Suchergebnisse

In recent history, the countries along the Western Balkan route faced several refugee crises. In the 1990s refugee crises were the result of the conflicts after the disintegration of the former Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). Between the summer of 2015 and early 2016, the European continent faced another refugee crisis due to the ongoing civil war in Syria. During the 2015/16 refugee crisis, different political leaders, especially in the post-Yugoslav space, claimed that their humanitarian approach towards refugees was based on their previous experience with refugee crises from the 1990s. This paper explores and compares legal and political responses to different refugee crises in the in-between countries along the Western Balkan route: three European Union (EU) Member States (Austria, Slovenia and Croatia) and two EU candidate countries (Serbia and the Republic of Macedonia). In the first part, the paper looks at the impact of the refugee crisis on EU law. It shows how EU law was developed due to the post-Yugoslav refugee crisis (Temporary Protection Directive), but then faced ambivalent application during the 2015/16 refugee crisis. Second, it studies the transformation of national legislation during both refugee crises in the chosen countries. On the basis of the socio-legal analysis of these transformations, the main argument is that there has been a major shift in the 'management' of the refugee crises in the countries along the Western Balkan route: while the main approach adopted during the post-Yugoslav refugee crisis was temporary protection, this approach was replaced with a 'transit migration' approach during the 2015/16 refugee crisis.

Year after year, millions of children cross international borders for many different reasons. In order to support the further strengthening of the system of protection in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) in terms of responsiveness to new vulnerabilities arising from the context of migration, in-depth interviews were undertaken in 2021 with a sample of 48 youths (N=38 boys and N=10 girls), both unaccompanied and traveling with families, currently residing in camps in BiH, about their experience of violence and its impacts on their wellbeing using a trauma-informed and children's-rights approach. All children experienced a range of traumatic experiences on the journey, including severe violence. Even though the concept of emotional violence is unclear to them, most children plainly describe traumatic experiences, while their tendency to normalize violence is noticeable. Many of them showed symptoms of trauma responses or identified them in their siblings, younger children, and peers. Nevertheless, many children have developed various help-seeking, help-using, and self-help strategies, including joining other adults or peers, mutual help and support, the analysis of risk situations, elaboration of exit strategies, self-efficiency assessment, and a range of self-regulation and resilience-building techniques, in addition to avoidance, denial, and self-harm. Research findings point to the diversity of children's responses to violence and prolonged traumatic events. They also raise a lot of questions regarding the impact on children's current and future development and well-being and the availability of trauma-informed responses and care. The results contribute to the scarce resources concerning the scientific understanding of children's experiences of violence and the understanding of traumatic experiences among migrant and refugee children.

Magistrsko delo predstavlja tematiko večnivojskega upravljanja in sodelovanja na primeru Slovenije in migrantske krize na Zahodni balkanski poti. Namen dela je ugotoviti, ali je bilo večnivojsko upravljanje na primeru kriznega menedžmenta uspešno ter kaj je pripeljalo do njegove uspešnosti oziroma neuspešnosti. Delo temelji na kvalitativni metodologiji študije primera. V prvem delu s deskriptivno metodo opredeli splošno razvitost večnivojskega upravljanja, v drugem delu pa z analizo virov preuči področje skozi primer največje migrantske krize. Na primeru Slovenije kot preučevanega nacionalnega nivoja s komparativno metodo prikaže pomanjkljivosti sodelovanja z nivoji. Na pomanjkljivostih, ki se skozi raziskovanje prikažejo, delo poda predloge za izboljšanje in reševanje podobnih problematik v prihodnosti. Magistrsko delo prikaže, da večnivojsko upravljanje na omenjenem primeru ni bilo uspešno, saj je bila smer sprejemanja odločitev večinoma usmerjena od zgoraj navzdol, kar je otežilo vključevanje podnacionalnega nivoja v odločevalski proces. Slaba praksa obvladovanja migrantske krize je imela posledice na širši ravni, saj je na eni strani določene postopke reševanja krize otežila in podaljšala, na drugi pa nečela dvom o skupnosti in njenih temeljnih vrednotah. Uporabnost dela se kaže tako na praktični kot na znanstveni ravni. Pri praktični ravni se ta kaže kot pomoč vključenim akterjem na različnih nivojih pri reševanju kriz velikega obsega, pri znanstveni ravni pa pri izbiri tematike ter pri izbiri aktualnega primera. Tematika kot taka je v slovenski znanosti še dokaj neomenjena in neraziskana, podobno velja za področje migrantske krize, ki se s svojo veličino ne bo umirila še nekaj časa. ; This master's thesis presents the topic of multilevel governance and cooperation on the example of Slovenia and the migrant crisis on the Western Balkans route. The purpose of the work is to determine whether the multilevel governance of the crisis management was successful and what led to its success or failure. The research is based on qualitative case study methodology. In the first part, the descriptive method defines the general development of multilevel governance, while in the second part, the analysis examines the field on the basis of the biggest migrant crisis since World War II. Comparative method shows deficiencies on the national level in cooperation with other levels on the example of Slovenia. On the shortcomings that appear during the research, the master's thesis presents suggestions for improving and resolving similar problems in the future. The research shows that the multilevel governance in this case was not successful, since the direction of decision-making was mainly directed from the top down and the subnational level was thus poorly involved in decision-making along with the national level. Bad practice has had a negative impact on the entire crisis, resulting on one hand certain procedures being more difficult and lengthier than they should be and on the other, started the doubt of the union as a whole and its basic values. This research is useful on a practical and on a scientific level. On a practical level it is seen as a helpful tool for crisis management to all the actors involved and on the scientific level the usefulness is seen through the choice of topic as well as through the choice of the current case from practice on the basis of which the study was conducted. The subject as such is still fairly unspecified and unexplored on scientific grounds in Slovenia, similarly to the area of the migrant crisis that, due to its extent, will not settle for quite some time.

Since 2015 more than half a million people migrated in many of the European Union Countries through the Western Balkan route. Most of the migrants traveled from Syria and its neighboring countries via Turkey, Greece and the Western Balkans to the Western European countries in order to seek asylum and a better life. There are a couple of routes that the migrants use, one is the Western Mediterranean route, the Central Mediterranean route that is the most deadly, and Eastern Mediterranean route through Turkey and Greece. The Balkan route was opened and used because the migrants that passed through these countries were not there to stay and seek asylum but to transit and move to Germany and the other EU member states. The Balkan countries cannot host the migrants because they do not have the capacities due to different circumstances but on the other hand, the migrants don't want to seek asylum in these countries their destination is upward. From 2015 the Balkan route was a fast transit route, migrants passed from Serbia to Hungary, or toward Croatia and Slovenia. This scenario changed with the introduction of new stricter asylum policies and closing of the borders by many EU states and implementing of the EU-Turkey agreement which was planned to close the Balkan Route. On 18th of March 2016 was signed the EUTurkey Statement to end the flow of irregular migrants and replace it with safe and legal means. EU promised Turkey financial help and resettling the refugees directly from Turkey to other EU member states. Although the deal was partly successful and reduced the inflow of legal refugees it also left many refugees stranded in the Balkan countries territories especially in Serbia and Macedonia which is a great burden for this countries. The closing of the borders or the closing of the Balkan Route it may decrease the frequent inflow of refugees but it did not stop the irregular migration, in fact, it increased it, which opened the doors for smugglers, and new alternative routes opened like the route between Serbia and Bulgaria. In order to stabilize the refugee crisis, especially the problems with the strained refugees and to prevent the other possible scenarios that may arise as a consequence of the above situation, there should be increase in the regional cooperation, straightening the border management, balance the reception capacity, the EU assistance to be increased as well as the humanitarian support and the fight against smugglers these have to be the key steps that need to be taken to stabilize the crisis. Keywords: Balkan Route, Turkey agreement, EU policies, refugees, border securitization

"Der Beitrag befasst sich mit kriminellen Wegen und Straßen Südosteuropas und soll die wichtigsten Merkmale der so genannten Balkan-Route darstellen. Dabei ist der Schwerpunkt gezielt auf transnationale illegale Märkte wie z. B. Menschen- und Drogenhandel gesetzt. Schließlich werden aktuelle kriminalpolitische Bestrebungen in der Region kritisch hinterfragt, um zu erkunden, ob im nichtkriminellen Bereich die Grenzen ebenso porös sind, wie wenn es um die kriminellen Märkte der Balkan-Route geht." (Autorenreferat)

This research article aims to provide answers on how COVID-19 pandemics influenced migration law, policy responses, and practices in Croatia, particularly concerning migrants on the Western Balkan route. Throughout the EU, governments have reinstituted border controls in the Schengen region and any "nonessential travel" to the EU has been suspended. In this study, it is analyzed whether asylum seekers have been denied entry in violation of international refugee law and whether immigration officers held detainees because of the risks posed by COVID-19 alongside Croatian borders. In addition, the study addresses the question whether and to what degree the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the overall approach toward migrants and their access to services, primarily the right to health care. Also, it is researched whether facilities for migrants and asylum seekers have appropriate health care and whether the measures imposed by the Croatian Institute of Public Health and by the National Emergency Response Team are respected when dealing with migrants. In addition, it is researched whether the EU, UN, and WHO policies and recommendation concerning COVID-19 and migrants, where applicable, are respected in the Republic of Croatia and whether specific policies concerning migrants and COVID-19 were introduced. All legislation, policy responses, and practices will be critically approached and examined. The text will make proposals for implementation of best practices and policy responses for migrants in the context of COVID-19. All statistical data that are necessary for this research are requested from the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Croatia.

Abstract
In 2015, the mass mobilities of refugees, many from Syria, towards Western Europe, were presented as a crisis threatening the integrity of nation-states. Whilst governments along the so-called 'Balkan route' increasingly responded with exclusionary measures, large-scale solidarity movements emerged and played a key role in assisting refugees in their journeys and settlement. All along the route, activists and volunteers (sometimes in loose collaboration with official relief organizations) established solidarity communities that tasked themselves with assisting people on the move. Their activities have been underpinned by discourses of solidarity and hospitality reflecting deep-seated popular beliefs about displacement, sanctuary and refuge—alternative narratives of what is today called asylum. Based on ethnographic fieldwork with solidarity and refugee groups in Greece, Serbia and Hungary, I examine the practices and discourses of refugees and those mobilized to support them along the 'Balkan route'.

AbstractA significant increase in the number of arrivals of refugees and migrants in Europe along the Western Balkans route brought several Balkan countries into the spotlight of international refugee protection in 2015 and 2016. Out of hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants recorded entering the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia, only a handful remained to seek asylum from their authorities. Under the circumstances, the applicability of the 1951 Refugee Convention with respect to refugees refraining from seeking asylum was brought into question, as well as the extent of transit countries' legal obligations under refugee law. Based on the Western Balkans experience, the present article seeks to re-examine the relationship between the concept of asylum and the regime of the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Convention's scope of application in "transit countries", and minimal standards stemming from positive law regarding the treatment of refugees and migrants in a transit context.