Suchergebnisse

In recent years, northern European Union (EU) member states have intensified internal surveillance on irregular migrants. Policy innovation has been geared to controlling, identifying, and even reidentifying irregular migrants who settled within their borders. Policy aims are deterrence, exclusion, and, ultimately, expulsion. Developments in labor market, detention, and expulsion policies and surveillance by the EU immigration database are analyzed in relation to the counterstrategies that irregular migrants devise to escape detection and expulsion by the state. The resulting cat and mouse game between the state and irregular migrants seems to result in a serious threat to irregular migrants' room to maneuver and further increases their dependence on informal, and increasingly criminal, networks and institutions.

In recent years, northern European Union (EU) member states have intensified internal surveillance on irregular migrants. Policy innovation has been geared to controlling, identifying, and even reidentifying irregular migrants who settled within their borders. Policy aims are deterrence, exclusion, and, ultimately, expulsion. Developments in labor market, detention, and expulsion policies and surveillance by the EU immigration database are analyzed in relation to the counterstrategies that irregular migrants devise to escape detection and expulsion by the state. The resulting cat and mouse game between the state and irregular migrants seems to result in a serious threat to irregular migrants' room to maneuver and further increases their dependence on informal, and increasingly criminal, networks and institutions.

This article analyses the recent use of European Union (EU) terminology of digital sovereignty and strategic autonomy, aiming to identify tensions between policy considerations of fundamental rights, free market principles and geopolitical concerns. These tensions are rooted in the disparity between the EU's considerable economic and regulatory power in digital matters and its limited mandate and capabilities in foreign policy. The article also explores the translation of the notions of digital sovereignty and strategic autonomy into EU policy. It identifies three important trends in the geopoliticisation of the EU agenda on digital technologies: (1) the instrumental use of 'classic' internal market policies to exert geopolitical influence; (2) the imposition of foreign policy imperatives on national markets; and (3) new 'hybrid' digital policies that combine internal market concerns, fundamental rights and geopolitical concerns. Ultimately, digital sovereignty has inherent tensions with the EU's normative power in digital issues and may also result in a strategic cacophony.