Migrant smuggling is a highly complex criminal phenomenon. Clearly cross-border in nature, smuggling frequently involves the participation of organized criminal groups. A coherent approach to these activities requires a clear and correctly implemented regulation, in the case of the EU the reference regulation is the ‘Facilitators’ package’. In the present contribution several controversies that this framework entails will be pointed out, especially the excessive criminalization and the neglect of the human rights perspective. Furthermore, the eradication of smuggling requires the sum of efforts and coordinated action of different actors such as national authorities and European agencies. In this paper some actions carried out by Europol in the Mediterranean will be studied. Focusing on the role of this law enforcement agency in the hotspots, the contribution of the information gathered and the benefits for Eurojust will be evaluated. Received: 31 July 2022Accepted: 10 October 2022
{"title":"Addressing Migrant Smuggling in the European Union. Challenges for a Non-Criminalized, Coordinated and Effective Response","authors":"Mirentxu Jordana Santiago","doi":"10.18543/ced.2588","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18543/ced.2588","url":null,"abstract":"Migrant smuggling is a highly complex criminal phenomenon. Clearly cross-border in nature, smuggling frequently involves the participation of organized criminal groups. A coherent approach to these activities requires a clear and correctly implemented regulation, in the case of the EU the reference regulation is the ‘Facilitators’ package’. In the present contribution several controversies that this framework entails will be pointed out, especially the excessive criminalization and the neglect of the human rights perspective. Furthermore, the eradication of smuggling requires the sum of efforts and coordinated action of different actors such as national authorities and European agencies. In this paper some actions carried out by Europol in the Mediterranean will be studied. Focusing on the role of this law enforcement agency in the hotspots, the contribution of the information gathered and the benefits for Eurojust will be evaluated. \u0000Received: 31 July 2022Accepted: 10 October 2022","PeriodicalId":40611,"journal":{"name":"Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46910240","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}
Modern slavery—denoting acute exploitation of people for personal or commercial gain—is said to affect nearly 50 million people around the globe, making it a global issue that requires coordinated crosssectoral and integrated responses. Some efforts have been made to that effect, including through an emerging legislative regulation at domestic and regional levels. Migrants, in particular those with unsettled status, are particularly vulnerable to modern forms of slavery due to manifold enabling circumstances, including the lack of, or capacity to offer them, protection or limited access to legitimate forms of employment or social protection. However, global responses to migrant smuggling and irregular migrants are in stark contrast to the commitments made to address modern slavery. The increasing focus on the securitisation of migration obscures the underlying social, economic and political ‘push’ factors that fuel modern slavery. Thus, a more comprehensive response is needed that examines the issues of migration management, market regulation and development more widely. This paper uses a comparative lens to examine global developments in regulating labour-related forms of modern slavery vis-à-vis migration management in the context of achieving sustainable development goals. Received: 31 July 2022Accepted: 10 October 2022
{"title":"Modern Slavery and Migrant Smuggling: A Sustainable Development Perspective","authors":"Natalia Szablewska","doi":"10.18543/ced.2589","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18543/ced.2589","url":null,"abstract":"Modern slavery—denoting acute exploitation of people for personal or commercial gain—is said to affect nearly 50 million people around the globe, making it a global issue that requires coordinated crosssectoral and integrated responses. Some efforts have been made to that effect, including through an emerging legislative regulation at domestic and regional levels. Migrants, in particular those with unsettled status, are particularly vulnerable to modern forms of slavery due to manifold enabling circumstances, including the lack of, or capacity to offer them, protection or limited access to legitimate forms of employment or social protection. However, global responses to migrant smuggling and irregular migrants are in stark contrast to the commitments made to address modern slavery. The increasing focus on the securitisation of migration obscures the underlying social, economic and political ‘push’ factors that fuel modern slavery. Thus, a more comprehensive response is needed that examines the issues of migration management, market regulation and development more widely. This paper uses a comparative lens to examine global developments in regulating labour-related forms of modern slavery vis-à-vis migration management in the context of achieving sustainable development goals. \u0000Received: 31 July 2022Accepted: 10 October 2022","PeriodicalId":40611,"journal":{"name":"Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42671583","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}
Separating children traveling accompanied by a nonfamily adult is a current practice serving the general purpose of fighting against sexual exploitation, minor trafficking, or general crime prevention. However, such a routine response could violate a minor’s right to family life or preclude an attempted migration to reunification. Although no specific normative framework exists for this migratory category, we will draw our analysis of the conflicting interests by resorting to human rights case law. On the one hand, the expansion of the legally recognized concept of family must help protect interpersonal bonds not based on biological relationships, according to the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. On the other hand, restrictions to the right to family life can be taken for fighting against crime, although a goal of general prevention may not comply with human rights standards on the limitation of rights. The required balance between conflicting interests can be established by resorting to the best interests of the minor. To conclude, we argue that this category could certainly benefit from a concerted, common legislative action at the level of the European Union when revisiting the migration legal regime, alongside operational measures at national, regional, and local levels. Received: 31 July 2022Accepted: 05 October 2022
{"title":"Separated Minors or the Dilemma between General and Individual Interest in European Union Migration Law Compliance","authors":"Eulalia W. Petit de Gabriel","doi":"10.18543/ced.2585","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18543/ced.2585","url":null,"abstract":"Separating children traveling accompanied by a nonfamily adult is a current practice serving the general purpose of fighting against sexual exploitation, minor trafficking, or general crime prevention. However, such a routine response could violate a minor’s right to family life or preclude an attempted migration to reunification. Although no specific normative framework exists for this migratory category, we will draw our analysis of the conflicting interests by resorting to human rights case law. On the one hand, the expansion of the legally recognized concept of family must help protect interpersonal bonds not based on biological relationships, according to the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. On the other hand, restrictions to the right to family life can be taken for fighting against crime, although a goal of general prevention may not comply with human rights standards on the limitation of rights. The required balance between conflicting interests can be established by resorting to the best interests of the minor. To conclude, we argue that this category could certainly benefit from a concerted, common legislative action at the level of the European Union when revisiting the migration legal regime, alongside operational measures at national, regional, and local levels. \u0000Received: 31 July 2022Accepted: 05 October 2022","PeriodicalId":40611,"journal":{"name":"Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45959283","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}
Following the previous informal Italy-Libya and EU-Turkey agreements, Malta concluded its own Memorandum of Understanding with Libya to establish two coordination centres in Tripoli and Malta, fully funded by Malta in May 2020. In our paper, we will frame this non-legally binding agreement within the strategy of the EU and its Member States to cooperate with Libya in the deterritorialisation of migration management to reduce the number of migrants and asylum seekers arriving at Europe’s external borders. We will analyse the legal implications, both formal and material concerns, that exist in the application of this Memorandum, starting with the informalisation of cooperation and the deterritorialisation of migration management, and its effects on human rights and the possible international responsibility that it may entail. Received: 31 July 2022Accepted: 10 October 2022
{"title":"Cooperation Initiatives by EU Member States with Third Countries for the Control of Migratory Flows: The Case of the Memorandum of Understanding Between Malta and Libya","authors":"Lorena Calvo-Mariscal","doi":"10.18543/ced.2584","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18543/ced.2584","url":null,"abstract":"Following the previous informal Italy-Libya and EU-Turkey agreements, Malta concluded its own Memorandum of Understanding with Libya to establish two coordination centres in Tripoli and Malta, fully funded by Malta in May 2020. In our paper, we will frame this non-legally binding agreement within the strategy of the EU and its Member States to cooperate with Libya in the deterritorialisation of migration management to reduce the number of migrants and asylum seekers arriving at Europe’s external borders. We will analyse the legal implications, both formal and material concerns, that exist in the application of this Memorandum, starting with the informalisation of cooperation and the deterritorialisation of migration management, and its effects on human rights and the possible international responsibility that it may entail. \u0000Received: 31 July 2022Accepted: 10 October 2022","PeriodicalId":40611,"journal":{"name":"Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46726188","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}
Solidarity is widely present in European Union legislation. Several primary law provisions reflect its articulation, simultaneously assuming it as a value, an objective and a principle. Article 80 TFEU provides that the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility between Member States is the “guiding principle” of all common Union policies on border management, asylum, and immigration. Despite all this, solidarity has so far lacked a clear definition and meaning, appearing rather as an “amorphous concept”. Indeed, political narrative recognises solidarity as “the glue that holds our Union together”. However, in practice and as far as asylum is concerned, the conception according to which “solidarity must be given voluntarily, it must come from the heart, it cannot be forced” seems to prevail. By critically reviewing the relevant literature and the CJEU’s jurisprudence, this paper pursues a twofold purpose: examining the doctrinal debates on the nature, scope and (abstract or binding) character of the solidarity principle; and gauging the role that the CJEU may be playing towards an effective solidarity, uncovering the constitutional bases that prevent from continuing to treat solidarity, in its multiple manifestations and policy areas, in particular that of asylum, as little less than the stone guest. Received: 31 July 2022Accepted: 10 October 2022
{"title":"Building Solidarity in the Field of Asylum: From an Abstract Principle to an Effective Policy?","authors":"Alfredo Dos Santos Soares","doi":"10.18543/ced.2587","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18543/ced.2587","url":null,"abstract":"Solidarity is widely present in European Union legislation. Several primary law provisions reflect its articulation, simultaneously assuming it as a value, an objective and a principle. Article 80 TFEU provides that the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility between Member States is the “guiding principle” of all common Union policies on border management, asylum, and immigration. Despite all this, solidarity has so far lacked a clear definition and meaning, appearing rather as an “amorphous concept”. Indeed, political narrative recognises solidarity as “the glue that holds our Union together”. However, in practice and as far as asylum is concerned, the conception according to which “solidarity must be given voluntarily, it must come from the heart, it cannot be forced” seems to prevail. By critically reviewing the relevant literature and the CJEU’s jurisprudence, this paper pursues a twofold purpose: examining the doctrinal debates on the nature, scope and (abstract or binding) character of the solidarity principle; and gauging the role that the CJEU may be playing towards an effective solidarity, uncovering the constitutional bases that prevent from continuing to treat solidarity, in its multiple manifestations and policy areas, in particular that of asylum, as little less than the stone guest. \u0000Received: 31 July 2022Accepted: 10 October 2022","PeriodicalId":40611,"journal":{"name":"Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42815019","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}
This paper analyses the language of EU leaders and its influence on the implementation of EU asylum law by triggering derogations, exceptions and amendments. It compares this process with regards to the 2015 refugee crisis, the Belarus border crisis and the current Ukrainian crisis to portray how the reaction to similar facts differs and, hence, to show how EU asylum policy suffers from a lack of rule of law. As the crisis in Ukraine unfolds, one can observe how strongly the narrative of EU leaders differs regarding these refugees compared to those from, e.g., Syria and Afghanistan in previous years. It shows a “U-turn” of the EU’s agenda since 2015. Hence, it has become clear that the problem lies less in sufficient contingencies for a sudden influx, but rather a feeling – or lack – of solidarity. From a legal perspective, there is no distinction between the responsibility for asylum applicants based on their nationality. To the contrary, refugee protection builds on the prohibition of discrimination. This has potentially negative implications for the rule of law in the EU. Hence, this paper investigates how EU leaders “talk” their way into applying or not applying EU law and even create EU law at their will simply by describing the arrivals as a security threat, a “hybrid attack” or instead as neighbors in need, as “family”. Received: 31 July 2022 Accepted: 13 October 2022
{"title":"“Crisis Rhetoric” and Derogations from the AFSJ: Is EU Asylum Policy Discriminatory or does its Implementation Reflect the Rule of Law?","authors":"J. Kienast","doi":"10.18543/ced.2586","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18543/ced.2586","url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyses the language of EU leaders and its influence on the implementation of EU asylum law by triggering derogations, exceptions and amendments. It compares this process with regards to the 2015 refugee crisis, the Belarus border crisis and the current Ukrainian crisis to portray how the reaction to similar facts differs and, hence, to show how EU asylum policy suffers from a lack of rule of law. As the crisis in Ukraine unfolds, one can observe how strongly the narrative of EU leaders differs regarding these refugees compared to those from, e.g., Syria and Afghanistan in previous years. It shows a “U-turn” of the EU’s agenda since 2015. Hence, it has become clear that the problem lies less in sufficient contingencies for a sudden influx, but rather a feeling – or lack – of solidarity. From a legal perspective, there is no distinction between the responsibility for asylum applicants based on their nationality. To the contrary, refugee protection builds on the prohibition of discrimination. This has potentially negative implications for the rule of law in the EU. Hence, this paper investigates how EU leaders “talk” their way into applying or not applying EU law and even create EU law at their will simply by describing the arrivals as a security threat, a “hybrid attack” or instead as neighbors in need, as “family”. \u0000Received: 31 July 2022 Accepted: 13 October 2022","PeriodicalId":40611,"journal":{"name":"Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45075594","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}
Despite becoming a legislative actor comparable to the Council after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament (EP) still lacks the power to effectively scrutinize the implementation of the European Union (EU) law and policies by the agencies of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). The case of Frontex has demonstrated the extent to which the successful protection of human rights is at stake when it comes to the activities at the external borders to halt irregular migration flows and other illegal cross-border activities. Abuses in this regard have been highlighted by several International Organizations and non-Governmental Organizations, forcing the EU Institutions to act accordingly. This paper analyzes the current state of affairs of the EP’s powers to scrutiny AFSJ agencies after the progressive enhancement of their mandates in the last decade, and suggests several recommendations to enhance the accountability of these agencies to fully respect the principles of the rule of Law and the values on which the EU is based. Received: 31 July 2022Acepted: 28 September 2022
{"title":"The European Parliament’s Oversight of the Agencies of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Where are we Now and Where are we Heading","authors":"Lucas J. Ruiz Díaz","doi":"10.18543/ced.2583","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18543/ced.2583","url":null,"abstract":"Despite becoming a legislative actor comparable to the Council after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament (EP) still lacks the power to effectively scrutinize the implementation of the European Union (EU) law and policies by the agencies of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). The case of Frontex has demonstrated the extent to which the successful protection of human rights is at stake when it comes to the activities at the external borders to halt irregular migration flows and other illegal cross-border activities. Abuses in this regard have been highlighted by several International Organizations and non-Governmental Organizations, forcing the EU Institutions to act accordingly. This paper analyzes the current state of affairs of the EP’s powers to scrutiny AFSJ agencies after the progressive enhancement of their mandates in the last decade, and suggests several recommendations to enhance the accountability of these agencies to fully respect the principles of the rule of Law and the values on which the EU is based. \u0000Received: 31 July 2022Acepted: 28 September 2022","PeriodicalId":40611,"journal":{"name":"Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42245924","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}
This special issue of the Deusto Journal of European Studies includes seven of the contributions presented during the International Conference entitled “The EU Migration, Border Management and Asylum Reform in the Aftermath of the Refugee Crisis: Towards an Effective Enforcement”, held at the University of Deusto on June 2 and 3, 2022. This event took place within the framework of the activities of the Jean Monnet Network on EU Law Enforcement (EULEN). This Erasmus+ project’s ambition is to bring academics and practitioners together, to address the challenges for EU law enforcement in a world without territorial borders. In particular, this special issue reveals that since the 2015 “refugee crisis” the EU is experiencing an acute implementation deficit and that several enforcement and implementation discrepancies remain at the national level.
{"title":"Introduction","authors":"David Fernández-Rojo","doi":"10.18543/ced.2582","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18543/ced.2582","url":null,"abstract":"This special issue of the Deusto Journal of European Studies includes seven of the contributions presented during the International Conference entitled “The EU Migration, Border Management and Asylum Reform in the Aftermath of the Refugee Crisis: Towards an Effective Enforcement”, held at the University of Deusto on June 2 and 3, 2022. This event took place within the framework of the activities of the Jean Monnet Network on EU Law Enforcement (EULEN). This Erasmus+ project’s ambition is to bring academics and practitioners together, to address the challenges for EU law enforcement in a world without territorial borders. In particular, this special issue reveals that since the 2015 “refugee crisis” the EU is experiencing an acute implementation deficit and that several enforcement and implementation discrepancies remain at the national level.","PeriodicalId":40611,"journal":{"name":"Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46057867","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}
Even though the colonial authorities tried to use education as a political tool to serve their ruling purposes, the francophone education system was an important bridge between Vietnam’s traditional Confucian education and mankind’s modern one. One of the greatest achievements of the francophone education system in Vietnam was the training of a modern westernized intelligentsia different from traditional Confucian intellectuals. Although the Soviet and other socialist educational models later replaced the francophone education system, the cornerstones of all existing modern educational models of Vietnam have originated from the very first settlements of the francophone education in the Far East Country. The fundamental elements of the francophone education therefore play an important role in the integration and development of the Vietnamese education into the modern world education system. The modernization of the Vietnamese education system in the colonial period under the decisive influences of the francophone model could, to some extent, be seen as a historical resolution to modernity of Vietnam’s schools in the circumstances of the East-West dispute that nearly all Asian countries experienced in the second half of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century. Received: 19 May 2022Accepted: 18 July 2022
{"title":"The Modernization Resolution of Vietnam’s Education System by the Francophone Road in the East-West Cultural Conflict of the Late Nineteenth Century and the Early Twentieth Century","authors":"Nguyễn Mậu Hùng","doi":"10.18543/ced.2557","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18543/ced.2557","url":null,"abstract":"Even though the colonial authorities tried to use education as a political tool to serve their ruling purposes, the francophone education system was an important bridge between Vietnam’s traditional Confucian education and mankind’s modern one. One of the greatest achievements of the francophone education system in Vietnam was the training of a modern westernized intelligentsia different from traditional Confucian intellectuals. Although the Soviet and other socialist educational models later replaced the francophone education system, the cornerstones of all existing modern educational models of Vietnam have originated from the very first settlements of the francophone education in the Far East Country. The fundamental elements of the francophone education therefore play an important role in the integration and development of the Vietnamese education into the modern world education system. The modernization of the Vietnamese education system in the colonial period under the decisive influences of the francophone model could, to some extent, be seen as a historical resolution to modernity of Vietnam’s schools in the circumstances of the East-West dispute that nearly all Asian countries experienced in the second half of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century. \u0000Received: 19 May 2022Accepted: 18 July 2022","PeriodicalId":40611,"journal":{"name":"Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42502163","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}
EU and China are the global powers that can affect and alter international relations at the political, economic, and societal levels. While the EU shapes the foreign policy in Europe, China has a critical role in Asian politics. In Asia-Europe interregionalism and interregional relations, the EU-China relations are essential in consolidating global and regional stability. However, in the current political conjuncture, the security issues in cyberspace challenge both actors. Hence, cybersecurity and digitalization policies are a potential conflict area in EU-China relations. As the impact of technological and digital developments increases on the global political economy, global powers are developing policies to breast the tape in technological development. The European Commission has set “A Europe fit for the digital age” as one of its priorities for the 2019-2024 term. Meanwhile, since 2015 China has been promoting the Digital Belt and Road Initiative to foster digital connectivity among the Belt and Road countries. However, big data analytics are important in developing new technologies, especially in digital connectivity, automation, and robotics. In this context, data governance has become a geopolitical concept in international relations. Consequently, differences between China’s and the EU’s approach to data – access, process, and collection – may result in geopolitical confrontations. In this paper, we argue that both actors should involve civil society in the policymaking process to address the dynamics of information technologies, cooperate on adapting a global approach and avoid geopolitical confrontations. Civil society organizations can help the actors understand the underlying risks in cybersecurity and form a non-conflicting approach in data governance frameworks. Furthermore, while investigating the EU and China’s data governance models, we shed light upon the role of civil society organizations in addressing the potential risks and opportunities in cyberspace. Finally, we conclude our paper with policy recommendations for China and the EU to cooperate in cyberspace by involving civil society organizations. Received: 18 May 2022Accepted: 25 July 2022
{"title":"EU - China relations and data governance policies: the role of civil societies in overcoming geopolitical challenges in cyberspace","authors":"Cem Nalbantoglu","doi":"10.18543/ced.2555","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18543/ced.2555","url":null,"abstract":"EU and China are the global powers that can affect and alter international relations at the political, economic, and societal levels. While the EU shapes the foreign policy in Europe, China has a critical role in Asian politics. In Asia-Europe interregionalism and interregional relations, the EU-China relations are essential in consolidating global and regional stability. However, in the current political conjuncture, the security issues in cyberspace challenge both actors. Hence, cybersecurity and digitalization policies are a potential conflict area in EU-China relations. As the impact of technological and digital developments increases on the global political economy, global powers are developing policies to breast the tape in technological development. The European Commission has set “A Europe fit for the digital age” as one of its priorities for the 2019-2024 term. Meanwhile, since 2015 China has been promoting the Digital Belt and Road Initiative to foster digital connectivity among the Belt and Road countries. However, big data analytics are important in developing new technologies, especially in digital connectivity, automation, and robotics. In this context, data governance has become a geopolitical concept in international relations. Consequently, differences between China’s and the EU’s approach to data – access, process, and collection – may result in geopolitical confrontations. In this paper, we argue that both actors should involve civil society in the policymaking process to address the dynamics of information technologies, cooperate on adapting a global approach and avoid geopolitical confrontations. Civil society organizations can help the actors understand the underlying risks in cybersecurity and form a non-conflicting approach in data governance frameworks. Furthermore, while investigating the EU and China’s data governance models, we shed light upon the role of civil society organizations in addressing the potential risks and opportunities in cyberspace. Finally, we conclude our paper with policy recommendations for China and the EU to cooperate in cyberspace by involving civil society organizations. \u0000Received: 18 May 2022Accepted: 25 July 2022","PeriodicalId":40611,"journal":{"name":"Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43396552","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：