The number of refugees and migrants arriving by sea in Europe is on the rise. According to unhcr, more than one million refugees and migrants arrived in Europe by sea in 2015, whereas more than 3700 people lost their lives while trying to reach the European shores. As a response to the migration crisis, the eu has adopted a number of policies as proposed by the European Commission in the Ten point Action Plan on Migration and the European Agenda on Migration. This was followed by adoption of the second implementation package of the Agenda and initiation of eu-Turkey Joint Action Plan on migration management. In the light of the increasing number of refugees and migrants arriving in Europe by sea, this article examines the policies adopted by the eu in 2015 to cope with the migration crisis in Europe, whether the Council Directive 2001/55/ec of 20 July 2001 on Minimum Standards for Giving Temporary Protection (Temporary Protection Directive) can be implemented to cope with the arrival of the mixed flows and the reason why this Directive can play a key role in solving the migration crisis. Through evaluation of these issues, this article argues that the Temporary Protection Directive should be part of the eu response to the migration crisis as it would provide crucial benefits to both Member States as well as persons seeking refuge in the eu.
Guild et al. (note 27), p. 15; L. Tsourdi and P. De Bruycker (2015), eu Asylum Policy: In Search of Solidarity and Access to Protection, Brussels: Migration Policy Centre, pp. 6–10.
Guild et al. (note 27), p. 18.
Guild et al. (note 27), p. 28; The un Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, François Crépeau, noted that ‘20 000 places in the eu regional block is not an adequate response to the current crisis which in 2014 saw over 200 000 irregular migrants – a majority of whom were asylum seekers – arrived in Europe by boat’. un Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights website, Migrants: ‘eu’s Resettlement Proposal Is a Good Start but Remains Woefully Inadequate’ – un Expert (15 May 2015), available online at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15961&LangID=E#sthash.ZXiYStoU.dpuf (accessed 30 December 2015).
Ibid., p. 4and Annex of the European Agenda on Migration.
Ineli-Ciger (note 9), p. 245; Guild et al. (note 27), p. 70.
Arenas (note 69), p. 439.
Commission of the European Communities (2000), Proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof, Brussels: cec, 24 May 2000, com(2000) 303 final 2000/0127 (cns), p. 14.
Fitzpatrick (note 98), p. 293; Türk (note 98); H. Storey (2014), ‘The “War Flaw” and Why it Matters’, in: D.J. Cantor and J.F. Durieux (eds), Refuge from Inhumanity? War Refugees and International Humanitarian Law, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 39–40.
Durieux and McAdam (note 71), p. 18.
J.C. Hathaway and M. Foster (2014), The Law of Refugee Status, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 3.
A.V. Eggli (2002), Mass Refugee Influx and the Limits of Public International Law, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, p. 155.
J.C. Hathaway (2005), The Right of Refugees under International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119–120; A. Skordas (2011), ‘Article 7 1951 Convention’, in: A. Zimmermann, F. Machts and J. Dorschner (eds), The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol: A Commentary, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 754.
Skordas (note 106), p. 740; Hathaway (note 106), p. 120.
G.S. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam (2007), The Refugee in International Law, 3rd edn., Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 334.
M. Ineli-Ciger (2015), ‘Revisiting Temporary Protection as a Protection Option to Respond to Mass Influx Situations’, in: J.-P. Gauci, M. Giuffré and L. Tsourdi (eds), Exploring the Boundaries of Refugee Law, Current Protection Challenges, Leiden: Brill, pp. 216–217; Fitzpatrick (note 98), pp. 283, 287; V. Onken (2005), ‘The Social Implications of Temporary Protection in Light of the Imperative of Return: A Study of European Policies’, in: A. Botesta (ed.), Refugee Crises and International Response: Towards Permanent Solutions?, Białystok: Libra, p. 187.
See Ineli-Ciger (note 109), p. 213; Fitzpatrick (note 98), p. 287.
Fitzpatrick (note 98), p. 291; ExCoM Conclusion No. 22 (xxxii) ‘Protection of Asylum Seekers in Situations of Large Scale Influx’ (1981).
Ibid., p. 30.
Ibid., p. 31.
J. van Selm (1998), Refugee Protection in Europe: Lessons from the Yugoslavian Crisis, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, p. 125; A. Hans and A. Surkhe (1997), ‘Responsibility Sharing’, in: J.C. Hathaway (ed.), Reconceiving International Refugee Law, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, p. 103.