The externalisation of migration control in the European Union: first steps towards the external dimension of the space of freedom, security and justice
Abstract
The creation of an area of freedom, security and justice is one of the most rapidly developing aspects of European integration. It this paper, we take a look at the foreign policies involved in this process — aside from the internal development of the European Union, they concern a significant number of third countries, including Russia. In our view, the efforts to manage the flow of migrants and asylum seekers constitute a viable part of the external dimension within the AFSJ policies. Much of this article is based on the theoretical postulates introduced by the scholars of the Paris School, a school within the discipline of security studies that conceptualized the connection between migration, terrorism, asylum, crime and ethnic clashes, and its role as a major threat facing the European Union. Externalization of this complex threat (that is, externalization in relation to the European Union) is thus seen as one of the key prerequisites to advancement of migration management activities beyond the EU (i. e. externalization of migration management). In this article, we analyze the role the EU plays at the international scene and categorize the actions it took to manage the influx of migrants and asylum seekers from the 1980s until the time when supranational administrative bodies were granted mandates in the spheres of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) of the EU Member States. We conclude that it was as early as the 1990-s that the EU launched the policy which later allowed to transfer part of its security concerns to third countries.
2. Bigo, D. 1996, Polices en réseaux. L’expérience européenne. Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.
3. Lavenex, S. 2006, Shifting up and out: the foreign policy of European immigration control, West European Politics, vol. 29, no. 2, p. 329—350.
4. Guild, E., Bigo, D. 2003, Le visa Schengen: expression d’une stratégie de «police» à distance, Cultures & Conflits, no. 49, p. 22—37.
5. Icard, P. 2003, Immigration, mondialisation: histoire d’un paradoxe communautaire, Revue du droit de l’Union européenne, no. 2, p. 409—456.
6. Convention d’application de l’Accord de Schengen du 14 juin 1985 entre les gouvernements des États de l’Union économique Benelux, de la République fédérale d’Allemagne et de la République française relatif à la suppression graduelle des contrôles aux frontières communes, 2000, Journal officiel des Communautés européennes. 22 septembre 2000, no. L 239, p. 19—62.
7. King, M. 2001, Le contrôle des différences en Europe: l’inclusion et l’exclusion comme logiques sécuritaires et économiques, Cultures & Conflits, no. 26—27, p. 35—49.
8. Meloni, A. 2006, Visa policy within the European Union structure, Berlin, Springer.
9. Guild, E., Bigo, D. 2003, Le visa: l’instrument de mise à distance des indésirables, Cultures & Conflits, no. 49, p. 82—95.
10. Guild, E., Bigo, D. 2003, Schengen et la politique des visas, Cultures & Conflits, no. 49, p. 5—21.
11. Guild, E., Bigo, D. 2003, Les pratiques quotidiennes de la coopération consulaire, Cultures & Conflits, no. 49, p. 96—123.
12. Guiraudon, V. 2002, Logiques et pratiques de l’État délégateur: les compagnies de transport dans le contrôle migratoire à distance, Cultures & Conflits, no. 45, p. 51—79.
13. Council recommendation of 30 November 1994 concerning a specimen bilateral readmission agreement between a Member State and a third country. In: Official Journal of the European Union, 1996, 19 September, no. C 274, p. 20—24.
14. Council recommendation of 24 July 1995 on the guiding principles to be followed in drawing up protocols on the implementation of readmission agreements. In: Official Journal of the European Union, 1996, 19 September, no. C 274, p. 25—33.
15. Roig, A. 2007, EC readmission agreements: a re-evaluation of the political impasse, European Journal of Migration and Law, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 363—387.
16. Readmission agreements and EC external migration law. Statewatch, article RefNo# 6762. available at: http://database. statewatch. org/article. asp?aid=6762 (accessed 29 May 2011).
17. Gammeltoft-Hansen, T. The extraterritorialisation of asylum and the advent of «protection lite». available at: http://www. diis. dk/graphics/Publications/WP2007/ wp%202007—2-til%20web. pdf (accessed 5 June 2011).
18. Convention relative à la détermination de l’État responsable de l’examen d’une demande d’asile présentée dans l’un des États membres des Communautés européennes — Convention de Dublin, 1997, Journal officiel des Communautés européennes. 19 août, no. C 254, p. 1—12.
19. Council resolution of 30 November 1992 on a harmonized approach to questions concerning host third countries. available at: http://www. unhcr. org/refworld/ docid/ 3f86c3094.html (accessed 8 June 2011).
20. Lavenex, S. 1999, Safe third countries. Extending EU asylum and immigration policies to Central and Eastern Europe, Budapest, Akaprint.
21. Conclusions on countries in which there is generally no serious risk of persecution, The Un Refugee Agency, available at: http://www. unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3f86c6ee4.html (accessed 8 June 2011).
22. Council resolution of 30 November 1992 on manifestly unfounded applications for asylum, The Un Refugee Agency, available at: http://www. unhcr. org/ refworld/docid/3f86bbcc4.html (accessed 8 June 2011).
23. Oakley, S. 2007, Accelerated procedures for asylum in the European Union. Fairness versus efficiency. Sussex Migration Working Paper, no. 43, available at:http://www. sussex. ac. uk/migration/ documents/ mwp43.pdf (accessed 14 June 2011).