Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2014
This article first looks at developments in the external dimension of EU migration and refugee policy, as highlighted by a succession of Commission Communications and Council or European Council conclusions that have emphasized the need to integrate migration and asylum more firmly into the Union's external policies. It then looks at one particular recent experiment with externalizing refugee policy, namely the invention of ‘Regional Protection Programmes’. Finally it asks what this concept of regional protection has meant in normative terms, before suggesting ways in which the space afforded protection has been altered.
1 Lavenex, Sandra and Uçarer, Emek M., ‘The External Dimension of Europeanization: The Case of Immigration Policies’, Cooperation and Conflict, 39: 4 (2004), p. 427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Presidency Conclusions, European Council, Tampere, 15–16 October 1999, paragraph 11.Google Scholar
3 Presidency Conclusions, European Council, Laeken, 14–15 December 2001, paragraph 11.Google Scholar
4 Presidency Conclusions, European Council, Seville, 21–22 June 2002, paragraph 10.Google Scholar
5 European Commission, ‘Communication on Integrating Migration Issues in the European Union's Relations with third Countries’, COM(2002) 703 final.Google Scholar
6 European Commission, ‘Communication on Towards More Accessible, Equitable and Managed Asylum Systems’, COM(2003) 315 final.Google Scholar
7 European Commission, ‘Communication on the Managed Entry in the EU of Persons in Need of International Protection and Enhancement of the Protection Capacity of the Regions of Origin: Improving Access to Durable Solutions’, COM(2004) 410 final, p. 3.Google Scholar
8 Ibid., p. 13.Google Scholar
9 United Nations, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, The State of the World's Refugees: Human Displacement in the New Millennium, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 10. This figure does not include the 4.3 million displaced Palestinians who fall under the mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) – UNHCR, 2005 Global Refugee Trends: Statistical Overview of Populations of Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, Internally Displaced Persons, Stateless Persons, and Other Persons of Concern to UNHCR, Geneva, UNHCR, 2006, p. 3.Google Scholar
10 European Commission, ‘Communication on the Managed Entry’, pp. 17–18.Google Scholar
11 European Commission, ‘Communication on Regional Protection Programmes’, COM(2005) 388 final, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
12 Phuong, Catherine, ‘The Concept of “Effective Protection” in the Context of Irregular Secondary Movements and Protection in Regions of Origin’, Global Migration Perspectives, 26 (April 2005), p. 12.Google Scholar
13 European Commission, ‘Communication on Regional Protection Programmes’, p. 4.Google Scholar
14 UNHCR, ‘Observations on the Communication from the European Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Regional Protection Programmes’, [*] p. 3, available at www.refugeelawreader.org.Google Scholar
15 European Commission, ‘Communication on Regional Protection Programmes’, p. 3.Google Scholar
16 Boswell, Christina, ‘The “External Dimension” of EU Immigration and Asylum Policy’, International Affairs, 79: 3 (2003), pp. 622–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 Lavenex, Sandra, ‘Shifting Up and Out: The Foreign Policy of European Immigration Control’, West European Politics, 29: 2 (2006), p. 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 Aristide Zolberg, cited in Lavenex, ‘Shifting Up and Out’, p. 334.Google Scholar
19 Diez, Thomas and Whitman, Richard, ‘Analysing European Integration: reflecting on the English School – Scenarios for an Encounter’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40: 1 (2002), p. 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Cited in Morgan, Roger, ‘A European “Society of States”– But Only States of Mind?’, International Affairs, 76: 3 (2000), p. 563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 Phuong, ‘The Concept of “Effective Protection” ’, p. 14.Google Scholar
22 Kostakopoulou, Dora, ‘The “Protective Union”: Change and Continuity in Migration Law and Policy in Post-Amsterdam Europe’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 38: 3 (2000), p. 506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23 T. A. Aleinikoff, ‘State-Centred Refugee Law: From Resettlement to Containment’, in E. V. Daniel and J. R. Knudsen (eds), Mistrusting Refugees, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1995, p. 264.Google Scholar
24 Jeff Crisp, ‘Refugee Protection in Regions of Origin: Potential and Challenges’, December 2003, available at http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=182.Google Scholar
25 UNHCR, ‘Observations on the Communication’, p. 1.Google Scholar
26 European Commission, ‘Communication on the Managed Entry’, p. 14.Google Scholar
27 Presidency Conclusions, ‘The Global Approach to Migration: Priority Actions Focusing on Africa and the Mediterranean’, European Council, Brussels, 15–16 December 2005.Google Scholar
28 European Commission, ‘Communication on the Global Approach to Migration One Year On: Towards a Comprehensive European Migration Policy’, COM(2006) 735 final.Google Scholar
29 European Commission, ‘Communication on the Global Approach’, p. 9.Google Scholar