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.

Social Benefits and Migration: A Contested Relationship and Policy Challenge in the EU. CEPS Paperbacks. September 2013

Following the financial crisis that commenced in 2008, the relationship between migration and social benefits has become increasingly contested in a number of large EU member states. The Eastern expansion of the EU in 2004 and 2007 has added a new dimension to the relationship. Concerns have spread across a number of member states about the 'costs' and 'financial burdens' of migration and intra-EU mobility and there have been calls for restrictions of existing EU rights and freedoms in the areas of EU free movement, social security coordination, asylum and migration laws.

British Balance of Competence Reviews, Part II: Again, a huge contradiction between the evidence and Eurosceptic populism. EPIN Paper No. 40, June 2014

This paper is the second in a series for a CEPS project entitled “The British Question and the Search for a Fresh European Narrative”. It is pegged on an ambitious exercise by the British government to review all the competences of the European Union on the basis of evidence submitted by independent stakeholders. In all, 32 sectoral policy reviews are being produced over the period 2013-2015, as input into public information and debate leading up to a referendum on whether the UK should remain in, or secede from, the EU, planned for 2017. This second set of reviews covers a broad range of EU policies (for the single market for goods, external trade, transport policy, environment, climate change, research, asylum, non-EU immigration, civil judicial cooperation, tourism, culture and sport). The findings confirm what emerged from the first set of reviews, namely that there is little or no case for repatriation of EU competences at the level they are defined in the treaties. This does not exclude that at a more detailed level there can be individual actions or laws that might be done better or not at all. However, that is the task of all the institutions to work at on a regular basis, and hardly a rationale for secession. For the UK in particular the EU has shown considerable flexibility in agreeing to special arrangements, such as in the case of the policies here reviewed of asylum, non-EU immigration and civil judicial cooperation. In other areas reviewed here, such as the single market for goods, external trade, transport, environment, climate change and research, there is a good fit between the EU’s policies and UK priorities, with the EU perceived by stakeholders as an ‘amplifier’ of British interests.

Ukraine in deadlock - What next? EPC Commentary, 12 February 2014

Some two months since Ukrainians took to the streets, a political solution to the standoff between the EuroMaidan protestors and the Ukrainian authorities remains out of reach, with the situation on the ground remaining volatile. As the clock ticks there is fear that further violence and instability could be on the horizon. Further turmoil risks Ukraine’s territorial integrity, with talk of division and calls for Moscow to intervene coming from a number of Party of Regions speakers. It also increases the likelihood of new security threats going beyond Ukraine’s border including refugees and asylum seekers. Furthermore, as the political crisis deepens, Ukraine’s economic situation becomes more perilous with the chances of default on its debts rising.

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.

EU Policies on Mixed Migration Flows in the Mediterranean Sea. EU Centre Singapore Background Brief No. 13, February 2015

The tragic deaths of over 300 people off the coast of Lampedusa in 2013 and many other incidents involving migrants from Middle East and North Africa (MENA) crossing the Mediterranean in order to seek refuge in Europe has led to a European Union (EU) level debate on asylum policies and how to deal with irregular migration. However, no concrete policy has been agreed since the tragic events at Lampedusa in 2013 and continuous crossings that have resulted in many more deaths. This background brief provides an overview of the existing EU policies on asylum seekers and in addressing irregular migration and some of the actions which the relevant Member States take when confronted with continuous flows of irregular migrants. This brief concludes that the EU should delink the rescue of irregular migrants from security concerns, provide a legal basis which offers protection to irregular migrants, and create a transparent working environment in which member states are better able to support each other when dealing with such events.

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.

No need for walls to equitably distribute the refugees. CEPS Commentary, 25 September 2015

While acknowledging that the recently implemented EU Temporary Relocation System might not be the panacea for addressing the refugee crisis in Europe today, Sergio Carrera and Daniel Gros find in this commentary that it nevertheless constitutes a movement towards the urgent need to go beyond the current EU Dublin regime and ensure more equitable sharing of legal responsibility across all member states.

To adopt refugee quotas or not: Is that the question? CEPS Commentary, 2 October 2015

One of the most controversial initiatives taken by the EU in response to the recent influx of refugees has been a provisional relocation system, aimed at the distribution of 120,000 asylum-seekers from Greece and Italy to other EU member states. This commentary explores the flaws in the current Dublin system and evaluates whether the new approach will prove more effective and humane.

Can the new refugee relocation system work? Perils in the Dublin logic and flawed reception conditions in the EU. CEPS Policy Brief No. 332, October 2015 Thursday, 1 October 2015

This Policy Brief argues that the newly adopted EU temporary relocation (quota) system constitutes a welcome yet timid step forward in addressing a number of central controversies of the current refugee debate in Europe. Two main challenges affect the effective operability of the new EU relocation model. First, EU member states’ asylum systems show profound (on-the-ground) weaknesses in reception conditions and judicial/administrative capacities. These prevent a fair and humane processing of asylum applications. EU states are not implementing the common standards enshrined in the EU reception conditions Directive 2013/33. Second, the new relocation system constitutes a move away from the much-criticised Dublin system, but it is still anchored to its premises. The Dublin system is driven by an unfair and unsustainable rule according to which the first EU state of entry is responsible for assessing asylum applications. It does not properly consider the personal, private and family circumstances or the preferences of asylum-seekers. Policy Recommendations In order to respond to these challenges, the Policy Brief offers the following policy recommendations: The EU should strengthen and better enforce member states’ reception capacities, abolish the current Dublin system rule of allocation of responsibility and expand the new relocation distribution criteria to include in the assessment (as far as possible) asylum-seekers’ preferences and personal/family links to EU member states. EU member countries should give priority to boosting their current and forward-looking administrative and judicial capacities to deal and welcome asylum applications. The EU should establish a permanent common European border and asylum service focused on ensuring the highest standards through stable operational support, institutional solidarity across all EU external borders and the practical implementation of new distribution relocation criteria.