Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:51:11.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making Good European Citizens of the Roma: A Closer Look at the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Morag Goodwin  and
Roosmarijn Buijs

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In a recent article, Sobotka and Vermeersch chart the development of EU policy-making towards the Roma. Their analysis of EU documents and policy initiatives tells a convincing tale: Since 2007, Roma have shifted from being an external issue—connected to Enlargement conditionality—to being a high-priority on the EU's internal agenda, and from being the subjects of an approach focused on minority rights to one of social inclusion. This change in emphasis towards the Roma can be viewed in the light of a wider reorientation of the European Union, in which the primarily economic language of European integration is moderated by a shift towards viewing economic growth and social cohesion as mutually conditioning and sustaining. This is reflected in the 2020 Strategy in the language of “smart, sustainable and inclusive growth,” as well as in the notion of a “social market economy” and in the proliferation of social rights at the EU level. This reorientation has primarily been viewed to date through the lens of the increased prominence given to fundamental rights protection in the post-Lisbon Union, and the conflict that this creates with the Union's traditional fundamental freedoms. However, this shift is not exhausted by the greater emphasis on fundamental rights protection; rather, the commitment to inclusive growth has been interpreted by the Commission as requiring the integration of Roma into the economic and social orders of the Member States.

Type
Lisbon vs. Lisbon Part III: Citizens
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 14 , Issue 10: Special Issue—Lisbon vs. Lisbon , 01 October 2013 , pp. 2041 - 2056
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 We use the umbrella term “Roma” and “Romani” throughout this paper to refer to the many different communities, groups, and individuals that identify themselves as Roma or Sinti, in line with the now common practice in policy documents. We do so for the sake of convenience, despite the importance we attach to a culturally- and historically- sensitive approach at the community level to any integration discussion.Google Scholar

2 Sobotka, Eva & Vermeersch, Peter, Governing Human Rights and Roma Inclusion: Can the EU be a Catalyst for Local Change? 34 Hum. Rts. Q. 800, 802–809 (2012).Google Scholar

3 Communication from the Commission, Europe 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, at 3 (Mar. 3, 2010) (“We need a strategy to help us come out stronger from the crisis and turn the EU into a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy delivering high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion. Europe 202 sets out a vision of Europe's social market economy for the 21st century.”), available at http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf.Google Scholar

4 Secretariat, European Convention, Final Rep. of Working Group XI on Social Europe, CONV 516/1/03 REV 1, 10 (Feb. 4, 2003) (showing that the phrase underlines the connection between economic and social development). See also Christian Joerges & Florian Rödl, “Social Market Economy” as Europe's Social Model (European Univ. Inst., Florence, Working Paper Law No. 2004/08, 2004), available at http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/2823.Google Scholar

5 See Barnard, Catherine, The Protection of Fundamental Social Rights in Europe after Lisbon: A Question of Conflicts of Interests, in The Protection of Fundamental Rights in the EU After Lisbon (Sybe de Vries, Ulf Berniz & Stephen Weatherill eds., 2013).Google Scholar

6 Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community art. 6, Dec. 13, 2007, 2007 O.J. (C 306) 1 [hereinafter Treaty of Lisbon] (underlining the increased emphasis on fundamental rights by the ECJ of course pre-dates the Lisbon Treaty). See Sybe de Vries, The Protection of Fundamental Rights within Europe's Internal Market after Lisbon—An Endeavour for More Harmony, in The Protection of Fundamental Rights in the EU After Lisbon, supra note 4, for more about the relevant case-law.Google Scholar

7 An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020, at 4, COM (2011) 173 final (Apr. 5, 2011) [hereinafter Framework].Google Scholar

8 Id. at 2.Google Scholar

9 The Framework is based upon and condenses more nuanced observations in other Commission documents on Romani integration. See, e.g., European Commission, What Works for Roma Inclusion in the EU: Policies and Model Approaches (2012), available at www.logincee.org/file/25951/library.Google Scholar

10 Framework, supra note 7, at 4 (showing that these indicators are not identified within the Framework).Google Scholar

11 Id. at 7.Google Scholar

12 Id. at 12 (stressing the role that the European Platform for Roma Inclusion, established by the Commission in 2009, has to play in providing a forum for stakeholders to come together).Google Scholar

13 Id. at 2.Google Scholar

14 See Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union art. 22, Dec. 18, 2000, 2000 O.J. (C 364) 1 (declaring commitment to respecting cultural diversity). See also Harry W. Gardiner & Corinne Kosmitzki, Lives Across Cultures: Cross-Cultural Human Development 5 (4th ed. 2008) (providing our definition of culture as “the cluster of learned and shared beliefs, values, practices, behaviors, symbols and attitudes that are characteristic of a particular group of people and that are communicated from one generation to another”). We do not have the space here to fully unpack what it means to live together with diversity; however, we hope that what we mean by it becomes clearer in the course of our argument.Google Scholar

15 Framework, supra note 7, at 1.Google Scholar

16 Id. at 2.Google Scholar

17 Id. Google Scholar

18 Id. Google Scholar

19 Id. at 3.Google Scholar

20 Id. at 2.Google Scholar

21 Byrne, Donn, An Overview (and Underview) of Research and Theory within the Attraction Paradigm, 14 J. Soc. & Pers. Relationships 417–431 (1997) (demonstrating that this anticipated dialectic appears to be based upon the similarity-attraction paradigm, which holds that the more similar groups are the more they are bound to like each other, which in turn will increase their willingness to cooperate with one another).Google Scholar

22 See Yaron Matras, Romani: A Linguistic Introduction (2002) for an academic account of the now-entrenched Indian-origins thesis based upon a pattern of Romani linguistic migration. See Angus Fraser, The Gypsies (1992), for an excellent account of the history of Roma in Europe. See, e.g., Judith Okely, The Traveller-Gypsies (1983) and Wim Willems, In Search of the True Gypsy: From Enlightenment to Final Solution (1997) for alternative accounts to the Indian thesis.Google Scholar

23 See Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The Social and Economic Integration of the Roma in Europe, at 5, COM (2010) 133 final (Apr. 7, 2010), for the origin of the onward reference in the Framework, which itself is simply a statement that integration is a two-way process requiring a change of mind-set by both sides.Google Scholar

24 See Cecil G. Helman, Culture, Health and Illness (5th ed., 2007) (discussing how studies have shown that maintaining a sense of cultural identity is crucial for both the psychological and physical health of minority community members).Google Scholar

25 Assimilation is understood here, following the minority rights literature, to involve a coercive process of adaptation by a minority group to majority norms and practices; as such, we understand it to be a bad thing. See, e.g., Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (1996).Google Scholar

26 Cf. the European Court of Human Rights’ approach in Chapman v. The United Kingdom, in which it noted that State Parties have an obligation to “recognize the special needs of minorities”, and “to protect their security, identity and lifestyle, not only for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the minorities themselves but to preserve a cultural diversity of value to the whole community.“ Chapman v. United Kingdom, ECHR App. No. 27238/95, 33 Eur. Ct. H.R. 18, para. 93 (2001) (emphasis added).Google Scholar

27 Article 3 of the Treaty on the European Union commits the Union to “respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.” Another interpretation is that Romani culture is not deemed part of Europe's rich cultural heritage and therefore not deserving of protection.Google Scholar

28 See Ada Ingrid Engebrigtsen, Great Ideas—Bad Practice: On Implementation of Policies and Programmes for Roma, in European Roma Integration Efforts—A Snapshot (Morag Goodwin ed., 2013).Google Scholar

29 See id. Such a defensive practice is unlikely to be limited to Romani communities.Google Scholar

30 The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)'s methods for research involve tightly-structured questionnaires and interviews that limit the scope for the interviewee to question the underlying premise; see, e.g., FRA, The Situation of Roma EU Citizens Moving to and Settling in Other EU Member States (November 2009). For a more open, public reflective equilibrium approach to interviewing, see Jonathan Wolff & Avner de-Shalit, Disadvantage (2007).Google Scholar

31 E.g., Council Directive 2000/43, Implementing the Principle of Equal Treatment Between Persons Irrespective of Racial or Ethnic Origin, 2000 O.J. (L 180) 22 (EC). The Directive has been implemented in all Member States.Google Scholar

32 See FRA, EU-MIDIS Data in Focus Report: The Roma (2009).Google Scholar

33 E.g., Walter G. Stephan, Rolando Diaz-Loving & Anne Duran, Integrated Threat Theory and Intercultural Attitudes: Mexico and the United States, 31 J. Cross-Cultural Psychol. 240, 249 (2000).Google Scholar

34 See Ross, Thomas, Innocence and Affirmative Action, in Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge (Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic eds., 2d ed. 2000).Google Scholar

35 E.g., 300.000 euro om 13 Roma-gezinnen te helpen [300,000 Euros to Help 13 Roma Familes], Het Nieuwsblad, May 5, 2012; Roms: Où vont les millions de l'aide européenne? [Roma: Where are the Millions of European Aid?], Le Monde, Aug. 13, 2010.Google Scholar

36 Thanks to Daniel Augenstein for this point.Google Scholar

37 See Ramona D. Bobocel, Leane S. Son Hing, Liane M. Davey, David J. Stanley & Zanna, Mark P., Justice Based Opposition to Social Policies: Is It Genuine? 75 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 653 (1998); see also Juliette Schaafsma, Interethnic Relations at Work: Examining Ethnic Minority and Majority Members’ Experiences in The Netherlands, 32(5) Int'l J. Intercultural Rel. 453 (2008). For an elaboration on what constitutes perceived fairness in organizations, see Russell Cropanzano, Zita S. Byrne, Ramona D. Bobocel & Deborah E. Rupp, Moral Virtues, Fairness Heuristics, Social Entities, and Other Denizens of Organizational Justice, 58(2) J. Vocational Behav. 164 (2001).Google Scholar

38 For negative media reactions to the idea of additional funding for Romani integration, see supra note 35. For a suggestion for shared interests that may be sufficiently strong to bring about social change, see Morag Goodwin, Multidimensional Exclusion: Viewing Romani Marginalisation Through the Nexus of Race and Poverty, in European Union Non-Discrimination Law: Comparative Perspectives on Multidimensional Equality Law 151–52 (Dagmar Schiek & Victoria Chege eds., 2009). For an example of the problems of majority non-involvement in local Roma integration practice, see Sobotka & Vermeersch, supra note 2.Google Scholar

39 Social identity theory poses that it is important for both parties to recognize a common reason or goal to cooperate and relate to one another. See Muzafer Sherif, Experiments in Group Conflict 195 Sci. Am. 54–58 (1956). For an elaboration on resolving group conflict through social identity theory, see Henri Tajfel & John C. Turner, An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict, in The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (William G. Austin & Stephen Worchel eds., 1979). For a legal perspective, see Goodwin, supra note 38, at 151–52.Google Scholar

40 Many initiatives seem to come with ten year timeframes; see, e.g., The Decade of Roma Inclusion http://www.romadecade.org/ (last visited Sep. 26, 2013).Google Scholar

41 Thanks to Bert van Roermund for this point.Google Scholar

42 Sherif, supra note 38, at 54–58.Google Scholar

43 This is particularly so, given that the Commission's own documents highlight the failure to make progress on Romani integration. According to Commission Staff Working Document, Community Instruments and Policies for Roma Inclusion COM(2008) 420 (Brussels, SEC(2008) XXX), 4, “there is a widely shared assumption that the living and working conditions of the Roma have not much improved over the last two decades.”Google Scholar

44 FRA, supra note 26.Google Scholar

45 See Directive 2004/ 38, art. 6, 2004 O.J. L158/ 77 (EC).Google Scholar

46 The Framework notes that a large number of Roma present in the EU are third country nationals legally residing here, but they are seen from an EU policy perspective as a vulnerable group within the broader category of third country nationals. See Framework, supra note 7, at 2.Google Scholar

47 European level instruments, such as Directive 2000/43, The Race Directive, 2000 O.J. (L180), and European funds, are to facilitate the design and implementation of such strategies, but the work of integration remains the responsibility of the national authorities of the Member States. See Framework, supra note 7, at 2.Google Scholar

48 See What Works for Roma Inclusion in the EU, supra note 9, at 14. See also, France Continues Roma Expulsion, BBC News (Aug. 26 2010) (reporting comments by the French authorities in the furor over expulsions in 2010 to the effect that the EU could not be used to transport social problems across the Union. The Dutch government has made similar complaints), http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11105262. See Kemal Rijken, Roma (2012).Google Scholar

49 Framework, supra note 7, at 2.Google Scholar

50 For a study on the way in which social concerns have been expressed within the EU in the model of antidiscrimination law because of the economic ethos of European integration, see Alexander Somek, Engineering Equality: An Essay on European Anti-Discrimination Law (2011).Google Scholar

51 Indeed, one could reasonably argue that the recognition of cultural diversity is a presupposition for the enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms.Google Scholar

52 See Sobotka and Vermeersch, supra note 2, at 802–09.Google Scholar