欧盟委员会新移民和庇护协议中的边境程序:政治胜过理性的案例?

IF 1.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Galina Cornelisse, Marcelle Reneman
{"title":"欧盟委员会新移民和庇护协议中的边境程序:政治胜过理性的案例?","authors":"Galina Cornelisse,&nbsp;Marcelle Reneman","doi":"10.1111/eulj.12382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article demonstrates that the role of the European Commission in the area of asylum policy is characterised by an imbalance between politicisation and rationality. Politicisation of the role of the Commission is especially visible in its proposals for border procedures in the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. We show that the efficiency and effectiveness of these proposals are not supported by evidence or a thorough assessment of past EU action, as required by Better Regulation. The result is that they fail to address the structural problems that exist with regard to the implementation and application of EU law at external borders. The broken balance between politicisation and rationality in the legislative process leads to a prioritisation of security over freedom and justice. We argue that it needs to be compensated by a stronger role of the judiciary.</p>","PeriodicalId":47166,"journal":{"name":"European Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/eulj.12382","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Border procedures in the Commission’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum: A case of politics outplaying rationality?\",\"authors\":\"Galina Cornelisse,&nbsp;Marcelle Reneman\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/eulj.12382\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This article demonstrates that the role of the European Commission in the area of asylum policy is characterised by an imbalance between politicisation and rationality. Politicisation of the role of the Commission is especially visible in its proposals for border procedures in the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. We show that the efficiency and effectiveness of these proposals are not supported by evidence or a thorough assessment of past EU action, as required by Better Regulation. The result is that they fail to address the structural problems that exist with regard to the implementation and application of EU law at external borders. The broken balance between politicisation and rationality in the legislative process leads to a prioritisation of security over freedom and justice. We argue that it needs to be compensated by a stronger role of the judiciary.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/eulj.12382\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eulj.12382\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eulj.12382","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文表明,欧盟委员会在庇护政策领域的作用的特点是政治化和理性之间的不平衡。委员会作用的政治化在《移徙和庇护新公约》中关于边界程序的建议中尤为明显。我们表明,这些建议的效率和有效性没有证据支持,也没有对欧盟过去行动的彻底评估,这是更好的监管所要求的。其结果是,它们未能解决在外部边境实施和适用欧盟法律方面存在的结构性问题。立法过程中政治化与理性之间的平衡被打破,导致安全优先于自由和正义。我们认为,这需要司法部门发挥更大的作用来弥补。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Border procedures in the Commission’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum: A case of politics outplaying rationality?

This article demonstrates that the role of the European Commission in the area of asylum policy is characterised by an imbalance between politicisation and rationality. Politicisation of the role of the Commission is especially visible in its proposals for border procedures in the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. We show that the efficiency and effectiveness of these proposals are not supported by evidence or a thorough assessment of past EU action, as required by Better Regulation. The result is that they fail to address the structural problems that exist with regard to the implementation and application of EU law at external borders. The broken balance between politicisation and rationality in the legislative process leads to a prioritisation of security over freedom and justice. We argue that it needs to be compensated by a stronger role of the judiciary.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
21.10%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: The European Law Journal represents an authoritative new approach to the study of European Law, developed specifically to express and develop the study and understanding of European law in its social, cultural, political and economic context. It has a highly reputed board of editors. The journal fills a major gap in the current literature on all issues of European law, and is essential reading for anyone studying or practising EU law and its diverse impact on the environment, national legal systems, local government, economic organizations, and European citizens. As well as focusing on the European Union, the journal also examines the national legal systems of countries in Western, Central and Eastern Europe and relations between Europe and other parts of the world, particularly the United States, Japan, China, India, Mercosur and developing countries. The journal is published in English but is dedicated to publishing native language articles and has a dedicated translation fund available for this purpose. It is a refereed journal.
×
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