The Impact of Securitisation on Access to Asylum in the European Union

Abstract

Approximately one million people used the Mediterranean Sea routes to reach the European Union (EU) and seek asylum in 2015. The vast majority of these people used the eastern Mediterranean route from Turkey to EU member state, Greece. They continued along the Western Balkans route to re-enter the EU, either through the Republic of Croatia (Croatia) or Hungary. In March 2016, the Western Balkans route was declared closed by EU representatives. These border closures coincided with the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement. Agreements between the EU, Turkey, and the countries of the Western Balkans ended the influx of people seeking asylum in the EU. More people lost their lives trying to reach the EU to seek asylum in 2016 than in 2015 using alternative routes to the eastern Mediterranean route, such as the central Mediterranean route, and there are increasingly more people seeking asylum being detained in Turkey and Greece. In addition, as of May 2019, there were just under 4000 people waiting in limbo in the Republic of Serbia, most of whom were in the recently opened ‘migrant reception and transit centres,’ while over 500 people are estimated to be camping close to borders with Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina or Hungary. My hypothesis is that by strengthening the EU’s external borders for people seeking asylum, the EU has attempted to restrict access to asylum and the arrival of people in need of international protection in Europe. The ‘saving lives’ rhetoric, which is the purported aim of policies such as the EU-Turkey Statement, does not appear to capture fully the motivations of EU actors or acknowledge the impacts of EU actions on people seeking asylum. It is important to delve deeper into the consequences of the EU and individual member state responses to the 2015 influx of people seeking asylum in order to (i) analyse for whom these measures ensure security, (ii) determine why they have been implemented, and (iii) describe how these measures impact on the right to asylum. This thesis employs the theoretical framework of securitisation to analyse the reasons behind the closure of the Western Balkans route and the EU-Turkey Statement in order to identify the dominant security paradigm and how securitisation impacts access to asylum in Europe. The consequences of the EU-Turkey Statement and the closure of the Western Balkans route suggest that providing protection for people seeking asylum is not imperative in the EU and reinforces the narrative of only EU citizens deserving freedom and security from the perceived ‘threat’ of unmanaged migration. To test my hypothesis that the ‘saving lives’ rhetoric is misleading, I collected empirical data in the form of interviews from government officials along the Western Balkans route, Greece and Hungary, as well as non-governmental organisations, and intergovernmental organisations. In addition to empirical research, I conducted a doctrinal analysis of EU regulatory frameworks and provide a background analysis of EU law concerning matters of migration and asylum and its increasingly restrictive tendencies, as well as that of the countries of the Western Balkans and Turkey. I used triangulation to validate my findings. This thesis presents how European governments fuelled the 2015 ‘migration crisis’ with their mismanagement and reluctance to work together to resettle and relocate people from Turkey and out of Europe’s ‘hot spots.’ Empirical data shows that people seeking asylum are not perceived by the interviewees of this research as a real(ist) existential threat, but that their presence has been constructed as ‘burdening’ and threatening in other ways, such as to the labour market, social services and religious and cultural makeup of European society. The ‘crisis’ and threat of undocumented migration was used for electoral benefits and to reinforce the power and control of EU governments, institutions and agencies. The year 2015 brought the plight of millions of people displaced around the world to Europe’s doorstep. In order to ‘save lives,’ European governments, institutions and agencies mobilised to secure the borders to prevent people from drowning at sea. Stronger border security, however, has resulted in adverse consequences: an increase in smuggling, more dangerous alternative pathways, and has externalised the EU border, restricting access to asylum on European territory. While tragic, the majority of interviewees viewed the influx as a ‘crisis’ and ‘threat’ predominantly in terms of the numbers and irregularity (transit) – and not in the number of lives lost. Measures implemented in 2016 as a result of the 2015 influx privilege the security of EU citizens over those in need of international protection.