Search results

The completion of the Common European Asylum System by 2012 - key objective of the EU (.)

This paper exposes the contradictions and lack of commonality in the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), as well as the wide discrepancy between the European Union's (EU) human rights rhetoric and exclusionary practices. It examines in detail the Dublin System, which determines the state responsible for processing an asylum claim. This examination demonstrates the differences between an appearance of unity and solidarity on asylum within the EU, but a reality of divergent policies and nationalist approaches to asylum. The failure of countries to fully apply EU law has major negative consequences for asylum seekers and refugees. Finally, the paper explores four possible future directions for the CEAS: disintegration and a return to national asylum systems, strict enforcement of existing EU law, the European Commission's Dublin IV proposal, or a supranational EU asylum system.

Seit der Gründung der Europäischen Integration hat die EU einen einzigartigen Integrationsprozess durchgemacht. Sie hat sich von einer wirtschaftlichen Kooperation von Sieben Ländern in eine politische Union von achtundzwanzig Mitgliedsstaaten entwickelt. Asyl wurde erst relativ spät ein Politikfeld der EU, aber in kurzer Zeit ist extrem viel Integration passiert und heute ist das Gemeinsame Europäische Asylumsystem, obwohl unfertig, ein wichtiges Politikfeld und eine Priorität für die EU. Diese Arbeit fragt was die wichtisten IntegrationstheorienNeofunktionalismus, Intergouvernementalismus, Institutionalismus und Gouvernancedazu beitragen können zu erklären, warum Asyl kommunitarisiert wurde, wie das passiert ist und wie das Europäische Asylsystem so wurde wie es im Moment ist. Um eine möglichst breite Perspektive zu haben beschäftigt sich diese Arbeit mit so vielen Rechtsakten der EU wie möglich. Das Ergebnis bestätigt was frühere, engere Analysen des Themas und das Studium von europäischer Integration generell aufzeigen: es ist komplex. Keine Integrationstheorie kann alles erklären, aber jede Theorie kann einen Teil der Antwort beitragen. ; Since its inception, the European Union has gone through an unprecedented process of integration. From an economic cooperation between six countries it grew into a political union of twenty-eight member states. Asylum became a policy field of the EU relatively late, but a lot of integration took place and today, incomplete as it is, the Common European Asylum System is a large policy field and a priority for the EU. This thesis asks the question what the most important theories of European integrationneofunctionalism, intergovernmentalism, institutionalism and governancecan contribute to explaining why asylum was integrated, how it happened and why the CEAS became the way it is. For the most inclusive perspective, this thesis looks at as many instances of policy-making as possible. The answer still fits well with previous, narrower analyses as well as the overall theme of the study of European Integration: it is complicated. No theory can explain everything, but all theories can contribute something to the whole picture. ; Sandra Huber, BSc ; Abweichender Titel laut Übersetzung der Verfasserin/des Verfassers ; Universität Linz, Masterarbeit, 2018 ; (VLID)3766339

The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) conditions apply to Latvia. Development of the Common European Asylum System impacts Latvian legislation and has an effect on the work of judicial institutions. Any European Union scale change affects Latvia. Common European Asylum System conditions in Latvia are being met by direct implementation of the EU instructions. Well-considered position and evaluation of CEAS conditions according to Latvian interests is necessary. Goal of this article is to review demands of the Common European Asylum System towards the member states as well as concordance of the Latvian asylum procedure with conditions of the Common European Asylum System. Objectives of this research is to examine development of legislation in the EU and Latvia, to analyse and compare current legislation of the asylum procedure in the EU member states as well as to analyse impact of CEAS towards the asylum procedure in Latvia. In order to achieve objectives, following research methods were used: monographic research of theoretical and empirical sources in order to analyse and evaluate various asylum domain information, analytical method in order to acquire legislative content and verities, comparative method in order to discover differences in legislation of asylum procedure in the EU countries, systemic method in order to disclose interconnections in legislation, descriptive statistics method and correlation analysis in order to analyse process of the asylum procedure and determine interconnections in the asylum procedure time frame between legislation and practical instances in EU countries.

The turn of the millennium has been met with a considerable amount of work in the area of refugee protection, culminating in the UNHCR's Agenda for Protection and Convention Plus initiatives. In addition, in 1999 the European Union embarked on a five-year program to develop a Common European Asylum System as mandated by the Treaty of Amsterdam. Work done by the European Commission sought to incorporate asylum into broader issues of immigration, border security, and foreign relations. As a result, entitlements were generally limited to those that have been mandated by applicable international, European, or domestic law. Some exceptions were further reduced at the political level. Functional values of bureaucratic efficiency and pragmatic political considerations converged to create the lowest common denominator. On the other hand, voices in civil society were raised to protest this approach, advocating that normative values that underpin international human rights law should serve as the interpretative context. In light of this debate, this may be an appropriate time for the international community to revisit the question of status for those not described in the Geneva Convention. ; Le tournant du millénaire a vu beaucoup de travail accompli dans le domaine de la protection des droits des réfugiés, débouchant sur les initiatives de l'UNHCR, Agenda pour la protection et Convention Plus. En plus, en 1999, l'Union Européenne a lancé un programme étalé sur cinq ans et visant à développer un système européen commun sur le droit d'asile comme mandaté par le Traité d'Amsterdam. Le travail déjà accompli par la Commission Européenne visait à inscrire le droit d'asile dans les questions plus larges de l'immigration, de la sécurité aux frontières et des relations extérieures. Par conséquent, les critères d'admissibilité furent généralement limités à ceux déjà mandatés par les lois internationales, européennes ou domestiques applicables. Certaines exceptions subirent une réduction supplémentaire quand ils arrivèrent au ...

Reforming the Common European Asylum System: The New European Refugee Law -- Copyright -- Contents -- PART 1: Introduction -- 1: The Common European Asylum System: Bric-à-brac or System? -- 2: The Complex Relationship of Asylum and Border Controls in the European Union -- 3: Negotiating the Second Generation of the Common European Asylum System Instruments: A Chronicle -- 4: A Common European Asylum System under Construction: Remaining Gaps, Challenges and Next Steps -- PART 2: The Dublin Regulation -- 5: The Dublin III Regulation: A New Legal Framework for a More Humane System?

The common European asylum system : bric-à-brac or system? /Vincent Chetail --The complex relationship of asylum and border controls in the European Union /Elspeth Guild --Negotiating the second generation of the common European asylum system instruments : a chronicle /Patricia Van de Peer --A common European asylum system under construction : remaining gaps, challenges and next steps /Kris Pollet --The Dublin 111 regulation : a new legal framework for a more humane system? /Francesco Maiani --Family unity and family reunification in the Dublin system : still utopia or already reality? /Ulrike Brandl --The Dublin system, solidarity and individual rights /Madeline Garlick --Piecemeal engineering : the recast of the rules on qualification for international protection /Hemme Battjes --Refugee status and subsidiary protection : towards a uniform content of international protection? /Céline Bauloz and Géraldine Ruiz --EU reception conditions : a dignified standard of living for asylum seekers? /Evangelia (Lilian) Tsourdi --Reception conditions as human rights : pan-European standard or systemic deficiencies? /Jens Vedsted-Hansen --Vulnerable persons as a new sub-group of asylum seekers? /Lyra Jakuleviciene --The recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU : caught between the stereotypes of the abusive asylum-seeker and the vulnerable refugee /Cathryn Costello and Emily Hancox --Legal aid for applicants for international protection /Barbara Mikołajczyk --Building the common European asylum system beyond legislative harmonisation : practical cooperation, solidarity and external dimension /Philippe De Bruycker and Evangelia (Lilian) Tsourdi.

AbstractIncreased policy harmonization on refugee matters in the European Union (EU), namely the creation of a Common European Asylum System (CEAS), has created the imperative for a transnational judicial comparative dialogue between national courts. This article is based on a structured, focused comparison approach to examining a key element of a transnational European legal dialogue, namely, the use of foreign law by national judges when making their own decisions on asylum. It does so by examining two countries, France and Britain, as representative of the difference in legal tradition and culture within the EU in terms of the civil–common law divide. Both case studies are structured around a common set of empirical and jurisprudential research questions. The empirical findings reveal a surprising lack of transnational use of national jurisprudence on asylum between judges. Nonetheless, a slight but noticeable increase in the use of transnational asylum jurisprudence in the British and French courts must be noted. Two broad accounts—one rational, the other cultural—are applied in each of the case studies to explain this empirical finding. This article concludes on the broader implications of these findings for the establishment of a CEAS by 2012.

EU Member States may legally designate a country as a Safe Country of Origin when human rights and democratic standards are generally respected. For nationals of these countries, asylum claims are treated in an accelerated way, the underlying objective of the "safe country" designation being to facilitate the rapid return of unsuccessful claimants to their country of origin. The concept of "safe country" was initially blind to gender-based violence. Yet, in the reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which began in 2016, the European Commission proposed two changes: first, that a common list of "safe countries" should be applied in all Member States, and second, that this concept should be interpreted in a "gender-sensitive" manner. In consequence, the generalization of a policy that has been documented as largely detrimental to asylum seekers has been accompanied by the development of special guarantees for LGBTI+ asylum seekers. In light of this, there is a need to examine the impact of "safe country" practices on LGBTI+ claimants and to investigate the extent to which the securitization of European borders is compatible with LGBTI+ inclusion. Based on a qualitative document analysis of EU "safe country" policies and on interviews with organizations supporting LGBTI+ asylum seekers, this article shows that despite the implementation of gender-sensitive safeguards, LGBTI+ asylum seekers are particularly affected by "safe country" practices. These practices permeate European asylum systems beyond the application of official lists, depriving many LGBTI+ asylum seekers of their right to have their protection claims fairly assessed.