The ‘external dimension’ of EU immigration and asylum policy

Abstract

Since the late 1990s, the EU has sought to develop the so‐called ‘external dimension’ of cooperation on immigration and asylum: attempts to manage migration through cooperation with migration sending or transit countries. However, one can discern two rather distinct concepts of the ‘external dimension’. The first involves attempts to externalize traditional tools of domestic or EU migration control; the second to prevent the causes of migration and refugee flows, through development assistance and foreign policy tools. Both are based on different assumptions about how best to influence migration flows, and will have divergent impacts on migration flows, refugee protection and relations with third countries. It therefore makes a big difference which of the two is likely to emerge as the predominant pattern of cooperation in the future. This article looks at the factors influencing the emergence of both concepts, focusing on three central determinants: the potential of such approaches to meet migration policy goals; the institutional context; and domestic political—electoral pressures. It argues that the two last factors have militated in favour of the prevalence of externalization approaches to the detriment of longer‐term strategies of migration management, refugee protection and relations with third countries.

Refugee Crisis in Europe (2015-2016): The Clash of Intergovernmental and Supranational Perspectives

“…The local election on the 6 th of March 2016 in the German state of Hesse in which the far right Alternative für Deutschland Party managed to win 17 per cent of the vote demonstrates that a growing number of Europeans are dissatisfied with the European political mainstream. 19 Likewise, the debate on migration and its burden on the UK has been a decisive factor in the Brexit referendum of June 2016 that has demonstrated growing sentiment in Europe in favor of setting limitations on immigration.…”

Terminology and Concepts of Immigration Policy in Europe and in France

“…Na základě aktuální Lisabonské smlouvy se rozhoduje řádným legislativním postupem (procédure législative ordinaire), kdy mají Evropský parlament a Rada rovnocenné postavení při schvalování právních aktů a návrhy Komise si vyžadují souhlas kvalifikované většiny (vote à la majorité qualifiée) zemí EU. Protokol 29, zvaný též Aznarův protokol, připojený k Amsterodamské smlouvě, zavádí, že se všechny členské státy navzájem považují za bezpečné země (pays sûrs), žádosti o azyl z těchto zemí jsou proto považovány za bezpředmětné; -iniciativy pro omezení migračních toků pomocí externalizace azylové politiky (Kabwe-Segatti, 2009;Boswell, 2003) -refoulement); minimální standardy při určování statusu uprchlíka, maximální délku trvání řízení atd.…”

EU “Mobility” Partnerships: An Initial Assessment of Implementation Dynamics

“…However, the position of the European External Action Service (EEAS) should also be considered, as the EU delegations (which fall under the EEAS) play a key role in the local cooperation platforms that oversee implementation. Boswell (2003) argues that the former DG for Justice, Freedom and Security had very different priorities in relation to external migration policy than did the DGs for external relations and development. The same argument has been made with regard to national administrations: whereas interior ministries are "inward-looking" and might seek to prevent entry to the national territory through the signature of readmission agreements, foreign ministries might view such agreements suspiciously because they spoil good dip-lomatic relations (Pawlak, 2009;Van Selm, 2005).…”

“…This has spawned a sizeable literature on EU external migration policy, with scholars examining policy content and policy-making dynamics (e.g. Boswell, 2003;Coleman, 2009;Weinar, 2011). And yet at the same time the literature on implementation of EU external migration policy has remained extremely limited (Wunderlich, 2013a;2013b;.…”