Suchergebnisse

This report is part of the RESPOND Project's Work Package 6 (WP6), titled 'Conflicting Europeanisation', which focuses on the internal and external dynamics of the European Union's (EU) migration and asylum policy. In this framework, WP6 examines how the recent migration crisis has affected the future of European integration. It analyses the main parameters of divergence in migration governance and explores how these could impinge on the future course that EU integration takes. The report notes that migration and asylum policy have risen to the top of the EU's externalisation agenda. It is also contextually linked to the broader institutionalisation of the EU, becoming a state-like system with the intention to demarcate clear external borders, as well as a sharper distinction between the domestic and foreign policy fields. Differentiated integration comes into play as a compromise method to balance the Member States' differentiated national interests and preferences. The report proceeds as follows: First, it provides a brief discussion on the conceptual part. It reviews the main instruments for the cooperation with third countries adopted by the EU to tackle the multiple dimensions of the migration phenomenon and control. Then, it focuses on Turkey as a case study for examining the usage of the external form of differentiated and wraps this up by linking the whole discussion with the Europeanisation debate. Finally, the conclusion contributes to the debate on the configuration and impact of EU cooperation with third countries in migration and proposes a set of concrete recommendations for further action.

This report is part of the RESPOND Project's Work Package 6 (WP6), titled 'Conflicting Europeanisation', which focuses on the internal and external dynamics of the European Union's (EU) migration and asylum policy. In this framework, WP6 examines how the recent migration crisis has affected the future of European integration. It analyses the main parameters of divergence in migration governance and explores how these could impinge on the future course that EU integration takes. The report notes that migration and asylum policy have risen to the top of the EU's externalisation agenda. It is also contextually linked to the broader institutionalisation of the EU, becoming a state-like system with the intention to demarcate clear external borders, as well as a sharper distinction between the domestic and foreign policy fields. Differentiated integration comes into play as a compromise method to balance the Member States' differentiated national interests and preferences. The report proceeds as follows: First, it provides a brief discussion on the conceptual part. It reviews the main instruments for the cooperation with third countries adopted by the EU to tackle the multiple dimensions of the migration phenomenon and control. Then, it focuses on Turkey as a case study for examining the usage of the external form of differentiated and wraps this up by linking the whole discussion with the Europeanisation debate. Finally, the conclusion contributes to the debate on the configuration and impact of EU cooperation with third countries in migration and proposes a set of concrete recommendations for further action.

This report investigates how Turkey interprets, narrates and implements its obligations towards international protection for refugees, with an emphasis on the recent migration movements. This report examines the international protection, in particular refugee protection including temporary protection, focusing on the main legal and policy framework as well as the organisations and actors involved in policy implementation. It explores how Turkey applies international protection instruments, particularly the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The report highlights the gaps between policy and practice in the asylum regime. Furthermore, it examines the perceptions, experiences and strategies of meso level actors, involved in international protection, while also identifying the coping strategies and perceptions of individuals who go through the asylum system at the micro level. An emphasis on both meso and micro level actors is of the utmost important for unpacking how different actors within the asylum system navigate, internalise and/or resist the asylum system's rationalisations. The report links political narratives to surrounding experiences and practices. ; Respond

AbstractThis article analyzes the extent to which Turkey's irregular migration governance has evolved since the 1990s and the most salient factors in that process. Relying on the methods of process tracing and political ethnography, the article demonstrates that, since the early 1990s, Turkey's irregular migration governance has been driven by the following factors: 1) responses to the European Union's (EU) attempts to control migration through externalization; 2) Turkey's national security concerns, which increased with the advent of mass migration from the Middle East; and 3) the increase in the number of irregular migrants on Turkish territory. The Syrian mass migration that began in 2011 gave momentum to the evolution of irregular migration governance in line with the long-term externalization on the part of the EU. Our analysis sheds light on the interconnectedness of irregular and mass migration, as well as on the outcomes of interactions between international politics and national migration governance. Thus, the article provides insights that will prove valuable for migration studies, EU studies, and studies on Turkish foreign policy.

Based on the meta-analysis of thematic country and comparative reports produced in the EU Horizon 2020 RESPOND project, this report seeks to revisit multilevel governance as a theoretical framework in comparative migration research. Focusing on the period of 2011-2018 where the governance of migration has been very much affected by the 'crisis' climax, we question the adaptability of multilevel governance in describing main patterns in governance, their drivers and consequences. The report problematizes the generalized notions of local, nationalist, centralist turn in migration management, instead offering more nuanced understanding that highlights the dynamism and tensions within spatial and temporal axes.Firstly, we propose that when migration is managed through and in a crisis, such as in mass migration or protracted refugee situations, actors at multilevel governance settings choose from a repertoire of possible and available actions, including strict non-admission, deterrence, restriction, ad hoc or welcoming responses.Second, we contend that four characteristics have increasingly marked the inscription of 'crisis' in the multilevel governance of migration, including: 1) complicated and fragmented legal systems, 2) multiplicity of actors, 3) re-nationalisation and restrictiveness and 4) increased complexity and uncertainty.Lastly, we conclude that multilevel governance in and through crisis inevitably leads to temporary governance models that become visible through policy convergence in strengthening restrictive measures, sophistication of remote controls, eradication of the norms and rights-based procedures of the refugee regime. The temporality of these governance modes runs the risk of governance failure and gridlocks in developing common solutions (for example, the EU's internal solidarity crisis or problems in relocation quotas).

Based on the meta-analysis of thematic country and comparative reports produced in the EU Horizon 2020 RESPOND project, this report seeks to revisit multilevel governance as a theoretical framework in comparative migration research. Focusing on the period of 2011-2018 where the governance of migration has been very much affected by the 'crisis' climax, we question the adaptability of multilevel governance in describing main patterns in governance, their drivers and consequences. The report problematizes the generalized notions of local, nationalist, centralist turn in migration management, instead offering more nuanced understanding that highlights the dynamism and tensions within spatial and temporal axes. Firstly, we propose that when migration is managed through and in a crisis, such as in mass migration or protracted refugee situations, actors at multilevel governance settings choose from a repertoire of possible and available actions, including strict non-admission, deterrence, restriction, ad hoc or welcoming responses. Second, we contend that four characteristics have increasingly marked the inscription of 'crisis' in the multilevel governance of migration, including: 1) complicated and fragmented legal systems, 2) multiplicity of actors, 3) re-nationalisation and restrictiveness and 4) increased complexity and uncertainty. Lastly, we conclude that multilevel governance in and through crisis inevitably leads to temporary governance models that become visible through policy convergence in strengthening restrictive measures, sophistication of remote controls, eradication of the norms and rights-based procedures of the refugee regime. The temporality of these governance modes runs the risk of governance failure and gridlocks in developing common solutions (for example, the EU's internal solidarity crisis or problems in relocation quotas).

This open access book provides a comprehensive analysis of Turkey's response to Syrian mass migration from 2011 to 2020. It examines internal and external dimensions of the refugee issue in relation to Middle Eastern geopolitics as well as the salience of controlling irregular migration to the European Union. The book focuses on policies and discourses developed in the fields of border management, reception, asylum and protection, and integration of refugees with an emphasis on continuities, ruptures and changes. One of its main goals is to compare differences in policy practices across provinces in order to better capture ways in which Syrian refugees claim agency, develop belonging and experience integration in the context of cultural intimacy, precarity and temporariness. By providing rich empirical evidence, this book provides a valuable resource for students and scholars in migration studies, political science, anthropology, sociology and public administration disciplines as well as policy makers, stakeholders and the general public.

This country report focuses on developments that took place during the period of 2011-2017 in the field of migration in Turkey. Traditionally a country of emigration, starting from the early 1990s, it has also become an important country of immigration, asylum and transit. Most recently, the increasing pressure of the refugee challenge, particularly given the high number of arrivals from Syria, has put the country once again under international spotlights. This report provides relevant migration statistics that are available as open source data. It briefly reviews the socio-economic, political and cultural characteristic of the country as well as its brief migration history. The report also delves into a detailed analysis of the constitutional, legal and institutional framework of Turkey's national migration management system, which has gone through significant transition in the last few years. The report points out that due to Turkey's geographical limitation to the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 Convention), and its associated 1967 Protocol; Turkey does not grant refugee status to people fleeing from conflicts and persecution in non-European countries. But it does provide 'conditional refugee status' along with 'refugee' and 'subsidiary' protection. The report reveals a key duality regarding European and non-European asylum seekers to be an important characteristic of Turkey's asylum system. The first group can obtain 'refugee' status'; while the second group can only obtain 'conditional refugee status'. However, regardless of their nationality, due to the Syrian mass migration, Syrian refugees1 are given another international protection status, which is called 'temporary protection'. The report concludes by highlighting that part of Turkey's recent migration policy efforts are tied to encouragement coming from the EU for Turkey to improve conditions regarding access to the asylum process and status determination as well as enhancement of its facilities forasylum-seekers' protection. Although these developments bring Turkey closer to satisfying the EU demands on migration and asylum policy, Turkey is still expected to abolish the geographical limitation of the 1951 Convention to create a full-fledged asylum system and to solve remaining implementation problems. Ensuring equal and fair access to asylum procedures and facilitating the full access of asylum-seekers to legal aid remain priorities still to be achieved.

This country report focuses on developments that took place during the period of 2011-2017 in the field of migration in Turkey. Traditionally a country of emigration, starting from the early 1990s, it has also become an important country of immigration, asylum and transit. Most recently, the increasing pressure of the refugee challenge, particularly given the high number of arrivals from Syria, has put the country once again under international spotlights. This report provides relevant migration statistics that are available as open source data. It briefly reviews the socio-economic, political and cultural characteristic of the country as well as its brief migration history. The report also delves into a detailed analysis of the constitutional, legal and institutional framework of Turkey's national migration management system, which has gone through significant transition in the last few years. The report points out that due to Turkey's geographical limitation to the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 Convention), and its associated 1967 Protocol; Turkey does not grant refugee status to people fleeing from conflicts and persecution in non-European countries. But it does provide 'conditional refugee status' along with 'refugee' and 'subsidiary' protection. The report reveals a key duality regarding European and non-European asylum seekers to be an important characteristic of Turkey's asylum system. The first group can obtain 'refugee' status'; while the second group can only obtain 'conditional refugee status'. However, regardless of their nationality, due to the Syrian mass migration, Syrian refugees1 are given another international protection status, which is called 'temporary protection'. The report concludes by highlighting that part of Turkey's recent migration policy efforts are tied to encouragement coming from the EU for Turkey to improve conditions regarding access to the asylum process and status determination as well as enhancement of its facilities forasylum-seekers' ...

This chapter looks at the implementation of interna- tional protection policies (especially asylum procedures and refugee protec- tion) in the EU as well as in non-EU countries and underline four findings that are evident across country cases: 1) a highly restrictive and complex legal framework; 2) the proliferation and fragmentation of forms of protec- tion and asylum procedures; 3) the ambiguous role of multiple actors; and 4) the failure of the hotspot approach and the Dublin Regulation.

This comparative report is based on the RESPOND country reports [deliverable D3.1] that discusses the developments regarding legislation, policy measures and practices on refugee protection, but most importantly the implementation aspect in ten countries covered by the project (Austria, Germany, Greece, Iraq, Italy, Lebanon, Poland, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom) for the 2011-2019 period. This report aims to provide a comparative analysis of refugee protection, emphasising the implementation aspect as drawn from the experiences and perceptions of meso and micro level actors. In doing so, the report offers analytical insights for evaluating the implications of the dynamics of refugee protection, which has undergone many changes since 2011. Despite the largely shared regional, international and supranational obligations regarding refugee protection, the overarching pattern in the field of refugee protection is characterised by a restrictive approach. Although some countries were relatively more welcoming at the beginning Syrian displacement in 2011, such as Turkey (open-doors policy) and Lebanon, restricted access to national/federal territories, additional physical measures such as security walls and other actions such as push backs have become common, hindering the asylum procedure, particularly after 2015. Many countries have introduced additional procedural measures to prevent and restrain access to international protection as well as to speed up asylum assessments, such as accelerated procedures, fast-track-procedures, border procedures. Increased rejections and long waiting periods have become policies in themselves. Almost all countries tended to downgrade the rights of applicants and beneficiaries of protection. In general, all newly introduced amendments or regulations impose new restrictions or limitations to existing standards of rights. However, at the same time, some countries developed policies and practices to respond to the humanitarian crisis and welcomed refugees only from certain nationalities on the grounds of humanitarian or national reasons, through residence permits and family reunification. As for the RESPOND countries who are EU Member States, the observance of the so-called minimum EU-level standards, or even lower, has become common. All countries display an extremely complex and continually changing legal framework on refugee protection. The newly introduced additional procedures result in the fragmentation of the examination of claims through the categorisation of asylum seekers. This also resulted in stratified legal statuses with different procedures and specified rights, adding up to the traceable nationality-based discrimination against certain asylum seekers (e.g. Afghans), creating 'desirable' and 'undesirable' migrants/refugees.

This report provides a snapshot for some of the primary findings, trends and challenges with regard to immigrant integration that have been studied in nine country cases, based on research conducted within the framework of the Horizon2020 RESPOND project. These countries are Sweden, Germany, Italy, Greece, Austria, Poland, the UK, Turkey and Iraq. All nine country reports study integration in five thematic domains (labour market, education, housing, psychosocial health and citizenship) by looking at policies (macro level), practices (meso) and experiences of refugees and asylum seekers (micro level). This integrated report relies on data discussed in the macro sections of these country reports, and systematically analyses the same thematic fields in each country by looking at: a) Legal and institutional frameworks for each thematic field (labour market, education, housing, psychosocial health, and citizenship); b) The main trends in these domains, and c) Problems and challenges that refugees face (based on the interview material at micro and meso levels). Each section ends with an informative summative table. Overall, the integrated report provides a rich overview of country cases, and thus, can be read either as a whole or as separate sections.