and scholarly points of view (van Selm, 2002; Boswell, 2003a;
Lavenex, 2006). There is no precise definition of this concept, which
broadly refers to external relations in the area of border, asylum and
migration. As migration issues, by definition, concern the
crossing of borders and involve different states, the definition of the
‘external dimension’ of the EUasylum and migration policy
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.
should be counter-intuitive.
Especially the European Commission is well known for its legalistic
approach to policy problems, always following the letter of the law, in
fact the Commission is often derided for being technocratic. It seems
thus counter-intuitive that the Commission would
‘securitise’ the EUAsylum Policy. According to the
Copenhagen School, who argue that an issue is transformed into a
Does European integration contribute to, or even accelerate, the erosion of intra-party democracy? This book is about improving our understanding of political parties as democratic organisations in the context of multi-level governance. It analyses the impact of European Union (EU) membership on power dynamics, focusing on the British Labour Party, the French Socialist Party (PS), and the German Social Democratic Party (SPD). The purpose of this book is to investigate who within the three parties determines EU policies and selects EU specialists, such as the candidates for European parliamentary elections and EU spokespersons. The book utilises a principal-agent framework to investigate the delegation of power inside the three parties across multiple levels and faces. It draws on over 65 original interviews with EU experts from the three national parties and the Party of European Socialists (PES) and an e-mail questionnaire. This book reveals that European policy has largely remained in the hands of the party leadership. Its findings suggest that the party grassroots are interested in EU affairs, but that interest rarely translates into influence, as information asymmetry between the grassroots and the party leadership makes it very difficult for local activists to scrutinise elected politicians and to come up with their own policy proposals. As regards the selection of EU specialists, such as candidates for the European parliamentary elections, this book highlights that the parties’ processes are highly political, often informal, and in some cases, undemocratic.
Towards supranational governance in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice?
three case studies: (1) EU counter-terrorism and criminal justice, (2)
EUasylum and border policy, and (3) the institutional architecture of
the AFSJ in the LT.
The analysis of these cases has demonstrated that the
political activities of a European institution are more likely to be
successful if it uses:
A first-mover advantage. The EU institution comes forward
The limits of the EU’s external dimension of migration in Africa
Tine Van Criekinge
Development in Africa – Scenarios and Proposals.
Chou, M-H. (2006) ‘EU and the Migration–Development Nexus: what prospects for EU-wide policies?’, COMPAS Working Paper No. 37, University of
Chou, M-H. (2009a) ‘European Union Migration Strategy towards West Africa:
the Origin and Outlook of “Mobility Partnerships” with Cape Verde and
Senegal’, paper presented at the EUSA Conference, Los Angeles, April 2009.
H (2009b) ‘The European Security Agenda and the “External
Dimension” of EUAsylum and Migration Cooperation’, Perspectives on
Tsoukala, 2002 ; Kostakopolou, 2000 ) to argue that migration has been
constructed as a security threat in Europe. This chapter analyses the
role of the EU institutions in the construction of this ‘Area of
Freedom, Security and Justice’. This chapter will make two
significant points. Firstly, the role of the EU institutions in EUasylum and migration has been significantly underestimated. Contrary to
Locating the monsters in the machine: an investigation of faith
Roda Madziva and Vivien Lowndes
Thomas, R. (2006). Assessing the credibility of asylum claims: EU and UK
approaches examined. European Journal of Migration and Law, 8, 79–96.
UNHCR (1998). Note on Burden and Standard of Proof in Refugee Claims.
UNHCR (2004). Guidelines on International Protection: Religion-Based Refugee
Claims under Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol
Relating to the Status of Refugees. Geneva: UNHCR.
UNHCR (2013). Beyond Proof: Credibility Assessment in EUAsylum Systems.
Wesselink, A., Colebatch, H., and Pearce, W. (2014
Ontological coordination and the assessment of consistency in asylum requests
Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board’, Journal of Refugee
Studies 15(1): 43–70.
UN High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR), (2010). Improving Asylum Procedures: Comparative Analysis and
Recommendations for Law and Practice - Key Findings and
UN High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR), 2013. Beyond Proof: Credibility Assessment in EUAsylum
. The Riksdag accepted the proposal in
May 2002 ( Statewatch , 2002).
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 EUasylum and immigration
policy; a common European asylum system; fair treatment of third