A EUROPEAN CRISIS Considering EU Institutional Framework in Light of the Migration Crisis in Greece M.Sc. International Business & Politics Master’s Thesis Christine Ebert Supervisor: Magali Gravier Hand-in date 1st June 2016 Characters: 145.624 M.Sc. International Business & Politics Copenhagen Business School, 2016 Abstract Throughout 2015, more than one million migrants and refugees arrived in Europe. Most of those in Greece. Caught between the Schengen Agreement on the one hand, which tasks Greece with protecting its external borders, and the Dublin Regulation on the other, which places the responsibility for processing asylum application with the first country of entry, Greece was quickly overwhelmed. As migrants left Greece behind and travelled across Europe heading for countries such as Sweden and Germany, member states seemed at a loss. Agreement on how to effectively deal with the crisis proved hard to come by, and by the end of the year, six EU countries had reinstated border control as a response to the influx of migrants. This thesis seeks to assess how the crisis has affected the EU institutional framework for dealing with migrants and to surmise what the consequences thereof might be. The institutional framework selected concerns the Schengen Agreement and the Dublin Regulation, while Frontex will also be considered due to its involvement with EU’s external border. Securitisation is applied to the institutional frameworks, though no evidence is found that they represent a securitisation of migration within the EU. The theory of path dependence is applied to assess whether we might be dealing with a critical juncture. While the institutional frameworks contain some gaps, the biggest gap that has become apparent is the division between member states as to the purpose of the European Union. 2 List of Abbreviations AFSJ Area of Freedom, Security and Justice CISA Convention to Implement the Schengen Agreement CEAS Common European Asylum System CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union ECHR European Convention on Human Rights ECtHR European Court of Human Rights ERF European Refugee Fund JHA Justice and Home Affairs MEP Member of the European Parliament RABIT Rapid Border Intervention Team TEU Treaty on European Union TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ¨ List of Figures Figure 1 Eastern Mediterranean Migration Route, p. 7 Figure 2 From Induction to Deduction, p. 16 Figure 3 Combining Securitisation and Path Dependence, p. 29 Figure 4 Migration Route from Greece to Germany, p. 52 3 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 6 2. Methodology 9 2.1 Philosophy of science 9 2.2 Selection of topic 10 2.3 Terminology 11 2.4 Delimitation 13 2.5 Research approach 16 3. Framework 18 3.1 Securitisation 18 3.1.1 Securitisation and migration 20 3.2 Path Dependence 26 3.3 Combining securitisation and path dependence 29 4. Findings & Analysis 32 4.1 The European Union 32 4.1.1 The European Commission 33 4.1.2 The European Parliament 34 4.1.3 The Council of the European Union 34 4.1.4 The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice 35 4.2 The Schengen Agreement 36 4.3 The Dublin Regulation 42 4.4 Frontex 46 4.5 Summary 48 4.6 Greece 49 4.7 The 2015 Crisis 51 4.8 Path Dependence Applied 54 5. Discussion 56 4 5.1 The Schengen/Dublin Framework 56 5.2 Securitisation Assessed 61 6. Conclusion 65 7. References 68 5 1. Introduction The concept of migration is a tale as old as time. People have forever left their homes in search of new places and the reasons for doing so are as manifold as the destinations reached; some have gone in search of new adventures, some looking for employment, some hoping for better quality of life, while others yet have been forced to leave by circumstances beyond their control. Historically speaking, European countries have provided a great source of emigrants, with an estimated 50 million people leaving for the US, Canada and South America between 1820 and 1914 (Diez & Pichelmann, 2006, p. 4). Since the 1950s, however, the trend has reversed with immigrants now heading towards European countries. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was primarily guest workers recruited by northern European countries (ibid., p. 5). By the late 1960s and into the 1970s the issue became more of a “public concern” (Huysmans, 2000, p. 754) and in 1974, the recruitment of foreign workers stopped as a consequence of the oil crisis and ensuing rise in unemployment (Diez & Pichelmann, 2006, p. 5). Despite this, immigration continued by means of family reunification throughout the 1970s, turning guest workers into permanent guests (Huysmans, 2000, p. 754). From the early 1980s onwards, concerns began surfacing in several European countries about irregular migration (Boswell, 2007, p. 594). In more recent years, migrants trying to reach the EU have received international attention, partly due to the dangerous journey undertaken by some in order to reach the European Union, which, as we have seen off of the coast of both Italy and Greece can lead to disastrous events, some even resulting is deaths. Much attention has been paid to the Mediterranean countries, especially Spain and Italy. In fact, in 2012, “80,6% of irregular migrants detected at the EU’s external borders were detected at the Mediterranean” (Manrique Gil et al., 2014, p. 5). More recently, the focus has shifted to Greece and it has been suggested that the operations to combat illegal border crossings “may merely displace, rather than reduce, the volume of unauthorized crossings.” (Morehouse & Blomfeld, 2011, p. 1). In 1985, five member states of the European Community came together to set up the Schengen Agreement, an arrangement which would do away with internal borders between member states and instead solidify one common external border. In conjuncture with the Schengen Agreement, 6 member states agreed on a common set of visa and immigration rules to be introduced, as entry into one country in effect meant access to all. Greece, located on the periphery of the Union, is, in this respect, fairly isolated, as none of its borders are shared with other Schengen countries. Moreover, due to its geographical location and shape the country “has become a common transit country for those seeking entry into Europe” (Kasimis 2012). In 2008, 50 percent of detected illegal border crossings to the EU were detected in Greece, making the country “the main European gateway for unauthorized immigrants” (MPI, 2010). By 2010, the number had gone up to 90 percent (ibid.). The main problem at the time was deemed the land border to Turkey in the Evros River region, where hundreds of people were (attempting to) cross each day. In 2010, the Greek government even requested the aid of Frontex’s Rapid Border Intervention Teams (RABIT) and two years later Greece erected a fence along its border to Turkey and increased patrol with the aid of Frontex. While the fence did cause a decrease in numbers of migrants trying to enter across the land border, an increase in entries by sea was soon detected instead (Spindler, 2015). In 2015, an estimated 885,000 migrants reached the EU via the Eastern Mediterranean route (see figure 1), 17 times the amount of 2014 (Frontex, 2016a). Greece has been on the receiving end of a lot of blame throughout 2015 for ‘letting’ migrants enter its territory (Christides, et al., 2016). Unable to contain the crisis, migrants began heading towards other EU countries. A draft Schengen Evaluation Report based on observations made in November 2015 revealed “serious deficiencies in the management of the external border in Greece” (EC, 2016a) and at the end of 2015, several EU countries had reintroduced temporary border control, including Austria, France, and Germany, with Hungary even declaring a state of emergency. Taking all these elements into account, I will try to answer the following research question: How has the “Greek migration crisis” impacted the EU’s institutional framework for dealing with migration? 7 Figure 1: Map illustrating the Easter Mediterranean route passing using Turkey as a point of entry. SOURCE: National Geographic, 2015 1.1 Structure of thesis This thesis will proceed in the following way: following the introduction, I will present the methodology (2). This will lead to a presentation of the framework (3). Afterwards, I will move on to the findings and analysis (4), before discussing some of these finding (5). Finally, I will conclude on the matter (6). 8 2. Methodology In this section, I will explain the methodological choices made for this thesis; what I will attempt to do, how and why. I will present my philosophy of science, critical realism, and the assumptions inherent therein in section 2.1. In section 2.2 I will elaborate on my choice of topic as well as some of the thoughts that went with it. Section 2.3 will discuss the importance of terminology and why we must be aware of the concepts used by ourselves and others. In section 2.4 I will discuss the delimitation of this thesis, more specifically what has been selected and what has been excluded in terms of data. And finally, in section 2.5 I will present my research approach, which guides the rest of the thesis. 2.1 Philosophy of science This thesis will be informed by critical realism, which focuses on “explaining what we see and experience, in terms of the underlying structures of reality that shape the observable events” (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 138). Thus it assumes a layered reality, where we see only a part of the whole, and the whole in turn illustrates only what goes on.