Advertisement

Differences Among European States Involving Syrian Asylum Seekers

  • Daniela Ghio
Chapter
Part of the European Studies of Population book series (ESPO, volume 20)

Abstract

This chapter aims to investigate how similar the European Member States are in the treatment of Syrian asylum seekers, measuring differences and relating them to the political framework of the European Union. The cluster-analysis method is applied to reveal the features in national asylum procedures grouping European Member States by level of asylum-related migration pressure experienced in recent years. To assess the convergence of the Common European Asylum System, differences in the distribution and recognition rates issued by European Member States are explored taking account of the age-specific demographic patterns of Syrian asylum seekers from year-to year. Results give evidence of national consistencies in the application of the European asylum-related directives for vulnerable targets.

References

  1. Bakewell, O. (1999). Can we ever rely on refugee statistics? Radical Statistics, 72, 3–15. www.radstats.org.uk/no072/article1.htmGoogle Scholar
  2. Beine, M., et al. (2016). Comparing immigration policies: An overview from the IMPALA database. International Migration Review.  https://doi.org/10.1111/imre.12169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brekke, J., & Brochmann, G. (2014). Stuck in transit: Secondary migration of asylum seekers in Europe, national differences, and the Dublin regulation. Journal of Refugee Studies, 28(2), 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. COM. (2016a). 197 final report Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council towards a reform of the Common European Asylum System and enhancing legal avenues to Europe, Brussels 6.4.2016.Google Scholar
  5. COM. (2016b). 270 final Proposal of Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third country national or a stateless person (recast), Brussels, 6.5.2016.Google Scholar
  6. COM. (2016c). 272 final, European Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of Eurodac, Brussels, 4.5.2016, 2016/132 COD.Google Scholar
  7. Costello, C. (2012). Courting Access to Asylum in Europe: Recent Supranational Jurisprudence Explored. Human Right Law Review, 12(2), 287–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Disney, G., et al. (2015). Evaluation of existing migration forecasting methods and models, Report for the Migration Advisory Committee. Southampton: ESRC Centre for Population Change.Google Scholar
  9. Durieux, J. F. (2013). The vanishing refugee: How EU asylum law blurs the specificity of refugee protection. In H. Lambert, J. McAdam, & M. Fullerton (Eds.), The global reach of European Refugee Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. ECRE. (2013). European Council on Refugees and Exiles, Dublin II Regulation: Lives on Hold, February 2013, Brussels. http://www.ecre.org/component/content/article/56-ecre-actions/317-dublin-ii-regulation-lives-on-hold.html
  11. European Commission. (2016a). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, COM(2016) 270, 4.5.2016/0133 COD.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission. (2016b). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Towards a Reform of the Common European Asylum System and Enhancing Legal Avenues to Europe, Brussels, 6.4.2016, COM (2016) 197 final.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2015). Evaluation of the Dublin III Regulation. DG Migration and Home Affairs, Final report.Google Scholar
  14. Eurostat. (2016). Asylum quarterly report first time asylum applicants and first instance decisions on asylum applications: First quarter 2017. EUROSTAT Statistics Explained.Google Scholar
  15. EU Directive 2013/32/EU. (2013). Procedures for Granting and Withdrawing International Protection (recast). Official Journal of the European Union.Google Scholar
  16. EU Directive 2008/115/EC On common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. Official Journal of the European Union.Google Scholar
  17. European Parliament. (2000). Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. 2000/C 364/01. Official Journal of European Communities. 18.12.2000.Google Scholar
  18. EU Regulation 862/2007. (2007). On Community statistics on migration and international protection and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 311/76 on the compilation of statistics on foreign workers. Official Journal of the European Union.Google Scholar
  19. Ghio, D., Gioia, C., Sermi, F., & Tarchi, D. (2018). Measuring asylum-related migration pressure. Joint Research Centre European Commission, poster presentation, European Association Population Studies, Annual Meeting 2018, Brussels.Google Scholar
  20. Gonzalez-Settlage, R. (2012). Indirect Refoulement: Challenging Canada’s participation in the Canada-United States Safe Third Country Agreement. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 30(1), 142–189.Google Scholar
  21. Hatton, T. J. (2011). Seeking asylum trends and policies in the OECD, Centre for Economic Policy Research. , ISBN: 978-1-907142-40-6.Google Scholar
  22. Hatton, T. J., Moloney, J. (2015). Applications for asylum in the developed world: Modelling asylum claims by origin and destination. Australian National University CEPR Working Paper May 2015. ISBN: 0 86831 625 3.Google Scholar
  23. Hatton, T. J., & Williamson, J. G. (2005). What fundamentals drive world migration? In G. J. Borjas & J. Crisp (Eds.), Poverty, international migration and asylum. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Hurwitz, A. (1999). The 1990 Dublin convention: a comprehensive assessment. International Journal of Refugee Law, 11(4), 646–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leekers, A. (2012). How (un)restrictive are we? ‘Adjusted’ and ‘expected’ asylum recognition rates in Europe Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie Research and Documentation Centre (WODC) Cahier (pp. 2015–2010).Google Scholar
  26. Mascani, P., & van Bochove, M. (2009). Gender stereotyping in the Dutch asylum procedure: “Independent” men versus “dependent” women. IMR International Migration Review, 43(1 (Spring 2009)), 112–133.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2008.01149.x
  27. Mascini, P. (2008). Explaining inequality in the implementation of asylum law. Refuge : Canada’s Periodical on Refugees, 25(2), 164–181.Google Scholar
  28. Neumayer, E. (2005). Asylum recognition rates in Western Europe: Their determinants, variation and lack of convergence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49, 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Riedel, L., & Schneider, G. (2017). Dezentraler Asylvollzug diskriminiert: Anerkennungsquoten von Flüchtlingen im bundesdeutschen Vergleich, 2010–2015. Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
  30. Thielemann, E. (2006). The effectiveness of Governments’ attempts to control unwanted migration.Google Scholar
  31. UNHCR. (2009). Statistical Yearbook.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniela Ghio
    • 1
  1. 1.Università degli Studi di Milano-BicoccaMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations