Safe Country of Origin List at the EU Level: The Bargaining Process and the Implications

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anca Gurzu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
National Level ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Bargaining Process ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Eu

Critics have often highlighted that the 1999 Tampere decision to establish a common European Union (EU) asylum system has been too focused on security and not enough on human rights, leading to increased denial of protection for asylum seekers. This paper focuses on a controversial asylum policy, which is part of this debate: the safe country of origin (SCO) policy. This policy revolves around having a list of countries deemed "safe" which ensures asylum seekers from these countries are fast tracked through the system and likely denied asylum in the end, based on a general assumption that the application is unfounded. Human rights groups have argued the SCO policy violates the Geneva Convention. Widely used at the national level, officials proposed the creation of a supranational SCO list in the early 2000s. However, disagreements among Member States over what countries to deem “safe" as well as the need to place the European Parliament in a co-decision (as opposed to consultative) position for the creation of the EU SCO list have led to an impasse. This paper employs two major European integration theories, neofunctionalism and liberal intergovernmentalism, to explain the bargaining dynamics between Member States and their failure to agree on what “safe" means. Factors such as different national migratory pressures, varied procedural understandings and applications of the SCO policy, a limited successful harmonization in related asylum policies, along with a reluctance to have the European Parliament in a co-decision position all contributed to the non-adoption of a supranational SCO list.   Full text available at: https://doi.org/10.22215/rera.v7i1.212

scholarly journals Safe Country of Origin List at the EU Level: The Bargaining Process and the Implications

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anca Gurzu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
National Level ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Bargaining Process ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Eu

Critics have often highlighted that the 1999 Tampere decision to establish a common European Union (EU) asylum system has been too focused on security and not enough on human rights, leading to increased denial of protection for asylum seekers. This paper focuses on a controversial asylum policy, which is part of this debate: the safe country of origin (SCO) policy. This policy revolves around having a list of countries deemed "safe" which ensures asylum seekers from these countries are fast tracked through the system and likely denied asylum in the end, based on a general assumption that the application is unfounded. Human rights groups have argued the SCO policy violates the Geneva Convention. Widely used at the national level, officials proposed the creation of a supranational SCO list in the early 2000s. However, disagreements among Member States over what countries to deem “safe" as well as the need to place the European Parliament in a co-decision (as opposed to consultative) position for the creation of the EU SCO list have led to an impasse. This paper employs two major European integration theories, neofunctionalism and liberal intergovernmentalism, to explain the bargaining dynamics between Member States and their failure to agree on what “safe" means. Factors such as different national migratory pressures, varied procedural understandings and applications of the SCO policy, a limited successful harmonization in related asylum policies, along with a reluctance to have the European Parliament in a co-decision position all contributed to the non-adoption of a supranational SCO list.

Harmonisation of Asylum Law and Policy within the European Union: A Human Rights Perspective

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-184
Author(s):  
Hannah R. Garry
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Asylum Policy ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Amsterdam Treaty ◽  
Asylum Law ◽  
The Eu

From 1986 to the present, there has been a dramatic increase in the numbers of asylum applications within the borders of the European Union largely from Eastern European countries and former colonies in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Reacting to the influxes of the 1980s, European States began to implement and coordinate policies to control entry of asylum seekers. Within this climate, the EU has moved towards harmonisation of asylum policy and procedure as necessary for its pursuit of an ‘area of freedom, security and justice’ without internal borders for the purpose of greater economic and political integration. In light of the current restrictive attitudes and practice towards asylum seekers in the individual Member States of the EU, the harmonisation of asylum policy through the institutions and law of the EU may prove to be problematic from a human rights perspective. This paper first traces the development of a common asylum policy within the EU through the Maastricht Treaty and the Amsterdam Treaty. Second, this paper analyses the implications of harmonisation after the Amsterdam Treaty with reference to the international obligations of the Member States under international human rights and refugee law. Third, this paper critiques the development of various current asylum policies and practice through intergovernmental development of ‘soft law’. Through this overview and analysis, it is argued that further steps towards harmonisation will continue to reflect European concerns with security, economic prosperity, and cultural homogeneity unless the moves towards supranationalism within the EU framework lead to a deliberate effort to make respect for human rights the core of asylum law and policy.

European Asylum Policy ‐ Inclusions and Exclusions under the Surface of Universal Human Rights Language

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 347-366
Author(s):  
Jari Pirjola
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Power Struggles ◽  
Member States ◽  
Asylum Policy ◽  
Universal Human Rights ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe tension between universal human rights commitments and particular interests of the EU or its Member States is at the heart of the creation of a common asylum system. This article explores some of the inherent and structural contradictions as well as the sometimes hidden paradoxes that affect the creation of common asylum policies. The development of the European asylum system is examined as a process of including and excluding. It is argued that open, abstract and empty human rights commitments can provide only limited guidance on how to develop migration and asylum policies in Europe. We should not try to hide the development of the European asylum system behind the obscurity of legal reasoning or institutionalized rights language, but see the emerging common asylum system as a result of different and often conflicting priorities, power struggles and ideological influences.

scholarly journals EU ASYLUM SYSTEM IN AND AFTER THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: DISCLOSING THE WEAKNESSES OF THE CURRENT RULES AND ASSESSING THE PROSPECTS OF THE NEW PACT ON MIGRATION AND ASYLUM

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bojana Čučković
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Current Phase ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Emergency Situations ◽  
Human Rights Standards ◽  
The Eu

The paper analyses the influence that the Covid-19 pandemic has had on the functioning of the European asylum system. The analysis is divided into three parts and addresses problematic issues associated with different stages of the pandemic. In the first part of the paper, the author outlines the asylum practices of EU Member States in the initial stage of the Covid-19 pandemic during which the pandemic was perceived as a state of emergency. By exploring the legal possibilities to derogate both from the EU asylum rules and international human rights standards, the author offers conclusions as regards limits of derogations and the legality of Member States’ practices, especially their failure to differentiate between rules that are susceptive of being derogated in emergency situations and those that are not. The second part of the paper analyses the current phase of the pandemic in which it is perceived as a 'new normal' and focuses on making the EU asylum system immune to Covid-19 influence to the greatest extent possible and in line with relevant EU and human rights rules. The author insists on the vulnerability as an inherent feature of persons in need of international protection and researches upon the relationship between the two competing interests involved – protection of asylum seekers and ensuring public health as a legitimate reason for restricting certain asylum seekers’ rights. The final part of the paper analyses the prospects of the future EU asylum system, as announced by the New Pact on Migration and Asylum in September 2020, to adapt to the exigencies of both the current Covid-19 crisis and pandemics that are yet to come. With an exclusive focus on referral to Covid-19 and provisions relevant for the current and future pandemics, the author criticizes several solutions included in the instruments that make up the Pact. It is concluded that the Pact failed to offer solutions for problems experienced during the Covid-19 pandemic and that, under the pretext of public health, it prioritizes the interests of Member States over the interests of applicants for international protection.

scholarly journals Human Rights in the EU Return Policy: The Case of the EU-Albania Relations

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sokol Dedja
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Return Policy ◽  
The Third ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Effectiveness And Efficiency ◽  
Return Process ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The examination of the approach of the EU return policy to Albania – a country to which the EU returns about one fifth of the total number of the third country nationals removed – demonstrates that the predominant focus of the EU return policy on the effectiveness and efficiency of returns has left little room for safeguarding the human rights of the returnees. The article finds that the return procedures of the readmission agreement that should guarantee the protection of human rights in the return process are not observed by the EU member states. There are insufficient guarantees that the reception and possible detention of returnees in Albania will offer a dignified treatment. Moreover, the readmission agreement opens the way for the return of asylum seekers to Albania in line with the ‘safe third country’ practice in the absence of conditions that ensure effective access to fair and efficient asylum procedures and protection in the country.

The Role of National Parliaments in the European Union

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dieter Grimm
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Level ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Parliaments ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legislative Authority ◽  
Legitimacy Crisis ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines the role of national parliaments in the European Union. It first considers the general trend towards de-parliamentarization in the EU before describing the European situation by distinguishing three separate phases, in which the national parliaments have different functions: the transfer of sovereign rights from the Member States to the EU, the exercise of those transferred rights by the EU, and the implementation of European decisions by the Member States. The chapter then explores the question of whether the European Parliament is capable of compensating at the European level for the erosion of legislative authority at the national level. Finally, it discusses the proposal that the European Parliament be vested with the powers typically possessed by national parliaments as a solution to the EU’s legitimacy crisis and argues that full parliamentarization is not the answer.

scholarly journals Kompetencja instytucji Unii Europejskiej do ustanawiania i kształtowania norm prawa karnego materialnego

2018 ◽  
pp. 107-119
Author(s):  
Georgi Gruew
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The Eu

The paper focuses on the competence of the European Parliament and the EU Council to adopt directives in the area of substantive criminal law provided in Articles 83 and 84 of the TFEU, which confirm the earlier ECJ rulings on the subject. The competence granted to those institutions also ensure greater effectives of the adopted directives in combating serious crimes within the European Union. The creation of certain ‘emergency brakes’ and application of the principle of proportionality taking into account the fundamental principles of criminal law systems of individual Member States, has enabled the EU institutions to establish common definitions of most serious crimes.

Bir güvensizlik ülkesi olarak Türkiye’nin mültecileri, Suriyeliler ve Türk mülteciler

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Sirkeci
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Military Coup ◽  
Syrian Refugees ◽  
Member States ◽  
Refugee Population ◽  
Syrian Crisis ◽  
Syrian Refugee ◽  
Generous Support ◽  
The Eu

Doğu ve güney komşuları üzerinde gelen göç akınlarının ve üye ülkeler arasındaki göçlerin artışıyla Avrupa Birliği (AB) en büyük krizlerinden birini yaşamaktadır. Avrupa’daki en ana tartışma konuları arasında Avrupa’ya göçü ve AB içindeki göçü sınırlamak ve üye ülkeler arasında mülteci kotası ve külfet paylaşımına yapılan itirazlar yer aldı. Bu krizde Türkiye anahtar ülke olarak ortaya çıktı ve ülkedeki büyük Suriyeli mülteci nüfusu ve bu nüfusun Avrupa’ya gitmesini engellemesi karşılığında vaat edilen milyarlarca Avro nedeniyle tartışmaların odağında yer aldı. Suriye krizi 4,8 milyon mülteci yarattı ve 2016 yılı sonu itibariyle bunların 2,8 milyonu Türkiye’de ikamet etmekteydi. Suriyeli mültecilere karşı cömert tavrıyla Türkiye güvenli bir ülke olarak tescil edilmiş oldu. Bu, hikayenin daha karanlık bir başka yüzünü gölgelemektedir. Çünkü aynı ülkenin vatandaşları 1980 askeri darbesinden bu yana milyonu aşkın sığınma başvurusu yaptılar. Ülkenin bugünkü şartları ve yeni veriler, Türkiye’den AB’ye yönelen daha çok mülteci akını olacağını gösteriyor. ABSTRACT IN ENGLISHTurkey’s refugees, Syrians and refugees from Turkey: a country of insecurityThe European Union (EU) has faced one of its biggest crises with the rise of population inflows through its Eastern and Southern neighbours as well as movements within the Union. In 2016, the main debate that dominated Europe was on restricting migration within and into the EU along with concerns and objections to the refugee quota systems and the sharing of the burden among member states. Turkey emerged as a ‘gate keeper’ in this crisis and has since been at the centre of debates because of the large Syrian refugee population in the country and billions of Euros it was promised to prevent refugees travelling to Europe. The Syrian crisis produced over 4.8 million refugees with over 2.8 million were based in Turkey by the end of 2016. Turkey with its generous support for Syrian refugees has been confirmed as a ‘country of security’. This shadows the darker side of affairs as the very same country has also produced millions of asylum seekers since the 1980 military coup. Current circumstances and fresh evidence indicate that there will be more EU bound refugees coming through and from Turkey. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document