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
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
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.
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.
Ireland . Belfast : Beyond the Pale .
McMahon , B. ( 2015 ) Working group to report to
government on improvements to the protection process, including
direct provision and supports to asylum seekers . Dublin : Department of
Justice and Euqality .
Moreno-Lax , V. ( 2014 ) ‘ Life after Lisbon: EUasylum policy as a factor of migration control ’, in
Vicki Squire, Nina Perkowski, Dallal Stevens, and Nick Vaughan-Williams
involved in processes of silencing (see Chapter 2 ), Reclaiming Migration also points to the racialised violence of the deterrence paradigm (see Chapter 3 ), the colonial ties hidden in plain sight within the EU's asylum and protection regime (see Chapter 4 ), and the hierarchies of the ‘human’ that are embedded in the projection of Europe as a place of human rights, peace and safety (see Chapter 5 ). Indeed, we also draw attention to the key role that EU states play in producing and perpetuating the very drivers and conditions of flight (see Chapter 6 ). On this
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
Ceyhan and 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