DOCSLIB.ORG

The Fading Promise of Europe's Dublin System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Fading Promise of Europe's Dublin System Not Adding Up The Fading Promise of Europe’s Dublin System EU Asylum: Towards 2020 Project By Susan Fratzke MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE EUROPE EU ASYLUM: TOWARDS 2020 PROJECT NOT ADDING UP The Fading Promise of Europe’s Dublin System By Susan Fratzke March 2015 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author thanks Madeline Garlick for her invaluable guidance and input during the drafting of this report, Natalia Banulescu-Bogdan for her helpful comments, and Hannes Einsporn and Michael Siebel for their research assistance. This research, part of the Migration Policy Institute Europe and International Migration Initiative/Open Society Foundations research project ‘EU Asylum: Towards 2020’, is supported by the Open Society Foundations. In this project, which is a continuation of the work begun in 2014 as part of the ‘European Asylum Beyond 2014’ initiative, MPI Europe and IMI are working with states, institutions, and other stakeholders in a multi-year initiative aimed at generating practical ideas for the immediate and longer term. The research project aims to contribute to development of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) consistent with the European Union’s interests, values, and obligations, through research on challenges and options on asylum to inform the development of evidence- based policies and laws. The project will involve broad consultations with Member States, EU institutions, civil society, international- or ganisations, and academics, to draw on their expertise and seek to work towards consensus on the many key questions around responses to asylum on which perspectives differ. For more research from MPI Europe, visit www.mpieurope.org. © 2015 Migration Policy Institute Europe. All Rights Reserved. Cover design and typesetting: April Siruno No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from MPI Europe. A full-text PDF of this document is available for free download from www.mpieurope.org. Information for reproducing excerpts from this report can be found at www.migrationpolicy.org/about/copyright-policy. Inquiries can also be directed to [email protected]. Suggested citation: Fratzke, Susan. 2015. Not Adding Up: The Fading Promise of Europe’s Dublin System. Brussels: Migration Policy Institute Europe. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................1 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................2 II. BACK TO THE BASICS: DUBLIN’S FOUNDING PRINCIPLES ......4 The necessity of the Dublin system ....................................................... 6 III. NOT MEASURING UP: EVALUATING THE EFFICIENCY OF THE DUBLIN SYSTEM ...........................................................7 A. An uneven burden ...................................................................... 8 B. Actual transfer rates are low ........................................................11 C. Member States often exchange similar numbers of requests ......................13 D. Secondary movement and ‘asylum shopping’ remain issues ......................13 E. Costs ...................................................................................15 I V. DUBLIN’S UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: ACCESS TO PROTECTION AND OTHER IMPACTS ................................ 16 A. Disruption of family unity and risks to vulnerable individuals ................17 B. Delayed access to asylum procedures ...............................................18 C. Detention ..............................................................................19 D. Access to protection after transfer ..................................................19 E. Other risks .............................................................................20 V. WHERE TO FROM HERE? ............................................... 20 A. Evaluating the promise of Dublin III ..............................................20 B. A rocky road ahead ...................................................................23 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 24 APPENDIX. DUBLIN REQUESTS AND TRANSFERS, 2012 .............. 26 WORKS CITED ................................................................. 28 ABOUT THE AUTHOR ........................................................ 32 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Europe’s Dublin system has been the subject of intense political debate since its inception. It has, on the one hand, been lauded as the cornerstone of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), and on the other vilified as a fail- ure of solidarity and burden-sharing among European Union (EU) Member States.1 In truth, the Dublin system was not designed to equalise or share asylum burdens. Rather, its chief purpose is simply to create a mechanism that swiftly assigns responsibility for processing an individual asylum application to a single Member State. By establishing a legal framework for assigning responsibility, the Dublin Regulation (and its prede- cessor, the Dublin Convention) seeks to ensure quick access to protection for those in need, and to discourage abuses of the asylum system by preventing applicants from ‘shopping’ for the Member State with the most favourable proce- dures or reception conditions. Dublin—or a mechanism like it—will remain a necessity as long as separate national asylum systems exist within a European area that lacks internal border controls. As implemented, however, the Dublin Regulation is largely failing to achieve its two primary goals. Low effective transfer rates and a persistently high incidence of secondary movement among asylum seekers (both before and after filing an application) have undermined the efficiency of the Dublin system. In addition, Dublin has been criticised for leading to unnecessary transfers, particularly when cases could be dealt with quickly (as with manifestly unfounded claims) or when Member States exchange similar numbers of cases. Asylum advocates, mean- while, have raised serious concerns about the delays that Dublin procedures cause in the evaluation of protection claims. Such delays may disrupt family unity and put vulnerable individuals at risk. Applicants may be returned to nations (e.g., Greece) whose struggling asylum systems lack the capacity to process their claims or provide them with adequate reception conditions. The criticism most often levelled at the Dublin Regulation is that it has prompted a transfer of asylum-processing responsibilities from Europe’s north to its southern borders—a charge that is not borne out by the evidence. The criticism most often levelled at the Dublin Regulation, however, is that it has prompted a transfer of asylum- processing responsibilities from Europe’s north to its southern borders—a charge that is not borne out by the evidence. While northern European states clearly send more transfer requests than do southern ones, and those in the south are most likely to be on the receiving end of requests, the disparity in numbers of actual transfers is relatively small. In fact, many of those countries perceived to be ‘sending’ states also receive a substantial number of transfers. The 2013 recast of the Dublin Regulation seeks to address some of these concerns by clarifying how Dublin assigns responsibility for asylum claims, by tightening deadlines and by creating an ‘early warning and preparedness mecha- nism’ to support Member States whose asylum systems are under strain. Most significantly, the recast Dublin (known 1 Throughout this report “Member State” refers both to Member States of the European Union and non-EU states that have acceded to the Dublin Regulation: Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein. All EU Member States opted to participate in the Dublin II Regulation, including European Union (Council of the European Union, ‘Council Decision of 21 February 2006 on the Conclusion of the Agreement between the European CommunityIreland and theand United the Kingdom Kingdom. of Denmark The participation extending of to Denmark, Denmark which the provisions is not bound of Council by the asylumRegulation acquis, (EC) is No. governed 343/2003 by a establishing specific treaty the with criteria the and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the member States by a for the effective application of the Dublin Convention Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on the criteria andthird-country mechanisms national for establishing and Council the Regulation State responsible (EC) No. for2725/2000 examining concerning a request forthe asylumestablishment lodged inof DenmarkEurodac for or theany comparison other Member of fingerprints State of the Official Journal (OJ) 2006 L 66/37, 21 February 2006, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1425413295979&uri=OJ:JOL_2006_066_R_0037_01). Participation byEuropean non-EU Union Members and isEurodac also negotiated for the comparison via bilateral of treaties: fingerprints for Iceland for the andeffective Norway application see Council of the of theDublin European Convention’, Union, ‘Council Decision of 21 February 2006 on the conclusion of a Protocol to the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=14254
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Integration and Resettlement of Refugees and Forced Migrants
    Integration and Resettlement of Refugees and Forced Migrants Forced and Refugees of Resettlement and Integration • Karen Jacobsen and Charles Simpson Integration and Resettlement of Refugees and Forced Migrants Edited by Karen Jacobsen and Charles Simpson Printed Edition of the Special Issue Published in Social Sciences www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci Integration and Resettlement of Refugees and Forced Migrants Integration and Resettlement of Refugees and Forced Migrants Special Issue Editors Karen Jacobsen Charles Simpson MDPI • Basel • Beijing • Wuhan • Barcelona • Belgrade Special Issue Editors Karen Jacobsen Charles Simpson Tufts University Tufts University USA USA Editorial Office MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel, Switzerland This is a reprint of articles from the Special Issue published online in the open access journal Social Sciences (ISSN 2076-0760) in 2019 (available at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci/ special issues/integration and resettlement of refugees). For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated on the article page online and as indicated below: LastName, A.A.; LastName, B.B.; LastName, C.C. Article Title. Journal Name Year, Article Number, Page Range. ISBN 978-3-03928-130-5 (Pbk) ISBN 978-3-03928-131-2 (PDF) Cover image courtesy of Charles Simpson. c 2020 by the authors. Articles in this book are Open Access and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, which allows users to download, copy and build upon published articles, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications. The book as a whole is distributed by MDPI under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND.
    [Show full text]
  • Burden Sharing and Dublin Rules – Challenges of Relocation of Asylum Seekers
    Athens Journal of Law - Volume 3, Issue 1 – Pages 7-20 Burden Sharing and Dublin Rules – Challenges of Relocation of Asylum Seekers By Lehte Roots Mediterranean route has become the most used irregular migration route to access the borders of European Union. Dublin regulation has set up principles that a country which has allowed the immigrant to access its territory either by giving a visa or giving an opportunity to cross the border is responsible for asylum application and the processing procedure of this application. These rules have put an enormous pressure to the EU countries that are at the Mediterranean basin to deal with hundreds of thousands of immigrants. At the same time EU is developing its migration legislation and practice by changing the current directives. The role of the Court of Justice in this development should also not be under diminished. From one point of view EU is a union where principles of solidarity and burden sharing should be the primary concern, the practice though shows that the initiatives of relocation of asylum seekers and refugees is not taken by some EU member states as a possibility to contribute to these principles, but as a threat to their sovereignty. This paper is discussing the further opportunities and chances to develop the EU migration law and practice in order to facilitate the reception of persons arriving to EU borders by burden sharing. Keywords: Irregular migration, relocation, resettlement, Dublin rules, burden sharing Introduction “We all recognized that there are no easy solutions and that we can only manage this challenge by working together, in a spirit of solidarity and responsibility.
    [Show full text]
  • Eurodac -2020 Annual Statistics* Factsheet.March 2021
    EURODAC - 2020 ANNUAL STATISTICS* FACTSHEET. MARCH 2021 The European Dactyloscopy Database (Eurodac) helps Member States to determine the country responsible for the assessment of an asylum application lodged within an EU member or a Schengen Associated country, by enabling fingerprint comparison. Depending on the purpose of the fingerprints sets transmitted (the type of category), those are stored and/or searched against other fingerprints sets already present in the Eurodac. In 2020, 644,926 sets of fingerprints were transmitted to the Eurodac Central System. The use of Eurodac dropped by 30% compared to 2019, as a direct consequence of the reduction of border checks and travel restrictions imposed all over Europe due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 401,590 fingerprint sets were 82,295 fingerprint sets were transmitted for Category 1 transmitted for Category 2 (irregular (asylum applicant). crossing of external borders). 160,843 searches for Category 3 208 searches for categories 4 & 5 were (checks within Member States` performed (by Member States law territory), were performed. enforcement authorities and Europol). eu-LISA is responsible for ensuring the uninterrupted exchange of data between national authorities 24/7. The Agency provides effective support to Member States in their application of the Dublin Regulation. In addition to the system’s operational management, it is also in charge of Eurodac further developments. 10.2857/28779 2,000,000 20000 • DOI: Trend in the traffic of the main Eurodac 1,600,000 15000 0758 categories 2014-2020 - 1,200,000 2467 After a clear visible peak of Category 1 (asylum 10000 800,000 • ISSN seeker) and Category 2 (irregular crossings) in 4 5000 - Categories 4 & 5 data Categories 2015 and 2016, figures have significantly 400,000 90 - decreased as from 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Appendix 1
    Article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1802.110987 Diphtheria in the Postepidemic Period, Europe, 2000–2009 Technical Appendix 1 Additional members of the Diphtheria Surveillance Network who contributed data: Ulrich Sagel (Instiut fur Medizinische Mikrobilogie und Hygiene, Linz, Austria); Martine Sabbe (Scientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium); Ingrid Wybo (Universitaire Ziekenhuis Brussel–Vrije Universiteit, Brussels, Belgium); Antoaneta Decheva, Nadezhda Vladimirova (National Centre of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Sofia, Bulgaria); Chrystalla Hadjianastassiou (Ministry of Health, Nicosia, Cyprus); Despo Pieridou-Bagatzouni (Nicosia General Hospital, Nicosia, Cyprus); Bohumir Kriz (Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic and National Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czech Republic); Jana Zavadilova (National Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czech Republic); Peter Henrik Andersen (Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark); Jens Jørgen Christensen (Slagelse Hospital, Slagelse, Denmark); Unna Jõks and Irina Donchenko (Health Protection Inspectorate, Tallinn, Estonia); Markku Kuusi and Jaana Vuopio (National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland); Nicole Guiso and Patrick Grimont (Institut Pasteur, Paris, France); Isabelle Bonmarin (Institut de Veille Sanitaire, Saint Maurice, France); Andreas Sing (National Consiliary Laboratory on Diphtheria, Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Oberschleißheim, Germany); Wiebke Hellenbrand (Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany); Jenny Kremastinou
    [Show full text]
  • Why the Common European Asylum System Is a Breach of Justice and Why a Third Phase of Amendments Is Required
    LUCK OF THE DRAW FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS IN EUROPE: WHY THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM IS A BREACH OF JUSTICE AND WHY A THIRD PHASE OF AMENDMENTS IS REQUIRED INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 393 I. THE SECOND PHASE OF THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM DIRECTIVES ................................................................................. 396 A. The Asylum Procedures Directive ................................................... 396 B. The Reception Conditions Directive ................................................ 397 C. The Qualification Directive ............................................................. 399 D. The Dublin III Regulation ............................................................... 401 II. A WARRANTED CRITIQUE OF THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM DIRECTIVES ................................................................................. 403 A. The Asylum Procedures Directive: A Critique ................................ 403 B. The Reception Conditions Directive: A Critique ............................. 406 C. The Qualification Directive: A Critique .......................................... 409 D. The Dublin III Regulation: A Critique ............................................ 412 III. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A THIRD PHASE OF COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM AMENDMENTS .............................................................. 415 A. Recommendation One: Regulations, Not Directives ....................... 415 B. Recommendation Two: Proposed
    [Show full text]
  • BUSINESS NEWS of the ISSUER NIS A.D. NOVI SAD Oil Major NIS
    BUSINESS NEWS OF THE ISSUER NIS A.D. NOVI SAD Oil major NIS first company from Serbia to open representation in Brussels NIS celebrated the opening of its corporate representation to the European Union on 23 June 2011. The festive launch ceremony was hosted by the top management of NIS and its main shareholders, Minister of Foreign Affairs Vuk Jeremic on behalf of Serbian government, and permanent representative of Russian Federation to the EU Vladimir Chizhov. The event gathered officials from EU institutions as well as peers and stakeholders. NIS is the first company from Serbia to open a permanent business representation in Brussels. Mr. Kirill Kravchenko, CEO of NIS, said: ”The EU is of strategic importance for the economic development of Serbia. This is why NIS and its main shareholders – the Serbian government and Gazprom Neft – are keen to initiate a permanent dialogue between the Serbian oil and gas sector and the European institutions. NIS supports the economic integration and political accession of Serbia to the EU and has realised enormous investments in order to adapt its facilities to EU standards – for example by modernising its refinery in Pancevo. In addition, NIS already has the institutional European investors. This year the company has started realization of the projects in EU countries – Romania and Hungary-, our first step as a contribution to the development of the EU economy. By entering the EU market we create jobs, revenues, develop technology and partnerships with the largest European companies. Our new representation in Brussels will help us to complement this process through a constructive dialogue with EU decision-makers.” The opening of a representation in Brussels is a part of NIS’ business strategy to reach a leading position in the oil and gas sector of the region by applying EU standards and the most advanced technologies in its business operations.
    [Show full text]
  • 16. Stockholm & Brussels 1911 & 1912: a Feminist
    1 16. STOCKHOLM & BRUSSELS 1911 & 1912: A FEMINIST INTERNATIONAL? You must realize that there is not only the struggle for woman Suffrage, but that there is another mighty, stormy struggle going on all over the world, I mean the struggle on and near the labour market. Marie Rutgers-Hoitsema 1911 International Woman Suffrage Alliance (IWSA) became effective because it concentrated on one question only. The Alliance (it will be the short word for the IWSA) wanted to show a combatant and forceful image. It was of importance to have many followers and members. Inside the Alliance, there was no room to discuss other aspect of women's citizenship, only the political. This made it possible for women who did not want to change the prevalent gender division of labor to become supporters. The period saw an increase of the ideology about femininity and maternity, also prevalent in the suffrage movement. But some activists did not stop placing a high value on the question of woman's economic independence, on her economic citizenship. They wanted a more comprehensive emancipation because they believed in overall equality. Some of these feminists took, in Stockholm in 1911, the initiative to a new international woman organization. As IWSA once had been planned at an ICW- congress (in London in 1899) they wanted to try a similar break-out-strategy. IWSA held its sixth international congress in June in the Swedish capital. It gathered 1 200 delegates.1 The organization, founded in opposition to the shallow enthusiasm for suffrage inside the ICW, was once started by radical women who wanted equality with men.
    [Show full text]
  • EURODAC? USAGE of the SYSTEM in the LAST 5 YEARS When Applying for Asylum, the Data Is Stored for 10 Years and Compared Against the Data Already in the System
    WHAT IS EURODAC? USAGE OF THE SYSTEM IN THE LAST 5 YEARS When applying for asylum, the data is stored for 10 years and compared against the data already in the system. Eurodac is the centralised European database that stores 2 000 000 Future searches will compare this data with asylum and processes the digitalised fingerprints of asylum 1 800 000 requests and data on people who have been found to be seekers and irregular migrants who have entered 1 600 000 illegally present. 1 400 000 a European country. This helps determine the Member 1 200 000 State responsible for examining an asylum application. 1 000 000 For people illegally present in the EU, fingerprints will not 800 000 be stored but only compared against asylum applications Eurodac is a large-scale IT system that helps with the 600 000 already in the system. management of European asylum applications since 2003. 400 000 200 000 It is used by 32 countries: 28 EU Member States and 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Only in specific cases can law enforcement authorities 4 Associated Countries (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland operations – irregular crossing external border search fingerprints stored in the system related to asylum and Liechtenstein). operations – asylum seekers seekers and irregular crossings. Such searches can only be made when linked to prevention, detection and Eurodac stands for EUROpean Asylum DACtyloscopy Operations refer to action taken in the database (update/entry/search/deletion, etc.) investigation of terrorist and other serious offences. database. Source: Eurodac annual reports (eu-LISA, 2014 and 2015) In cases when the individual was granted international protection, this search possibility is limited to a period HOW DOES EURODAC WORK? of three years.
    [Show full text]
  • Brussels, January 9, 2007
    Brussels, January 10, 2007 Rezidor opens two new Park Inn hotels in Sweden and UK The Rezidor Hotel Group has signed agreements for 2 more Park Inn hotels in Sweden and UK – namely in the Swedish capital Stockholm, and in Leigh, Great Britain. The new Park Inn hotel in Stockholm, which is to be built in the rapidly growing area known as Hammarby Sjostad, will comprise 177 rooms, is scheduled to open in 2009 and will be the 16th Park Inn in Sweden. The 18-storey property will have a roof top terrace and a relax centre on the top floor, and will be a landmark in the area. Owner and constructor is Botrygg Bygg AB. The new hotel is in line with Rezidor’s strategy to pursue aggressive expansion within the mid market segment. “Park Inn is an important part of our growth strategy, as is the Swedish market where there is strong demand for mid market hotels,” says Kurt Ritter, President & CEO of The Rezidor Hotel Group. In June last year, Rezidor announced the new Park Inn Congress Centre Stockholm with 420 rooms in the very heart of Stockholm, scheduled to open in 2010. The property is a much awaited hotel and congress centre with capacity for up to 3.000 delegates in an auditorium setting, placing Stockholm among an exclusive group of global cities offering similar congress facilities in their city centre. The Park Inn Leigh will be built on the M6 motorway between Liverpool and Manchester – as part of the new Leigh Sports Village for sports education, leading training programs, corporate activities and conferencing.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Application of the Dublin Ii Regulation in Europe
    EUROPEAN COUNCIL ON REFUGEES AND EXILES CONSEIL EUROPEEN SUR LES REFUGIES ET LES EXILES REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OF THE DUBLIN II REGULATION IN EUROPE MARCH 2006 AD3/3/2006/EXT/MH EUROPEAN LEGAL NETWORK ON ASYLUM Report on the Application of the Dublin II Regulation in Europe CONTENTS page Introduction 4 The Development of the Dublin System 7 The Safe Third Country Concept 7 Schengen 8 The Dublin Convention 9 The Amsterdam Treaty 10 The Dublin II Regulation and EURODAC 11 Hierarchy of Criteria under the Dublin II Regulation 11 Country Information Tables 13 Austria 14 Belgium 22 Czech Republic 28 Finland 34 France 40 Germany 46 Greece 54 Hungary 61 Ireland 67 Italy 74 Lithuania 80 Luxembourg 87 The Netherlands 93 Norway 102 Poland 111 Portugal 117 Slovenia 123 Spain 130 Sweden 136 United Kingdom 142 Summary of Findings 150 1 Access to an Asylum Procedure 150 1.1 The Practice in Greece 150 2 Report on the Application of the Dublin II Regulation in Europe 1.2 The Practice in Other Member States 151 1.3 Procedural Safeguards 153 1.4 Reception Conditions 153 2 Selected Provisions 154 2.1 The Sovereignty Clause (Article 3(2)) 154 2.1.1 Protection Reasons 154 2.1.2 Humanitarian/Compassionate Reasons 155 2.1.3 Use in Accelerated/Manifestly Unfounded Procedures 155 2.1.4 Inconsistency and/or lack of application 156 2.2 Separated Children (Article 6) 156 2.2.1 UK Case Studies 157 2.2.2 The Practice in Other Member States 157 2.3 Family Unification (Articles 7& 8) 158 2.4 The Humanitarian Clause (Article 15) 160 2.5 Provision of Information 161
    [Show full text]
  • IRAQI REFUGEES, ASYLUM SEEKERS, and DISPLACED PERSONS: Current Conditions and Concerns in the Event of War a Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper
    A Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper, February, 2003 IRAQI REFUGEES, ASYLUM SEEKERS, AND DISPLACED PERSONS: Current Conditions and Concerns in the Event of War A Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 2 I. HUMANITARIAN CONCERNS............................................................................................................. 3 A. CURRENT CONCERNS.............................................................................................................................3 B. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................4 C. HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS ...............................................................................................................5 II. INTERNALLY DISPLACED IRAQIS................................................................................................... 6 A. CURRENT CONCERNS.............................................................................................................................6 B. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................7 C. HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS ...............................................................................................................8 III. THE PROSPECTS FOR “SAFE AREAS” FOR INTERNALLY DISPLACED
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Asylum Legislation in the EU: Insights from Regulatory Competition Theory
    Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Evolution of Asylum Legislation in the EU: Insights from Regulatory Competition Theory SÉGOLÈNE BARBOU DES PLACES RSC No. 2003/16 EUI WORKING PAPERS EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE All rights reserved. No part of this paper may be reproduced in any form without permission of the author(s). Evolution of Asylum Legislation in the EU: Insights from Regulatory Competition Theory Ségolène Barbou des Places 2003 Ségolène Barbou des Places Printed in Italy in November 2003 European University Institute Badia Fiesolana I – 50016 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) Italy ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION The paper proposes to use regulatory competition theory in order to better The evolution of asylum and refugee legislation in Europe from the mid-80’s understand the evolution of the EU member States’ asylum legislation. It argues onwards is characterised by a substantial decrease in the legal protection granted that regulatory competition theory can explain the rapid trend of legislative to asylum seekers and refugees. Scholars relate the emergence of a “new” amendments from the mid-80’s onwards, the progressive yet incomplete asylum regime that reflects a change in paradigms: whereas before the regime convergence of the EU member States’ legislation, and the spiral of restrictions implemented a selective but integrative policy of access and full status of legal norms originally enacted to protect asylum seekers. Competition among recognition paired with full social rights, it now maximises exclusion, legal norms also explains EU Member States’ reticence to collaborate and share undermines status and rights and emphasises short-term stay for refugees (Joly). the burden.
    [Show full text]