Expansion without mandates: Border and asylum agencies in European Union migration governance

Governance Pub Date : 2024-01-12 DOI:10.1111/gove.12854
Michalis Moutselos
{"title":"Expansion without mandates: Border and asylum agencies in European Union migration governance","authors":"Michalis Moutselos","doi":"10.1111/gove.12854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) have experienced increases in available resources and have conducted joint operations with European Union (EU) Member States in recent years. They may be regarded as examples of agencification in border protection and asylum policy, but this paper argues that agencification has proceeded without an expansion in agency mandates. Using Frontex and EASO operations in two Southern European border countries, Cyprus and Greece, as comparative case studies, I show that the two agencies have employed their growing technical, performative, legal and moral resources to legitimize efficient processing of asylum applications in reception centers, and coordinated border protection and more/swifter returns. At the same time, the absence of mandates on final decision-making has diluted policy accountability and weakened monitoring vis-à-vis Member States, with respect to fundamental rights violations and the implementation of EU law. This resource expansion without mandates has allowed EU agencies to resolve long-standing tensions among Member States and the European Commission in a contested policy area. The analysis has broader implications for the role of agencies in multilevel migration governance.","PeriodicalId":501138,"journal":{"name":"Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12854","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) have experienced increases in available resources and have conducted joint operations with European Union (EU) Member States in recent years. They may be regarded as examples of agencification in border protection and asylum policy, but this paper argues that agencification has proceeded without an expansion in agency mandates. Using Frontex and EASO operations in two Southern European border countries, Cyprus and Greece, as comparative case studies, I show that the two agencies have employed their growing technical, performative, legal and moral resources to legitimize efficient processing of asylum applications in reception centers, and coordinated border protection and more/swifter returns. At the same time, the absence of mandates on final decision-making has diluted policy accountability and weakened monitoring vis-à-vis Member States, with respect to fundamental rights violations and the implementation of EU law. This resource expansion without mandates has allowed EU agencies to resolve long-standing tensions among Member States and the European Commission in a contested policy area. The analysis has broader implications for the role of agencies in multilevel migration governance.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
没有授权的扩张:欧盟移民管理中的边境和庇护机构
近年来,欧洲边境和海岸警卫局(Frontex)和欧洲庇护支持办公室(EASO)的可用资源有所增加,并与欧盟成员国开展了联合行动。它们可被视为边境保护和庇护政策机构化的范例,但本文认为,机构化并没有扩大机构的任务范围。通过对 Frontex 和 EASO 在塞浦路斯和希腊这两个南欧边境国家的行动进行比较研究,我发现这两个机构利用其日益增长的技术、执行、法律和道德资源,使接待中心高效处理庇护申请、协调边境保护和更多/更迅速的遣返合法化。与此同时,由于没有最终决策的授权,在侵犯基本权利和执行欧盟法律方面,淡化了政策问责,削弱了对成员国的监督。这种没有授权的资源扩张使欧盟机构得以解决成员国与欧盟委员会在有争议的政策领域长期存在的紧张关系。这项分析对各机构在多层次移民治理中的作用具有更广泛的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The political economy of open contracting reforms in low‐ and middle‐income countries In court we trust? Political affinity and citizen's attitudes toward court's decisions A red flag for public goods? The correlates of civil society restrictions Drivers of transnational administrative coordination on super‐wicked policy issues: The role of institutional homophily European union funding of interest groups: Reassessing the balancing function and the promotion of good organizational practices
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1