European Union and migration

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Table of Content

migration military turkey

Introduction

Theoretical Background and Conceptual Framework

Methodological Approach, Methods, and Data Collection

Chapter I. European Approach on Migration

1.1 What Does it Mean to be Europea?

1.1.1 Europe as a Community of Values

1.1.2 The European Union as Promoter of the Values

1.1.3 The European Core Values in regards with Asylum Regimes

1.2 Development of European Approach in Migration

1.2.1 The Legal Tools of Common European Asylum Policy

1.3 Institutional Approaches and Interests in Migration

1.3.1 Securitization and Border Control

1.3.2 Migration Management through Economic Development

1.3.3 Rights Based Humanitarian Approach

Chapter II. The EU Immediate Action in the lights of Values

2.1 Political Context and Public Debates on Migration in Europe

2.2 General Overview: EU Policy Response

2.2.1 Saving Lives at Sea OR Saving Borders of the EU

2.2.2 Military Involvement in the Crisis

2.2.3 `Hotspot Approach' for Reception of Refugees

2.2.4 Relocation and Resettlement Mechanisms

2.2.5 Challenge to human dignity and fundamental rights

2.2.6 Insufficiency of the mechanism to respond to the needs

2.2.7 (Un)Willingness to Share the Burden and Missing Element of Solidarity in the EU

Chapter III. Analysis of the EU-Turkey Deal

3.1 Political Agenda and Context

3.1.1 Consolidating Anti-Immigrant Narrative in European Political Landscape

3.1.2 Border Closure in East Europe

3.1.3 Moving Back to Dublin Procedures in Greece

3.1.4 The Roadmap with Turkey

3.2 What is the EU-Turkey Deal about?

3.3 Rule of law and Democratic Transparency

3.4 Refugee Protection and Question of Inadmissibility

3.4.1 The Criteria of Inadmissibility

3.4.2 Is Turkey a Safe Third Country?

3.4.3 Refugee Protection in Practice

3.5 Respecting Human Rights and Human Dignity

3.5.1 People or Bargaining Chips?

3.5.2 Hotspots Become Detention Centers after the Deal

3.5.3 Dehumanized Place without Dignity and Worsening Living Conditions

3.5.4 Lives in Limbo with Constant Fear of Deportation

3.5.5 Deportation Process

3.6 Solidarity as a European Value

3.6.1 Solidarity between countries

3.6.2 Solidarity among People

Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendix



Introduction

The Europe has been facing one of the largest migration inflows of recent years. While the figures of new arrivals, and as well as the deaths at sea, have reached to record high in 2015, the Member States like Italy and Greece have also been challenged with the high pressure on their shores According to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees data; 1.015.078 migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers arrived through Mediterranean during 2015, almost via entirely from two main routes -Central and East Mediterranean routes- through Italy and Greece.. Following the tragic incidents of shipwrecks in April 2015, the European Union set a new agenda including a package of implementing measures with the intention to propose short-term relief aiming to improve management capacity of the concerned states. The package also contains maritime humanitarian measures `to save lives at sea', a temporary relocation and resettlement proposal, as well as an action plan to fight against the smuggling networks (Bauer, Hajzer, & Zeretniova, 2015).

The agenda has been presented as a `new European approach' in migration management which was followed by many critiques and debates on the political landscape of Europe. While the effectiveness and sustainability of the measures have also been subjected to the debates, the main critiques concentrated on controversial nature of the policy process and the institutional responsibilities of the Union and Member States.

After one year of declaration of the European Agenda on Migration, it has shown so far that the policy response, composed of various emergency/security measures, has been disappointing to achieve its own goals as well as its compliance with the core values the Europe. The emergency measures not only remained idle to address the urgent humanitarian needs, but also deteriorated the conditions of refugees with strict border control policies and pushed people towards ever more dangerous routes which jeopardise their health and lives. Report: MSF Obstacles to Europe, available at; https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/sites/usa/files/msf_obstacle_course_to_europe_report2.pdf Especially worsening humanitarian conditions of people accumulated on the external borders, human rights violations, continuing figures of deaths, and lack of protection mechanisms for asylum seekers have raised the concerns about lack of European core values in the policy response towards the crisis.

The critiques referring to core values and fundamental principles of respecting human dignity and the right to life, which the EU has embedded in its formation, have been voiced by many European activists, political groups and scholars (e.g. Schlamp 2013, Lopez 2015, Carrera 2015, Peers 2015, 2016).

Furthermore many human rights and humanitarian organizations, activist groups and international agencies such as UNHCR have urged the European leaders about the magnitude of the problem through their reports and statements. However, institutional response and political responsibilities have only remained in the rhetoric of the EU and Member States, whereas the values such as solidarity, democracy, human rights and dignity, and refugee rights are threatened by interest driven policies on the ground.

These core values are often lacking in contemporary realities where there are significant limits to EU's cosmopolitanism, which is prominently revealed in the EU's restrictive asylum policies (Brown 2013). He also adds that insisting on this controversial track of upheld normative standards on the one side and such restrictive policies on the other, the EU does not only put peoples' lives at stake but also jeopardizes its own legitimacy and thereby weaken the Union as a whole on the long run.

Moving from this point, the thesis study is aiming to uncover the clashes between European values and institutional interest on the scope of the EU policy response towards the crisis and its implications on refugees' lives. This analysis is also expected to lead us through a wider understanding of European asylum regime.



Theoretical Background and Conceptual Framework

As Terry Givens claims, the studies on immigration are divided in two main areas; the control (or management) of the immigration, and integration as a later step. (Givens, 2010) Although the integration policies have been occupying a crucial importance in European Union agenda, especially after the terrorist attacks and increased number of refugees in Europe recently, the thesis research focuses on policies regarding the control and management of migration rather than integration.

The next step is the clarification of terminology on movement of people between the borders of nation-states. Considering the recent inflow in Europe that is subjected to the thesis study, the analysis is focused on irregular migration movement. Irregular migration originally referred to undocumented entry, emerged as an issue in Europe with the introduction of restrictive measures for migration in the course of the oil crisis in the late 1960a and 1970s (Dьvell 2011: 80). Yet, the development of the concept has occurred regardless the precondition of documented, but rather based on the territorial aspect, illegal border crossing.

The concept of irregular migration, in the thesis study, specifically refers to entry of migrants to European territory without an official permission, unauthorized entry through sea or land border mainly in Italy, Greece or Balkan borders of the EU (Carling, 2007). It is crucial to note that, even though irregular term might be disorienting about the nature of the flow, which is controversial in the sense that being regulated, it is essentially preferred to avoid the other terms, especially most commonly used in this context, `illegal' migration (Morehouse & Blomfield, 2011).

In order to clarify, the term `illegal' might be deteriorating the conditions through a negative connotation with criminality, yet the irregular migrants, of whom %79 percent are from top ten refugee producing counties in today's context, are not criminals (Koser, 2005). They commit administrative, rather than criminal offences even though they might use smuggling networks to cross the border. United Nations Special Reporter on the Rights of Non-Citizens states in final report that: “Immigrants…even those who are in a country illegally and whose claims are not considered valid by the authorities, should not be treated as criminals” (E/CN. 4/Sub. 2/2003/23 Para 29). Association with criminality might be regarded as denying humanity and fundamental rights mechanisms which can jeopardize the asylum claims of the migrants, as UNHCR also asserts (Brouwer & Kumin, 2010)

A recent trend of the control of irregular migration among the states, with the increasing interests and needs on the global level have led the migration governance towards rather regional and even global level than nation states. Some scholars have claimed that migration `control' through national policies and methods have become less feasible -and even less possible; therefore the EU member states started to search for cooperation at the Union level (Reslow, 2010; Joppke, 1998; Decoding, 2005)

Within the European Union, common migration and asylum policies were introduced with the Amsterdam Treaty in 1999 and then evolved through the Tampere, Hague and Stockholm Programmes. The Lisbon Treaty eventually introduced new tools and institutional design for the migration management at the Union level rather than merely Member States. Yet, it remains still as one of the most sensitive policy domain, with various competences and responsibilities shared between member states and the EU, involving interests not only of interest groups in the member states, the national governments and the societies but also the EU institutions.



Methodological Approach, Methods, and Data Collection

In order to evaluate current policy response on the context of agenda setting and public policy, the thesis study employs value oriented analysis by combining it with institutional approach (see Selznick, 1984; March & Olsen, 1998; Thoenig, 2011). Together they will produce a policy evaluation by specifically analyzing values and the institutional interests resonated -or not- through the process of policy response towards the crisis in Europe. As institutionalist theory suggests that political agencies are considered as institutional actors in as far as they promote values and interests that are embedded in the public in which they operate, rather than acting just as machines implementing goals and values defined by a principal (Selznick, 1984).

Moreover, change in the values and/or structures that are assumed to characterize the institutions might also create radical change in the institutions. Based on the recent critiques towards the EU about disregarding the European values, the thesis will attempt to reveal the conflict between those values and the interests in policy process of irregular migration management.

A multi-method analysis has been employed including qualitative, quantitative and also case study methods. In order to be able to provide an informed study, the data has been sought through four methods of data collection: literature review and document analysis, unstructured and semi-structured interviews, insider observation on the field, and quantitative data obtained from secondary sources (reports, opinion polls, online interviews, social media reports). An extensive literature review was conducted to recognize the different debates within the migration policy discourse, and to fully grasp shortcomings in previous works on the topic.

The main source of the data is literature review and (legal and media) document analysis that has been collected through desk research. For the legal documents and EU materials, I have benefited from EUR-Lex online database in which there is access for the Official Journal of the European Union, EU law materials (EU treaties, directives, regulations, decisions, consolidated legislation, etc.), preparatory acts (legislative proposals, reports, green and white papers, etc.), international agreements, and so on.

The field research and insider observation has been also carried out during the internship period in March and April 2016. During the field research more than 20 unstructured, 5 semi-structured interviews were carried out with refugees, NGO workers, volunteers, who have been in Greece and visited the Hotspots, and Turkish local people who had interacted with refugees before their departure.

Besides of official documents and materials, periodic or independent reports that are prepared by NGOs, UN organizations and local organizations are benefited for the analysis. The report released by Medecins Sans Frontier in January 2016 has contributed to the paper with data and analysis support. Medecins Sans Frontieres, (2016) `Obstacle Course to Europe A policy-made humanitarian crisis at EU borders', available at: http://www.msf.org/article/migration-european-policies-dramatically-worsened-so-called-2015-%E2%80%9Crefugee-crisis%E2%80%9D The UNHCR data and statistics portal is also one of the main sources for the analysis.

***

In the first chapter, a descriptive analysis of the European values will be carried out through the institutional and public indicators within the European Union in order to answer the initial question of what it means to be `European approach' in asylum and irregular migration. After analyzing the role that fundamental values play in framing EU asylum policy the common EU asylum policy tools - described as immediate actions- in resonance with the public opinion in Europe will be assessed. The values that will be derived through the descriptive analysis are expected to provide the analytical tools for the evaluation of policies in the further chapters.

In the second chapter the political interests will be revealed on the basis of immediate actions; humanitarian response to save lives, militarization of response, hotspot approach, and relocation mechanism. It is expected to understand an overview of the clash between the interests and the European values as an outcome of the analysis.

In the third chapter the deal between Turkey and the EU is taken as a case study in order to provide a detailed value oriented analysis including field research outcomes. Four main values of Europe; respecting human rights and dignity, refugee protection, democracy and rule of law, and solidarity are the criteria to apply in analysis of the deal. The detailed analysis of policy implications in relation with the core values of the EU is also expected to provide a projection for the future of a common EU asylum regime.



Chapter 1. European Approach on Migration

The European approach in migration management, that has been set forward by the EU institutions and actors, requires to respond an essential question of `what it means to be European' in the first place. In order to be able to provide a valid answer to this question, I will evaluate the perception of values from the perspective of European community. In the following, an analysis of the EU institution as a promoter of those values will take place through the legal texts and documents. Lastly, the development of European approach towards the migration policies, with a specific focus on asylum and refugee regulations, is expected to provide us a synthesis of the values and interests that have been formed within the EU under migration topic.

1.1 What Does it Mean to be European?

1.1.1 Europe as a Community of Values

When the European Union as a project of peace, prosperity and shared values was formed defending and promoting those values both in terms of intra-Europe affairs and on international level was set as a main goal for the institution.

Those shared values and fundamental norms in Europe allowed to form a shared European identity as an important element to keep the community together (Huysmans 2006:73). The policies such as common asylum policy or monetary regime further contributed to the creation and reinforcement of such an identity undoubtedly. However, prerequisite for the policies is essentially about recognition of these values by European community as well as being promoted and acknowledging them as meaningful for their self-perception as Europeans. As Feldman suggests a common asylum policy at the EU among its member states requires both the material integration of the member states' administrative regulations, and also more importantly harmonization of the image of the EU as a coherent, idiosyncratic space (Feldman 2011:57).

Therefore, it is crucial for our analysis to understand how the public in Europe perceive and uphold those values on the political sphere. According to data retrieved from the European Commission Standard Eurobarometer 79 (2013), which covers the population aged 15 years resident of the European Union Member States, the most important values for the people are listed respectively as; human rights, peace, respect for human life, democracy, individual freedom, equality, the rule of law, solidarity & support for other, tolerance, respect for other cultures, self fulfillment.

The similar results have been also observed for the question `which values represent Europe best'. A nuance took place on the top of the list where the human rights is replaced with peace when it comes to the institutional representation of the EU. Besides, as a response to the institutional structure, we can observe an increased emphasize on democracy, the rule of law and solidarity rather than individual freedom and equality.

1.1.2 The European Union as Promoter of the Values

The European Union has its foundation based on the values of dignity, freedom, liberty, democracy, equality, rule of law, human rights and rights of minorities. These values set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and they are common to the all Member States under the unity. Since 2007 The Lisbon Treaty amends the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), which is renamed "Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union" (TFEU). These values enabled following objectives of the Union to be shaped such as; promotion of peace, social justice and protection, as well as combating social exclusion and discrimination.

The Lisbon Treaty was rooted in human rights protection with significant contributions to the EU structure beyond promotion of these values. The most significant ones lie in the amendments to Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. According to these amendments the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights became legally binding, on the same status as primary EU law, and that the EU `shall accede' to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Since then the Charter has been referred to on many occasions by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and now operates as the `primary source of human rights in the EU' (Douglas-Scott, 2011). Lisbon treaty, in this sense, also `legalized' the universal concept of human rights as a value and binding norm under the title of fundamental rights (Rosas and Armati 2012: 168).

Since the EU institutions are bound to those fundamental rights and values in their action, the instruments that they employ may be annulled in case of discordance. Same is applicable for the member states when they act as agents of the EU through implementing EU policies or applying EU legislation as well (Craig and De Bъrca 2011: 382-384). This emphasize occupies a particular position especially considering the asylum policy in the EU for the thesis study. In their article Jacobs and Lamphere-Englund clarifies the legislative relation between the values, specifically fundamental rights and protection, and the Member States:

“While there is a significant debate on the extent to which certain policies fall under EU competences, asylum policy clearly falls within the scope of application of EU law, given the harmonization of member state policies and the establishment of the Common European Asylum System. From a legal point of view, there is no way to legitimize non-compliance with EU values in asylum policy - either at a European or a national level.” (Jacobs, Lamphere-Englund, 2015)

The Lisbon Treaty has another important practial contribution to the EU structure that might be seens as reinforcing the democracy as a value. It confers the European Parliament equal status in the legislation process with the Council, and `the co-decision procedure, re-names the ordinary decision procedure' which has been expanded to many new areas of policy process in the EU. (Craig & Bъrca, 2011) Asylum and migration policies area is one of those newly added policy areas through article 77 and 80 of TFEU. Especially two of those articles are crucial for the thesis study which are Article 78 TFEU, which provides for the establishment of a Common European Asylum System; and Article 80 TFEU, which `affirms the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility between the Member States.' Directive 2013/32/Eu Of The European Parliament and of The Council of 26 June 2013on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, available at; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32013L0032

The legislation process in the EU was redesigned through Lisbon by consisting of three main actors (European Commission, European Parliament, and European Council) as a joint structure. However, institutional involvement differs between two different legislative acts which were framed under Lisbon Treaty conditions.

In the adoption of legislative acts in the EU, there is a distinction made between the ordinary legislative procedure (codecision), which puts European Parliament on an equal footing with the Council of the EU, and the special legislative procedures, which apply only in specific cases where Parliament has only a consultative role. (Horspool & Humphreys, 2008) This reduction of EP's role will be investigated deeper in the following chapter in regards with the value of democracy in the EU.

1.1.3 The European Core Values in regards with Asylum Regime

Drawing from the descriptive analysis above, four main values are identified to create a basis for the analysis of the EU policy response towards the crisis. Rather than representing an abstract, normative structure, those values are selected to represent the moral position of the European public towards the institutional policy process.

Refugee protection is the fundamental right for asylum seeker which is guaranteed by international law, safeguard institutions and the states by initially respecting non-refoulement principle. The refugee protection is included as a core value for the thesis by referring to the European asylum regime has its main legal foundation in the article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union:

“Asylum is granted to people fleeing persecution or serious harm. Asylum is a fundamental right; granting it is an international obligations. The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community EU Member States have a shared responsibility to welcome asylum seekers in a dignified manner, ensuring they are treated fairly and that their case is examined to uniform standards so that, no matter where an applicant applies, the outcome will be similar” (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000)

Respecting fundamental Human Rights and Dignity is a one of the most essential values of the European Union. The core of any policy should be that refugees and asylum seekers are, first and foremost, human beings and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.. Human rights find their legitimization mainly at the trans-national level. States that recognize themselves as liberal and democratic have to respect them; hence human rights directly influence migration policies (Soysal 1994; Jacobson 1996).

Principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility is fundamentally important especially on the context of asylum policy in Europe. In this regard, upholding the principle is taken as a value for the EU institutions and it is employed for analysis of the asylum policy in the following chapters. This principle is based on, Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), states that:

“The policies of the Union set out in this Chapter and their implementation shall be governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, between the Member States. Whenever necessary, the Union acts adopted pursuant to this Chapter shall contain appropriate measures to give effect to this principle.”

Rule of law and democratic transparency emerge as fundamental values of the EU “political” constitution, identity and policy formation. The rule of law and democracy has been deeply embedded in the European integration experiment since its inception. The triad reflects the intrinsic core values of the European project`s ontology and teleology. (Ferreira-Pereira 2010, 290). In the thesis study, rather than promotion of democracy on external world, the main focus will be upon the policy making process in the migration area within the EU.

1.2 Development of European Approach in Migration

Following the refugee influx from the Balkan countries in 1990s, the asylum management in the EU was challenged under fragmented structure which was driven with Member States initiatives rather than Union approach. Following the needs, migration and asylum was designated as matters of common interest rather than individual strategies of Member States. The Amsterdam Treaty brought a new phase on visas, asylum, immigration and other policies and indeed delegated the control over asylum and migration to the EU level.

Therefore with the entry of Treaty of Amsterdam into force Member States were allowed to adopt `legally binding instruments in asylum and immigration policies' and it gave the Commission a chance to take initiative for a common approach in legislation. In his book called `Immigration & European Integration: Beyond Fortress Europe' Geddes explains the process of Maastricht and Amsterdam as formalization of the `intensive transgovernmentalist' form of decision- and policy-making which assisted to the member states embracing security-driven responses to migration issues (Geddes, 2008). He also notes that European policies should be evaluated as motivated by national concerns whereas these concerns are installed in the supranational structure of objectives and meanings.

In 1999, in a Finnish town called Tampere the EU Council summit was held which was concluded with the idea of creating a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) based on the `full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, thus affirming the principle of non-refoulement and ensuring that nobody is sent back to persecution'. Directive 2013/32/EU of The European Parliament and of The Council of 26 June 2013on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, available at; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32013L0032

Two key problems were aimed to be addressed in the summit. The first issue was seeking for solutions to prevent `asylum shopping' that is a practice whereby asylum seekers applications for asylum in one EU Member State are denied apply for asylum in another EU Member States. And second problem that addressed was the disparate asylum processes and outcomes among different countries which also led different social benefits for the asylum seekers across the Europe (Raithel, 2016). As a result asylum seekers were perceived to gravitate towards countries with higher recognition rates and social benefits within the EU. Therefore, EU Member States had a consensus to harmonise the asylum systems and procedures, and reduce the differences between countries on the basis of binding legislation in order to be able to deal with aforementioned challenges.

Under the lights of the key problems and solutions that have been debated about asylum in Europe, the Common European Asylum System was framed to cover all aspects of the asylum process and also a mandated agency - the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) - to support the implementation of the legal framework and facilitate practical cooperation between Member States. Although, the European values such as fundamental human rights (including right to asylum), and principle of solidarity were embedded in the legal texts, there have been also many critiques addressed to the CEAS.

One of the main critiques about the construction process of Common European Asylum System was regarded the `minimum standards' created by the CEAS. Experts and scholars claimed that the negotiations in the Council, during the summit and afterwards, turned into a bargaining between the states which eventually led to a `race to the bottom' in asylum policy standards (Slingenberg 2014, Boeles et al 2014, Ripoll and Trauner 2014, Jacobs and Lamphere-Englund 2015).

Although the standpoint of Commission was observed as supporting more pro-refugee provisions, the member states were tend to rather lower these standards, and put forward the `solidarity' principle from the perspective of state interests rather than fundamental rights and protection.

In their analysis Jacobs and Lamphere-Englund detect some discrepancies between interconnected policies, such as asylum and migration, which might endanger mechanisms to provide protection to the asylum seekers. According to Article 78 of TFEU the aim of European Asylum system is to offer required status to third-country national who is in need of international protection by guaranteeing the principle of non-refoulement. In this article two values of European law are prominent: refugee protection through the appropriate status provision, and the principle of non-refoulement as the main principle of Geneva Convention and so EU asylum regime. However on the other side, the goal of the EU (legal) migration policy is to “shall develop a common immigration policy aimed at ensuring, at all stages, the efficient management of migration flows, fair treatment of third-country nationals residing legally in member states, and the prevention of, and enhanced measures to combat, illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings” (Article 79 TFEU).

The authors draw attention to contradiction between the objective of external border management (as a backbone of legal migration policy) and humanitarian reality of asylum seekers.

“The common external border aims to ensure a high and uniform level of control of persons. The goal of the common immigration and borders policy, when protecting the border from illegal migration, thus runs counter to the humanitarian objective of the CEAS. Asylum seekers, by necessity, often take risks to enter the EU as they can only apply for asylum once they have entered a member-state.” (Jacobs, Lamphere-Englund, 2015)

In other words, the goal of the migration policy does not only contradicts the goal of the asylum policy but also undermine the consituting values of the common European Asylum regime. Considering the crisis that Europe is facing today, the warning of the authors becomes even more crucial to grasp.

1.2.1 The Legal Tools of Common European Asylum Policy

CEAS essentially compromised of set of regulations that sets out the minimum standards for the asylum process but relatively stronger, more holistic and precise versions of the original regulations that have been produced by the EU institutions since early 1990s. Five main pieces of legislative regulations form the CEAS all are very recently revised or produced, the last ones to enter into force only as of 21 July 2015:

· The revised Asylum Procedures Directive ibid establishes common standards of safeguards and guarantees to access a fair and efficient asylum procedure for asylum seekers in Member States

· The revised Reception Conditions Directive Directive 2013/33/EU Of The European Parliament And Of The Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection, available in; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013L0033 aims to lay down standards for the reception of asylum applicants in Member States. It also ensures that there are “humane material reception conditions for asylum seekers across the EU and that the fundamental rights of the concerned persons are fully respected; it also ensures that detention is only applied as a measure of last resort”

· The revised Qualification DirectiveDirective 2011/95/EU Of The European Parliament And Of The Council of 13 December 2011on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons, available in http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32011L0095 clarifies the grounds for international protection provision, protection from refoulment to make asylum decisions more robust. It also aims to improve the access to rights and integration measures for beneficiaries such as residence permits, travel documents, access to employment, access to education, social welfare, healthcare, access to accommodation, access to integration facilities, as well as specific provisions for children and vulnerable persons

· The revised Dublin Regulation Regulation (Eu) No 604/2013 Of The European Parliament And Of The Council of 26 June 2013 on establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection, available in; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:180:0031:0059:EN:PDF initially lays down criteria and mechanisms for determining the the Member State responsible for the examination of an asylum claim in Europe. The aim main aim is to assign one member state to one asylum seeker to ensure that individuals do not ask for asylum in multiple countries (to prevent asylum shopping and possible abuses). It is most commonly used by states as the 'first EU country of entry' which means that the asylum seeker must apply to the first country that he or she enters in the EU

· The revised Eurodac Regulation Regulation (Eu) No 603/2013 Of The European Parliament And Of The Council Of 26 June 2013 on the establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints for coordination among Member States, available in; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:180:0001:0030:EN:PDF will allow law enforcement access to the EU database of the fingerprints of asylum seekers in order to prevent, detect or investigate the most serious crimes, such as murder and terrorism. The fingerprints of the asylum seekers are shared in a common system among the Member States through ERUODAC.

The literature review of the institutional interests in the EU in regards with irregular movement and control of migration in Europe are framed around three main themes; migration as security and border control issue, as a matter of management of economic opportunity, and lastly as a rights based humanitarian approach. Huysmans also emphasizes how different the legitimization and policy intervention towards asylum can be initiated differently depending on whether it is framed in humanitarian, management, or security terms (Huysmans 2006).



1.3 Institutional Approaches and Interests in Migration

1.3.1 Securitization and Border Control

The studies on migration control has shown that there has been an increasing trend of securitization of immigration since early 1990s -based on the longest-standing and least contested- function of the state to protect its borders (Huysmans, 1995; Bigo, 2002; Boswell, 2007). Since then, the dominant approach to irregular migration in Europe has been mainly approached by addressing the migration issues through security measures and border control, in which the EU institutions and Member States appear as key actors (Guild, 2009).

However, changing nature of the borders within the EU -removal of internal borders through Schengen Agreement- has also changed the preconditions for definition of security. The securitization approach which is, in traditional understanding, linked with the main quest of nation states to protect its borders has rather transformed into a narrative to protect Europe through controlling external borders (Lohrmann, 2000; Ceylan & Tsoukola, 2002; Carling & Hernбndez-Carretero, 2011) Establishment of Frontex

This security-migration nexus was also affected by post 9/11 debates, and it was escalated in both narrative and policy formation towards asylum seekers and refugees in the EU. (Levy, 2010) Following this escalation irregular migration is not anymore inked with merely border security but, as Boswell suggests, it became to be attached to `all sorts of security problems in political debates and the mass media: criminality, trafficking in people and organized crime, and terrorism' (Boswell, 2007).

In other words, in the political sphere irregular migration raised more concerns about the ability of institutions control national or regional territories as well as to regulate social and political life of the people (Heisler and Layton Henry, 1993; Huysmans, 1995, 1998; Bigo, 2002; Rudolph, 2003). Therefore, migration control and asylum related policies appeared to be part of a `test' for political institutions to demonstrate they are fulfilling their ascribed function as security providers (Huysmans 1998:242).

1.3.2 Migration Management through Economic Development

The second widely emerged area in irregular migration control is rather framed within political economic terms of migration. Although, there is no consensus on the concept of migration management on politics, scholarly it refers to a wide range of initiatives carrying the objective of renewing the policies that regulate the cross border movements of people (Geiger & Pйcoud 2010:1).

The concept became most obvious in the report of European Committee on Migration in 2002 by declaring the former approaches' failure:

“At the heart of the strategy is our conviction that many of the migration problems now confronting governments have resulted from a piecemeal approach to specific problems, such as the economy, asylum, illegality or return. This approach is no longer sustainable. A management strategy should be regarded as a comprehensive whole, to be applied over the long term.” (Council of Europe, 2002)

Within this wider understanding, the concept of migration management incline a rather global policy narrative with comprehensive elements, addressing all the policy issues related to migration; development, remittances, human rights, security, the labour market, and integration (Geiger & Pйcoud 2010).

According to Martin Geiger and Antoine Pйcoud (2010), the control of migration was liberated from its narrow understanding which was mainly focusing on border crossing and security, and referred to an extraterritorial, wide range of practices and discourses about what migration is, how it should be addressed, which are now part of migration policies (Geiger & Pйcoud 2010).

Comparing the core narrative of securitization approach that is mainly framed around fight against illegal networks, protection of borders, controlling the flow and so on, the management and development approach was rather developed around cooperation with the countries of origin (Carling & Hernбndez-Carretero, 2011). Authors claim that the appearance of management approach has become to normalize the irregular migration -rather than `unexpected' or `exceptional' matter- and even presented as a potentially positive issue.

Based on the assumption that the international migration between developing and developed countries is difficult to regulate on national, regional, and local levels, the management approach offered rather a global approach through cooperation between sending countries and receiving ones. The main idea can be summarized as `when it works properly migration can be a win-win-win situation' for those countries and as well as for the migrants (Martin, Martin, & Weil, 2006)

However, there is a visible tension in the EU between understandings of migration as a threat (in security framework) or as a potential, or in other words either leading to security-driven approaches or leading to attempts to “manage” migration through development and cooperation with the sending countries in a positive manner (Geddes 2012:417).

In fact, this tension has also recently appeared during the refugee crisis and presented itself in a parliamentary debate in an explicit way. Kashetu Kyenge (S&D, IT), member of European Parliament, pointed out the lack of cooperation both inside and outside of the European Union and said that “Migration should not be combatted, it should be managed.” See the Parliament Reolution in; http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20160407IPR21773/Parliament-advocates-a-centralised-EU-asylum-system-and-legal-ways-to-migrate

The question is whether immediate policy action of the EU represent the formal or latter and what consequence it might bring for refugees as an outcome will be analyzed in the later chapter.

1.3.3 Rights Based Humanitarian Approach

The last domain of policy approach in the literature review on irregular migration control is historically the most rooted and also controversial one in the European migration policy area. It is mainly dedicated to the promotion of human rights, rights of migrants, refugee protection and liberties, and mostly used within the public sphere and moral debates by civil society actors, individuals, and human rights organizations as well as the EU institutions (Gavelstad, 2013).

Christina Boswell suggests that rights based approach has its foundation in the conception of individual rights which is rooted in European political and moral thought. She draws the framework as a liberal universalist approach, based on the classic contemporary statement of rights-based liberalism that can be found in John Rawls's theory, and she describes it as below:

“The approach is rights-based in that it defines refugees on an individual basis, according to criteria linked to human rights violations. It is liberal in that it is grounded in a commitment to individual freedom from persecution or threats to `life and liberty'. And it is universalist in the sense that it is impartially applicable to all refugees, regardless of nationality, race or other characteristics that liberal theories generally consider to be morally arbitrary.” (Boswell, 2000)

She also add that for several decades, until 1990s, `the rights based approach was accepted almost unquestioningly by Western Europe as prevalent framework for responding to asylum seekers' (Boswell, 2000).

On the other side, more ambitious understanding of right based political theme is offered by James Hollifield. He is one of the most prominent scholars, developed the largest extent on the effects of human rights on migration policies so far based on the concept of embedded liberalism. In a similar account with Boswell's ideal conceptualization, Hollifield also considers the rights as a transnational frame that constraint the liberal power of nation states through liberalism that is embedded by them for the sake of individual humanity. He says in a situation of embedded liberalism `rights, expressed in the form of constitutional norms and principles, act to constrain the power and autonomy of states both in their treatment of individual migrants and in their relations to other states' (Hollifield 1992).

Hollifield also gives us an example of this limitation from the 1970's migration policy in Europe. Due the the economic crisis the Western European countries were tend to prohibit immigration in late 70s. However, self-recognition of the states as liberal democratic countries had no choice but continue to accept migrants because of the human rights (Hollifield, 1992).

However in recent scholars' works, the theme on rights and humanitarianism in the EU immigration policy area has prominently turned into a domain of criticism towards to control irregular immigration. Many scholars and advocacy groups base their criticism towards outcomes of the EU policies by mainly focusing on international and regional human rights law obligations, and the institutional failure to comply them (Papastavridis 2010).

Moreover, the both EU institutions and states increasingly employed the humanitarian narrative and human rights arguments to justify their actions mostly aiming to increase security or border control to prevent the migration flows (Carling & Hernбndez-Carretero, 2011). One example that the authors shared in their study is the argument of protecting migrants and asylum seekers from dangerous journeys and death by preventing them to take the `boat'. However, the actual human rights commitment of the EU is criticized of being ambigious and controversial because of ignoring the root of causes people's movement.

Referring to the humanitarian objectives of the EU migration policies, both Carling and Hernandez-Carretero claim that:

“Images of destitute and vulnerable migrants--which can seem at odds with the narrowly security-oriented narrative--underpin the policy narrative of protection. Because ostensibly protective intervention is often compatible with control measures, the narrative of protection achieves a sense of closure.” (Carling & Hernбndez-Carretero, 2011)

The interplay between those approaches and implications could be observed in European asylum regime both in past and present policies. They do not necessarily exclude or overlap each other, but in fact they exist together in which the policy process towards irregular migration due to the complexities of institutional interests.

Therefore, securitization, economic management and rights based humanitarianism define a field of tensions (Carling, 2007) in which institutional interests and policy measures are formulated in conflict with each other, as well as with the European values.

The thesis shall reveal the tension between those interests through evaluating the European policy response to the refugee crisis in 2015, and evaluate to what extent the EU institutions protect and promote its core values in the concurrence of these interests? In the next chapter, the immediate actions, including humanitarian intervention on Mediterranean, militarization of the border control, Hotspot approach and relocation mechanisms will be held.



Chapter II. The EU Immediate Action in the lights of Values

2.1 Political Context and Public Debates on Migration in Europe

Before the analysis of the deal and its following implications, it is important the highlight the political context in Europe which paved the way the institutional responses from the EU. It will also allow us to understand the different positions of the EU Institutions, or political representatives, and human rights organizations, activists or citizens who clearly took a position against.

Since the crisis was manifested on the doors of Europe public opinion has shown a remarkable change in the range from indifferent to empathetic and then to hostile. In some countries the political leaders has shown a strong anti-migration position especially in the first half of 2015. A significant example can be given from the UK. Before September 2015, PM David Cameron's anti-immigration stance and hostile attitude was resonating on British public opinion quite significantly. A petition on the government website to accept more refugees had attracted a mere 16,000 signatures before September 2015. However, a picture of 3 year old Aylan Kurdi's body washed up on a Turkish shore when he was trying to cross on boat with his family stirred Europe's conscience towards an extremely humanitarian direction. The same petition that demands accept more asylum seekers and increase support for refugee migrants in the UK has reached to 450.287 in the end of February 2015. (Sumen, 2016)

The picture of dead body of Aylan Kurdi on the media did not only affect UK but resonated all around Europe. In sharp contrast to the narrative in summer 2015, Cameron started to speak about Britain's “moral duty” and humanitarian imperative to help the refugees to save lives, as well as many European leaders.

The tragic pictures were published in newspapers throughout the whole world, turning European public opinion in favor of a solid and consensual emergency solution. EU governments appeared to be responsive to the call of the European Commission for a new and more ambitious proposal. This proposal even favoured a change in public discourse on immigration and pushed governments (such as the Spanish one) to accept three times the number of migrants sand refugees that they refused in May.