Search

Europe faces the challenge of enormous recent asylum seeker inflows, and the allocation of these immigrants across European countries remains severely skewed, with some countries having a much larger per capita share of asylum applicants than others. Consequently, there is a debate at the EU level on how to allocate asylum seekers in order to tackle this imbalance. The present study focuses on preferences of European citizens towards the supranational policy issue of achieving a more equalized distribution of asylum seekers. Several theoretical arguments point towards asylum seeker intake, general immigrants' legal status, prior immigration stocks, and economic circumstances as explanatory mechanisms at the macro level. We test these propositions using Eurobarometer data from 2015. The results show that a high level of asylum seeker intake and larger immigrant stocks in 2010 are associated with a greater willingness to redistribute asylum seekers. Apart from this, integration policies also play a role: the more inclusive a country's political stance towards Third-Country Nationals, the higher the public support for a better allocation of asylum seekers. These results also emerge when excluding the top five asylum seeking destinations. At the individual level, views of the EU as a competent political actor and general immigration attitudes are substantially related to the support for redistribution efforts. These individual-level patterns occur both in countries with many and in countries with few asylum seekers, indicating that respondents largely take a broad European view on this topic, rather than a national one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the steps taken by governments in Europe to resolve the high number of refugees entering member countries since the early years of the 21st century. Also cited are the establishment of the Euro-African Dialogue on Migration and Development to counter irregular migration to the region, the cooperation between Italy and Libya to prevent migrants and asylum seekers to Italy, and the high number of African migrants from Eritrea.

Traditionally, differences in states' refugee protection contributions have been attributed to the variation in countries' structural pull-factors such as their geographic location. However, policy choices, such as Germany's decision to open its borders for Syrian refugees in 2015, can also have a significant impact on the number of arrivals and constitute a puzzle that traditional approaches struggle to explain. This paper demonstrates that viewing refugee burden-sharing through the lens of public goods theory can provide significant insights about refugee protection dynamics in the EU, in particular in the context of a sudden mass influx of migrants that threatens internal security. By highlighting how free-riding and burden-shifting dynamics can undermine the provision of collective goods during a refugee crisis, a public goods approach can advance our understanding of why countries sometimes accept disproportionate responsibilities for forced migrants and how the effectiveness of EU refugee burden-sharing instruments can, and should, be strengthened. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Building on Moravcsik's Liberal Intergovernmentalism, I offer an explanation of the non-decision on permanent EU refugee quotas. Some traditionally influential Member States in EU asylum politics, such as Germany, Austria and Sweden, received large numbers of refugees and faced strong domestic pressures to engage other Member States in responsibility-sharing. Yet, governments of Member States with small application numbers (among whom several Eastern European governments were particularly vocal) had incentives to undercut responsibility-sharing to avoid similar pressures. Having a better alternative to the potentially negotiated agreement, these governments successfully blocked the introduction of permanent refugee quotas. Besides explaining the absence of an effective response to one of the root causes of the asylum crisis (unequal strains) through asymmetrical interdependence, the article further develops Liberal Intergovernmentalist arguments and shows how national electorates influence positions taken by governments at the EU level when they are mobilized by right-wing populist parties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the first phase of the CEAS, the CJEU considered that asylum-seekers had only limited opportunities to appeal against decisions to transfer them to other European countries based on the Dublin system. This interpretation was contrary to the right to an effective remedy enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and recognised as a principle of EU Law. With the second phase of the CEAS, the CJEU ruled on two judgements in June 2016 (Ghezelbash and Karim) in which asylum-seekers benefited from the right to an effective remedy against Dublin transfer decisions. The scope of the judicial review was not limited to cases where there was a risk of being subjected to inhuman treatment as a result of 'systemic deficiencies' in the procedures and reception conditions in the receiving country. This article argues that this shift in the jurisprudence of the CJEU restores asylum-seekers' status as subjects of EU Law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of European Review of Public Law is the property of European Public Law Organization and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of European Review of Public Law is the property of European Public Law Organization and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of European Review of Public Law is the property of European Public Law Organization and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

El artículo discurre sobre la crisis de la afluencia de refugiados del Medio Este a Europa. El autor comenta sobre las respuestas de los gobiernos europeos a esta crisis y describe el rol del Unión Europeo en el control de los refugiados. También se considera la reluctancia de algunos países de acoger a los refugiados.

The article discusses the Australian government's Displaced Persons (DP) Program from 1947 through 1952, with a particular focus on its publicity campaign to convince World War II refugees from DP camps in occupied Europe to emigrate to Australia. An overview of the Australian government's portrayal of Australia as a country of happiness and employment is provided.

El artículo discurre sobre la falta del desarrollo de alternativas a la detención de inmigrantes y solicitantes de asilo en Europa. El autor comenta sobre el rol de los gobiernos europeos en el proceso de la inmigración y la falta de la voluntad política para establecer alternativas. Describe la importancia de enfatizar los derechos humanos y civiles de los inmigrantes en el desarrollo de estas alternativas.

El artículo discurre sobre las normas y directivas de la Comisión Europa promulgadas en 2008 para establecer estándares para la recepción de solicitantes de asilo. El autor comenta sobre el proceso de la detención de los inmigrantes y los refugiados y examina los métodos involucrados para protegerles.