[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Journals
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Journals >> Sadowski, 'Capacity building in a field of migration: the cases of
Moldova and Georgia' [2012] 1 Web JCLR
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/other/journals/WebJCLI/2012/issue1/sadowski1.html
[New search] [Help]
[2012] 1 Web JCLI
Capacity building in a field of migration: the cases
of Moldova and Georgia
Piotr Sadowski
Master of Arts in Law (Nicolaus Copernicus University, Torun, Poland)
Bachelor of Arts in Law (University of Abertay, Scotland)
Ph.D. candidate at Faculty of Law and Administration, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Torun, Poland.
migration_research@wp.pl
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and
should not be attributed to, any other entities and institutions. The author wishes to thank all the persons who
supported him during this research.
Summary
This article concentrates upon an impact of readmission agreements between the EU and Moldova and between
the EU and Georgia. It underlines the technical nature of these agreements and presents their role in
safeguarding rights of returned migrants.
It cannot be argued that without adequate support imposing higher standards with respect to returns and
readmission cannot be achieved by the migration services in Moldova and in Georgia. However, the question
arises whether the EU and EU Member States are doing enough in order to help Moldova and Georgia in
strengthening capacity building of migration services in those countries. Examples of actions that were taken,
have been taken and are being taken in those countries are provided. Special attention is paid to projects
implemented under EU Mobility Partnership Agreements in order to verify the usability of this tool in developing
migration management systems.
Contents
Introduction
Definition of a term ‘capacity building’
Needs for capacity building in case of Moldova and Georgia
Examples of actions taken
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
The current migration situation in Mediterranean region has shown that migration patterns may change rapidly.
The great and constantly growing number of migrants who are determined to cross the European Union borders
and the risk that they are exposed to during their travel has attracted the attention of practitioners, lawmakers,
researchers and the media.
Providing support for Mediterranean region is a priority issue for policymakers. Amongst others, public officials
who are responsible for controlling borders, those who are processing asylum applications, those who are
processing residency permit applications as well as those who are drafting legislation (hereinafter collectively
called ‘migration services representatives’) should be knowledgeable about efficient management of so called
‘mixed migration flows’. As these kind of flows comprise asylum seekers, economic migrants, and unauthorized
migrants they cannot be addressed by representatives of one government department only. For this reason
professional interagency cooperation has to be ensured as well.
History has shown that Mediterranean is not the only region where political changes may have an impact on the
migration situation. This was the case when the Soviet Union collapsed, and when wars in Balkans occurred.
Therefore, support for Eastern and SouthEastern Regions neighboring the EU in capacity building of migration
services should be constantly provided.
Definition of a term ‘capacity building’
The term 'capacity building,' as outlined in ‘Glossary on Migration’ by International Organization for Migration
(International Organization for Migration, 2004), refers to
Building capacity of governments and civil society through strengthening their knowledge, skills and
attitudes. Capacity building can take the form of substantive direct project design and implementation with
a partner government, or in other circumstances can take the form of facilitating a bilateral or multilateral
agenda for dialogue development put in place by concerned authorities. In all cases, capacity building
aims to build towards generally acceptable benchmarks of management practices.
A slightly modified version of this definition can be found in a newer edition of ‘Glossary on Migration’
(International Organization for Migration, 2011a) where training is mentioned as one of tools of supporting
capacity building. In the field of migration the term 'capacity building' refers to a process of strengthening
knowledge and developing best practices of, amongst others, public officials who are working in a field of
migration. Bilateral and/or multilateral projects are a popular measure to put this into practice as they provide a
flexible tool for implementation.
Working on projects starts with identification of the needs of a requesting state. Then, an agenda with a list of
actions, monitoring benchmarks, and evaluation methodology is prepared. In case of smaller projects a final
evaluation is sufficient whereas in bigger ones (e.g. those initiatives that have a lot of actions envisaged in their
action plans and those that are implemented over a longer time) a midterm evaluation should be considered as
a useful tool. Obviously, actions foreseen in action plans must also be reflected in projects’ budgets. In case of
projects implemented by EU Member States a cofunding from the European Commission is frequently used.
Projects aiming at capacity building of migration services frequently have a threefold nature. If this is the case, a
project begins with actions that are addressed at government officials who prepare drafts of legislation on
migration related issues (hereinafter: ‘lawmakers’) in order to provide them with a sound knowledge of e.g. the
EU legal system, specific EU laws on migration, and with a review of the said legislation. Secondly, law
implementing institutions’ representatives participate in workshops and seminars that provide them with an
opportunity to exchange views and best practices in applying new rules and regulations. An exchange of the
worst practices may also have an added value for participants as such knowledge may help them avoid mistakes
that their colleagues have already made. Finally, projects aiming at strengthening capacity building should
provide beneficiaries with a direct technical support so that standards that are introduced by lawmakers may be
applied in practice.
Needs for capacity building in case of Moldova and Georgia
An examination of the needs of Republic of Moldova (hereinafter: ‘Moldova’) and Georgia for capacity building in
a field of migration can be made from both the EU perspective and from the countries perspectives.
From the EU perspective (bearing in mind that this article concentrates upon migration management and on
return and readmission issues) it is worth underlining that the EU institutions and EU Member States believe in
sharing responsibilities for migration management between the EU Member States and other countries that
cooperate with them (this is exemplified by requirements imposed on states that joined the EU in 2004; see
Geddes, 2003, pp. 181183). To ensure that this is a workable collaboration both parties have to be equipped
with a sound knowledge of procedures and best practices that have to be respected. This applies especially to
matters relating to the human rights of migrants.
It is not an aim of this article to scrutinize available frameworks for collaboration between the EU and Moldova or
between the EU and Georgia. Nevertheless, in order to ensure clarity some general remarks are necessary (for
more information about the evolution of frameworks for cooperation see PełczyńskaNałęcz, 2011, pp. 3035).
Although cooperation on migration between the EU and Moldova and Georgia was fostered when Partnership
and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) were concluded (the PCA with Moldova was signed in 1994 and entered into
force in 1998 whereas the PCA with Georgia was signed in 1996 and entered into force in 1999) one has to
remember that migration was not a core element of these agreements as they laid down the fundamentals for
furthering general cooperation. Thus, instruments available under European Neighborhood Policy mechanism
were welcomed as they provided new tools for specific fields of collaboration, including cooperation on migration
(see Eisle and Wiesbrock, 2011; for more information on the history of the EU external dimension of migration
see Bosh and Haddad, 2007, pp. 517).
Nevertheless, cooperation with Moldova and Georgia has also to be viewed in a broader context. At present it is
the Global Approach to Migration that is the main EU tool for cooperation with third party countries on migration
related issues. It provides a coherent policy that addresses three main aspects of migration: fighting illegal
migration, promotion of legal migration possibilities (including promotion of circular migration), and strengthening
positive effects of a nexus between migration and development. At first the Global Approach to Migration’s
geographical scope was limited to Africa and the Mediterranean (Presidency Conclusions, 2005) but in 2007 it
was extended to Eastern and SouthEastern regions neighboring the EU (including the Caucasus countries) as
was foreseen in a Communication from the Commission, “Applying the Global Approach to Migration to the
Eastern and SouthEastern Regions Neighbouring the European Union” (European Commission, 2007. In the
Communication a reference to strengthening asylum capacities is also made. For a history of development of the
Global Approach to Migration see Collet, 2007). It is since then that keeping a thematic and geographical
balance are seen as essential elements of this framework(1). In order to ensure practical implementation of
actions taken under this mechanism selected third party countries are invited to negotiate and conclude Mobility
Partnerships (for more information about Mobility Partnerships see Parkes, 2009; Weinar, 2011 p. 9; Carrera and
Hernández i Sagrera, 2009, pp. 1118; Duszczyk, 2010/2011, pp. 100101). Currently these flexible and tailored
offers on migration related issues (prepared after negotiations when the main needs of both parties to the
agreement are being specified) have been accepted in 2008 by Cape Verde and Moldova (see Kunz and
Lavenex and Ponizzon, 2011, pp. 190191), and in 2009 by Georgia.
Participation of EU Member States in this mechanism is voluntary and thus not all of the Member States are
parties to Mobility Partnerships (European Commission, 2007). The EU Parties to an agreement with Moldova
are: Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. The EU Parties to an agreement with Georgia are:
Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the UK. In both cases EU agencies are included as
well.
Some authors complain about the nonbinding nature of Mobility Partnerships (see Hernández i Sagrera, 2011;
compare with Koutrakos, 2011, p. 165). However, even after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in
December 2009 the EU does not have competences in all issues covered by Mobility Partnerships. Thus, to
ensure coherency with policies that are within the EU Member States’ competences or within so called ‘shared
competences’ these instruments must be of a nonbinding nature.
The Eastern Partnership is another important initiative on, among others, migrationrelated issues. It is directed
solely at Eastern and SouthEastern Partners of the EU (e.g. Moldova and Georgia). It was presented by the
foreign minister of Poland with assistance from Sweden at a the EU's General Affairs and External Relations
Council in Brussels on 26 May 2008 (Council of the European Union, 2008) and inaugurated in Prague on 7 May
2009 (Council of the European Union, 2009). The European Council of 19/20 June 2008 invited the Commission
to prepare a proposal for ‘Eastern Partnership’ (Presidency Conclusions, 2008a) and the Extraordinary European
Council of 1 September 2008 asked for fostering of this process (Presidency Conclusions, 2008b). As a result, a
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Eastern Partnership
(European Commission, 2008) was prepared (see Popielawska, 2009; Twelfth Report, 2008). Although migration
is not mentioned expressly as a flagship initiative of Eastern Partnership (point 4.3 of the European Commission,
2008) it is referred to in point 3.3 as a priority area. Under the aegis of the Eastern Partnership ‘Mobility and
Security’ partnerships which concentrate upon ‘fighting illegal migration, upgrading the asylum systems to EU
standards, setting up integrated border management structures aligned to the EU acquis’ should be prepared
under Mobility Partnership agreements. For the purpose of this article it is important to quote that ‘Visa facilitation
agreements would be accompanied by readmission agreements and, where necessary, by technical assistance
under overall assistance budgets to help partners meet the obligations stemming from these agreements’ as
specified in point 3.3 of the Communication on Eastern Partnership (European Commission, 2008).
While addressing Moldova's and Georgia's involvement in actions aiming at strengthening their migration
services’ capacities it is important to refer to a geographic location of those countries and to their political
ambitions (see First report, 201011, p. 364 and Parkes, 2009, pp. 342343). With regard to return and
readmission policies it has to be underlined that Moldova and Georgia are mainly countries of origin and
countries of transit.
The first case refers to the liability of those countries to readmit those of their citizens who stay without
authorization on EU Member States’ territory. As, generally speaking, citizens of Moldova and Georgia need to
have a visa or a residence permit in order to stay within EU Member States’ security of official documents that
are issued by administration of Moldova and Georgia has to be ensured and databases that provide a possibility
to verify if documents in question are authentic ones are wellmaintained. The liability to readmit citizens arises
also in case of illegal border crossing (including in cases when false or falsified visas, passports or residence
permits are used).
Secondly, some migrants may overstay their visa or residence permit. Such violation may also be made by
nationals of other countries who have used Moldova or Georgia as a transit country on their travel to the EU.
Thus, controlling illegal migration is a duty of border police as well as of diplomatic posts.
Thirdly, since Romania acceded to the EU in 2007, the RomanianMoldovan border became an external border
of the EU that exposes Moldova to bigger illegal migration pressure as a transit country. The same applies to
Georgia that has an external border with the EU via Black Sea.
When referring to policies that have already been implemented in Moldova and Georgia it has to be said that
those countries are interested in strengthening capacities of their migration services to continue facilitation of co
operation with the EU(2). They would like to foster dialogue about visas as development of a visa facilitated
regime is among their political aims (for the current situation see Risteska, 2011). However, for the EU a sine qua
non requirement in this respect is proper migration management (for more information on the EU measures
concerning EU return policy and frameworks of supporting voluntary returns and assisted voluntary returns see
Sadowski, 2011a and Sadowski, 2010; for a general outlook on readmission agreements see Council of Europe
Parliamentary Assembly, 2010). This explains why projects addressing directly or indirectly returns and
readmission issues are implemented in the said countries.
To bring new legislation into action training for lawapplying institutions’ representatives (hereinafter:
‘caseworkers’) has to be provided to ensure that a theoretical knowledge on international standards can be
properly applied in practice (as outlined in points C 76 and C 102 of Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly,
2010). This is of the utmost importance as not all of the circumstances that appear in practice can be described
specifically enough in rules and regulations. Firstly, in their work caseworkers are faced with a variety of cases
concerning different aspects of migration. Secondly, cases are frequently of an interdepartmental nature (e.g.
when issuing a residence permit for a third country citizen who is a parent of a child of a citizen of a country that
issues the said permit collaboration with civil registrars is essential), and, finally, one can always find gaps in an
existing legislation. To proceed with such cases caseworkers have to have an insight into knowledge about best
practices in their field. An exchange of experiences that have been gained by caseworkers can be beneficial not
only for other caseworkers but also for lawmakers.
When looking at gaps in the law what cannot pass unnoticed is the process of negotiating EU measures in a field
of migration and asylum. Due to the complicated nature of EU legislation these laws are more likely to lack clarity
than national ones (for more information on an impact of a decision making process and on an importance of a
position of judicial reviews on clarity of EU law and on interpretation of EU law see Sadowski, 2011b). For
countries that are not EU Member States (which is the case for Moldova and Georgia) it is an even bigger
challenge as their representatives do not participate in negotiation of the EU regulations which they are expected
to meet (e.g. EU standards on data protection that have to be respected while examining cases of return of
unauthorized migrants) and this is why they are not familiar with the history of discussions, a useful guide for law
makers and caseworkers.
Finally, technical assistance should also be provided for project beneficiaries. It can include strengthening the
infrastructure of migration services or developing IT systems, among others. Examples of the former support
include improving conditions in reception and detention centers by, for example, modernizing buildings and
providing adequate equipment. The latter refers to strengthening IT infrastructure as incorporation of new
technologies is nowadays seen as a prerequisite for an efficient migration management. Thus, welldesigned and
wellmanaged IT systems and databases, including civil registers and registers of documents that have been
issued for foreigners (e.g. visas and residence permits) are of the essence. Such systems support
implementation of a migration policy as sound migration strategies cannot be prepared without reliable statistical
data that can be derived from these systems.
The threefold nature of capacity building projects can be found in the implementation of readmission
agreements that were signed by the EU with governments of Moldova and Georgia(3). There is a need for
organizing the practical training of those of government officials who apply these rules so that they can support
lawmakers in drafting regulations. Moreover, lawmakers should be provided with examples of how like
agreements have already been implemented for example by EU Member States and/or by other countries that
had signed like agreements. Thus, the value of the support provided by EU Member States’ experts, academics
and nongovernmental organizations in a proper application of new rules is essential. Networks of experts are an
excellent tool to ensure this goal is met as they facilitate an exchange of views and experiences as well as best
practices in a field.
As Moldova and Georgia are mainly countries of origin and countries of transit implementation of modern IT
systems should lead to strengthening registers like civil registers as well as registers in which information about
residence permits and visas issued to other country’s’ nationals who stay or pass through their territory are
stored. This is of the utmost importance in the case of a readmission agreement when the identity of a person
that is to be readmitted has to be confirmed. It is only then, when the person that is subject to readmission
procedure may be readmitted, if other requirements are met (Coleman, 2009, pp. 3334).
It should be underlined that readmission agreements foster the process of readmission procedures but they do
not impose any new obligations on Parties to those agreements. This is due to the fact that a responsibility to
readmit citizens is the outcome of a generally recognized international obligation that is imposed on every state
and thus, it exists even without readmission agreements. This has been setout in Article 12.4 of the UN
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in Article 3 Paragraph 2 of the Protocol No. 4 to the
European Convention on Human Rights, amongst others. However, in order to facilitate the process of confirming
potential returnees’ identity the said liability has been set out in Article 2 of readmission agreements between the
EC and Moldova and between the EC and Georgia. Moreover, in Article 3 of those agreements a reference to the
process of readmission of third country nationals who either hold or at the time of entry held a valid visa or
residence permit issued by the countries concerned or who illegally and directly entered the territory of EU
Member States from countries concerned after having stayed on, or travelled through, the territory of the latter is
made (for more on responsibility of a state to readmit third country citizens in Coleman, 2009, pp. 4145). This
regulation confirms that Parties to readmission agreements believe that migration may be managed by well
prepared migration services (a concept of methodological nationalism). On a basis of reciprocity similar
responsibilities to the abovementioned ones arise for EU Member States.
When analyzing Moldovan and Georgian positions concerning return and readmission it is important to note that
EU migration policy is said to concentrate strongly on return and readmission issues and that ‘it is doubtful
whether the negotiated policy plans are equally beneficial for the neighboring countries and the individual
migrants’ (Eisle and Wiesbrock, 2011; compare with Coleman, 2009, pp. 3840). Critics say that access to the
labour market of some of the EU Member States and visa facilitation are not a sufficient payoffs for the
conclusion and implementation of readmission agreements (Eisle and Wiesbrock, 2011 and ugui, 2011;
compare with Parkes, 2009, pp. 334335).(4)
Although it is not an aim of this article to scrutinize readmission agreements, a common misunderstanding of
their nature has to be addressed (for more details see Point C. II of the Council of Europe Parliamentary
Assembly, 2010). Firstly, the liability to readmit persons who are not nationals of the contracting Parties can be
seen in international law. This is due to the fact that a state has a right to specify who may be present on its
territory, although this rule is not an absolute one as it does not apply to persons who need international
protection. What follows is that a state has a responsibility for its territory and for all the persons who stay within
this territory (Coleman, 2009, p. 301). The mere fact that, in the absence of readmission agreement, it is harder
to impose a duty on a transit country to readmit such persons does not mean that such a liability does not exist.
The only difference between readmitting a citizen of a contracting Party and readmitting a person who does not
have a citizenship of a contracting Party is a duty to ensure that in case of the later transfer there will be no
‘chain removal’. This explains why strengthening capacities of migration services of contracting Parties,
especially in determining the need to provide international protection, is so important.
Secondly, readmission agreements concentrate on the final stage of a process of fighting illegal migration. They
are used only when an unauthorized migrant has been presented to migration service. Thus, readmission
agreements do not create any new legal measures in the field of detecting the illegal overstay of foreigners. The
scope of application of those agreements is limited to enforcement of a return decision. They are used for a sole
purpose of facilitation of readmission procedures and they should be interpreted as a guide that specifies
procedures and deadlines that have to be met in order to readmit the unauthorized migrants (see point A. 2. of
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, 2010).
It should also be noted that the Council of Europe has not voted against readmission agreements per se.
Nevertheless, the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly shares its concerns on the ‘chainrefoulement’
issues that may lead to sending a citizen of a noncontracting Party to a country where there is no possibility to
efficiently submit an asylum application. However, this should not be the case in the readmission agreements
concluded by the EU and Moldova and Georgia. Capacity building in the field of asylum has been strengthened
in those countries in this aspect by, for example, developing country of origin information units. Moreover, all
readmission agreements that were concluded by the European Community are monitored in order to identify
possible breaches of human rights (for proposals of extending monitoring see point 4.1 of European
Commission, 2011a and point C 75 of Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, 2010).
Finally, in the case of EU Member States, voluntary returns should be preferred instead of readmission as set out
in a Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common
standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying thirdcountry nationals (Official Journal
of the European Union, L 348/98 of 24.12.2008; for more information on the EU policy on returns and
readmission see Sadowski, 2011a).
To conclude, in Moldova and in Georgia approximation of national laws to the EU standards should be achieved
(bearing in mind those countries’ policies), adequate technical equipment should be made available and, of the
utmost importance, caseworkers have to be equipped with an indepth knowledge on human rights standards to
make readmission procedures workable ones. It is only then, when visa dialogue can be continued to be
strengthened. However, it has to be underlined that both countries should be provided with a support in this field
as undertaking such efforts goes beyond technical and financial resources of individual countries.
Examples of actions taken
To show the need to address the threefold nature of the process of strengthening capacity building of migration
services in Moldova and Georgia a brief example of projects that are currently implemented and those that have
already been implemented will be given. As this topic is underresearched it is difficult to provide a
comprehensive analysis of an impact of Mobility Partnerships on Moldova or Georgia.(5) Thus, although there
are many initiatives in which representatives of those countries participate in (a detailed list of actions that
Partners of the Mobility Partnerships have intended to implement can be found in ‘Joint Declaration on a Mobility
Partnership between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova’ and in ‘Joint Declaration on a Mobility
Partnership between the European Union and Georgia – Addendum to "I/A" Item Note’) only those ones that are
concerned solely with Moldova or Georgia, which have a publicly available description, and which concentrate
upon return and readmission issues will be analysed.
To provide an overview of multilateral measures it is sufficient to say that they include projects which are
implemented simultaneously in Moldova and Georgia and those ones that are implemented in other countries as
well. The former refers to, among others, initiatives that are currently applied by International Center for Migration
Policy Development. Examples of such measures include a project ‘Building training and analytical capacities on
migration in Moldova and Georgia’ (International Centre for Migration Policy Development, 2011b). It aims at
streamlining cooperation between academic institutions and governmental bodies in Moldova and Georgia. On
the other hand there are initiatives like ‘Budapest Process’ (International Centre for Migration Policy
Development, 2011a; for implications of its informal character on EU integration see Geiger, 2008, pp. 5859)
that is a consultative forum that promotes sound migration management systems (participating EU Member
States are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the UK) and ‘Building Migration Partnerships’ (International
Centre for Migration Policy Development, 2011a; among its aims a key one is assisting implementation of
migration partnerships in beneficiary countries, leading EU Member States are: the Czech Republic, Hungary,
Poland, Romania, and Slovak Republic) that are perfect examples of actions that provide support not only for
Moldova and Georgia but also for other beneficiaries.
In case of undertakings addressed solely at Moldova extended migration profile aiming at strengthening
capacities of migration services in preparing migration policies should be mentioned. It differs from other
Migration Profiles as this profile is prepared by Moldovan authorities with a support from international
organizations. This project concentrates upon development of sustainable migration knowledge that can be used
while creating new regulations concerning migration (see Conference Recommendations from International
Conference held on 2425th January 2011 in Chisinau and Morari, 2011).
The project ‘Strengthening Capacities and Cooperation in the Identification of Forged and Falsified Travel
Documents at the MoldovaRomania Border’ is an example of a caseworker’s oriented initiative. The initiative is
addressed at fighting illegal migration by providing experts with a possibility of exchanging best practices about
detecting forged and falsified documents as well as enhancing interagency cooperation (including with
international ones) in this field (Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration Republic of Moldova, 2011a,
p. 5). The project effects are multiplied thanks to the use of a trainthetrainers module (International Centre for
Migration Policy Development, 2011a and Ambasada Republicii Cehe v Kišinĕvĕ, 2011).
Projects which have involved providing direct technical support were also implemented in Moldova. They
concentrated upon development of facilities for migrants (see development of Migrants Accommodation Center in
Moldova as described by International Organization for Migration, 2011b) as well as on providing direct support
for Moldovan Border Guard Service. An example of the latter is the ‘Enhancing Border Control Management
Programme’ project. Thanks to this initiative 80 vehicles were bought as well as ‘70 sets of modern equipment
(…) used to undertake passenger control at the border five times faster’ (UNDP, 2005).
In case of Georgia a project ‘Support Reintegration of Georgian Returning Migrants and the Implementation of
the EUGeorgia Readmission Agreement’ is worth mentioning. It addresses, among others, a need to strengthen
Georgian administration capacities in legal and policy development. Thus, it concentrates upon sharing
knowledge and best practices of implementation of reintegration policies that support sustainability of returnees
as well as on providing migrants with a reliable information on possibilities of legal migration to the EU and risks
connected with illegal migration (Informed Migration, 2011 as well as Kunz and Lavenex and Ponizzon, 2011, p.
196).
The project ‘Strengthening reception and detention capacities of migration services of Georgia’ is an example of
a bilateral PolishGeorgian initiative addressing a need to exchange knowledge and best practices related to
border management and management of mixed migration flows. During a study visit in Poland practical
experiences concerning ‘migrant reception on Polish borders and the means to identify migrants aimed at
determining their migration status (e.g. establishing if foreigners need international protection)’ (Nowakowska and
Kończak, 2010, p. 42) were shared, among others.
Finally, the project 'Support to the Authorities of Georgia for the Implementation of the Readmission Agreement
with the European Union' can be seen as an example of an initiative of the International Organization for
Migration and Belgium, the Czech Republic, The Netherlands, and Poland that addresses the need to strengthen
Georgian IT systems. Thanks to this project software will be developed and hardware will be bought to provide a
possibility to extend an offer of services that Georgian diplomatic posts may provide (International Organization
for Migration, 2011c). As training of public is also foreseen among project’s actions it may be said that this project
refers both to a development of practical knowledge of experts and to providing technical assistance.
Conclusion
When determining if Mobility Partnership is an adequate tool for practical cooperation with Moldova and Georgia
one has to answer two key questions:
1. Why did those countries sign Mobility Partnership agreements?
2. Have those countries benefited from Mobility Partnerships agreements?
With reference to the first question, Moldova and Georgia concluded Mobility Partnership agreements because
they wanted to foster cooperation with the EU in the field of migration management (see point 3.3.4 of European
Commission, 2008). To achieve this goal a proper implementation of readmission agreements has to be ensured
first. The political will to support this process exists in both countries. As Mobility Partnerships concentrate solely
on cooperation about migration they meet this requirement to a far greater extent than general cooperation
agreements (for example Partnership and Cooperation Agreements, PCA) in which migration is only one of the
topics.
Moreover, Mobility Partnerships provide a comprehensive policy tool as they address all aspects of migration.
Some authors complain that there is no balance between those components and not enough attention is being
paid to circular migration (Hernández i Sagrera, 2009). However, Mobility Partnerships do not preclude the use of
other frameworks for cooperation. Thus, enhanced collaboration is possible for example with the use of bilateral
agreements between EU Member States and Moldova and Georgia.
Referring to the question of has Moldova and Georgia benefited from Mobility Partnerships it has to be
underlined that producing an analysis of an impact of these agreements is not an easy task as a common list of
projects that have already been implemented is not available (Eisle and Wiesbrock, 2011). Only the Moldovan
(Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of the Republic of Moldova, 2011b) authorities are
publishing their partial versions of the said lists with brief
description of projects that have already been implemented. Nevertheless, from this research it follows that the
mere fact that these rapports are available as well as the number of initiatives that have been enlisted suggest
that projects addressing all aspects of migration have been put into practice in both countries. It also proves that
coordination of cooperation with the EU is perceived in Moldova and Georgia as a crucial element for ensuring
efficiency of actions taken under the aegis of Mobility Partnerships. This is one of the biggest advantages of this
framework as in order to adhere to the pace of implementation of actions and the scope of actions for
beneficiaries’ the active participation of Moldovan and Georgian authorities in negotiating the most relevant
actions which are to be implemented and in securing adequate human resources for this purpose is essential.
The variety of initiatives that have already been implemented proves that the abovementioned flexibility, which
has its foundations in a nonbinding nature of Mobility Partnerships, proved to be successful. Moreover, this
attitude makes it possible for experts to continue cooperation irrespective of political changes.
If asking whether more actions could be taken under the aegis of Mobility Partnerships it has to be remembered
that the civil administration in Moldova and in Georgia is not as numerous as the joint one in all of the EU
Member States, parties to these agreements. Bearing this in mind it can be said that the number of projects (for
example in 2011 in Moldova 23 initiatives have been implemented, 47 projects have been under implementation
and 10 new initiatives have been considered to be launched) is adequate.
EU institutions and EU Member States decided to continue to provide support for migration services in these
countries. This was addressed in The Stockholm Programme that lays down fundamentals for current and future
undertakings of the EU. It goes without saying that this is of an utmost importance as an entry into force of
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a
Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) and Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons
across borders (Schengen Borders Code) also brought new challenges. In times when little experience is
available best practices that already have been gained are of the greatest value. This is true for development of
legislation that is inline with the said measures and in the case of practical implementation of these rules.
Finally, it is important to remember that Moldova promotes Mobility Partnership as an effective tool for co
operation between the EU and nonEU countries (see Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration
Republic of Moldova, 2011a and Hernández i Sagrera, 2011, p. 3). It would be unreasonable to think that if the
said Partnership was perceived by Moldova as a failure it would recommend Georgia conclude a like agreement.
Bibliography
Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Moldova on the readmission of persons
residing without authorisation, Official Journal of the European Union, L 334/149 of 19.12.2007.
Agreement between the European Community and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without
authorisation, Official Journal of the European Union, L 52/47 of 25.02.2011
Ambasada Republicii Cehe v Kišinĕvĕ (2011) ‘Spolupráce v oblasti identifikace padělaných cestovních
dokumentů na moldavskorumunské hranici’. Available at
http://www.mzv.cz/chisinau/cz/cesko_moldavske_vztahy/rozvojova_pomoc/mnohostranne_projekty/index.html.
Bosh, P. and Haddad, E. (2007) ‘Migration and asylum: an integral part of the EU's external policies.’, 3(11)
Forum natolińskie.
Carrera, S. and Hernández i Sagrera, R. (2009) ‘The Externalisation of the EU’s Labour Immigration Policy
Towards Mobility or Insecurity Partnerships?’, 321/October CEPS Working Document.
Coleman, N. (2009) ‘European readmission policy: third country interests and refugee rights.’ (Boston: Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers).
Collet, E. (2007) ‘The «Global Approach to Migration»: rhetoric or reality?’, November European Policy Center
Policy Brief.
Conference Recommendations from International Conference held on 2425th January 2011 in Chisinau,
Moldova – ‘The Eastern Partners’ contribution to the Stockholm Programme: Synergies to improve mobility and
strengthen security’. Available at
http://www.paneuropa.ro/doc/EasternPartnerscontributiontoStockholm%20Programme_%20recommendations.pdf.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (2010) ‘Readmission agreements: a mechanism for returning
irregular migrants.’, Doc. 12168 of 17 March 2010.
Council of the European Union (2008) ‘EU's General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels on 26
May 2008’, 9868/08 (Presse 141). Available at
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/gena/100674.pdf.
Council of the European Union (2009) ‘Joint Declaration of the Prague Eastern Partnership Summit, Prague, 7
May 2009’, 8435/09 (Presse 78). Available at
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/er/107589.pdf.
Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common
standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying thirdcountry nationals (Official Journal
of the European Union, L 348/98 of 24.12.2008).
Duszczyk, M. (2010/2011) ‘Polityka imigracyjna Unii Europejskiej oraz swobodny przepływ pracowników
ewaluacja i teraźniejszość’ (Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza ASPRAJR).
Eisle, K. and Wiesbrock, A. (2011) ‘Enhancing Mobility in the European Neighborhood Policy? The Cases of
Moldova and Georgia.’, 36 Review of Central and East European Law.
European Commission (2007) ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Applying the Global
Approach to Migration to the Eastern and SouthEastern Regions Neighbouring the European Union’,
COM(2007) 247 final.
European Commission (2008) ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the
Council on Eastern Partnership’, COM (2008) 823 final.
European Commission (2011a) ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the
Council on Evaluation of EU Readmission Agreements’, COM(2011) 76 final.
European Commission (2011b) ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,
the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on migration’, COM (2011) 248 final.
European Commission (2011c). Available at http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/documents_en.htm.
First report (201011), First report of European Scrutiny Committee and Cash, W.: documents considered by the
Committee on 8 September 2010, including the following recommendations for debate, the Cotonou Agreement;
a twelvepoint EU action plan in support of the MDGS; European security and defence policy: EULEX Kosovo;
draft Budget 2011; terrorist finance tracking program; financial assistance for member states; economic policy co
ordination; Europe 2020 strategy: integrated guidelines; European citizens' initiative, report, together with formal
minutes, Session 201011, HC 428i.
Geddes, A. (2003) ‘The politics of migration and immigration in Europe’ (London: Sage Publications, reprinted in
2005).
Geiger, M (2008) 'Managing Migration for an Enlarging Europe – InterGovernmental Organizations and the
Governance of Migration Flows', in Silaşi, G. and Simina, O. (edit.) 'Migration, Mobility and Human Rights at the
Eastern Border of the European Union – Space of Freedom and Security' (Timişoara : Editura Universită ii de
Vest).
Hernández i Sagrera, R. (2009) ‘Assessing the Mobility Partnerships between the EU and Moldova and Georgia’,
EaPCommunity. Available at http://www.easternpartnership.org/publication/mobilityandmigration/201108
23/assessingmobilitypartnershipsbetweeneuandmoldova.
Hernández i Sagrera, R. (2011) ‘Moldova: Pioneering Justice and Home Affairs Cooperation with the EU in the
Eastern Partnership?’, Moldova’s Foreign Policy Statewatch, Institute for Development and Social Initiatives
‘Viitorul’.
Informed Migration (2011). Available at http://www.informedmigration.ge/en/index.php?tig».
International Centre for Migration Policy Development (2011a). Available at www.icmpd.org.
International Centre for Migration Policy Development (2011b) ‘Building training and analytical capacities on
migration in Moldova and Georgia’ (GovAc). Available at http://research.icmpd.org/fileadmin/Research
Website/GOVAC/Project_info.pdf.
International Organization for Migration (2004) ‘International Migration Law; Glossary on Migration’ (Geneva:
International Organization for Migration).
International Organization for Migration (2011a) ‘International Migration Law N°25 Glossary on Migration’, 2nd
ed. (Geneva: International Organization for Migration).
International Organization for Migration (2011b) ‘Better Conditions for Irregular Migrants in Moldova.’, IOM Press
Note. Available at http://www.iom.md/index.php/en/mediakit/174betterconditionsforirregularmigrantsin
moldova.
International Organization for Migration (2011c) ‘IOM and Georgian government host first coordination meeting of
readmission project.’. Available at www.iom.ge.
‘Joint Declaration on a Mobility Partnership between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova’. Available
at http://www.iom.md/index.php/en/programs/migrationadevelopment/mobilitypartnership.
‘Joint Declaration on a Mobility Partnership between the European Union and Georgia – Addendum to "I/A" Item
Note.’, Doc. st16396/09. Available at http://register.consilium.europa.eu.
Koutrakos, P. (ed.)(2011) ‘European Foreign Policy: Legal and Political Perspectives’ (Chektenham, UK;
Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited).
Kunz, R. and Lavenex, S. and Ponizzon, M. (ed.)(2011) ‘Multilayere Migration Governance’ (New York: Taylor &
Francis).
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration Republic of Moldova (2011a) ‘Mobility Partnership
Information Newsletter, Edition No 2 May 2010’. Available at www.mfa.gov.md/img/docs/bi_mp_nr2_en.pdf.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration o the Republic of Moldova (2011b). Available at
www.mfa.gov.md/img/docs/scoreboard.xls.
Morari, D. (2011) ‘Data and Research for more evidencebased policy making. Extended Migration Profile:
Moldova’, presentation made in New York, 30 June 2011. Available from http://www.gfmd.org/en/migration
profiles.html.
Nowakowska, M. and Kończak, L. (eds)(2010) ‘GeorgianPolish Development CoOperation 20082010’ (Tbilisi:
Embassy Of The Republic Of Poland In Georgia).
Office of the State Minister of Georgia on European and EuroAtlantic Integration (2011) ‘Georgia’s Progress
Report on Implementation of the ENP Action Plan.’. Available at
http://eugbc.net/files/4_227_558948_Georgia%E2%80%99sProgressReportonImplementationoftheENPAP
H12011.pdf.
Parkes, R. (2009) ‘EU Mobility Partnerships: A Model of Policy Coordination?’, 11 European Journal of Migration
and Law.
PełczyńskaNałęcz, K. (2011) ‘Integracja czy Imitacje? UE wobec wschodnich sąsiadów.’, 36 OSW Studies,
Warsaw.
Popielawska, J. (2009) ‘W jakim towarzystwie? Partnerstwo Wschodnie na tle innych inicjatyw UE na
wschodzie.’, 5(37) Analizy natolińskie.
Presidency Conclusions (2005), Presidency Conclusions on the Global Approach to Migration: Priority actions
focusing on Africa and the Mediterranean, European Council, Brussels, 1516 December 2005.
Presidency Conclusions (2008a), Brussels European Council 19–20 June 2008. Available at
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/101346.pdf.
Presidency Conclusions (2008b), Brussels Extraordinary European Council 1 September 2008. Available at
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/102545.pdf.
Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a
Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)
(Official Journal of the European Union, L 105/1 of 13.4.2006).
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a
Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (Official Journal of the European Union, L 243/1 of 15.9.2009).
Risteska, M. (2011) ‘Eastern neighbors join the race for visafree travel to the EU, a research performed under a
project «Paving the Road towards Visafree Travel between the Eastern Partnership countries and the EU»
implemented by Policy Association for an Open Society (PASOS), 2 March 2011’, summary and country rapports
including ones on Moldova and Georgia available at www.novisa.eu.
Rozporządzenie Ministra Pracy i Polityki Społecznej z dnia 30 sierpnia 2006 r. w sprawie wykonywania pracy
przez cudzoziemców bez konieczności uzyskania zezwolenia na pracę (Polish Journal of Laws of 2006 No 156,
item 1116 with later amendments).
Sadowski, P. (2010) ‘Akcje regularyzacyjne w Wielkiej Brytanii i w Polsce’, 1(15) Materiały Robocze, Centrum
EuropejskieNatolin.
Sadowski, P. (2011a) ‘Dobrowolne powroty i regularyzacje jako mechanizmy komplementarne wobec wydaleń
nieautoryzowanych cudzoziemców.’, 1/2011 Przegląd Prawa Europejskiego i Międzynarodowego (to be
published in 2011).
Sadowski, P. (2011b) ’Wpływ poszerzenia kompetencji Trybunał Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej na rozwój
europejskiej polityki migracyjnej.’, paper presented at a conference ‘Role of Tribunals and Doctrine in
International Law’, Warsaw, 11th12th April [to be published by the end of 2011].
Twelfth Report (2008) ‘The EU Eastern Partnership, House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, FCO
(30248) (30249)’, Session 200809. Available at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmeuleg/19xi/19xi07.htm.
ugui, E. (2011) ‘Republic of Moldova and the future of Eastern Partnership: Warsaw Summit perspectives’,
Moldova’s Foreign Policy Statewatch, Institute for Development and Social Initiatives ‘Viitorul’.
UNDP (2005). Press Release of 19th May 2005 – ’Moldovan Border Guards Will Increase Their Mobility On The
Border.’. Available at http://www.undp.md/border/ENG/main.html.
Weinar, A. (2011) ‘Improving EU and US Immigration Systems' Capacity for Responding to Global Challenges:
Learning from experiences, EUUS Immigration Systems 2011/02’, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced
Studies, San Domenico di Fiesole (FI): European University Institute.
Wróbel, J. (2004) ‘The European Union and Moldova.’, 3 OSW Studies.
(1) The Global Approach to Migration is currently being reviewed (as at November 2011). A Communication by
the Commission is expected to be issued in 2011 (point 5 of European Commission, 2011b).
(2) A history of cooperation between the European Union and Moldova can be found in Wróbel, 2004, pp. 6072.
For more details see European Neighbourhood Policy action plans (European Commission, 2011c): EUMoldova
Action Plan and EUGeorgia Action Plan. In an introductory part of these documents it is underlined that a
European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plan is ‘a political document laying out the strategic objectives of the
cooperation between (…) [the country concerned] and the EU’.
(3) Moldova concluded agreements before Georgia. This was also due to the fact that Moldova started
negotiations on joining EU Mobility Partnership before Georgia. Readmission agreements of 2007 (in case of
Moldova) and of 2011 (in case of Georgia) are respective: Agreement between the European Community and the
Republic of Moldova on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation, Official Journal of the
European Union, L 334/149 of 19.12.2007 and Agreement between the European Community and Georgia on
the readmission of persons residing without authorisation, Official Journal of the European Union, L 52/47 of
25.02.2011.
(4) By way of example, Poland introduced access to its labour market for citizens of neighboring countries and
countries that have concluded Mobility Partnerships. Thus, Polish rules on circular migration apply to citizens of
Moldova and Georgia (compare with Hernández i Sagrera, 2011 where the Polish scheme is not mentioned) as
specified in Rozporządzenie Ministra Pracy i Polityki Społecznej z dnia 30 sierpnia 2006 r. w sprawie
wykonywania pracy przez cudzoziemców bez konieczności uzyskania zezwolenia na pracę (Polish Journal of
Laws of 2006 No 156, item 1116 with later amendments).
(5) International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) stated in an email of 17th October 2010 that
‘there was so far no request from Academic side for any information about (…) projects [:] Supporting the
Implementation of the EC visa facilitation and readmission agreements in Moldova and Georgia (…) and Building
training and analytical capacities on migration in Moldova and Georgia (GovAc) (…) [but] given the fact that
GovAc itself has a strong Academic component (…) [it] was presented mostly to the Academics at AWR Annual
Conference in Netherlands (2123rd of September)’.
BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/other/journals/WebJCLI/2012/issue1/sadowski1.html