Emotions in the European Union's decision-making: the reform of the Dublin System in the context of the refugee crisis

Abstract

The European Union's decision-making process has mostly been pictured as a technocratic and consensual process with little or no place for the logics of passion. The reform of the Dublin System in the wake of the refugee crisis (2015-16) has been analyzed from different angles but not from a political psychology perspective in which emotions are fully taken into account. Crises are often seen as a window of opportunity because key players engage in a strategic process of sense-making. This article explores the role of emotions in this process: to what extent do emotionsseen via crisis-framing processescontribute to the understanding of the reform of the Dublin System? To this purpose, I show first how emotions are related to crisis-framing efforts. Second, I discuss how the study of emotions contributes to the understanding of decision-making processes. I carry out a criticalframe analysis illustrated by a systematic qualitative content analysis of primary documentation. Data include European Parliament debates on the topic of the refugee crisis (covering also the points of view of the Commission and the Council), and policy documents and speeches by the main actors in the decisionmaking process, including relevant member states and non-governmental organizations.

Uncovering Power Dynamics: Feeling Rules in European Policy‐making

“…Studies on European politics have seldom pursued the challenge of theorizing processes in which feelings are formed and structured within social and cultural environments and how emotions are connected to norms and values. From this perspective, only a few case studies have shown that emotions can shape EU decision‐making processes and outcomes (Sanchez Salgado, 2021; 2022; Smith, 2021; Terzi et al, 2021). Emotions have also been used by EU‐based mom‐governmental organizations (NGOs) to justify their policy positions and to influence the policy process (Lynggaard, 2017; Sanchez Salgado, 2018).…”

“…To illustrate with an example, fear has been related to closure and avoidance of risk, while compassion and sympathy motivates us to improve the situation of another (Halperin & Pliskin, 2015). To be more specific, if fear were cultivated within the context of a refugee crisis, perceptions would be shaped accordingly, and the policy solutions that would be put forward would be associated with the closure of borders and neutralization of danger, while other policy solutions, such as opening legal paths to migration would be disregarded (Sanchez Salgado, 2022).…”

“Fortress Europe is an insult to the values of the EU”: The legitimation of migrant acceptance in the human security speech acts of Members of the European Parliament

“…However, it failed because of a lack of “a consensus around the (policy) norms underpinning the origin and consequences of a crisis” (Ripoll Servent, 2019, p. 198). In consequence, “the policy solution adopted in 2015 to relocate refugees (based on empathy) was replaced by the decision to close borders and send refugees back to Turkey (based on fear)” (Sanchez Salgado, 2021b, p. 35).…”