Cooperation within Reason: Tunisia’s Approach to Asylum and Readmission

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY European Journal of Migration and Law Pub Date : 2024-06-18 DOI:10.1163/15718166-12340176
Hiba Sha’ath, Fatma Raach
{"title":"Cooperation within Reason: Tunisia’s Approach to Asylum and Readmission","authors":"Hiba Sha’ath, Fatma Raach","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Since 2011, migration and asylum have grown in salience in EU-Tunisia international cooperation. Through various agreements, the EU has provided technical and financial support to Tunisia to strengthen its border management capabilities, develop a national migration strategy, legislate a national asylum framework, and re-integrate Tunisians who were returned from Europe. However, among the points of contention between Tunisia and the EU, two key issues stand out: the continued absence of a national law governing asylum in Tunisia, and Tunisia’s refusal to include clauses related to readmission (of its own nationals and third-country nationals) in its agreements with the EU. Drawing on an analysis of cooperation on asylum and readmission between the EU and Tunisia from 2011 to 2021, this article argues that the EU’s perceptions of a lack of cooperation from its Tunisian counterparts are misplaced. Rather, Tunisia is willing to work cooperatively with the EU as long as it does not see this cooperation serve the sole purpose of supporting the EU’s externalization agenda. We see this attitude as a form of resistance to EU pressure, with the unfortunate consequence being the undermining of protection for vulnerable populations in Tunisia and in the EU. Tunisian authorities see the adoption of an asylum law as paving the way for disembarkation platforms, the use of the safe third country concept to return foreign nationals and contain them to Tunisia. This has been fueled by issue linkage in negotiations with the EU between the passing of the asylum act and the return of third-country nationals to Tunisia. Similarly, while Tunisia has concluded agreements with some EU countries regarding the readmission of its nationals, its priorities with respect to facilitating returns lie in the protection of its nationals’ social rights rather than in meeting quantitative targets set by the EU.</p>","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Migration and Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340176","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since 2011, migration and asylum have grown in salience in EU-Tunisia international cooperation. Through various agreements, the EU has provided technical and financial support to Tunisia to strengthen its border management capabilities, develop a national migration strategy, legislate a national asylum framework, and re-integrate Tunisians who were returned from Europe. However, among the points of contention between Tunisia and the EU, two key issues stand out: the continued absence of a national law governing asylum in Tunisia, and Tunisia’s refusal to include clauses related to readmission (of its own nationals and third-country nationals) in its agreements with the EU. Drawing on an analysis of cooperation on asylum and readmission between the EU and Tunisia from 2011 to 2021, this article argues that the EU’s perceptions of a lack of cooperation from its Tunisian counterparts are misplaced. Rather, Tunisia is willing to work cooperatively with the EU as long as it does not see this cooperation serve the sole purpose of supporting the EU’s externalization agenda. We see this attitude as a form of resistance to EU pressure, with the unfortunate consequence being the undermining of protection for vulnerable populations in Tunisia and in the EU. Tunisian authorities see the adoption of an asylum law as paving the way for disembarkation platforms, the use of the safe third country concept to return foreign nationals and contain them to Tunisia. This has been fueled by issue linkage in negotiations with the EU between the passing of the asylum act and the return of third-country nationals to Tunisia. Similarly, while Tunisia has concluded agreements with some EU countries regarding the readmission of its nationals, its priorities with respect to facilitating returns lie in the protection of its nationals’ social rights rather than in meeting quantitative targets set by the EU.

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
合理范围内的合作:突尼斯的庇护和重新接纳办法
自 2011 年以来,移民和庇护问题在欧盟与突尼斯的国际合作中日益突出。通过各种协议,欧盟向突尼斯提供了技术和财政支持,以加强其边境管理能力,制定国家移民战略,立法建立国家庇护框架,并帮助从欧洲返回的突尼斯人重新融入社会。然而,在突尼斯和欧盟之间的争议点中,有两个关键问题十分突出:突尼斯仍然没有关于庇护的国家法律,以及突尼斯拒绝在与欧盟的协议中加入重新接纳(本国国民和第三国国民)的相关条款。本文通过对 2011 年至 2021 年欧盟与突尼斯在庇护和重新接纳方面的合作进行分析,认为欧盟认为突尼斯缺乏合作的看法是错误的。相反,突尼斯愿意与欧盟合作,只要它不认为这种合作的唯一目的是支持欧盟的外部化议程。我们认为这种态度是对欧盟压力的一种抵制,其不幸的后果是削弱了对突尼斯和欧盟弱势群体的保护。突尼斯当局认为,庇护法的通过是为登岸平台铺平道路,即利用安全第三国的概念将外国公民遣送回国并将其控制在突尼斯。在与欧盟的谈判中,庇护法的通过与第三国国民返回突尼斯之间的问题联系助长了这一观点。同样,虽然突尼斯与一些欧盟国家就重新接纳其国民问题达成了协议,但突尼斯在促进回返方面的优先事项是保护其国民的社会权利,而不是达到欧盟设定的数量指标。
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
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Migration and Law is a quarterly journal on migration law and policy with specific emphasis on the European Union, the Council of Europe and migration activities within the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This journal differs from other migration journals by focusing on both the law and policy within the field of migration, as opposed to examining immigration and migration policies from a wholly sociological perspective. The Journal is the initiative of the Centre for Migration Law of the University of Nijmegen, in co-operation with the Brussels-based Migration Policy Group.
期刊最新文献
The ‘Border Security’ Concept in EU Law EU Boots on the Ground and Effective Judicial Protection against Frontex’s Operational Powers in Return: Lessons from Case T‑600/21 When Do Union Citizens and Their Families Have the Right to Equal Treatment on Grounds of Nationality in EU Law? The Fiction of Non-entry in European Migration Law: Its Implications on the Rights of Asylum Seekers and Irregular Migrants at European Borders Derogations in Exchange of Increased Responsibility: How Can This Fix the Broken Promise for More Solidarity in the EU?
×
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