Papers by Roberto Cortinovis
CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe, 2021
Amid escalating geopolitical tension with Turkey, in March 2020 the Greek authorities announced a... more Amid escalating geopolitical tension with Turkey, in March 2020 the Greek authorities announced a hardline approach towards asylum seekers attempting to cross its land and sea borders with Turkey. The framing of cross-border movements as a ‘threat’ to the country’s national security served to justify a derogation from the human rights standards and procedural guarantees that are granted to people seeking protection under EU law. Since then, a pattern of systematic pushbacks at the border and informal returns represents the most visible expression of this hardening of border policies at the EU’s south-eastern borders.
This paper analyses the negative impact of this heavily securitised approach on asylum seekers’ fundamental rights, in particular its implications for the right to asylum that underpins the Common European Asylum System (CEAS).
The paper also reflects on the limits and ambiguities that have characterised the EU’s response to the situation at the Greek-Turkish borders, focusing on the role and responsibilities of the Frontex Agency. It underlines the need for the EU to remedy the shortcomings in existing accountability mechanisms, to guarantee effective remedies for victims of fundamental rights violations at the border. Establishing a sustainable human- rights-compliant management of migration in the eastern Mediterranean also requires that the EU move away from its focus on containing and restricting asylum seekers’ mobility – a focus that has characterised cooperation on migration and asylum with Turkey within the framework of the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe, 2019
The notion of ‘secondary movements’ is commonly used to describe the mobility of third country na... more The notion of ‘secondary movements’ is commonly used to describe the mobility of third country nationals for the purpose of seeking international protection in an EU member state other than the one of first irregular entry according to the EU Dublin Regulation. Secondary movements are often identified as a major insecurity factor undermining the sustainability of the Schengen regime and the functioning of the EU Dublin system. Consequently, EU policies have focused on their ‘criminalisation’, as testified by the range of sanctions included in the 2016 CEAS reform package, and on a ‘policing’ approach, which has materialised in the expanded access to data stored in the EURODAC database by police authorities, and its future interconnection with other EU databases under the 2019 EU Interoperability Regulations.
This Paper shows that the EU notion of secondary movements is flawed and must be reconsidered in any upcoming reform of the CEAS. The concept overlooks the fact that asylum seekers’ mobility may be non-voluntary and thus cannot be understood as a matter of ‘free choice’ or in terms of ‘preferences’ about the member state of destination. Such an understanding is based on the wrong assumption that asylum seekers’ decisions to move to a different EU country are illegitimate, as all EU member states are assumed to be ‘safe’ for people in need of international protection.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe, 2019
Search and Rescue (SAR) and disembarkation of persons in distress at sea in the Mediterranean con... more Search and Rescue (SAR) and disembarkation of persons in distress at sea in the Mediterranean continue to fuel divisions among EU member states. The ‘closed ports’ policy declared by the Italian Ministry of Interior in June 2018, and the ensuing refusal to let NGO ships conducting SAR operations enter Italian ports, has resulted in unresolved diplomatic rows between some European governments and EU institutions, and grave violations of the human rights of people attempting to cross the Mediterranean.
This paper examines how current political controversies surrounding SAR and disembarkation in the Mediterranean unfold in a policy context characterised by a ‘contained mobility’ paradigm that has materialised in the increasing penalisation of humanitarian SAR NGOs, a strategic and gradual operational disengagement from SAR activities by the EU and its member states, and the delegation of containment tasks to the Libyan coast guard (so-called ‘pullbacks’), a development that has been indirectly supported by EU institutions. These policies have contributed to substantially widen the gap in SAR capabilities in the Central Mediterranean.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe, 2019
The Global Compact on Refugees (GCR), adopted in December 2018 by the United Nations (UN) General... more The Global Compact on Refugees (GCR), adopted in December 2018 by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, expresses the political will of UN member states and relevant stakeholders to foster responsibility sharing for refugees and their host countries. Among GCR key objectives is that of expanding mobility and admission channels for people in search of international protection through resettlement and ‘complementary’ pathways of admission. The GCR provides a reference framework to critically assess European Union (EU) policies in relation to two main issues: first, the role and contribution of the EU and its Member States towards the implementation of the GCR in ways that are loyal to the Compact and EU Treaties guiding principles; second, and more specifically, the main gaps and contested issues of existing resettlement and complementary admission instruments for refugees and would-be refugees implemented at the EU and Member State levels.
This paper argues that EU policies in the field of asylum and migration have been driven by a ‘contained mobility’ approach, which has been recently operationalised in the scope of EU third country arrangements like the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement. Under this approach, restrictive and selective mobility/admission arrangements for refugees have been progressively consolidated and used in exchange of, or as incentives for, third country commitments to EU readmission and expulsions policy. The paper concludes by recommending that the EU moves from an approach focused on ‘contained mobility’ towards one that places refugee’s rights and agency at the centre through facilitated resettlement and other complementary pathways driven by a fundamental rights and international protection rationale.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
ISMU Working Paper, 2017
The increasingly protracted character of many displacement situations worldwide has led the in- t... more The increasingly protracted character of many displacement situations worldwide has led the in- ternational community to introduce innovative approaches to durable solutions for refugees and Internally displaced persons (IDPs). Specifically, international initiatives have focused on two main areas of action: a) strengthening the nexus between humanitarian and development interventions in the context of forced displacement situations; b) introducing legal pathways to protection for refugees through resettlement and other humanitarian and non-humanitarian channels. The emerging of the above-mentioned international agenda has triggered a parallel revision of the Eu- ropean Union (EU) external action in the field of asylum and refugee protection, a process that has gained further momentum as a consequence of increasing migration and asylum flows experienced by Europe since 2014. This Working paper explores the ways in which different approaches to durable solutions have been framed at the EU level and analyses the main strategic orientations and initiatives adopted by the EU in this policy domain.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
ISMU Working Paper, 2015
The asylum challenge currently faced by the European Union (EU) has a clear connection with the s... more The asylum challenge currently faced by the European Union (EU) has a clear connection with the steep increase in migration flows through the Mediterranean Sea experienced in the last couple of years. Indeed, a large proportion of migrants attempting the dangerous trip across the Mediterranean are asylum seekers, fleeing from wars and authoritarian regimes. The EU is committed to establishing a Common European Asylum System (CEAS), based on common rules and uniform standards. In this context, due to the global character of the asylum issue, the ‘external’ dimension of the CEAS is central to providing comprehensive and long-lasting solutions.
Against this backdrop, this paper assesses the role of the EU as a global actor in the field of asylum. Taking as a starting point insights from the literature on EU external action, the main components that build up the external dimension of EU asylum policy are taken into account: legal competences, strategic documents, and concrete policy initiatives implemented so far. Regarding the latter aspect, three areas of action are analysed: regional protection pro- grammes, the joint EU resettlement programme, and humanitarian visas and the external pro- cessing of asylum claims. The paper concludes by highlighting Member States’ lack of political commitment, inter-institutional tensions, and the overlaps between EU and national initiatives as the main challenges to increase coherence of EU external action in the field of asylum.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Research reports by Roberto Cortinovis
Horizon2020 project ASILE, D4.5 Final Country Report
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Gendered migrant integration policies in the EU. Are we moving towards delivery of equality, non-discrimination and inclusion?, 2023
In light of the Ukraine crisis, where a majority of the refugees who came to the EU were women an... more In light of the Ukraine crisis, where a majority of the refugees who came to the EU were women and children, policymakers and authorities are concerned about how to implement 'gender responsive' and 'gender sensitive' or 'gender aware' initiatives without reproducing gender stereotypes but instead respond to newcomers' specific needs.
In this ITFLOWS project report, we draw such lessons from the EU integration and inclusion policies and practices towards third country nationals (thereafter – migrants). We pose three main research questions: 1) to what extent do integration policies and programmes reflect critically on ‘gender’ by challenging intersecting structural hierarchies, or put another way, reproducing stereotypical imaginaries and norms? 2) How can we explain the gendered integration outcomes of migrants in the labour market? 3) What are some promising or interesting practices to address the three key issues identified – the overqualification of migrant women, intersectional discrimination in the labour market, and care responsibilities as a barrier to the labour market participation of women?
We recommend that EU and national policymakers consider the following principles:
• First, policies should be grounded on the ‘do no harm’ principle, as evidence shows that moving from incorrect assumptions or trying to address a wrongly framed problem may produce unintended consequences and lead to the creation of new challenges.
• Second, policies should be ‘needs based’, and gender-responsive needs to be addressed should be identified and articulated by migrant men and women. The FRA EU-MIDIS II Survey presents a very important tool for policymakers to identify what people consider important regarding their access to rights, in particular labour rights.
• Third, the proposed initiatives need to be agency advancing or empowering, as well as participative and inclusive. This is to ensure that migrant representatives, including migrant-women organisations, take the lead and cooperate closely with local authorities, civil society and various service providers, not only in the implementation, but also in the design and monitoring of policy responses.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
ASILE Project. D4.2 Interim Country Reports, 2022
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and ... more This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs on request of the Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties and Justice, aims to provide a detailed mapping and analysis of the central legal changes and issues characterising the five main legislative proposals accompanying the Pact on Migration and Asylum, presented by the Commission in September 2020. The legislative instruments under consideration include a new Screening Regulation, an amended proposal for an Asylum Procedures Regulation, an amended proposal revising the Eurodac Regulation, a new Asylum and Migration Management Regulation, and a new Crisis and Force Majeure Regulation. As a second step, the study provides a critical assessment of the five proposals as to their legal coherence, fundamental rights compliance, and application of the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility enshrined in Article 80 TFEU.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Identifying Priorities & Discussing Policy Options in EU Migration, Asylum and Integration Policy, 2020
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Identifying Priorities and Discussing Policy Options in EU Migration, Asylum and Integration Policy, 2019
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Articles & Book Chapters by Roberto Cortinovis
EU Responses to the Large-Scale Refugee Displacement from Ukraine: An Analysis on the Temporary Protection Directive and Its Implications for the Future EU Asylum Policy. Florence: European University Institute, 2023
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The EU Pact on Migration and Asylum in light of the United Nations Global Compact on Refugees. International Experiences on Containment and Mobility and their Impacts on Trust and Rights, Florence: European University Institute, 2021
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Fundamental Rights Challenges in Border Controls and Expulsion of Irregular Immigrants in the European Union. Abingdon: Routledge, 2020
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
20 Year Anniversary of the Tampere Programme. Europeanisation Dynamics of the EU Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, Florence: European University Institute, 2020
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
European Foreign Affairs Review, 2017
The unfolding of Europe’s ‘refugee crisis’ from 2015 onward has put the external dimension of asy... more The unfolding of Europe’s ‘refugee crisis’ from 2015 onward has put the external dimension of asylum policy at the top of the European Union’s (EU) agenda. This article analyses policy change in this expanding area of EU external action, focusing on the role played by exogenous factors and EU institutional dynamics. It argues that, in line with global debates and initiatives to expand the scope of durable solutions for refugees, EU institutions have endeavoured to place development at the centre of the EU approach to forced displacement. As shown by the cases of cooperation with Turkey and African countries, however, concerns over increasing migrant and refugee movements in many Member States have led to the simultaneous deployment of a policy agenda centred on containment, in which development aid is framed as a tool to pursue migration control objectives. This article concludes that the uneasy relation that exists between these two policy agendas calls into question the overall coherence of EU external action in the field of asylum and refugee protection.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The Future of Science and Ethics. Rivista scientifica a cura del Comitato Etico della Fondazione Umberto Veronesi, 2017
n the last few years, the debate on the causes and consequences of online misinformation has acqu... more n the last few years, the debate on the causes and consequences of online misinformation has acquired increasing relevance in the public debate and in the agenda of national and European institutions. The issue of so-called "fake news", however, should be placed in the context of a generalized crisis of trust in those actors traditionally assigned with the role of producing reliable information: democratic institutions, traditional media and, last but not least, the scientific community. The spread of the term post-truth, elected by the Oxford Dictionaries as word of the year 2016, aims to capture precisely this weakening of confidence in "experts", including in scientists working in different fields of research. The Final Statement released at the end of the 9th Science for Peace International Conference, held last November 17 at the Bocconi University in Milan, includes a set of recommendations addressed to different actors (including schools, media companies and internet platforms) aimed at addressing misinformation phenomena and promoting a public debate based on scientific evidence
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Journal of Contemporary European Research , 2015
This article investigates the evolution of the governance of the Frontex agency by focusing on jo... more This article investigates the evolution of the governance of the Frontex agency by focusing on joint operations, the area of activity that has posed the greatest challenges in finding an appropriate distribution of tasks and responsibilities between the member states and the agency. Adopting insights from rational choice institutionalism, this article argues that successive reforms of the agency have led to the inclusion of hard law elements in an attempt to address the main shortcomings of a governance framework that was initially predominantly based on soft law. However, sovereignty issues and institutional constraints that characterise this area of cooperation have induced member states to retain some of the central features of the previous soft law architecture. As a consequence, the reform process has resulted in the adoption of a ‘hybrid’ system of governance that mixes hard and soft elements in an attempt to reconcile competing policy priorities.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Panorama – Insights into Asian and European Affairs, 2016
In 2015, the number of migrants smuggled across the Mediterranean into the European
Union (EU) ... more In 2015, the number of migrants smuggled across the Mediterranean into the European
Union (EU) was more than one million, a figure that eclipses the previous peak of
216,000 recorded in 2014. While conflicts and political instability spreading throughout
the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa contribute to a significant extent in explaining
the scale of current migratory movements, the impact of socio-economic and demo-
graphic variables in some of the main countries of origin should not be neglected. After
a general overview of the main trends and dynamics that shaped Mediterranean flows
in the years 2014-2015, this contribution highlights some of the specific features that
characterize African migratory movements. The remaining section provides an over-
view of the initiatives adopted by the EU to manage migration in cooperation with
African countries and points to some issues that have been left unaddressed by the
current policy response.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Roberto Cortinovis
This paper analyses the negative impact of this heavily securitised approach on asylum seekers’ fundamental rights, in particular its implications for the right to asylum that underpins the Common European Asylum System (CEAS).
The paper also reflects on the limits and ambiguities that have characterised the EU’s response to the situation at the Greek-Turkish borders, focusing on the role and responsibilities of the Frontex Agency. It underlines the need for the EU to remedy the shortcomings in existing accountability mechanisms, to guarantee effective remedies for victims of fundamental rights violations at the border. Establishing a sustainable human- rights-compliant management of migration in the eastern Mediterranean also requires that the EU move away from its focus on containing and restricting asylum seekers’ mobility – a focus that has characterised cooperation on migration and asylum with Turkey within the framework of the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement.
This Paper shows that the EU notion of secondary movements is flawed and must be reconsidered in any upcoming reform of the CEAS. The concept overlooks the fact that asylum seekers’ mobility may be non-voluntary and thus cannot be understood as a matter of ‘free choice’ or in terms of ‘preferences’ about the member state of destination. Such an understanding is based on the wrong assumption that asylum seekers’ decisions to move to a different EU country are illegitimate, as all EU member states are assumed to be ‘safe’ for people in need of international protection.
This paper examines how current political controversies surrounding SAR and disembarkation in the Mediterranean unfold in a policy context characterised by a ‘contained mobility’ paradigm that has materialised in the increasing penalisation of humanitarian SAR NGOs, a strategic and gradual operational disengagement from SAR activities by the EU and its member states, and the delegation of containment tasks to the Libyan coast guard (so-called ‘pullbacks’), a development that has been indirectly supported by EU institutions. These policies have contributed to substantially widen the gap in SAR capabilities in the Central Mediterranean.
This paper argues that EU policies in the field of asylum and migration have been driven by a ‘contained mobility’ approach, which has been recently operationalised in the scope of EU third country arrangements like the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement. Under this approach, restrictive and selective mobility/admission arrangements for refugees have been progressively consolidated and used in exchange of, or as incentives for, third country commitments to EU readmission and expulsions policy. The paper concludes by recommending that the EU moves from an approach focused on ‘contained mobility’ towards one that places refugee’s rights and agency at the centre through facilitated resettlement and other complementary pathways driven by a fundamental rights and international protection rationale.
Against this backdrop, this paper assesses the role of the EU as a global actor in the field of asylum. Taking as a starting point insights from the literature on EU external action, the main components that build up the external dimension of EU asylum policy are taken into account: legal competences, strategic documents, and concrete policy initiatives implemented so far. Regarding the latter aspect, three areas of action are analysed: regional protection pro- grammes, the joint EU resettlement programme, and humanitarian visas and the external pro- cessing of asylum claims. The paper concludes by highlighting Member States’ lack of political commitment, inter-institutional tensions, and the overlaps between EU and national initiatives as the main challenges to increase coherence of EU external action in the field of asylum.
Research reports by Roberto Cortinovis
In this ITFLOWS project report, we draw such lessons from the EU integration and inclusion policies and practices towards third country nationals (thereafter – migrants). We pose three main research questions: 1) to what extent do integration policies and programmes reflect critically on ‘gender’ by challenging intersecting structural hierarchies, or put another way, reproducing stereotypical imaginaries and norms? 2) How can we explain the gendered integration outcomes of migrants in the labour market? 3) What are some promising or interesting practices to address the three key issues identified – the overqualification of migrant women, intersectional discrimination in the labour market, and care responsibilities as a barrier to the labour market participation of women?
We recommend that EU and national policymakers consider the following principles:
• First, policies should be grounded on the ‘do no harm’ principle, as evidence shows that moving from incorrect assumptions or trying to address a wrongly framed problem may produce unintended consequences and lead to the creation of new challenges.
• Second, policies should be ‘needs based’, and gender-responsive needs to be addressed should be identified and articulated by migrant men and women. The FRA EU-MIDIS II Survey presents a very important tool for policymakers to identify what people consider important regarding their access to rights, in particular labour rights.
• Third, the proposed initiatives need to be agency advancing or empowering, as well as participative and inclusive. This is to ensure that migrant representatives, including migrant-women organisations, take the lead and cooperate closely with local authorities, civil society and various service providers, not only in the implementation, but also in the design and monitoring of policy responses.
Articles & Book Chapters by Roberto Cortinovis
Union (EU) was more than one million, a figure that eclipses the previous peak of
216,000 recorded in 2014. While conflicts and political instability spreading throughout
the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa contribute to a significant extent in explaining
the scale of current migratory movements, the impact of socio-economic and demo-
graphic variables in some of the main countries of origin should not be neglected. After
a general overview of the main trends and dynamics that shaped Mediterranean flows
in the years 2014-2015, this contribution highlights some of the specific features that
characterize African migratory movements. The remaining section provides an over-
view of the initiatives adopted by the EU to manage migration in cooperation with
African countries and points to some issues that have been left unaddressed by the
current policy response.
This paper analyses the negative impact of this heavily securitised approach on asylum seekers’ fundamental rights, in particular its implications for the right to asylum that underpins the Common European Asylum System (CEAS).
The paper also reflects on the limits and ambiguities that have characterised the EU’s response to the situation at the Greek-Turkish borders, focusing on the role and responsibilities of the Frontex Agency. It underlines the need for the EU to remedy the shortcomings in existing accountability mechanisms, to guarantee effective remedies for victims of fundamental rights violations at the border. Establishing a sustainable human- rights-compliant management of migration in the eastern Mediterranean also requires that the EU move away from its focus on containing and restricting asylum seekers’ mobility – a focus that has characterised cooperation on migration and asylum with Turkey within the framework of the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement.
This Paper shows that the EU notion of secondary movements is flawed and must be reconsidered in any upcoming reform of the CEAS. The concept overlooks the fact that asylum seekers’ mobility may be non-voluntary and thus cannot be understood as a matter of ‘free choice’ or in terms of ‘preferences’ about the member state of destination. Such an understanding is based on the wrong assumption that asylum seekers’ decisions to move to a different EU country are illegitimate, as all EU member states are assumed to be ‘safe’ for people in need of international protection.
This paper examines how current political controversies surrounding SAR and disembarkation in the Mediterranean unfold in a policy context characterised by a ‘contained mobility’ paradigm that has materialised in the increasing penalisation of humanitarian SAR NGOs, a strategic and gradual operational disengagement from SAR activities by the EU and its member states, and the delegation of containment tasks to the Libyan coast guard (so-called ‘pullbacks’), a development that has been indirectly supported by EU institutions. These policies have contributed to substantially widen the gap in SAR capabilities in the Central Mediterranean.
This paper argues that EU policies in the field of asylum and migration have been driven by a ‘contained mobility’ approach, which has been recently operationalised in the scope of EU third country arrangements like the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement. Under this approach, restrictive and selective mobility/admission arrangements for refugees have been progressively consolidated and used in exchange of, or as incentives for, third country commitments to EU readmission and expulsions policy. The paper concludes by recommending that the EU moves from an approach focused on ‘contained mobility’ towards one that places refugee’s rights and agency at the centre through facilitated resettlement and other complementary pathways driven by a fundamental rights and international protection rationale.
Against this backdrop, this paper assesses the role of the EU as a global actor in the field of asylum. Taking as a starting point insights from the literature on EU external action, the main components that build up the external dimension of EU asylum policy are taken into account: legal competences, strategic documents, and concrete policy initiatives implemented so far. Regarding the latter aspect, three areas of action are analysed: regional protection pro- grammes, the joint EU resettlement programme, and humanitarian visas and the external pro- cessing of asylum claims. The paper concludes by highlighting Member States’ lack of political commitment, inter-institutional tensions, and the overlaps between EU and national initiatives as the main challenges to increase coherence of EU external action in the field of asylum.
In this ITFLOWS project report, we draw such lessons from the EU integration and inclusion policies and practices towards third country nationals (thereafter – migrants). We pose three main research questions: 1) to what extent do integration policies and programmes reflect critically on ‘gender’ by challenging intersecting structural hierarchies, or put another way, reproducing stereotypical imaginaries and norms? 2) How can we explain the gendered integration outcomes of migrants in the labour market? 3) What are some promising or interesting practices to address the three key issues identified – the overqualification of migrant women, intersectional discrimination in the labour market, and care responsibilities as a barrier to the labour market participation of women?
We recommend that EU and national policymakers consider the following principles:
• First, policies should be grounded on the ‘do no harm’ principle, as evidence shows that moving from incorrect assumptions or trying to address a wrongly framed problem may produce unintended consequences and lead to the creation of new challenges.
• Second, policies should be ‘needs based’, and gender-responsive needs to be addressed should be identified and articulated by migrant men and women. The FRA EU-MIDIS II Survey presents a very important tool for policymakers to identify what people consider important regarding their access to rights, in particular labour rights.
• Third, the proposed initiatives need to be agency advancing or empowering, as well as participative and inclusive. This is to ensure that migrant representatives, including migrant-women organisations, take the lead and cooperate closely with local authorities, civil society and various service providers, not only in the implementation, but also in the design and monitoring of policy responses.
Union (EU) was more than one million, a figure that eclipses the previous peak of
216,000 recorded in 2014. While conflicts and political instability spreading throughout
the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa contribute to a significant extent in explaining
the scale of current migratory movements, the impact of socio-economic and demo-
graphic variables in some of the main countries of origin should not be neglected. After
a general overview of the main trends and dynamics that shaped Mediterranean flows
in the years 2014-2015, this contribution highlights some of the specific features that
characterize African migratory movements. The remaining section provides an over-
view of the initiatives adopted by the EU to manage migration in cooperation with
African countries and points to some issues that have been left unaddressed by the
current policy response.
This contribution explores the key features of the Declaration on a Voluntary Solidarity Mechanism adopted by a group of Member States in June 2022 under the auspices of the former French Presidency of the Council. The analysis argues that the 2022 Declaration is not a mechanism but a non-legally binding arrangement that gives preference to an intergovernmental, asymmetric and unequal notion of solidarity. It argues for an alternative approach to the EU solidarity principle that is subordinated to justice and safeguards humanitarian solidarity, and puts forward five action points to inform future EU asylum policy.
The Country Note covers documents released by United Nations (UN) human rights mechanisms and bodies. These include the UN Charter-based system of human rights protection, including the Universal Period Review and the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, and the UN Human Rights Treaty bodies. The Note also encompasses monitoring bodies established under regional human rights systems to which the country under consideration is party.
The Country Note covers documents released by United Nations (UN) human rights mechanisms and bodies. These include the UN Charter-based system of human rights protection, including the Universal Period Review and the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, and the UN Human Rights Treaty bodies. The Note also encompasses monitoring bodies established under regional human rights systems to which the country under consideration is party.
The Country Note covers documents released by United Nations (UN) human rights mechanisms and bodies. These include the UN Charter-based system of human rights protection, including the Universal Period Review and the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, and the UN Human Rights Treaty bodies. The Note also encompasses monitoring bodies established under regional human rights systems to which the country under consideration is party.
The Country Note covers documents released by United Nations (UN) human rights mechanisms and bodies. These include the UN Charter-based system of human rights protection, including the Universal Period Review and the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, and the UN Human Rights Treaty bodies. The Note also encompasses monitoring bodies established under regional human rights systems to which the country under consideration is party.
The Country Note covers documents released by United Nations (UN) human rights mechanisms and bodies. These include the UN Charter-based system of human rights protection, including the Universal Period Review and the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, and the UN Human Rights Treaty bodies. The Note also encompasses monitoring bodies established under regional human rights systems to which the country under consideration is party.
This ITFLOWS Project Webinar aims at examining the key features of the EU approach to ‘crisis anticipation and response’ based on the Pact’s proposals and the lessons learned on how the EU has addressed previously declared ‘crises’, such as the one during 2015/2016. The Webinar will focus on the state of play and broader implications of the EU crisis management model laid down in the Pact, especially in relation to proposal on a Crisis and Force Majeure Regulation
The Webinar will examine the potentials and methodological limitations of existing tools for predicting and visualising migration and asylum. Some of the key questions that will be addressed are: what qualifies as a ‘crisis’ and how is it assessed in the EU? What are the deficits characterizing existing maps and visualisations of immigration dynamics? What are the ethical and legal dilemmas raised by predictive approaches to anticipate ‘crises’ based on state-of-the-art literature
The UN Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) constitutes a unique world-wide framework of cooperation on refugee protection to assess and examine EU asylum policies.
The adoption of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum by the European Commission reveals the continuation of previously existing asylum policies focused on containment, and the increasing use of non-legally binding and financial instruments or arrangements fostering protection elsewhere or refugee deterrence policies. Simultaneously, the Pact promises increased refugee mobility through legal pathways to admission.
This Session assessed the most recent developments in EU Asylum Policy from the perspective of their impacts on the UN GCR core guiding principles: international refugee protection and human rights. It will examine the ways in which EU policies focused on ‘contained mobility’ affect trust in internal and external EU asylum policies.
Particular attention was paid to the ways in which refugee voices and agency could be better tailored in EU asylum decision-making dynamics.
Within the CEPS Ideas Lab, this Lab session aims to discuss the main challenges faced by migrants and refugees in light of the evolving policy and legal responses to Covid-19. It considers the fundamental rights impact of restrictive policies, including border closures, travel restrictions and the suspension of asylum procedures. It also aims to identify promising practices developed by states, international organisations and NGOs to ensure that the fundamental rights of migrants and refugees are protected, including in the context of the Global Compact on Refugees and the Global Compact for safe, orderly and regular migration.
This session is organised as part of ASILE, a project that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.
Due to the predominantly operational nature of migration, border management and asylum policies, the EU decentralized agencies stand out as the mode of administrative governance, specially indicated for providing technical expertise, exchanging information, and coordinating the operational activities of the Member States. To what extent have the recent changes, including operational powers being conferred across different administrative levels, and agencies, promote effective enforcement in this area? This roundtable aims at discussing these recently introduced changes with the key stakeholders. Selected academic experts will be invited to attend the roundtable as discussants.
The event comprised three sessions with two speakers per session followed by panel discussions.
In the first session, major policy options for improved EU asylum policies in the light of current developments and the implementation of the Global Compact on Refugees were identified. Following presentations on key asylum challenges and developments in Croatia, the session discussed the prospects for increased use of alternative legal pathways, such as resettlement.
The second panel highlighted challenges and obstacles for improved refugee integration policies in Croatia with a special focus at the local level. Taking into account the holistic, long-term approach to integration advocated by ReSOMA, the session discussed concrete needs and opportunities for EU-supported measures in the upcoming 2021 to 2027 funding period.
The concluding session focused on public opinion and welcoming social climate as a precondition for sustainable asylum policies and successful integration. Recent research findings on public opinion in Croatia were complemented by ReSOMA’s recommendations for communicating on migration issues.
1. Provide an update on the disembarkation plan agreed by Germany, France, Italy and Malta on 23 September 2019 and follow up discussions in the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 8 October 2019
2. Critically assess and reflect upon the elements of the disembarkation plan
3. Discuss ideas and ways to expand relocation opportunities to more countries, including Greece, Spain and Cyprus
(i) How can data and evidence be used for implementing the GCR and GCM?
(ii) How can data collection on relevant migration and refugee issues be improved? What are the
main gaps to be filled?
(iii) What forms of collaboration among states, international organizations and other relevant
stakeholders are envisaged to foster evidence-based policy responses?
(iv) How to respect in this process the independence of both scholars and civil society and their
larger role in upholding the democratic rule of law?
According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), migrants are the group most likely to be affected by the adverse effects of climate change. And in most cases, the decision to move can be aggravated by violations of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights, some of which may themselves be caused by the current climate phenomenon.
Today, many migrants still face discrimination, violence, and other abuses in many host countries, even though the article 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantee the rights to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
In this light, it is important to discuss the obligations the States and the international community should comply to. What protections should be provided to facilitate the migration process? And what measures should we take as individuals to prevent climate change?
The World Solidarity Forum (WSF) believes that human rights should be enjoyed by every human being without exception and that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. It is essential to discuss these challenges and pursue comprehensible solutions in order to build a better future for the migrants moving to the European Union, but also at the international level.
Quali forme e pratiche di resistenza?