Dublin Convention Research Articles

The Dublin Convention and the Introduction of the ‘First Entry Rule’ in the Allocation of Asylum Seekers in Europe

The Dublin Convention (1990) was the first binding agreement on asylum between the member states of the European Community. It defined the criteria that determined responsibility for the examination of asylum applications lodged in their territories. Given the contemporary discussions about the system that derived from it, the paper reflects on one of its main criteria: the first entry principle. Drawing on archival research in Belgium, France and the United Kingdom, the essay shows how the inclusion of the first entry principle was far more than a matter of course. It was influenced by the Schengen process and the establishment of the single market, previous North-South tensions over migratory issues, and governments’ (in)capacity to predict future developments. The inclusion of the first entry principle contributed to assimilating asylum policy with migration control, creating the premises for the subsequent burden-sharing problems and readmission agreement practices.

Consolidating the European asylum regime’s coercive trajectory until the pandemic

How have European asylum policies developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, from the perspective of the long-term political trajectory of the European asylum regime? When the pandemic broke out, EU member states had for three decades been trying to resolve the shortcomings of the 1990 Dublin Convention. The weaknesses in the regime persisted both due to the overloading of frontline member states and the efforts to control secondary flows of asylum seekers within the EU. The pandemic has provided neither a hiatus nor a turning point in this regard but has produced a fluid situation that precipitated the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and the consolidation of the long-term trend of coercion of asylum seekers, between member states and at their external borders.

International legal experience in combating illegal migration by sea

This article highlights the impact of international law on the global process of illegal migration, reveals a number of international problems related to international migration, in particular by sea, identifies the main factors influencing illegal migration in general, indicates the state of illegal migration in various European Union countries. attention is paid to such important international legal instruments as the Schengen Agreement of 1985 and 1990, the Dublin Convention of 1990, the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 and the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997. The article also focuses on the European Union agency, which deals with the protection of external borders and their protection from illegal migrants, in particular, by sea.The analysis of theoretical and practical aspects of combating illegal migration by sea at the international level, as well as in the development of scientific and theoretical approaches to solving migration problems, characterizes the legal regulation of combating illegal migration by maritime transport and maritime participation established intergovernmental bodies. The main tools of the European Union to combat illegal migration by sea, which can be used to improve the legal regulation of migration authorities of other countries, as well as substantiate the organizational and legal framework of European countries in the field of legal support to combat illegal migration by sea.The actions of European states represented by the relevant state bodies in solving the problems of illegal migration with the help of merchant fleets of European countries are studied. The article pays attention to the influence of illegal migration on the formation and change of legal awareness of society, as the beginning of the formation of criminogenic factors among illegal migrants in the host country.

Onward migration: An introduction

Onward migration: An introduction

Refugees in the European Union: from emergency alarmism to common management

ABSTRACT The flows of refugees have ignited the European political debate, thereby boosting nationalistic forces in almost all countries. The aim of this paper is to counterbalance a widespread view about their overall impact and show that the number of asylum seekers did not represent a ‘refugee crises’. It argues, however, that the current European Union institutions and procedures are highly insufficient to successfully manage refugee inflows and asylum requests. It is often forgotten that large number of refugees are created from conflicts initiated or not prevented by EU members themselves. Once the problem comes into existence, as the procedures based on the Dublin Convention are widely recognised as inadequate, the paper provides a few suggestions for implementing radical changes to manage refugees and asylum seekers in the EU.

Refugees and the Dublin Convention

The Dublin Convention defines which EU State is responsible for the asylum application of third country nationals or stateless persons. According to this Convention, the first Member State in which an asylum seeker enters is responsible for the person’s asylum procedure. It thereby stands in gross contrast to the freedom of mobility of EU-citizens within Europe. While extensive research has focused on the attempts to build up a Common European Asylum System, mostly taking up an institutional perspective, only limited sociological research has concentrated on the perspective of refugees and on the way they are affected by the Dublin Regulation and react to it. This article explores the biographical impacts of the Dublin Convention and the reaction of concerned individuals to it through the method of biographical policy evaluation. It bases on 29 biographical interviews conducted with refugees affected by the Dublin Regulation in France. It provides an in-depth analysis of three key biographical moments regarding the Dublin Convention: the arrival in France, the process of integration and moments when refugees change the European State they live in after having sought for asylum. It shows that beyond the (intended) impact on the “choice” of the country of arrival, the Dublin Convention often impacts refugees’ integration processes in a long-lasting way.

A Critical Analysis of the Dublin-IV Proposal with Regards to Fundamental- and Human Rights Violations and the EU Institutional Battle


 
 
 The Dublin regime – in short – determines which EU Member State is responsible to examine an application for asylum. The former Dublin Convention was signed in 1990 and first came into force in 1997. Today, 22 years and several legislative generations later, the Dublin regime is determined by the Dublin-III Regulation. After the 2015 so called ‘migration crisis’ and the collapse of legal principles in the Regulation, European legislators called for a reform of the Dublin system. Beside the will to reform the whole Common European Asylum System (CEAS), special focus lies on the reform of the Dublin-III Regulation. Therefore, the Commission issued its proposal for a new Dublin-IV Regulation. The proposal led to enormous controversies not only in the academic world but also in the European Institutions themselves. The aim of this article is first to analyse the Dublin-IV proposal against the background of fundamental and human rights with the incorporation of relevant case law of the ECJ and the ECtHR. The analysis will show several such violations and contradictions to the relevant jurisdiction. Furthermore, it will be demonstrated that the European Institutions are far from consent with regards to the Commission’s proposal. By showing the different approaches of the Institutions and of the academic world, finally, this article will provide guidelines on how to reform the Dublin regime adequately and in accordance with fundamental and human rights.
 
 

Blurred lines: Detaining asylum seekers in Britain and France

In this article, we explore the use of immigration detention for asylum seekers in Britain and France who are awaiting removal to other European Union (EU) member states for processing under the terms of the Dublin Convention. As we will show, the emphasis on risk assessment as the grounds for detaining these people recasts humanitarian protections as security matters, effectively folding asylum seekers into a broader criminalisation of migration. A punitive response to those seeking refuge, this practice blurs the line between detention and asylum, and thereby hollows out key international human rights protections that have been central to the European project.

The Securitization of Immigration in the European Union

The European Union (EU) presents an intriguing case-study for examining the normative and empirical degree of the securitization of immigration in the post-9/11 context. The following paper uses the Copenhagen school of security studies to argue that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the securitization of immigration (through direct and indirect elite speech acts) has legitimized exclusionary policies and practices, thereby constituting a “new (cultural) racism.” This new cultural racism acts as a justification against immigration. My argument will be presented in three parts. The first outlines how elite direct and indirect speech acts creates an “immigration-as-a-cultural-threat discourse” that constitutes a “new racism.” The second analyzes how the securitization of immigration discourse has been implemented through legal and institutional practices, including in the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA), the Dublin Convention, and various border security practices. The final section examines the significance of 9/11 in connecting perceived Muslim immigrants to terrorism, thus constructing a discourse that identifies immigration with a direct threat to European identity and social cohesion.

Comparative Analysis of Refugees Coming From Balkan and the Middle East From a Legal, Economical and Moral Viewpoint

In this work we will examine the reasons, covered with law and facts, about the recent migration crisis which had a tremendous influence on all EU and Western Balkan countries. The sole fact that thousands of refugees are being accepted to the EU without any border check in 2014 and 2015 caused the initial frustration of citizens in FYRO Macedonia, Serbia and Kosovo. All these countries need endless paperwork in order to acquire a work permit in EU. On the top of this Kosovo inhabitants can not even travel to EU without Visa. This lead to the exodus of thousands of Kosovo Albanians to the EU on a well known route. The famous Balkan route as it is called commonly has its roots back into the early 90’s when the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia (SFRJ) has started. War activities became an everyday activity in many regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and later Kosovo and Metohija in Serbia. Still the borders of countries outside of ex Yugoslavia were not widely opened for refugees. On the European level the importance for regulating this was seen and a solution given in The 1990 Dublin Convention, later Regulation. Before this the main idea of refugees, in some situations dissidents, was seen in the fact that many skilled workers and craftsmen emigrated from the East (Communist) Europe to the West (Capitalist) Europe. Some of them being Political refugees (dissidents) but the main criteria for their status was mainly determined by a political or economical value they had. The value of such refugees was their knowledge, skills and competence which could be used for economic development and in some cases the bare prestige of having intellectuals fled from the communist oppression. In the 1990 Dublin Convention, the signing parties recognized the need to regulate asylum seeking. They introduced the rule of the first country of application, where the asylum seeker has applied for asylum. That means that this first country of application will exclusively deal with the asylum seekers case and either accept or reject it, after what other Dublin countries will not give a chance for another try. Now this system lived successfully for many years until Hungary did not become flooded with illegal migrants in the summer of 2015. Even after the failure of the Dublin regulation it became evident that it is not useful for the present problem and a solution has to be sought. The Hungarian solution was the infamous border lock or in Hungarian “hatarzar” whereas the EU invented, or reinvented the solution from the colonial era, the EU’s “real” solution/problem had been introduced then in the form of a quota system. The fact is that Syrian citizens have a right to claim asylum in EU, but also in many countries prior to their arrival to EU as well. Also they never intended to claim it in e.g. Hungary but they are forced to since it became obvious that people cross the border and travel without any check to different EU countries to the west. Hungary was at some point blamed for its “law” enforcement using different tools and a border fence towards Serbia on the end. We have many other questions, in particular related to the fact that refugees have to travel in very inhuman conditions. If there is a country where they want to go and that country can accept them, why don’t other countries help them to reach it easier? Why they are becoming an easy prey for people smugglers and cross border crossings illegally? On the end we will try to answer the ultimate question, why Germany? Or in other words why they are welcome on the west of EU and not so much welcome on the east of EU, when we say east we don’t mean Hungary solely.

ФОРМИРОВАНИЕ НОВОГО ИММИГРАЦИОННОГО РЕЖИМА В ЕВРОПЕ

In this paper, the author examines an immigration policy-making between the EU Member States and EU institutions during the European migrant crisis. A significant dilemma in terms of culture clash consists in often conflicting values that immigrants from traditional Third World countries bring to Europe, a really downright hatred they often display towards liberal values and what is perceived as the decadence of the Western civilization. The EU has considerable experience in immigration, refugee policy and selection of suitable settlers. The implementation of Schengen Agreements and the Dublin Convention most visibly indicates that the European integration process is a difficult problem. The Visegrad Four states (Hungary, Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic) have been resisting mass immigration policies in the face of stern criticism from leading EU nations such as Germany and France. Such a situation raises new challenges to liberal states which should find a balance between policies limited in actions according to liberal values and governmental obligations to guarantee public safety. Far-right parties pursue a policy based on a strongly anti-immigration and Eurosceptic platform, rejecting multiculturalism. Fears about the migrant crisis have boosted the far-right still further. Terrorism was seen as essentially related to immigration policy until the terror attacks in Europe of 2015–2016 revealed that the bombers were locally-born. And regardless the fact that the all recent terror attacks in Europe were linked to migrants and radical Islamists, the EU immigration policy was not altered in response to these findings, so the intake of Muslims remained unlimited. The further aggravation of the refugee crisis will lead to the shift of a political decision-making process from immigration institutions of the European Union to the national level. The achievement of control over the situation with migrants is only possible through changes in migration regime connected with change of the present left-liberal set of values. This article identifies political and legal changes in the European immigration regime connected with increase in significance of state discretionary powers as a states’ counteraction to the threat of terrorism.

(Re-)Inventing the Dublin System: Addressing Uniformity and Harmonization Through Non-Refoulement Obligations

Recent events unfolding in the European Union have taught us that responsibility-sharing under the current Dublin Convention and Regulations (the “Dublin System”), has long failed its lofty goals. To adequately address the ongoing needs of massive influx of asylum claimants into EU member states, a centralized system processing these claims is necessary, instead of allowing individual member states to interpret their own compliance with non-refoulement obligations. A larger role should be played by the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) and Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in order to curtail EU member state sovereignty to champion the rights of individual asylum claimants. Now more than ever, the right against refoulement must be safeguarded amidst internal strife on the political front. In order to achieve true uniformity and harmonization by adhering to non-refoulement obligations, the Dublin System as it is must be reformed to include a forum for the individual asylum claimants to be heard, an enlarged role of the ECtHR and CJEU in the adjudication of cases involving state discretion, as well as a centralized distribution system that processes asylum applications through a pooling of resources from EU member states.

Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. Kaveh Puid (E.C.J.)

The judgment in Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. Kaveh Puid concerns the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and, in particular, the “Dublin Rules,” the intra-European arrangement that governs which State shall be responsible for determining a claim to asylum. This process began under the 1990 Dublin Convention, which was replaced by European Union (EU) Regulation 343/2003, commonly referred to as “Dublin II” (Dublin Regulation).

The Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Dublin Convention: An Analysis of N.S. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (C-411/10)

The Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Dublin Convention: An Analysis of <i>N.S. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department</i> (C-411/10)

The Limits of Transnational Law: Refugee Law, Policy Harmonization and Judicial Dialogue in the European Union

This book ‘explores the prospects for a transnational legal order in the context of refugee law in Europe’ (Lambert, p. 1). In doing so, it addresses, and closes, a blatant and already long-existing gap in legal literature on international and European refugee law. This publication covers one of the most controversial issues under discussion since the beginning of a Common European Asylum System. Even before then, when a mere harmonization of asylum law and policy in the member states was intended, differing national practices and jurisdictions were seen critically, especially when the responsibility of a single member state for dealing with an asylum claim was laid down in the 1990 Dublin Convention. The most controversial issues are the differences in asylum practice and the differing approaches of asylum authorities and refugee law judges when they interpret provisions of the CSR51, in particular articles 1 and 33, as well as other international obligations created to protect refugees.

Dismantling the Dublin System: M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece

The establishment of a mechanism to determine the country responsible for an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national has been a priority of the EU since before asylum policy was communautarized. Pursuing the ambition of setting up a Single Market as a borderless area, a group of Member States started the Schengen cooperation already in the 1980s.1 Persuaded of the fact that the abolition of internal frontier formalities among themselves would facilitate travel and entail a loss of control over the movement of third-country nationals within the Union, a series of ‘complementary measures’ was adopted ‘to safeguard internal security and prevent illegal immigration’.2 One of these measures was introduced by Chapter VII of the Schengen Convention. With a view to avoiding abuse through ‘asylum shopping’,3 articles 28 to 38 of the Schengen Convention laid down common rules to identify responsibility for processing asylum applications so that ‘regardless of the Contracting Party with which an alien lodge[d] an application for asylum, only one Contracting Party [would] be responsible for processing that application’.4 The arrangement was supposed to work as a deterrent of applications motivated by differences in reception conditions or procedural standards targeted at those Member States perceived to grant the most favourable treatment to asylum seekers. The aspiration was that Chapter VII, through the elimination of the possibility to choose the country of asylum, would provide a levelled playing field fostering the even distribution of applicants across Schengen jurisdictions, on the assumption that all State Parties accorded similar levels of protection. Since 1997 the Schengen Convention was superseded within the EU realm by the so-called ‘Dublin Convention’,5 from which the current ‘Dublin Regulation’ takes the name.6 The Dublin Convention

Between Immigration and Policing: Cross Recognition

Abstract: This article looks at the development of the UK's policies towards asylum‐seekers who are to be returned to some country other than the one where they fear persecution (its ‘safe third country’ policy). The Dublin Convention of 1990 addressed some of the problems which this policy created, but left others unresolved. Domestic legislation has progressively reduced the opportunities for challenging safe third‐country removals, especially to an EU state. The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law has generated new possibilities for challenging safe third‐country decisions where removal might damage physical or mental health. Articles 3 and 8 have been invoked in particular. The Dublin machinery established ‘rules’ to decide which member state was responsible for considering the asylum claim and the procedure to be followed. The article examines why the UK courts have said that these provisions are not justiciable in the English courts. Finally the article considers whether the experience with Dublin provides any useful guidance as to the approach that will be taken to European arrest warrants and extradition requests.

Bringing together or driving apart the union? Towards a theory of differentiated integration

This contribution develops a theory of the impact of differentiation on integration and unity among EU member states and discusses empirical evidence from four policy areas. According to the theory, the centripetal effects of closer co‐operation among willing EU members on initially unwilling non‐participants are strongly influenced by the character of the respective policy area in terms of public goods theory. The eventual participation of initially reluctant member states, which leads to the re‐establishment of long‐run unity despite short run differentiation, is most likely in policy areas involving excludable network effects, and most unlikely in areas dealing with common pool resource problems (the four remaining types of goods ranking in between these two extremes). The theoretical conclusions are supported by empirical evidence from four EU‐related policies: the successful three show strong characteristics of excludable network goods (EMU, Schengen and the Dublin Convention), while the one which has proved extraordinarily difficult so far involves a common pool resource problem (tax harmonisation).

Bringing Together or Driving Apart the Union? Towards a Theory of Differentiated Integration

This contribution develops a theory on the impact of differentiation on integration and unity among EU member states and discusses empirical evidence from four policy areas. According to the theory, the centripetal effects of closer cooperation among willing EU members on initially unwilling non-participants are strongly influenced by the character of the respective policy area in terms of public goods theory. The eventual participation of initially reluctant member states, which leads to the re-establisment of long run unity despite short run differentiation, is most likely in policy areas involving excludable network effects, and most unlikely in areas dealing with common pool resource problems (the four remaining types of goods ranking in between these two extremes). The theoretical conclusions are supported by empirical evidence from four EU-related policies, the three successful of which show strong characteristics of excludable network goods (EMU, Schengen and the Dublin Convention), while the one which has proved extraordinarily difficult so far involves a common pool resource problem (tax harmonisation).

The Dublin Convention on Asylum: Its Essence, Implementation and Prospects: Clotilde Marinho (ed.)

The Dublin Convention on Asylum: Its Essence, Implementation and Prospects: Clotilde Marinho (ed.)