Advertisement

Cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs Matters

  • Emek Uçarer
Chapter

Abstract

When the 1957 Treaty of Rome set Europe on the path to ‘an ever closer union’, the free movement of individuals within its territory was named as one of four objectives that the European integration process was intended to achieve. Though the Treaty’s goal of achieving a customs union was completed ahead of schedule, the goal of eliminating borders for the free movement of persons remains unachieved after 40 years and has only been put back on the integration agenda since the mid-1980s.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agenda Europe (1993) ‘The “Greens” in the European Parliament explain the opposition to Schengen’s Implementing Convention: The Intergovernmental procedure does not offer guarantees, in their opinion’, 14 January, p. 12.Google Scholar
  2. Agence Europe (1995) Report of the Council on the Functioning of the Treaty on European Union. Brussels: Council of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  3. Agence Europe (1998) ‘Viel Lärm — und ein Ja’, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 30 May.Google Scholar
  4. Bieber, R. and Monar, J. (eds) (1995) Justice and Home Affairs in the European Union: The Development of the Third Pillar. Brussels: European Interuniversity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boschi Orlandini, F. (1995) ‘Europol and the Europol Drugs Unit: A cooperation structure in the making’, in J. Monar and R. Morgan (eds), The Third Pillar of the European Union. Brussels: European Interuniversity Press, pp. 209–16.Google Scholar
  6. Bourlanges, J. L. and Martin, D. (1995) Report on the Functioning of the Treaty on European Union with a View to the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference — Implementation and Development of the Union: Explanatory Statement. Brussels: European Parliament Committee on Institutional Affairs.Google Scholar
  7. Collinson, S. (1994) ‘Toward further harmonization? Migration policy in the European Union’, Studi Emigrazione, vol. 31, pp. 210–37.Google Scholar
  8. Commission (1994) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Immigration and Asylum Policies. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  9. Commission (1995) Bericht über die Funktionsweise des Vertrags über die Europäische Union. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  10. Commission (1996) Reinforcing Political Union and Preparing for Enlargement: Commission Opinion for the Intergovernmental Conference 1996. Luxembourg: Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  11. Council of JHA Ministers (1996a) Council Resolution of 20 June 1995 on Minimum Guarantees for Asylum Procedures, Official Journal of the European Communities, Brussels, C 274 96 274/01, 19 September.Google Scholar
  12. Council of JHA Ministers (1996b) Standard form for determining the state responsible for examining an application for asylum, Official Journal of the European Communities, Brussels, C 274 96 274/01, 19 September.Google Scholar
  13. Council of the European Union (1996) The European Union Today and Tomorrow, Adapting the European Union for the Benefit of Its Peoples and Preparing It for the Future: A General Outline for a Draft Revision of the Treaties. Brussels: Council.Google Scholar
  14. Curtin, D. and Meijers, H. (1995) ‘The principle of Open Government in Schengen and the European Union: Democratic retrogression?’, Common Market Law Review, vol. 32, pp. 391–442.Google Scholar
  15. Devuyst, Y. (1997) ‘The Treaty of Amsterdam: An introductory analysis’, ECSA Review, vol. 10, pp. 6–14.Google Scholar
  16. Edwards, G. and Pijpers, A. (eds) (1997) The Politics of European Treaty Reform: The 1996 Intergovernmental Conference and Beyond. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  17. European Communities (1987) Single European Act. Luxembourg: Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  18. Hix, S. (1995) The 1996 Intergovernmental Conference and the Future of the Third Pillar. Brussels: Churches Commission for Migrants in Europe.Google Scholar
  19. Hix, S. and Messen, J. (1996) Reconsidering European Migration Policies: The 1996 Intergovernmental Conference and the Reform of the Maastricht Treaty. Brussels: Churches Commission for Migrants in Europe.Google Scholar
  20. Joly, D. (1996) Haven or Hell? Asylum Policies and Refugees in Europe. New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  21. Koslowski, R. (1997) ‘Migration and the democratic context of European political institutions’, in E. M. Uçarer and D. J. Puchala (eds), Immigration into Western Societies: Problems and Policies. London: Pinter, pp. 70–94.Google Scholar
  22. Lipsius, J. (1995) ‘The 1996 Intergovernmental Conference’, European Law Review, vol. 20, pp. 235–67.Google Scholar
  23. Lobkowicz, W. de (1995) ‘Intergovernmental cooperation in the field of migration — From the Single European Act to Maastricht’, in J. Monar and R. Morgan (eds), The Third Pillar of the European Union: Cooperation in the Fields of Justice and Home Affairs. Brussels: European Interuniversity Press, pp. 99–122.Google Scholar
  24. Marenin, O. (ed.) (1996) Policing Change, Changing Police: International Perspectives. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Meijers, H. (1990) ‘Refugees in Western Europe: ‘Schengen’ affects the entire Refugee Law’, International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 2, pp. 428–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Monar, J. and Morgan, R. (eds) (1995) The Third Pillar of the European Union: Cooperation in the Fields of Justice and Home Affairs. Brussels: European Interuniversity Press.Google Scholar
  27. Monar, J. (1997) ‘European Union — Justice and Home Affairs: A Balance Sheet and an Agenda for Reform’, in G. Edwards and A. Pijpers (eds), The Politics of European Treaty Reform: The 1996 Intergovernmental Conference and Beyond. London: Pinter, pp. 326–39.Google Scholar
  28. O’Keefe, D. (1995) ‘Recasting the third pillar’, Common Market Law Review, vol. 32, pp. 893–920.Google Scholar
  29. O’Keefe, D. (1996) ‘A critical view of the third pillar’, in A. Pauly (ed.), De Schengen à Maastricht: voie royale et course d’obstacles. Maastricht: European Institute of Public Administration.Google Scholar
  30. Petit, Michel (1998) ‘The Treaty of Amsterdam’, Harvard Jean Monnet Chair Working Paper Series, no. 2, Harvard Law School.Google Scholar
  31. Plender, R. (1995) ‘Asylum policy: Deficits of intergovernmental cooperation’, in R. Bieber, and J. Monar (eds), Justice and Home Affairs in the European Union: The Development of the Third Pillar. Brussels: European Interuniversity Press, pp. 141–65.Google Scholar
  32. Reflection Group (1995) Progress Report on the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. Brussels: Reflection Group.Google Scholar
  33. Uçarer, E. M. (1997) ‘Europe’s search for policy: The harmonization of asylum policy and European integration’, In E. M. Uçarer and D. J. Puchala (eds), Immigration into Western Societies: Problems and Policies. London: Pinter, pp. 281–309.Google Scholar
  34. Walker, N. (1998) ‘Justice and Home Affairs’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 47, pp. 231–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Emek Uçarer 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emek Uçarer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations