Two-to-Tango in Migration Diplomacy: Negotiating Readmission Agreement between the eu and Turkey

in European Journal of Migration and Law
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Identified as effective and rapid mechanisms against irregular migration by the European Union, Readmission Agreements (ras) have become one of the major topics in current migration literature. Despite the extensity of the current literature on requesting states, the literature focusing on the requested states remains sparse. Considering that ‘it takes two to tango’ to agree on, to sign, and to implement the ras, it is very crucial to frame the positions of the requested states in the negotiation process of ras. This paper examines the tortuous negotiation process of the ra between the eu and Turkey over the last decade, by primarily focusing on the question of how Turkey, as a non-eu state, has viewed and experienced this process of negotiation.

Two-to-Tango in Migration Diplomacy: Negotiating Readmission Agreement between the eu and Turkey

in European Journal of Migration and Law

Sections

References

9

Lavenex and Uçarer (2004).

12

Trauner and Kruse (2008); D. Bouteillet-Paquet ‘Passing the Buck: A Critical Analysis of the Readmission Policy Implemented by the European Union and Its Member States’ 5 European Journal of Migration and Law (2003) 359–377.

13

Trauner and Kruse (2008).

15

According to Cassarino (2010) migration salience reflects ‘the extent to which migration and mobility have become a salient component of the development of the bilateral relations between the two countries’ (p. 15). As such the scholar refers to cases where the historical relations have been significantly affected by the mobility of people due colonial ties recurrent exchanges of people or the presence of large émigré communities.

16

Billet (2010).

27

A. İçduygu (2007) eu-ization Matters: Changes in Immigration and Asylum Practices in Turkey in: T. Faist and A. Ette (Eds) The Europeanization of National Policies and Polities of Immigration London: Palgrave MacMillan Publishers pp. 201–222; A. İçduygu and A. Üstübici (2013) ‘Negotiating Mobility Debating Borders: Migration Diplomacy in Turkey-eu relation’ in: H. Schwenken and S. Ruß (Eds) New Border and Citizenship Politics Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; A. İçduygu ‘The Politics of Demography and International Migration: Implications for the eu-Turkey Relations’ 12 Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies (2010) 59–71.

29

A. İçduygu (2011) The Irregular Migration Corridor between the eu and Turkey: Is it Possible to Block it with a Readmission Agreement?eu-us Immigration Systems; 2011/14 Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies San Domenico di Fiesole (fi): European University Institute; F. Düvell ‘Transit migration: A blurred and politicised concept’ 18 Population Space and Place (2012) 415–427.

32

A. İçduygu (2005) Transit Migration in Turkey: Trends Patterns and Issuescarim rr (2005/04) Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies San Domenico di Fiesole (fi): European University Institute.

33

D. Sert (2010) Just the Gateway of Thrace: Migration Management on the Turkey-eu Border Mirekoç Reports 2009–2010; Z. Kaslı and A. Parla ‘Broken Lines of Il/Legality and the Reproduction of State Sovereignty: The Impact of Visa Policies on Immigrants to Turkey from Bulgaria’ 34 Alternatives: Global Local Political (2009) 203–227.

42

Coleman (2009).

43

Bürgin (2012).

48

Bürgin (2012) pp. 12–13.

49

G. Knaus (2013) ‘Turkey: the road to visa liberalisation’ in: esi briefing on Turkey’s visa liberalisation process at the Swedish Consulate Istanbul 21 January 2013.

55

L. Petkova (2012) eu’s Readmission Agreement and Lisa Liberalization Talks with Turkey: Backing up Turkey’s Protracted Way to the euGlobal Political Trends Center (GPoT) No. 33.

61

K. Kirişci (2007) Border Management and eu-Turkish Relations: Convergence or Deadlock (e-monograph available at www.carim.org).

62

S. Bulmer and C. Radaelli (2004) The Europeanization of National Policy Queens’ Papers on Europeanization 1/2004 p. 4.

63

İçduygu (2007).

64

B. Weber (2010) Europe’s neighborhood between conditionality network governance and bargaining available online at http://www.ceri-sciencespo.com/themes/ue/articles/enp_weber.pdf (accessed 20 February 2013).

66

U. Sedelmeier (2007) The European neighbourhood policy: a comment on theory and policy Manchester: Manchester University Press pp. 195–208.

67

Weber (2010); M.A. Vachudova (2005) Europe Undivided. Democracy Leverage and Integration after Communisms Oxford: Oxford University Press; M.A. Vachudova (2007) ‘Trade and internal market’ in: K. Weber M. Smith and M. Baun (Eds) Governing Europe’s Neighborhood: Partners or periphery? Manchester: Manchester University Press pp. 97–114.

69

J.N. Rosenau (1969) Linkage politics: Essays on the convergence of national and international systems New York ny: The Free Press.

71

Billet (2010).

72

Cassarino (2010).

73

Trauner and Kruse (2008).

74

Roig and Huddleston (2007).

75

Bouteillet-Paquet (2003).

Figures

  • View in gallery
    Irregular Border Crossings on Turkey’s eu and non-eu borders, September 2006–May 2012.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 14 14 13
Full Text Views 12 12 10
PDF Downloads 5 5 3
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0