Browse results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 21 items for :

  • Global Studies x
  • Human Rights and Humanitarian Law x
  • International Relations x
  • International Relations x
Clear All

Series:

Edited by Sergio Carrera, Arie Pieter Leonhard den Hertog, Marion Panizzon and Dora Kostakopoulou

This collective volume draws on the themes of intersectionality and overlapping policy universes to examine and evaluate the shifting functions, frames and multiple actors and instruments of an ongoing and revitalized cooperation in EU external migration and asylum policies with third states. The contributions are based on problem-driven research and seek to develop bottom-up, policy-oriented solutions, while taking into account global, EU-based and local perspectives, and the shifting universes of EU migration, border and asylum policies. In 15 chapters, we explore the multifaceted dimensions of the EU external migration policy and its evolution in the post-crisis, geopolitical environment of the Global Compacts.

Series:

Midori Okabe

However normative it might be, the inclusive power of European Union (EU) is not effective to Asian countries (including asean as a region) with regard to migration governance. The EU attempts to be a mandatory actor of global institutions yet it seems only successful on condition that the EU and Asian countries reach agreements to cooperate. Although the asean-eu meeting (asem) could have been used for the very opportunity, it serves as a forum on information sharing at best. The bilateral scheme is the possible alternative and the EU would need a negotiation-based power instead of attracting non-EU countries to join in the EU as it does to EU candidate and other neighboring countries. Since the EU Enlargement is not a viable bargaining chip to Asia, the EU needs different items of agenda to make the package-deal useful. As a result, the EU resembles more of a single actor on the arena of negotiation where the inclusive power is least salient

Series:

Edited by Sergio Carrera, Leonhard den Hertog, Marion Panizzon and Dora Kostakopoulou

Series:

Paula García Andrade

The design and implementation of the external dimension of the EU migration policy requires a high degree of coordination among the different levels and actors involved in its development. The current division of external competences in this field calls for the participation of both the Union and its Member States in the setting of cooperation with third countries in the field of migration, leading to potential overlaps as it is particularly noticeable, for instance, in the negotiation of readmission agreements or the adoption of mobility partnerships. The involvement of various EU institutions in the design and execution of this external dimension also creates major challenges for inter-institutional coordination within the EU, such as those identified in the relationships between the Commission, the eeas, the Council and the European Parliament. The same is true with regard to the different Directorates-General and working structures within the Commission or the Council. The legal answer to the current flaws of coordination which may be perceived in the development of the EU external action on migration lies in the “duty of cooperation” which has been inferred by the ecj from the loyal cooperation principle enshrined in art. 4.3 and 13.2 teu. This contribution attempts to extract from the Court’s case law the scope and content of the precise obligations arising from this duty and, after identifying those instances in which a lack of coordination and cooperation can be perceived at the different levels of action in the external dimension of migration, to suggest ways of ensuring its respect with the aim of securing the unity of the international representation of the EU and the consistency and effectiveness of its external action.

Series:

Zvezda Vankova

The concept of circular migration keeps appearing in the context of the EU labour migration policy through legal instruments such as the Seasonal Workers Directive and the proposal for a recast of the Blue Card Directive, as well as it has been featured in the latest Mobility partnership with Belarus from October 2016. These examples suggest that the EU still has some interest in promoting circular migration as a policy instrument. The question is what does this interest mean in terms of the rights of migrant workers? Most of the literature so far focuses on conceptualising circular migration or analysing circular migration patterns rather than looking into implementation dynamics as part of the EU migration policy and its external dimension. This chapter aims at filling namely this gap by assessing the circularity of EU labour migration policies with regards to the Eastern Partnership neighbourhood and addressing the question of whether they provide rights-based outcomes for migrant workers. This is done through the prism of a framework of benchmarks based on international universal and regional human rights standards as well as policy measures that foster circularity focusing on entry and re-entry conditions, work authorisation, residence, social security coordination and entry and residence conditions for family members. This chapter is based on legal empirical research and combines legal and policy analysis with qualitative methods.

Series:

Nora El Qadim

This chapter examines the funding of the EU’s negotiations with third countries on migration policy in order to question the idea of financial incentives as the central bargaining chip in external relations. It argues that, although central to most accounts of negotiations on migration in general, and on readmission in particular, the image of funding as an incentive is misleading. Indeed, financial incentives are usually taken for granted, in the discourses of practitioners and analysts alike, who concentrate on the evaluation of their effectiveness. Financial incentives, although omnipresent, are rarely examined in detail: analyses typically mention some highly publicized funded projects before dismissing financial incentives as insufficient in favour of a focus on non-financial incentives.

This chapter proposes to examine financial incentives in more detail, based on the analysis negotiations on readmission, more specifically EU-Morocco negotiations, and on migration budgets in this context. It shows that the reality of financial incentives is in fact difficult to grasp. First, because the principle of using financial incentives is in itself contentious among Member States. Second, because identifying incentives in EU budgets is not always straightforward. Third, because for the actors in charge of negotiations find it difficult to obtain and mobilize finances as incentives. Finally, budgets use ambiguous and fluid categories, that are symptomatic of the difficulty to mobilize funding as an ‘incentive’, a bargaining chip in negotiations.

Series:

Leonhard den Hertog

The issue of EU policy coherence has attracted tremendous attention from academics and policy makers. Alongside much conceptual querying of what policy coherence means, there is a continuous lamenting of the lack of policy coherence, and the need for more is stressed. Political scientists analyse the decision-making procedures and conclude that different EU institutions, bodies and agencies do not coordinate, resulting in policy coherence. Legal scientists bemoan the incoherent EU legal order and argue for further Treaty reform. This chapter takes the case of the EU (external) migration policy to show that this widespread incoherence is a normal and inevitable feature of EU governance in this field, and of any pluralistic, democratic and rule of law based system of government. Divergent interests, values, and actors can only be accommodated in policies by allowing for some degree of policy incoherence, it is thus the condition upon which EU policy making is premised. The chapter argues that the dominant preoccupation with policy coherence should be reappraised, and advances a broad notion of coherence embedded in the Rule of Law.

Series:

Edited by Sergio Carrera, Leonhard den Hertog, Marion Panizzon and Dora Kostakopoulou

Series:

Tesseltje de Lange

This chapter addresses the intersection of innovation policy and migration law and regulation on the admission of third country national (tcn) entrepreneurs and how intersection can be pushed forward to benefit both policy fields as well as the policy field of integration. The twain do meet, but doubtfully enough to push for the innovation the EU calls for. The chapter discusses a myriad of international, regional or national trade and migration law instruments to facilitate economic migration with more or less attention to innovation The free movement within an “innovation zone” as proposed by the E15 under gats is presented as a source of inspiration. The chapter then builds on a Dutch case-study of decisions on the entry of migrant entrepreneurs, where innovation is hardly relevant. The multileveled regulation of economic migration and the multiple public and private actors involved creates an inscrutable legal complexity that calls for improvement. The chapter finally touches on a triangulation of innovation, migration and refugee integration policies, setting the stage for a policy innovation by including refugee entrepreneurship in the quest for innovation.

Series:

Natasja Reslow

This chapter offers an analysis of the EU Mobility Partnerships as one case in point for policy intersectionality, within the framework of the multi-level governance literature. It argues that the governance of Mobility Partnerships is characterized by its multi-actor nature, and focuses on the consequences of different actors’ preferences and interactions for policy-making and implementation. In particular, it emphasises the roles of the non-EU countries and member states in making and shaping EU external migration policy. Finally, the chapter analyses implementation, something which has been understudied in the literature to date. It argues that the multi-actor nature of EU external migration policy presents obstacles to implementation due to the different policy visions of the different actors, and the non-hierarchical structure which links them.