Pub Date : 2019-06-28DOI: 10.4337/9781788972482.00011
M. Strik
This paper investigates how the EU’s externalisation of migration policy relates to the efforts at the global level to strengthen solidarity in the protection of refugees. Where the New York Declaration of 2016 stressed the need for a more equitable sharing of the responsibility for hosting and supporting refugees, the chapter questions whether the EU policies develop into this direction. The overview of the impact of migration deals with third countries, focusses on the human rights risks for migrants stuck in a transit countries or returned there. The chapter describes how these risks will increase with the watering down of the safe third country concepts in EU legislation. Based on the consequences of the EU-Turkey deal, the author argues that extending similar deals with African countries, would not only threat the protection standards of refugees, but also affect the responsibility taken for refugees by transit countries. Those countries tend to adopt the externalisation policy of the EU, including a restricted visa policy, readmission agreements and avoiding and allocating responsibility for refugees with as an ultimate consequence that refugees face obstacles in fleeing their country. This copying behaviour has also serious implications for African regional relations and mobility schemes, which can be seen as an unintended side-effect of EU’s policies. The author therefore argues that while the EU externalisation policy neglects the longterm and global effects, it risks to affect the aim of the draft UN Global Compact on the refugees to strengthen solidarity on the global level
{"title":"Migration deals and responsibility sharing: can the two go together?","authors":"M. Strik","doi":"10.4337/9781788972482.00011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788972482.00011","url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates how the EU’s externalisation of migration policy relates to the efforts at the global level to strengthen solidarity in the protection of refugees. Where the New York Declaration of 2016 stressed the need for a more equitable sharing of the responsibility for hosting and supporting refugees, the chapter questions whether the EU policies develop into this direction. The overview of the impact of migration deals with third countries, focusses on the human rights risks for migrants stuck in a transit countries or returned there. The chapter describes how these risks will increase with the watering down of the safe third country concepts in EU legislation. Based on the consequences of the EU-Turkey deal, the author argues that extending similar deals with African countries, would not only threat the protection standards of refugees, but also affect the responsibility taken for refugees by transit countries. Those countries tend to adopt the externalisation policy of the EU, including a restricted visa policy, readmission agreements and avoiding and allocating responsibility for refugees with as an ultimate consequence that refugees face obstacles in fleeing their country. This copying behaviour has also serious implications for African regional relations and mobility schemes, which can be seen as an unintended side-effect of EU’s policies. The author therefore argues that while the EU externalisation policy neglects the longterm and global effects, it risks to affect the aim of the draft UN Global Compact on the refugees to strengthen solidarity on the global level","PeriodicalId":121075,"journal":{"name":"Constitutionalising the External Dimensions of EU Migration Policies in Times of Crisis","volume":"228 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114748736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-28DOI: 10.4337/9781788972482.00020
M. Panizzon
In the wake of the EU’s 2015/16 refugee crisis issue-linkage has made a comeback in the form of the EU Compacts. In an updated version of trade conditionality, the EU-Jordan Compact links refugee employment to a duty-free and quota-free (DFQF) preference under the EU Everything-but-Arms (EBA) for goods produced with up to 25% of refugee labor. The rationale underlying this ‘new approach’ to refugee protection, relates back to Migration Partnership Framework and the Global Compacts’ vision to operationalize the ‘multidimensional reality’ of migration and flight, including by linking refugee protection to non-refugee specific policies, including the EU’s Trade-for-All strategy of ‘value-based’ trade. Yet, precisely the link to trade informing this shift away from resettlement towards one of creating livelihood opportunities for refugees to remain in the region requires adjustments, which are so country-specific that they might infringe on the WTO’s special and differential treatment (SDT). The research question informing this chapter is under which conditions, the EU’s Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) under the WTO Enabling Clause which justifies trade preferences for ‘vulnerable developing countries’ can be used to compensate first-safe countries for their exceptionally important intakes of refugees. Without clear criteria to justify why, when and which EU neighbourhood country deserve a more favourable treatment than other ‘particularly affected’ ones, similarly situated countries could have a claim under the WTO’s EC-Tariff Treatment interpretation of the WTO SDT. Such legal creativity, even if justified by a time-limited ‘crisis’ narrative, raises claims under WTO law. The focus of this chapter is laid on the legitimacy of the EU-Jordan Compact under WTO law and its congruence with the EU Neighbourhood Policy. To bypass such concerns, and to prevent tertiary educated refugees from being held hostage in the export-oriented garment industry, we suggest adding a trade-in-services dimension to the export-based refugee employment program, by linking EU service provision in Jordan’s humanitarian infrastructure to Syrian employment in these sectors.
{"title":"The EU-Jordan compact in a trade law context: preferential access to the EU market to Keep Refugees in the Region","authors":"M. Panizzon","doi":"10.4337/9781788972482.00020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788972482.00020","url":null,"abstract":"In the wake of the EU’s 2015/16 refugee crisis issue-linkage has made a comeback in the form of the EU Compacts. In an updated version of trade conditionality, the EU-Jordan Compact links refugee employment to a duty-free and quota-free (DFQF) preference under the EU Everything-but-Arms (EBA) for goods produced with up to 25% of refugee labor. The rationale underlying this ‘new approach’ to refugee protection, relates back to Migration Partnership Framework and the Global Compacts’ vision to operationalize the ‘multidimensional reality’ of migration and flight, including by linking refugee protection to non-refugee specific policies, including the EU’s Trade-for-All strategy of ‘value-based’ trade. Yet, precisely the link to trade informing this shift away from resettlement towards one of creating livelihood opportunities for refugees to remain in the region requires adjustments, which are so country-specific that they might infringe on the WTO’s special and differential treatment (SDT). The research question informing this chapter is under which conditions, the EU’s Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) under the WTO Enabling Clause which justifies trade preferences for ‘vulnerable developing countries’ can be used to compensate first-safe countries for their exceptionally important intakes of refugees. Without clear criteria to justify why, when and which EU neighbourhood country deserve a more favourable treatment than other ‘particularly affected’ ones, similarly situated countries could have a claim under the WTO’s EC-Tariff Treatment interpretation of the WTO SDT. Such legal creativity, even if justified by a time-limited ‘crisis’ narrative, raises claims under WTO law. The focus of this chapter is laid on the legitimacy of the EU-Jordan Compact under WTO law and its congruence with the EU Neighbourhood Policy. To bypass such concerns, and to prevent tertiary educated refugees from being held hostage in the export-oriented garment industry, we suggest adding a trade-in-services dimension to the export-based refugee employment program, by linking EU service provision in Jordan’s humanitarian infrastructure to Syrian employment in these sectors.","PeriodicalId":121075,"journal":{"name":"Constitutionalising the External Dimensions of EU Migration Policies in Times of Crisis","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129317120","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-28DOI: 10.4337/9781788972482.00007
S. Carrera, J. Vara, T. Strik
This edited volume has been conceived in the framework of the Jean Monnet Chair in EU External Action at the University of Salamanca awarded to Professor Juan Santos Vara in 2016 (574677-EPP-1–2016–1-ES-EPPJMO -CHAIR). It is based on further reflection and discussion on the works presented at the workshop on ‘The External Dimensions of EU Migration Policies: Effectiveness, Fairness and Rule of Law Reconsidered’, held in Salamanca on the 19 and 20 October 2017 in cooperation with the Centre of European Policy Studies (CEPS). It also benefited from the support of the Office of the Eighth Centenary of the University of Salamanca. The emergence of the European refugee humanitarian crisis in 2015 brought once more to the spotlight the foundations of EU cooperation in the domains of migration management and asylum. The increase in the number of entries by asylum seekers provoked a political and legitimation crisis in the Union. A crisis which, despite having its deepest roots in the incapacity or lack of political willingness by many EU Member States to secure solidarity-based responses and safe reception conditions for those seeking international protection, hit back at the EU and its added value in these policy domains as a whole. The fact that political crises are often utilised, instrumentalised and even co-created by political and security actors to pursue their own interests and agendas has not passed unnoticed by the literature. ‘Crisis labelling’ has constituted a recurrent practice by policy makers. It has not only enabled ‘new patterns of action’, but also justified the continuation of ‘established
{"title":"The external dimensions of EU migration and asylum policies in times of crisis","authors":"S. Carrera, J. Vara, T. Strik","doi":"10.4337/9781788972482.00007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788972482.00007","url":null,"abstract":"This edited volume has been conceived in the framework of the Jean Monnet Chair in EU External Action at the University of Salamanca awarded to Professor Juan Santos Vara in 2016 (574677-EPP-1–2016–1-ES-EPPJMO -CHAIR). It is based on further reflection and discussion on the works presented at the workshop on ‘The External Dimensions of EU Migration Policies: Effectiveness, Fairness and Rule of Law Reconsidered’, held in Salamanca on the 19 and 20 October 2017 in cooperation with the Centre of European Policy Studies (CEPS). It also benefited from the support of the Office of the Eighth Centenary of the University of Salamanca. The emergence of the European refugee humanitarian crisis in 2015 brought once more to the spotlight the foundations of EU cooperation in the domains of migration management and asylum. The increase in the number of entries by asylum seekers provoked a political and legitimation crisis in the Union. A crisis which, despite having its deepest roots in the incapacity or lack of political willingness by many EU Member States to secure solidarity-based responses and safe reception conditions for those seeking international protection, hit back at the EU and its added value in these policy domains as a whole. The fact that political crises are often utilised, instrumentalised and even co-created by political and security actors to pursue their own interests and agendas has not passed unnoticed by the literature. ‘Crisis labelling’ has constituted a recurrent practice by policy makers. It has not only enabled ‘new patterns of action’, but also justified the continuation of ‘established","PeriodicalId":121075,"journal":{"name":"Constitutionalising the External Dimensions of EU Migration Policies in Times of Crisis","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130698090","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-05-21DOI: 10.4337/9781788972482.00024
V. Mitsilegas
Extraterritorial immigration control has been increasingly used by states aiming to deflect and prevent flows of migrants and asylum seekers towards their territory. The growing securitisation of migration and asylum flows has led to the proliferation of mechanisms of extraterritorial immigration control, with new responses devised in times of perceived crisis. By focusing primarily on European responses, the aim of this chapter is to offer a typology of mechanisms of extraterritorial immigration control and to map their evolution taking in particular into account new responses prompted by the emergence in the global securitisation agenda of the fight against human smuggling as a primary security threat. The chapter will begin by an analysis of extraterritorial immigration control by states, as complemented in the case of the European Union by the activities of Frontex. It will focus on two aspects of extraterritorial immigration control closely linked with the fight against human smuggling: the privatisation of extraterritorial immigration control by criminalising and policing humanitarianism, and the militarisation of extraterritorial immigration control with endeavours such as Operation Sophia. The chapter will place these developments within a multi-layered, interconnected framework of extraterritorial immigration control which extends to cooperative arrangements between the EU and its member state son the one hand and third countries on the other. The chapter will demonstrate that the many levels of extraterritorial immigration control represent an emerging paradigm of preventive justice, by focusing on the prevention of entry of migrants and refugees in the territory and its member states. The chapter will also demonstrate how, in this paradigm of preventive justice, the rule of law is undermined.
{"title":"Extraterritorial immigration control, preventive justice and the rule of law in turbulent times: lessons from the anti-smuggling crusade","authors":"V. Mitsilegas","doi":"10.4337/9781788972482.00024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788972482.00024","url":null,"abstract":"Extraterritorial immigration control has been increasingly used by states aiming to deflect and prevent flows of migrants and asylum seekers towards their territory. The growing securitisation of migration and asylum flows has led to the proliferation of mechanisms of extraterritorial immigration control, with new responses devised in times of perceived crisis. By focusing primarily on European responses, the aim of this chapter is to offer a typology of mechanisms of extraterritorial immigration control and to map their evolution taking in particular into account new responses prompted by the emergence in the global securitisation agenda of the fight against human smuggling as a primary security threat. The chapter will begin by an analysis of extraterritorial immigration control by states, as complemented in the case of the European Union by the activities of Frontex. It will focus on two aspects of extraterritorial immigration control closely linked with the fight against human smuggling: the privatisation of extraterritorial immigration control by criminalising and policing humanitarianism, and the militarisation of extraterritorial immigration control with endeavours such as Operation Sophia. The chapter will place these developments within a multi-layered, interconnected framework of extraterritorial immigration control which extends to cooperative arrangements between the EU and its member state son the one hand and third countries on the other. The chapter will demonstrate that the many levels of extraterritorial immigration control represent an emerging paradigm of preventive justice, by focusing on the prevention of entry of migrants and refugees in the territory and its member states. The chapter will also demonstrate how, in this paradigm of preventive justice, the rule of law is undermined.","PeriodicalId":121075,"journal":{"name":"Constitutionalising the External Dimensions of EU Migration Policies in Times of Crisis","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126081835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：