The Lisbon Treaty Evaluated: Impact and Consequences London, 31 January - 1 February 2011
Conference papers are works-in-progress - they should not be cited without the author's permission. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s).
www.uaces.org
The Development of the EU Asylum Policy: Revisiting the Venue Shopping Argument after the Lisbon Treaty Dr. Christian Kaunert Marie Curie Research Fellow, European University Institute Florence, Italy Lecturer in EU Politics and International Relations, University of Salford, UK Email:
[email protected] ;
[email protected]
Dr. Sarah Leonard Marie Curie Research Fellow, Sciences Po Paris, France Lecturer in International Security, University of Salford, UK Email:
[email protected]
1
EU Asylum and Migration Policy
1. Argument: restrictive policy area 2. Venue shopping: MS move towards the EU level to restrict asylum and migration: a) Judicial constraints and political adversaries at the national level b) EU level: sheltered from those 3. But the EU has changed considerably: a) Creation of new institutions b) New EU Treaties Need to revisit the argument in light of the changes 2
Venue Shopping: Guiraudon (2000, 2003): draws upon Baumgartner and Jones (1993) • Aim: explain the creation, form, and content of EU cooperation on asylum and migration • Venues: national officials began EU cooperation because of obstacles in restricting asylum and migration at the national level • Obstacles • EU venue: •allowed increase in migration controls as obstacles avoided •Lavenex (2006): importance of outward shift into foreign policy •Maurer and Parks (2007): policy images in venue shopping •No shift away from security and control orientation of asylum policy
3
Analysis of the main EU asylum instruments: Focus on four asylum directives: all are about common minimum standards, not harmonisation • Reception Conditions • Asylum Qualification • Asylum Procedures • Dublin Regulation
4
Overall: • Improvement of international protection standards compared to the previous situation • Prevents race to the bottom between MS • Improvement in several MS
•Trend set to continue: • Lisbon Treaty competences (art. 78 TFEU) • Uniform status of asylum • Uniform status of subsidiary protection • Common system of temporary protection • Standards for Reception Condition • Partnership with third countries • Objective: Uniform, instead of minimum, standards
Also found in the Stockholm Programme Explanation: • Switch from national venue to EU asylum venue has not led to an increase in restrictiveness • How can we explain this outcome? 5
Amendments to the Venue Shopping Model: Three changes: 1. Analysis: breaks down the asylum and migration venue: they are analytically distinct venues, with three separate venues: (1) asylum, (2) migration, and (3) borders 2. Co-dependency of the venues 3. System of policy venues
6
Changes to the EU System of Venues - Two main changes: (1) EU institutional changes; (2) importance of judicial actors • EU Institutional Framework • Lisbon Treaty • EU Judicialisation
EU system of venues has become more liberal impact on the EU asylum venue =>The
7
What options are open for restrictive national ministers? 1. Outward Venue Shopping in Asylum Policy: Negative • UK proposal to extraterritorial asylum application unsuccessful 2. Co-dependent Policy Venue Shopping: • Strengthened border controls to stop people entering reduced amount of people able to claim asylum • There are restrictive tendencies, to some extent, but they may have shifted to another venue
8
The Evolution of the EU External Borders Policy: “Venue-shopping” in Different Directions Dr. Christian Kaunert Marie Curie Research Fellow, European University Institute Florence, Italy Lecturer in EU Politics and International Relations, University of Salford, UK Email:
[email protected] ;
[email protected]
Dr. Sarah Leonard Marie Curie Research Fellow, Sciences Po Paris, France Lecturer in International Security, University of Salford, UK Email:
[email protected]
9
- Revisiting the venue-shopping framework: - Distinguishing between asylum, migration and borders focus on the EU external borders venue - Co-dependency of venues - System of policy venues Application of the venue-shopping framework to the EU external borders policy
10
EU pooling of sovereignty
Upward Venue Shopping
Domestic liberal constraints National level: EU Member States
11
EU pooling of sovereignty
Third Countries: International Agreements
Outward Venue Shopping
National level: EU Member States
12
• Readmission agreements: • • • • • • • • •
Albania Hong Kong Macao Sri Lanka Russia Pakistan (signed) Turkey (negotiations concluded) Ongoing negotiations with Morocco Mandates for agreements with China and Algeria
• Visa facilitation and readmission agreements (since 2006): • • • • • • • • • •
Russia Ukraine FYROM Serbia Montenegro Bosnia and Herzegovina Albania Moldova Georgia (signed) Cape Verde (under negotiation)
13
EU pooling of sovereignty
New trend in Venue Shopping
Supranational Transgovernmentalism
Third Countries: International Agreements
National level: EU Member States
14
Transgovernmentalism: Anne-Marie Slaughter (A New World Order) Transgovernmental networks: - “pattern(s) of regular and purposive relations among like government units working across the borders that divide countries from one another and that demarcate the ‘domestic’ from the ‘international’ sphere” - “a world of governments, with all the different institutions that perform the basic functions of governments – legislation, adjudication, implementation – interacting both with each other domestically and also with their foreign and supranational counterparts”.
15
FRONTEX Agency: has signed working arrangements with the border management authorities of: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Albania Belarus Canada Croatia FYROM Serbia Bosnia and Herzegovina Georgia Moldova Montenegro Russia Ukraine United States Cape Verde Also interested in signing WAs with Libya and Turkey
16
Aim of the WAs: Promoting the development of broad cooperation on operational and technical border security and management matters
Areas for cooperation: (agreement with Cape Verde) • Exchange of best practices and strategic information • Training • Capacity building • Collaboration on relevant technologies • Participation in joint operations • Information-sharing regarding people smuggling and trafficking
17
Aim of the WAs: Promoting the development of broad cooperation on operational and technical border security and management matters
Areas for cooperation: (agreement with Cape Verde) • Exchange of best practices and strategic information • Training • Capacity building • Collaboration on relevant technologies • Participation in joint operations • Information-sharing regarding people smuggling and trafficking
In addition, operation cooperation in joint operations with West African countries (e.g. Senegal, Mauritania)
18
Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) 2007/2004 Facilitation of operational cooperation with third countries and cooperation with competent authorities of third Countries In matters covered by its activities and to the extent required for the fulfillment of its tasks, the Agency shall facilitate the operational cooperation between Member States and third countries, in the framework of the European Union external relations policy. The Agency may cooperate with the authorities of third countries competent in matters covered by this Regulation in the framework of working arrangements concluded with these authorities, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaty.
19
Conclusions: • ‘Traditional venue-shopping’ not sufficient to develop restrictive measures • Necessity to change venues several times • Obstacles to restrictive measures remain in the transgovernmental venue: • Increasing ‘judicialisation’ • Criticisms of FRONTEX activities more emphasis on human rights • Negotiations of a new instrument to replace the current FRONTEX Council Regulation
20
Questions & Answers
21
