The EU’s Migration Dilemma:
Legal and Political Dimensions


Malakhov V.S.,

Professor, Director of the Center for Theoretical and Applied Political Studies, Institute for Social Sciences, RANEPA, malakhov-vs@ranepa.ru


elibrary_id: 223604 |

Kascian K.,

visiting research fellow, Institute of Political Science of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, zibens@gmail.com



DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.04.10


For citation:

Malakhov V.S., Kascian K. The EU’s Migration Dilemma: Legal and Political Dimensions. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No. 4. P. 139-151. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.04.10



Abstract

The article seeks to develop a nuanced understanding of the contradictory approaches EU political elites have taken regarding the problem of forced migration, which intensified as a result of the 2015 migration crisis. To do so, the authors analyze the content of judicial disputes between the European Commission and the Visegrád Group countries concerning refugee distribution quotas, identify the main disagreements among the major European political actors which developed as a result of their different approaches to forced migration, and demonstrate the current state of affairs in this sphere from the decision-making perspective. The authors provide an in-depth analysis of the legal arguments presented by these parties before the European Court of Justice, and come to a conclusion about the political nature of this conflict. Plaintiffs and defendants do not merely interpret the acquis communautaire differently – they have diametrically opposed views on the contents of the problem of forced migration. As for attitudes towards how refugees are received, the “power landscape” within the EU is determined by the confrontation between the liberal and conservative centers; the former is represented somewhat arbitrarily by Brussels (being home to the European Commission and the European Court of Justice), as well as by the leadership of Germany and Sweden, whereas the latter is composed of the governments of the Visegrád Group and Italy. Several states tend to lean toward one of these two sides. However, most EU member states do not hold an extreme position on the issue of refugees, preferring instead to fluctuate between these two principles. On the one hand, they are committed to humanistic values and pan-European solidarity; on the other hand, protecting national sovereignty and security is important to them. This contradiction manifests itself both in the vagueness of their leaders’ public rhetoric and in the endless delay and half-hearted character of their decisions. Having analyzed the behavior and policies of these national governments over the past four years, the authors found that all major players within the EU are quite willing to compromise. This suggests that there is no threat of the EU collapsing under the pressure of the contradictions caused by migration. 

Keywords
forced migration, European Union, migration crisis, refugees, Visegrád Group, European Court of Justice, EU Migration Policy.


References

Barlai M., Fahnrich B., Griessler C., Rhomberg M. 2017. The Migrant Crisis: European Perspectives and National Discourses. Vienna: LIT Verlag. 386 p.

Crawley H., Duvell F., Jones K., McMahon S., Sigona N. 2018. Unravelling Europe’s ‘Migration Crisis’: Journeys over Land and Sea. Bristol: Policy Press. 200 p.

Crawley H., Skleparis D. 2018. Refugees, Migrants, Neither, Both: Categorical Fetishism and the Politics of Bounding in Europe’s ‘Migration Crisis’. – Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Vol. 44. No. 1. P. 48-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1348224

Dines N., Montagna N., Vacchelli E. 2018. Beyond Crisis Talk: Interrogating Migration and Crises in Europe. – Sociology. Vol. 52. No. 3. P. 439-447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038518767372

Georgiou M., Zaborowski R. 2017. Media Coverage of the “Refugee Crisis”: A cross-European Perspective. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. 24 p.

Klatt M. 2018. The So-Called 2015 Migration Crisis and Eurocentrism in Border-Regions: Facing Re-Bordering Trends in the Danish-German Borderlands. – Geopolitics. P. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2018.1557149

Pallister-Wilkins Р. 2016. Interrogating the Mediterranean “Migration Crisis”. – Mediterranean Politics. Vol. 21. No. 2. P. 311-315. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2016.1145826

Scipioni M. 2018. Failing Forward in EU Migration Policy? EU Integration After the 2015 Asylum and Migration Crisis. – Journal of European Public Policy. Vol. 25. No. 9. P. 1357-1375. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1325920

 

Bolshova N.N. 2016. The Rise of Anti-Islamic Protests in Europe under the Refugee Crisis (Case of “Pegida” Movement in Germany). – Polis. Political Studies. No. 3. P. 123-137. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2016.03.10

Goffe N. 2017. Italy in the Mirror of Migration Issues. – Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 61. No. 9. P. 77-88. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2017-61-9-77-88

Grishin I. 2017. Sweden’s Immigration Worries. – Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 61. No. 9. P. 66-76. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2017-61-9-66-76

Klupt M. 2017. Immigration and Integration: Allies, Companions, or Antagonists? – Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 61. No. 7. P. 73-82. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2017-61-7-73-82

Malakhov V. 2018. Germany after “Migration Crisis”: Economy, Politics and Society. – Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 62. No. 5. P. 41-51. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2018-62-5-41-51

Malakhov V., Simon M. 2017. Predislovie. – Migratsionnyi krizis: mezhdunarodnoe sotrudnichestvo i natsionalnye strategii. Materialy mezhdunarodnoy konferentsii [Migration Crisis: International Cooperation and National Strategies: Materials of the International Conference]. Moscow: Delo. P. 7-20. (In Russ.)

Shaparov A. 2017. Formation of a New Immigration Regime in Europe. – Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 61. No. 7. P. 83-92. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2017-61-7-83-92

Sheinis V. 2017. New Challenges for the European Union Political Systems. – Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 61. No. 2. P. 23-32. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2017-61-2-23-32

Tsapenko I.P., Monusova G.A. 2017. Integration Capacity of Ethno-Cultural Diversity in European Societies. – Polis. Political Studies. No. 4. P. 90-105. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.04.07

Vedeneeva V. 2019. Integration of Refugees in Europe: Employment as a Priority. – Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 63. No. 1. P. 103-111. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-1-103-111 

Content No. 4, 2020

See also:


Suvakovic U.,
Political parties as traditional mechanisms of representation in modern societies. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No2

Chimiris Ye.S.,
The Policy of the European Union in International Conflicts: with the Attempted Settlement of the Relations between Serbia and Montenegro as Example. – Polis. Political Studies. 2007. No4

Abolin O.Yu.,
Universal and European Federalism: Probable Prospects. – Polis. Political Studies. 1994. No5

Streltzova Ya.R.,
European View of Russia’s Foreign Policy. – Polis. Political Studies. 2008. No6

Arbatova N.K.,
EU Security: Micro-Aggression with Macro-Consequences. – Polis. Political Studies. 2021. No5

 
 

Archive

   2022      2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991