Search Results

Florian Trauner and Sarah Wolff


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.


Natasja Reslow

11.1 Introduction Over the past three years, cooperation with non-EU countries emerged as an important element of the EU’s response to the “migration crisis”. In particular, several measures have been adopted with Turkey including the creation of a €6 billion “Refugee Facility for Turkey” and the


Midori Okabe

with the rest of the world accordingly. Although the strengthened economic and political ties with the EU has been one of the significant objectives of many non-EU countries, even immediate neighbouring countries are more prone to keep up the status quo, selecting not to cooperate to satisfy the EU

Sabrina Tucci

This research aims to analyse the process which led to the establishment of the Italian/Libyan partnership on migration. It will assess the process of adoption and harmonisation of restrictive asylum and migration policies of European Union (EU) member states as well as examine how the responsibility for assessing and managing asylum cases can be externalised to countries at the EU external borders and to non- EU countries. In the absence of a formal migration regime, Northern states have the power to choose those partners satisfying their interests and to transmit their policies to Southern states. Libyan cooperation on migration with Italy will be analysed in this context. Within this main aim there are three objectives: Explore the process which led to the rise of what can be defined ‘Fortress Europe;’ Explore inter-state relations within the refugee and migration regimes; Assess to what extent the Dublin System and the Safe Third Country notion influenced the establishment of the Italian/Libyan cooperation on migration. Part one will explore the process which led to the creation of what can be called Fortress Europe: attention will be paid to the securitisation of European borders and the implementation and harmonisation of restrictive migration and asylum policies. Part two will analyse inter-state power unbalance within the refugee and migration regimes and the way stronger states can impose their guidelines on weaker ones. Part three will argue that the Dublin System and the concept of Safe Third Country are among the instruments used by the EU / North Western EU states to delegate the responsibility for migration and asylum management to states at the EU external borders as well as the reason for its externalisation through bilateral agreements with third countries. Part four will provide an outline of the findings and of the research method employed.

Change (Dordrecht, New York: Springer, 2010). Provides a survey of adaptation in industrialized EU and non-EU countries, including Austria. Subject Searches: Climate changes--Law and legislation--Austria.Environmental law--Austria.Liability for climatic change damages--Austria. Primary Sources [Climate

project analyses the management and regulation of migration in selected association and partnership agreements between the EU and non-EU countries. The research forms part of the broader project “Migra- tion and Development: A World in Motion”, which is implemented with 208 Review of Central and East

Maresceau, Marc

consultant for various Governments negotiating agreements with the EC and was ad hoc academic expert for various projects of the European Commission in non-EU countries (including projects in South East Asia, Cyprus, Gulf States, Romania).


Dora Kostakopoulou and Marion Panizzon

-level governance, Reslow discusses the key role played by different actors in non-EU countries and how their perceptions and preferences matter. Accordingly, a purely Eurocentric approach cannot adequately capture the dynamics of negotiating and implementing mobility partnerships, which have been regarded as an


Izabella Majcher

necessity. Not only is systematic and prolonged detention not precluded under the Directive but the EU has also exported or triggered detention practices beyond its borders. The externalisation of the EU migration policy involves pushing the migration controls to the neighbouring non-EU countries in order

Arjan D. Uilenreef

non-EU countries have been selected on size (G20 membership), geographical location and whether they receive development assistance from the Netherlands or not. The selection in Table 1 reflects the diversity of countries and regions in which the Netherlands is represented. Table 1