Talk:Stabilisation and Association Process

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

European Union Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Does this mean that the EU has now ratified the SAA, or does the Council also need to formally assent? —Nightstallion (?) 09:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but I think that the EU parliament has merely given its permission for the EU to sign the SAA with Albania. As such, the document can now be signed by the Commission and the European Council officials (on behalf of the EU) as well as by the Albanian side. Afterwards it will have to be ratified by every EU member country AND the European parliament. This process will probably take years. After completion of the process, Albania will become an associated member of the EU. RedZebra 15:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like what I figured, except for the "associated member" part -- there is no such status as "associated membership"; association agreements merely imply association, not associated membership... Still, we'll see how long this takes. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 09:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean: The countries of the western Balkans are covered by SAp and the EU signs with them Stabilisation and Association Agreements (SAA) that explicitly include..." Does the EU sign agreements with these countries on a regular basis? Shouldn't it be "has signed"? --Rschmertz 01:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"signs", because it "has signed" with some of the countries and is currently in process of negotiations with the others and "will sign" with them later... Alinor 19:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] uses Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP). The article currently uses Stabilisation and Association process (SAp), but the source is not given. I propose move to Stabilisation and Association Process per link above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know Italy recently ratified Albania's SAA on 10/16/2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.120.2 (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know for a fact that Italy ratified SAA with Albania. There is information on it in both englisdh and Albanian. Thios is the European intergration ministry of Albania webpage.

http://www.mie.gov.al/?fq=ratifikimi&gj=gj2

Go next to the sart and will show the date  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.108.23 (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

I'm sorry for the Ministry but i think that italian parliament's web site, stating that ratification is still pending, it's more accountable as a source. Italian Senate's web site --81.120.65.55 17:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS For those who don't understand Italian. The above web page reads as follows:

Ratification and execution of the treaty between European Communities and its member states and the Republic of Albania with annexes, protocols, declarations, and final act done in Luxembourg on 12th June 2006.

ITER

29th October 2007 assigned (examination pending)

Parliamentary readings

Approved [by the Chamber of Deputees] on 16th October 2007 [in first reading with the number] C.3043

Examination [by the Senate] pending [as of] 29th October 2007 [, draft numbered] S.1885

May I add that the final vote of the Senate isn't expected before 14th November 2007. That's because the assembly is examining state spending law for 2008 and no proposal can be examined untill the spending law will be approved. --81.120.65.55 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK well I speak italina and in the page if you click at Approvato it shows the ratification of Albania had gone through in October 16, 2007. If you do not believe me goodle it and get ssome other sourses.

http://www.senato.it/leg/15/BGT/Schede/Ddliter/28958.htm

Ratifica ed esecuzione dell' Accordo di stabilizzazione e di associazione tra le Comunita' europee ed i loro Stati membri, da una parte, e la Repubblica di Albania, dall' altra, con allegati, protocolli, dichiarazioni e atto finale, fatto a Lussemburgo il 12 giugno 2006

---

Iter 16 ottobre 2007: approvato (trasmesso all'altro ramo)

Successione delle letture parlamentari C.3043 approvato 16 ottobre 2007 S.1855 assegnato (non ancora iniziato l'esame) 29 ottobre 2007

---

Iniziativa Governativa Ministro degli affari esteri Massimo D'Alema (Governo Prodi-II) Di concerto con Ministro della difesa Arturo Mario Luigi Parisi, Ministro dell'economia e finanze Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, Ministro per lo sviluppo economico Pier Luigi Bersani, Ministro del commercio internazionale Emma Bonino, Ministro delle comunicazioni Paolo Gentiloni Silveri, Ministro dei trasporti Alessandro Bianchi, Ministro senza portafoglio per le politiche europee Emma Bonino Natura ordinaria Ratifica trattati internazionali.

Presentazione Presentato in data 18 settembre 2007; annunciato nella seduta ant. n. 207 del 19 settembre 2007.

Classificazione TESEO RATIFICA DEI TRATTATI , COOPERAZIONE INTERNAZIONALE , ALBANIA , UNIONE EUROPEA

Relatori Relatore alla Commissione On. Claudio Azzolini (FI) nominato nella seduta del 2 ottobre 2007 . Facente funzioni On. Umberto Ranieri (Ulivo) nella seduta del 2 ottobre 2007 . Relatore di maggioranza On. Claudio Azzolini (FI) nominato nella seduta del 10 ottobre 2007 . Deliberata richiesta di autorizzazione alla relazione orale. Facente funzioni On. Umberto Ranieri (Ulivo) nella seduta del 15 ottobre 2007 .

Assegnazione Assegnato alla 3ª Commissione permanente (Affari esteri e comunitari) in sede referente il 26 settembre 2007. Annuncio nella seduta ant. n. 211 del 26 settembre 2007. Pareri delle commissioni 1ª (Aff. costit.), 2ª (Giustizia), 4ª (Difesa), 5ª (Bilancio), 6ª (Finanze), 7ª (Cultura), 8ª (Ambiente), 9ª (Trasporti), 10ª (Att. produt.), 11ª (Lavoro), 13ª (Agricoltura), 14ª (Pol. comun.) Informazioni aggiuntiveparlamento.it altri link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.108.23 (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it says approved and transmitted to the other chamber [approvato (trasmesso all'altro ramo)] . Anyway if you don't belive me you can try to search in the past issues of the Gazzetta Ufficiale.[2]. I bet you won't find anything. --82.58.49.170 09:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way i assume that you know that a treaty to be ratified in Italy needs a vote by the chamber of Deputees AND by the Senate. I think it's not worth quarreling for this. Probably Senate will do its job in a month. Let's wait and see. --82.58.49.170 09:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I thought thet Greta Britain had ratified the SAA with Albnia In October 2007. Somehow someone removed it. Is there an explenation why —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejkoeneida (talk • contribs) 06:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a press release on this issue

http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1119524243799&a=KArticle&aid=1188503094978 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejkoeneida (talk • contribs) 06:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to start a stupid edit war and so i decided to write here instead of changing the page. First above all the bill authorizing the ratification was passed on 12/12 and not on 11/12. Second the bill has yet to be signed into law by the President of the Republic and to be published in the official journal before being enacted (and so before ratification actually will take place). Until the publication you will find the bill listed here as bill approved but yet to be signed and published [3]. Let me just state another time I'm writing here just for the shake of completeness and I don't want to start an edit war. Anyway when the law will be published I'll change the date making it reproduce the official date as stated on the official journal.--79.10.95.42 (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit, WP:MOSMAC specifically prescribes the use of the name used by the EU. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The SAA with Serbia that has been initiated in itself refers to Kosovo in precise too and there is no deal with Kosovo as itself. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the EU's site clearly states Kosovo is a separate part of the process. —Nightstallion 10:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't change the SAA it initiated with Serbia. A process has to be started to be become a process, doesn't it? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it's clearly the intent of the EU to negotiate on a separate SAA with Kosovo, as evidenced by the large-scale operations of the EU surrounding the Kosovo issue. We can footnote the column, if you want, to make clear that it's still a controversial issue, but I think it's clear that Kosovo is considered to be separate. —Nightstallion 14:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm gonna have to insist on that one, yeah. When that occurs, then it's OK.

P.S. I'm sure this is not quite an honorable thing, but election's coming soon, and a lot of Serbians visit the Wikipedia regularily...so, you know what I mean. :-) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, let's make a clarifying footnote then, good? —Nightstallion 17:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, what does it precisely say on the EU's page on Enlargement? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main change is that previously, Kosovo was shown as part of Serbia and always mentioned as "Serbia (including Kosovo under UNSCR 1244)".

Now, Kosovo is shown distinctly with its own borders, and is mentioned separately as "Kosovo under UNSCR 1244". —Nightstallion 01:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...according to which it's a part of Serbia. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a matter of interpretation, and apparently the EU chooses the other interpretation. ;) —Nightstallion 14:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It clearly says that it's under Serbian sovereignty. Anyway, the EU doesn't really deal with interpreting it, but rather its own Member States. BTW back years ago the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro was one - but European integrations have individually started with three political entities. BTW, what's the internet address? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not state that it shall remain under Serbian (actually, FRY, but succession of states and so on) sovereignty in the final settlement -- in fact, it states explicitly that it will not return to its previous status of autonomy within and subordinate to Serbia. ;) ec.europa.eu/enlargement/ —Nightstallion 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but this is neither final settlement nor the future - is it? For now in presence, it remains. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. But whatever UNSCR1244 actually states and how it's interpreted, it's at least interpreted as "Kosovo is a separate part of the SAP". ;) —Nightstallion 19:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nightstallion, according to the Kosovo nder UNSCR 1244 profile at the European Enlargement map it's part of Serbia - and the political profile considers it a neighbor of FYROM, Albania and Montenegro (not of Serbia). I think that this tells about EU's interpretation of UNSCR 1244, doesn't it? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think that's substantial evidence -- either way, at the very least Kosovo is a separate part of the SAP system, as it's got its own negotiations on the STM going on. —Nightstallion 17:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and sadly, the Kosovo status is far from solution. If you ask me, today's even more complicated than it was on 16 February 2008. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but at least it's moving. —Nightstallion 23:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also remembered one thing - a number of countries opposes / will oppose Kosovo's European integrations. Amongst them, there are Spain and Cyprus - which have explicitly declared that their opinion will not change in the following years - this is totally unrelated to the question of Serbian integrations e.g., where Belgium and the Netherlands condition cooperation with the Hague tribunal. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely doubt they'll keep to that position. —Nightstallion 00:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakian leaders are fierce opponents of Kosovo - they've even inclined the possibility that they never recognize it, as long as Serbia doesn't. But, these things easily change. An example is the incredibly immensely amount of opposition coming from Romania - which is just because of elections. But, the case with Spain and Cyprus is different. From early on, Cyprus has continually over and over again stated that it will never recognize an independent Kosovo. It is fierce in opposition to it, and there is actually no reason to expect that it - outnumbered perhaps even by all other EU member states - would change its opinion. On the other hand no so determined on the question is Spain - which is currently making a Coordination plan with the Serbian government. It's plan is to, similarly with the Cyprot Turks, leave the Kosovo Albanians with no remaining option for European integrations, save for reintegration into the Serbian society. A part of the Serbians' proposal is to quickly rush into the EU, and (if nothing on the status is specified) block Kosovo's accession into the EU - or (some propose) even Albania's, conditioning it to withdraw recognition of independence of Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The Cypriot position could, however, change very quickly if they do indeed achieve reunification in the next two or three years -- and I don't think Spain will really be in any position to obstruct Kosovo that much, as the government is dependent on regionalist/independentist support in parliament from the Catalan nationalists. ;) —Nightstallion 11:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said. Years. It will take years before the situation is no longer cloudy - and if the Patriots win in Serbia, they won't advance in European integrations at all. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being too pessimistic. At worst, Serbia loses four years (or possibly eight years, if the nationalists should be reelected), but that would only mean that Serbia will simply join the EU a few years later. I think everything will turn out okay in the end. —Nightstallion 11:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone provide links to the Serbia SAA and Bosnia SAA? Alinor (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as much as I know by this source and many other Germany signed SAA with Bosnia at May. 18. 2009. One of the sources : [4]. --HernauMan (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hasn't ukraine already started negotiations with the SAA by now? —Alastor Moody 07:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has Swedish pirate (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAA is only for Balkan countries, simalar to EA which was only eastern Europe countries that joined in 2004-2007; for Ukraine its called AA, its similar to SAA but named differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.237.227 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mergefrom|European Union Association Agreement|discuss=Talk:Stabilisation and Association Process|date=December 2008

• Strong oppose EU AAs are signed with countries all over the world (like Chile and South Africa). SAAs are signed only with countries in the Balkans and are precursor agreements to the Enlargement process. IMHO the two policies are different enough to have separate articles (also different directorates general are managing them). Alinor (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there is was activity on this merge for nearly a year, so I propose someone who can to "close" it. Alinor (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map needs updating to reflect Serbia's application for membership of the European Union. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pretty sure so I decided to ask you first on your opinion! Here's (http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/azerbaijan.5l9/) written that the EU launched association talks with Georgia on Thursday, today with Azerbaijan and with Armenia on Monday! Shouldn't we add it to the list, since the first step has already been made?!Olliyeah (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stabilisation and Association Agreements (SAA's) are a specific type of Association Agreement (AA) between the EU and official/potential candidates for EU membership. The negotiations with the caucasus states seem to be over an AA, which doesn't necesairly lead to EU membership, not a SAA. This is the same type of agreement that Ukraine is currently negotiating. I'll add the caucasus states the AA page here. TDL (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italy's ratification of the SAA with Bosnia Herzegovina has become law on June 25th 2010. http://www.senato.it/leg/16/BGT/Schede/Ddliter/35346.htm Serbia's SAA was ratified on August 3rd 2010 but needs to be published on the official journal before it enters into force. http://www.senato.it/leg/16/BGT/Schede/Ddliter/35701.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finedelledanze (talk • contribs) 08:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Table has become very out-of-date, many ratifications have not been recorded. Also, the table does not seem accessible to modification. Special:Contributions/24.108.37.224|24.108.37.224]] (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC) .... specifically, Bosnia has been ratified by France and Greece24.108.37.224 (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is accessible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Stabilisation_and_Association_Process

According to Council of the European Union's website France and Greece not ratified agreement with Bosnia yet. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/App/accords/Default.aspx?command=details&id=297&lang=EN&aid=2008023&doclang=EN Ron 1987 20:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Thank you for showing me the template... I shall erase remarks that might appear intemperate. France has ratified Bosnia [5], likewise Greece page 9009 . Many ratifications are listed on this table that do not appear on the EU website... (eg Bulgaria of Serbia)... it seems the EU has some cumbersome white-gloves procedure for delivering notifications. It should be sufficient (and consistent) to show the national parliamentary site detailing ratification.24.108.37.224 (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but if a non-www.consilium.europa.eu source is used it should be put at least as a hidden comment in the table. Alinor (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information concerning ratification of Bosnia and Herzegovina's Stabilisation and Association by France is wrong. Ratification bill was passed by the National Assembly and awaits for ratification by the Senate. So, ratification process in not finished. See [6] [7] Ron 1987 19:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Luxembourg has ratified Bosnia, but the document[8] is rather hard to understand. It may be that the Chamber of Deputies has merely initiated the process. Someone who understands legal French is invited to comment.24.108.37.224 (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg has not ratified yet. The ratification bill passed first reading and awaits for final ratification. See 7.5.2010 Ron 1987 19:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I see Luxembourg has ratified Bosnia and Serbia now. Please, do you understand what is happening with France-Bosnia? I thought the French parliament had ratified Bosnia's SAA, but then it just turned out to be the lower house. Is the process hung up by the reactionary atmosphere of Sickola Narcosis, or is it making quiet progress?

24.108.37.224 (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The table template Template:Stabilisation and Association Process is out of date and not accessible. The template Template:Stabilisation_and_Association_Process (with underscores) is up to date (eg Cyprus-Serbia). Please do not revert this anymore.24.108.37.224 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stabilisation and Association Process and Stabilisation_and_Association_Process it the same template. There are not two templates. In both cases template is accessible. Completely dispensable and incomprehensible change. Ron 1987 16:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The 2 are not the same... the recent change Czechy-Serbia is not visible on the other version.24.108.37.224 (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is exactly the same. There are not 2 versions of template. Recent change is visible. Perhaps, you have problems with that, because you are not registered user. Maybe you should create account. Or see Bypass your cache. Citation: "Wikipedia saves bandwidth by instructing your web browser to store many parts of the site in its local cache (normally on your hard drive), so that they are downloaded only once. This includes articles you've previously viewed, images previously displayed, style sheets, JavaScript, etc. Sometimes, this has the undesired—and highly confusing—result that a recent change appears to be ignored. There may be other abnormalities, such as changes to the site's interface or changed user preferences having no effect. When you encounter odd behavior, please try instructing your browser to bypass the cache so that the whole page is reloaded even if there is a cached copy. Normally, revisiting the cached page, or clicking "Refresh" or "Reload", will cause the browser to ask the Web site if there is a newer version available, downloading only if there is; the instructions below explain how to over-ride this behavior." Once again, it's completely dispensable and incomprehensible change. Ron 1987 19:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The same problem has recurred. Note Denmark, Portugal and UK have ratified Serbia, reliable news sources say this, yet this not visible here, whereas it is at Stabilisation_and_Association_Process To clarify, I get redirected to one (inaccurate) page when I search on SAp, adifferent one when I enter the full title. This is true at 1957 GMT, maybe it will change in a few hours.24.108.37.224 (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not visible for you, because you have not an account. You should repeat Bypass your cache or create an account. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo's agreement only needs to be ratified by the EU, not by the member states [9] Quote "At the same time, while other countries were obliged to negotiate on the SAA and wait for its ratification by all the member states, this process is not needed for Kosovo since the EU will co-sign it as legal entity, allowing the earlier enforcement of the SAA." I will mark the country boxes N/A (not applicable) unless someone can show why not. 24.108.58.1 (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used a "—" rather than a "?" for that purpose, but N/A probably makes more sense. I've gone ahead and made the change. TDL (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information on Croatia can probably be removed as it is no longer part of the Stabilization and Association Process, so the information is turning into clutter in the table.169.229.101.10 (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Encyclopedia's need to take a long-term historical perspective to avoid WP:RECENTISM. Croatia spent more than a decade on the SAP, so that deserves mention here. If nothing else, it provides a benchmark to compare the other SAP states in their integration process. TDL (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]