Da Lagkadikia al Mediterraneo: gli spazi delle migrazioni in Grecia

The geopolitical upheavals affecting the Middle East and North Africa at the beginning of the 21st century have created an arc of instability around the Balkan Peninsula, causing serious consequences for all the countries in the area as regards migration flows. Due to its peculiar geographical position, Greece has thus found itself at the forefront of the so-called migratory emergency, which has involved the European Union (UE) in the last few years. The Dublin Regulation first and then the closure of the borders, following the agreement on migrants between the UE and Turkey in March 2016, have made Greece a sort of first reception hotspot for the whole Eastern Mediterranean, giving rise at the same time to new Balkan migration routes managed by human traffickers. Historically a hinge between East and West, today’s Greece constitutes the ideal starting point to interpret in a multi-scalar perspective both the weaknesses of the paradigm on which the so-called ‘Fortress Europe’ is based, and the geographical variety of problematic ‘living spaces’ that recent migratory phenomena have contributed to build over time.

The Refugees We Are: Solidarity, Asylum, and Critique in the European Constitutional Imagination

This Article aims to reimagine post-national legal solidarity. It does so by bringing debates over Habermasian constitutional theory to bear on the evolving use of mutual recognition and mutual trust in the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice (AFSJ), particularly in the context of European asylum law and reforms to the Dublin Regulation. Insofar as critiques of Habermasian “constitutional patriotism” apply to the principle of mutual trust, the Article suggests why post-national solidarity requires fallibilism and dynamic responsiveness that exceed formalized rules of forbearance and respect.On this revised view, legal solidarity guarantees a particular form of adjudication through which individual litigants in a particular case challenge the transnational structural conditions that give rise to individual harm. Because it acknowledges that violations of individual rights are always potentially or in part the result of a collective systemic failure, this conception of solidarity restores meaning to the transformative “transfer” of sovereignty that post-national law had promised. In the field of asylum law, I detail how this application of solidarity would offer a much-needed corrective to structural imbalances in the existing Dublin regime. I conclude with reflections on the principle’s application in additional fields of EU law, as well.

The Case of Ahmad Shamieh’s Campaign against Dublin Deportation: Embodiment of Political Violence and Community Care

Differently from studies that analyze antideportation struggles in relation to concepts of state sovereignty and (un)making of citizenship, this paper focuses more on intersection of politics and body. It discusses struggle for the “place in the world” as an embodied experience. Ahmad Shamieh came to Slovenia in 2016 through the humanitarian corridor on the Balkan route. The Slovene Ministry of the Interior refused to examine his asylum claim and instead issued him a Dublin Regulation decision, stating that he was to be deported to Croatia. Ahmad’s and his supporters’ legal and political struggle, which lasted several years, prevented his deportation. In contrast to state’s politics of exclusion, causing dehumanization and traumatization the grassroots community struggle developed the politics of inclusion, solidarity and care from below, in practice transforming the conditions of belonging.

11. The asylum process

This chapter describes the asylum process from application through to the cessation of refugee status. The first two sections deal with entering the UK to claim asylum, and with the asylum application and decision-making, while the third explores the different routes through which an asylum claim can be processed, including ‘safe’ country of origin provisions and non-suspensive appeals, and returns to third countries pursuant to the Dublin Regulation. The fourth section concerns penalties connected with seeking asylum. The final sections cover remedies for the victims of trafficking, and other procedures after appeal rights are exhausted, or asylum has been granted.

Policing Asylum Seekers’ Flight Within Europe

A critical assessment of the Dublin regulation requires a look beyond its official function of allocating asylum seekers across EU Member States. This article argues it embodies the “hidden face” of Schengen insofar as it legally fixes them in the sole country responsible for their application. Because this responsibility lies primarily with the first country of arrival, it is consistent with the core-periphery axis of division of labor in the EU. The first part of this paper examines how the Schengen/Dublin dual regime of (im)mobility might respond to the constant need for bridled labor alongside free wage labor in the world-system. However, equally constant is labor power’s propensity to evade its subsumption under capital; this is exemplified by Dubliners’ appropriation of freedom of movement through irregularity. By deserting the “plantations” of the European peripheries, those “maroons” of our present time disrupt the European geography of power and contest their assigned position in it. But the widely acknowledged failure of this regime to deter “secondary movements” does not necessarily mean it is non-effective. Attention must then be given to mechanisms of “exclusion from within” experimented on Dubliners. The second part will offer an overview of the tactics of internal rebordering that have been recently deployed in core countries and question the extent to which those attempts to recapture their flight meet the conditions for the optimization of capital’s operations.

Dublin Revisited: Geographic Asymmetry and Corrective Allocation Mechanisms

One argument often brought forward in discussions of the Dublin Regulation is that of ‘geographic asymmetry’ in responsibility for asylum application examination. Given the lack of legal entryways to apply for asylum, migrants often have to choose irregular entry routes. Geographic asymmetry refers to the particular challenge experienced by Mediterranean Member States due to their geographic location. This definitively constitutes a problem in the Dublin system. However, as this paper argues, it is an insufficient explanation for the existing asymmetries in the Dublin system. The operation of the Dublin system in the past ten years has created unexpected asymmetries due to compensation mechanisms not foreseen in the Dublin Regulation. This paper includes a discussion of the proposed Dublin IV Regulation with regards to the existing asymmetries and proposes that—in light of implementation experiences with the Dublin system—the suggested allocation mechanism cannot be a viable legal option.

The Problem of Illegal Channel-crossing

In 2020 the number of illegal small boat Channel-crossings to the UK drastically increased (nearly 7000 registered cases). This sparked sharp discussions on measures of countering illegal migration, border control and improvement of asylum policy. The phenomenon of illegal Channel-crossing is related to a wider spectrum of problems beyond international protection and rescue operations, border management and countering international crime (human smuggling and trafficking). The UK withdrawal from the European asylum system after the transition period poses a major challenge. The author argues that the UK’s ambition is to have access to the asylum seekers return procedures stipulated in the Dublin regulation along with strengthening bilateral border control and policing cooperation with the EU member-states. The British authorities are considering different scenarios of bolstering border control including Royal Navy deployment to stop migrant boats. In the meantime, the authorities tend to overstate the problem of illegal migration in order to channel public opinion into the framework of the «take back control of national border» discourse and to put pressure on the EU. The top priority now for Britain is to conclude a Readmission agreement with the European Union.

Refugees and the Dublin Convention

The Dublin Convention defines which EU State is responsible for the asylum application of third country nationals or stateless persons. According to this Convention, the first Member State in which an asylum seeker enters is responsible for the person’s asylum procedure. It thereby stands in gross contrast to the freedom of mobility of EU-citizens within Europe. While extensive research has focused on the attempts to build up a Common European Asylum System, mostly taking up an institutional perspective, only limited sociological research has concentrated on the perspective of refugees and on the way they are affected by the Dublin Regulation and react to it. This article explores the biographical impacts of the Dublin Convention and the reaction of concerned individuals to it through the method of biographical policy evaluation. It bases on 29 biographical interviews conducted with refugees affected by the Dublin Regulation in France. It provides an in-depth analysis of three key biographical moments regarding the Dublin Convention: the arrival in France, the process of integration and moments when refugees change the European State they live in after having sought for asylum. It shows that beyond the (intended) impact on the “choice” of the country of arrival, the Dublin Convention often impacts refugees’ integration processes in a long-lasting way.