A Normative View from the Periphery: Serbia and the EU Asylum Acquis

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY European Journal of Migration and Law Pub Date : 2024-06-18 DOI:10.1163/15718166-12340177
Rados Djurovic
{"title":"A Normative View from the Periphery: Serbia and the EU Asylum Acquis","authors":"Rados Djurovic","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Since 2014, as part of the EU accession negotiations, Serbia is meticulously conducting legal, policy, and institutional reforms in order to align its asylum and migration law and policy with the EU acquis. At the same time, as a consequence of the European policies put in place since 2015 (fences, large-scale pushbacks), Serbia faces a high risk of becoming a buffer zone in between EU Member States Greece and Bulgaria (whence many refugees enter Serbia) and Croatia and Hungary (which many refugees seek to enter).</p><p>While aiming to implement EU law as a candidate Member State, Serbia is simultaneously trying to avoid stronger migration pressure and becoming a hotspot which are the consequence of implementing the EU acquis. Caught between these two conflicting policy aims, Serbia is following the example of Greece in limiting migration pressure by keeping its asylum system dysfunctional, ignoring refugee needs and undermining refugee protection. The substandard character of the Serbian asylum system in practice (both when it comes to its slow and inefficient asylum procedure, limited access to legal aid and information, as well as when it comes to an unsustainable and dysfunctional reception and integration system) makes returns to Serbia a violation of European Human Rights law (i.a., ECtHR 21 November 2019, <em>Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary</em>, application no. 47287/15), while it also gives migrants and refugees a strong incentive to move on to the EU.</p><p>This combination of formally adopting, but not implementing, the EU acquis will be analysed as a normative response to the perceived lack of legitimacy of the EU acquis, which uses the weak position of peripheral Member States like Greece and neighbouring countries like Serbia to impose a disproportionate burden on them.</p>","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"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/10.1163/15718166-12340177","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 2014, as part of the EU accession negotiations, Serbia is meticulously conducting legal, policy, and institutional reforms in order to align its asylum and migration law and policy with the EU acquis. At the same time, as a consequence of the European policies put in place since 2015 (fences, large-scale pushbacks), Serbia faces a high risk of becoming a buffer zone in between EU Member States Greece and Bulgaria (whence many refugees enter Serbia) and Croatia and Hungary (which many refugees seek to enter).

While aiming to implement EU law as a candidate Member State, Serbia is simultaneously trying to avoid stronger migration pressure and becoming a hotspot which are the consequence of implementing the EU acquis. Caught between these two conflicting policy aims, Serbia is following the example of Greece in limiting migration pressure by keeping its asylum system dysfunctional, ignoring refugee needs and undermining refugee protection. The substandard character of the Serbian asylum system in practice (both when it comes to its slow and inefficient asylum procedure, limited access to legal aid and information, as well as when it comes to an unsustainable and dysfunctional reception and integration system) makes returns to Serbia a violation of European Human Rights law (i.a., ECtHR 21 November 2019, Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary, application no. 47287/15), while it also gives migrants and refugees a strong incentive to move on to the EU.

This combination of formally adopting, but not implementing, the EU acquis will be analysed as a normative response to the perceived lack of legitimacy of the EU acquis, which uses the weak position of peripheral Member States like Greece and neighbouring countries like Serbia to impose a disproportionate burden on them.

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
来自边缘的规范视角:塞尔维亚与欧盟庇护法
自 2014 年以来,作为加入欧盟谈判的一部分,塞尔维亚正在一丝不苟地进行法律、政策和机构改革,以使其庇护和移民法律和政策与欧盟法律相一致。与此同时,由于自 2015 年以来实施的欧洲政策(围栏、大规模推回),塞尔维亚面临着成为欧盟成员国希腊和保加利亚(许多难民从那里进入塞尔维亚)与克罗地亚和匈牙利(许多难民试图进入那里)之间的缓冲区的高风险。作为候选成员国,塞尔维亚在努力执行欧盟法律的同时,也在努力避免更大的移民压力和成为热点地区,而这正是执行欧盟法律的后果。在这两个相互冲突的政策目标之间,塞尔维亚正在以希腊为榜样,通过保持其庇护系统功能失调、忽视难民需求和破坏难民保护来限制移民压力。塞尔维亚庇护制度在实践中不符合标准(包括庇护程序缓慢、效率低下、获得法律援助和信息的机会有限,以及收容和融合制度不可持续且功能失调),这使得返回塞尔维亚违反了欧洲人权法(即......)、欧洲人权法院,2019 年 11 月 21 日,Ilias 和 Ahmed 诉匈牙利,第 47287/15 号申请),同时它也为移民和难民提供了前往欧盟的强烈动机。这种正式通过但不执行欧盟法律的组合将被分析为对欧盟法律缺乏合法性这一看法的规范性回应,欧盟法律利用希腊等外围成员国和塞尔维亚等邻国的弱势地位,对它们施加了不相称的负担。
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