"Institutional Reinforcement of the EU Migration and Asylum Policy: The Dilemma between Europe's Fortification and Normative Power"

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 107-141
Author(s):  
Euichan Shin
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
T. Romanova ◽  
E. Pavlova

The article examines how the normative power, which the EU puts forward as an ideological basis of its actions in the world, manifests itself in the national partnerships for modernization between Russia and EU member states. The authors demonstrate the influence of the EU’s normativity on its approach to modernization as well as the difference in the positions of its member countries. It is concluded that there is no unity in the EU’s approach to democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and the new classification of EU member states, which is based on their readiness to act in accordance with the Union’s concept of normative power, is offered.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
André S. Berne ◽  
Jelena Ceranic Perisic ◽  
Viorel Cibotaru ◽  
Alex de Ruyter ◽  
Ivana Kunda ◽  
...  

Crises are not a new phenomenon in the context of European integration. Additional integration steps could often only be achieved under the pressure of crises.  At present, however, the EU is characterised by multiple crises, so that the integration process as a whole is sometimes being questioned. In 2015, the crisis in the eurozone had escalated to such an extent that for the first time a member state was threatened to leave the eurozone. Furthermore, the massive influx of refugees into the EU has revealed the shortcomings of the Schengen area and the common asylum policy. Finally, with the majority vote of the British in the referendum of 23 June 2016 in favour of the Brexit, the withdrawal of a member state became a reality for the first time. Even in the words of the European Commission, the EU has reached a crossroads. Against this background, the twelfth Network Europe conference included talks on the numerous challenges and future integration scenarios in Europe. 


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 365
Author(s):  
Dominika Liszkowska

The aim of this study is to analyze the normative power of the European Union in the relations with Turkey and to answer the question: is the normative power of the European Union effective in relations with Turkey? The work consists of three parts. In the first one, the author analyzes the concept of the European Union as a normative power. The second part is a historical analysis of the relationship between the EU and Turkey. The last part is an analysis of current relations between the European Union (as a Normative Power) and Turkey. The analysis is based on EU’s documents.


Author(s):  
Beatrix Futák-Campbell

This chapter focus on the moral concerns of practitioners regarding the eastern neighbourhood. The normative power literature deliberately decouples norms from values. But this chapter demonstrates that in practice it is impossible to do so. The EU practitioners demonstrate how they operationalise their specific moral concerns for the eastern neighbourhood. Their norm deployments are consistent with Legro, Buzan and Zizek’s claims of norm use. In addition, the analysis reveals instances when practitioners risk sounding moralising rather than moral. This is highly problematic for two reasons. First, moralising endangers alienating neighbouring states who align themselves with the EU but do not want to receive a lecture by EU practitioners. Second, if the EU cannot deliver on specific commitments, this will have implications for its status with regards to support for democracy or human rights in the region.


Author(s):  
Sandra Lavenex

This chapter examines the European Union’s justice and home affairs (JHA), which have evolved from a peripheral aspect into a focal point of European integration and today are at the centre of politicization in the EU. It first considers the institutionalization of JHA cooperation and its gradual move towards more supranational competences before discussing political contestation as expressed in the context of Brexit and the crisis of the common asylum and Schengen systems. The development of cooperation is retraced, looking at the main actors in the JHA, the organization and capacities of EU institutions, the continuity of intergovernmentalism, the proliferation of semi-autonomous agencies and databases, and the flow of policy, taking into account asylum policy and immigration policy, police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and the challenge of implementation. The chapter shows how the gradual move of cooperation among national agencies concerned with combating crime; fighting terrorism; and managing borders, immigration, and asylum from loose intergovernmental cooperation to more supranational governance within the EU has remained contested, and argues that this contestation exemplifies the limits of political unification.


2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-184
Author(s):  
Hannah R. Garry

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document