European Union and migration

One another activist shared her insights about the conditions of the camps with similar perspective:

“The conditions, camps, toilets are disgusting and the whole experience is far from dignified or humane. It was only a matter of time till the peaceful protests boiled over into something more dangerous as their complaints were ignored and the situation kept deteriorating despite many NGOs trying their best to improve the situation.” (An activist on a fb page `life on lezvos'-25 April)

Such a general regulation based on exceptional circumstances in Greek Law is leading to a systematic and indefinite detention undoubtedly, and it contravenes international human rights and the EU asylum standards. However, one another interview has shown more critical aspect of the detention through its spatial dimension and the conditions. When I asked to MSF Humanitarian officer, during the field research interview, `how do you see the hotspots' the answer was very clear:

“Hotspots are supposed to be where the registration and other asylum bureaucracy take place, but what exactly `hotspot' is a heavily militarized, unorganized, dehumanized place with children behind the fences. People are kept in the cage like animals, and fences and walls are the only reality there… There is no any regulation or organization for the living standards of the people and there is a huge lack of information which causes confusion among the refugees many times.” (Interview)

Dehumanization that is rooted in the negotiations of the deal appears in every sphere of the policy process lively in institutional behavior towards the refugees. In one of the detention camps, in Lezvos, some 156 Pakistanis even went on hunger strike in order to protest the unlawful conditions about access to asylum and officals' treatment towards them like animals. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/refugee-crisis-pakistani-migrants-greece-treated-like-animals-1554124

People are not only deprived of the fundamental rights and freedom of movement but also deprived of dignified treatment under dehumanized conditions. The level of dehumanization could be observed in testimonies of the refugees in the most explicit way.

"We ran away of war violence and our life was in dangers and we ran away of dictatorship.. We didn't come here for food and houses! We had these in our country? We are peaceable. We come here for democracy and freedom. The Europe governments say we have democracy we are humans. But you're facing us like killers. Vial camp is like Guantanamo. We have no facilities during 20 days we eat just potatoes without salt and during 20 day we didn't wash our body here cause no water for washing police doesn't allow us to go out for shopping . Is it humanity? We want you be watch over us .We are becoming crazy and no one says what happened to our asylum request. At last is it a big request ? Let us leave here. Please please. Vial camp (jail)"(testimony of an Afghan refugee This testimony was reported by one of the MSF staff in an internal report of which I had access during my internship period. )

Right after the implementation of the deal took place, UNHCR pulled out their operations from Greek Islands and withdrew cooperation with the EU authorities in order to protest the worsening conditions and inhumane detention practices. A similar reaction came out from MSF, as well.

International medical humanitarian organization decided to suspend its activities linked to the Moria “hotspot” on Lesvos without further notice. Following the deal between EU and Turkey, the organization posits an ethical position under the lights of conventional international humanitarian law and Geneva Conventions. Marie Elisabeth Ingres Maria Elizabeth Ingres is Head of Mission in Greece, coordinating all MSF projects around on Aegean Sea. Thus, she was also my hierarchical line manager during the internship period. stated that:

“We took the extremely difficult decision to end our activities in Moria because continuing to work inside would make us complicit in a system we consider to be both unfair and inhumane. We will not allow our assistance to be instrumentalized for a mass expulsion operation and we refuse to be part of a system that has no regard for the humanitarian or protection needs of asylum seekers and migrants.” “Since July 2015, MSF has provided medical consultations, mental health support, distributed relief items and conducted water and sanitation activities in Moria camp in Lesvos. MSF has carried out 24,314 consultations in the island of Lesvos, of which 12.526 in Moria. MSF psychologists have assisted 401 people through individual sessions and have conducted 584 group sessions with 3532 participants. Teams were also providing temporary shelter and transportation between the North and the registration centers of Moria and Kara Tepe in the South of the island. As of 13 March, MSF transported 12,952 new arrivals.” http://www.msf.org/en/article/greece-msf-ends-activities-inside-lesvos-%E2%80%9Chotspot%E2%80%9D

3.5.4 Lives in Limbo with Constant Fear of Deportation

Beside of indefinite and arbitrary detention conditions the new regulations following the deal have also contained the refugees into a `limbo stage' between the asylum rights and deportation. Unclear procedures and unlawful implementation of initial deportations created a fear of being returned back to Turkey in anytime especially for the ones who arrived after 20 March. Lack of information to refugees of what is happening to them and about their rights is extremely challenging.

A human rights lawyer -who is also an activist volunteer leading an NGO called Advocates Abroad- described the situation of those trapped in Greece best;

“Those people are living in limbo between recognition and deportation. And even though many would know that deportation of all is impossible, the fear of being `selected' for deportation and to be sent back to Turkey remains as the only reality in their lives today.” The respondent was contacted during the field research for the dissertation and unstructured interview was conducted. As of many others, she is an international activists (originally from USA) who arrived in Greece in 2015 and started legal support efforts voluntarily which ended up as a legal NGO called Advocates Abroad. I had chance to interview her after the return of refugees to Turkey in April 2016.

I also would like to share a whatsapp conversation that I personally had with an Afghan refugee woman in order to describe what it means to be trapped in a limbo stage without sufficient information, being subjected to cruel implementation, and remaining in a desperate state.

whatsapp conversation This conversation happened between myself and an Afghan refugee woman whom I contacted earlier for the data collection for thesis field research. She was informed that I worked for MSF. Days after the initial contact, I received that message from her, but then after the last message haven't heard from her, neither the lawyer did. , on 30^th April..

- They are deporting us back to Turkey even we apply for asylum. We are in jungle (forest) now.

- Wait! I am gonna contact to lawyers (voluntary) now. Do you know how many people are there? And deport to where? Cesme? Dikili?

- It is not clear but they put people in 3 bus and come and 6 more are on the way

- Do you know the destination?

- No

- Did they take you from the camp? Vial? Souda?

- Vial.. now some of people run and they are in jangle

- The lawyer in Chios told me now, this is not deportation but they will transfer people there to Kos Island.

- But why it by force…Can I have the advocates number? please it is urgent. they separate two brothers from each other we need an advocate to help

- I gave your number to him now, he will call you.

- Thank you

Next day

- Hey! How are you? Are you alright? Please let me know when you see the message.

3.5.5 Deportation Process

The human rights violations, dehumanization and additional element of criminalization of the asylum seeker and migrants could be also observed in the deportation/return process from Greece to Turkey. Strong presence of security forces joined to Frontex carrying out the deportation process could be seen as an indicator of criminalization. Besides, reports from Human Rights Watch also presented that there was also police violence towards the single-men refugees, and some of them were even handcuffed during the process. See the report in; https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/04/19/eu/greece-first-turkey-deportations-riddled-abuse

During the return (deportation) of the refuegees from Greece to Turkey, I was on the Turkish coast with other representative of NGOs, media, and activists witnessing the street level implementation of the deal.

Each refugee on the boat was escorted by one Frontext staff, with security uniform and (medical) mask on their face to `deliver' the returnees back to Turkish authorities. The reception in Turkey was not different in the essence. In the ports where the refugees are disembarked in Dikili, Izmir or Bodrum (pre-identified spots by Turkish Government) the zone of reception was closed with fences and police barriers, only security or AFAD (Disaster and Emergency Management Directorate in Turkey) staff are allowed to access to the registration and fingerprint desk in the zone. The refugees are disembarked one by one with the files (from EASO/Frontex office) is handed to Turkish security, and then immediately those refugees are transferred to the recently constructed deportation center - financed (85 per cent) as a reception centre by the EU- by busses. The facility, which I personally had a chance to see from outside during my field research, is brand new and fully protected with both police and private security. It is not allowed to get in or get out except staff and authorities.

The criminalization of the refugees and asylum seekers, as Bente Puntervold Bш pointed out, serves as a legitimation of further restrictive measures in the EU policies.

3.6 Solidarity as a European Value

3.6.1 Solidarity between countries

The last value to evaluate within the framework of the deal is solidarity and sharing responsibilities among the member states in the EU. It is quite difficult to see any solidarity and sharing responsibility within the framework of the deal, especially considering the border closures and failure of the relocation mechanism.

It was agreed by the Member States that `in view of the emergency situation on the ground, 6,000 relocations should be achieved by mid April and at least 20,000 relocations completed by mid-May 2016'. See the details in; http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-963_en.htm However, between 16 March and 15 April, only 208 (out of 6000) refugees were relocated from Greece to other countries in Europe bringing the total number of relocated applicants from Greece and Italy to 1,145 See the progress report in; http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1343_en.htm .

Although the deployment of new staff to assist with the asylum procedures and return operations could be taken as a positive sign for solidarity, nevertheless the number of additional staff is still insufficient comparing to the need on the ground. According to the deal condition:

“At total of 4,000 EU staff (translators, asylum experts, other staff) will move to Greece to assist with the asylum procedures. The first 2,300 people (400 translators, 400 asylum experts, 1500 other staff among them policemen) are expected as soon as possible.” (Commission Statement, 2016)

The consensus of Member States over the deal decision without a real consent of material support actually implies the fact that the interests are, once again, concentrated on security driven, border management interests rather than promoting the values of solidarity or refugee protection.

3.6.2 Solidarity among People

Although the general framework of the solidarity principle withinthe EU framework has mainly focused on solidarity among the Member States, my field research experience has shown a greater aspect in Europe in different level.

The citizens of the EU have created an extremely important network of solidarity through the volunteer organizations and activist initiative in last on year, not only in Greece, but all around the Europe. Although the media appearance or formal structure is lacking on the surface of the crisis, in a deeper observation the efforts of volunteers becomes the most obvious.

First observation that I made was in Italy, during my education at University of Bologna. A group called Labas, composed of young students, local volunteers, and refugees (who have been living in Bologna for a long time) started a campaign called `Welcome to Italy' in Bologna city. In a context where the transit refugees are challenged mostly because of accommodation and daily needs such as laundry, phone charge, sanitary etc. Labas group created a free space called `Accoglienza Denza' (Welcoming Center) for the refugees. An old military barrack was transformed into a social center with dormitory rooms and necessary equipments with totally volunteer efforts. Creating such a place is not only important for the human needs but also crucial to create an alternative space with an alternative politics to the EU migration policies.

The invitation to the volunteers to join construction of the place was presented as below:

“In the context of emergency management that has characterized the asylum system by the time in Italy - between violation of rights, criminal business and the Dublin Regulation - migrants and citizens are organizing to build an alternative of acceptance and future.”

Another alternative politics that occurred on the micro level politics in the EU could be undoubtedly observed in Greece. Thousands of volunteers have visited the Greek Islands, as well as the Turkish west coast, in order to help refugees on their tough journey. In a context of institutional abandonment of the values of solidarity and human rights, the practice that those volunteers brought in have proved that the citizens of Europe uphold the values while the Member States and the EU institutions disregard them in the policy agendas.

A facebook group called information for volunteers Lezvos is becoming bigger and bigger everyday (15.345 members by end of April). Most of the works are organized through the social media accounts and open source information guidelines again prepared by volunteers. There are medical professions, lawyers, teachers, students or just activists trying to provide different services and create an alternative political narrative based on the core values that the EU is supposed to promote. Their efforts not only support the Greek authorities to tackle the logistical and administrative challenges, but at the same time providing a better conditions and support to the refugees and migrants.

During the interviews that I carried out for the field research, a human rights lawyer who is volunteering in Greece and turkey in last one year told me about a camp in Lezvos Island (the largest Hotspot in Greece). While there are more than several camps, mostly managed by the Greek national authorities or local authorities with the assistance of the EU agencies, there is one another camp organized by only volunteers. She avoided to use the word `camp' for this settlement, and told me that:

“It was totally different than the official camps that I ever visited before. First of all there was no fences, security forces or dehumanized conditions. It was an open area with young volunteers working and organizing the space together with the refugees who stay there. They even organize workshops in which they make purse and bags with the life vests that refugees were using on the way of Greece. It was a great experience to see such a different place in the middle of the chaotic conditions on the Island.” (Interview)

Those people, as part of the European civil society, insist on upholding the European core values and reproduce them in the practice in a state of crisis instead of artificial solidarity rhetoric among the Member States. Moreover, this alternative micro-level solidarity put the refugees and human dignity in the center of their political practice rather than criminalization or security concerns.

***

The EU-Turkey deal has come out as an extension of `structural solutions' that was included in the European Agenda on Migration. However, the formulation and implementation as a EU policy have brought so many questions and criticisms from the perspective of European values.

The circumvented role of the European Parliament in the decision making process and contradictory legal structure with the EU legislation constitute a real challenge against democratic transparency and the rule of law principle of the Union. Dutch parliamentarian Tineke Strik (MEP from SOC) summarizes the frustration that the deal has brought to the European public very well:

“The EU-Turkey agreement at best strains and at worst exceeds the limits of what is permissible under European and international law. Even on paper, it raises many serious questions of compatibility with basic norms on refugees' and migrants' rights. It has so far given every indication of being even more problematic in practice.” (Strik, 2016)

It does not only disregard the core values of fundamental rights, democracy, refugee protection and solidarity, but also leads to a catastrophic policy process within the EU Asylum regime. For the Union, it symbolizes the abandonment of the soft power based on law, ethics and human rights which it claims to embody in its founding treaties and core values (Labayl & Bruycker, 2016).

The functioning of the hotspots as detention centers and increased image of criminalization of asylum seekers within migration politics is also very dangerous for the democratic, liberal political environment in Europe. Bente Puntervold Bш describes the danger as below:

“When asylum seekers are placed in detenction centers under prisonlike conditions, they are treated as criminals by the authorities. The message to the majority population is a very negative one, resulting in increased public support for anti-immigration policies.” (Bш, 2015)

The cases of abuse, mismanagement, incompetence and mishandling of asylum claims are overwhelming, and it is just a matter of time before the deal might be exposed in some court for what it is: illegal, immoral and inhuman. Although the latter two definitions clearly don't matter to EU policymakers, the first one will hopefully have further-reaching consequences.



Conclusion

Until the present time, the political response of the EU towards the crisis has not been able to treat the actual dilemma behind this refugee crisis. The analysis of the immediate measures and the EU-Turkey deal has shown that there is an extensive political interest in securitization of the asylum regime with increased focus on border security, prevention of people's arrival, detention conditions and extraterritorial intervention to block the migration routes. Although there seems to be some fragmentation among institutional actors at the EU level in regards with the details of implementation, there is a visible consensus of disregard of the values and international obligations.

The political interests are becoming more prior for the EU institutions, and the clash between those interests and the core values are more prominent in the state of crisis today. While the migration policy is being shaped with the objective to `stop' people to arrive or create more deterrence policies, the public opinion in Europe is still trying to uphold the humanitarian values. A recent public research called Refugee Welcome Index, carried out by Amnesty International, has shown that the vast majority of people ready and willing to make refugees welcome in their country. In other words people are ready to make refugees welcome, but governments' inhumane responses to the refugee crisis are badly out of touch with the views of their own citizens and European values.

If we go back to the main question of the research, a common European Asylum seems to be challenged with the lack of solidarity to overcome the crisis based on the values of human rights and protection. However, there is a significant consensus at the EU institutions to lead the asylum regime towards a more closed, security driven direction.

The EU asylum regime is increasingly associated with a tacit acceptance of human rights abuses, restrictions, readmission oriented policies and securitization, which contradicts the self-image of the EU as a normative power protecting and promoting human rights. Thus, perhaps the question is not whether a Common European Asylum regime is possible or not, but whether a Common European Approach centered on rights and protection is possible today, or not. Unfortunately, the analysis about the EU policy response towards existing crisis has proved the fact that responding this question positively is impossible in today's context.



Bibliography

Abby Stoddard, A. H. (2014). Unsafe Passage: Road attacks and their impact on humanitarian operations. Washington DC : Humanitarian outcomes (August) .

Agamben, G. (2008). Beyond Human Rights . Social Engineering No:15 , 89-96.

Agamben, G. (2005). State of Exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Amoore, L. (2006). Biometric Borders: Governing Mobilities in the War on Terror. Political Geography , 336-51.

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Arendt, H. (1943). We Refugees. Menorab Journal .

Ashworth, E. (2016, April 11). The EU-Turkey Refugee Deal: A Durable Solution? Retrieved May 03, 2016, from European Public Affairs: http://www.europeanpublicaffairs.eu/the-eu-turkey-refugee-deal-a-durable-solution/

Baere, G. D. (2013). The Court of Justice of the EU as A European and International Asylum Court. Leuven: Institute for International Law.

Bauer, D., Hajzer, G., & Zeretniova, D. (2015). Emergency relocation and the future of solidarity in the European Union - a fresh approach? Regional Academy on the United Nations.

Bloemraad, I. (2011, 09 22). The Debate Over Multiculturalism: Philosophy, Politics, and Policy. Retrieved 01 10, 2016, from Migration Policy Institute: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/debate-over-multiculturalism-philosophy-politics-and-policy

Bш, B. P. (2015). Recent Tendencies in Immigration Control Policies in Europe: Undermining Legal Safeguards and Refugee Protection? . PaperPunterVold .

Borraccetti, M. (2015, July 31). “To quota” or “not to quota?” The EU facing effective solidarity in its Asylum Policy. Retrieved Dec 2, 2015, from eurojus.it: http://www.eurojus.it/to-quota-or-not-to-quota-the-eu-facing-effective-solidarity-in-its-asylum-policy/

Boswell, C. (2007). Theorizing Migration Policy: Is There a Third Way. International Migration Review vol 41, No:1 , 75-100.

Brauman, R. (2012). Medecins Sans Frontieres and the ICRC: matters of principle. International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 94, , pp. 1523-1535.

Breen, D. (2016). Abuses at Europe's Borders. Forced Migration Review: Oxford Refugee Studies Center .

Brouwer, A., & Kumin, J. (2010). Interception and Asylum: When Migration Control and Human Rights Collide. Refuge, Vol:21 , 6-24.

Butler, J. (2004). Indefinite Detention In Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence,. London: Verso.

Campell, D. (2001). Apartheid Carthography; Identity, Territory and Co-Existence in Bosnia. The Corner House.

Carrea, S., Blockmans, S., Gros, D., & Guild, E. (2016). The EU's Response to the Refugee Crisis Taking Stock and Setting Policy Priorities. Centre for European Policy Studies Essay .

Carrera, S., & Guild, E. (2015). Can the new refugee relocation system work? CEPS Policy Brief , 1-19.

Carrerra, S. (2015, Oct. 2). To adopt refugee quotas or not: Is that the question? Retrieved Nov. 15, 2015, from Ceps EU: https://www.ceps.eu/publications/adopt-refugee-quotas-or-not-question

Castro, G. D. (2010). Refugees in Italy: a pilot study of their reception and integration process. Academicus - International Scientific Journal .

Cihodariu, M., & Dumitrescu, L.-Є. (1997). Motives and rationalizations of the European right-wing discourse on immigrants. Shifts in multiculturalism? Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology .

Commission, E. (Dec. 2015). Managing the Refugee Crisis Italy: State Of Play Report.

Connect Country Report, I. (2013). The Rules of the Game A Mapping Of The Reception And Protection Of Unaccompanied Children In Italy. London: Save the Children.

Connelly, A. (2016, March 21). Iris News Agency. Retrieved April 14, 2016, from http://www.irinnews.org/report/102369/failed-eu-relocation-plan-leaves-refugees-limbo

Costello, C. (2016). It need not to be like this. Forced Migration Review - Oxford Refugee Studies Center .

Craig, P., & Bъrca, G. D. (2011). The Evolution of EU Law. Oxford: Oxford UP.

Decoding, M. t. (2005). Making the European Migration Regime: Decoding Member States' Legal Strategies. European Journal on Migration and Law , 353-379.

DECOSTER, F. (2016). Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions -- European Agenda on Migration. Official Journal of the European Union.

Donato, M. d. (2015). Country National Report; Italy. Asylum Information Database.

Douglas-Scott, S. (2011). The European Union and Human Rights after the Treaty of Lisbon. Human Rights Law Review , 645-682.

Duffield, M. R. ( 2001). Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security. Zed Books.

Eide, C. (2013). How to understand the outcomes of Integration Policy? A study of the return agreement between Norway and Ethiopia . COMPAS Working Paper No. 106 .

Erlenbusch, V. (2013). The Place of Sovereignty: Mapping Power with Agamben, Butler,and Foucault. critical horizons .

European Commission. (2016). State of Play of Implementation of the Priority Actions under the European February. Brussels.

Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies, Vol:7 Issue:2 .

Fais, A. E. (n.d.). The Europeanisation of national policies and politics of. http://www.fes.de/aktuell/focus_europa/5/Docs/FES_Tuerkei_Beitrag_Thomas_Faist.pdf .

Foucault, M. (2003). Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collиge de France, 1975-1976 . New York: NY: St. Martin's Press.

Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality, volume one: An introduction. . New York: Vintage Books.

Gavelstad, I. B. (2013). Protection of Borders or Protection for Refugees? Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences .

Geddes, A. (2008). Immigration and European Integration: Beyond Fortress Europe. Manchester: Manchester university Press.

Givens, T. (2010). Immigration and National Security: Compairing the US and EU. The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations , 79-88.

Gordon, M. F. (2010). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. NY: Pantheon Books.

Guild, E. (2009). Security and Migration in the 21st Century. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hayter, T. (2000). Open Borders: The Case against Immigration Control. Pluto Press .

Heijer, M. d., & Spijkerboer, T. (2016). Is the EU-Turkey refugee and migration deal a treaty? EU Law Analysis .

Hinrichs, H. (1969). Game Theory and the Rational Tax Evader. Columbia University.

Hoffstaedter, G. (2013). Multiculturalism as a human security issue. Retrieved 01 07, 2016, from Research Gate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255643366_Multiculturalism_as_a_human_security_issue?ev=prf_pub

Horspool, M., & Humphreys, M. (2008). The European Union Law. Oxford: Oxford Press.

Hubert, C. B.-B. (2010). Shrinking Humanitarian Space? Trends and Prospects on Security and Access. The Journal of Humanitarian Assistance .

Human Rights Watch. (2015). Turkey: Syrians Pushed Back at the Border: Closure Force Dangerous Crossing with Smugglers . https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/11/23/turkey-syrians-pushed-back-border .

Humphreys, S. (2006). Legalizing Lawlessness: On Giorgio Agamben's State of Exception. The European Journal of International Law .

IOM. (2015). Missing Migrant Project Data. IOM .

Ivision, D. (2010). Introduction: Multiculturalism as a Public Ideal. Sydney: Ashgate Publishing.

Jacobsen, C. v. (2011). Asylum procedure and reception conditions in Italy: Report on the situation of asylum seekers, refugees, and persons under subsidiary or humanitarian n protection, with focus on Dublin returnees. Berne & Oslo: Juss-Buss & The Swiss Refugee Council (SFH/OSAR).

Janekovic, V. V. (2014). Remembering Work as Political Soverignity .

Joppke, C. (1998). Challenge to the Nationa State: Immigration in Western Europe and the United States. Oxford: Oxford Press.

Jorgensen, P. (2002). Methods of Discourse Analysis. London.

Katz, I. (2016). A Network of Camps on the Way to Europe. Forced Migration Review: Oxford Refugee Studies Center .

Koser, K. (2005). Irregular Migration, State Security and Human Security. Global Commission on International Migration.

Kristeva, J. (1982). Powers of horror: An essay on abjection . New York: Columbia University Press.

Kymlicka, W. (2012). Multiculturalism: Success, Failure and the Future. Migration Policy Institute. Chicago : Translantic Council on Migration .

Kymlicka, W. (2010). The rise and fall of multiculturalism? New debates on inclusion and accommodation in diverse societies. New York: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Labayl, H., & Bruycker, P. d. (2016). The EU-Turkey Agreement on migration and asylum: False pretences or a fool's bargain? EUmigrationlawblog.com .

Lasswell, H. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. . New York: NY: Whitlesey House.

Lemke, T. (2003). “A Zone of Indistinction” - A Critique of Giorgio Agamben's Concept of Biopolitics. BloЯes Leben in der globalisierten .

Levy, C. (2010). Refugees, Europe Camp/State of Exception: Into the Zone, The EU and Extraterritorial Processing of Migrants, Refugees, and Asylum Seekers . Oxford Journals , 92-119.

Lipsky, M. (2010, 30th Anniversary Expanded Edition). Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. NY: The Russell Sage Foundation: New York.

Lobo-Guerrero, M. D. (2008). Biopolitics of Security in 21st Century: An Introduction. Review of International Studies no:2 .

Lowles, N., & Painter, A. (2011). Fear and Hope. London: Searchlight Educational Trust.

Lundby, S. (2015). On the European system of immigration detention. OXFORD Monitor of Forced Migration , 7-16.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1998). The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders. International Organization 52, 4, Autumn , 943-969.

Martin, P., Martin, S. F., & Weil, P. (2006). Managing Migration: The Promise of Cooperation. Lanham : Lexington Books.

McQuillan, C. (2010). Philosophical Archeology in Kant, Foucault, and Agamben. Parrhesia.

MILLIKEN, J. (1999). The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods. European Journal of International Relations , 225-254.

Mitchell, D. F. (2015). Blurred Lines? Provincial Reconstruction Terms and NGOs Insecurity in Afghanistan, 2010-2011. Stability: International Journal of Security & Development , ?1-18.

Modood, T. (2005). A Defence of Multiculturalism. Soundings: A Journal of Politics and Culture.

Modood, T. (2007). Multiculturalism: A Civic Idea. Routledge.

Modood, T., Triandafyllidou, A., & Zapata-Barrero, R. (2006). Multiculturalism, Muslims and Citizenship: A European Approach. Routledge.

Moodod, T. (2008). MULTICULTURALISM AND GROUPS. Sage: Social & Legal Studies , 549-555.

Moore, J. (1998). Hard Choices: Moral Dilemmas in Humanitarian intervention . Rowman & Littlefield .

Morehouse, C., & Blomfield, M. (2011). Irregular Migration in Europe. Washington: Migration Policy Center.

MSF. (2016). Report: Obstacle Course to Europe. Brussels: MSF.

(Feb 1998). Office of High Representative Bulletin.

O'Neil, M. (2010). Asylum, migration and community. Bristol: Policy Press.

Panagia, D. (1999). The Sacredness of Life and Death: Giorgio Agamben's Homo Sacer. Theory and Event, Vol. 3, No 1. .

Peers, S. (2015, Sep 24). Relocation of Asylum-Seekers in the EU: Law and Policy. Retrieved 12 02, 2015, from EU Law Analysis: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.it/2015/09/relocation-of-asylum-seekers-in-eu-law.html

Peers, S. (2015, Dec 16). The Reform of Frontex: Saving Schengen at Refugees' Expense? Retrieved Dec 19, 2015, from EU Law Analysis: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com.tr/2015/12/the-reform-of-frontex-saving-schengen.html

Pijpers, H. v. (2007 ). The European Union as a Gated Community: The Two-faced Border and Immigration Regime of EU. Antipode Journal , 291-309.

Poptcheva, E.-M. (March 2013). EU legal framework on asylum and irregular immigration 'on arrival' State of Play. European Parliament .

Provera, M. (2016). The EU-Turkey Deal: Analysis and Considerations. Brussels: JRS Europe.

Raithel, S. (2016). The Common European Asylum System: Its History, Content, and Shortcomings. Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 37 .

Ray, S. (2004). Modern Comparative Politics: Approaches, Methods and Issues. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India.

Reslow, N. (2010). Explaining the Development of EU Migration Poilcy; the case of the Mobility Partnership. Pan-European Conference on EU Politics, (pp. 1-21). Porto.

Riggens, S. H. (1997). The Rhetoric of Othering. In S. H. (ed), The Language and Politics of Exclusion.

Rinus Penninx, D. S. (2008). Migration and Integration in Europe: The State of Research. University of Oxford: ESRC Centre on Migration, .

Roman, E., Baird, T., & Radcliffe, T. (2016). Analysis: Why Turkey is not a Safe Country. State Watch.

Saint-Bonnet, F. (2001). L'etat d'exception. Paris: Universitaires de Paris.

Sayigh, Y. (2015). Expert Opinon on EU Policy Response. EU Global Strategy .

Schmidt, S. (2015, September). EU Asylum Policy: Going Beyond President Juncker's Proposal. Retrieved April 03, 2016, from Feps Policy Brief: http://www.feps-europe.eu/assets/11e8b978-cea2-495f-a17a-56b5df320bd3/asylum-beyond-juncker-proposalpdf.pdf

Schotten, G., & Biehler, A. (2008). The Role of the UN Security Council in Implementing. In R. Arnold, & N. Queniver, International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law (pp. 309-358). Leiden-Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishing.

Selznick, P. (1984). Leadership in Administration. California: University of California Press.

Simons, H. (1986). Research Briefings 1986: Report of the Research Briefing Panel on Decision Making and Problem Solving . Washington : National Academy Press.

STRIK, T. (2016). The situation of refugees and migrants under the EU-Turkey Agreement 18 March. Strasbourg: Parliamentary Assembly - Council of Europe.

Sumen, E. (2016, February 18). In what way has public opinion influenced the migration debate? Retrieved April 30, 2016, from Joint Council for the Welfare of immigrants: https://www.jcwi.org.uk/blog/2016/02/18/what-way-has-public-opinion-influenced-migration-debate

Summary, M. (2010). Humanitarian Space; Concept, Definitions and Uses. Humanitarian Policy group & Overseas Development Institute.

Sunde, K. H. (2015, July 9). 3 reasons why the Mediterranean death toll has dropped dramatically. Retrieved 12 06, 2015, from Amnesty International: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2015/07/3-reasons-mediterranean-death-toll-dropped/

Swing, W. L. (2016). The Mediterrenean Challenge wihtin a World of Humanitarian Crisis. Forced Migration Review - Oxford Refugee Studies Center .

Taylor, C. (1994). Multicultiralism: Examining the politics of recognition. New Jersey: Princten Publishing.

Thoenig, J.-C. (2011). Institutional Theories and Public Institutions. In P. B. J.Pierre, The Handbook of Public Administration: New Agendas and Appropriateness. (pp. 185-101). Sage.

Ulusoy, O. (2016). Turkey as a Safe Third Country? Available at: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2016/03/turkey-safe-third .

Vis, F. (2015, November 30). Aylan Kurdi: How a photograph changed the debate on immigration. (L. Pantry, Interviewer)

Webber, F. (2015, Sep. 29). `Hotspots' for asylum applications: some things we urgently need to know. Retrieved Nov. 11, 2015, from EU Law Analysis: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com.tr/2015/09/hotspots-for-asylum-applications-some.html

Weinar, M. V. (2014). Supporting Immigration Integration in Europe? Developing The Governance for Diaspora Engagement. Migration Policy Center.

Weiner, M. (1995). The Global Migration Crisis: Challenge to States and to Human Rights. New York: HarperCollins College Publisher.

Weiss, T. G. (1999). Principles, Politics, and Humanitarian Action. Ethics and International Affairs vol. 13 .

Wieczorek, I. (2016). The Crisis of the EU Solidarity: Legal Issues. (L. Chiodi, Interviewer)

Wodak, R., Cillia, R. D., Reisigl, M., & Liephart, K. (2009). The Discoursive Construction of National Identity . Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press.

Woodward, S. (2001). Humanitarian War: A New Consensus? Disasters, vol. 25, No:4 .

Zembylas, M. (2010). Agamben's Theory of Biopower and Immigrants/Refugees/Asylum Seekers Discourses of Citizenship and the Implications For Curriculum Theorizing. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing , 31-46.

Zittoun, P. (2009 ). Understanding Policy Change as a Discursive Problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice , 65-82.



Appendix I



Appendix II

APENDINX III	Italy	Greece	TOTAL
Austria	473	1529	3640
Belgium	593	1917	4564
Bulgaria	208	672	1600
Croatia	138	447	1064
Cyprus	36	115	274
Czech Republic	387	1251	2978
Estonia	48	157	373
Finland	312	1007	2398
France	3124	10093	24031
Germany	4088	13206	31443
Latvia	68	221	526
Lithuania	101	328	780
Luxembourg	57	185	440
Malta	17	56	133
Netherlands	938	3030	7214
Poland	1207	3901	9287
Portugal	400	1291	3074
Romania	604	1951	4646
Slovakia	195	631	1502
Slovenia	82	265	631
Spain	1941	6271	14931
Sweden	581	1877	4469
TOTAL	15600	50400	120000

Размещено на Allbest.ru