The Criminalisation of Migration in Europe: A State-of-the-Art of the Academic Literature and Research. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 61, October 2013

In the last 30 years, a clear trend has come to define modern immigration law and policy. A set of seemingly disparate developments concerning the constant reinforcement of border controls, tightening of conditions of entry, expanding capacities for detention and deportation and the proliferation of criminal sanctions for migration offences, accompanied by an anxiety on the part of the press, public and political establishment regarding migrant criminality can now be seen to form a definitive shift in the European Union towards the so-called ‘criminalisation of migration’. This paper aims to provide an overview of the ‘state-of-the-art’ in the academic literature and EU research on criminalisation of migration in Europe. It analyses three key manifestations of the so-called ‘crimmigration’ trend: discursive criminalisation; the use of criminal law for migration management; and immigrant detention, focusing both on developments in domestic legislation of EU member states but also the increasing conflation of mobility, crime and security which has accompanied EU integration. By identifying the trends, synergies and gaps in the scholarly approaches dealing with the criminalisation of migration, the paper seeks to provide a framework for on-going research under Work Package 8 of the FIDUCIA project.

Hostages to Moscow, clients of Beijing. Security in Central Asia as the role of the West diminishes. OSW Study 10/2014

The goal of this publication is to attempt to assess the thirteen years (2001- -2014) of the West’s military presence in the countries of post-Soviet Central Asia, closely associated with the ISAF and OEF-A (Operation Enduring Freedom – Afghanistan) missions in Afghanistan. There will also be an analysis of the actual challenges for the region’s stability after 2014. The current and future security architecture in Central Asia will also be looked at closely, as will the actual capabilities to counteract the most serious threats within its framework. The need to separately handle the security system in Central Asia and security as such is dictated by the particularities of political situation in the region, the key mechanism of which is geopolitics understood as global superpower rivalry for influence with a secondary or even instrumental role of the five regional states, while ignoring their internal problems. Such an approach is especially present in Russia’s perception of Central Asia, as it views security issues in geopolitical categories. Because of this, security analysis in the Central Asian region requires a broader geopolitical context, which was taken into account in this publication. The first part investigates the impact of the Western (primarily US) military and political presence on the region’s geopolitical architecture between 2001 and 2014. The second chapter is an attempt to take an objective look at the real challenges to regional security after the withdrawal of the coalition forces from Afghanistan, while the third chapter is dedicated to analysing the probable course of events in the security dimension following 2014. The accuracy of predictions time-wise included in the below publication does not exceed three to five years due to the dynamic developments in Central Asia and its immediate vicinity (the former Soviet Union, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran), and because of the large degree of unpredictability of policies of one of the key regional actors – Russia (both in the terms of its activity on the international arena, and its internal developments).

The Putin doctrine: The formation of a conceptual framework for Russian dominance in the post-Soviet area. OSW Commentary No. 131, 28.03.2014

The statements made in recent weeks by Russian officials, and especially President Vladimir Putin, in connection with Moscow’s policy towards Ukraine, may suggest that the emergence of a certain doctrine of Russian foreign and security policy is at hand, especially in relation to the post-Soviet area. Most of the arguments at the core of this doctrine are not new, but recently they have been formulated more openly and in more radical terms. Those arguments concern the role of Russia as the defender of Russian-speaking communities abroad and the guarantor of their rights, as well as specifically understood good neighbourly relations (meaning in fact limited sovereignty) as a precondition that must be met in order for Moscow to recognise the independence and territorial integrity of post-Soviet states. However, the new doctrine also includes arguments which have not been raised before, or have hitherto only been formulated on rare occasions, and which may indicate the future evolution of Russia’s policy. Specifically, this refers to Russia’s use of extralegal categories, such as national interest, truth and justice, to justify its policy, and its recognition of military force as a legitimate instrument to defend its compatriots abroad. This doctrine is effectively an outline of the conceptual foundation for Russian dominance in the post-Soviet area. It offers a justification for the efforts to restore the unity of the ‘Russian nation’ (or more broadly, the Russian-speaking community), within a bloc pursuing close integration (the Eurasian Economic Union), or even within a single state encompassing at least parts of that area. As such, it poses a challenge for the West, which Moscow sees as the main opponent of Russia’s plans to build a new order in Europe (Eurasia) that would undermine the post-Cold War order.

Best Practices in Involuntary Loss of Nationality in the EU. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 73/November 2014

This paper was prepared as a ILEC Policy Brief for discussion at the final conference of the project on Involuntary Loss of European Citizenship: Exchanging Knowledge and Identifying Guidelines for Europe, 11-12 December 2014. Co-funded by the European Commission’s DG for Justice, Citizenship and Fundamental Rights, the ILEC project has aimed to establish a framework for debate on international norms on involuntary loss of nationality. For more information visit: www.ilecproject.eu.

European Citizenship at the Crossroads: Enhancing European Cooperation on Acquisition and Loss of Nationality. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 73/December 2014

This paper was prepared as a Policy Brief for discussion at the final conference of the project on Involuntary Loss of European Citizenship: Exchanging Knowledge and Identifying Guidelines for Europe, 11-12 December 2014. Co-funded by the European Commission’s DG for Justice, Citizenship and Fundamental Rights, the ILEC project has aimed to establish a framework for debate on international norms on involuntary loss of nationality. For more information visit: www.ilecproject.eu.

How to deal with quasi-loss of nationality situations? Learning from promising practices. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 71/December 2014

This paper was prepared as a Policy Brief for discussion at the final conference of the project on Involuntary Loss of European Citizenship: Exchanging Knowledge and Identifying Guidelines for Europe, 11-12 December 2014. Co-funded by the European Commission’s DG for Justice, Citizenship and Fundamental Rights, the ILEC project has aimed to establish a framework for debate on international norms on involuntary loss of nationality. For more information visit: www.ilecproject.eu.

Statistics on Loss of Nationality in the EU. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 70/December 2014

This paper was prepared as a Policy Brief for discussion at the final conference of the project on Involuntary Loss of European Citizenship: Exchanging Knowledge and Identifying Guidelines for Europe, 11-12 December 2014. Co-funded by the European Commission’s DG for Justice, Citizenship and Fundamental Rights, the ILEC project has aimed to establish a framework for debate on international norms on involuntary loss of nationality. For more information visit: www.ilecproject.eu.

The nuclear safety framework in the European Union after Fukushima. Egmont Paper No. 73, December 2014

Summary. On 11 March 2011, a devastating earthquake struck Japan and caused a major nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The disaster confirmed that nuclear reactors must be protected even against accidents that have been assessed as highly unlikely. It also revealed a well-known catalogue of problems: faulty design, insufficient back-up systems, human error, inadequate contingency plans, and poor communications. The catastrophe triggered the rapid launch of a major re-examination of nuclear reactor security in Europe. It also stopped in its tracks what had appeared to be a ‘nuclear renaissance’, both in Europe and globally, especially in the emerging countries. Under the accumulated pressure of rising demand and climate warming, many new nuclear projects had been proposed. Since 2011 there has been more ambivalence, especially in Europe. Some Member States have even decided to abandon the nuclear sector altogether. This Egmont Paper aims to examine the reactions of the EU regarding nuclear safety since 2011. Firstly, a general description of the nuclear sector in Europe is provided. The nuclear production of electricity currently employs around 500,000 people, including those working in the supply chain. It generates approximately €70 billion per year. It provides roughly 30% of the electricity consumed in the EU. At the end of 2013, there were 131 nuclear power reactors active in the EU, located in 14 countries. Four new reactors are under construction in France, Slovakia and Finland. Secondly, this paper will present the Euratom legal framework regarding nuclear safety. The European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom) Treaty was signed in 1957, and somewhat obscured by the European Economic Community (EEC) Treaty. It was a more classical treaty, establishing institutions with limited powers. Its development remained relatively modest until the Chernobyl catastrophe, which provoked many initiatives. The most important was the final adoption of the Nuclear Safety Directive 2009/71. Thirdly, the general symbiosis between Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be explained. Fourthly, the paper analyses the initiatives taken by the EU in the wake of the Fukushima catastrophe. These initiatives are centred around the famous ‘stress tests’. Fifthly, the most important legal change brought about by this event was the revision of Directive 2009/71. Directive 2014/87 has been adopted quite rapidly, and has deepened in various ways the role of the EU in nuclear safety. It has reinforced the role and effective independence of the national regulatory authorities. It has enhanced transparency on nuclear safety matters. It has strengthened principles, and introduced new general nuclear safety objectives and requirements, addressing specific technical issues across the entire life cycle of nuclear installations, and in particular, nuclear power plants. It has extended monitoring and the exchange of experiences by establishing a European system of peer reviews. Finally, it has established a mechanism for developing EU-wide harmonized nuclear safety guidelines. In spite of these various improvements, Directive 2014/87 Euratom still reflects the ambiguity of the Euratom system in general, and especially in the field of nuclear safety. The use of nuclear energy remains controversial among Member States. Some of them remain adamantly in favour, others against or ambivalent. The intervention of the EAEC institutions remains sensitive. The use of the traditional Community method remains limited. The peer review method remains a very peculiar mechanism that deserves more attention.

Safe Harbour or into the storm? EU-US data transfers after the Schrems judgment. Liberty and security in Europe No. 85/November 2015

In its recent Schrems judgment the Luxembourg Court annulled Commission Decision 2000/520 according to which US data protection rules are sufficient to satisfy EU privacy rules regarding EU-US transfers of personal data, otherwise known as the ‘Safe Harbour’ framework. What does this judgment mean and what are its main implications for EU-US data transfers? In this paper the authors find that this landmark judgment sends a strong message to EU and US policy-makers about the need to ensure clear rules governing data transfers, so that people whose personal data is transferred to third countries have sufficient legal guarantees. Without such rules there is legal uncertainty and mistrust. Any future arrangement for the transatlantic transfer of data will therefore need to be firmly anchored in a framework of protection commensurate to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the EU data protection architecture.

European security after the Paris attacks. CEPS Commentary, 24 November 2015

The November 13th terrorist attacks in Paris have prompted the European Union to activate the mutual assistance clause contained in Art. 42.7 of the EU Treaty. Member states are now entering the unchartered territory of large-scale conflict: will they join a French-led coalition of the willing, or is the military intervention against Daesh being Europeanised? This Commentary explores implications of the Paris attacks on European security and recommends coordinated and comprehensive responses to be taken within the EU framework.

Free Movement of Persons: The Mirage of Social Security Schemes. Bruges European Economic Research Papers (BEER) 34/2015

The purpose of this paper is to address the issue of social security benefits that jobseekers, nationals of other Member State, residing in another Member States are in title to, as well as the economic implications of free movement of persons and labour market access. Consequently, it aims to disentangle between labour mobility welfare effects and “benefit tourism” looking in particular at the United Kingdom social security system and analysing the policy framework currently in place that governs the free movement of people across the European Union Member States.