{"title":"平衡国家目标和解决竞争。迈向新的欧洲庇护制度?","authors":"Enzo Rossi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2609855","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We offer a holistic view (and formal representation) of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), in which the national objectives of the states emerge in terms of trade-off between control and respect of the asylum seekers' human rights. Control of access implies spillover of the flows towards neighbouring states and rivalries between the states in a non-cooperative game. An asylum system is a set of rules designed to settle rivalries, balancing out the national objectives. Thus, on the basis of a Pareto (unanimity) criterion, one system is preferred to another if all the states are better able to achieve their national objectives. We examine the conditions under which a relocation system based on quotas may be preferable to the Dublin rules, and the reasons why closer harmonisation of standards can favour adoption of such a system. Finally, we comment on the possible outcomes when unanimity is not achieved.","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Balancing National Objectives and Settling Rivalries. Towards a New European Asylum System?\",\"authors\":\"Enzo Rossi\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2609855\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We offer a holistic view (and formal representation) of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), in which the national objectives of the states emerge in terms of trade-off between control and respect of the asylum seekers' human rights. Control of access implies spillover of the flows towards neighbouring states and rivalries between the states in a non-cooperative game. An asylum system is a set of rules designed to settle rivalries, balancing out the national objectives. Thus, on the basis of a Pareto (unanimity) criterion, one system is preferred to another if all the states are better able to achieve their national objectives. We examine the conditions under which a relocation system based on quotas may be preferable to the Dublin rules, and the reasons why closer harmonisation of standards can favour adoption of such a system. Finally, we comment on the possible outcomes when unanimity is not achieved.\",\"PeriodicalId\":81320,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Georgetown immigration law journal\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Georgetown immigration law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2609855\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Georgetown immigration law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2609855","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Balancing National Objectives and Settling Rivalries. Towards a New European Asylum System?
We offer a holistic view (and formal representation) of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), in which the national objectives of the states emerge in terms of trade-off between control and respect of the asylum seekers' human rights. Control of access implies spillover of the flows towards neighbouring states and rivalries between the states in a non-cooperative game. An asylum system is a set of rules designed to settle rivalries, balancing out the national objectives. Thus, on the basis of a Pareto (unanimity) criterion, one system is preferred to another if all the states are better able to achieve their national objectives. We examine the conditions under which a relocation system based on quotas may be preferable to the Dublin rules, and the reasons why closer harmonisation of standards can favour adoption of such a system. Finally, we comment on the possible outcomes when unanimity is not achieved.