Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe Common European Asylum System (CEAS) has failed to ensure effective protection in times of high numbers of asylum seekers. CEAS reforms have not successfully introduced responsibility‐sharing mechanisms that can balance the effects of the Dublin Regulation's allocation rules. This paper analyzed the absence of substantial CEAS reforms by examining the discursive strategies used by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in asylum reform debates during the European Parliament's (EP) seventh legislative term (2009–2014). The mixed‐methods analysis revealed that: (a) MEPs across the political spectrum argued in favor of responsibility‐sharing, (b) MEPs from south‐eastern border European Union Member States were prone to use solidarity discursive strategies to speak in favor of responsibility‐sharing, (c) and that MEPs aligned their discursive strategies to the actual responsibility‐sharing mechanisms under discussion. These findings point to substantive and problem‐oriented debates in the EP. Yet, these debates did not translate into essential CEAS reforms.

The authors introduce the legal framework of asylum and illustrate the policies provided for unaccompanied foreign minors. ; Gli autori introducono il quadro giuridico di asilo e illustrano le politiche previste per i minori stranieri non accompagnati.

This contribution explains the European asylum policy crisis from three structural weaknesses of the Common European Asylum System: its reliance on coercion within the EU, its unrealistic expectations of what borders can achieve and the premise of prohibition of refugee movement in its external dimension. The article then critically reviews the proposals that the EU has submitted since the publication of the European Migration Agenda in May 2015, in the light of recent developments.

Asyl und Flüchtlinge in Europa – Wer kann einen Wandel bewirken? In Zeiten starker Migrationsströme gewinnen kollektive Akteure mit ihren Kooperationsnetzwerken für das europäische Asylsystem immens an Bedeutung. Doch wer sind diese Akteure und welchen Beitrag leisten sie zur Veränderung der Situation von Schutzsuchenden? Während im Gemeinsamen Europäischen Asylsystem einheitliche Regelungen für alle EU-Staaten festlegt werden, divergieren die realen Umstände in den einzelnen Ländern drastisch und reichen bis hin zur humanitären Krise. Mithilfe der Theorie des Neo-Institutionalismus und anhand aktueller Daten aus Experteninterviews, Webseiten- und Dokumentenanalysen aus Italien, Spanien, Griechenland, Zypern, Malta und Deutschland werden diese Fragen beantwortet. Es wird gezeigt, ob sich die Widersprüchlichkeit zwischen offiziellen Deklarationen und der tatsächlichen Situation auflösen kann und wie asylbezogene Organisationen mit ihren Netzwerken auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen arbeiten und dazu beitragen.Mit Beiträgen vonRemonda Balje, Alexander Bauhus, Charlotte Becker-Jamme, Tobias Breuckmann, Megan Costello, Amanda Culver, Dea Dhima, Giselaldina Duro, Lara Elliott, Thomas Hoppe, Lana Horsthemke, Timo Kemp, Jana Komorowski, Melisa Lehmann, Stefan Letmathe, Alona Mirko, Anna Mratschkowski, Judith Nitsche, Thomas Norpoth, Jakob Reckers, Elodie Scholten, Mats Schulte, Davide Scotti, Sara Stojani, Friederike Vogt, Julia Werner, Gerrit Zumstein

The reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) was much wished for both by committed Europeans and by human rights advocates more generally. Ideally, the European Union (EU) would have developed a single asylum system with equal criteria applying to all Member States and full recognition of the international protection status everywhere in the Union. This would have taken care of the primary concern of the Member States, that is, the prevention of asylum seekers' secondary movements. The abandonment of the nation-specific prerogatives would also have allowed for a focus on the asylum seekers' needs. However, the proposals issued by the European Commission between 2015 and 2016 in no way suggest that a uniform asylum system is on the way. This paper examines the implications of some of these proposals for the governance of asylum and for the understanding of international protection as the guarantee of specific rights to foreign citizens in need. It further assesses the proposals with respect to different conceptions of global political justice. The justice conceptions of non-domination, impartiality and mutual recognition as developed in the GLOBUS project are particularly useful in both uncovering the competing reasons behind the specific direction of the proposals for reforms, and in assessing their implications.

Within the so-called migration crisis, the focus of media and research has been mainly on Mediterranean countries, which were the first impacted by the arrival of refugees, as well as big recipients of asylum seekers such as Germany. Less attention has been directed toward small-scale countries such as Luxembourg, where the number of registered refugees arriving has more than doubled in 2015 and 2016 compared to 2014. In 2016, Luxembourg had 3582 registered first time applicants, which represents one of the highest numbers relative to its population in the European Union. Against this background, this presentation will focus on how Luxembourg has dealt with the implementation of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and the ways in which it has been affected by the so-called migration crisis. This paper will particularly focus on the question of reception of asylum seekers and refugees. Given the large number of applicants relative to the small size of the country, and the limited number of administrative levels, how was reception implemented, and what are the lesson to be learned? It will do so by mapping the main actors involved in the refugee scene. It will then move on to the contextualization of the reception of refugees in the housing and employment market. Finally, it will critically examine the stakeholders' involvement in order to find the gaps in the asylum seeker/refugee reception.

In June 2013, after lengthy and complex negotiations the EU adopted the recast "asylum package" which represents a significant step forward in the future development of CEAS. In this timely study Velluti provides fresh insights into recent legislative and judicial developments in asylum and through the "lens" of sovereignty she looks at some of the contemporary challenges faced by the EU protection regime, with a particular focus on asylum-seekers' rights. The volume assesses whether the EU provides an adequate framework for protecting those seeking international protection from the opposing perspectives of effectiveness and fairness. It shows that, despite the newly adopted "second-generation" legislative acts which include changes aimed at ensuring a stronger level of protection for asylum-seekers, the reform process at European level does not adequately ensure an equal standard of protection across all Member States. Through a comparative analysis of selected ECtHR and ECJ asylum cases the book also examines the constitutional relationship between the two European Courts and how it impacts on the human rights of asylum-seekers and on the future of EU asylum law. Ultimately, the book shows that real progress in the development of the human rights dimension of CEAS will be achieved largely through the European and domestic courts.