Suchergebnisse

This article explores the temporal dimension of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) by exposing its teleological character and the effects of the latter on the governance of asylum in the European Union. Drawing on EU policy documents, the article shows how the CEAS has been presented since its inception as a teleology, that is, a process that is inexorably unfolding towards a specific outcome to be reached in an indefinite time in the future. The outcome consists in the establishment of a common area of protection constituted by a level playing field in which asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection will be treated alike regardless of the place of residence. Such a teleological narrative informing the CEAS paves the way to overly optimistic expectations on the possibilities of implementation, which in turn result in an overestimation of the potential of harmonisation. By discussing the limitations of harmonisation in relation to the reception of asylum seekers, this article calls into question the possibility of a homogeneous area of protection where equivalent conditions are offered to all asylum seekers across the EU. Such a homogeneous space is utopian because harmonisation does not aim to eradicate differences but rather to mitigate them, thus tolerating diverse arrangements. The article, therefore, argues that the level playing field projected by the CEAS constitutes a promise that has two key effects: First, it depoliticises the CEAS itself by framing problems as technical issues, requiring technical solutions; second, it paves the way to further EU intervention in this field.

This article explores the temporal dimension of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) by exposing its teleological character and the effects of the latter on the governance of asylum in the European Union. Drawing on EU policy documents, the article shows how the CEAS has been presented since its inception as a teleology, that is, a process that is inexorably unfolding towards a specific outcome to be reached in an indefinite time in the future. The outcome consists in the establishment of a common area of protection constituted by a level playing field in which asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection will be treated alike regardless of the place of residence. Such a teleological narrative informing the CEAS paves the way to overly optimistic expectations on the possibilities of implementation, which in turn result in an overestimation of the potential of harmonisation. By discussing the limitations of harmonisation in relation to the reception of asylum seekers, this article calls into question the possibility of a homogeneous area of protection where equivalent conditions are offered to all asylum seekers across the EU. Such a homogeneous space is utopian because harmonisation does not aim to eradicate differences but rather to mitigate them, thus tolerating diverse arrangements. The article, therefore, argues that the level playing field projected by the CEAS constitutes a promise that has two key effects: First, it depoliticises the CEAS itself by framing problems as technical issues, requiring technical solutions; second, it paves the way to further EU intervention in this field.

The article takes EUrope's uneven geographies of reception as a privileged standpoint from which to explore the ways in which EUrope is currently produced through the management of asylum seekers, as well as constantly contested by asylum seekers' movements. Drawing from qualitative research in Italy and Sweden, the article calls into question the notion of a homogeneous EUrope that is promoted by EU asylum policies through the idea of a common area of protection in which asylum seekers are treated equally and fairly regardless of the place of reception. Such presumed homogeneity is radically challenged by an excess of contexts of reception, which is explored along spatial, institutional, and temporal lines, and by excessive movements, through which migrants attempt to take advantage of the unevenness characterising the EUropean space. The article argues that an emphasis on the excess of reception and on the excessive character of movements points to possible ways for rethinking Europe in terms in which unevenness is replaced by equal possibilities, living conditions, and welfare.

Los estudios realizados en diversas jurisdicciones europeas sugieren que el empleo de comisiones judiciales compuestas por varios miembros en la fase de apelación mejora la calidad y la equidad de la DCR. ; Research across a range of European jurisdictions suggests that the use of multi-member judicial panels at appeal stage improves the quality and fairness of RSD

Les études menées dans un certain nombre de juridictions européennes suggèrent qu'au stade du recours, les formations collégiales améliorent la qualité et l'équité du processus de détermination du statut de réfugié (DSR).

The national report on the governance of the reception system in Luxembourg is one of the seven country reports that are produced within Work Package 3 of the H2020 project CEASEVAL. The report provides an overview of the Luxembourgish reception system. More specifically, it focuses on recent transformations that have affected the system, processes of implementation at the national and local levels, and sources of heterogeneity within the national system. It is based on document analysis as well as on 19 semi-structured interviews with a range of different stakeholders who are directly or indirectly involved in the Luxembourgish reception system. The report first provides some historical background on the reception of asylum seekers in Luxembourg by paying specific attention to the main legislative instruments that shaped the initial design of the national reception system. Then, the main revisions that affected the system in the period 2009-2018 are explored alongside their related decision-making processes. This paves the way for an overview of the formal structure of the Luxembourgish reception system. After the discussion of the formal organisation of reception policies in the country, the report moves on to explore the actual functioning of the reception system by investigating implementation practices at the national and local levels. Finally, some examples of heterogeneity in the current provision of reception are discussed, in an attempt to identify drivers of convergence and divergence in the implementation of reception policies.

Within CEASEVAL, the University of Luxembourg leads Work Package 4 (WP4) on "Borders and the Mobility of Migrants". The aim of WP4 is to develop a framework to analyse the interactions between borders and the mobility of migrants (asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants), thus also addressing the relation between asylum systems and Schengen regime. In order to do so, WP4 investigates the functioning of the internal and external EU borders in the governance of migrants' mobility by looking specifically at the ways in which bordering processes are implemented when confronted with the mobility of migrants. The research draws from an extensive empirical study in 7 different countries: France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Spain and Turkey. Qualitative interviews with migrants (asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants) and institutional actors (border agents, policymakers, representatives of institutions, etc.), as well as ethnographic observations of border agencies and border points are conducted in these case studies. The objectives of this qualitative fieldwork are to identify mobility trajectories, understand how these are shaped by border policies, and compare bordering processes. The work package will result in 7 country reports (one for each case study), a comparative report, a policy brief, and an online interactive map.