Can New Member States Be Admitted to the EU with an Ongoing Territorial Conflict?

Question

Cyprus joined the European Union in 2004 despite its unresolved territorial division [Robert Schuman Foundation] between the Republic of Cyprus and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is only recognized by Turkey. Given that the EU typically emphasizes stability and peaceful resolution of disputes as part of its accession criteria, how did Cyprus navigate these challenges to become a member?

There are also other regions with territorial disputes have sought EU membership:

Western Balkans: Countries like Serbia and Kosovo have unresolved territorial issues. The EU has made it clear that such disputes must be resolved before accession. For instance, Serbia's progress toward EU membership is contingent upon normalizing relations with Kosovo. [European Council on Foreign Relations]

Ukraine and Moldova: Both countries have territorial conflicts—Ukraine with Crimea and parts of Donbas, and Moldova with Transnistria. Their EU membership aspirations are complicated by these disputes, and the EU has emphasized the need for peaceful resolutions. [Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]

Answer 1

Can New Member States Be Admitted to the EU with an Ongoing Territorial Conflict?

I think yes if by "Ongoing Territorial Conflict" you mean "territorial disputes" (as you seem to) rather than open warfare. Spain was admitted (in 1985) to the EU while having a territorial dispute with the UK over Gibraltar (still ongoing). The UK was in the EU then (since 1973).

Greece (EU member since 1981) had & has territorial disputes with Turkey, which is not an EU member, but also started accession talks (now frozen). I'm not entirely sure when those disputes started, but they've been going on at least since the 1970s.

As for your own example, Cyprus, since it is a more recent accession, we have more of the documents online. I'm not entirely sure what is the most relevant bit, but probably from the Cyprus accession protocol:

Article 1

1. The application of the acquis shall be suspended in those areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control.

2. The Council, acting unanimously on the basis of a proposal from the Commission, shall decide on the withdrawal of the suspension referred to in paragraph 1.

[...]

Article 4

In the event of a settlement, the Council, acting unanimously on the basis of a proposal from the Commission, shall decide on the adaptations to the terms concerning the accession of Cyprus to the European Union with regard to the Turkish Cypriot Community.

There was actually a pretty formal settlement attempt as the Annan Plan. This actually failed with the Greek Cypriot side rejecting the proposal in a referendum in 2004, but nonetheless, EU accession was not affected, completing in the same year. And FWTW, much more recently Erdogan too has been rejecting other similar attempts at federalization of Cyprus, asking for a straight two-states solution but "adding that the Turkish north is the “apple of Turkey’s eye.”" That (July 2024) piece also mentions that

Multiple attempts to find a compromise settlement over the years have failed, the last one in 2017 in Crans-Montana, Switzerland; and formal talks have not resumed since then.

As you seem to intuit by referring to Cyprus foremost, their situation of not having full territorial control is indeed perhaps the most relevant to e.g. Moldova or Georgia, and perhaps even Ukraine.

The only thing that I think hasn't been done in terms of precedent is admitting into the EU a country still fighting an active war, rather than this kind of "frozen conflict".

Answer 2

Territorial Disputes are not an Admission Criterion

I think you might be mistaking NATO membership with EU membership. To join NATO, you must be in peacetime, but admissibility into the EU are based on the Copenhagen criteria:

• You must have a Democratic Government
• Your nation's legal system must enforce Rule of Law
• Your citizens must be guaranteed human rights as defined by the European Convention on Human Rights.
• Your nation must respect and protect its minorities.
• Your nation must have a stable market economy.
• You must bring your laws into alignment with Acquis Communautaire (AKA: EU law).

It is possible for the Union to deny membership for other reasons, but these are the only criteria that will automatically deny membership. Technically speaking, a country can be in the middle of an all out war and still join the EU as long as the European Parliament agrees to it.

Answer 3

Theoretical answer

Given unanimous agreement of all EU members, pretty much anything is possible - they could even decide to admit Syria or Somalia into the Union if they really wanted to. Remember that laws, rules, and traditions are merely pieces of paper, not laws of physics. Anything and everything can be turned upside down and sideways if enough politicians wish to make it happen.

Realpolitik answer

There's no reason for European voters to support such an endeavor. Accepting refugees from Ukraine pretty much pays for itself thanks to their low crime rates and high labor participation rate. Helping Ukraine is somewhat costly but far cheaper than what it would cost to fully integrate them as an EU member, not to mention the risks of a potential direct war with Russia.

So Ukraine will be invited to many summits, sign dozens of "declarations", participate in various "roadmaps", enter into "partnerships", but in reality, it's extremely unlikely to actually join the EU within the next decade. It would be too costly, too risky, and will have too few upsides.

It doesn't matter for Ukrainian citizens who are willing to move

If we forget about Ukraine as a "country" and focus on Ukrainian citizens, entering the EU isn't all that important. Millions of people have been able to settle in the EU thanks to the war, and millions more will join them once the war is over and men are officially allowed to leave the country. Why wait for "EU membership" when you can hop on a train and start in the EU in less than 24 hours?

It's extremely counterintuitive, but while the war has brought tremendous suffering, those Ukrainians who have been able to move to the EU have gained access to new opportunities that are an order of magnitude better than before. Their living standards have often improved, and their children will likely have significantly better educational and career prospects than they would have had in pre-war Ukraine.