Caught Between 'Dublin' and the Deep Blue Sea: 'Small
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CAUGHT BETWEEN ‘DUBLIN’ AND THE DEEP BLUE SEA: ‘SMALL’ MEMBER STATES AND EUROPEAN UNION ‘BURDEN- SHARING’ RESPONSES TO THE UNAUTHORISED ENTRY OF SEABORNE ASYLUM SEEKERS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN FROM 2005 TO 2010 ________________________________________________________________________ A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in European Studies at the University of Canterbury FRENDEHL SIPACO WARNER National Centre for Research on Europe University of Canterbury 1 For Charlotte, with love 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project concludes what has been both a fulfilling and challenging collaborative venture. I would like to first and foremost express my most sincere appreciation and gratitude to Professor Martin Holland, my thesis supervisor and mentor, without whom this project would not have been possible. Many thanks for the much needed guidance and encouragement in starting and completing this huge endeavour, and for instilling in me a deep passion for European Union politics. I would also like to thank the staff at the National Centre for Research on Europe (NCRE), particularly Professor Alan Williams for the research guidance in the early stages of the thesis, Associate Professor Natalia Chaban for the lecturing and research opportunities, and to Rebecca Morgan, Sarah Christie and Yvonne Grosch for the administrative support in scholarship applications. Conducting a study on irregular migration in the Mediterranean region of the European Union (EU) was indeed a mammoth task, especially for a New Zealand-based student. The direction of this study and the development of the ideas presented in it were greatly assisted and enhanced by the opportunities to engage with the scholars, practitioners and experts in this particular field, and this engagement was facilitated by an internship at the European Parliament, a mobility scholarship from the European Commission, participation at a number of national and international conferences, and guest-lecturing in New Zealand and overseas. First, an internship at the Office of Baroness Sarah Ludford (MEP) at the European Parliament in Brussels provided a fitting ‘rite of passage’ into the world of EU legislation on migration and asylum matters. I am indeed indebted to Baroness Ludford and her staff for the invaluable experience and networking opportunities that helped steer the direction of this thesis. Second, the Jean Monnet Mobility Award for Young Researchers funded my field research, enabling me to conduct interviews with representatives from different organisations directly involved in the case studies presented here. Many thanks to the European Commission for the travel award, and to the following organisations for their willingness to be interviewed for the purposes of this thesis: the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service (Hague), Asociación Comisión Católica de Migración (ACCÉM Castilla-La Mancha), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (Brussels), Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados (ACNUR), and European Commission –DG Home Affairs. I would also like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Father Jan Stuyt at the Jesuit Refugee Services (JRS-Brussels), who took a keen interest in my research topic and introduced me to a number of individuals who provided valuable information in regard to the situation of irregular migrants at the detention centres in Malta. I am also indebted to HRH Prince Constantijn van Oranje-Nassau for the research advice and valuable insight into the Dutch refugee resettlement system. 3 While developing the ideas in this research, I took part in a number of conferences and lectured on the subject in New Zealand and overseas, and I am most grateful for the feedback received from experts, colleagues and students. Many thanks in particular to Dr Andrea Ott at the University of Maastricht for the opportunity to engage with the staff and students at the Faculty of Law, and to Professors Francis Snyder and Daniel Thym for the great privilege of being invited as a discussant and having my paper published in the WISH volume. Over the course of this academic enterprise, I was fortunate enough to have been able to juggle the stress of studying and the demands of working, and I would like to acknowledge the support and encouragement of friends and colleagues at the NZ Human Rights Commission, NZ Department of Labour – Refugee Branch and the University of Canterbury (NCRE and Department of Management). To my family – my mother Delia, parents-in-law John and Patricia, sister Leoclaire and family, brothers Cesar, Niño and Paul and family - thank you for believing that with procrastination comes a last minute surge of energy to complete this project, and for the constant reminder of the need to get this done. Many thanks and love to you all. To Pops, Tio Boy, Lolo and Lola – thank you for the spiritual guidance. To Carl, my husband, best friend and soul mate, thank you for your patience, understanding, unconditional love and support. Your unending encouragement has been a great motivation. Thank you for believing in me. Finally, to Charlotte Isabelle, my darling little girl and inspiration - this is for you. I love you. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments 3 Contents 5 Abstract 7 Chapter 1: Introduction 10 1.1 The Dublin Regulation and Burden-Sharing of Asylum Seekers 10 1.2 Setting the Context of the Study 17 1.3 Thesis Objectives 20 1.4 Thesis Delimitations 23 1.5 Research Methodology 27 1.5 Chapter Synopsis 33 Chapter 2: Review of Existing Literature 35 2.1 Dublin Boat Arrivals and Mixed Migration 38 2.2 Burden Sharing and Mixed Migration 50 2.3 Dublin Regulation and International Law 66 2.4 The EU’s Multiple Roles 67 2.5 Asylum Burden Sharing Models 99 2.6 Chapter Conclusion 115 Chapter 3: Conceptual Foundations of the Study 116 3.1 Introduction 116 3.2 Burden Sharing and Systems Failure 130 3.3 Solidarity and Fair Sharing of Burdens 138 3.4 Small State Strategies 151 3.5 Bilateral Multilateralism 156 3.6 Evidence of Burden-Sharing 159 3.7 Chapter Conclusion 162 Chapter 4: Dublin Regulation and Unauthorised Entry 164 4.1 Introduction 164 4.2 Main Provisions 164 4.3 Building Block of CEAS 166 4.4 Unauthorised Boat Arrivals 168 4.5 Burden on Member States 172 4.6 A Question of Capacity 179 4.7 Existing EU Instruments to Assist Member States 180 5 4.8 Dublin Transfers 181 4.9 Chapter Conclusion 182 Chapter 5: Evidence of Small-State Burden-Sharing 184 5.1 Introduction 184 5.2 Cases of Burden Sharing 185 5.3 Small State Norm Advocacy 191 5.4 Chapter Conclusion 197 Chapter 6: Asylum Burden Sharing and its Future in the EU 199 6.1 Introduction 199 6.2 A Functional Necessity 200 6.3 What Form of Burden Sharing? 201 6.4 Arab Spring: Springboard for Burden Sharing Action 206 6.5 Dublin III: Second Chances 207 6.6 Chapter Conclusion 208 Chapter 7: The EU, Dublin and the Deep Blue Sea: Conclusion 210 7.1 Reflections and Conclusions 210 7.2 Scope for Future Research 211 APPENDICES 214 Appendix I Transcript of Interview with UNHCR 214 Appendix II Transcript of interview with COMMISSION 219 Appendix III Transcript of interview with ACNUR 224 Appendix IV Transcript of interview with ACCEM 227 Appendix V Transcript of interview with Dutch Immigration Service 233 Appendix VI Transcript of interview with LIBE 238 . BIBLIOGRAPHY 243 6 ABSTRACT The Dublin Regulation determines the Member State responsible for accepting and making a decision on asylum claims lodged in the European Union (‘EU’), Norway and Iceland. It aims to ensure that each asylum claim is examined by one and only one Member State, to put an end to the practice of ‘asylum shopping’ and to prevent repeated applications, both of which have been costly for the receiving Member States and caused severe inefficiencies in the determination processes in the EU in the past. With the first Member State of entry being the major determinant for the allocation of asylum responsibility under the Dublin Regulation, there has been growing discontent among Member States at the external borders of the EU, particularly the southern Member States in the Mediterranean, over what they see as a system that has unjustly placed disproportionate burdens on them regarding the admission of seaborne asylum seekers and the costs associated with it. As a result of changes in migration rules and consequent adjustments in the entry strategy employed by irregular migrants and people smugglers, the Member States at the EU’s ‘southern frontline’ have unwillingly played the role of reluctant hosts to boatloads of unwelcome asylum seekers. This thesis aims to examine how the EU has attempted to tackle the challenging situation of the unauthorised migration of asylum seekers into its territory by sea, and in particular, how it has responded to demands from affected Member States for a more equitable system of asylum responsibility allocation in spite of and outside the Dublin framework. It would argue that the ‘small’ EU Member States in the Mediterranean themselves have, over the last five years at least, become the unexpected drivers of the EU’s declared commitment to the principles of ‘solidarity’, ‘fair sharing of responsibility’ and ‘effective multilateralism’. 7 ‘ Small’ as they may be in terms of resources, size or influence vis-à-vis the larger Member States, the former have been able to create their own mark in a global regime that has traditionally been resistant to the idea of burden-sharing. The measures taken by the EU’s ‘southern frontline’ have collectively changed the landscape of a global protection regime where not only is asylum ‘burden sharing’ highly elusive – its terms and conditions are also dictated by the more powerful sovereign states. While the theoretical point of departure in this study is the influence wielded by the ‘small’ EU Member States in the burden-sharing debate, the degree or level of ‘influence’ small Mediterranean Member States can exercise in pushing for cooperative arrangements is itself determined by a system that is biased towards large states, increasingly securitised, and is therefore limited in both nature and scope.