between member states and candidates in evaluating the resilience of the rule of law.

“The purpose of such models is to identify weaknesses in the rule of law and strategically inform decision-makers where attention needs to be directed. In these uncertain times of war and geopolitical turbulence, the rule of law is increasingly being pushed to the margins, but I believe that it is not only military power and economic strength that make a state resilient – rather, it is precisely the respect for the law and governance guided by democratic values and rules that enables a state to progress and become resilient,” said Troshanovski.

Prof. Dr. Funda Tekin, Director of the Institut für Europäische Politik from Berlin, emphasized that the RESILIO-ACCESS project aims to measure the resilience of the rule of law in EU candidate countries and to analyze how the accession process affects that resilience. According to her, it is not enough to formally meet the criteria; it is important to understand what strengthens or undermines the foundations of democracy.

“It is important not only to look at resilience as a buzzword, but the resilient rule of law is a function of democracy. It is not only sufficient to tick the boxes on the state of the rule of law, we need to understand what strengthens it and what destabilizes it. Resilience must be viewed through the lens of active civil society and genuine democratic practices, not just institutional structures,” she said.

Mira Luthe-Xu, Project Manager at Stiftung Mercator, stressed the importance of recognizing that at a time when the rule of law is under pressure, its capacity for defense is more important than ever.

The conference concluded with the panel discussion, “The rule of law and the EU accession process – challenges and opportunities for accession candidates and the EU”, which raised important questions such as whether the EU accession process is still merit-based, or if geopolitics increasingly dictates the pace of integration, and how the relationship between the rule of law and EU accession can be monitored in different contexts.

The discussion, moderated by Borjan Gjuzelov from the Institute for Democracy, featured interventions by Prof. Dr. Funda Tekin, Director of the Institut für Europäische Politik in Berlin; Prof. Dr. Bohdan Veselovskyi from Taras Shevchenko University in Kyiv; Prof. Dr. Marko Krtolica from the Faculty of Law “Iustinianus Primus” in Skopje; and Simonida Kacarska, Director of the European Policy Institute in Skopje.

Professor Tekin addressed the role and credibility of the EU’s conditionality in promoting the rule of law in aspiring countries and emphasized the importance of monitoring the connection between the rule of law and EU accession in various contexts. She pointed out that, although the accession process is formally merit-based, in reality, it follows two logics and is also subject to politicization.

“The first is called modernization logic and is focused on the relationship between the EU and candidate countries. It is meritocratic and focused on domestic democratization. Here we are facing credibility issues, which weaken the appetite for modernizing in candidate countries. There is a second logic, which is the geopolitical one; it is more international than domestic and outward than inward-looking. It is concerned with enhancing the EU’s security and power. After the Russian aggression, this logic has taken over, which is why the procedures with Moldova and Ukraine are rather fast. If we look at the rule of law issue, the second logic is not the solution,” said Tekin.

Professor Krtolica stated that the EU enlargement policy remains the most powerful tool for transforming Western Balkan countries, but warned that politicization and delays in the process undermine its credibility. He highlighted the case of North Macedonia, which made significant compromises but was not rewarded, which, according to him, sent a signal to other countries that making concessions may not be worthwhile, as they may face the same outcome.

“After the Russian aggression, the dynamic was changed, and now we are seeing clear accession dates, which is evident that there is a rise in the rule of law parameters. When you can see the date, you can see the progress. When the date is blurry, the political elites are using it”, he said.

Krtolica added that the Growth Plan and the Reform Agenda represent a more constructive way of measuring progress, but warned: “Democracy is not a done deal – backsliding is possible even after EU membership.”

Professor Veselovskyi reflected on Ukraine’s experience in wartime, emphasizing reform as a necessity, not a luxury.

“The rule of law is not just a formality for Brussels – it is what holds a nation together, especially in war. Ukraine is proving that reform is possible even under fire: we’re cleaning up our judiciary, fighting high-level corruption, and staying true to democratic values. Ukraine is showing that even in the midst of war, meaningful reform is not only possible – it is essential. Even if geopolitics or vetoes delay accession talks, our path forward is clear, because these reforms are demanded not only by the EU but by our citizens. There is much to learn from the Western Balkans, both the power of sustained civic engagement and the dangers of reforms that remain on paper, ” he said.

Kacarska assessed that the accession negotiations are not a “magic wand” for reforms and emphasized that we need to build an internal consensus and pressure for change, independent of the EU negotiations.

“The need for establishing dialogue with the judiciary regarding accession-related reforms was neglected – all stakeholders need to align on the direction we are taking. This internal dialogue is even more important than the dialogue with the European Commission,” she said. She added that the need to establish a dialogue with the judiciary in Macedonia on the reforms related to the accession process was neglected, emphasising that all stakeholders need to agree on the direction in which we are moving. From the Macedonian experience, both positive and negative lessons can be learned:

“We managed to decrease the cases in the judiciary in 2008. There are interventions that can be made that are not political. A negative lesson is the politicization and the political pressure on how to choose judges. There are other examples: Serbia significantly delayed reforms, more than we did. Montenegro is somewhere in the middle; we can learn from them about the risk of a process led solely by geopolitical weight. Montenegro colleagues are noticing from us the premature risk of accession negotiations. Moldova, on the other hand, is facing challenges similar to those Croatia experienced in 2011,” said Kacarska.

The RESILIO-ACCESS project, implemented by the Institute for Democracy and the Institut für Europäische Politik (IEP) from Berlin, aims to develop analytical tools for measuring the resilience of institutions in EU candidate countries. Resilience is understood as the ability of the legal and institutional system to function independently, effectively, and fairly, even under pressure.