Money Talks: Mapping the Funding for EU External Migration Policy. CEPS Paper in Liberty & Security in Europe 15 November 2016

This paper examines the role of funding in the EU’s external policies on migration, borders and asylum. Academics have looked extensively into the political and legal resources of the EU in this area, but surprisingly little attention has been paid to the role of funding in the governance of this cooperation with third countries. The objective of this paper is to understand what EU funds are involved and which actors are setting priorities for funding in the field of migration, borders and asylum. This is a highly technical field of EU governance, characterised by complex political and legal dynamics. The funding landscape is fragmented and incoherent, with limited coordination, but this incoherence can be understood in light of the broader political, sociological and institutional struggles that come to the fore in the setting of priorities for funding. This paper argues that a certain degree of incoherence is an inevitable characteristic of EU governance in this field. The bigger issue is the challenge posed to accountability by this EU funding

EU Budgetary Responses to the ‘Refugee Crisis’: Reconfiguring the Funding Landscape. CEPS Paper Liberty and Security in Europe No. 93/May 2016

This paper analyses the EU budgetary responses to the ‘refugee crisis’ in Europe. The European Commission has proposed several changes to the EU budget as well as the establishment of new funding instruments. The paper explores what the announced funding consists of, what role it plays in policy-making and what issues it generates. Throughout these budgetary responses the search for flexibility has been dominant, motivated by the need to respond more swiftly to humanitarian and operational needs. In addition, the paper argues that beyond implementation or management, the role of funding is also symbolic and communicative. In light of limited competences that are difficult to exercise, funding represents a powerful tool enabling the Commission to shape policy-making in times of crisis. At the same time, the dominant search for flexibility also challenges established funding rules and procedures. It has furthermore led to reduced space for democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament. More profoundly, EU funding for cooperation with third countries to prevent the inflow of refugees and asylum seekers has monetised questions over the responsibility for these individuals. As the EU–Turkey agreement shows, this has created a self-imposed dependence on third countries, with the risk of potentially insatiable demands for EU funding. This paper questions the proportionality and rule of law compliance of allocating funding for the implementation of this agreement. Moreover, it proposes that the Commission take steps to practically safeguard the humanitarian aid principles in the management structures of the new funding instruments, and it stresses the need for more scrutiny of the reconfigured funding landscape by the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors

Implementers? The role of international organisations in EU funding for external migration policy

The EU is a major funder of migration projects around the world. There is a relationship of interdependence between the EU and international organizations, with the former offering funding and the latter offering implementation capacity. This paper explores this relationship in more detail. In particular, it explores how these international organizations are involved in the EU funds beyond implementation. This paper employs an organization theory approach to explain this central role of international organizations. This article argues that these organizations carefully navigate between the 'company' and 'political' organizational types. Moreover, the Commission and these organizations can be better conceptualized as forming a 'partial' organization. This holds implications for transparency and accountability in this area of growing spending. Three organizations are looked at in the context of this paper: The International Organization for Migration (IOM), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD)

A European Border and Coast Guard: Fit for purpose? CEPS Commentary, 24 February 2016

In December 2015, The Commission proposed to set up a European Border and Coast Guard (EBCG) as one of the key responses to the 2015 ‘refugee crisis’. The initiative intends to give Frontex, the EU’s current border agency, more competences, staff and equipment, and to rename it the EBCG. The new EBCG would work together with the member states’ national border and coast guard authorities

Whose Mare? Rule of law challenges in the field of European border surveillance in the Mediterranean. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 79/January 2015

This paper examines key developments in the field of European border surveillance in the Mediterranean. By asking, ‘Whose Mare?’, we focus on rule of law challenges stemming from these developments in a post-Lisbon EU. The developments examined are the Italian Navy-led Mare Nostrum operation, the debates over European ‘exit strategies’ for this operation and the ensuing launch of the Frontex Triton joint operation (JO). The recently adopted Regulation on Frontex sea border surveillance operations is also presented as a key development to understand the rule of law challenges. Moreover, the adoption of the European Union Maritime Security Strategy (MSS) and the development of several maritime surveillance systems in the EU highlight that a wide range of actors seeks authority over this field

EU Migration Policy in the wake of the Arab Spring. What prospects for EU-Southern Mediterranean Relations? MEDPRO Technical Report No. 15/August 2012

The outbreak of the Arab Spring and the unrest, revolution and war that followed during the course of 2011 have forced the EU to acknowledge the need to radically re-think its policy approach towards the Southern Mediterranean, including in the domain of migration. Migration and mobility now feature as key components of High Representative Catherine Ashton’s new framework for cooperation with the region (Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity), while the EU has declared its intention to strengthen its external migration policy by setting up “mutually beneficial” partnerships with third countries – so-called ‘Dialogues for Migration, Mobility and Security’ – now placed at the centre of the EU’s renewed Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM). However, the success of this approach and its potential to establish genuine cooperative partnerships that will support smooth economic and political transformation in North Africa hinge on the working arrangements and institutional configurations shaping the renewed GAMM at EU level which has long been marked by internal fragmentation, a lack of transparency and a predominance of home affairs and security actors. This paper investigates the development of the Dialogues for Migration, Mobility and Security with the Southern Mediterranean in a post-Lisbon Treaty institutional setting. It asks to what extent has the application of the Lisbon Treaty and the creation of an “EU Foreign Minister” in High Representative Ashton, supported by a European External Action Service (EEAS), remedied or re-invigorated the ideological and institutional struggles around the implementation of the Global Approach? Who are the principal agents shaping and driving the Dialogues for Migration, Mobility and Security? Who goes abroad to speak on the behalf of the EU in these Dialogues and what impact does this have on the effectiveness, legitimacy and accountability of the Dialogues under the renewed GAMM as well as the wider prospects for the Southern Mediterranean

It wasn't me! The Luxembourg Court orders on the EU-Turkey refugee deal. CEPS Policy Insights No. 2017-15/April 2017

It wasn’t me! This was in essence what the European Council, alongside the Council and the Commission, answered to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) when asked about the authorship of the EU-Turkey Statement. This is surprising, as the Statement – often referred to as the EU-Turkey Refugee Deal – was widely celebrated by the EU institutions themselves as the main EU response to the ‘refugee crisis’

Two Boats in the Mediterranean and their Unfortunate Encounters with Europe’s Policies towards People on the Move. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 48, 20 July 2012

Two stark reminders of the difficulties that people on the move encounter in the Mediterranean have been grabbing headlines recently: the so-called ‘left-to-die’ boat report and the ground-breaking Hirsi judgment. These two instances present the worst of both worlds: the first concerns a migrant boat that was ignored altogether, resulting in many deaths, whereas the second concerns a migrant boat being intercepted but subsequently dealt with in a way that contradicts Europe’s human rights standards. These two cases are neither isolated nor incidental. Instead they are of wider concern to the EU and reminders of structural deficiencies in Europe’s approach to people on the move in the Mediterranean. This paper identifies those cross-cutting deficiencies and proposes recommendations to correct them

Pathways towards Legal Migration into the EU: Reappraising concepts, trajectories and policies. CEPS Paperback, September 2017

On 27 January 2017, the Justice and Home Affairs Section of CEPS and the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs (DG HOME) of the European Commission co-organised a policy workshop in Brussels entitled “Reappraising the EU legal migration acquis: Legal pathways for a new model of economic migration, and the role of social science research”. The event brought together leading academics, practitioners and European Commission representatives to assess and discuss the state of play in the (internal and external) EU legal migration acquis, and its role in developing legal pathways towards economic migration. Held under the Chatham House Rule, the policy workshop’s roundtable discussions allowed participants to identify and address some of the key challenges, inconsistencies and gaps in the standing EU policies and legislation in the area of legal and economic migration. Scholars involved in EU and nationally funded, collaborative research projects on social science and humanities (SSH) had the opportunity to exchange interdisciplinary knowledge with European Commission officials representing the different services working on legal migration policies. The role and potential of independent academic research in the framework of EU migration policymaking were also discussed. The full programme of the policy workshop is reproduced in the annex of this book

In defence of policy incoherence – Illustrations from EU external migration policy

The issue of eu policy coherence has attracted tremendous attention from academics and policy makers. Alongside much conceptual querying of what policy coherence means, there is a continuous lamenting of the lack of policy coherence, and the need for more is stressed. Political scientists analyse the decision-making procedures and conclude that different eu institutions, bodies and agencies do not coordinate, resulting in policy coherence. Legal scientists bemoan the incoherent eu legal order and argue for further treaty reform. This chapter takes the case of the eu (external) migration policy to show that this widespread incoherence is a normal and inevitable feature of eu governance in this field, and of any pluralistic, democratic and rule of law based system of government. Divergent interests, values, and actors can only be accommodated in policies by allowing for some degree of policy incoherence, it is thus the condition upon which eu policy making is premised. The chapter argues that the dominant preoccupation with policy coherence should be reappraised, and advances a broad notion of coherence embedded in the rule of law