Common European Asylum System: Contradictions and Crises (original) (raw)

The Europeanization of Asylum Policy: From Sovereignty via Harmony to Unity

To what extent do asylum decisions within the EU amount to an EU asylum policy? The paper tackles the question within a simplified and amended framework recommended by Lasswell and McDougal's policy analysis (the amendment is that the postulation of basic public order goals has three interrelated functions: the explication of evaluative assumptions entertained by a policy analyst; the articulation, appraisal, revision and ordering of the assumptions, which result in a prescription of public order goals; the identification and ordering, from among a potentially endless flow of empirical data, of those decisions that conform to the postulated goals). The principal postulated goal is human dignity or a free society. Subordinate goals include the right to life, the right to freedom, the rule of law, and solidarity. The analysis of tendencies in decision, although exhaustive, does not suffice to give an unequivocal answer to the principal question. A major reason is a discrepancy between the EU treaties and directives on asylum, which allegedly are the basic and the implementing EU instruments respectively. However, it is apparent that minimum standards are an insufficient incentive for the proper harmonisation of national asylum systems, and leave a too high level of discretion to the member states regarding the transposition of the legal acquis into national systems. The Europeanization of asylum policy has not been inspired by humanitarian considerations, but by policies of the member states to discourage and prevent asylum seekers to access state territories on the one hand, and to promptly and efficiently process asylum applications on the other. European institutions will probably keep putting efforts into the building of the Common Asylum System and harmonisation of national asylum systems, particularly in the direction of the establishment of a single procedure and uniform refugee status at the level of the entire Union. However, the question

Enhancing the Common European Asylum System and Alternatives to Dublin [with E Guild, M Garlick and C Costello] (European Parliament, 2015)

Upon request by the LIBE committee, this study examines the reasons why the Dublin system of allocation of responsibility for asylum seekers does not work effectively from the viewpoint of Member States or asylum-seekers. It argues that as long as it is based on the use of coercion against asylum seekers, it cannot serve as an effective tool to address existing imbalances in the allocation of responsibilities among Member States. The EU is faced with two substantial challenges: first, how to prevent unsafe journeys and risks to the lives of people seeking international protection in the EU; and secondly, how to organise the distribution of related responsibilities and costs among the Member States. This study addresses these issues with recommendations aimed at resolving current practical, legal and policy problems.

The Common European Asylum System and the 2015 European refugee crisis

This thesis approaches the topic of migration and asylum seeking within the European Union and analyzes the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Through the use of the theory of intergovernmentalism it argues how CEAS was created and how states were able to bargain in order to cede control over irregular migrants to the European Union. Then by using the theory of securitization, it is argued that migration became securitized which lead Member States to reclaim power over migration and asylum seeking. It will argue that the European Union's response to the large increase in irregular migration into EU territory in 2015 shows the limits of the European institutional framework in the asylum policy. While there is much cooperation within the European Union, when faced with security issues, of which migration and asylum are a part, Member States are reticent of giving up sovereignty.

ENHANCING THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM AND ALTERNATIVES TO DUBLIN

Upon request by the LIBE committee, this study examines the reasons why the Dublin system of allocation of responsibility for asylum seekers does not work effectively from the viewpoint of Member States or asylum-seekers. It argues that as long as it is based on the use of coercion against asylum seekers, it cannot serve as an effective tool to address existing imbalances in the allocation of responsibilities among Member States. The EU is faced with two substantial challenges: first, how to prevent unsafe journeys and risks to the lives of people seeking international protection in the EU; and secondly, how to organise the distribution of related responsibilities and costs among the Member States. This study addresses these issues with recommendations aimed at resolving current practical, legal and policy problems.

European Migration Policies and the Rights of Asylum

2016

The European Union is confronted with a deep migration crisis, at a time when the EU has changed from being a source of stability and security into becoming a generator of political instability and economic chaos. This chapter outlines the main parameters of Europe’s immigration issue and the right of asylum. It presents the European migration policies of the last decade and traces the reasons behind its complete or near failure. The European Union takes into account how to rid itself of migrants through certain measures of tightening the law on asylum, and closing the borders. The result is that those states which had most fought against borders and walls and were committed to them being permanently eliminated, are now rushing to raise them again. Meanwhile, the security threat that has increased across the whole Union due to the mismanagement of migration. The European Union has spent years developing the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The aim of CEAS is to ensure the rights of asylum seekers by law. The system establishes minimum standards and procedures for processing and assessing claims for asylum and for the treatment of asylum seekers and those granted refugee status. Nevertheless, a large number of EU member states have yet to correctly implement these standards. Instead there is a collage of 28 different asylum systems producing uneven results? Finally, this chapter examines the EU asylum system itself. The chapter analyses how national asylum systems interact under the law of the EU, applying the criteria of the distribution of state responsibility to investigate asylum applications. This chapter addresses two key concepts in the development of European asylum law in particular: the concept of solidarity and the concept of trust, the application of which has been demonstrably weak in the European Union asylum system.

The Common European Asylum System: Inconsistent, incoherent and lacking credibility

2018

There are two distinct but related issues here: the diverse probabilities of receiving protection in the EU depending on the country in which one makes a claim, and the credibility of decisions that are made. There is currently no European institution implementing these directives or ensuring that criteria are uniformly applied – instead considerable discretion remains at national level, with the result that where one makes one’s claim matters enormously, a fact ignored by the Dublin regulation.

Neither Common nor a System: Towards a functioning Common European Asylum System

Globsec Magazine, 2017

European leaders are making much ado about the European Union (EU) facing an unprecedented migration crisis. However, the images of boats and long marching columns of people seeking to reach the EU that emerged in summer 2015 represent rather only the peak of a migratory and refugee crisis the Union has been facing for over two decades now, highlighting the lack of practical implementation of the Dublin asylum system.

After Dublin – the urgent need for a real European asylum system

The Dublin regulation is a European Union legal instrument establishing a system for definitive identification of the participating State responsible for examining a particular asylum application. Since the system was introduced in 1990, however, the scale, nature and geographical focus of mass migration into the European Union have changed significantly. In addition, the distribution of asylum applicants between participating States is extremely uneven; the Dublin system is, however, not intended or capable of functioning as a " burden-sharing " mechanism to counteract this inequity, which on the contrary is exacerbated by Dublin transfers of asylum applicants. It has thus become a symbol of unfairness and lack of solidarity in European asylum policy. Furthermore, the Dublin system has given rise to serious violations of asylum seekers' human rights. The Dublin system is thus dysfunctional: ineffective and certainly inefficient in achieving its basic aims, and at an unacceptably high human cost and resource cost. Indeed, it is difficult to see how it could operate as intended. The Parliamentary Assembly should therefore propose a series of reforms to the implementation of the current Dublin system, the wider context in which it operates and on which it is dependent, and to the content of the Dublin regulation itself.

Report on a variety of ideal-typical Common European Asylum Systems

2019

Since the influx of asylum seekers in 2015 and 2016 many scholars and journalists have pointed to the responsibilities and failures within European asylum policy. It was argued that the current set of regulations and directives fundamentally expect some common solidarity between the Member States. However, even if there existed a form of solidarity among Member States before the summers of 2015 and 2016, this feeling has dissipated since. The insights from research done within the CEASEVAL project and outside of it has led to many questions on the sustainability and equity of the current asylum and migration policy framework in the EU. One of the most pressing questions is: what should an ideal-typical CEAS look like? To answer this compelling question, this paper critically assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the current CEAS, investigates alternatives, and tries to develop a solution that might bring us close to an ideal CEAS, for instance by involving sub-national actors, su...