The Emerging Architecture of EU Asylum Policy: Insights into the Administrative Governance of the Common European Asylum System

Tsourdi, Lilian

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3845413

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ultimately, they argue that even if collaboration and negotiations seem to stagnate at the level of 'talk', real-life exigencies actually promote member state cooperation and further intertwine respective capacities. It is a vision in league with Tsourdi (2020), in which the CEAS is not merely concerned with legislative rules, but also considers the series of actors that implement these rules themselves. Consequently, allowing for failed schemes, contentious actions, and even ongoing conflicts, the continuity of on-the-ground operations by a series of state-level, EU-level, and non-governmental bodies in relation to asylum-not the least of which includes the formalisation and standardisation of norms and rules but also administrative routines, both joint and individual-exhibits both continuity and even a form of systemic stability (Lahusen & Wacker 2019;Tsourdi & De Bruycker 2022).…”

Section: Conclusion: the Eu The Ceas And Failing Forward Post-rmcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrative Organized Hypocrisy? Normative Contentions within the EU and the Refugee Migrant Crisis

Beaupré

2023

BIG_Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2015 and 2016, 2.3 million individuals applied for asylum in Europe, the highest number since the creation of the EU. The unprecedented strain on the Common European Asylum policies (CEAS), along with the asymmetric pressure on external border countries and the lack of unified support for border controls, highlighted the tensions between member-state sovereignty and regional competence. According to Lavenex (2018), the Refugee and Migrant Crisis (RMC) was first and foremost a crisis of governance, expressing doubts about the EU’s ability to “fail forward” into further integration in the long-run because of “organised hypocrisy”, an unintended organisational strategy deployed to cope with otherwise irreconcilable differences between normative aspirations and real-life actions concerning asylum. This article revisits Lavenex’s premise of European governance and organised hypocrisy and argues for a more optimistic outlook on European integration. Using the infrastructural Europeanism framework as identified by Pelizza and Loschi (2023), this article argues that despite the legal and legislative gridlocks that surround important issues such as asylum, European integration in relation to asylum is ‘failing forward’ in no small part due to organised hypocrisy and not in spite of it.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion: the Eu The Ceas And Failing Forward Post-rmcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrative Organized Hypocrisy? Normative Contentions within the EU and the Refugee Migrant Crisis

Beaupré

2023

BIG_Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gleichzeitig stehen die Externalisierung von Grenzkontrollen und Aufgaben der Schutzgewährung, eine (zunehmend) restriktive Grenzpolitik an den Außengrenzen und eine effektive Rückführungspolitik im Fokus der Bemühungen. Auch diese basieren auf einer stärkeren Verschränkung und Verzahnung mitgliedstaatlicher Verwaltungspraktiken, die nach den Vorschlägen zu einem neuen Migrations-und Asylpaket häufiger über Verordnungen als über Richtlinien durchgesetzt werden sollen (Guild 2016;Europäische Kommission 2020;Tsourdi 2020b). In der Folge wurde das EASO im Januar 2022 zu einer vollwertigen Agentur (European Union Agency for Asyl, EUAA) ausgebaut und mit einem weitergehenden Mandat ausgestattet (Verordnung (EU) 2021/2303).…”

Section: Theoretische Grundlagen Einer Soziologie Behördlichen Handel...unclassified

“…Doch nicht nur Spitzenbeamtinnen und -beamte gelten als Akteure der Etablierung eines bürokratischen Feldes innerhalb der Europäischen Union. Die Forschung verweist auch auf Arbeitsstrukturen zwischen den nationalen Asylbehörden, die sich u. a. in der Institutionalisierung interadministrativer Netzwerke, dem Austausch von Personal und Informationen sowie operativen Maßnahmen materialisieren (Bartels 1996;Tomei 2000Tomei , 2001Byrne et al 2004;Ette/Kreienbrink 2008;Thym 2010: 377;Tsourdi/Bruycker 2016;Tsourdi 2020b). Wie wir im folgenden Kapitel ausführen werden, spielen in diesem Zusammenhang nicht nur mitgliedsstaatliche Behörden und zwischenstaatliche Abstimmungsgremien eine wichtige Rolle.…”

Section: Forschungsbefunde Und -Desiderateunclassified

“…Wie wir im folgenden Kapitel ausführen werden, spielen in diesem Zusammenhang nicht nur mitgliedsstaatliche Behörden und zwischenstaatliche Abstimmungsgremien eine wichtige Rolle. Mit der Etablierung des European Asylum Support Office (EASO), das im Jahre 2011 seine Arbeit aufnahm, wurde ein Akteur geschaffen, der sich dezidiert um die Kooperation der nationalen Asylverwaltungen und die Vereinheitlichung der Verwaltungspraxis bemüht (Schneider/Nieswandt 2018;Tsourdi 2020b).…”

Section: Forschungsbefunde Und -Desiderateunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Europäische Asylpolitik und lokales Verwaltungshandeln

Lahusen¹,

Schittenhelm²,

Schneider³

2022

Kultur Und Soziale Praxis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Der Ruf nach einer koordinierten Asylpolitik wird angesichts der ungleichen Bedingungen, die Geflüchtete vor und in Europa vorfinden, immer lauter. In diesem Sinne arbeitet die Europäische Union seit Jahren an einem »Gemeinsamen Europäischen Asylsystem«, das gerade auch das Verwaltungshandeln vor Ort verändern soll. Dieser Band stellt die Ergebnisse einer Forschungsstudie vor, die das praktische Arbeiten in deutschen und schwedischen Asylbehörden vergleichend untersucht. Im Fokus stehen der behördliche Umgang mit den Vorgaben der europäischen Asylpolitik, das Ausmaß einer Europäisierung des lokalen Verwaltungshandelns und die Schwierigkeiten einer grenzüberschreitenden Verwaltungskooperation.

show abstract

Solidarity as Normative Rationale for Differential Treatment: Common but Differentiated Responsibilities from International Environmental to EU Asylum Law?

Mavropoulou¹,

Tsourdi²

2022

Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), though a product of the international environmental law of the 1990s, has crept into the language of most, if not all, areas of common concern at UN level. In this chapter, we trace the development and evolution of the principle of CBDR as an expression of fairness and solidarity in international law and focus on its application in international environmental law. We then further explore whether a logic of CBDR is now reflected in the recent global refugee policy instruments at UN level and whether traces of the principle can be found in EU asylum policy and the Common European Asylum System. We conclude that a logic of CBDR permeates recent asylum and refugee policy at UN and EU level, albeit manifested and operationalised in distinct ways. In the first instance at UN level, although a version of CBDR vaguely frames the non-binding responsibility sharing arrangements under the Global Compact on Refugees, it is not explicit or concrete to help us understand what a common responsibility to protect the refugees entails concretely and how such common responsibility ought to be equitably shared.Failing to explicitly debate and adopt the principle even in a soft law instrument, the Global Compact on Refugees missed the opportunity to collectivise the responsibility to protect refugees and meaningfully address the perennial gap of the Refugee Convention. In the second instance, at EU asylum policy level, the legislative developments do reflect a logic of differentiated contributions in what is conceived as a common responsibility. However,

show abstract

The Emerging Architecture of EU Asylum Policy: Insights into the Administrative Governance of the Common European Asylum System

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Integrative Organized Hypocrisy? Normative Contentions within the EU and the Refugee Migrant Crisis

Integrative Organized Hypocrisy? Normative Contentions within the EU and the Refugee Migrant Crisis

Europäische Asylpolitik und lokales Verwaltungshandeln

Solidarity as Normative Rationale for Differential Treatment: Common but Differentiated Responsibilities from International Environmental to EU Asylum Law?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About