Advertisement

Par ordre du mufti?

Kontestation der Visegrád-Gruppe gegen den europäischen Umverteilungs- und Neuansiedlungsmechanismus für Flüchtlinge
  • Paula Beger
Aufsätze
  • 147 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Als im September 2015 der europäische Verteilungsmechanismus für Flüchtlinge (EVM) verabschiedet wurde, opponierte die regionale Ländergruppe der Visegrád-Staaten (V4) gegen den Ratsbeschluss und verweigerte dessen Implementation. In einer intraregionalen Vergleichsstudie wird deshalb der Frage nachgegangen, ob die Visegrád-Gruppe gemeinsam gegen den EVM kontestiert und welche Ursachen für die Kontestation in den jeweiligen Regierungskonstellationen und der Bevölkerungsmeinung identifiziert werden können. Insbesondere die Fortschrittsberichte der Kommission zum EVM stellen dafür eine wichtige Datengrundlage dar.Eine gemeinsame Kontestation kann schlussendlich nicht bestätigt werden und auch die Regierungskonstellationen und Bevölkerungsmeinungen variieren in den V4.

Schlüsselwörter

Visegrád-Gruppe Norm-Kontestation Asyl- und Flüchtlingspolitik in OME Europäischer Verteilungsmechanismus für Flüchtlinge 

Par ordre du mufti?

The Visegrad group contesting the European relocation and resettlement mechanism

Abstract

It was when the European relocation and resettlement mechanism (ERRM) was passed in September 2015 that the regional group of the Visegrád states (V4) openly opposed the Council’s decision and refused to implement it. This intraregional comparative study examines if the Visegrád group jointly contests the ERRM and if the reasons for this contestation can be found in the respective governmental constellations and the public opinion.The underlying data of the Commission’s monitoring reports on the ERRM therefore serve as an essential data basis.A coherent contestation finally cannot be confirmed and similarly the governmental constellation or the public opinion in the V4 varies.

Keywords

Visegrád group Norm Contestation Asylum and Refugee Policy in CEE European relocation and resettlement mechanism 

Literatur

  1. Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union. 2015. Klage, eingereicht am 2. Dezember 2015 – Slowakische Republik/Rat der Europäischen Union. Rechtssache C‑643/15. 2016/C 038/55. 02.12.2015.Google Scholar
  2. Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union. 2016. Klage, eingereicht am 3. Dezember 2015 – Ungarn/Rat der Europäischen Union. Rechtssache C‑647/15. 2016/C 038/56. 01.02.2016.Google Scholar
  3. Anagnost, Stephan. 2000. Challenges facing asylum system policy development in Europe: preliminary lessons learned from the central European and the baltic states (CEBS). International Journal of Refugee Law 12(3):380–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Axelrod, Robert. 1986. An evolutionary approach to norms. American Political Science Review 80(4):1095–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Björkdahl, Annika. 2002. Norms in international relations, some conceptual and methodological reflections. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 15(1):9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blusz, Krzysztof, Paweł Zerka, Pavol Demeš, und Michal Vít. 2016. Germany and the V4 moving further apart? http://visegradinsight.eu/a-view-from-central-europe/ (Erstellt: 2. März 2016). Zugegriffen: 24. Aug. 2016.Google Scholar
  7. Brunner, Georg. 1999. Minderheitenrechtliche Regelungskonzepte in Osteuropa. In Das Recht der nationalen Minderheiten in Osteuropa, Hrsg. Georg Brunner, Boris Meissner, 39–73. Berlin: Spitz.Google Scholar
  8. CBOS. 2015. Attitudes to refuges in Visegrad Group countries. Warschau: CBOS.Google Scholar
  9. CEE Identity. 2013a. Action of Dissatisfied Citizens, 2011 (Akce nespokojených občanů, ANO). http://www.ceeidentity.eu/database/manifestoescoun/action. Zugegriffen: 16. Juni 2017.Google Scholar
  10. CEE Identity. 2013c. Christian and Democratic Union – Czechoslovak People’s Party (Křesťanská a demokratická unie – Československá strana lidová, KDU-ČSL). http://www.ceeidentity.eu/database/manifestoescoun/christian-and. Zugegriffen: 16. Juni 2017.Google Scholar
  11. CEE Identity. 2013e. Direction – Social Democracy (Smer – Sociálna demokracia, Smer – SD). http://www.ceeidentity.eu/database/manifestoescoun/direction. Zugegriffen: 29. Juli 2017.Google Scholar
  12. Erőss, Ágnes. 2014. Introduction. Working papers on population, family and welfare 19. Budapest: HAS RCAES Geographical Institute.Google Scholar
  13. Euobserver. 2016. Czech minister: our migration policy is now mainstream. https://euobserver.com/migration/133735 (Erstellt: 8. Juni 2016). Zugegriffen: 30. Aug. 2016.Google Scholar
  14. Euractiv. 2015. Poland won’t relocate migrants after Paris attacks. http://www.euractiv.com/section/central-europe/news/poland-won-t-relocate-migrants-after-paris-attacks/ (Erstellt: 14. Nov. 2015). Zugegriffen: 22. Mai 2016.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission. 1998. Regular report from the commission on Poland’s progress towards accession. https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/archives/pdf/key_documents/1998/poland_en.pdf. Zugegriffen: 15. Mai 2017.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission. 2001a. Regular report on Hungary’s progress towards accession. https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/archives/pdf/key_documents/2001/hu_en.pdf. Zugegriffen: 19. Juli 2017.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission. 2001b. Regular report on Slovakia’s progress towards accession. https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/archives/pdf/key_documents/2001/sk_en.pdf. Zugegriffen: 19. Juli 2017.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission. 2001c. Regular report on the Czech Republic’s progress towards accession. http://aei.pitt.edu/44559/1/czech_2001.pdf. Zugegriffen: 19. Juli 2017.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission. 2002a. Regular report on Hungary’s progress towards accession. https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/archives/pdf/key_documents/2002/hu_en.pdf. Zugegriffen: 19. Juli 2017.Google Scholar
  20. European Commission. 2002b. Regular report on Poland’s progress towards accession. https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/archives/pdf/key_documents/2002/pl_en.pdf. Zugegriffen: 19. Juli 2017.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission. 2002c. Regular report on Slovakia’s progress towards accession. https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/archives/pdf/key_documents/2002/sk_en.pdf. Zugegriffen: 19. Juli 2017.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission. 2002d. Regular report on the Czech Republic’s progress towards accession. https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/archives/pdf/key_documents/2002/cz_en.pdf. Zugegriffen: 19. Juli 2017.Google Scholar
  23. European Commission. 2003a. Comprehensive monitoring report on Poland’s preparations for membership. http://ec.europa.eu/development/body/organisation/docs/CMR_PL.pdf. Zugegriffen: 19. Juli 2017.Google Scholar
  24. European Commission. 2003b. Comprehensive monitoring report on Slovakia’s preparations for membership. https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/archives/pdf/key_documents/2003/cmr_sk_final_en.pdf. Zugegriffen: 19. Juli 2017.Google Scholar
  25. European Commission. 2015. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A European agenda on migration, COM(2015) 240 final Google Scholar
  26. European Commission. 2016. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council. First report on relocation and resettlement, COM(2016) 165 final Google Scholar
  27. European Commission. 2016. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council. Second report on relocation and resettlement, COM(2016) 222 final Google Scholar
  28. European Commission. 2016. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council. Third report on relocation and resettlement, COM(2016) 360 final Google Scholar
  29. European Commission. 2016. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council. Fifth report on relocation and resettlement, COM(2016) 480 final Google Scholar
  30. European Council. 2015. Remarks by President Donald Tusk after the European Council meeting of 15 October 2015. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/10/15-tusk-final-remarks-european-council/ (Erstellt: 15. Okt. 2015). Zugegriffen: 24. Juli 2017.Google Scholar
  31. European Parliament. 2015. Parlemeter 2015 – Part I.The main challenges for the EU, migration, and the economic and social situation. Eurobarometer (EB/EP 84.1). Brüssel: TNS Opinion.Google Scholar
  32. Eurostat. 2017. First instance decisions by outcome and recognition rates, 1st quarter 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:First_instance_decisions_by_outcome_and_recognition_rates,_1st_quarter_2017.png. Zugegriffen: 9. Juli 2017.Google Scholar
  33. Fajth, Veronika. 2015. One step forward, two steps back: asylum issues in Hungary. http://visegradrevue.eu/one-step-forward-two-steps-back-asylum-issues-in-hungary/ (Erstellt: 13. Mai 2015). Zugegriffen: 29. Aug. 2016.Google Scholar
  34. Falkner, Gerda, Miriam Hartlapp, Simone Leiber, und Oliver Treib. 2004. Non-compliance with EU directives in the member states: opposition through the backdoor? West European Politics 27(3):452–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fidesz. 2007. A stronger Hungary. The manifesto of Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Union. http://static-old.fidesz.hu/download/_EN/FideszPP2007_EN.pdf. Zugegriffen: 18. Juli 2017.Google Scholar
  36. Finnemore, Martha, und Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization 52(4):887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Frontex. 2015. Western Balkans Quarterly. Quarter 2. http://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Risk_Analysis/WB_Q2_2015_report.pdf. Zugegriffen: 25. Aug. 2016.Google Scholar
  38. Frontex. 2016. Western Balkans Quarterly. Quarter 3. http://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Risk_Analysis/WB_Q3_2015.pdf. Zugegriffen: 25. Aug. 2016.Google Scholar
  39. Gödri, Irén, Béla Soltész, und Boróka Bodacz-Nagy. 2014. Immigration or emigration country? Migration trends and their socio-economic background in Hungary: a longer-term historical perspective. Working Papers on Population, Family and Welfare 19. Budapest: HAS RCAES Geographical Institute.Google Scholar
  40. Grabbe, Heather. 2003. Europeanization goes east: power and uncertainty in the EU accession process. In The politics of Europeanization, Hrsg. Kevin Featherstone, Claudio M. Radaelli, 303–331. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hesová, Zora. 2016. Tschechien: „Kein Land für Migranten“. Welttrends 117:28–32.Google Scholar
  42. Identity, C.E.E. 2013b. Česká strana sociálně demokratická, ČSSD. http://www.ceeidentity.eu/database/manifestoescoun/czech-social. Zugegriffen: 16. Juni 2017.Google Scholar
  43. Identity, C.E.E. 2013d. Civic Platform (Platforma Obywatelska, PO). http://www.ceeidentity.eu/database/manifestoescoun/civic-platform. Zugegriffen: 16. Juni 2017.Google Scholar
  44. Identity, C.E.E. 2013f. Polish People’s Party (Polske Stronnictwo Ludowe, PSL). http://www.ceeidentity.eu/database/manifestoescoun/polish-people-s. Zugegriffen: 16. Juni 2017.Google Scholar
  45. Jahn, Detlef. 2013. Einführung in die vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 2. Aufl., Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kicinger, Anna, Agnieszka Weinar, und Agata Górny. 2007. Advanced yet uneven: the Europeanization of Polish immigration policy. In The Europeanization of national policies and politics of immigration. Between autonomy and the European Union, Hrsg. Thomas Faist, Andreas Ette, 181–200. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kipke, Rüdiger. 2010. Das politische System der Slowakei. In Die politischen Systeme Osteuropas, 3. Aufl., Hrsg. Wolfgang Ismayr, 317–356. Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Korkut, Umut. 2014. The migration myth in the absence of immigrants: how does the conservative right in Hungary and Turkey grapple with immigration? Comparative European Politics 12(6):620–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Körösényi, András, und Gábor G. Fodor. 2004. Das politische System Ungarns. In Die politischen Systeme Osteuropas, 2. Aufl., Hrsg. Wolfgang Ismayr, 323–372. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lavenex, Sandra. 2001. The Europeanization of refugee policies: normative challenges and institutional legacies. Journal of Common Market Studies 39(5):851–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Loges, Bastian. 2013. Schutz als neue Norm in den internationalen Beziehungen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Macridis, Roy C. 2005. Extracts from the study of comparative government, Garden City, New York: Doubleday. In Comparative politics. Critical concepts in political science, Hrsg. Howard Wiarda, 1–22. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Malangone, Alexandra. 2015. Slovak migration policy poisoned by hypocrisy. http://visegradrevue.eu/slovak-migration-policy-poisoned-by-hypocrisy/ (Erstellt: 12. Juni 2015). Zugegriffen: 27. Aug. 2016.Google Scholar
  54. Mehler, Andreas. 2016. Komparative Area-Forschung in der Vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft. In Handbuch Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, Hrsg. Hans-Joachim Lauth, Marianne Kneuer, und Gert Pickel, 91–100. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  55. Miciukiewicz, Konrad. 2011. Migration and asylum in Central Eastern Europe: the impacts of European integration. In (Post)transformational migration. Inequalities, welfare state and horizontal mobility, Hrsg. Marek Nowak, Michał Nowosielski, 177–200. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  56. Najšlová, Lucia, Adam Balcer, Rebecca Murray, und Zsuzsanna Végh. 2016. Should we upgrade the V4-Turkey dialogue? EU Frontier Policy Paper 13. Budapest: Center for European Neighborhood Studies.Google Scholar
  57. Pavelková, Zuzana. 2015. Quarrelling over 15 Syrian children: how security definitively replaced rights in the Czech debate on asylum. http://visegradrevue.eu/quarreling-over-15-syrian-children-how-security-definitively-replaced-rights-in-the-czech-debate-on-asylum/ (Erstellt: 18. Mai 2015). Zugegriffen: 29. Aug. 2016.Google Scholar
  58. Politico. 2015. EU forces through refugee deal. http://www.politico.eu/article/eu-tries-to-unblock-refugee-migrants-relocation-deal-crisis/ (Erstellt: 23. Sept. 2015). Zugegriffen: 28. Juni 2017.Google Scholar
  59. Przybylska, Monika. 2016. Situation in Poland. Migration from Ukraine to V4 in the time of crisis final reports from Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, Human Rights League. Bratislava: Human Rights League.Google Scholar
  60. Pánstwowa Komisja Wyborcza. 2011. Wybory 2011 do Sejmu i Senatu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. http://wybory2011.pkw.gov.pl/wsw/pl/000000.html#tabs-1. Zugegriffen: 9. Juli 2017.Google Scholar
  61. Radio Poland. 2017. EU’s Tusk „threatened Poland“ over refugees: gov’t spokesman. http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/307630,EUs-Tusk-threatened-Poland-over-refugees-govt-spokesman (Erstellt: 18. Mai 2017). Zugegriffen: 24. Juli 2016.Google Scholar
  62. Riishøj, Søren. 2010. The civic platform in Poland – the first decade 2001–2011. Political science publications 24/2010. Odense: Fakultät für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  63. Schimmelfennig, Frank, und Guido Schwellnus. 2011. Die supranationale Ebene: innenpolitische Konsequenzen des EU-Beitritts. In Regierungssysteme in Mittel- und Osteuropas. Die neuen EU-Staaten im Vergleich, Hrsg. Florian Grotz, Ferdinand Müller-Rommel, 281–299. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  64. Segeš-Frelak, Justyna. 2015. Refugees in Poland: the sound of silence. http://visegradrevue.eu/refugees-in-poland-the-sound-of-silence/ (Erstellt: 28. Mai 2015). Zugegriffen: 27. Aug. 2016.Google Scholar
  65. Soltész, Béla, Ágnes Erőss, Dávid Karácsonyi, und Áron Kincses. 2014. Hungary: cross-border migration in a fragmented ethnic space. In Discovering migration between Visegrad countries and eastern partners. Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova on the eastern edges of the Schengen area, Hrsg. Ágnes Erőss, Dávid Karácsonyi. Budapest: HAS RCAES Geographical Institute Budapest.Google Scholar
  66. Szőke, László. 1992. Hungarian perspectives on emigration and immigration in the new European architecture. International Migration Review 26:305–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Taylor, Charles. 1993. To follow a rule. In Bourdieu: critical perspectives, Hrsg. Craig Calhoun, Edward LiPuma, und Moishe Postone, 45–60. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  68. The World Factbook. 2017. Czechia. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/geos/ez.html. Zugegriffen: 20. Juli 2017.Google Scholar
  69. Visegrad Group. 2015. Joint statement of the heads of government of the Visegrad group countries. http://www.visegradgroup.eu/calendar/2015/joint-statement-of-the (Erstellt: 19. Juni 2015). Zugegriffen: 8. Mai 2016.Google Scholar
  70. Wiarda, Howard. 2005. Comparative politics. Critical concepts in political science, 1. Aufl., New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Wiener, Antje. 2014. A theory of contestation. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wiener, Antje, und Guido Schwellnus. 2004. Contested norms in the process of EU enlargement: non-discrimination and minority rights. Constitutionalism Web-Papers 2:12–39.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für PolitikwissenschaftUniversität LeipzigLeipzigDeutschland

Personalised recommendations