Advertisement

Do Good Neighbours Make Good Fences? Migration in the Trans-European Space

  • Natasja ReslowEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, the author considers the politics of migration in the Trans-European space. The EU has a great impact on all the other actors in this space, since it is the principal ‘regulator’. The chapter offers the recipients’ perspective by considering domestic politics and preferences of the non-EU countries vis-à-vis the EU external migration policy. The EU assumes that ‘good neighbours make good fences’ and promotes cooperative relations with partner countries with the intention of managing migration flows across Europe and beyond. However, when analysing seven countries (in Eastern Europe and the Southern Mediterranean), Reslow finds that EU policies may have unintended effects in specific national contexts, especially in situations of instability and conflicts. Apparently, the EU-led migration governance may only create cooperative links across the surrounding spaces. There are many reasons to believe that fractures can emerge along this policy, creating divisions and tensions.

References

  1. Boratyński, J., G. Gromadzki, O. Sushko, and A. Szymborska. 2006. Questionable Achievement: EC-Ukraine Visa Facilitation Agreement. Warsaw: Stefan Batory Foundation.Google Scholar
  2. Boswell, C. 2003. The ‘External Dimension’ of EU Immigration and Asylum Policy. International Affairs 79 (3): 619–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burlyuk, O. 2017. The ‘Oops!’ of EU Engagement Abroad: Analysing Unintended Consequences of EU External Action. Journal of Common Market Studies 55 (5): 1009–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carrera, S., and R. Hernández i Sagrera. 2011. Mobility Partnerships. ‘Insecurity Partnerships’ for Policy Coherence and Migrant Workers’ Human Rights in the EU. In Multilayered Migration Governance. The Promise of Partnership, ed. R. Kunz, S. Lavenex, and M. Panizzon, 97–115. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Carrera, S., R. Radescu and N. Reslow. 2015. EU External Migration Policies. A Preliminary Mapping of the Instruments, the Actors and their Priorities. Report Prepared for the EURA-net Project. Retrieved from http://www.uta.fi/edu/en/research/projects/eura-net/publications/TASK%203.1%20REPORT_UM_CEPS_final_v4.pdf on March 12, 2018.
  6. Carrera, S., J.-P. Cassarino, N. El Qadim, M. Lahlou and L. den Hertog. 2016. EU-Morocco Cooperation on Readmission, Borders and Protection: A model to follow? CEPS Papers in Liberty and Security in Europe, no. 87. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  7. Cassarino, J.-P. 2007. Informalising Readmission Agreements in the EU Neighbourhood. The International Spectator 42 (2): 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2012. Resilient Bilateralism in the Cooperation on Readmission. In The External Dimension of the European Union’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, ed. M. Cremona, J. Monar, and S. Poli, 191–208. Brussels: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2014. Channelled Policy Transfers: EU-Tunisia Interactions on Migration Matters. European Journal of Migration and Law 16 (1): 97–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chou, M.-H., and M. Gibert. 2012. The EU-Senegal Mobility Partnership: From Launch to Suspension and Negotiation Failure. Journal of Contemporary European Research 8 (4): 408–427.Google Scholar
  11. Coleman, N. 2009. European Readmission Policy. Third Country Interests and Refugee Rights. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  12. Collyer, M. 2012. Migrants as Strategic Actors in the European Union’s Global Approach to Migration and Mobility. Global Networks 12 (4): 505–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Council of the European Union. 2005. Common Approach on visa Facilitation, 16030/05. Brussels: Council of the European Union.Google Scholar
  14. Cuttitta, P. (Author). 2016. The Migration Borderscape of South East Tunisia: Memories from a North African ‘Triple Frontier’ [blog]. web: Oxford University. Retrieved from https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2016/09/migration on January 1, 2018.
  15. Dandashly, A. 2014. Building a Security Community in the Neighbourhood. Zooming in on the EU-Tunisia Relations, NUPI Working Paper, 836. Oslo: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.Google Scholar
  16. De Bel-Air, F. 2016a. Migration Profile: Jordan, Policy Brief 2016/06. Florence: Migration Policy Centre.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2016b. Migration Profile: Egypt, Policy Brief 2016/01. Florence: Migration Policy Centre.Google Scholar
  18. de Haas, H.. 2009. Morocco, Country Profile, no. 16. Hamburg: Hamburgisches WeltWirtschafts Institut.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2014. Morocco: Setting the Stage for Becoming a Migration Transition Country? Migration Information Source March 19, 2014. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  20. Dimitrova, A. 2002. Enlargement, Institution-Building and the EU’s Administrative Capacity Requirement. West European Politics 25 (4): 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dür, A., and G. Mateo. 2010. Bargaining Power and Negotiation Tactics: The Negotiations on the EU’s Financial Perspective 2007–2013. Journal of Common Market Studies 48 (3): 557–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Düvell, F., and I. Lapshyna. 2015. The EuroMaidan Protests, Corruption, and War in Ukraine: Migration Trends and Ambitions, Migration Information Source July 15, 2015. Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  23. Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network. 2014. Analysis of the Mobility Partnership Signed Between the Kingdom of Morocco, the European Union and Nine Member States on 7 June 2013. Copenhagen: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network.Google Scholar
  24. European Commission. 2007. On Circular Migration and Mobility Partnerships Between the European Union and Third Countries, COM (2007) 248. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 2011. Evaluation of EU Readmission Agreements, COM (2011) 76. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 2013. Maximising the Development Impact of Migration. The EU Contribution for the UN High-level Dialogue and Next Steps Towards Broadening the Development-migration Nexus, COM (2013) 292. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 2016a. EU-Turkey Joint Action Plan – Implementation Report. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2016b. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council and the European Investment Bank on Establishing a New Partnership Framework with Third Countries under the European Agenda on Migration, COM (2016) 385. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2017. European Union, Trade in Goods with Belarus. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  30. European Council. 2016. EU-Turkey Statement, 18 March 2016, Press Release 144/16. Brussels: European Council.Google Scholar
  31. European External Action Service. 2016. Options on Developing Cooperation with Egypt in Migration Matters. Brussels: European External Action Service.Google Scholar
  32. Francis, A. 2015. Jordan’s Refugee Crisis. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
  33. Gawrich, A., I. Melnykovska, and R. Schweickert. 2010. Neighbourhood Europeanisation Through ENP: The Case of Ukraine. Journal of Common Market Studies 48 (5): 1209–1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Global Detention Project. 2014. Tunisia Immigration Detention Profile. Geneva: Global Detention Project.Google Scholar
  35. IOM. 2012. Extended Migration Profile of the Republic of Moldova. Chisinau: International Organisation for Migration.Google Scholar
  36. Jupille, J., and J.A. Caporaso. 1998. States, Agency, and Rules: The European Union in Global Environmental Politics. In The European Union in the World Community, ed. C. Rhodes, 213–229. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  37. Korneev, O. 2014. Exchanging Knowledge, Enhancing Capacities, Developing Mechanisms: IOM’s Role in the Implementation of the EU-Russia Readmission Agreement. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 40 (6): 888–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kruse, I. 2006. EU Readmission Policy and Its Effects on Transit Countries—The Case of Albania. European Journal of Migration and Law 8: 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laffan, B. 1997. From Policy Entrepreneur to Policy Manager: The Challenge Facing the European Commission. Journal of European Public Policy 4 (3): 422–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lavenex, S., and R. Kunz. 2008. The Migration-Development Nexus in EU External Relations. Journal of European Integration 30 (3): 439–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lavenex, S., and F. Schimmelfennig. 2009. EU Rules Beyond EU Borders: Theorizing External Governance in European Politics. Journal of European Public Policy 16 (6): 791–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Limam, M., and R. A. Del Sarto. 2015. Periphery under Pressure: Morocco, Tunisia, and the European Union’s Mobility Partnership on Migration, EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2015/75. Florence: Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
  43. Martín, I. 2009. EU-Morocco Relations: How Advanced is the ‘Advanced Status’? Mediterranean Politics 14 (2): 239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Martin, P., S. Martin, and P. Weil. 2006. Managing Migration. The Promise of Cooperation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  45. MPC. 2013a. MPC Migration Profile. Moldova. Florence: Migration Policy Centre.Google Scholar
  46. ———. 2013b. MPC Migration Profile. Belarus. Florence: Migration Policy Centre.Google Scholar
  47. ———. 2013c. MPC Migration Profile. Ukraine. Florence: Migration Policy Centre.Google Scholar
  48. Natter, K. 2015. Revolution and Political Transition in Tunisia: A Migration Game Changer? Migration Information Source May 28, 2015. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  49. Reslow, N. 2012. The Role of Third Countries in EU Migration Policy: The Mobility Partnerships. European Journal of Migration and Law 14 (4): 393–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. ———. 2013. Partnering for Mobility? Three-level Games in EU External Migration Policy. Maastricht University: Ph.D. Thesis.Google Scholar
  51. ———. 2015. EU ‘Mobility’ Partnerships: An Initial Assessment of Implementation Dynamics. Politics and Governance 3 (2): 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reslow, N., and M. Vink. 2015. Three-level Games in EU External Migration Policy: Negotiating Mobility Partnerships in West Africa. Journal of Common Market Studies 53 (4): 857–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Seeberg, P. 2014. Mobility Partnerships and the EU, Part I: Where Are We Regarding Implementation and What Will be the Consequences? Odense: Centre for Contemporary Middle East Studies.Google Scholar
  54. UNHCR. 2017. Regional Quarterly Update: 3RP Achievements December 2017. Available at: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/download.php?id=15265 on March 12, 2018.
  55. Wolff, S. 2014. The Politics of Negotiating EU Readmission Agreements: Insights from Morocco and Turkey. European Journal of Migration and Law 16 (1): 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. World Bank. 2016. Migration and Remittances Factbook 2016. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  57. Wunderlich, D. 2010. Differentiation and Policy Convergence Against Long Odds: Lessons from Implementing EU Migration Policy in Morocco. Mediterranean Politics 15 (2): 249–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. ———. 2012. The Limits of External Governance: Implementing EU External Migration Policy. Journal of European Public Policy 19 (9): 1414–1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. ———. 2013a. Towards Coherence of EU External Migration Policy? Implementing a Complex Policy. International Migration 51 (6): 26–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. ———. 2013b. Implementing EU External Migration Policy: Security-driven by Default? Comparative European Politics 11 (4): 406–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Maastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations