Search results

EU policy entrepreneurship?
Christian Kaunert

valued in order to securitise, which would be far easier in a national context? What are the constraints to securitise at the EU level, notably the Commission and its strong links to non-governmental organisation? This chapter will make two significant points. Firstly, the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), other than in its intrinsic value, is a very significant case for demonstrating that even with

in European internal security
Towards supranational governance in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

The European Commission had become one of the more contentious actors during both Irish referenda on the Lisbon Treaty. This book discusses the role of the European Commission and institutions more generally, as well as the policy area of justice and home affairs. It argues that it is important to evaluate the role of EU institutions for the process of European integration. The book suggests a reconceptualisation of the framework of supranational policy entrepreneurs (SPEs), which is often referred to by the academic literature that discusses the role of agency in European integration. It focuses on the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) at the policy and treaty levels; primarily on four grounds: academic literature, SPE behaviour, EU's policymaking, and the interplay between treaty negotiations and policy-making. To analyse the role of the European institutions, the book combines an analysis of the Lisbon Treaty in relation to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice with an analysis of the policy-making in the same area. The public policy model by John Kingdon with constructivist international relations literature is also outlined. The external dimension of counter-terrorism in the EU; the role of the EU institutions in EU asylum and migration; and the role of he Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is discussed. The book also analyses the role of the EU institutions in the communitarisation of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, and thus subsequently in the Lisbon Treaty.

Alex Balch

common European asylum system; fair treatment of third country nationals; and management of migration flows. On the last point, the conclusions actually made no mention of opening up new channels for migration, although the choice of language (‘management of migration flows’) suggested a shift from Europe’s association with restrictive immigration policies. The presidency conclusions for this section were for: ‘more efficient management of flows’ with ‘development of information campaigns on actual possibilities for legal migration’, common EU visa offices; legislation

in Managing labour migration in Europe
Abstract only
Christian Kaunert

expectations, EU institutions, and especially the European Commission, played the significant role of a Supranational policy entrepreneur for the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). However, the strategy of the Commission in asylum policy was significantly different from its counter-terrorism strategy. While the Commission actively constructed terrorism politically as a ‘European threat’ rather than

in European internal security
International, European and national frameworks
Gill Allwood and Khursheed Wadia

Ireland) and two non-members (Norway and Iceland). In 2008, it comprised 22 EU members (not the UK and Ireland, nor the new members: Cyprus (2004), Bulgaria (2007) and Romania (2007)) and two non-EU members: Norway and Iceland. Allwood 01 24/2/10 10:26 Page 19 Policies and practices: international, European and national frameworks Common European asylum system The commitment to establish a common EU policy on asylum and immigration was made at the first European Council Meeting on Justice and Home Affairs in Tampere in 1999. At this meeting, European leaders

in Refugee women in Britain and France
Europe’s colonial embrace
Nadine El-Enany

immigration and asylum law via protocols to the 1999 Amsterdam Treaty.167 Unlike Denmark, which does not have the option of opting in, Britain and Ireland can choose whether to participate in legislation on immigration and asylum. These opt-outs were secured following the European Council’s 205 EL-ENANY PRINT.indd 205 02/01/2020 13:38 (B)ordering Britain agreement in 1999 to work towards building a Common European Asylum System in accordance with the Refugee Convention.168 The system was to be part of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) described in Article

in (B)ordering Britain
Abstract only
Mark Maguire and Fiona Murphy

; Smyth 2011). 3817 Integration, locality 2nd version:Layout 1 Introduction 22/6/12 12:45 Page 15 15 4 Many asylum seekers in Ireland remain in direct provision for very long periods of time. In 2008 an Amnesty International report found that as of the end of February 2007 1315 asylum seekers had resided in direct provision centres/sites for more than twenty-four months (Amnesty 2008; Breen 2008). During the same year, the European Commission published a Green Paper on the future Common European Asylum System. The Irish response included unequivocal statements

in Integration in Ireland
Christian Kaunert

, from the humanitarian normative rationale of the Tampere conclusions. Secondly, the competence for a ‘common European asylumsystem is only partially covered by the Treaties. The legal competence only relates to minimum standards, but there is absolutely no legal basis for the longterm objective of a common asylum system with uniform status for those that are granted asylum. This

in European internal security
Abstract only
Towards supranational governance in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice?
Christian Kaunert

policies of member states, which is the main reason for which it recommends (para. 31) the development of a Common European Asylum System (CEAS). This was already foreseen by the Hague programme, but has not been fully achieved so far, despite the fact that common minimum standards have already been established as part of the Tampere programme. The main reason for this was a lack of EU competences, as were

in European internal security
Implications for neutrality and sovereignty
Christine Agius

. The Riksdag accepted the proposal in May 2002 ( Statewatch , 2002). 14 The Tampere European Council of October 1999 established an area of freedom, security and justice in the EU, and proposed the following measures: a common EU asylum and immigration policy; a common European asylum system; fair treatment of third

in The social construction of Swedish neutrality