Extending Citizenship Rights to Third Country Nationals: The Correlation between Migration and Integration: A Sample from South Europe. CEPS Working Document No. 175, October 2001

Various issues arise in the European context with respect to the boundaries of citizenship; one of the main questions is to what extent the division between the European Union citizens and third country nationals will increase, especially if "deepening" of the Union leads to more tightening of its external borders. This paper addresses the question of how far citizenship rights can be extended to third country migrants in the EU? The paper is divided into two parts; the first is a brief theoretical approach to questions about the parameters of citizenship in the EU. The second part focuses on Italy and Spain as new receiving states affected by North\South migration in the Mediterranean (their policies, people's attitudes, internal distribution of migrants, etc.) and compares their current position with the countries who have had a tradition of labour immigration since the1960s. It contrasts policy and practice vis-à-vis Maghrebi nationals in these two countries, although both are Mediterranean states in close geographical proximity to North Africa. The analysis suggests that the problems encountered by the different Mediterreanean EU members have, in some respects, to be treated on an individual basis. My empirical focus is mainly centred on labour immigration from the Maghreb countries (Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia) and the public policy implications for the EU as a supranational Community rather than as a group of individual member states. I have chosen the Maghrebi immigrants not only because they constitute a high percentage of immigrants residing and working at present in the EU (about 2.5 million), but because their numbers have increased significantly (for both economic and political reasons). The empirical material largely relates to legally resident migrant workers in the EU and their families. The conclusion attempts to show why the EU cannot avoid dealing with this issue at least to some extent. The development of the EU's principles of the free movement of persons within the Community in order to work in another member state, equal treatment and social justice will be tested as they apply to the position of legally resident third country nationals

Striking a Balance between Freedom, Security and Justice. CEPS Paperback. October 2002

This monograph surveys the achievements of the European Union in the field of Justice and Home Affairs and analyses the pro’s and con’s of setting up an area of freedom, security and justice. The inter-connections between internal and external security issues are carefully examined - both from a practical and institutional point of view-and consideration is given to how to avoid excessive “securitisation” of society. It argues for the need to take an integrated approach towards these issues in order to ensure that the right balance is actually being struck between these three dimensions

Navigating the Stars: Norway, the European Economic Area and the European Union. CEPS Paperback. February 2002

This study expertly assesses the evolving relationship between Norway and the European Union, the centrepiece of which is the European Economic Area (EEA). Faced with an increasingly outdated network of relationships with the EU, Norway finds itself marginalised from policy-making and subject instead to policy-taking. This report evaluates Norway’s position in relation to the ‘future of Europe’ debate as well as a range of hypothetical options that Norway may contemplate, focusing on several key policy areas including the single market, the macroeconomic agenda, justice and home affairs, and foreign security and defence policies

The Development of European Citizenship and Its Relevance to the Integration of Refugees. CEPS Working Document No. 180, January 2002

Achieving an integrated Europe involves political and social unity as much as economic integration. Thus, the issue of European citizenship is central to the debate about European integration. Union citizenship needs to be distinguished from national citizenship. Every citizen of the Union enjoys a first circle of nationality rights within a member state and a second circle of new rights enjoyed in any member state of the EU. The presence of immigrants in Europe also raises wider questions for government policy in the field of citizenship. There are various issues that arise in the European context with respect to the boundaries of citizenship. One of the main questions in this regard is the extent to which the division between European Union citizens and third country nationals will continue to prevail. This paper aims to analyse: · Who are the different groups of third country nationals residing in the EU? · Which criteria are used to grant refugee status? · What rights are entailed in such a status? · How does refugee status compare to European citizenship? · Would the extension of European citizenship rights guarantee a true integration of these groups of persons

Infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights by Belgium. CEPS Policy Brief No. 12, February 2002

[Introduction]. The judgment in the case of Conka v. Belgium of 5 February 2002 by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg whereby Belgium was founded guilty of infringing the European Convention on Human Rights, has much wider implications than one might think on a first reading. This is not simply a condemnation of one member state (Belgium in this case), in isolation. Rather it is a message to all EU member states as well as the other signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights, that expulsion practices that are tantamount to refoulement are absolutely inadmissible. The ruling also calls upon European states to give deeper thought to the way in which they implement asylum procedures

Shaping Europe’s Migration Policy: New Regimes for the Employment of Third Country Nationals: A Comparison of Strategies in Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands and the UK. CEPS Working Document No. 179, December 2001

During the 1990s, Justice and Home Affairs moved, in an unexpected way, to centre stage in the European debate. Concern had been growing about immigration policy since the Maastricht Treaty institutionalised the third pillar of the European Union. This concern had been stimulated by several factors – the persistence of irregular migration and tragic incidents, such as the one in Dover in July 2000 in which 58 Chinese nationals lost their lives trying to enter illegally into the United Kingdom, the need for immigrant workers in some sectors, and the spectre of an ageing European population. More generally, the Treaty of Amsterdam, since its entry into force in 1999, represents a major development in overall Justice and Home Affairs policy, and the implementation of the treaty provisions in Justice and Home Affairs was described as the next major EU initiative after the single currency. Moreover, the Conclusions of the European Council in Tampere (15th and 16th October 1999); gave an additional push for the adoption of the measures considered necessary for the realisation of an area of Freedom, Security and Justice, reaffirming traditional and integrating new principles in these fields. In March 2000, a very controversial report of the United Nations based on demographic considerations has been published (UN Secretariat ESA/P/WP.160). Resting on the analysis of the current population trends in the world and projections for the period 1995-2050, this report pleaded for "replacement immigration" in order to compensate for the inevitable population decline in Europe and in other parts of the world. The "provocative" observations of the report stimulated an intense public debate in the European press on this question, but they also contributed to re-open the issue on immigration in the European institutions and member states at a time of reflection on how to implement the new Amsterdam provisions. A proposal for a Directive dealing with the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment and self-employed economic activities has been published on 11 July 2001, the same day as the publication of a Commission Communication on an open method of co-ordination for the Community immigration policy. Migration alone is unlikely to be the answer to Europe’s demographic problem. Policies for legal migration of labour can also be coupled with other less politically sensitive ways, which could reduce the governments’ costs of an ageing population, such as increasing labour force participation among older people and women. Some EU member states have already developed concrete policy initiatives to address on one hand labour market shortages as well as the increasing demographic issue. This paper examines the evolving laws in the field of labour immigration in four countries: UK, Germany; Sweden and the Netherlands, situating the policies being developed in the overall European context

Towards Closer Relationships: Requirements for More Effective JHA Cooperation in an Enlarged EU. CEPS Working Documents No. 211, 1 October 2004

The requirements of good policy-making in JHA are that decision-makers have a clear mandate and that those agencies charged with policy implementation are well-managed. Who does what, who has responsibility and the lines of accountability should be clear to the public and to professional groups affected by the policies. At the most general level, the provision of a clear mandate is a constitutional question. The present pillar structure of the EU is unsatisfactory and unclear. Should the Constitutional Treaty that was politically adopted at the intergovernmental conference (IGC) on 18 June 2004 enter into force as foreseen in 2009, the pillar structure would cease to exist, the European Parliament would have a greater role in the co-decision procedure (Article III-302) and the European Court of Justice would be conferred the power to review and interpret all these policies. In the proposals for the next IGC, the pillar structure should be replaced by a simple division of powers – those reserved for the EU, those remaining exclusively with the member states and those shared by the EU and the member states in an enlarged European Union. Whether the system is well-managed depends on the presence of high levels of trust, adequate flexibility, good coordination and efficiency in terms of cost and rapidity of response to requests for information and cooperation. Despite the complexity of the intellectual debates devoted to these concepts, communicating some ideas from these debates in language that is accessible to policy-makers is overdue

Problems and Solutions for New Member States in Implementing the JHA Acquis. CEPS Working Documents No. 212, 1 October 2004

The pace of development of the justice and home affairs (JHA) acquis has been quite impressive, especially since the Amsterdam Treaty (and the new Title IV), which has offered a new legal basis and possibilities for progress in this area. After the entry into force of the Single European Act, the balance has been moving increasingly from national towards European Union solutions in JHA. At first the process was steady, but slow. This is unsurprising given that it was the first attempt by a supranational organisation to address problems such as immigration or cooperation in criminal matters. The already voluminous JHA acquis is still evolving. Most of the text is legally binding, yet only a small part of the Treaty objectives of Title IV TEC and Title VI TEU have been implemented so far. The challenge for the enlarged EU regarding the JHA acquis is therefore a dual one (Monar 2004): · ‘maintaining’ the acquis in the sense of preserving what has already been achieved and ensuring that it is effectively implemented; and · ‘developing’ the acquis in the sense of making certain that the momentum is not lost. This paper examines the key post-enlargement challenges in JHA – the problems and solutions that are incumbent to the implementation of the JHA acquis and how the lack of mutual trust can be overcome to enhance decision-making and implementation capabilities after the enlargement of 1 May 2004

Ensuring a Generous European Asylum Policy for Those in Need of International Protection. CEPS Policy Brief No. 9, December 2001

Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam in May 1999, asylum and immigration policies have fallen within the competence of the European Union. When the countries of the European Union signed the Charter of Fundamental Rights, one wonders which values Europe intended to defend concretely and what importance it placed on the protection of refugees. The communitarisation of the right of asylum has caused many concerns because, until now, the process of European harmonisation has focused on erecting a “fortress”, which has led to the erosion of the protection granted to refugees. However, by emancipating the contention on the rights of asylum seekers at national level, particularly close to election dates, communitarisation constitutes a single chance to break with the security-conscious Schengen years and to develop a generous policy based on the humanitarian principles that have formed the basis of European integration

Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters - European Arrest Warrant – A Good Testing Ground for Mutual Recognition in an Enlarged EU? CEPS Policy Briefs No. 46, February 2004

This paper reviews the extent to which the development of instruments that implement the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters, particularly the European arrest warrant (EAW), may be considered valuable tools for effectively combating cross-border crime in the European Union. In addition, we assess how these policy orientations may or may not overcome the persistent mistrust and lack of confidence among the member states, while at the same time respecting human rights and civil liberties. In particular, this paper analyses: 1. EU judicial cooperation in criminal matters: does it fight and prevent cross-border crime effectively in the EU? 2. The European arrest warrant – is it an improved method to replace extradition? Does the EAW provide a better solution to the practical complexities and difficulties that characterise the current extradition system? What are the inherent gaps in the proposed new surrender procedure under the EAW? 3. Does the EAW guarantee a good balance between efficiency and judicial protection of the individual’s fundamental rights? Does the Green Paper on procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the EU provide the right way forward? Does the EAW involve a real risk to the legal position and human rights of suspected individuals? 4. What is the added value of EU judicial cooperation against cross-border crime