Search

While Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming a key element in supporting the migration and border management policies of the European Union and its Member States, so far, AI‐based migration technologies have been tested and implemented with limited public scrutiny. In this context, the EU AI Act holds the promise of a regulation in line with the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law. While Member States are bound by existing EU legislation when deploying AI, the Act represents the first attempt to regulate this technology in migration and border management. This paper examines the evolution of the Act throughout the negotiation process and its potential to hold actors involved in AI‐driven migration technology accountable, thereby promoting the rule of law. It argues that while the regulation offers promising and important elements, a closer examination brings to light important concerns about its ability to ensure accountability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past ten years, the language of crisis has become increasingly common in discourse about migration governance at the European Union (EU) level, and policy responses have been oriented by an emergency rationale that prioritizes short-term solutions over long-term planning. EU migration and asylum law incorporates several crisis response mechanisms, and the addition of a new set of instruments has recently been proposed. This paper offers a critical legal mapping of what counts as a "crisis" in EU migration and asylum law, and the mechanisms for responding to such crises. It exemplifies a complex system in which the tension between the imperative to address threats purportedly arising from unwanted migration is intricately intertwined with the necessity of granting Member States flexibility to respond to contingencies without compromising the integrity of the common EU asylum and migration system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EU citizens migrating between EU member states are expected to be self-sufficient movers, with little access to social or integration support for the economically inactive. This generates challenges for both migrant EU citizens and local governments in places of destination. The latter are confronted with new social challenges resulting from migration that balances between mobility and settlement. How local governments respond to this crucially shapes EU citizenship and the evolving EU migration system. This paper looks at local responses to migrant EU citizens' integration needs and how we might understand these. The paper is exploratory and builds on in-depth research in Berlin, Hamburg, Gothenburg and Stockholm conducted in 2015–2016. It demonstrates that responses varied between short-term approaches addressing basic needs and long-term strategies focusing on integration. It argues that the integration strategy identified in Berlin is the result of a national context of bottom-up immigrant policy-making, certain historical experiences of immigration, and, crucially, the work of local policy entrepreneurs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By providing financial resources, conditional to the implementation of the (social) recommendations in the Semester and the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) has opened new political and institutional opportunity windows for the multi‐level co‐production of social policies. The article first dives into how the RRF has been translated into national social policies choices, by assessing the alignment of reforms and investments with the Semester social recommendations and their capacity to address the social vulnerabilities identified in the Pillar's Social Scoreboard. Second, it sheds light on the interaction between the European Commission, in charge of assessing and monitoring the RRF, and the national governments, the key actors in setting‐up and implementing the plans. Comparing six case studies (Italy, Germany, Spain, Croatia, Belgium and Austria), the article shows that the RRF has only partially contributed to reinforcing member states' compliance with social Country Specific Recommendations and the role of the Social Pillar in the drafting of National Recovery and Resilience Plans has been very limited. This notwithstanding, the RRF has contributed to fasten‐forward the implementation of welfare reforms and initiatives which would have been remained on the paper, especially for whose countries with limited fiscal capacity. Furthermore, it provides empirical evidence of the collaborative approach between the Commission and the national government, substantiating the claim of the emergence of a new mode of coordinative Europeanization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines institutional change in father‐specific leave ‐ a centre‐piece of the EU's work‐life balance directive (WLBD) ‐ from the perspective of gradual institutional change. The WLBD, a highly contentious directive, represents a litmus test for the possible impact of the European pillar of social rights (EPSR), on welfare state institutions, which are responsible for the organisation, financing and delivery of social rights in member states. The analysis comprises in‐depth case studies in Denmark, Germany, France and Poland, with different combinations of family and parental leave policies prior to the WLBD. The findings reveal that the EU's directive is leading to convergence in paternity leave, but to divergence in parental leave. Our study is important because it shows that even if EU directives in social policy in principle can lead to upwards social convergence across the EU, when they are relatively weak in terms of precise constraint, for instance, for the level of remuneration for leave, this leads to differentiated integration. This could undermine the very purpose of the EPSR, which seeks to improve social rights for all citizens across the EU. Similar dynamics are likely to be present in other areas at the welfare state‐labor market nexus, such as minimum wages or platform work, where the EU is also developing regulation under the auspices of the EPSR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent so called Mediterranean refugee crisis has ignited concerns about the magnitude of the flows of asylum seekers to Europe. This paper examines the determinants of the destination choice of first time non-EU asylum applicants to the EU, between 2008–2020. It investigates the role played by policies related to employment rights, processing of asylum applications, attractiveness of the welfare system, economic factors and networks on the destination of asylum seekers within the EU. We find that the strongest pull factor for asylum seekers to a destination is social networks both in terms of previous asylum applicants as well as stock of previous migrants. Our findings also suggest that employment bans are not a strong deterrence for asylum seekers given their modest association to asylum flows. • This paper examines the pull factors for asylum seekers to EU destination countries. • We focus on non-EU first time asylum applicants between 2008-2020. • The results suggest that social networks are the strongest pull factor. • Policies in destinations are modestly associated to asylum flows. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]