Europe's New Unanimity: Orbán Doesn't Need to Agree - The EU's Evolving Strategy to Bypass Hungarian Obstruction
- Prof.Serban Gabriel
- Mar 24
- 10 min read
Introduction
The European Union (EU) has long prided itself on its ability to reach consensus among its member states, even in the face of complex geopolitical challenges.
However, recent years have seen this unity tested, particularly by the actions of Hungary under the leadership of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
As the EU grapples with critical issues such as support for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, Hungary's divergent stance has forced the bloc to reconsider its approach to decision-making and consensus-building.
This academic blog post explores the EU's new strategy of "unanimity minus one," a tactic that allows the bloc to move forward on key issues without Hungary's agreement.
We will delve into the context that led to this approach, examine its implementation and implications, and consider the broader consequences for EU governance and international relations.
Historical Context: Hungary's Evolving Relationship with the EU
Hungary's Accession and Early Years in the EU
Hungary joined the European Union in 2004 as part of the bloc's eastern enlargement, marking a significant milestone in the country's post-communist transition.
Initially, Hungary was seen as a model of successful integration, embracing democratic reforms and aligning itself with EU values and policies.
The Rise of Viktor Orbán and Fidesz
The political landscape in Hungary began to shift dramatically with the election of Viktor Orbán as Prime Minister in 2010. Orbán's Fidesz party, which had transformed from a liberal youth movement to a conservative nationalist party, secured a supermajority in the Hungarian parliament.
This allowed Orbán to implement sweeping changes to Hungary's constitution and institutional framework.
Growing Tensions with Brussels
As Orbán consolidated power, concerns grew within the EU about Hungary's commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law. Key points of contention included:
Judicial independence: Reforms to Hungary's judicial system raised questions about the separation of powers.
Media freedom: New media laws were seen as restricting press freedom and pluralism.
Academic freedom: The forced relocation of the Central European University highlighted concerns about academic independence.
NGO restrictions: Laws targeting civil society organizations, particularly those receiving foreign funding, were viewed as attempts to stifle dissent.
These issues led to increased scrutiny from EU institutions, including the European Parliament and the European Commission. The EU initiated various procedures to address rule of law concerns, including the Article 7 process, which can potentially lead to the suspension of a member state's voting rights.
The Ukraine Crisis and Hungary's Divergent Stance
Russia's Invasion of Ukraine and EU Response
Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 marked a turning point in European security and unity.
The EU, along with its Western allies, responded with unprecedented sanctions against Russia and increased support for Ukraine, including military aid, financial assistance, and a path to EU membership.
Hungary's Position on the Conflict
While the majority of EU member states aligned in their support for Ukraine and condemnation of Russia, Hungary took a markedly different approach:
Reluctance to criticize Russia: Orbán maintained a more neutral stance, often avoiding direct criticism of Russian actions.
Opposition to energy sanctions: Hungary, heavily dependent on Russian oil and gas, resisted EU efforts to impose energy-related sanctions on Russia.
Skepticism towards military aid: The Hungarian government expressed reservations about providing military assistance to Ukraine.
Blocking EU consensus: Hungary used its veto power to obstruct or water down various EU decisions related to Ukraine support and Russia sanctions.
Factors Influencing Hungary's Stance
Several factors contribute to Hungary's divergent position:
Energy dependence: Hungary relies heavily on Russian energy supplies, making it reluctant to support measures that could jeopardize this relationship.
Economic ties: Beyond energy, Hungary has cultivated economic links with Russia, including a controversial nuclear power plant deal.
Political ideology: Orbán's "illiberal democracy" model shares some similarities with Putin's governance style, leading to a degree of ideological alignment.
Historical and cultural factors: Hungary's complex historical relationship with both Russia and Ukraine influences its current foreign policy stance.
The EU's Evolving Strategy: "Unanimity Minus One"
Traditional EU Decision-Making and Its Limitations
The EU's decision-making process, particularly in areas of foreign policy and security, has traditionally relied on unanimity among all member states. This approach, while ensuring broad consensus, has also allowed individual countries to block or significantly delay important decisions.
The Need for a New Approach
As Hungary's opposition to various Ukraine-related measures became more entrenched, it became clear that the traditional unanimity requirement was hindering the EU's ability to respond effectively to the crisis.
This realization prompted EU leaders and diplomats to explore alternative methods of decision-making that could maintain the bloc's unity and effectiveness without being held hostage by a single dissenting voice.
Development of the "Unanimity Minus One" Strategy
The "unanimity minus one" approach emerged as a pragmatic solution to the impasse created by Hungary's stance. This strategy involves:
Proceeding with decisions supported by 26 out of 27 member states.
Issuing statements and declarations on behalf of the supporting countries, rather than the EU as a whole.
Attaching agreed texts as annexes to other resolutions that have full unanimity, thereby giving them official status without requiring Hungary's explicit approval.
Legal and Institutional Basis
While this approach represents a departure from traditional EU practice, it finds some basis in existing EU treaties and procedures:
Enhanced cooperation: The EU treaties allow for a group of member states to move forward with integration in specific areas, even if not all members participate.
Constructive abstention: In Common Foreign and Security Policy matters, member states can abstain from decisions without blocking them.
Flexible interpretation of unanimity: In some cases, unanimity has been interpreted as the absence of explicit objection rather than active agreement from all parties.
Implementation of the New Strategy
March 2025 EU Summits: A Turning Point
The "unanimity minus one" strategy was put into practice during two EU summits in March 2025, marking a significant shift in the bloc's approach to decision-making:
First summit: A declaration supporting Ukraine was issued on behalf of 26 member states, with Hungary's opposition noted but not preventing the statement.
Second summit: A similar approach was taken for a resolution on further assistance to Ukraine, with the agreed text attached as an annex to another unanimously approved document.
Diplomatic Maneuvering and Communication
The implementation of this new strategy required careful diplomatic handling:
Pre-summit negotiations: Extensive discussions were held among member states to ensure broad support for the approach.
Clear messaging: EU leaders and diplomats communicated the rationale behind the strategy, emphasizing the need for unity and effective action.
Managing Hungary's reaction: Efforts were made to frame the approach as allowing for diverse views rather than explicitly isolating Hungary.
Immediate Outcomes and Reactions
The new strategy yielded several immediate results:
Unblocked decision-making: The EU was able to move forward with key Ukraine-related decisions without being hindered by Hungary's opposition.
Maintained support for Ukraine: Clear and strong messages of support for Ukraine were communicated, reinforcing the EU's commitment.
Diplomatic signal: The approach sent a message to both Hungary and external actors about the EU's determination to act cohesively.
Implications and Consequences of the New Approach
For EU Governance and Decision-Making
The "unanimity minus one" strategy has significant implications for EU governance:
Flexibility vs. unity: It introduces greater flexibility in decision-making but raises questions about the nature of EU unity.
Precedent setting: The approach could be applied to other areas where unanimity has been a stumbling block, potentially changing the dynamics of EU policy-making.
Institutional adaptation: EU institutions may need to adapt their procedures and interpretations to accommodate this new reality.
For Hungary's Position within the EU
The strategy has profound consequences for Hungary's role and influence in the EU:
Isolation: Hungary risks becoming increasingly isolated within the bloc, potentially losing leverage on other issues.
Domestic political impact: Orbán may face pressure at home to explain Hungary's marginalization in EU decision-making.
Economic considerations: Hungary's divergent stance could affect its access to EU funds and economic cooperation opportunities.
For EU-Russia Relations
The new approach also impacts the EU's stance towards Russia:
Stronger unified front: By bypassing Hungary's objections, the EU can present a more cohesive position against Russian aggression.
Potential for escalation: A more unified EU stance could lead to further deterioration in EU-Russia relations.
Energy policy implications: The approach may accelerate EU efforts to reduce dependence on Russian energy, despite Hungary's reservations.
For Ukraine and EU Enlargement
The strategy has implications for Ukraine's relationship with the EU:
Sustained support: It ensures continued EU backing for Ukraine, both politically and materially.
Accession process: While the strategy facilitates ongoing support, Hungary's veto power remains a potential obstacle for Ukraine's EU membership aspirations.
Challenges and Limitations of the New Strategy
Legal and Procedural Constraints
Despite its pragmatic benefits, the "unanimity minus one" approach faces several legal and procedural challenges:
Treaty limitations: Certain decisions, particularly those involving sanctions or treaty changes, still require full unanimity under EU law.
Legitimacy questions: There may be debates about the legal standing of decisions made without full consensus.
Potential for legal challenges: Hungary or other actors might contest the validity of decisions made under this new approach.
Political and Diplomatic Risks
The strategy also carries political and diplomatic risks:
Further alienation of Hungary: The approach could push Hungary towards an even more antagonistic stance within the EU.
Precedent for other dissenting voices: Other member states might be emboldened to take divergent positions, knowing they can be bypassed.
External perceptions: The strategy might be viewed by some as undermining the EU's claim to be a fully united bloc.
Long-term Cohesion Concerns
There are concerns about the long-term impact on EU cohesion:
Two-speed Europe: The approach could accelerate the development of a multi-speed EU, with different levels of integration among member states.
Trust erosion: Repeatedly bypassing a member state could erode trust and cooperation in other areas of EU policy-making.
Potential for retaliation: Hungary might seek to obstruct EU processes in areas where unanimity is still required.
Comparative Perspectives: Similar Approaches in Other International Organizations
United Nations: The "Uniting for Peace" Resolution
The UN General Assembly's "Uniting for Peace" resolution, adopted in 1950, provides a mechanism to bypass Security Council vetoes in certain situations. This approach allows the General Assembly to make recommendations for collective measures when the Security Council fails to act due to a lack of unanimity among permanent members.
Similarities to EU approach:
Aims to overcome deadlock caused by veto power
Allows for action supported by a majority of members
Differences:
Based on a formal resolution rather than an informal practice
Applies specifically to matters of international peace and security
NATO: Consensus Decision-Making with Flexibility
NATO operates on a consensus basis, but has developed informal practices to manage disagreements:
"Silence procedure": Decisions are considered adopted unless a member explicitly objects.
Footnoting: Members can express reservations without blocking overall decisions.
Constructive abstention: Countries can step aside from specific operations without preventing others from proceeding.
These practices share similarities with the EU's new approach in their attempt to balance unity with the need for effective action.
African Union: The Ezulwini Consensus
The African Union has adopted the "Ezulwini Consensus," which allows for decisions to be made with a two-thirds majority if consensus cannot be reached. This approach provides a formal mechanism for overcoming deadlock while still striving for broad agreement.
Lessons and Contrasts
These examples from other international organizations offer valuable insights:
Formalization: Unlike the EU's current approach, some organizations have formalized procedures for bypassing vetoes or achieving flexibility.
Scope: The application of such mechanisms varies, with some limited to specific types of decisions (e.g., security matters).
Institutional context: The effectiveness and acceptability of these approaches depend on the specific institutional and political contexts of each organization.
Potential Future Developments and Scenarios
Scenario 1: Formalization of the "Unanimity Minus One" Approach
In this scenario, the EU moves to formalize the current informal practice:
Process: The EU could initiate treaty changes or adopt new inter-institutional agreements to codify the approach.
Implications: This would provide a clearer legal basis for the strategy but might face resistance from some member states concerned about sovereignty.
Likelihood: Medium, as it would require significant political will and negotiation.
Scenario 2: Expansion to Other Policy Areas
The approach could be extended beyond Ukraine-related issues:
Potential areas: Climate policy, migration, rule of law enforcement.
Challenges: Determining which areas are suitable for this approach without undermining core EU principles.
Likelihood: High for some policy areas, particularly those where Hungary has been obstructionist.
Scenario 3: Hungary's Realignment
Hungary could choose to realign its position with the EU majority:
Drivers: Economic pressure, domestic political shifts, or changes in the international environment.
Impact: This would reduce the need for the "unanimity minus one" approach but might require concessions from both sides.
Likelihood: Low in the short term, but possible in the medium to long term depending on various factors.
Scenario 4: Escalation of EU-Hungary Tensions
The strategy could lead to further deterioration in EU-Hungary relations:
Potential outcomes: Increased use of Article 7 procedures, cuts to EU funding, or even discussions about Hungary's EU membership.
Risks: This could deepen divisions within the EU and potentially strengthen anti-EU sentiment in Hungary.
Likelihood: Medium, especially if Hungary continues to obstruct key EU decisions.
Scenario 5: Broader EU Reform
The challenges posed by Hungary could catalyze more comprehensive EU reforms:
Possible reforms: Changing voting rules in more policy areas, strengthening enforcement mechanisms for EU values.
Obstacles: Such reforms would require treaty changes and face resistance from member states concerned about sovereignty.
Likelihood: Low in the short term, but increasing in the medium to long term if current challenges persist.
Theoretical Perspectives on the EU's New Approach
Neofunctionalism and Spillover Effects
Neofunctionalist theory, associated with Ernst Haas, suggests that integration in one area leads to integration in others. The "unanimity minus one" approach could be seen as a functional response to the need for effective decision-making, potentially leading to further integration in other areas.
Liberal Intergovernmentalism
Andrew Moravcsik's liberal intergovernmentalist approach emphasizes the role of national interests and bargaining in EU integration. The new strategy can be analyzed as a result of bargaining among member states, with the majority finding a way to pursue their interests despite one country's opposition.
Constructivism and Identity Formation
Constructivist perspectives, such as those of Thomas Risse, focus on how ideas and identities shape EU politics. The "unanimity minus one" approach could be seen as both reflecting and reinforcing a particular conception of European identity and values, distinct from Hungary's stance.
Multi-level Governance
The new strategy adds complexity to the EU's system of multi-level governance, as described by scholars like Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks. It introduces a new dynamic in the interaction between national and supranational decision-making processes.
Conclusion: Balancing Unity, Effectiveness, and Democratic Legitimacy
The EU's "unanimity minus one" strategy represents a significant evolution in the bloc's approach to decision-making and consensus-building. While it offers a pragmatic solution to the immediate challenge posed by Hungary's divergent stance on Ukraine-related issues, it also raises fundamental questions about the nature of EU unity, the balance between national sovereignty and collective action, and the future of European integration.
Key takeaways:
Adaptive governance: The strategy demonstrates the EU's capacity to adapt its practices in response to new challenges, even within the constraints of existing treaties.
Tension between flexibility and unity: While the approach allows for more flexible decision-making, it also highlights tensions within the EU about the nature and extent of unity required among member states.
Implications for EU democracy: The strategy raises questions about democratic legitimacy and representation within EU structures, particularly when decisions are made without full consensus.
Future of European integration: The approach could be seen as a step towards a more differentiated or multi-speed Europe, with potential long-term implications for the EU's structure and functioning.
Global context: The EU's ability to maintain a unified stance on key geopolitical issues, such as support for Ukraine, has significant implications for its role on the world stage.
As the EU continues to navigate complex internal dynamics and external challenges, the "unanimity minus one" approach may prove to be a pivotal development in the bloc's evolution.
コメント