Legal approximation versus modernization. All the extensive and detailed commitments embedded in the AAs chart an extensive agenda for domestic legal and institutional reform to be implemented by partner countries, all of which are characterised by limited capacity and a lack of resources. In comparative terms, the nature and scope of the acquis to be transposed into the countries’ national legislation is dependent on the intended level of integration between the EU and non- member states. But, crucially, in the case of the Eastern partners, it also aims to alleviate their domestic weaknesses, such as weak institutions and rule of law. Integration is indelibly intertwined with modernisation: “The Agreement amounts to a charter for Ukraine’s modernisation through alignment on EU norms, which generally correspond to best international practice. Ukraine does not have to ‘re-invent the wheel’ in many technically complex areas, where the choice of regulations and standards that differ from tested international practice would be highly costly and inefficient. Still, this normative alignment is far more than a technical matter, and it goes to the heart of the urgent task of establishing sound, corruption-free governance” (Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx 2016: 2). This ambitious, dual functionality requires foresight on both parties about the ‘best fit’ in terms of required reforms as well as the intended finalité of relations. The need for such comprehensive foresight also stems from the fact that the acquis is not a static body of law and that its nature and scope can vary depending on the aim of its application (Petrov 2007: 2). It can be concluded that many of the features of the AAs expose limited foresight. First, what is required by the partner countries is unprecedented not just in terms of its sheer volume and scope, but also in terms of the variations of each partner’s obligations across chapters, the number of procedures involved and the complex disciplines attached to them. While the AAs provide some flexibilities across chapters, we actually argue that the differences between the chapters add to the complexity of the regime and the difficulty in its implementation. Second, the scope and strictness of the legislative undertaking is greatest in areas where integration in the internal market will follow. Yet, the need for approximation under the AAs extends beyond such areas. In effect, the partner countries are required to take on an entire system of foreign law and regulation beyond the planned trade inte...
