How to reconcile the EU border paradox? The concurrence of refugee reception and deterrence. IES Policy Brief 2015/4, November 2015

The refugee crisis that unfolded in Europe in the summer of 2015 questions the effectiveness of European border and refugee policies. The breakdown of the Dublin and Schengen rules due to chaotic situations at the borders in the Balkans marks a critical juncture for the EU. We consider this breakdown as a consequence of a long-lasting co-operation crisis among EU Member States. The most recent Council decision responds to this co-operation crisis (Council Decision 12098/15). This Policy Brief analyses EU policy and politics and argues that plans for refugee relocation and reception centres as well as the use of qualified majority voting in the Council can unfold a dynamic that helps to solve the co-operation crisis. However, underlying the problems of co-operation and effectiveness is the EU’s border paradox: while EU border policy works towards refugee deterrence, EU asylum policy aims at refugee protection. The EU’s approach in regulating borders and asylum can be understood in terms of ‘organised hypocrisy’ (Brunsson, 1993). Reconciling the paradox calls for overcoming such hypocrisy.

Irregular Migration, Trafficking and Smuggling of Human Beings: Policy Dilemmas in the EU. CEPS Paperback, 22 February 2016

The expert contributors to this edited volume, representing a multidisciplinary selection of academics, examine the treatment of irregular migration, human trafficking and smuggling in EU law and policy. The various chapters explore the policy dilemmas encountered in efforts to criminalise irregular migration and humanitarian assistance to irregular immigrants. The book aims to provide academic input to informed policy-making in the next phase of the European Agenda on Migration. In his Foreword, Matthias Ruete, Director General of DG Home Affairs of the European Commission, writes: “This initiative aims to stimulate evidence-based policy-making and to bring fresh thinking to develop more effective policies. The European Commission welcomes the valuable contribution of this initiative to help close the wide gap in our knowledge about the smuggling of migrants, and especially the functioning of smuggling networks.”

Rethinking asylum distribution in the EU: Shall we start with the facts? CEPS Commentary, 17 June 2016

Ten months of what has alternatively been called a "refugee crisis", a "migrant crisis" and a "migrant and asylum crisis" in the EU has fuelled an exceptionally vivid discussion about statistics. All member states are required to provide Eurostat, the EU’s statistical agency, with data on immigration and asylum in accordance with a regulation that sets out clear and concise rules on what data must be submitted.[1] The purpose of the regulation is to ensure that the data on migration and asylum the member states provide to Eurostat for publication is comparable across all EU countries.

Les effets de l'européanisation de la lutte contre la migration irrégulière sur les droits humains des migrants

Les politiques migratoires européennes sont conçues en termes de contrôle de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers. Depuis la mise en place des conditions de libre circulation dans les années 1980, l’Union européenne est impliquée dans le traitement des non-nationaux qui, auparavant, relevait exclusivement de la discrétion étatique. La migration et l’asile sont aujourd’hui des domaines de compétence partagée entre l’Union et ses membres. La priorité est accordée à la lutte contre la migration irrégulière, perçue non seulement comme un défi à la souveraineté, mais aussi comme une menace à l’État providence et un risque pour la sécurité. Cette recherche porte sur l’européanisation de la lutte contre la migration irrégulière et ses effets sur les droits humains des étrangers. Il est soutenu que l’européanisation définie comme un processus de construction, de diffusion et d’institutionnalisation des normes, des pratiques et des convictions partagées, permet aux États d’atteindre leur objectif de limiter le nombre d’étrangers indésirés, y compris des demandeurs d’asile, sur leur sol. L’européanisation légitime et renforce les mesures préventives et dissuasives existantes à l’encontre des migrants clandestins. De nouvelles normes communes sont produites et de nouveaux dispositifs de coopération européenne sont créés en vue de réprimer la migration irrégulière. Ce phénomène transforme le paradigme migratoire dans les États membres ainsi que les pays candidats à l’adhésion qui se trouvent désormais chargés de la sécurisation des frontières extérieures de l’Union. La recherche démontre que ces développements ont un impact négatif sur les droits fondamentaux. Ils exacerbent aussi la vulnérabilité des demandeurs d’asile assimilés aux migrants économiques. Une analyse comparative de l’européanisation du renvoi forcé en France, au Royaume-Uni et en Turquie montre que la politique européenne engendre des atteintes aux droits et libertés des étrangers et limite leur capacité de contester les violations devant les tribunaux. L’accent est mis sur la nécessité de trouver un équilibre entre la préoccupation légitime des États et de l’Union d’assurer la sécurité et le bien-être de leurs citoyens et la protection des droits des migrants irréguliers. Il revient ultimement aux tribunaux de veiller à ce que le pouvoir discrétionnaire étatique s’exerce en stricte conformité avec les normes constitutionnelles et les obligations internationales découlant du droit international des réfugiés et des droits de l’homme.

Análisis del Espacio Schengen en materia de seguridad como base para la implementación del Protocolo sobre la Facilitación del Movimiento de Personas de la Comunidad para el Desarrollo de África Austral (SADC)

El fin de la Guerra Fría supuso no sólo el triunfo del capitalismo y de la democracia liberal, sino un cambio significativo en el Sistema Internacional; siendo menos centralizado y más regionalizado, como consecuencia de la proximidad y relaciones de interdependencia entre sus actores (no sólo Estados) y permitiendo la formación de Complejos Regionales de Seguridad (CRS). Los CRS son una forma efectiva de relacionarse y aproximarse a la arena internacional pues a través de sus procesos de securitización y desecuritización consiguen lograr objetivos específicos. Partiendo de ello, tanto la Unión Europea (UE) como la Comunidad para el Desarrollo de África Austral (SADC) iniciaron varios procesos de securitización relacionados con la integración regional; siendo un ejemplo de ello la eliminación de los controles en sus fronteras interiores o libre circulación de personas; pues consideraron que de no hacerse realidad, ello generaría amenazas políticas (su influencia y capacidad de actuación estaban amenazadas), económicas (en cuanto a su competitividad y niveles básicos de bienestar) y societales (en cuanto a la identidad de la comunidad como indispensable para la integración) que pondrían en riesgo la existencia misma de sus CRS. En esta medida, la UE creó el Espacio Schengen, que fue producto de un proceso de securitización desde inicios de la década de los 80 hasta mediados de la década de los 90; y la SADC se encuentra inmersa en tal proceso de securitización desde 1992 hasta la actualidad y espera la ratificación del Protocolo para la Facilitación del Movimiento de personas como primer paso para lograr la eliminación de controles en sus fronteras interiores. Si bien tanto la UE como la SADC consideraron que de no permitir la libre circulación de personas, su integración y por lo tanto, sus CRS estaban en riesgo; la SADC no lo ha logrado. Ello hace indispensable hacer un análisis más profundo de sus procesos de securitización para así encontrar sus falencias con respecto al éxito de la UE. El análisis está basado en la Teoría de los Complejos de Seguridad de Barry Buzan, plasmada en la obra Security a New Framework for Analysis (1998) de Barry Buzan, Ole Waever y Jaap de Wilde y será dividido en cada una de las etapas del proceso de securitización: la identificación de una amenaza existencial a un objeto referente a través de un acto discursivo, la aceptación de una amenaza por parte de una audiencia relevante y las acciones de emergencia para hacer frente a las amenazas existenciales; reconociendo las diferencias y similitudes de un proceso de securitización exitoso frente a otro que aún no lo ha sido.

Current Challenges regarding the International Refugee Law, with focus on EU Policies and EU Co-operation with UNHCR. CEPS Paper on Liberty and Security in Europe No. 59, September 2013

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 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. This note reviews EU action in the field by reference to the relevant legal standards and best practices developed by UNHCR, focusing on the specific problems of climate refugees and access to international protection, evaluating the inconsistencies between the internal and external dimension of asylum policy. Some recommendations for the European Parliament are formulated at the end, including on action in relation to readmission agreements, Frontex engagement rules in maritime operations, Regional Protection Programmes, and resettlement.

With or without you...judging politically in the field of Area of Freedom, Security and Justice? Research Papers in Law, 3/2007

From the Introduction. The study of the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) case law of the regarding the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ) is fascinating in many ways.1 First, almost the totality of the relevant case law is extremely recent, thereby marking the first ‘foundational’ steps in this field of law. This is the result of the fact that the AFSJ was set up by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and only entered into force in May 1999.2 Second, as the AFSJ is a new field of EU competence, it sets afresh all the fundamental questions – both political and legal – triggered by European integration, namely in terms of: a) distribution of powers between the Union and its member states, b) attribution of competences between the various EU Institutions, c) direct effect and supremacy of EU rules, d) scope of competence of the ECJ, and e) measure of the protection given to fundamental rights. The above questions beg for answers which should take into account both the extremely sensible fields of law upon which the AFSJ is anchored, and the EU’s highly inconvenient three-pillar institutional framework.3 Third, and as a consequence of the above, the vast majority of the ECJ’s judgments relating to the AFSJ are a) delivered by the Full Court or, at least, the Grand Chamber, b) with the intervention of great many member states and c) often obscure in content. This is due to the fact that the Court is called upon to set the foundational rules in a new field of EU law, often trying to accommodate divergent considerations, not all of which are strictly legal.4 Fourth, the case law of the Court relating to the AFSJ, touches upon a vast variety of topics which are not necessarily related to one another. This is why it is essential to limit the scope of this study. The content of, and steering for, the AFSJ were given by the Tampere European Council, in October 1999. According to the Tampere Conclusions, the AFSJ should consist of four key elements: a) a common immigration and asylum policy, b) judicial cooperation in both civil and penal matters, c) action against criminality and d) external action of the EU in all the above fields. Moreover, the AFSJ is to a large extent based on the Schengen acquis. The latter has been ‘communautarised’5 by the Treaty of Amsterdam and further ‘ventilated’ between the first and third pillars by decisions 1999/435 and 1999/436.6 Judicial cooperation in civil matters, mainly by means of international conventions (such as the Rome Convention of 1981 on the law applicable to contractual obligations) and regulations (such as (EC) 44/20017 and (EC) 1348/20008) also form part of the AFSJ. However, the relevant case law of the ECJ will not be examined in the present contribution.9 Similarly, the judgments of the Court delivered in the course of Article 226 EC proceedings against member states, will be omitted.10 Even after setting aside the above case law and notwithstanding the fact that the AFSJ only dates as far back as May 1999, the judgments of the ECJ are numerous. A simple (if not simplistic) categorisation may be between, on the one hand, judgments which concern the institutional setting of the AFSJ (para. 2) and, on the other, judgments which are related to some substantive AFSJ policy (para. 3).

The Theory of Interhybridity: Socio-political Dimensions and Migration Experiences of Post-communist Western Balkan States

The Western Balkans integration within the EU has started a legal process which is the rejection of former communist legal/political approaches and the transformation of former communist institutions. Indeed, the EU agenda has brought vertical/horizontal integration and Europeanization of national institutions (i.e. shifting power to the EU institutions and international authorities). At this point, it is very crucial to emphasize the fact that the Western Balkans as a whole region has currently an image that includes characteristics of both the Soviet socialism and the European democracy. The EU foreign policies and enlargement strategy for Western Balkans have significant effects on four core factors (i.e. Schengen visa regulations, remittances, asylum and migration as an aggregate process). The convergence/divergence of EU member states’ priorities for migration policies regulate and even shape directly the migration dynamics in migrant sender countries. From this standpoint, the research explores how main migration factors are influenced by political and judicial factors such as; rule of law and democracy score, the economic liberation score, political and human rights, civil society score and citizenship rights in Western Balkan countries. The proposal of interhybridity explores how the hybridization of state and non-state actors within home and host countries can solve labor migration-related problems. The economical and sociopolitical labor-migration model of Basu (2009) is overlapping with the multidimensional empirical framework of interhybridity. Indisputably, hybrid model (i.e. collaboration state and non-state actors) has a catalyst role in terms of balancing social problems and civil society needs. Paradigmatically, it is better to perceive the hybrid model as a combination of communicative and strategic action that means the reciprocal recognition within the model is precondition for significant functionality. This will shape social and industrial relations with moral meanings of communication.

Humanitarian Visas: Option or obligation?. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 68, 27 October 2014

Third-country nationals seeking protection have no EU-wide legal channels at present for entering EU territory and triggering protection mechanisms under the Common European Asylum System. As a result, many embark on hazardous journeys, with concomitant risks and loss of human life. The absence of ‘protection-sensitive’ mechanisms for accessing EU territory, along with EU external and extraterritorial border and migration management and control, undermine Member States' refugee and human rights obligations. Humanitarian visas may offer a remedy in this regard by enabling third-country nationals to apply in situ for entry to EU territory on humanitarian grounds or because of international obligations. This study asks whether the existing Visa Code actually obliges Member States to issue humanitarian visas. It also examines past implementation of humanitarian visa schemes by Member States and considers whether more could be done to encourage them to make use of existing provisions in EU law. Finally, with a Commission proposal for Visa Code reform on the table, it asks whether there is now an opportunity to lay down clear rules for humanitarian visa schemes.

A Comparative Analysis of Regulations on Involuntary Loss of Nationality in the European Union. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe, 75/December 2014

This study examines the workings of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), in order to assess the need and potential for new approaches to ensure access to protection for people seeking it in the EU, including joint processing and distribution of asylum seekers. Rather than advocating the addition of further complexity and coercion to the CEAS, the study proposes a focus on front-line reception and streamlined refugee status determination, in order to mitigate the asylum challenges facing Member States, and vindicate the rights of asylum seekers and refugees according to the EU acquis and international legal standards. Joint processing could contribute to front-line reception and processing capacity, but is no substitute for proper investment in national systems. The Dublin system as currently configured leads inexorably to increasing coercion and detention, and must thus be reconfigured to remove coercion as a principle and ensure consistency with human rights and other fundamental values of the EU.

What priorities for the new European agenda on migration? CEPS Commentary, 22 April 2015

In the wake of the latest tragic drownings in the Mediterranean, in which some 900 immigrants lost their lives, and with a view to the extraordinary EU Summit on April 23rd, this Commentary argues that any short, medium and long-term EU migration policy priorities should start by unequivocally setting out their founding and operational principles. This step would be closely followed by implementation of effective action on the ground aimed at meeting the realities and alleviating the hardship.

Europe’s Double Refugee Crisis. CEPS Commentary, 8 September 2015

Against the background of the rapidly growing number of asylum-seekers, Daniel Gros argues in this CEPS Commentary that the EU needs to take action on two fronts. First, member countries must urgently boost their capacity to deal with asylum applications, so that they can quickly identify those who truly deserve protection. Second, the EU needs to improve burden-sharing in providing shelter for those who gain asylum. In his view, international law – and basic morality – demands nothing less.

Heads buried in the sand: member states block solutions to the refugee crisis. EPC Commentary, 15 September 2015

Yesterday’s meeting of Interior Ministers demonstrated that the EU’s asylum and immigration policy remains incomplete. This is mainly due to the member states’ inability to plan ahead, their reluctance to adopt binding common rules – considered as a violation of their sovereignty – and their central position in the implementation of EU rules.

Germany’s ‘refugee’ problem. The most important test for Chancellor Merkel and the grand coalition. OSW COMMENTARY NUMBER 182/11.09.2015 2015-09-11

The rapid increase in the number of immigrants from outside of the EU coming to Germany has become the paramount political issue. According to new estimates, the number of individuals expected arrive in Germany in 2015 and apply for asylum there is 800,000, which is nearly twice as many as estimated in earlier forecasts. Various administrative, financial and social problems related to the influx of migrants are becoming increasingly apparent. The problem of ‘refugees’ (in public debate, the terms ‘immigrants’, ‘refugees’, ‘illegal immigrants’, ‘economic immigrants’ have not been clearly defined and have often been used interchangeably) has been culminating for over a year. Despite this, it was being disregarded by Angela Merkel’s government which was preoccupied with debates on how to rescue Greece. It was only daily reports of cases of refugee centres being set on fire that convinced Chancellor Merkel to speak and to make immigration problem a priority issue (Chefsache). Neither the ruling coalition nor the opposition parties have a consistent idea of how Germany should react to the growing number of refugees. In this matter, divisions run across parties. Various solutions have been proposed, from liberalisation of laws on the right to stay in Germany to combating illegal immigration more effectively, which would be possible if asylum granting procedures were accelerated. The proposed solutions have not been properly thought through, instead they are reactive measures inspired by the results of opinion polls. This is why their assumptions are often contradictory. The situation is similar regarding the actions proposed by Chancellor Merkel which involve faster procedures to expel individuals with no right to stay in Germany and a plan to convince other EU states to accept ‘refugees’. None of these ideas is new – they were already present in the German internal debate.

The refugee crisis: Schengen’s slippery slope. EPC Commentary, 22 September 2015

While the European Union (EU) is facing one of the most divisive crises in its history, the pressure to take immediate action is enormous. Yet, negotiations in the Council have shown that the prospect of a common European response to the manifold effects and underlying reasons of the refugee crisis still belongs to the distant future. Only a few days after Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker delivered his State of the Union address – avowing that Schengen will not be abolished under his term – national decisions to reintroduce temporary border controls are multiplying. Germany, one of the most ardent defenders of a borderless Union, decided to temporarily reinstate border checks. Austria and Slovenia came next. Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland, the Netherlands and France might follow.