Search results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 17 items for :

  • "Common European Asylum System" x
  • Refine by access: All content x
Clear All
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.

From opt-outs to solidarity?
Aideen Elliott

. While this is not surprising, ‘it clearly illustrates how national interests persist within a common European external migration policy’ ( Hampshire 2016b : 580). Papagianni describes the EU as often functioning ‘as a mere framework for the development of bilateral agreements’ (2013: 290). The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) was to be accomplished in two steps

in Ireland and the European Union
Abstract only
Reclaiming migration: voices from Europe’s ‘migrant crisis’
Vicki Squire, Nina Perkowski, Dallal Stevens, and Nick Vaughan-Williams

address the root causes of migration’ (European Commission, 2015b : 2). This reflects earlier developments under the EU's Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM), which from 2005 operated as the ‘overarching framework for the EU external migration and asylum policy’ (European Commission, 2019 ). The 2015 Agenda provided both short- and medium-term solutions designed to address pressing priorities, as well as a framework for the development of a longer-term approach grounded in a Common European Asylum System, shared management of the European border and a

in Reclaiming migration
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

Given the significant similarities and differences between the welfare states of Northern Europe and their reactions to the perceived 'refugee crisis' of 2015, the book focuses primarily on the three main cases of Denmark, Sweden and Germany. Placed in a wider Northern European context – and illustrated by those chapters that also discuss refugee experiences in Norway and the UK – the Danish, Swedish and German cases are the largest case studies of this edited volume. Thus, the book contributes to debates on the governance of non-citizens and the meaning of displacement, mobility and seeking asylum by providing interdisciplinary analyses of a largely overlooked region of the world, with two specific aims. First, we scrutinize the construction of the 2015 crisis as a response to the large influx of refugees, paying particular attention to the disciplinary discourses and bureaucratic structures that are associated with it. Second, we investigate refugees’ encounters with these bureaucratic structures and consider how these encounters shape hopes for building a new life after displacement. This allows us to show that the mobility of specific segments of the world’s population continues to be seen as a threat and a risk that has to be governed and controlled. Focusing on the Northern European context, our volume interrogates emerging policies and discourses as well as the lived experiences of bureaucratization from the perspective of individuals who find themselves the very objects of bureaucracies.

Martin Joormann

, Immigration and Integration Affairs, and a member nominated and appointed by the Council of the Danish Bar and Law Society (Flygtningenævnet, 2019). Given these procedural differences across the three countries, all of which are part of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) operating within the overall legal framework of international refugee law, it is remarkable that the three national systems display this extent of procedural differences. This is important because it illustrates different institutional settings in which asylum applicants must make their case. If one

in Refugees and the violence of welfare bureaucracies in Northern Europe
Vicki Squire, Nina Perkowski, Dallal Stevens, and Nick Vaughan-Williams

Commission, 2015b : 2). It also claimed that ‘the EU [had] a duty … in helping displaced persons in clear need of international protection’ – a duty to ‘save lives’ (European Commission, 2015b : 4). Such references to the ‘displaced’, to ‘beneficiaries’ and to ‘saving lives’ reflect the EU's adoption of the humanitarian narrative of crisis, its rendering of people on the move as victims, and its approach towards humanitarianism, asylum and protection. This remains reliant on an EU legislative framework (the Common European Asylum System) that is acknowledged by the

in Reclaiming migration
Abstract only
Christian Kaunert

underestimated. Contrary to 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

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