No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The (reformed) Dublin III Regulation—a tool for enhanced effectiveness and higher standards of protection?
Abstract
The aim of the (recast) Dublin III Regulation is to enhance the effectiveness of the Dublin system while securing higher standards of protection for applicants. The Regulation provides for new tools to achieve these aims. In practice, the implementation of the new Regulation has proven to be challenging, but is generally working well. However, there are still areas for improvement. Especially the right to family life and the right to an effective remedy, need to be further strengthened to conform to human rights standards.
... Currently the Dublin Regulation is in its third instalment (so-called Dublin III) and envisages a number of additional provisions, exceeding mere assignment of responsibility. These clauses include asylum early warning and preparedness system as well as applicant protection clauses that allow for appeals to suspend execution of return orders, compulsory interviews with applicants, special procedures for minors, assurance of legal assistance free of charge, or limitations on the duration of detention (Hruschka, 2014). economic gains and exploiting the international system of protection (Guild & Minderhoud, 2012). ...
The chapter discusses historical development of the securitisation of migration at the EU level, outlining its different modes and venues. It discusses how the Schengen zone has become the seminal project for development of the EU border control regime reflected predominantly in the managerial approach to security practices and discourses towards migrants in the EU. It further the covers development of EU asylum policies, elaborating upon intertwining policy narratives of humanitarianism, illegality and bogus claims of asylum seekers in the EU. Lastly, the chapter discusses EU policies on detention and deportation, examining them as securitising practices of containment and control. In this way, the chapter unravels the complexity of the so-called migration-security continuum in the EU, discussing its historical and institutional development, indicating how the logics of human security, “exceptionality” and most notably risk management have become points of reference for framing of the “migration crisis”.
... Currently the Dublin Regulation is in its third instalment (so-called Dublin III) and envisages a number of additional provisions, exceeding mere assignment of responsibility. These clauses include asylum early warning and preparedness system as well as applicant protection clauses that allow for appeals to suspend execution of return orders, compulsory interviews with applicants, special procedures for minors, assurance of legal assistance free of charge, or limitations on the duration of detention (Hruschka, 2014). economic gains and exploiting the international system of protection (Guild & Minderhoud, 2012). ...
The chapter discusses how human security has structured the discourse on the “migration crisis”, becoming the most prominent logic in the diagnosis and evaluation of the crisis. Here, the European Parliament played the role of the key promotor of human security logic, framing migrants as human referent objects, seeking refuge from structural violence, war and terror. Further, the chapter discusses the prominence of risk logic, which was deployed, predominantly by the European Commission, in reference to movements within the EU and on its borders. Here, migratory flows on the borders are evaluated as carriers of uncertainty and risk connected to unidentifiable and unknown masses of people crossing to the EU. The chapter focuses on the symbolic role of the EU border, discussing how the framing and the type of security logic changes depending on the situation of migrants vis-à-vis the border. Finally, the chapter investigates how both logics, human security and risk, have been intertwining with the narratives of “exceptionality” and definitions of existential threats to migrants as well the Schengen area.
... Currently the Dublin Regulation is in its third instalment (so-called Dublin III) and envisages a number of additional provisions, exceeding mere assignment of responsibility. These clauses include asylum early warning and preparedness system as well as applicant protection clauses that allow for appeals to suspend execution of return orders, compulsory interviews with applicants, special procedures for minors, assurance of legal assistance free of charge, or limitations on the duration of detention (Hruschka, 2014). economic gains and exploiting the international system of protection (Guild & Minderhoud, 2012). ...
The chapter proposes to look at securitisation as the work of policy framing. It discusses how framing literature may help in reorienting the securitisation framework and its main components (i.e. speech act, exceptionalism, actor audience dichotomy, context and acceptance) to investigate not one specific understanding of security that is supposed to “break normal politics”, but the whole plethora of entangled security logics that to different degrees and to different ends frame migration as a security issue at the EU level. In this way, this chapter discusses each building block of the theory and explains how the application of framing and security logics opens the analysis to the exploration of the discriminatory and violent consequences of various, often intertwining, security discourses and policy practices.
... Currently the Dublin Regulation is in its third instalment (so-called Dublin III) and envisages a number of additional provisions, exceeding mere assignment of responsibility. These clauses include asylum early warning and preparedness system as well as applicant protection clauses that allow for appeals to suspend execution of return orders, compulsory interviews with applicants, special procedures for minors, assurance of legal assistance free of charge, or limitations on the duration of detention (Hruschka, 2014). economic gains and exploiting the international system of protection (Guild & Minderhoud, 2012). ...
This open access book investigates the complexity and the modalities of securitization of migration and border control at the EU level. It discusses and compares how different EU institutions and agencies have been deploying different logics of security, e.g. humanitarianism or management of risk, while framing increased migratory flows and so called migration crisis as a security problem. The book argues that the (re)development of EU migration and border control policies in response to increased migratory flows of 2015 have revealed an increasingly tangled nature of securitization of migration in the EU. This is reflected in the intertwining of security logics where migrants and human mobility tend to be securitized through different, sometimes multiple, interpretative lenses at different stages of policy framing. From a theoretical point of view, the book develops a fresh analytical perspective that further contributes to burgeoning discussion on securitization theory. By bridging the literature on policy framing and securitization it makes a significant contribution to the debates on both securitization and migration. As such this book is of great interest to students, academics, policy makers and all those working in the fields of EU politics, migration, security, and international relations.
... Currently the Dublin Regulation is in its third instalment (so-called Dublin III) and envisages a number of additional provisions, exceeding mere assignment of responsibility. These clauses include asylum early warning and preparedness system as well as applicant protection clauses that allow for appeals to suspend execution of return orders, compulsory interviews with applicants, special procedures for minors, assurance of legal assistance free of charge, or limitations on the duration of detention (Hruschka, 2014). economic gains and exploiting the international system of protection (Guild & Minderhoud, 2012). ...
The chapter is concerned with the conceptualisation of remedial actions, which have been deployed in response to the “migration crisis”. It discusses how the EU frame-narrative has shifted in favour of risk, resilience, and “exceptionality”, leaving human security dispersed among different types of policy actions. With this in mind, the chapter discusses at length the framing and development of specific policy instruments such as the so-called “EU-Turkey deal”, dataveillance systems, the “hot-spot approach”, or reform of Frontex and Europol, to name a few. It also discusses the emergence of resilience as an important security logic. In this respect, it analyses how this relatively new security narrative has heavily influenced EU security and policy discourse on migration and migrants, calling for increased administrative resilience of the EU asylum system, or border security system, to name a few. Further, the chapter discusses how risk management, resilience, “exceptionality” and human security have been intertwining in policy responses to terrorism, trans-border organised crime, as well as in the utilisation of EU military means in increasing resilience outside EU borders. In this respect, it looks into EUFOR “Sophia”, Frontex Joint Operations and EU capacity building and border assistance missions, discussing their securitising features.
... Currently the Dublin Regulation is in its third instalment (so-called Dublin III) and envisages a number of additional provisions, exceeding mere assignment of responsibility. These clauses include asylum early warning and preparedness system as well as applicant protection clauses that allow for appeals to suspend execution of return orders, compulsory interviews with applicants, special procedures for minors, assurance of legal assistance free of charge, or limitations on the duration of detention (Hruschka, 2014). economic gains and exploiting the international system of protection (Guild & Minderhoud, 2012). ...
The aim of the chapter is to provide a closer look at the Copenhagen School of security and its proposition of securitisation theory. In doing so, the chapter presents a discussion on the main conceptual building blocks of the theory, outlining their characteristics and critique reflected in the current securitisation literature. The chapter is structured as follows. The first section provides an overview of the mechanics of securitisation theory, defining its key constituents – speech act, logic of exception, and actor-audience interaction. Further, it moves to discussion on each of these elements, elaborating their specific role within the theory, but also outlining their specific limiting effects on securitisation research. The last section discusses how the debate on securitisation has been expanding, opening the door to new conceptual frameworks as well as elaborations of security.
... 9 Following an evaluation of the Dublin system in 2007 (Commission of the European Communities 2007), the European Commission initiated discussions for a recast of the Dublin II Regulation in 2008 (Commission of the European Communities 2008). After facing strong opposition from the Member States and several rounds of consultations, the Dublin III Regulation (European Union 2013b) entered into force in July 2013 (Hruschka 2014). Dublin III aims to enhance the effectiveness of the Dublin system, while securing higher standards of protection for asylum applicants. ...
Rhetoric often claims that the European Union (EU), in issues related to Justice and Home Affairs, has to be united in its diversity. As such, the asylum and judicial systems of the Member States are initially perceived as equally good. By applying the cosmopolitan theory on two fields of interstate cooperation, asylum and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the article explores how cosmopolitan the EU is in these fields, with a specific focus on material detention conditions. For cosmopolitanism to work, it has to be grounded in commonly shared norms, which enable the EU to regulate its dealings with the otherness of the Member States. The crucial role of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union in placing boundaries on the equal goodness of the Member States’ asylum and judicial systems is analysed. This judicial reality in which cosmopolitan norms are established and protected is discussed, together with the political realities dominating policy debates in order to build an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.
The current Common European Asylum System (CEAS) includes several measures to protect unaccompanied minors. New CEAS proposals launched in 2016 continued to expand some of the existing safeguards but also introduced a more punitive approach towards asylum-seekers, sanctioning and preventing secondary movements and possible abuse of the asylum system. These measures need to be viewed against the backdrop of the so-called ‘refugee crisis’, creating a policy climate more focussed on control and deterrence. This equally affects unaccompanied minors, who struggle to enjoy the rights granted to them, as EU member states move towards an increasingly restrictive interpretation of the CEAS.
In all cases concerning children, the principle of best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in all actions or decisions, regardless of their citizenship and residence status. The Common European Asylum System consists of many provisions promoting special protection of the best interest of unaccompanied children who seeking or are granted international protection. Irrespective of the existence of the application for international protection, the state authorities have private international law protection mechanisms at their disposal. The aim of this paper is to describe the interrelation of European asylum law and private international law concerning the protection of rights of unaccompanied minors. The main hypothesis of this paper is that the application of the rules of private international law to the procedures which include unaccompanied minors will contribute to their protection.
Keywords: unaccompanied minor, CEAS, Brussels IIbis Regulation
Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC): General comment No Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside their Country of Origin
- Un
General comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration
- Committee
The Dublin II Regulation. A UNHCR discussion paper The Dublin II Regulation: Lives on hold
- Unhcr
Dublin III, Eilrechtsschutz und das Comeback der Drittstaatenregelung
- D Bender
- M Bethke
Reflection note on the Evaluation of the Dublin system and on the Dublin III proposal, doc. PE 410.690; published within the framework of the ODYSSEUS Research Project “Setting up a Common European Asylum System-report on the application of existing instruments and proposals for the new system
- F Maiani
- V Vevstad