Search

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2022 7(2), 573-582 | European Forum Insight of 31 July 2022 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. Cross-border police cooperation to counter 'secondary movements'. - III. The 'endtimes' of procedural safeguards. - IV. Conclusion. | (Abstract) A series of challenges and crises have highlighted the deficits of the 'Schengen Αrea' both regarding its external and internal borders. This resulted in the undermining of trust between the Member States which is essential to sustain an area free from internal borders. Thus, the EU Commission presented in December 2021 new rules to strengthen the Schengen System. This Insight aims to analyse the promotion of 'alternative' measures to internal border controls as an attempt to curb secondary movements of third-country nationals without resorting to border controls, such as through in-creased joint police patrols. Special attention will be given to the introduction of a new 'alternative' measure envisaged in art. 23a of the proposal to amend the Schengen Borders Code that provides for a distinct transfer procedure for those apprehended at the internal borders in the context of cross-border police cooperation and who do not have a right to enter or stay. It is highly questionable though how this procedure will be implemented to be in line with the fundamental rights and the procedural safeguards envisaged in the asylum acquis, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Migration in the European Union has been and continues to be a phenomenon, and its management is in turn a primary objective of the Member States of the European Union and of the European Union institutions. Solidarity in the migration management is indeed an appropriate instrument for managing this area throughout the European Union, which can be applied at national and regional level. The document is intended to highlight the role and effectiveness of solidarity in the management of migration in the European Union, as well as the effectiveness of the mechanisms used to ensure solidarity at Member State level by the public administration. Identifying the similarities and the differences in solidarity expressed in migration management across different EU Member States is a clear way to establish its effectiveness while developing the mechanisms used. As a result, the paper aims to contribute to the completion of existing theory and practice in the field, as well as to provide a set of alternatives to the current problems of society in terms of migration, also referring to the events currently recorded in Europe and generated by the armed conflict in Ukraine. Last but not least, as a general conclusion of the document, it should be noted that solidarity between Member States in the field of migration is an eloquent proof of the functioning of the European Union and a tool for the development of the Union. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The management of migration at European Union level has been and continues to be a goal of the Member States and the Community institutions, and the application of the principle of solidarity can be an appropriate instrument for managing this area throughout the European Union. The paper presented is intended to be a comprehensive presentation of the role of applying the principle of solidarity in managing migration in the European Union, but also an analysis of the effectiveness of the mechanisms used in applying the principle at Member States level, by public administration. Identifying the similarities and differences in the applicability of the principle of solidarity in the management of migration at EU Member State level is a clear way of establishing the effectiveness of this principle, but also of establishing the possibility for its development. As a result, the paper aims to help complete existing theory and practices in the field, as well as to provide a set of alternatives to the current problems in society with regard to migration. Last but not the least as a general conclusion of the document, it should be noted that the principle of solidarity in the Member States in the field of migration would be an eloquent proof of the functioning of the European Union and an instrument for the development of the European community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the context of the so-called ‘migration crisis’, besides the politically more contentious introduction of border controls, on intra-European borders member states responded to onward mobilities – so-called ‘secondary movements’ – through border-area controls, bilateral (fast-track) readmissions and increasingly through joint patrolling of main cross-border routes. This article sets out to reflect upon the ‘Schengen crisis’ not by discussing the introduction of border controls, but by focusing on ordinary means of enforcement through border-area policing (Article 23 Schengen Borders Code) and through instruments of police cooperation, such as through joint patrolling or bilateral readmissions. By scrutinising the legal regimes of these instruments, plural in both scale and temporality, this article contributes to reflecting upon the productive reconfigurations in times of ‘crisis’ of the EU order and its enforcement.

Migration in the European Union has been and continues to be a phenomenon, and its management is in turn a primary objective of the Member States of the European Union and of the European Union institutions. Solidarity in the migration management is indeed an appropriate instrument for managing this area throughout the European Union, which can be applied at national and regional level. The document is intended to highlight the role and effectiveness of solidarity in the management of migration in the European Union, as well as the effectiveness of the mechanisms used to ensure solidarity at Member State level by the public administration. Identifying the similarities and the differences in solidarity expressed in migration management across different EU Member States is a clear way to establish its effectiveness while developing the mechanisms used. As a result, the paper aims to contribute to the completion of existing theory and practice in the field, as well as to provide a set of alternatives to the current problems of society in terms of migration, also referring to the events currently recorded in Europe and generated by the armed conflict in Ukraine. Last but not least, as a general conclusion of the document, it should be noted that solidarity between Member States in the field of migration is an eloquent proof of the functioning of the European Union and a tool for the development of the Union. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article deals with the four-year results of implementing the EU strategic document – «European agenda on migration», developed by the Commission in 2015 to address urgent, as well as medium – and long-term problems of EU migration and asylum policy. The author proposes to assess results of the EU’s activities in this field by indicators of migration inflow on the main routes – Central, Eastern and Western Mediterranean and by data on asylum applications in the EU Member States, including results of secondary movements. Based on analysis of statistics, as well as measures taken by the European Union to overcome migration crisis and its consequences, the author observes significant reduction in migration flows to the EU in all directions. Data on financial support for asylum seekers and refugees, as well as hosting countries, various programmes and projects in the field of social services and education for refugee children are also analysed. The author pays special attention to Turkey as the country hosting the largest number of asylum seekers and notes that cooperation of the EU and Turkey to curb the migration flow to Europe remains hostage to the difficult and unstable relations of partners. Cooperation with the countries of the African Union, presented as an «innovative partnership», is also considered. The author believes that the EU has achieved tangible results in the implementation of the «European agenda on migration», but recent trends indicate that this success is unstable, so the challenges of migration will remain at the top of the EU political agenda for many years.

In the context of the so-called ‘migration crisis’, besides the politically more contentious introduction of border controls, on intra-European borders member states responded to onward mobilities – so-called ‘secondary movements’ – through border-area controls, bilateral (fasttrack) readmissions and increasingly through joint patrolling of main cross-border routes. This article sets out to reflect upon the ‘Schengen crisis’ not by discussing the introduction of border controls, but by focusing on ordinary means of enforcement through border-area policing (Article 23 Schengen Borders Code) and through instruments of police cooperation, such as through joint patrolling or bilateral readmissions. By scrutinising the legal regimes of these instruments, plural in both scale and temporality, this article contributes to reflecting upon the productive reconfigurations in times of ‘crisis’ of the EU order and its enforcement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focusing on Italy in the years of the 'migration crisis' between 2013 and 2017, this article explores how migration, crime groups and the domestic politics of migration control became entangled in times of crisis. Departing from previous theoretical discussions, it builds a framework that combines crime groups' actions with domestic political processes in host countries and explores how the crime-migration nexus shaped – and was shaped by – Italian migration policymaking. The article contends that in the context of crisis the nexus took on new forms and that Italian migration politics and policies served to foster rather than counter the phenomenon, in a continuous interplay between criminal practices and policy choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2016 1(3), 1235-1251 | European Forum Insight of 27 December 2016 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. Les objectifs de la réforme et les instruments de sa réalisation. - III. Nœuds critiques en matière d'accès à la protection internationale et de traitement des demandeurs. - IV. Nœuds critiques par rapport à la coopération interétatique en matière d'asile. - V. Conclusions. | (Abstract) The forced migration upsurge in 2015 prompted the recast of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), intended to bring "more Europe" into the integrated management of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. This achievement is deemed to be fundamental by EU institutions, in order to cope with emerging centrifugal forces and to ensure the security of European citizens. However, the tools proposed to reach these goals do not seem to match adequately the challenges raised by the mass influx of third country nationals seeking international protection in Europe. The last proposal for the recast of the Dublin III Regulation offers a clear instance of this hiatus, highlighting the legal and political flaws in the Union's strategic vision, concerning both the treatment of protection seekers and the efficiency and equity of responsibility-sharing mechanisms. Its adoption risks leading to the gradual disavowal of the legal premises of the CEAS and the proliferation of inconsistencies between EU action and its underpinning values. Vice versa, a more balanced solution could be imagined only relaunching convincingly the European project as a process of integration based on "concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity".

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2016 1(1), 343-345 | European Forum Highlight of 16 April 2016 | (Abstract) This Highlight looks into the Commission Recommendation for a voluntary humanitarian admission scheme, which was adopted in December 2015 on the basis of the EU-Turkey Joint Action Plan. It embraces an overly ambitious definition of humanitarian admission of persons in need of international protection, displaced by the conflict in Syria, given the difficulties in adopting the relocation plan and its lack of results. Further, it also constitutes a new way to de-territorialize protection to refugees processing asylum claims outside the given nation state.

Although the Dublin Regulation aims to prevent secondary movements within Europe, refugee flows from Italy toward northern Europe persist. Existing literature has investigated the relationship between refugee flows, policies, and other macro socioeconomic and cultural factors but the individual decision making underlying refugee mobility is relatively unexplored. Based on my ethnographic research, this article investigates how Eritrean refugees in Italy decide to move toward other European countries. It will be argued that refugees' decisions can be analyzed by using conceptual tools borrowed from the study of gambling and that they tend to be little (if at all) affected by policy constraints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]