Suchergebnisse

Grenzen sind in der Planungspraxis vielfältig vorzufinden. Vor allem nationale Grenzen definieren das Territorium, in welchen Planungsinstitutionen und -kulturen verankert sind und ihre Planungsbefugnisse gelten. Im Rahmen der europäischen Integration gibt es zwar verschiedene Instrumentarien einer grenzübergreifenden Raumplanung, da jedoch die Europäische Union keine Raumplanungskompetenz besitzt, sind diese stets im Kontext nationaler Raumplanungsgesetze und -kulturen zu verstehen. Der Beitrag zeigt, welche Maßnahmen die Europäische Union getroffen hat (z.B. INTERREG, Territoriale Agenda 2007 und 2020, makroregionale Strategien), um nationalen Grenzen in der Raumplanung weniger Gewicht zu geben und die territoriale Kohäsion zu fördern. Gleichzeitig zeigt sich aber auch die Definitionsmacht nationaler Grenzen in diesem Kompetenzfeld.

What is the SaarLorLux Greater Region? Is it one or more realities of life? One or more political constructions? Or: Is the SaarLorLux Greater Region perhaps something completely different? These are questions that are investigated in this part.

Die Transformation ländlicher Räume im westlichen Europa ist eng verbunden mit der europäischen Integration und dabei vor allem mit der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik, durch deren Richtlinien auch die Gesellschaft im ländlichen Raum stark geprägt wurde. ; The transformation of rural areas in Western Europe is closely linked to European integration and especially to the Common Agricultural Policy, whose directives have also had a strong impact on rural society.

With the opening of the borders and integration into the European Union, the population of the Baltic states are now freer in their choice of residence and workplace than during the Soviet era. This paper deals with the intra-European mobility of people from the Baltic states after EU accession.

In 2015 and 2016, the enormous increase in asylum seekers travelling along the Balkan Route confronted the Member States of the European Union with an exceptional pressure on national asylum systems. Since then academic literature has revealed a reappraisal of the Common European Asylum System at regulative and policy implementation level, notably regarding the fair distribution of asylum seekers across Member States and regions. Yet we know very little about the locational choices of forced migrants or how those choices evolved and transformed during their journey. In this paper, we aim to shed light on those decision-making processes and (individual, subjective) locational choices based on the aspiration-ability model, drawing from a series of qualitative interviews with migrants held in Luxembourg and Germany in the context of the H2020 project CEASEVAL. We focus on the migrants' journeys to their actual recipient countries, highlighting mobility trajectories from the moment of first departure and on the process of decision-making regarding their choice of location. Then, we examine further mobility aspirations, which may lead to secondary mobility within or out of the country of residence. In the concluding section, we discuss the consequences of our findings for migration and asylum politics against the background of the "autonomy of migration" framework. * This article belongs to a special issue on "Refugee Migration to Europe – Challenges and Potentials for Cities and Regions".

In 2015 and 2016, the enormous increase in asylum seekers travelling along the Balkan Route confronted the Member States of the European Union with an exceptional pressure on national asylum systems. Since then academic literature has revealed a reappraisal of the Common European Asylum System at regulative and policy implementation level, notably regarding the fair distribution of asylum seekers across Member States and regions. Yet we know very little about the locational choices of forced migrants or how those choices evolved and transformed during their journey. In this paper, we aim to shed light on those decision-making processes and (individual, subjective) locational choices based on the aspiration-ability model, drawing from a series of qualitative interviews with migrants held in Luxembourg and Germany in the context of the H2020 project CEASEVAL. We focus on the migrants' journeys to their actual recipient countries, highlighting mobility trajectories from the moment of first departure and on the process of decision-making regarding their choice of location. Then, we examine further mobility aspirations, which may lead to secondary mobility within or out of the country of residence. In the concluding section, we discuss the consequences of our findings for migration and asylum politics against the background of the "autonomy of migration" framework.

Le Luxembourg reste un pays attractif à l'immigration. Entre 2019 et 2020 la population luxembourgeoise a continué à augmenter principalement en raison de l'immigration nette, passant de 626.108 à 634.730 habitants (+1,4%), mais d'une manière plus discrète que les années précédentes. La part luxembourgeoise représente 52,8% de la population et les ressortissants étrangers 47,2%. La pandémie a dominé la politique en matière d'immigration et asile pendant l'année 2020 et 2021. Ces politiques ont impacté tous les secteurs au Luxembourg y compris les volets de l'immigration et de l'asile. La fermeture des frontières extérieures de l'Union Européenne, la réintroduction temporaire des contrôles aux frontières internes de l'espace Schengen (décrétées par l'Allemagne, la Belgique et la France) et la perturbation du trafic aérien international ont affecté les mouvements migratoires vers et au départ du Luxembourg. La limitation des mouvements des ressortissants pays tiers (RPT) s'est compliquée suite à la déclaration de l'état de crise entre le 18 mars et le 13 mai 2020 et la fermeture des services d'immigration et asile. Néanmoins, afin d'éviter qu'ils ne tombent dans une situation irrégulière, les autorités luxembourgeoises ont étendu la durée de validité des titres et cartes de séjour et des visas de manière automatique. De même, le traitement des dossiers et la prise de décision par la Direction de l'immigration se sont poursuivis sans interruption. L'interdiction d'entrée des RPT (avec des exceptions pour certaines catégories) a été maintenue jusqu'au 30 juin 2021. Une baisse significative du nombre de titres de séjour délivrés, de demandes d'autorisation temporaire de séjour et de visas de court séjour a été constatée, ainsi qu'une diminution de presque 50% des demandes de protection internationale. Le regroupement familial est resté le principal type de titre de séjour en 2020. Les limitations de mouvements ont aussi une incidence sur les transferts sous le règlement Dublin ainsi que sur les retours vers le pays d'origine. Au cours de l'année 2020, le Luxembourg a continué à maintenir ses engagements de solidarité internationale avec la relocalisation et la réinstallation des demandeurs de protection internationale (DPI) puisque 25 personnes (dont 16 mineurs) ont été relocalisées et 14 réinstallées. La réception des DPI s'est poursuivie car l'Office national de l'accueil (ONA) n'a pas fermé ses guichets. Un défi majeur est constitué par les taux d'occupation élevés dans les structures d'hébergement de l'ONA. La crise du logement affecte particulièrement les bénéficiaires de protection internationale (BPI) qui peinent à trouver un logement en-dehors des structures d'accueil réservées en principe aux DPI. Dans ce contexte l'ONA a poursuivi ses efforts à inciter les communes à promouvoir la mise en place de structures d'hébergement pour DPI et/ou de possibilités d'hébergement pour BPI. ; 2021

The COVID- 19 crisis led to an asymmetric response from the European Union Member States. This was shown by the closure of the internal borders inside the Schengen area. In order to justify this action, Member States advanced the argument of protection the public health of their national population leaving aside the solidarity that Member States should have demonstrated during a time of crisis. This article is therefore dealing with the notion of solidarity in times of temporary border re-establishments.

The Covid-19 pandemic took most EU Member States of the European Union by surprise, as they underestimated the rapid spread of the contagion across the continent. The response of the EU Member States was asymmetrical, individualistic and significantly slow. The first measures taken were to close down the internal borders. The European Union's response was even slower, and it was not until 17th March 2020 that the external borders were closed. These actions affected legal migration into the European Union from four perspectives: it affected 1) the mobility of those third-country nationals who were on a temporary stay in the EU Member States; 2) the entry of third-country nationals to do seasonal work; 3) legal migrants entering and staying; and 4) the status of the third-country nationals already residing in the EU Member States, especially those experiencing a loss of income. This article will deal with the EU Member States' measures to manage the immigration services, as a case study how Luxembourg dealt to avoid that temporary staying migrants and regular migrants fall into irregularity. Finally, we will focus on the vulnerability of third-country nationals with the rising risk of unemployment and the risk of being returned to their country of origin. The article will also analyse access to healthcare and unemployment benefits.

This presentation analyses the situation generated by the Covid-19 pandemic crisis regarding border closures and the reintroduction of temporary border controls at the internal borders in the EU and the impact that this border closures and the pandemic had on third-country nationals living or visiting the European Union.