Forced Migration Governance: In Search of Sovereignty

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 923-948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anuscheh Farahat ◽  
Nora Markard
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Third World ◽  
Forced Migration ◽  
Loss Of Control ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
The Eu

The European Union (EU) Member States have experienced the recent refugee protection crisis in the EU as a de-facto loss of control over their borders. They find themselves unable to subject entry into their territory to a sovereign decision. In response, the Member States have sought to regain full sovereignty over matters of forced migration, both unilaterally and cooperatively, seeking to govern a phenomenon—forced migration—that by definition defies governance. Unilateral measures include forced migration caps and a search for ways to circumvent responsibility under the Dublin system. Cooperative efforts by EU Member States include the search for ways to more effectively govern forced migration at the EU level and beyond. Supranational EU efforts include the introduction of an internal relocation scheme and support for Italy and Greece in processing asylum claims in so-called “hotspots.” Beyond the EU, Member States are seeking to externalize protection responsibility to third world countries under international agreements, in particular, by returning asylum seekers to Turkey. This Article outlines the unilateral and cooperative governance efforts undertaken and shows that states' sovereign decisions over migration are significantly limited in the case of forced migrants, both by EU law and by international law.

Pre-departure Integration Strategies in the European Union: Integration or Immigration Policy?

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kees Groenendijk
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Policy Instrument ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legal Constraints ◽  
Integration Strategies ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

AbstractSeveral States require immigrants from outside the EU to participate in language or integration courses after arrival. In recent years, some EU Member States made passing a language test (Netherlands and Germany) or participating in a language course (France) a condition for a visa for family reunification for immigrants from certain third countries. Denmark and the UK introduced a similar requirement in 2010. The focus of his article is on three aspects: the political debate, the legal constraints and the effects. Firstly, the development of the pre-departure integration strategies is analyzed. What was the rationale behind the introduction and does is vary between Member States? Secondly, the legal constraints of EU and international law are discussed. Finally, the results of the first studies evaluating this policy instrument are presented. Is pre-departure a good predictor for immigrant’s ability to integrate? Does it actually assist integration, and what are the unexpected or counterproductive effects?

EU Migration Policy: Evolving Ideas of Responsibility and Protection

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Haddad
Keyword(s):  
Forced Migration ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Eu

AbstractWhile humanitarian intervention in cases of state instability remains a disputed concept in international law, there is consensus in the international community over the need to provide protection to refugees, one of the corollaries of such instability. Using the European Union (EU) as a case study, this article takes a policy perspective to examine competing conceptions of both 'responsibility' and 'protection' among EU Member States. Responsibility can be seen either as the duty to move refugees around the EU such that each Member State takes its fair share, or the duty to assist those Member States who receive the highest numbers of migrants due to geography by way of practical and financial help. Similarly, protection can imply that which the EU offers within its boundaries, encompassed within the Common European Asylum System, or something broader that looks at where people are coming from and seeks to work with countries of origin and transit to provide protection outside the Union and tackle the causes of forced migration. Whether one or both of these concepts comes to dominate policy discourse over the long-term, the challenge will be to ensure an uncompromised understanding of protection among policy-makers.

scholarly journals The European Union and Migration: An Interplay of National, Regional, and International Law

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 509-513
Author(s):  
Iris Goldner Lang
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Global Migration ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Law ◽  
Migration Law ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Third Country Nationals

If global migration law “includes all levels of the law,” then the European Union represents the most developed instance of the interplay of national, regional, and international law. Migration law in the European Union involves the interaction of EU Member States’ national laws, EU regional law, and international law. This complex interchange of different migratory legal regimes is the consequence of diverse, and sometimes conflicting, objectives and interests of the Union and its Member States, and the nature of EU law itself. This essay explores the impact of these three levels of the law on the four migratory regulatory categories—EU citizens, “desirable” third-country nationals, asylum seekers, and all other third-country nationals—and the three objectives associated with these categories. The predominance of one legal regime over another varies depending on the regulatory category of migrants and the objectives associated therewith. While describing the existing legal systems, the essay outlines their attributes and shortcomings, the most prominent being: a clear rift between the rights granted to EU citizens and to third-country nationals; EU Member States’ determination to reserve to their respective national territories a high level of national control over labor migration; and significant deficiencies of the EU asylum law which were brought to the surface by the recent refugee influx into the EU.

scholarly journals The European Union Obligation: Member States must not Neglect the Consequences of Covid 19 to the Disadvantaged Asylum Seekers and Refugees

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 209
Author(s):  
Sibusisiwe Bulala Kelly
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Refugee Camps ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Corona Virus ◽  
Asylum Seekers And Refugees ◽  
The Eu

In early March 2020 the health crisis warnings of corona virus also known as Covid 19 emerged in the European Union (EU). It dominated political dialogues prompting a sense of urgency, fear, and disruption among people. Suddenly there was a halt to the continuous controversial discussions on migration, asylum seekers and refugee challenges across the EU Member States and beyond. The message from the health experts and governments among the EU Member States was clear. Stay home, wash your hands constantly, maintain physical distance, and keep the children away from vulnerable grandparents. However, these seemingly extreme health guidelines engendered great anxiety for the disadvantaged people living in crowded refugee camps across the EU and beyond. It became very clear that the requirement of physical distancing has become a privilege only available for the populations that have the capacity.Research shows that overcrowding and lack of sanitation in refugee camps continue to be problematic across the EU Member States. Somehow, it seemed unfair for the Member States governments to emphasise on the importance of constant wash of hands and social distance among its citizens, whilst ignoring the horrific living conditions of those displaced and stranded in the internal and external borders of the EU. Additionally, there are claims that Covid 19 has not fully manifested in the EU refugee camps, however with lack of information on corona virus testing in the camps it is difficult to legitimately evaluate the situation. This brief assesses the EU Covid 19 response in relation to the area of Asylum. Also serves as a reminder for the EU policy makers not to forget the migration discourse during coronavirus crisis. Particularly, for the asylum seekers and refugees as their presence will continue to impact major dimensions of the EU communities such as political, economy, and social, well beyond Covid 19.

WHERE THE LAW BECOMES IRRELEVANT: CONSULAR ASSISTANCE AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 965-995 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemarieke Vermeer-Künzli
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Eu

AbstractIn recent years, the European Union (‘eu’) has taken a number of initiatives with a view to co-ordinating consular assistance in third countries. Not only have EU citizens an entitlement to consular assistance by any EU Member State in the absence of a representation of their own, but EU Member States themselves are encouraged to co-operate by means of the Lead State Concept and other forms of co-operation. While this may seem relatively unproblematic from the perspective of the EU, it is very difficult to reconcile with general international law. The various EU agreements in this area have no application to third States: some do not have legally binding form and even those that do only apply to the parties to the treaties, ie EU Member States. This article will present the situation, analyse its complexities and offer some reflections on the global application and desirability of the regime created by the EU.

The Politics of International Oversight: Strategic Monitoring and Legal Compliance in the European Union

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (3) ◽  
pp. 429-445 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOSHUA C. FJELSTUL ◽  
CLIFFORD J. CARRUBBA
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Formal Model ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Compliance ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Strategic Monitoring ◽  
The Eu

States often violate international agreements, both accidentally and intentionally. To process complaints efficiently, states can create formal, pretrial procedures in which governments can negotiate with litigants before a case ever goes to court. If disputes are resolved during pretrial negotiations, it can be very difficult to tell what has happened. Are governments coming into compliance? If so, are they only doing so when they have accidentally committed a violation or even when they are intentionally resisting? Or are challenges simply being dropped? This paper presents a formal model to address these questions. We develop our theory in the context of the European Union (EU). To test our model, we collect a new dataset of over 13,000 Commission infringement cases against EU member states (2003–2013). Our results suggest that accidental and intentional noncompliance both occur, but that intentional noncompliance is more common in the EU. We find that the Commission is an effective, if imperfect, monitor and enforcer of international law. The Commission can correct intentional noncompliance, but not always. It strategically drops cases that it believes it is unlikely to win.

Non-uniform Application of European Union Private International Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 83-94
Author(s):  
Katarina Trimmings ◽  
Burcu Yüksel
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Legislative Framework ◽  
Funded Project ◽  
The Eu

This chapter draws on the findings of an EU-funded project titled (‘Cross-Border Litigation in Europe: Private International Law Legislative Framework, National Courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union’ (EUPILLAR) and discusses concerns over the lack of uniformity in the interpretation and application of the key EU Private International Law Regulations (Brussels I Regulation, Brussels IIa Regulation, Rome I Regulation, Rome II Regulation, Maintenance Regulation) across the EU Member States. The chapter provides examples of differing interpretations and applications of the same EU private international law rules in the EU through examples from various EU Member States, analyses the reasons behind the non-uniform interpretation and application, and suggests specific ways to rectify these problems.

scholarly journals Social protection of non-removable rejected asylum-seekers in the EU

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 313-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Schoukens ◽  
Siemen Buttiens
Keyword(s):  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Social Protection ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Added Value ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Policy Choices ◽  
The Eu

Asylum-seekers whose application for international protection in the European Union (EU) is rejected receive a return decision. However, the enforcement of this decision may be temporarily impossible due to legal or practical barriers, or policy choices. An assessment of the provisions in the Returns Directive offering social protection to non-removable rejected asylum-seekers shows that only limited standards of protection are guaranteed. Consequently, the EU Member States are left plenty of room to manoeuvre. This article raises the question of what social protection this particular group is legally entitled to in a sample of 17 EU Member States. For the purpose of this article, ‘social protection’ is defined as access to the labour market, health care and social benefits. This study finds that Member States’ approaches differ markedly with respect to each of these three issues. Furthermore, it questions the added value of the current legal framework at the level of the EU. Finally, some suggestions for improving the level of social protection of non-removable rejected asylum seekers are put forward.

Political aspects of security of the European Union Member States

2020 ◽  
pp. 97-105
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Kusztykiewicz-Fedurek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Political Security ◽  
New Institutions ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
The Eu

Political security is very often considered through the prism of individual states. In the scholar literature in-depth analyses of this kind of security are rarely encountered in the context of international entities that these countries integrate. The purpose of this article is to draw attention to key aspects of political security in the European Union (EU) Member States. The EU as a supranational organisation, gathering Member States first, ensures the stability of the EU as a whole, and secondly, it ensures that Member States respect common values and principles. Additionally, the EU institutions focus on ensuring the proper functioning of the Eurozone (also called officially “euro area” in EU regulations). Actions that may have a negative impact on the level of the EU’s political security include the boycott of establishing new institutions conducive to the peaceful coexistence and development of states. These threats seem to have a significant impact on the situation in the EU in the face of the proposed (and not accepted by Member States not belonging to the Eurogroup) Eurozone reforms concerning, inter alia, appointment of the Minister of Economy and Finance and the creation of a new institution - the European Monetary Fund.

scholarly journals Inequalities in the European Union—A Partial Order Analysis of the Main Indicators

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 6278
Author(s):  
Lars Carlsen ◽  
Rainer Bruggemann
Keyword(s):  
Indicator System ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Disposable Income ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
Educational Aspect ◽  
The Eu

The inequality within the 27 European member states has been studied. Six indicators proclaimed by Eurostat to be the main indicators charactere the countries: (i) the relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap, (ii) the income distribution, (iii) the income share of the bottom 40% of the population, (iv) the purchasing power adjusted GDP per capita, (v) the adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita and (vi) the asylum applications by state of procedure. The resulting multi-indicator system was analyzed applying partial ordering methodology, i.e., including all indicators simultaneously without any pretreatment. The degree of inequality was studied for the years 2010, 2015 and 2019. The EU member states were partially ordered and ranked. For all three years Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria, and Finland are found to be highly ranked, i.e., having rather low inequality. Bulgaria and Romania are, on the other hand, for all three years ranked low, with the highest degree of inequality. Excluding the asylum indicator, the risk-poverty-gap and the adjusted gross disposable income were found as the most important indicators. If, however, the asylum application is included, this indicator turns out as the most important for the mutual ranking of the countries. A set of additional indicators was studied disclosing the educational aspect as of major importance to achieve equality. Special partial ordering tools were applied to study the role of the single indicators, e.g., in relation to elucidate the incomparability of some countries to all other countries within the union.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document