CONSENSUS IN THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: THE CASE OF THE FIRST-‐COUNTRY RULE (original) (raw)
Related papers
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
Common European Asylum System: Contradictions and Crises
Carleton Review of International Affairs, 1970
This paper exposes the contradictions and lack of commonality in the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), as well as the wide discrepancy between the European Union’s (EU) human rights rhetoric and exclusionary practices. It examines in detail the Dublin System, which determines the state responsible for processing an asylum claim. This examination demonstrates the differences between an appearance of unity and solidarity on asylum within the EU, but a reality of divergent policies and nationalist approaches to asylum. The failure of countries to fully apply EU law has major negative consequences for asylum seekers and refugees. Finally, the paper explores four possible future directions for the CEAS: disintegration and a return to national asylum systems, strict enforcement of existing EU law, the European Commission’s Dublin IV proposal, or a supranational EU asylum system.
Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 21, Issue 8, pp. 1142-1162, 2014
This article examines whether the empowerment of the European Union's (EU) supranational institutions has had an impact on the development of EU asylum. By systematically investigating EU asylum law before and after ‘communitarization’, it argues that its ‘policy core’ has maintained a high degree of continuity. An advocacy coalition under the leadership of the interior ministers managed to co-opt pivotal actors in the newly empowered European Commission and European Parliament. By contenting themselves with changes of secondary order, these EU institutions accepted and institutionalized the restrictive and weakly integrated core of EU asylum set by the Council in the first negotiation round. Their role and decisions were driven not only by the negotiation dynamics and political expediency, but also by new inter- and intra-institutional norms fostering consensual practices.
Setting policy on asylum: Has the EU got it right?
IZA World of Labor, 2015
Pros Viewing refugees as a public good provides a basis for cooperation among countries. International cooperation can enable better outcomes for refugees and for host country populations if the policies are appropriate. Large strides have been made in developing the EU's Common European Asylum System. Some foundations have been laid for the development of a truly EU-wide policy that focuses on the distribution of refugees. Public opinion is more supportive of supra-national policies than is often believed. ELEVaToR PiTCH Policy toward asylum-seekers has been controversial. Since the late 1990s, the EU has been developing a Common European Asylum System, but without clearly identifying the basis for cooperation. Providing a safe haven for refugees can be seen as a public good and this provides the rationale for policy coordination between governments. But where the volume of applications differs widely across countries, policy harmonization is not sufficient. Burdensharing measures are needed as well, in order to achieve an optimal distribution of refugees across member states. Such policies are economically desirable and are more politically feasible than is sometimes believed. aUTHoR'S main mESSaGE Offering a safe haven for refugees can be viewed as a public good, and this provides a basis for cooperation on asylum policies across EU countries. The Common European Asylum System has harmonized policies, but harmonization has not improved the severe imbalance in the distribution of asylum applications across countries. The most realistic option would be to first set the central policy to obtain the optimal number for all the countries together and then to reallocate asylumseekers to obtain the "right" number for each country. The deeper policy integration that this would require is more feasible than is sometimes believed. Cons Policy harmonization between EU countries is not sufficient to gain the full benefits of cooperation on asylum policies. Deeper integration of policies would be required to ensure an appropriate distribution of refugees. Loss of national control of asylum policy may present political challenges for member states. Closer cooperation between developed countries is only really possible within the framework of the EU. Deeper policy integration, while helpful, would have only a small impact on the world refugee problem. Setting policy on asylum: Has the EU got it right? Harmonizing asylum policies, a noble goal, does not produce the best outcomes for refugees or host country populations
with Ariadna Ripoll Servent; Journal of European Public Policy
This article examines whether the empowerment of the European Union’s (EU) supranational institutions has had an impact on the development of EU asylum. By systematically investigating EU asylum law before and after communitarisation, it argues that its ‘policy core’ has maintained a high degree of continuity. An advocacy coalition under the leadership of the interior ministers managed to co-opt pivotal actors in the newly empowered European Commission and European Parliament. By contenting themselves with changes of secondary order, these EU institutions accepted and institutionalised the restrictive and weakly integrated core of EU asylum set by the Council in the first negotiation round. Their role and decisions were driven not only by the negotiation dynamics and political expediency but also by new inter- and intra-institutional norms fostering consensual practices.
EU Law in Populist Times: Crises and Prospects (Cambridge University Press), 2020
Scratching beneath the superficial layer of the ongoing political and media debate, this contribution holistically analyses the content of the EU’s Common European Asylum System (CEAS), a notion that despite its centrality to the EU’s asylum policy lacks a precise definition. Beyond legislative harmonisation, I point to the central role of implementation, which should be viewed as an integral part of the system design, and critically assess the impact of the principle of solidarity and fair-sharing of responsibility. Thereafter, I examine the CEAS’s changing implementation modes, critically assessing to what extent they signal a passage towards an emerging integrated European administration. I also trace the relationship between the events of the 2015–2016 ‘refugee crisis’ and developments in the administrative architecture of the CEAS. I conclude by highlighting how Member State unilateralism and externalisation, i.e. the transfer of obligations to third countries, are increasingly taking centre stage and are operating as a parallel – or indeed even alternative – track to harmonisation and intra-EU cooperation on asylum matters.
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 EU, migration and contestation: the UN Global Compact for migration, from consensus to dissensus
Global Affairs, 2020
The 2015 migration crisis has shaken the EU system to the point that no agreement on the matter was possible. In this line, it was decided to bring to the international level the need to agree on a migration norm: the UN Global Compact for Migration. This article analyses the EU and Member States dynamics of dissent vis-à-vis substantive and procedural norms. It shows the existence of four structural factors within EU foreign policy that enhances consensus. That is the existence of a common position on the matter, the expert culture constraining the behaviour of parties, the EU community of practices and the role of the chair. The presence of these factors explain why the EU contained Hungary's objections to the Compact, but its absence also explains the domino effect triggered by the Austrian withdrawal. At the end, EU norms such as effective multilateralism and sincere cooperation were contested.
The European Union and the Return of the Nation State
The European Union officially proclaims to have a common asylum policy. However, the common treaties leave a great deal of discretion to the individual member countries, which allow them to regulate refugee migration while still upholding international treaties. Member countries have authority over border controls, the processing of asylum applications as well as economic benefits provided to refugees. We show that the differences in refugee flows are so extensive and systematic that the existence of a common EU asylum policy is debatable. The commitments made by the member countries are largely voluntary, and asylum policy is mainly determined at the national level. The discrepancies between the member countries strongly signal that the European Union may not be an optimal region for a common asylum policy. An asylum policy should instead be determined at the national level concordant with the regional and local level, where integration measures are implemented in practice. Meanwhile, the European Union can play an important role through refugee aid to afflicted countries, treaties with third countries, rescue actions in the Mediterranean and control of the external EU borders.