EU-Turkey deal

The thesis aims at defining the European public policies on migration with a specific focus on the so-called process of 'externalization of frontiers'. As a result, the work presents the outcomes - on political, geo-political and social terms – of the European public policy approach carried on upon regional and national levels, and will introduce the origins of the European failure to effectively face the phenomenon on a long-term based plan. A case study of the March 2016 EU-Turkey Deal will be approached in this view.
Specifically, after a presentation of the theories and concepts for the comprehension of the thesis and after a diachronic analysis of the development of these public policies in Europe it was added the description of the inward migratory fluxes in Europe since 2014 onwards, period that the common narration defines as the start of the 'migration crisis'. To a detailed analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data on migration and asylum in Europe from that year onwards, was confronted the public narration made about it by media and politicians, which considerably affected the capacity of objective comprehension of data from the civil society and which in part oriented the following electoral choices.
To that it was added the fragmented reactions of the EU, un-efficient adaptations of asylum and integration capacities of the member states and an unfinished Common European Policy on Asylum - which has been ostracized by blocks of member states (as the Visegrad groups) in opposition to the more progressive side. By this situation a strong socio-political pressure increased, so that in Europe a process of political extremization took place which manifested itself with the advancements of the anti-Islamic and anti-migrants’ parties both at national election polls than in the European Parliamentarian elections. At the same time, the Union implemented new public policies which were more focused on a security-based approach and on cooperation with third countries.
Therefore, the third chapter of the thesis started with a study on the development of the public policies on migration of the main transit country for migrants from Middle East towards Europe - Turkey -  and discussed the process of 'europeanization' of the latter. To better understand how these public policies evolved and within which context, an explanatory description of the socio-political development of the Turkish Republic was made essential even to describe the cultural and political framework within which these policies evolved. Finally, an analysis of the changes of the last decade in the Republic allow us to find insight answers to the recent relations between EU and Turkey for what concerns the management of migratory fluxes.
Finally, the last chapter analyzed the humanitarian crisis emerged during the Syrian conflict, the asylum management of Syrian refugees in Turkey and the causes for the creation of the EU-Turkey Pact on Migration in March 2016, implemented by the EU as an extrema ratio measure to reduce the socio-political pressures taking place within its territory. In so doing, Europe chose to 'externalize' its external frontiers, de facto becoming dependent from Turkish respect of the Pact. Therefore, the thesis highlighted the major point of the Pact and its consequences in Europe - especially in Greece - and on refugees, and its failure.
The thesis concludes with an analysis of the possible future direction of the European public policies on migration, to which the new European Plan on Asylum and Migration presented by the European Commission in September 2020 represents and important point of interest.

This thesis wishes to answer the question ‘which are the goals of criminal record, related to migration restrictions in the U.S. and Greece since the ‘90s, and how can they be understood in the light of securitization migration?’. To achieve this, three main sub-questions are to be answered: 1. Which migration restrictions are in place in the U.S. and Greece, covering which migrants? 2. What are the goals of migration restrictions in the ‘90s in both countries? 3. How have migration restrictions and their goals in the U.S. and Greece evolved since then? To answer the above, a policy analysis is carried out by closely investigating in a chronological order the appropriate documents, reports, legislations and practices in these countries. In sum, what is being understood from this analysis is that both countries are poles of attraction for migrants; the U.S. due to its future prospects and Greece because of its geographical position. Nevertheless, aliens holding a criminal record are inadmissible to enter these countries. The goals of migration restrictions in both countries in the ‘90s were to securitize the countries from non-nationals with criminal records and to reduce unhampered migration fluxes. However, it can be argued, that both countries failed to securitize the nation without breaching individual fundamental rights and responsibilities. After the ‘90s and especially after the 9/11 events, a shift from anti-criminal to counterterrorism logic is observed in policies. The role of criminal records became greater than in the past, while the war in Syria and the refugee crisis of 2015, seemed to trigger the securitization of migration by using crime and risk of terrorism as a pretext for the implementation of the precautionary policies of unreasonable stop and search tactics, profiling, unlawful detention, and deportation. Understandably, discrimination can become an indirect effect of these policies since they are being used to scapegoat those posing a risk of terrorism and crime through racial profiling and prejudice by framing foreigners of certain ethnicities. Finally, this policy analysis exposes the dilemma between security vs. liberty. Simply put, how to balance the protection of public security and safety and the protection of migrants’ rights. Understandably, this can lead in some future recommendations for research and for policy, in order to shed light on the rationale behind the migration-security nexus, and hence to the avoidance of human rights violations of the migrants. For instance, a closer examination at the historical and institutional arrangements from accountable people who aim to find the roots of the dysfunctional policies can be advantageous for future research, since an integrated further review may deter governments from repeating the mistakes of the past. Additionally, interviews with policymakers, can contribute to the diagnosis of the reasoning behind securitization which can lead accordingly to the establishment of righteous migration policies away from securitization’s negative effects, such as violations of migrants’ human rights.

The safe third country concept emerged at the end of 1980s as an antidote for the protection challenges associated with the travel routes of refugees. However, practices involving safe third country transfers have ended up rendering refugees' access to asylum even more difficult. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate, based on the example of Turkey, the challenges in refugee protection that the safe third country transfers create. The article begins with an overview of Turkey's situation with respect to trans-border migratory dynamics and Turkey's areas of engagement with international law on migration and asylum. Then, the evolution of the safe third country concept is analyzed with special reference to contributions made by Turkey. Finally, the current state of affairs and future prospects are discussed in view of Turkey's position as a safe third country with respect to EU countries, particularly with the execution of the EU-Turkey Statement of March 2016 and the EU-Turkey Readmission Agreement. In conclusion, with the execution of these two instruments, Turkey seems to have compromised its position regarding the conditions of the safe third country concept. Considering the current state of affairs, wherein the EU seems determined to make full use of the safe third country concept with respect to Turkey, Turkey's interpretation and attitude will continue to be crucial for the evolution of the safe third country concept, on account of the scale of transit asylum and migration flows through Turkey.

The EU-Turkey Deal is a central reaction to the 2015 flight-migration into Europe. In the context of the Deal, the boundary between voluntariness and force is blurred, forming the condition of possibility of expulsion. The overlapping of two different forms of migration management approaches, the EU-Turkey Deal and the Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration Programme create a grey zone of indistinction. Within this grey zone, access to rights is systematically made impossible. "Voluntary return" enables the bypassing of legal guarantees certified by the Geneva Refugee Convention drawing on the paradigm of alleged individualized freedom of choice. The central effect of this grey zone is the lack of accountability of any agency participating in the deportations labelled as voluntary.

The relations between Turkey-EU have never been easy due to the challenges on both sides of the negotiations table that have complicated the accession process. Since the opening of accession negotiations in 2005, the EU has lost much of its leverage with Turkey as the EU itself has been forced to deal with numerous challenges including: constitutional referendums, Eurozone crises and the integration of newly joined members while defining its global role. With the lack of EU’s enthusiasm and also dramatic changes in the political atmosphere in Turkey the democratization process has largely halted and the Turkey-EU relations have entered into a stalemate. Despite several reenergizing efforts such as creating a “positive agenda” and establishing Turkey-EU reinforcement teams comprised of experts, academics, journalists and bureaucrats, these efforts have been unable to revitalize the accession negotiations. However, the recent refugee protection crisis has caused Turkey-EU relations to acquire a more complicated yet strategic dimension. This tragic challenge may provide an important opportunity to reinvigorate the accession negotiations.

“The Mediterranean has become the world’s most deadly crossing point for migrants. In 2015, there were 856,732 recorded arrivals in Greece as well as an estimated total of more than 6,600 missing persons or deaths in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean routes in 2015 and first half of 2016.1 The aim of this briefing paper is to assess how Greece responded to this influx, and identify lessons for addressing situations of large scale refugee movement at a European and global level. Based on research and fieldwork in Greece, mainly in Athens and Lesbos, this paper focuses on the critical period October 2015-May 2016 which saw high flows of asylum seekers into Greece and which predates the EU-Turkey deal agreed in March 2016. The paper focuses on the ways in which the Greek government and EU struggled to address the crisis during that period, outlining the challenges of implementing sustainable solutions and efficient policies given obstacles at national and European level. In particular, it focuses on the island of Lesbos, the main entry point of refugees from Turkey to Greece particularly on the island’s reception capacity. The findings highlight the need for a more effective common asylum system in the EU that includes adequate support and assistance to frontline states, and makes some suggestions for preventing future crises in situations of large-scale arrivals.”

Der EU-Türkei-Deal vom 18. März 2016 bildet eine der zentralen Antworten auf die (Flucht-)Migration nach Europa in den Jahren 2015/16, die als sogenannte ›Flüchtlingskrise‹ rezipiert wurde. Einerseits sollte Migration drastisch reduziert und andererseits eine humanitäre Aufnahme von Geflüchteten aus der Türkei nach Europa ermöglicht werden. Doch anstelle eines ausgeklügelten Systems der Rückübernahme hat die EU-Türkei-Erklärung zu einer umfassenden Entrechtung von MigrantInnen geführt.

Der militarisierte Grenzschutz wurde aufgestockt und viele Fliehende werden gewaltsam an der Flucht über die Ägäis gehindert. Die griechischen Hotspot-Inseln vor der türkischen Küste wurden in Sonderrechts-Zonen und Freiluftgefängnisse verwandelt, in denen Menschen über Monate und Jahre ausharren und auf die Entscheidung ihres Asylverfahrens warten müssen. Nach der Rückführung in die Türkei werden die meisten Menschen dort inhaftiert und schließlich weiter in ihr Herkunftsland abgeschoben.

Der formal und rechtlich nicht kodifizierte EU-Türkei Deal bildet somit eine Blau-pause der europäischen Externalisierung von Migrationskontrolle in außereuropäische Drittstaaten. Dies führt zu einer grundlegenden Entrechtung von Schutz-suchenden und zur Aushöhlung des europäischen Asylsystems.

The safe third country concept emerged at the end of 1980s as an antidote for the protection challenges associated with the travel routes of refugees. However, practices involving safe third country transfers have ended up rendering refugees’ access to asylum even more difficult. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate, based on the example of Turkey, the challenges in refugee protection that the safe third country transfers create. The article begins with an overview of Turkey’s situation with respect to trans-border migratory dynamics and Turkey’s areas of engagement with international law on migration and asylum. Then, the evolution of the safe third country concept is analyzed with special reference to contributions made by Turkey. Finally, the current state of affairs and future prospects are discussed in view of Turkey’s position as a safe third country with respect to EU countries, particularly with the execution of the EU-Turkey Statement of March 2016 and the EU-Turke...