scholarly journals The Shoppers; Venue Shopping, Asylum Shopping: A Resolution in EURODAC?

2018 ◽  
Vol 331 ◽  
pp. 229-237
Author(s):  
Catherine Odorige
Keyword(s):  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
Venue Shopping ◽  
Judicial Scrutiny ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Third Country Nationals

The term shopping used in reference to two strictly legal/politically somewhat related issues ‘Asylum shopping’ and ‘Venue shopping’, belong to two different spheres of actors. Asylum shopping is descriptive of the action of asylum seekers selectivity, in choice of member state where they perceive better social and welfare conditions. Venue shopping, a concept introduced by Guiraudon in 2000, explain the action of movement by member states in the European Union from venues of national jurisdiction, less amenable to their search for more restrictive migration policy to venues howbeit transnational like transit countries and EU institutions suitable for their policy perspectives. This they did for the primary purpose of avoiding adversary activities of non-state actors and the judicial scrutiny within their national sphere. Common European Asylum System (CEAS) the Dublin Directive and the EURODAC are spill-over in the European integration Project, commonly referred to as the Schengen acquis in the area of migration and integration of third country nationals. The three directives are the results of policy search to administer the entrance and residence of third country nationals especially in the area of irregular migration. This paper seeks to examine the inter-relationship between the two actors to which the commercial term shopping describes, how an electronic regulation in EURODAC became a check to their ‘shopping.’ For the asylum seekers exposing their agency, for the member states reducing anxieties, and influenced the ceding of powers hitherto held by member states through (intergovernmental) negotiations to the EU (Supranational) and the impact of these policy measures in checking security challenges and sanitization of this angle of asylum administration in the EU.

Foreign Terrorist Fighters as a Factor of Securitization of the EU Migration Policy

2021 ◽  
Vol 65 (11) ◽  
pp. 106-114
Author(s):  
O. Potyomkina
Keyword(s):  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Difficult Problem ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Security Threat ◽  
Potential Threat ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

The article analyzes the impact of the Foreign Terrorist Fighters’ (FTF) phenomenon on the securitization of the European Union’s migration policy. The author follows the construction of the FTF as a serious security threat to the European Union’s strategies and action plans, and demonstrates the EU’s practical actions to respond the threat: criminalization of “suspicious travel”, strengthening border security, preliminary screening of asylum seekers at the border. The article pays special attention to the EU plans to achieve compatibility of the European Union information systems, while emphasizing new opportunities for the law enforcement bodies to access migration databases for combating terrorism. Exploring the new EU integration plan for migrants, the author notes that this is for the first time that the European Commission focuses its efforts not only on migrants, but also on the EU citizens with “migratory background”, which is undoubtedly dictated by a fear of the extremist ideology influence on young people. The article exposes certain similarities between the Commission’s methods to coordinate integration and inclusion of migrants, reintegration of the FTF and their families, which indicates that the migration policy is becoming a part of the EU security policy. That leads to a conclusion that securitization of migration policy aims not only and not so much at preventing the potential threat of the returnees’ terrorist activities, but at curbing migration flows as a whole and reducing the number of asylum seekers, in particular. Nevertheless, terrorism and migration seem to be closely linked in public discourse, despite the absence of an empirical basis to conclude that these factors directly influence each other. The author considers the most difficult problem of modern migration policy to be the definition of the red line beyond which its securitization can be justified.

scholarly journals Migration Challenges in the EU amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Fostering Solidarity or Threatening the Cohesion?

2020 ◽  
pp. 94-107
Author(s):  
E. Matyukhova
Keyword(s):  
Regional Integration ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Assistance Programs ◽  
States Of Emergency ◽  
Long Term Impact ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

The article discusses the formation and adaptation of migration policies in the European Union Member States under the impact of COVID-19. Prior to the pandemic, migration was already a very acute issue for the Member States, because the attitudes of each country towards formulating a common migration policy and its further communitarisation were quite different. Not surprisingly, amid the spread of the infection, a phenomenon such as migration has an even greater impact on the development of the entire European regional integration project. Due to the introduction of strict measures against coronavirus, such as social distance standards and states of emergency, most migrant and refugee assistance programs have been suspended indefinitely, with an immediate negative impact on the lives of these people. However, one thing all countries agree on is that migrants contribute greatly to EU life and development, as they constitute 13% of the key workforce. Therefore, new safe working practices need to be adopted. Another key issue under consideration is developing coherent asylum-seeker and refugee policies. These two categories constitute a large part of the Union's migration flows; however, the EU experience in this area has not been very successful. Thus, in the midst of COVID-19, effective migration management becomes even more important. The pandemic stresses the need for better public administration with migrants and refugees in mind. As a consequence, it is not surprising that COVID-19 will have a long-term impact on migration. Basing on the analysis of current developments, the author concludes that although the EU has taken some initiatives to improve the situation of migrants and refugees, it cannot fully guarantee them health protection, decent and stable living conditions, social security and access to the labor market.

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.

Multilevel hardening in progress – Transition from soft towards hard regulation of CSR in the EU

2020 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2095837
Author(s):  
Tamás Szabados
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Intermediate Stage ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Corporate Social ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Human Rights Due Diligence ◽  
The Eu

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is gradually undergoing multilevel transformation in the European Union (EU). Hardening of the initially voluntary CSR approach of the EU is progressively taking place in an interaction between the law of the Member States and EU law. Domestic solutions can serve as a model for EU legislation. In this progress, the Non-Financial Reporting Directive, granting considerable flexibility both to companies and the Member States, can indeed be seen as an intermediate stage and it is expected that, under the impact of human rights due diligence requirements recently imposed on companies by Member States, more substantive obligations will also be introduced at an EU level in the future.

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.

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 FORMATION OF THE MODERN CONCEPT OF EUROPE IN THE CONTEXT OF SOCIAL NEO-INSTITUTIONALISM

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 221
Author(s):  
Andrii Falkovskyi ◽  
Olga Dzhezhik
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Future Development ◽  
Scientific Discourse ◽  
Modern Concept ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Modern Europe ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

In the scientific discourse of the XXI century, the concept of modern Europe is being reformed under the influence of reforming the activities of the European Union. Scientific publications and research are conducted based on a study of the policies of the European Union countries, EU institutions and structural elements, and the problems that arise in the process of activity and development. The concept of modern Europe is a general term that embraces European values, the European standard of living, European policy, and European priorities, giving the concept of European studies a stable association with the European Union. In this context, the main causes and consequences for the scientific discourse, political practice, and future development of European countries must be considered. Neoinstitutionalists have attempted to analyse institutions based on atomistic methodology. Institutional transformations, processes of intra-European integration and enlargement of the EU, discussions on membership and exit from the EU raise issues of identity and development of governance in Europe. Europeanisation can be seen as a discourse, governance, and institutionalisation. The first interpretation emphasizes that modern Europe is a discourse, not only ideological but also administrative. In this sense, Europeanisation can be a means of expression of institutional globalization through domestic policy. In the article, the hypothesis is put forward and proved that the interpretation of the concept of modern Europe directly correlates with the future development of the European Union and its members. The dissemination of exclusive practices will help to spread the ideas of radical “Eurosceptics”, which could lead to the collapse of the European Union. The inclusive aspect of the concept of Europe is represented by the ideas of “Europeists” who, based on the common history, culture, mentality of the peoples of Europe, substantiate the positive influence on the state development of integration, non-state cooperation, and extrapolation of EU norms and principles into the new territories of Europe. There are three main reasons for shaping the concept of Europe as the boundaries of EU policy: The consolidation of political positions of the European Union and its growing role as an actor in world politics; Essence of the EU enlargement concepts; Features of development within the European community. The modern concept of Europe is considered in the context of a modern multi-level governance model. Therefore, Europeanisation is the interaction of different layers of interests, including structures of regional, multi-level governance, legitimacy of domestic and foreign policy. The impact of the multi-level governance system on the functioning of public administration systems in the Member States and neighbouring countries is considered. Four approaches are identified based on the analysis of relationships between different levels of governance. The necessity of formulating new theoretical paradigms defining the relations between the Member States and the technocratic institutions of the EU, as well as between the Europeanised system of national agencies and the ministries overseeing their activities, has been proved.

Higher Education Policy in the European Union

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorota Dakowska
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Higher Education Policy ◽  
Vocational Training ◽  
Bologna Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

Whether higher education (HE) can be defined as a European Union (EU) policy has been matter of debate. Formally, education is still a domestic prerogative, and in principle, the EU can only support and supplement national governments’ initiatives in the sector. Yet, this official division of tasks has been challenged in many ways over the last decades. First, the history of European integration shows that the European community took an early interest in educational matters. The Treaty of Rome established a community competency on vocational training. Subsequently, the European Commission framed HE and vocational training as two entangled policies. Second, the EU institutions, the member states, and noninstitutional actors have coordinated in innovative ways, through soft governance processes promoted by the Bologna Process and the EU Lisbon—and later Europe 2020—strategy, to impose a European HE governance based on standards and comparison. Third, the study of HE requires going beyond an EU-centric perspective, with international organizations such as the OECD and the Council of Europe cooperating closely with the European Commission. HE has been increasingly shaped by global trends, such as the increased competition between universities. The mechanisms of European HE policy change have elicited academic debates. Three main explanations have been put forward: the power of instruments and standards, the impact of the Commission’s funding schemes, and the influence of interconnected experts, stakeholders and networks. Domestic translations of European recommendations are highly diverse and reveal a gap between formal adaptations and local practices. Twenty years after the Bologna declaration, the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) presents a mixed picture. On the one hand, increased mobility and the growing interconnectedness of academic schemes facilitate the launch of ambitious projects such as the “European universities.” On the other hand, concerns are periodically raised about the growing bureaucratization of the process and the widening gap between the small world of the Brussels stakeholders and everyday academic practices in EHEA participant countries. Paradoxically, smaller and non-EU countries have been more actively involved in advancing the EHEA than large, older EU member states.

scholarly journals Variegated Europeanization and urban policy: Dynamics of policy transfer in France, Italy, Spain and the UK

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliet Carpenter ◽  
Moneyba González Medina ◽  
María Ángeles Huete García ◽  
Sonia De Gregorio Hurtado
Keyword(s):  
Urban Policy ◽  
Policy Transfer ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Sustainable Urban Development ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

This paper explores the dynamics of urban policy transfer in the European Union (EU), critically examining the process of Europeanization in relation to urban issues. The paper takes a comparative approach, analysing the evolution of urban policy and Europeanization in four member states: France, Italy, Spain and the UK from the 1990s up to the current Cohesion Policy period (2014–2020). Using an analytical framework based on three dimensions of Europeanization (direction, object and impact), we examine the extent to which urban policies are moving towards an integrated approach to sustainable urban development, as supported by the EU. The paper highlights the contradictions between processes of convergence through Europeanization, and path-dependent systems and trajectories that forge alternative paths. In doing so, it advances wider debates on the impact of Europeanization in a neo-liberal context by arguing that member states more likely to be affected by Europeanization are those most impacted by national austerity measures. A process of ‘variegated Europeanization’ is proposed to capture the differential practices taking place within the EU with regard to the circulation of the EU’s approach to urban policy.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document