The event “Making Rule of Law Resilience Work in EU Enlargement,” held online on 12 March 2026, brought together four authors of the Snapshot series to discuss key findings on the resilience of the rule of law in EU accession countries.
Speakers included Borjan Gjuzelov, Jelena Pejić Nikić, Anamarija Velinovska, and Zoran Nechev. The discussion was moderated by Daniel Hegedüs (IEP).
As Zoran Nechev (IDSCS) emphasised, democracies worldwide are facing increasing pressure: in the past year alone, 68% of countries experienced a decline in the rule of law. In response, RESILIO-ACCESS expands the first phase of the RESILIO project both geographically and methodologically, aiming to develop actionable guidance for policymakers. More information on the three dimensions of the RESILIO-ACCESS model can be found here.
Presenting her analysis on credibility and leverage in the EU accession process, Anamarija Velinovska (IDSCS) argued that the current application of the EU enlargement methodology may undermine rule of law resilience in candidate countries. While the available EU tools – particularly the so-called “overall balance clause” – are in principle promising, their implementation remains inconsistent. This directly affects public support for reforms: it declines when the EU is perceived as arbitrary or intrusive, and increases when it is seen as fair and consistent. Recent crises, such as the protests in Serbia and Georgia, illustrate the robustness of the accession process.
Jelena Pejic Nikic (Belgrade Centre for Security Policy) focused on the growing securitisation of law in candidate countries, highlighting how authoritarian governments increasingly instrumentalise narratives of order and security to justify the concentration of power. An excessive focus on stability – often described as “stabilitocracy” – can ultimately weaken rule of law resilience.
Borjan Gjuzelov (IDSCS) complemented this perspective with an analysis of judicial expenditure as a key pillar of rule of law resilience. In many candidate countries, judicial systems remain subject to undue political influence. The relationship between judicial funding and judicial independence serves as a litmus test: where governments are unwilling to allocate sufficient resources, rhetorical commitments to the rule of law often remain hollow. Budgetary priorities reveal whether political actors are willing to match their words with action.
Further information on the snapshot series can be found here.
A recording of the event is available and can be accessed here:
Team & authors
Share publication
