The EU’s Informal Readmission Agreements with Third Countries on Migration: Effectiveness over Principles?

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY
Elsa Fernando-Gonzalo
{"title":"The EU’s Informal Readmission Agreements with Third Countries on Migration: Effectiveness over Principles?","authors":"Elsa Fernando-Gonzalo","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nAchieving faster and effective returns of irregular migrants is one of the priorities on the Pact on Migration and Asylum proposed by the European Commission. The Commission links the effectiveness of return to the enforcement of return decisions, which, although limited as an analytical benchmark, show that only 30% of return decisions are successful. To improve this ratio, the EU has recently resorted to informal readmission agreements or arrangements with third countries. Through these instruments, the process for binding international agreements established in the Treaties is bypassed. This type of non-binding instrument, generally covered under the ‘soft law’ label, generates major problems for the core principles of the EU legal order of institutional balance, judicial control, and transparency. The aim of this article is to analyse how these acts affect the three main principles of the legal system in the search for a more effective readmission policy using two case studies as the arrangements with Afghanistan and Bangladesh. The article concludes that the avoidance of the three principles does not result in a higher rate of returns.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Migration and Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340145","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Achieving faster and effective returns of irregular migrants is one of the priorities on the Pact on Migration and Asylum proposed by the European Commission. The Commission links the effectiveness of return to the enforcement of return decisions, which, although limited as an analytical benchmark, show that only 30% of return decisions are successful. To improve this ratio, the EU has recently resorted to informal readmission agreements or arrangements with third countries. Through these instruments, the process for binding international agreements established in the Treaties is bypassed. This type of non-binding instrument, generally covered under the ‘soft law’ label, generates major problems for the core principles of the EU legal order of institutional balance, judicial control, and transparency. The aim of this article is to analyse how these acts affect the three main principles of the legal system in the search for a more effective readmission policy using two case studies as the arrangements with Afghanistan and Bangladesh. The article concludes that the avoidance of the three principles does not result in a higher rate of returns.
欧盟与第三国关于移民问题的非正式重新接纳协议:效力高于原则?
实现非正常移民更快、有效的返回是欧洲联盟委员会提出的《移民和庇护公约》的优先事项之一。委员会将遣返的有效性与遣返决定的执行联系起来,尽管遣返决定作为一个分析基准受到限制,但表明只有30%的遣返决定是成功的。为了提高这一比例,欧盟最近采取了与第三国的非正式重新接纳协议或安排。通过这些文书,绕过了条约中确立的具有约束力的国际协定的进程。这类不具约束力的文书通常被贴上“软法律”的标签,给欧盟法律秩序的核心原则——制度平衡、司法控制和透明度——带来了重大问题。本文的目的是通过与阿富汗和孟加拉国的两个案例研究,分析这些行为如何影响法律体系的三项主要原则,以寻求更有效的重新接纳政策。文章的结论是,回避这三个原则并不会导致更高的回报率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Migration and Law is a quarterly journal on migration law and policy with specific emphasis on the European Union, the Council of Europe and migration activities within the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This journal differs from other migration journals by focusing on both the law and policy within the field of migration, as opposed to examining immigration and migration policies from a wholly sociological perspective. The Journal is the initiative of the Centre for Migration Law of the University of Nijmegen, in co-operation with the Brussels-based Migration Policy Group.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信