The ‘refugee crisis’ in Europe: shortening distances, containment and asymmetry of rights—a tentative interpretation of the 2015–16 events

Investing any resources and energy in integration policies today could contribute to making the European Union a more prosperous, cohesive, and inclusive place for society. However, notwithstanding the efforts made, third-country nationals continue to fare worse than domestic citizens in terms of employment, education, and social inclusion outcomes. The article examines and subsequently reviews various trends in integrating foreigners (primarily third-countries nationals and asylum seekers) on social and economic level after the outbreak of migrant and refugee crisis in 2015 until the present day. Our research suggests that the concerned group of immigrants continue to face barriers in the education system, on the labour market, and in accessing decent housing and adequate health care. All of the aforementioned aspects have become the main focus of all parties involved. Through funding, initiatives, and specific measures undertaken by both the EU and Member States with NGOs strengthen and support integration across key policy areas, albeit deficiencies are still observed.

Download Full-text

Asylum Policy and European Union Politics

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics ◽

10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1057 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Ariadna Ripoll Servent ◽

Natascha Zaun

Keyword(s):

Asylum Seekers ◽

Policy Making ◽

Focus Of Attention ◽

Member States ◽

International Protection ◽

Eu Policy ◽

The Core ◽

Policy Field ◽

The Right ◽

The Eu

Since the crisis of 2015/2016, asylum has become the focus of attention in the European Union (EU). The right to seek refuge raises issues of sovereignty and control of the territory; hence, with the gradual integration of European member states into a single area free of internal borders, there has been a functional pressure to harmonize domestic asylum policies. However, this process of integration continues to be highly contested on two main axes: the extent of harmonization (how much should the EU do in the area of asylum) and the content of the policies (should the emphasis lie on territorial security or individual rights). The tension between this “core state power” status and the EU’s international obligations has shaped both policy developments and academic debates since the emergence of asylum as an EU policy field in the mid-1990s. The integration of asylum policies is intimately linked to the emergence of Schengen as a borderless zone. Indeed, the idea that, in a Europe without borders, member states cannot control the flow of migrants led national governments to find common rules on ascribing responsibility for international protection claims. The rules agreed in the Dublin Convention of 1990 have become the core pillar that structures the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). This system aims to harmonize the definition of a refugee and the procedures and rights that need to be followed when considering asylum requests, as well as the conditions for receiving asylum seekers (e.g., housing, access to healthcare, and the job market). This process of harmonization has not been uncontested: while the first legislative phase (2001–2005) remained highly intergovernmental and was characterized by little progress being made in the approximation of domestic asylum systems, the second phase (2008–2013) showed an increased reluctance of member states to strengthen the powers of the EU in this field. As a result, the CEAS has been epitomized by faulty implementation and weak approximation—especially among those member states that did not have strong asylum systems in place before integration began. These gaps have left the CEAS in a dangerous position, since they have created incentives for those who benefit the least from EU cooperation to bypass their obligations. There, the principles underpinning the Dublin regime have been at the core of the functional crises that have recurrently emerged in the EU. The so-called “asylum crisis” has shown the weaknesses of the CEAS as well as the incapacity of member states to reform the system and find a solution that addresses the current imbalances. The main solutions have come via externalization, whereby the EU has sought to strengthen the responsibility of third countries like Turkey and Libya. These trends have also been the focus of attention in this highly interdisciplinary field. Debates have generally concentrated on either the internal or the external dimension of EU policy-making. When it comes to the internal dimension, early scholarship centered on the process of integration and the development of asylum into a new policy field. They showed how the major drivers of integration followed functional logics of spillover from the single market and Schengen—but that the nature of this policy area called for different political dynamics. This process remained highly intergovernmental until the early 2000s, which gave interior ministers the power to escape domestic constraints (e.g., civil society, national parliaments, and courts) and shape EU policies in relative isolation. This does not mean, however, that this intergovernmental process was uncontentious. Indeed, it has been shown how the core principles of EU asylum respond to a public goods logic, whereby member states try to shift their responsibility for asylum seekers away from their territory and onto that of their neighbors. Although the idea of “burden-sharing” (and hence a generalized negative perception of asylum) is shared by most member states, the processes of uploading and downloading policies between the domestic and the EU level have been more complicated than just building a “Fortress Europe.” Among those who were traditional recipients of asylum seekers and had strong asylum systems, there has been a clear game of regulatory competition that has sometimes led to a race to the bottom. In comparison, those that had no experience with international protection and lacked a strong asylum system have generally struggled to adapt to EU standards, which has reinforced the imbalances and weaknesses of the Dublin regime. Given these dynamics, most scholars expected the shift to a fully supranational decision-making process to produce far-reaching policy changes and have a rights-enhancing effect. The outcomes have not always fulfilled expectations, which underlines the importance of opening up the black box of preference formation in the EU institutions and member states. What scholars do agree on is that policy outputs on the EU level have often failed to materialize into policy outcomes on the domestic level, which has led to processes of informal adaptation and the strengthening of EU operational agencies like Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO). In addition, these internal failures have pushed the EU to externalize border controls as well as push the responsibility for international protection toward third countries. There has been a clear case of policy diffusion toward neighboring countries, but also an increased dynamic of policy convergence among hosting countries like Australia and the USA. These policies tend to emphasize exclusionary practices, notably extraterritorial processing and border control—leading to major questions about the survival of asylum as an international human right in the years to come. These trends show that asylum continues to be a highly contested EU policy both in its internal and external dimensions. We need, therefore, to look more closely at the impact of polarization and politicization on EU policy-making as well as on how they might affect the role played by the EU and its member states in global debates about migration and the right to seek asylum.

Download Full-text

Europe’s unknown war

Race & Class ◽

10.1177/0306396817701657 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 59 (1) ◽

pp. 36-53 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Frances Webber

Keyword(s):

Asylum Seekers ◽

Migration Policy ◽

Religious Conflict ◽

Sub Saharan Africa ◽

Refugee Crisis ◽

War Criminals ◽

Sub Saharan ◽

Withdrawal Of Support ◽

Health Programmes ◽

The Eu

The EU’s response to the global ‘refugee crisis’ has involved the returning of refugees to war zones, for example in Afghanistan, in breach of human rights conventions. But it has also been so determined to stop further asylum seekers reaching European waters or shores that it has entered into the most dubious of agreements with countries outside the EU. Using bribery (aid, promises of investment, even the prospect of membership of the EU) and blackmail (threats of withdrawal of support for educational and health programmes), the EU has inveigled and browbeaten countries around the Mediterranean and as far afield as sub-Saharan Africa, to undertake immigration controls on its behalf. This has involved the EU in agreements with repressive regimes such as Turkey, Sudan and Eritrea, designed to block the movements of millions of people in the Middle East and Africa necessitated by war, famine, climate change and religious conflict. The outsourcing of migration policy to countries run by known dictators and war criminals has come at the expense of Europe’s humanitarian tradition, argues the author, who looks at the implications of policy by country and region.

Download Full-text

Migration and European integration of Serbia

Stanovnistvo ◽

10.2298/stnv160519002l ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 54 (1) ◽

pp. 41-63 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Zoran Lutovac

Keyword(s):

European Integration ◽

Asylum Seekers ◽

Regulatory Framework ◽

Political Community ◽

Criminal Prosecution ◽

Refugee Crisis ◽

Irregular Migration ◽

Member States ◽

The Impact ◽

The Eu

This paper focuses on migration in the context of European integration which implies, on the one hand, internal integration, integration within the EU and, on the other hand, the enlargement process related to the countries that have applied to join the EU. The aim is to determine in which way the migration, especially refugee crisis in 2015, had influence on the EU, as a supranational political community, and what was the impact on Serbia which is in the process of integration into the European Union. Migrant crisis has shown that the EU has to confront many different issues including several issues of great importance for its survival and strengthening: how to influence on global processes to a greater extent instead of dealing with the consequences of the global politics of others; how to preserve and keep the values that the EU itself is founded and the values on which should be built upon further construction of the political community and, finally, weather the EU can be transformed in the direction of the United European States, in both the functional and in terms of values, or the EU will move towards deepening of Europe of concentric circles. Faced with extremely complex migration situation, Serbia does not have the appropriate institutional and regulatory framework, nor a political response to a series of complex issues in the area of migration and migration-related issues, such as asylum system, irregular migration, sustainable return of our citizens asylum seekers in EU member states, implementation of the agreement on readmission, the departure of highly educated - brain drain, migration and development, the fight against human trafficking (protection of victims, prevention, criminal prosecution of traffickers), and smuggling of migrants, issues of border management, demarcation and boundary determination (as well as the agreement that should be concluded). Some of these problems migrant crisis has made visible by encouraging coping with the need of systemic response to the flaws in the regulatory framework, in the policy concerning asylum seekers, irregular migration through the territory of Serbia, as well as in the sustainable return of our citizens, applicants for asylum in member states. If we put all this in the context of untimely planning, ineffective management of economic trends, the lack of financial support from Brussels to deal with the refugee crisis, but also in the context of the fact that the enlargement policy is aimed at meeting the Copenhagen criteria, but not on economic growth - then the fears of uncontrolled influx of migrants pose potential capital of radical and populist political options. In the relationship with Brussels, Serbia would have to fight for more under-standing regarding the state of the economy and, in general, regarding help with the costs of joining the EU, especially in case of further escalation of the migrant crisis. Serbia's image in the international arena has been changing for better because of the human attitude towards refugees and migrants who were in transit, but for the citizens of Serbia is much more important that the attitude towards them is a part of the essential changes in the society, and not juste an agile response to the crisis - i. e. what metters most is to make appropriate administrative and legal measures, to effectively manage the problems that migrant crisis put in the foreground, but primarily to change the essence of political community and to have this change of image as a result of state and society transformation towards strengthening democratic institutions, the rule of law, media freedom and developed human rights and freedoms.

Download Full-text

EU policy on irregular migration: the impact of the refugee crisis 2014-2015

Journal of International Analytics ◽

10.46272/2587-8476-2017-0-4-8-17 ◽

2017 ◽

pp. 8-17

Author(s):

N. N. Bolshova

Keyword(s):

Refugee Crisis ◽

Irregular Migration ◽

Migration Routes ◽

Eu Policy ◽

Irregular Migrants ◽

Migrant Smuggling ◽

Migration Crisis ◽

Mediterranean Migration ◽

The Impact ◽

The Eu

The paper reviews the current EU policy on irregular migration under the influence of refugee crisis. This crisis urged the EU to streamline and consolidate all the available legal, political and administrative tools to reach the synergy effect in the management of immigration flows into the EU. However the main weakness of the EU approach appears to be the dependence on the opportunities and interests of the third countries (of origin and transit of irregular migrants) to cooperate effectively with the EU institutions and Member-states in such key spheres as fight against migrant smuggling, security of external borders, implementation of readmission agreements, asylum policy. The author evaluates the state of progress on the main Mediterranean migration routes since the beginning of the migration crisis in 2014, analyses some recent EU initiatives, particularly the EU NAVFOR MED Operation Sophia and the new Partnership Framework with third countries under the European Agenda on Migration. In conclusion, the author attempts to assess the effects of these actions.

Download Full-text

The Recast Reception Conditions Directive and the Rights of Asylum Seekers with Disabilities: Opportunities, Challenges and the Quest for Reform

European Journal of Migration and Law ◽

10.1163/15718166-12340077 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 22 (2) ◽

pp. 272-307

Author(s):

Charles O’Sullivan ◽

Delia Ferri

Keyword(s):

Asylum Seekers ◽

The Political ◽

Refugee Crisis ◽

The European Union ◽

Recent Proposal ◽

Political Will ◽

Persons With Disabilities ◽

United Nations Convention ◽

Developed World ◽

The Eu

Abstract In recent years, the European Union (EU) has, like much of the developed world, experienced a sustained period of inward migration from refugee-producing States in Africa and the Middle-East. This ‘refugee crisis’ has placed a strain not only on the political will of the EU institutions and Member States to find a satisfactory resolution to deal with the flow of migrants, but also on their ability to put in place fair processes for any resulting claims for asylum and to adequately support the needs of asylum seekers while those claims are being processed. This article discusses the latter issue from a discreet angle, focusing on how the EU has addressed the needs of asylum seekers with disabilities. As a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which enjoys sub-constitutional status within the EU legal order, the EU is obligated to interpret all legislation in light of the Convention. Thus, this article seeks to assess the degree to which Directive 2013/33/EU on the material reception conditions for asylum seekers can protect and promote the rights of asylum seekers with disabilities and fulfill the ‘human rights model of disability’ embedded within the CRPD. It also assesses the most recent proposal to replace the Directive, and examines whether the potential shortcomings within it have been addressed thus far. Ultimately, it finds that the ambiguities and lack of procedural certainty within the current Directive provide too much room to derogate from the standards arguably mandated by the Convention, and these have yet to be addressed within the new Proposal.

Download Full-text

Entering the 'post-shame era': the rise of illiberal democracy, populism and neo-authoritarianism in EUrope

Global Discourse ◽

10.1332/204378919x15470487645420 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

pp. 195-213 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Ruth Wodak

Keyword(s):

International Development ◽

Asylum Seekers ◽

Refugee Crisis ◽

Illiberal Democracy ◽

Eu Member States ◽

Strong Focus ◽

Freedom Of Press ◽

Politics Of Fear ◽

The Eu ◽

The Welfare State

The term 'illiberal democracy', coined by Fareed Zakaria in 1997, has gained much traction, specifically since its use by Hungarian Prime Minster Victor Orbán in 2014. Ever since, Orbán and his governing party Fidesz have been implementing this vision resulting in major cutdowns on free speech, freedom of press, of various NGOs which support human rights, and so forth. Moreover, Fidesz won the 2018 national election with a strong focus on antiimmigration policies. Although Orbán's restrictive migration policies were widely criticised during the so-called refugee crisis 2015, many EU member states have started to follow the Hungarian policy of closing borders and protecting the EU from asylum-seekers and an alleged invasion by Muslims. Hence, I claim that formerly taboo subjects and expressions in mainstream discourse are being accepted more and more ('normalisation'). Such normalisation goes hand in hand with a certain 'shamelessness': the limits of the sayable are shifting regarding both the frequency of lies and the violating of discourse conventions – as well as regarding repeated attacks on central democratic institutions. Normalising the assessment of migrants as a threat to inner security and a burden on the welfare state and education system must be perceived as an international development – generally instrumentalising a 'politics of fear'.

Download Full-text

Czech Litigation on Systematic Detention of Asylum Seekers: Ripple Effects across Europe

European Journal of Migration and Law ◽

10.1163/15718166-12340103 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 23 (3) ◽

pp. 284-307

Author(s):

Madalina Moraru ◽

Linda Janků

Keyword(s):

Social Factors ◽

Asylum Seekers ◽

Refugee Crisis ◽

Preliminary Ruling ◽

The European Union ◽

The Czech Republic ◽

Ripple Effects ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

The Right ◽

The Eu

Abstract This article investigates the development of national litigation against the Czech Republic’s governmental policy to detain asylum seekers under the Dublin III Regulation, as a means to address the so-called refugee crisis. The outcome of this litigation has been the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Al Chodor case, which has been praised for enhancing domestic standards of protection of asylum seekers and returnees’ right to liberty across the EU. The article demonstrates that this preliminary ruling has been a catalyst for domestic legislative and jurisprudential reforms across the EU, improving to a certain extent the protection of the right to liberty of asylum seekers. However, it is argued that in the Czech Republic the case has not initiated a change in the legislation, nor has it reduced the systematic use of asylum detention. The article identifies some important legal, political and social factors from within and beyond courtrooms that have contributed to this ambiguous outcome of the Czech litigation. It concludes by identifying circumstances that need to be taken into account when using the preliminary reference procedure as a tool for strategic litigation.

Download Full-text

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

GÖÇ DERGİSİ ◽

10.33182/gd.v4i1.570 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 4 (1) ◽

pp. 21-40 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

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.

Download Full-text

Wspólnotowy wymiar polityki imigracyjnej Unii Europejskiej w obliczu wyzwań związanych ze zwiększonym napływem imigrantów w 2015 r.

10.31338/1641-2478pe.2.17.5 ◽

2017 ◽

pp. 82-107

Author(s):

Michał Skorzycki

Keyword(s):

Immigration Policy ◽

Refugee Crisis ◽

Member States ◽

European Immigration ◽

New System ◽

Selection Of ◽

The Eu ◽

Crisis Situations

The article comprises the overview of the essential legal, administrative and financial means that the EU has at its disposal in case of rapid influx of immigrants, as well as a selection of major obstacles to the use of these tools, based on observation of the activities of the EU and its member states taken up to deal with the aforementioned situation which took place in 2015. Using the abovementioned observation and an analysis of relevant documents, it is argued that the refugee crisis of 2015 has revealed the necessity of a profound institutionalisation of the European immigration policy as the most effective way to overcome difficulties in response to such situations. The analysis leads also to the conclusion that the EU is caught in a dilemma of either suspending the Dublin system in crisis situations or creating a new system of intensive support for border member states.

Download Full-text