This article develops a research framework for the analysis of the politics of migration policy instruments. Policy instruments are seen as living instruments; they evolve and develop similar to moving targets. A scholar interested in this field of research may focus either on the establishment of a given instrument or on its use. The question of an instrument’s design relates to the policy transfer literature focusing on how certain policies move from one setting to another. In the context of a policy transfer, actors from the other – ‘receiving’ – institutional setting negotiate and, potentially, contest or reinterpret a policy instrument. The evolution of policy instruments once adopted in a specific institutional context is a second area of interest. The original goals can be diluted throughout the implementation process notably due to tensions between intergovernmental and supranational actors, or sticky institutionalization, which is characterized by path-dependencies. Often the choice of new instruments derives from an inefficiency or loss of credibility of past instruments. This editorial therefore seeks to make a twofold contribution: first it investigates the added-value of a policy instrument approach to the study of migration; second it furthers research on the external dimension of EU migration policy.
A. Betts (2011) ‘The global governance of migration and the role of trans-regionalism’, in: R. Kunz, S. Lavenex and M. Panizzon (eds.) Multilayered Migration Governance. The Promise of Partnership, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 23–46.
Lavenex (2006), see note 4.
European Council (1999) Presidency Conclusions, Tampere, 15 and 16 October 1999.
Betts (2011), see note 6.
Betts (2011), see note 6, at p. 32.
P. Fargues (ed.) (2010) Understanding Human Migration, Florence: European Union Institute, at p. 18.
T.A. Aleinikoff (2007) International Legal Norms on Migration: Substance without Architecture, in: R. Cholewinski, R. Perruchoud and E. MacDonald (eds.) International Migration Law: Developing Paradigms and Key Challenges, The Hague: tmc Asser Press, pp. 467–479.
A. Betts (2010) Global Migration Governance – the Emergence of a New Debate, Global Economic Governance Programme, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Lascoumes and Le Galès (2007), see note 1, at p. 1.
Le Galès (2006), see note 1, at p. 8.
Le Galès (2006) Ibid.
Bomberg (2007), see note 2; A. Jordan and A. Lenschow (eds.) (2008) Innovation in Environmental Policy? Integrating the Environment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Halpern (2010), see note 2 at p. 40; Bomberg (2007), see note 2, at p. 248.
Halpern (2010), see note 2, at p. 40.
Halpern (2010), see note 2, at p. 46.
Menon and Sedelmeier (2010), see note 3.
Farrell (2009), see note 32 at p. 1177.
European Commission (2011) Evaluation of eu Readmission Agreements. COM(2011) 76 final, 23 February 2011, at p. 5.
Council of the European Union (2005) A strategy for the External Action of jha: Global Freedom, Security and Justice, Brussels, 15446/05, 6 December 2005.
N. Coleman (2009), European Readmission Policy. Third Country Interests and Refugee Rights, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, at p. 12.
Halpern (2010), see note 2, at pp. 43–44.
Lavenex and Uçarer (2002), see note 4.
D.C. North (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
March and Olsen (1998), see note 49.
Finnemore and Sikkink (1998), see note 35, at p. 897.
S. Wolff (2012) The Mediterranean Dimension of the European Union’s Internal Security, Houndmills: Palgrave.
Menon and Sedelmeier (2010), see note 3, at p. 82.