scholarly journals EU migration policy: modern paradigms

2021 ◽  
pp. 239-244
Author(s):  
V.A. Sokurenko ◽  
N.O. Khryakova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Scientific Development ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Member States ◽  
Council Directive ◽  
Application Procedure ◽  
Third Country Nationals

The issue of migration policy of the European Union in the modern world is a researched and discussed phenomenon in scientific circles, as the European Union positions itself as a democratic entity with a liberal orientation, which enshrines and protects the right of every person to freedom of movement, so management aims to ensure this value. The originality of the article is seen in identifying the key stages of formation and development of migration policy of the European Union, the main risks of today, highlighting the need to reform the existing mechanism, proposals for key vectors of development. The article suggests possible ways to minimize existing risks and threats. To investigate this issue analyzed Directive 2011/98 / EC on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State, Directive 2004/38 / EC of 29 April 2004, Council Directive 2003/109 / EC of 25 November 2003 on the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, other international legal instruments on this subject, scientific development, as well as online information resources.  The authors of the article made the following conclusions: 1. The migration policy of the European Union needs special attention; 2. Despite the long history of normative and institutional support of migration policy, today there are gaps that provoke negative consequences, which requires immediate reform of migration policy; 3. Formed ways of development: 1) creation of a single asylum system at the EU level; 2) strengthening assistance to those Member States that suffer the most from the effects of migration processes; 3) ensuring the strengthening of the protection of the EU's external border and the fight against criminal organizations that smuggle migrants to EU Member States.

Third Country Nationals as European Citizens: The Case Defended

2000 ◽  
Vol 48 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 104-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Føllesdal
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Welfare Policies ◽  
Union Citizenship ◽  
Political Exclusion ◽  
Inferior Status ◽  
Third Country Nationals

The Amsterdam Treaty bolsters Union citizenship in order to bring the European Union closer to the citizens of Europe.1 Inadvertently, this strategy gives citizens of non-EU states an inferior status in the European Union, even though they may be semi-permanent residents in a Member State. Union citizenship increases the social and political exclusion of third country nationals, in violation of the basic democratic principle that those affected by social institutions should also enjoy political levers of influence. This chapter first briefly sketches a Liberal Contractualist defence for awarding this group full citizenship in the relevant Member State, arguing in particular for three somewhat contested issues: that third country nationals should not only enjoy Union citizenship, but also be given national citizenship in the Member State of residence; that Member States may impose conditions, oaths etc. on such prospective citizens; and that Member States may withhold some privileges from those resident third country nationals who refuse to be naturalised. The chapter goes on to present and discuss, only to dismiss, the most plausible arguments offered in defence of current practice within the context of a Europe of open borders for Member State citizens. These arguments seek to deny citizenship to third country nationals in order to: protect national and locally endorsed values ensuring social homogeneity of the community; exclude people with non-liberal values; ensure commitment to a shared future which warrants democratic rights in the first place; avoid instability caused by citizens with conflicting multiple loyalties; ensure and foster the ideal of active political participation, impossible for dual citizens; and avoid backlash problems among current EU citizens which threaten the stability of welfare policies of member States and the EU.

scholarly journals SOLIDARITY CHECK IN TIMES OF COVID-19. ANALYSIS OF THE EU APPROACH TOWARDS ITS CLOSEST NEIGHBOURS WITH A SPECIAL FOCUS ON MONTENEGRO

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Đurić ◽  
Bojana Lalatović
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Complex Structure ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Western Balkans ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Member States ◽  
Balkan Countries ◽  
The Eu

Solidarity as one of the cornerstone values of the European Union has been once again seated on the red chair and intensively discussed within the European Union and broader. After the economic recession and migrant crisis that marked the last two decades, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has once again harshly tested the fundamental objectives and values of the European Union and the responsiveness and effectiveness of its governance system on many fronts. In April, 2020 several EU Member States were among the worst affected countries worldwide and this situation soon became similar in their closest neighbourhood. It put a huge pressure on the EU to act faster, while at the same time placing this sui generis community to the test that led to revealing its strengths and weaknesses. As it happened in the previous crises, the Union launched policies and various programmes that were meant to lessen the burden of the Member States and aspiring countries caused by the crises. The objectives of the mentioned soft law instruments that the EU adopted during the COVID-19 crisis has been not only to show that EU law is equipped to react to health and economic crises rapidly but to deliver its support in terms of solidarity to its Member States and its closest neighbours facing the unprecedented health and economic crisis. This article will explore the value and implication of the solidarity principle in times of Covid-19 in its various manifestations. A special focus will be on the financial and material aspects of the EU instruments created to combat the negative consequences of the pandemic and their further impact on shaping the solidarity principle within the EU system. While examining the character and types of these mechanisms a special focus will be placed on those available to Western Balkan countries, whereas Montenegro as the “fast runner” in the EU integration process will be taken as a case study for the purpose of more detailed analyses. One of the major conclusions of the paper will be that although the speed of the EU reactions due to highly complex structure of decision making was not always satisfying for all the actors concerned, the EU once again has shown that it is reliable and that it treats the Western Balkan countries as privileged partners all for the sake of ending pandemic and launching the socio-economic recovery of the Western Balkans. Analytical and comparative methods will be dominantly relied upon throughout the paper. This will allow the authors to draw the main conclusions of the paper and assess the degree of solidarity as well as the effectiveness of the existing EU instruments that are available to Montenegro and aimed at diminishing negative consequences of the crisis.

7. Treaty enforcement actions against member states

2020 ◽  
pp. 177-193
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Interim Measures

This chapter examines the enforcement of legal actions against member states in violation of the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This is termed the procedural law. It explains what constitutes a breach of TFEU provisions and the process of identifying and reporting violations. It provides examples of the procedures involved in breaches of Articles 258, 260, 259, and 278–279 of the TFEU. This chapter also considers the actions brought by one member state against another, suspensory orders, and interim measures, and describes alternative actions that can help secure compliance by member states.

Twenty Years of CJEU Jurisprudence on Citizenship

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 821-834
Author(s):  
Prof. Dr. Gerard-René de Groot ◽  
Ngo Chun Luk
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Symbiotic Relationship ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constant Friction ◽  
Union Citizenship ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Relationship

The history of the European Union has been fraught with constant friction between the sovereignty of the Member States and the supranational powers of the Union, with the Union gaining terrain in fields of law traditionally belonging to the Member States. Despite this tension, certain legal fields are steadfastly asserted as belonging to the Member States. Notably, Member States regulate the grounds of the acquisition and loss of nationality. The Treaty of Lisbon highlights that the nationality of Member States is scarcely governed by European Union law, if at all. The sole provision governing the relationship between Member State nationality and Union law, i.e., Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) stresses the primacy of Member State nationality.Reality, however, is often not as simple as such a cursory reading implies. European Union citizenship, once a mere complementary facet of the national citizenships, has transformed into an institution in its own right, forming a symbiotic relationship between the Member State nationality and the European Union.

Circular Migration between Fact and Fiction

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 184-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Schneider ◽  
Bernd Parusel
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Circular Migration ◽  
Member States ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Third Country Nationals

Political actors in the European Union and in the eu member states have arrived to maintain that managed circular migration can generate benefits both for the destination countries and for the countries of origin of the migrants. Despite the fact that Germany so far has barely engaged in fostering circular migration through distinct programmes, a not inconsiderable share of foreigners from third countries living in Germany today can be viewed as circular migrants. This paper takes an inventory of the extent and characteristics of such spontaneous back-and-forth cross border movements by providing a specific, clear-cut definition for circular migration and thus analysing stock data on third country nationals residing in Germany. Furthermore, we scrutinise the German legal framework with a view to its propensity to encourage patterns of circular migration.

scholarly journals The European Court of Justice and the Policy Process

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne K. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Administrative Practices ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

The European Court of Justice is one of the most important actors in the process of European integration. Political science still struggles to understand its significance, with recent scholarship emphasizing how closely rulings reflect member states’ preferences. In this book, I argue that the implications of the supremacy and direct effect of the EU law have still been overlooked. As it constitutionalizes an intergovernmental treaty, the European Union has a detailed set of policies inscribed into its constitution that are extensively shaped by the Court’s case law. If rulings have constitutional status, their impact is considerable, even if the Court only occasionally diverts from member states’ preferences. By focusing on the four freedoms of goods, services, persons, and capital, as well as citizenship rights, the book analyses how the Court’s development of case law has ascribed a broad meaning to these freedoms. The constitutional status of this case law constrains policymaking at the European and member-state levels. Different case studies show how major pieces of EU legislation cannot move beyond case law but have to codify its principles. Judicialization is important in the EU. It also directly constrains member-state policies. Court rulings oriented towards individual disputes are difficult to translate into general policies, and into administrative practices. Policy options are thereby withdrawn from majoritarian decision-making. As the Court cannot be overruled, short of a Treaty change, its case law casts a long shadow over policymaking in the European Union and its member states, undermining the legitimacy of this political order.

The Nice Treaty: Reforming European Union Institutions in Anticipation of Eastern Enlargements

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Finn Laursen
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Majority Voting ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Treaty ◽  
Member States ◽  
Qualified Majority ◽  
The Future ◽  
Eastern European Countries ◽  
Year 2000

The Nice Treaty negotiated during the year 2000, signed in 2001 and in force from 2003, focused on institutional changes considered necessary, especially by the larger member states, for the anticipated large enlargement of the European Union with several central and eastern European countries. Efforts to adopt such changes in the Amsterdam Treaty negotiations in 1996–1997 had failed. The Nice Treaty therefore dealt with what was known as the “Amsterdam leftovers,” namely size and composition of the European Commission, reweighting of votes in the Council of Ministers, and increased use of qualified majority voting in the Council. Concerning the reweighting of votes the intergovernmental conference agreed to increase the number of votes per member state, but the larger member states got a relatively larger increase that the smaller member states. This should make it more difficult for the smaller member states to dominate in the future, something feared by the larger states. Concerning the Commission, it was decided that each member state would nominate one commissioner in the future from January 1, 2005. When the membership of the union reached 27 the size would have to be reduced. How much and how would be decided later. Concerning the use of qualified majority voting the decision was to extend the use to some policy areas from the entry into force of the new treaty and for some policy areas considered more controversial the extension would take place later. For the most controversial areas no extension to qualified majority voting was considered. During the intergovernmental conference, which negotiated the new treaty, the topic of “enhanced cooperation” was added. Most of these topics were quite controversial, and afterward there was a feeling that the treaty did not adequately deal with all the issues. This in turn led to further efforts to improve the institutions, first in the failed Constitutional Treaty (2004) and eventually in the successful Lisbon Treaty (2007).

scholarly journals La independencia de Escocia en la Unión Europea : los efectos de la secesión de territorios en la UE entre política y derecho = The independence of Scotland in the European Union : the effects of territories’ secession within the EU between Law and Politics.

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (33) ◽  
pp. 69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto López Basaguren
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Law And Politics ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
Independent Member ◽  
The Eu

Este trabajo analiza el problema de los efectos en el interior de la UE de la recesión de territorios en el seno de sus Estados miembros, en relación a la hipotética independencia de Escocia, en el supuesto de un apoyo mayoritario a la opción independentista en el referéndum que va a tener lugar el próximo 18 de septiembre de 2104. Frente a la convicción inquebrantable de los promotores de la independencia de que Escocia, tras la independencia, permanecerá en la UE, como Estado miembro de pleno derecho y que la modificación de un status es una cuestión interna, casi una mera formalidad, este trabajo analiza los problemas que plantea la pretención escocesa, en la UE, entre Derecho y Política.This paper’s aim is to analyze the effects the secession of territories in the Member States can have within the EU, regarding the hypothetical independence of Scotland in the case a majority of Scotish citizens would back that opinion in the referendum on September 18, 2014. Those who are promoting and independent Scotland are completely convinced that the territory will remain in the EU, as an independent Member State, and that it will reach this new status from within the EU. In their mind, that is an EU’s «internal» matter, which doesn’t need any special procedure, as far as it would be just little more than a formality. On the contrary, this paper analyzes the issues a proposal like this of Scotland encounter within the EU both in the fields of Law and Politics.

Immigration and European Integration: Towards Fortress Europe? By Andrew Geddes. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000. 196p. $69.95 cloth, $24.95 paper.

2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 254-255
Author(s):  
Jeannette Money
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Integration ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Policy Outcome ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Migration Policies ◽  
Fortress Europe ◽  
European Migration

Andrew Geddes provides a European analysis of European migration policy. He asks two questions: To what degree has the European Union (EU) garnered control over migration policies of member states? What is the policy outcome? In answering these questions, the author makes two contribu- tions to the literature.

The (Rebuttable) Presumption of the European Union Member States as ‘Safe Countries’ under the Dublin Regulation

2012 ◽  
pp. 240-255
Author(s):  
Cristina Contartese
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Dublin Regulation ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
European Union Member States ◽  
The Eu

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze a particular aspect of the so-called Dublin Regulation, whose aim is to determine the European Union (EU) Member State responsible for examining an asylum application, that is, the presumption that the EU Member States are “safe countries.” Although the notion of “safe country” is on the base of the Dublin Regulation functioning mechanism, as it implies that any EU Member States can transfer an asylum seeker to any other EU country which is responsible, the authors contend that the safety of an EU Member State can be given as presumed for the purpose of asylum seekers. The analysis of the present work starts, firstly, with the examination of the notion of “safe country” under the Dublin Regulation. In the second part, relying on the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) case-law, it will be discussed to what extent the Court of Strasbourg clarifies the notion of “safe countries” and the test it applies to it. Finally, the Commission’s proposal for a recasting of the Dublin Regulation will be analysed with the aim of foresee possible future developments of the EU law mechanisms to rebut such a presumption as applied to the EU Member States. It will emerge that in order to assess the safety of an EU Member State, attention has to be given to the prohibition of both direct and indirect refoulement as well as to the effective remedy at the EU Member State’s domestic level.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document