Migration policy: an ambiguous EU role in specifying and spreading international refugee protection norms (original) (raw)
Related papers
CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe, 2019
The Global Compact on Refugees (GCR), adopted in December 2018 by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, expresses the political will of UN member states and relevant stakeholders to foster responsibility sharing for refugees and their host countries. Among GCR key objectives is that of expanding mobility and admission channels for people in search of international protection through resettlement and ‘complementary’ pathways of admission. The GCR provides a reference framework to critically assess European Union (EU) policies in relation to two main issues: first, the role and contribution of the EU and its Member States towards the implementation of the GCR in ways that are loyal to the Compact and EU Treaties guiding principles; second, and more specifically, the main gaps and contested issues of existing resettlement and complementary admission instruments for refugees and would-be refugees implemented at the EU and Member State levels. This paper argues that EU policies in the field of asylum and migration have been driven by a ‘contained mobility’ approach, which has been recently operationalised in the scope of EU third country arrangements like the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement. Under this approach, restrictive and selective mobility/admission arrangements for refugees have been progressively consolidated and used in exchange of, or as incentives for, third country commitments to EU readmission and expulsions policy. The paper concludes by recommending that the EU moves from an approach focused on ‘contained mobility’ towards one that places refugee’s rights and agency at the centre through facilitated resettlement and other complementary pathways driven by a fundamental rights and international protection rationale.
EURINT, 2018
European Union's policies on migration and asylum raise double-ditched problems. In the EU, the latter's Court stated that in these areas solidarity is a binding principle: consequently, EU Member States must comply with EU decisions assigning quotas of international protection seekers to each EU State. The paper inspects also agreements between, on one hand, EU Member States (or the EU as such) and, on the other, non-EU countries as origin or transit States of international protection seekers with the view of relocating such individuals to those latter countries. This practice raises doubts if latter countries were deemed non-safe states, e.g. in case they weren't part to 1951 Geneva Convention. These issues are relevant for the development of relations between EU and its member states as well as in the perspective that EU performs its international legal personality in full compliance to international law rules on migration and human rights protection.
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.
From an examination of the instruments of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and related policy measures regarding border surveillance and migration management, two interrelated issues stand out as particularly sensitive: access to asylum and responsibility for refugee protection. The prevailing view, supported by the UNHCR and others, is that responsibility for the care of asylum seekers and the determination of their claims falls on the state within whose jurisdiction the claim is made. However, the possibility to shift that responsibility to another state through inter-state cooperation or unilateral mechanisms undertaken territorially as well as abroad has been a matter of great interest to EU Member States and institutions. Initiatives adopted so far challenge the prevailing view and have the potential to undermine compliance with international refugee and human rights law.
Understanding Refugee Law in an Enlarged European Union Theory
RePEc: Research Papers in Economics, 2003
The present article seeks to explore how asylum law is formed, transformed and reformed in Europe, what its effects are on state practice and refugee protection in the Baltic and Central European candidate countries, and what this process reveals about the framework used by scholars to understand the dynamics of international refugee law. Arguably, an exclusive focus on EU institutions and their dissemination of regional and international norms among candidate countries through the acquis communitaire is misleading. Looking at the subregional interplay between Vienna and Budapest, Berlin and Warsaw, Copenhagen and Vilnius provides a richer understanding of the emergence of norms than the standard narrative of a Brussels dictate. Hence, to capture these dynamics, we will attempt to expand the framework of analysis by incorporating sub-regional settings, cutting across the divide between old and new Members, and by analysing the repercussions sent out by domestic legislation within these settings. While acknowledging that bilateral and multilateral relations are continuously interwoven, we conclude that bilateralism accounts for a greater degree of normative development and proliferation than multilateralism at EU level, and that domestic legislation as formed by sub-regional dynamics will remain the ultimate object of study for scholars of international refugee law. In the following, reference to the 1951 Convention covers the Convention as modified by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, 31 Jan. 1967, 606 UNTS 267. 2 See e.g. Simpson, 'Asylum and Immigration in the European Union After the Treaty of Amsterdam', 5
The External Dimension of EU Asylum Policy: Gaining Momentum or Fading Away?
ISMU Working Paper, 2015
The asylum challenge currently faced by the European Union (EU) has a clear connection with the steep increase in migration flows through the Mediterranean Sea experienced in the last couple of years. Indeed, a large proportion of migrants attempting the dangerous trip across the Mediterranean are asylum seekers, fleeing from wars and authoritarian regimes. The EU is committed to establishing a Common European Asylum System (CEAS), based on common rules and uniform standards. In this context, due to the global character of the asylum issue, the ‘external’ dimension of the CEAS is central to providing comprehensive and long-lasting solutions. Against this backdrop, this paper assesses the role of the EU as a global actor in the field of asylum. Taking as a starting point insights from the literature on EU external action, the main components that build up the external dimension of EU asylum policy are taken into account: legal competences, strategic documents, and concrete policy initiatives implemented so far. Regarding the latter aspect, three areas of action are analysed: regional protection pro- grammes, the joint EU resettlement programme, and humanitarian visas and the external pro- cessing of asylum claims. The paper concludes by highlighting Member States’ lack of political commitment, inter-institutional tensions, and the overlaps between EU and national initiatives as the main challenges to increase coherence of EU external action in the field of asylum.
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2019
The European Union officially proclaims to have a common refugee policy. However, the common treaties leave a great deal of discretion to the individual member countries, which allows 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 refugee policy is debatable. The commitments made by the member countries are largely voluntary, and refugee 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 refugee policy. A refugee 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.
EUI Policy Briefs, 2021
The ASILE project studies the changing relationship between containment and mobility amongst the key asylum governance instruments and actors from both an international comparative and European Union (EU) perspective and from the European Union (EU). It aims to inform the EU's role in the implementation of the United Nations Global Compact on Refugees (UN GCR). This Policy Brief outlines and synthesizes the preliminary findings and policy recommendations emerging from the first 18 months of the ASILE project which started in December 2019. There has been a substantial body of scholarly literature on the practices and legality of containment in migration instruments. Containment policies are characterised under various labels. These include non-entrée, non-admission, non-arrival, deterrence and deflection, as well as source-control and delegated contain
ISMU Working Paper, 2017
The increasingly protracted character of many displacement situations worldwide has led the in- ternational community to introduce innovative approaches to durable solutions for refugees and Internally displaced persons (IDPs). Specifically, international initiatives have focused on two main areas of action: a) strengthening the nexus between humanitarian and development interventions in the context of forced displacement situations; b) introducing legal pathways to protection for refugees through resettlement and other humanitarian and non-humanitarian channels. The emerging of the above-mentioned international agenda has triggered a parallel revision of the Eu- ropean Union (EU) external action in the field of asylum and refugee protection, a process that has gained further momentum as a consequence of increasing migration and asylum flows experienced by Europe since 2014. This Working paper explores the ways in which different approaches to durable solutions have been framed at the EU level and analyses the main strategic orientations and initiatives adopted by the EU in this policy domain.