uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 26 of 26
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Borevi, Karin
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala Religion and Society Research Centre.
    Shakra, Mudar
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Theology, Department of Theology, The Social Sciences of Religion, Psychology of Religions.
    Border Management and Migration Controls in Sweden: Country Report2019Report (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    From a comparative European perspective, Sweden is generally known as a country pursuing relatively liberal asylum policies. One distinguishing feature of Swedish immigration policy has been the principle that persons who are given asylum are immediately granted permanent residence (although the law allows exemptions from this under certain circumstances).

    This report gives an overview of the Swedish legal and policy framework of border management and migration control – how it relates to EU regulations and policies; what key actors are involved in the implementation and what the key issues and challenges are in relation to this field.

  • 2.
    Chemin, J. Eduardo
    et al.
    Georg-August Universität Göttingen.
    Hess, Sabine
    Georg-August Universität Göttingen.
    Nagel, Alexander K.
    Georg-August Universität Göttingen.
    Kasparek, Bernd
    Georg-August Universität Göttingen.
    Hänsel, Valeria
    Georg-August Universität Göttingen.
    Jakubowski, Matthias
    Georg-August Universität Göttingen.
    Germany - Country Report: Legal and Policy Framework of Migration Governance2018Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The report aims at mapping both the history of migration in Germany since 1945 and giving an overview of current asylum law, application procedures and overall legal status of Foreigners in Germany as well as the political organization and the constitutional entrenchment of the principle of asylum and immigration law. It depicts the reception of guest workers, the aftermath of the reunification and the New Act on Migration. The report gives a quantitative overview over migration since 2011 until 2017 and presents the different application procedures as well as the institutional organisation of asylum. 

  • 3.
    Favilli, Chiara
    University of Florence.
    European Union: Legal and Policy Framework of Migration Governance2018Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This report aims at outlining the European Union’s legal & policy framework of migration governance. Therefore, it presents relevant statistical data as well as legislation and introduces to the socio-economic, political and cultural context. Further, the EU competences and frameworks as well as the legal status of foreigners are presented. In its sixth section the report presents the changes in policy and governance of migration caused by the “refugee crisis”. The EU attributes competence on asylum based on a body of regulations and jurisprudence of various origin, which are not directly binding on the EU but are binding on the MS and, therefore, indirectly also relevant for the European institutions. The obligation to comply with the constraints already arising from international law derives expressly from article 78 of the TFEU, under which the EU must develop a “common European asylum system” in accordance with the Geneva Convention (1951 convention and 1967 protocol), the principle of non-refoulement and other relevant treaties. EU law has, therefore, been grafted onto a body of internal and international rules, jurisprudence and practice, becoming a leading player of the right to asylum both on the continent of Europe and the international arena. The common European asylum system has the merit of having put together the various protections arising from international law on international protection through what we can term as “codification”. At the same time, it also represents a “progressive development”, both for the codification of the interpretations of how the Geneva Convention should evolve and the express inclusion in the European system of those cases other than the right of asylum which have not yet been independently and fully regulated at international level nor, often, at national level.

  • 4.
    Federico, Veronica
    et al.
    University of Florence.
    Fero, Ginevra CerrinaUniversity of Florence.
    Migration Governance – Collection of Country Reports: Legal and Policy Framework2018Collection (editor) (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The present collection of country reports represents the collective work of the following RESPOND national teams: Uppsala Universitet (Swedish report), the Glasgow Caledonian University (Hungarian report), Georg-August Universitat Gottigenstiftung Offentlichen Rechts (German report), University of Cambridge (British report), Svenska Forkningsinstitute i Istanbul (Turkish report), Università di Firenze (Italian report and European Union report), Panepistimio Aigaiou (Greek report), Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschafte (Austrian report), Uniwersytet Warszawski (Polish report), Lebanon Support (Lebanese report), Hammurabi Human Rights Organization (Iraqi report). The activities of this Work Package (WP1) have been coordinated by the University of Florence. We are indebted to all the authors for the competence and enthusiasm with which they fulfilled their tasks and for their collaborative approach.

    Each report underwent a double review process: the review by a national expert appointed by national teams, and the review by the work package leader. We are grateful to all national experts that collaborated enhancing the quality of RESPOND research.

  • 5.
    Gokalp Aras, N. Ela
    et al.
    Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul.
    Sahin Mencutek, Zeynep
    Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul.
    Border Management and Migration Controls: Turkey Report2019Report (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This report examines the border management and migration control regime in Turkey, analysing its main legal and policy framework as well as the organisations and actors involved in policy implementation. Drawing from the empirical material, the report focuses on pre-entry measures, “at the border” controls, controls within the national territory, and return policy fields. The report aims to understand to what extent, and how, Turkey’s border management and migration control measures have changed from 2011 to 2017, how the changes have influenced policy implementations, and what the main gaps are between the legal frameworks and actual practices. The report also focuses on how relevant (state, non-state and national, local international and supranational) actors interact in implementing measures and what the patterns of cooperation and tensions are among them.

  • 6.
    Gyollai, Daniel
    Glasgow Caledonian University.
    Hungary - Country Report: Legal and Policy Framework of Migration Governance2018Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    In this report, our objective is to provide a snapshot of the current situation of the governance and management of migration in Hungary, the regulatory landscape, citing and reflecting on developments and events occurred between 2011 and 2018. Section 1) gives a statistical overview of international migration to Hungary. The data displayed shows the main patterns of asylum seeker flows, their recognition rates and the scale of people being expelled from the territory. Section 2) outlines the political, cultural and socio-economic context in which migration management enfolds. It briefly introduces the linguistic and religious cleavages and the political and institutional arrangements of the state. Without engaging in a thorough analysis, we will try to pin down those critical socio-economic and political factors that are accountable for the current escalation of tensions. In doing so, we move on to Section 3) that gives an insight on how the constitutional organization of the state has been altered and restructured over the past years, thus establishing an ideological, legal and institutional base for the transformation of the migration and asylum framework. Section 4) accounts for the legislative and institutional framework of immigration and asylum by introducing the major Acts that govern the field, the authorities that are responsible for the implementation of the policy, and the Government’s migration strategy. Since the recent developments fundamentally changed the scope of the framework, now representing its basic tenets, instead of discussing the amendments in a separate section, the refugee crisis driven reforms will be embedded here. In chronological order we will address all major amendments since 2015 that affected the legislative framework. Section 5) explains the legal status of foreigners, including asylum applicants, beneficiaries of international protection, the main categories of third country nationals legally residing in the country in terms of the type of residence permit they hold, irregular migrants, and unaccompanied minors. In describing the situation of asylum seekers, we will outline the first main stages of the application procedure. Finally, in Section 6) we will analyse the national framework compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights based on the Court’s case law in relation to migration and asylum.

  • 7.
    Gyollai, Daniel
    et al.
    Glasgow Caledonian University.
    Korkut, Umut
    Glasgow Caledonian University.
    Border Management and Migration Controls – Hungary report2019Report (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This report gives an overview of the major developments of the Hungarian border and migration control policy, the subsequent practices and dominant political narratives focusing mainly, but not exclusively, on the past five-year period. It will discuss the role of actors involved in migration governance, the cooperation among them and with international stakeholders. In terms of sources, the report relies on the relevant academic literature, legislation, policy reports, research reports and reviews by NGOs and EU institutions, as well as qualitative interviews conducted with public and third sector stakeholders. The qualitative content analysis predominantly draws on the Prime Minister’s speeches on themes related to borders, migration, security, and the future of Europe available at the Prime Minister’s Office website.

    Key findings include:

    • The major emphasis of the Hungarian pre-entry policy has been on the facilitation of kin-state politics and the so-called “Eastern Opening” (Keleti Nyitás) Programme;
    • The border control regime has been significantly reinforced since 2015 coupled with an extensive deployment of police and military personnel;
    • The Hungarian border and migration management’s sole aim has been to prevent irregular migrants from entering the country irrespective of their protection needs;
    • The implemented policy and the applied measures are often at variance with, and depart from Hungary’s human rights obligations;
    • The Hungarian political discourse is overwhelmed by security-focused narratives with a total lack of solidarity towards asylum seekers;
    • The cooperation between civil society organisations and the government is nonexistent; NGOs involved in migration management face criminal liability.
  • 8.
    Hirst, Catherine
    et al.
    University of Cambridge.
    Atto, Naures
    University of Cambridge.
    United Kingdom - Country Report: Legal and Policy Framework of Migration Governance2018Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This report explores the legal and policy framework of migration governance in the United Kingdom (UK). It shows that migration governance is complicated, reactive, and that the needs of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers have been eroded at the expense of border control overtime. The constitutional organisation of the state has contributed to these features of immigration policy. Evidence of the complexity, reactivity and restrictiveness of migration governance is found in the UK’s legislative framework, the legal status of foreigners, the reception system and post-refugee crisis reforms. Constitutionally there are three tiers of government in the UK – the central UK Government, the devolved governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and local authorities. The rights of asylum seekers are in a more precarious position than in other countries for two reasons. First, there is no specific right to asylum enshrined in the UK’s uncodified constitution, although the Human Rights Act 1998 plays a significant role in protecting asylum seeker rights. Second, the UK has no entrenched provisions in its constitution, meaning that legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1998 could be amended or replaced simply via an act of parliament. Evidence of the complexity, reactivity and restrictive nature of migration governance can be found in the evolution of legislation. With some notable exceptions, the evolution of primary legislation on immigration and asylum has been regressive, with successive restrictions on appeal rights, social benefits and the criminalization of irregular migrants. Legislation has been introduced to circumvent more progressive court decisions and has at times been rushed through without adequate consultation. Legislation has also tended to be reactive, with each wave of immigration throughout the 20th century being met with a legislative backlash.Routes to live in the UK are incredibly complex, with over 16 different types of work visa, which are being amended, removed and replaced all the time. The reception system for asylum seekers provides another example of the complexity and regressive nature of immigration governance, which fails to meet asylum seekers’ needs. Only destitute and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children have access to the reception system. The weekly allowance given to destitute asylum seekers is barely enough to make ends meet, while reception centre accommodation is not sensitive to the needs of vulnerable asylum seekers.Since the outbreak of the Syrian war, the Government has set up the Syrian Vulnerable Person Resettlement Scheme (VPRS), the Vulnerable Children Resettlement Scheme and children relocated under the ‘Dubs Amendment’. Advocates have been particularly critical of the implementation of the ‘Dubs Amendment’. The current immigration landscape notwithstanding, Brexit has generated significant ambiguity as to the future of UK migration governance. However, there are significant components of UK migration governance that will remain unaffected – the UK will still need to meet its obligations under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (Refugee Convention) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), while Brexit will not directly affect the UK’s export of border controls to France2 (Gauci, 2017, p.3). The methodological approach of the report has been to rely on secondary research. Where possible, government documents, policies, legislation and publications have been used in order to gather information about the policy and legal environment directly from the source. This has been supplemented by third sector research reports, text books, academic journal articles, media articles and other public commentary.

  • 9.
    Hänsel, Valeria
    et al.
    Georg-August Universität Göttingen.
    Hess, Sabine
    Georg-August Universität Göttingen.
    Kasparek, Bernd
    Georg-August Universität Göttingen.
    Border Management and Migration Controls – Germany Report2019Report (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This country report analyses the border management and migration control policies of the Federal Republic of Germany in relation to the policies and regulations of the European Union. It outlines Germany’s hegemonic position within the European Union regarding migration management and border policies. We argue that the securitized perspective on migration policies – including the externalization strategy prevalent in the EU – is to a substantial degree rooted in discourses, policies, legislation and practices of Germany closely interwoven with European policies.

    The hegemonic position of the Federal Republic of Germany has expressed itself in both the political developments since 2011 outlined in the report, and the increasingly restrictive German legislation on migration control. In several cases, German legislation has been transmitted to the European level.

    Furthermore, there is a dominant narrative by federal ministries conceptualizing border security as an essential part of an “integrated migration management approach”. This perception has been strongly driven by the securitization of migration as response to migration movements to Europe, especially in the course of 2015 which were collectively perceived as a “refugee crisis”. The notion of “integrated migration management” expresses a perceived need to regulate migration through the close cooperation of actors on different levels and in different policy fields (economic cooperation and development, internal security, integration, foreign policy, police cooperation with other national and EU-external border officers, data exchange, as well as return and reintegration policies). In addition, exceptional measures such as the reintroduction of national border controls were implemented.

    However, the report stresses that Germany’s border management cannot be reduced to policies at its national borders. What is more relevant is the vast number of externalization measures, both within and beyond the European Union. Through bilateral and multilateral police agreements as well as migration/readmission agreements with Member States, countries of origin and transit countries,

    Germany has significantly advanced the European Union’s externalization of migration management. The German police are also actively involved with FRONTEX, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency.

    In addition, the report outlines Germany’s restrictive border policies in the fields of pre-entry and internal controls (such as visa policies, carrier sanctions and veil searches), as well as in the field of detention and return. We analyse how the national policies to enforce speedy procedures and swift returns leads to a rise of encampment, detention and readmissions; the effects of these policies can be seen in EU policies that also endanger legal safeguards.

  • 10.
    Ilias, Aggelos
    et al.
    University of Aegean.
    Leivaditi, Nadina
    University of Aegean.
    Papatzani, Evangelia
    University of Aegean.
    Petracou, Electra
    University of Aegean.
    Border Management and Migration Controls in Greece2019Report (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This report presents and analyses the legal system, policies and practices regarding border management and migration control in Greece as a EU and Schengen member state. Since 2011, border management and migration control have significantly expanded in the country. A significant number of events and transformations formed the context of the period in question (2011-2018) such as: the Integrated Border Management Program for Combating Illegal Immigration (2011); the adoption of the Law 3907/2011 regarding the Establishment of an Asylum Service and a First Reception Service; the construction of the Evros fence; the increased arrivals since 2015; the closure of the so-called Western Balkans Corridor; the Joint EU–Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016; the adoption of the Law 4375/2016; and the Hotspot Approach and the Hotspot implementation; and the geographical restriction in the northeastern Aegean islands.

  • 11.
    Jagarnathsingh, Amreesha
    Lebanon Support.
    Lebanon – Country Report: Legal and Policy Framework of Migration Governance2018Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This report aims to provide a contextual understanding of migration governance in the Lebanese context, as well as its implications for refugees and migrants. Towards this end, this report provides an overview of the legal and policy framework in Lebanon, notably within the context of the Syrian refugee crisis erupting in 2011. Moreover, the report critically evaluates the legal statuses – if any – pertaining to ‘asylum seekers’, ‘refugees’, and ‘migrants’ on the one hand, and the role of state and non-state actors on the other. Lastly, the report highlights a tendency to increased securitization of migration in the country. This report is part of RESPOND, a Horizon 2020 project studying multi-level migration governance from 2011-2017 through cross-country comparative research in source, transit, and destination countries in 11 different countries. It is the first in a series of five in the Lebanese context.

  • 12.
    Jagarnathsingh, Amreesha
    Lebanon Support.
    Lebanon’s Border Regime: Fluid Rigidity, Foreign Interference, and Hybrid Security Assemblages2019Report (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This report seeks to analyse border and migration governance in Lebanon; it provides an overview of legislation and policies concerned with border management and control in Lebanon, by systematically analysing pre-entry controls, controls at the border, internal control regimes, and return policies. Moreover, by examining the role of national and international actors in migration and border management in Lebanon, the report also aims to shed light on geopolitical factors and the impact of foreign interventions to local governance and sovereignty, as well as underlying complex dynamics between security assistance and humanitarian aid in the context of a 'fragile' or 'weak' state. Lastly, the report highlights how border policies and interventions impact refugees’ and migrants’ lived experiences.

    This report is part of RESPOND, a Horizon 2020 project studying multi-level migration governance from 2011-2017 through cross-country comparative research in source, transit, and destination countries in 11 different countries. It is the second in a series of five1 focusing on Lebanon.

  • 13.
    Josipovic, Ivan
    et al.
    Institute for Urban and Regional Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences.
    Reeger, Ursula
    Institute for Urban and Regional Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences.
    Austria - Country Report: Legal and Policy Framework of Migration Governance2018Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The report aims at both outlining the history of migration to Austria, the socio-economic, political and cultural context surrounding migration and mapping the institutional frameworks. In the first section, a statistical overview will be presented, followed by sections on the above mentioned contexts, constitutional organisation and principles regarding migration. Chapter four will present the relevant legislative and institutional framework in the fields of migration and asylum. Chapter five is mapping the legal status of foreigners, followed by the last chapter on reform caused by the “refugee crisis”.

    Austria has a long tradition of being a destination country for migrants and refugees, a country that for decades promoted labour migration and admitted refugees during the communist era of Eastern Europe as well as during the time of the Balkan Wars. The notion of the latest advent of mass migration to Austria relates to the increasing number of asylum applications since 2013 and in particular in 2015. In that year alone, application numbers reached a six decade high of 88,340 persons, while thousands of others crossed federal territory for their onward journey. Besides the quantity and frequency of immigration, this latest phase also displays novelties concerning the composition of the newcomers in terms of countries of origin. Arguably, the three largest groups of asylum applicants in 2015, namely Syrians, Afghans and Iraqis, are relatively new to Austria, with their numbers increasing by 1,265 per cent, 430 per cent, and 232 per cent respectively between 2011 and 2017. The federal overall policy goal however, aimed at reducing the number of newcomers in the long run. In 2016, the entitlement to asylum was accordingly limited initially to three years and family reunification was restrained through application time limits. The federal government also introduced a unilateral annual quota for asylum applications that allows for acting upon an emergency decree and suspending further processing of applications upon exhaustion. Apart from state internal conflicts, border management and the distribution of refugees from hotspots became highly contested issues in Austria’s relationship to other EU member states. While the principle of asylum is deeply embedded in the Austrian constitution and European Union law, the governance of immigration and asylum has in recent years been repeatedly impeded by the Constitutional Court (VfGH), which intervened in both federal and provincial laws that aimed at restricting refugee’s rights and entitlements. It was not only the state and its institutions that affected the life of immigrants and refugees, the so-called ‘refugee crisis’ has doubtlessly also had an impact on the Austrian political landscape. It was a top priority topic on the political agenda paired with strong public opinions. Accordingly, in the wake of the crisis, the federal government underwent a reconfiguration with party internal exchanges of prominent figures such as the interior minister and the chancellor in early 2016. During the national elections of 2017, asylum and migration remained highly salient topics. The major winning parties were the right-wing FPÖ, which had had a strong ownership of the issue for decades, and the conservative ÖVP, whose lead candidate had previously been foreign minister and had particularly pushed an agenda for order and security.

  • 14.
    Josipovic, Ivan
    et al.
    Austrian Academy of Sciences.
    Reeger, Ursula
    Austrian Academy of Sciences.
    Border Management and Migration Controls in Austria2019Report (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Between 2011 and 2018, legal changes in the realm of border management and migration controls in Austria extended policing capacities and activities targeting irregular migration, with measures arriving in tight conjunction with restrictions at all stages of the asylum procedure. Regarding pre-entry measures, cooperation on cross-border policing with neighbouring countries such as Hungary and Italy was intensified. At the border and with regard to irregular entrance, capacities for the establishment of identity have been increased through technical infrastructure and an operational interlocking of technically separate databases. With regard to persons seeking asylum, new duties for cooperation on the establishment of identity were created and options for data gathering were expanded through the inspection of geo-data from digital devices.

    In September 2015, systematic border controls were re-installed at two major checkpoints towards Slovenia and Hungary. Schengen exemption provisions have been continually extended with reference to deficiencies at the EU’s external borders and “serious threats to public policy and internal security” in accordance to Art. 25 of the Schengen Borders Code (SBC). Against this background, the federal government also introduced a unilateral annual quota for the admission of persons to the asylum procedure in 2016. While a respective emergency decree has not been triggered as of early 2019, due to dropping numbers of asylum applications, the provision caused broad controversies as to whether it is constitutional or not. Under the same amendment act, time periods for conducting repulsions were increased from formerly 7 to 14 days. For persons admitted to the asylum procedure, new restrictions on movement or residence have been introduced. In particular, rejected asylum seekers can now be ordered to move to newly created return centres. The maximum detention period has been extended from formerly 6 to 18 months and new grounds for administrative apprehension, such as the refusal to cooperate on return, were introduced. Returns have been fostered through financial incentives, the expansion of the list of safe third countries and Joint Return Operations under FRONTEX.

  • 15.
    Karamanidou, Lena
    Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
    Border Management and Migration Controls – UK Report2019Report (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The report examines the UK legal and policy frameworks on border management and migration control and key narratives on migration control. It situates them in the specificities of the UK context, and outlines the key developments in policies and politics of migration since the 1990s. Further, it maps developments related to the implementation of border management and migration control policies in the UK since 2011, as well as the actors involved and relations among them. 

  • 16.
    Karamanidou, Lena
    et al.
    Glasgow Caledonian University.
    Kasparek, Bernd
    Göttingen University.
    Border Management and Migration Control in the European Union2018Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This report is the first deliverable of Work Package (WP2) Border and Migration Controls of the Horizon 2020 Project RESPOND -- Multilevel Governance of Mass Migration in Europe and Beyond. RESPOND explores the multilevel governance of migration in countries of origin, transit and migration, focusing on the Eastern Mediterranean route. WP2 addresses border management and migration control, including European Union (EU) and domestic legal regimes, policy developments since 2011, the implementation of border management and migration control policies by EU member states and third countries, and how refugees and migrants experience and respond to the EU border management regime. The aim of the report is to provide an overview of the current EU border management and migration control regime in order to contextualise further research on domestic regimes and their implementation. It outlines the key components of the European Union framework on border management and migration controls. It also presents an overview of historical developments, an analysis of discursive aspects of border and migration control on the level of Union institutions between 2011 and 2017, as well as a detailed description of control measures in the different layers of the European Union external border. We use the term border management to refer to the EU’s ensemble of legislation, policies, implementation practices, institutions, and actors that are concerned with defining, conceptualising, and policing of the external border of the member states of the European Union. We use the term migration control to capture modes of control that might fall outside the scope of border management, especially as defined by the 2016 European Border and Coast Guard Directive. We elaborate on these definitional issues in Concepts and Definitions section. We then move on to a detailed analysis of these policies and their legal codification and key legislative and policy developments since 2011. We conclude the report with a discussion of the complexities involved in researching this intersection of various legal frameworks, policy fields and implementation challenges in connection to the larger process of Europeanisation.

  • 17.
    Pannia, Paola
    et al.
    University of Florence.
    Federico, Veronica
    University of Florence.
    D’Amato, Silvia
    University of Florence.
    Italy – Country Report: Legal and Policy Framework of Migration Governance2018Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The report aims at presenting the legal and policy framework of migration governance in Italy, with a specific emphasis on the period between 2011 and 2017, so as to shed light on the series of implemented changes and responses given to the recent migration crisis. In the last few decades, Italy — traditionally an emigration country — has gradually turned also into an immigration country. Since 2014, Italy is receiving the highest number of non-EU citizens looking for economic opportunities and for international protection in its history. The Constitutional Court has represented a fundamental anchor in promoting the legal entitlements of foreigners and in preventing standards downgrading. At domestic level, the national policy on migration has been featured with a structural lack of organic, coherent and effective instruments of planning and management. Concerning the asylum and migration management structure, the responsibility to enact the various procedures does not belong to a single governmental body. Rather, it is scattered among different institutional entities emanating from different tiers of government (from national to local), and it also involves the third sector. After having presented the legal process of granting the international protection in Italy, and the status of asylum applicants and beneficiaries of international protection, the report illustrates the legal status related to the permit to stay for “humanitarian reasons”, a specific feature of the Italian legal system. In addition, the report examines legal status related to the following permits to stay: work, family, study, EU long-term residence permit and unaccompanied minors. Finally, the report illustrates the legal status connected to the condition of the so-called ‘undocumented migrants’, which in Italy are excluded from a number of rights. Section 6 focuses on the time-span 2011–2017, when a number of legislative reforms have been issued with the aim to manage the growing arrival of migrants to Italian shores.

  • 18.
    Pannia, Paola
    et al.
    University of Florence.
    Federico, Veronica
    University of Florence.
    Terlizzi, Andrea
    University of Florence.
    D'Amato, Silvia
    University of Florence.
    Comparative Report: Legal and Policy Framework of Migration Governance2018Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Building on the RESPOND national country reports, this report discusses the most relevant trends underlying legislative and policy measures implemented between 2011 and 2017 in Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iraq, Italy, Lebanon, Poland, Sweden,Turkey, and the United Kingdom, in the light of critical literature and scholarly debate.

    The aim is to provide a comparative legal and institutional analysis of migration governance across countries, highlighting trends and similarities, as well as differences and relevant inconsistencies in the response to mass migration. In doing so, the report offers analytical insights for evaluating the potential implications of the dynamics of migration management in the aforementioned countries.

    In all countries, the legal framework concerning migration and asylum/international protection is extremely complex and hypertrophic. In each country, legislation has been changing continuously and not necessarily coherently, frequently law makers resorting to decrees instead of proper statutes/acts of Parliament. The outcome is a stratified legal framework, that is extremely fragmented and difficult to be consistently interpreted and implemented. Therefore, the legal enforcement and guarantee of fundamental rights is jeopardized, and often it largely depends on the discretionary power of single offices and individuals. Against the fundamental axiom of legal certainty and predictability, the legal status of migrants and asylum applicants is more and more based on uncertainty.

  • 19.
    Petracou, Electra
    et al.
    University of the Aegean.
    Leivaditi, Nadina
    University of the Aegean.
    Maris, Giorgos
    University of the Aegean.
    Margariti, Maria
    University of the Aegean.
    Tsitsaraki, Paraskevi
    University of the Aegean.
    Ilias, Angelos
    University of the Aegean.
    Greece - Country Report: Legal and Policy Framework of Migration Governance2018Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This report intends to present the current situation regarding migration and asylum policy in Greece since 2015. One of the main conclusions is that Greece continues to be a country of

    main entry in the EU having at the same time a permanent refugee population.

    More precisely, report contains a presentation of the most up to date data concerning (a)

    arrivals of non EU citizens at the land and sea Greek borders mainly for the period 2011-2017,

    (b) asylum applications and decisions by country of origin, sex and age groups, (c) reception

    and accommodation centres (d) numbers of rejection and return to Turkey and (e) the latest

    numbers of migrants in Greece. The sources of data are mainly from governmental authorities

    such as the Asylum Service and international organizations and national nongovernmental

    organizations such as the UNHCR, GCR and most of them are open and available on the

    internet.It contains a brief history of migration and border policies in Greece particularly since 1990s, highlights the main dimensions of socioeconomic situation particularly during the recession and underlines the most important features of political situation in Greece since the beginning of the economic crisis. It presents the most important laws and presidential decrees concerning migration and asylum and describes the prevailing principles and goals of the legal framework and migration management. This report mentions different statuses and their rights and duties, procedures of reception, protection and different forms of granting protection. It presents the structure of the reception system and the responsible national authorities, NGOs and international organizations. It points out detention policies in pre-removal centres concerning non-EU nationals and asylum seekers. It includes a presentation of the integration measures for women and vulnerable groups.

  • 20.
    Shakra, Mudar
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Theology, Department of Theology, The Social Sciences of Religion, Psychology of Religions.
    Wirman, Jenni
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala Religion and Society Research Centre.
    Szalanska, Justyna
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Theology, Department of Theology.
    Cetrez, Önver Andreas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Theology, Department of Theology, The Social Sciences of Religion, Psychology of Religions.
    Sweden – Country Report: Legal and Policy Framework of Migration Governance2018Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The report aims to present the legal and policy framework of migration in Sweden in a period between 2011 and 2017. In the mentioned time Sweden witnessed a U-turn in migration governance linked with an unprecedented influx of asylum seekers in 2015 when more than 160,000 asylum applications were submitted, and introduction of a new temporary law on asylum in 2016. Since 2016, Sweden has been reshaping its image of a country open to refugees through new restrictive legislative measures which are a response not only to the mass migration, but also to lack of solidarity within the European Union on the matter of refugees acceptance. After the World War II Sweden, due to its level of economic development, the state model (welfare state) and the political system (established democracy), has become a desired destination for migrants and refugees. The constitutional entrenchment of the asylum principle in Sweden is derived from its international and European commitments, namely the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the 1951 Geneva Convention for Refugees and other international human rights instruments. The migration governance system in Sweden consists of several legislative acts dealing with different aspects of migration and asylum, such as asylum judicial procedures, reception, detention, health case, allowance, citizenship and boarders control. Considering migration management structure, the responsibility to enact and coordinate the various judicial, legislative, administrative and financial aspects related to migration and asylum rests in hands of the Ministry of Justice and is performed through its three divisions: Division for Migration Law (L7), Division for Migration and Asylum Policy (EMA) and Division for Management of Migration Affairs (SIM). After the record number of migrants coming to Sweden in 2015 and, as a result, the highest number of application for residence permit in the same year, the government introduced in 2016 restrictions to granting residence permit. Some of the main changes were to take away the possibility of permanent residency permit and tightened the family reunification possibility in order to reach the minimum level in comparison to an international and European level or to what the family reunification process in Sweden used to be before July 2016.

    In the section ‘Legal Status of Foreigners’ the report presents the legal process of granting an asylum in Sweden, including requirements for submitting an application, steps of the procedures of application, registration and reception, identification process of an asylum seeker, rights to information and legal counselling, and other rights given to an asylum seeker such as access to housing, labour market, professional trainings and health care system.

  • 21.
    Szulecka, Monika
    University of Warsaw.
    Border Management and Migration Controls in Poland2019Report (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The report focuses on the laws and practices of border management and migration control in Poland. It includes a description of the main developments in migration policy and laws concerning border control and since 2011, focusing on the arrival of asylum seekers, the lack of significant changes in the law, and substantial changes in the state's attitude towards immigration. Furthermore, the report provides a detailed description of the legal framework and implementation related to border management and migration control concerning different phases of the migratory process: before entry, at the border, within the territory, and during return procedures.

    The report also discusses problems and challenges as identified by experts in immigration issues. The topics identified as requiring attention and improvement concern: (1) the situation at the Polish eastern border and the restricted access to apply for international protection in Poland (due to refusals of entry issued to non-nationals appearing at the border without the required visas), (2) the dual role of the Border Guard at the border and the consequences of it for the process of receiving applications for international protection, (3) problems with the lack of legal aid for persons in the process of the return procedure, and (4) issuing decisions on detention despite negative prerequisites to do so, especially in case of families with children.

  • 22.
    Szulecka, Monika
    et al.
    University of Warsaw.
    Pachocka, Marta
    University of Warsaw.
    Sobczak-Szelc, Karolina
    University of Warsaw.
    Poland - Country Report: Legal and Policy Framework of Migration Governance2018Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The history of immigration to and emigration from contemporary Poland as a social phenomenon dates back to 1989. Geopolitical changes in the region brought the ‘opening’ of Poland’s borders, which in turn contributed to the growing scale of mobility both from and to Poland. Moreover, Poland, as a country on the way from the East to the West also became a transit country both for migrants travelling due to economic reasons and also to asylum seekers. This report presents the socio-economic, political, legal, institutional and policy context of migration governance in Poland. By analysing legal acts, official documents and available statistical data, we try to analyse macro level factors determining migration management in Poland. The report is divided into seven parts. In the first part, on the basis of statistical data, we conclude that the population of asylum seekers and refugees in Poland is strictly determined by the region of origin of foreigners seeking protection.In the analysis of the legal, socio-economic, political and cultural context, which is described in parts two and four, we can observe that during the past 25 years the situation has improved. Therefore, Poland became more and more attractive for foreigners, especially in terms of its labour market. In part three, we focus on the constitutional organisation of the state and the constitutional entrenchment of the principle of asylum. We argue that the ongoing constitutional and judiciary crisis mentioned in this part may constitute threats to the rule of law and protection of human rights.Part five of this report describes the details of various statuses, ranging from asylum seekers (with a focus on the reception system), beneficiaries of international protection to regular migrants and undocumented migrants. This part describes the conditions for gaining certain statuses, rights and obligations linked to certain statuses as well as the circumstances in which a given status may be revoked. The last, seventh part, of the report discusses the planned amendments to the law driven by the refugee crisis. We argue that in the case of Poland the changes or reform proposals are rather linked to challenges observed in the context of inflow from the Caucasus than in the context of inflow from the Middle East or Africa, associated with the ‘refugee crisis’.

  • 23.
    Terlizzi, Andrea
    University of Florence, Italy.
    Border Management and Migration Controls in Italy2019Report (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This report explores the border management and migration control regime in Italy, analysing the development of its legal and policy framework and the institutions and actors involved in implementation. In particular, the primary aim is to assess whether Italian border management and migration control measures have been preventing the legitimate cross-border flows of migrants seeking asylum. 

    In formulating policy recommendations, the report concludes that Italy should reinforce the ‘legal channels’ for asylum seekers to access the Italian asylum system. Currently, such channels are in effect guaranteed by non-governmental actors only. Moreover, blocking the migratory flows in the countries of origin/transit – preventing migrants from seeking asylum – should not be seen as the primary goal of the overall border management policy. In this regard, the Italian externalization strategy has in fact been mainly focused on limiting cross-border flows of migrants and therefore the legitimate movement of individuals seeking asylum.

  • 24.
    Warda, William K.
    et al.
    Hammuraby Human Rights Organisation (HHRO).
    al-Maffraji, Hamed S. A.
    HHRO.
    Arif, Nahla
    HHRO.
    Toma, Yohanna Y.
    HHRO.
    Joffrey, Ayad C.
    HHRO.
    Iraq Border Management and Migration Control Regime2019Report (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This report focuses on Border Management and Migration Control in Iraq through discussing three main issues, these are: First, it discusses Iraq legal framework defining the pre entry measures; procedures for return, detention and readmission; and key actors involved in Border Management and Migration Control. Second, it provides a conceptualization of Iraq decision makers on the importance of Border Management and the process of regulating the status of refugees and asylum seekers. This includes discussing the challenges and fears of Iraqi politicians paralyzing the process of enacting some important legislations aiming at further development of Iraq legal framework. Thirdly, it discusses the applicable policies and practices, and their compliance with the Iraqi legal system and with the international standards. Additionally, the report includes a conclusion part summarising the main findings of the researching team and their recommendations.

  • 25.
    Warda, William K.
    et al.
    Hammurabi Human Rights Organization.
    al-Maffraji, Hamed
    Hammurabi Human Rights Organization.
    Toma, Youhanna
    Hammurabi Human Rights Organization.
    Arif, Nahla
    Hammurabi Human Rights Organization.
    Samoeel, Ayad
    Hammurabi Human Rights Organization.
    Iraq – Country Report: Legal and Policy Framework of Migration Governance2018Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This research aims to present the situation of refugees and displaced persons in Iraq, and to discuss the governance of this dossier through: understanding the socio-economic context; the constitutional and legal context; and policies and practices of the Iraqi government in terms of protection. Also, the research aims at discussing the evolution of both the legal and organizational framework as they relate to migration and asylum, the role of multiple governmental levels in providing protection to migrants and asylum seekers in Iraq in line with Iraq’s internal and international commitments. This research addresses the problem of rights and protection of refugees and displaced persons in Iraq from the perspective of legislation, mechanisms, and international obligations, especially since Iraq does not have an internationally recognized legal and procedural system for the protection of refugees and displaced people, and because the country is a source for migrants and asylum seekers.

  • 26.
    Çetin, Elif
    et al.
    Swedish Research Institute Istanbul.
    Öztürk, Neva Ö.
    Swedish Research Institute Istanbul.
    Gökalp Aras, N. Ela
    Swedish Research Institute Istanbul.
    Şahin Mencütek, Zeynep
    Swedish Research Institute Istanbul.
    Turkey – Country Report: Legal and Policy Framework of Migration Governance2018Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This country report focuses on developments that took place during the period of 2011-2017 in the field of migration in Turkey. Traditionally a country of emigration, starting from the early 1990s, it has also become an important country of immigration, asylum and transit. Most recently, the increasing pressure of the refugee challenge, particularly given the high number of arrivals from Syria, has put the country once again under international spotlights. This report provides relevant migration statistics that are available as open source data. It briefly reviews the socio-economic, political and cultural characteristic of the country as well as its brief migration history. The report also delves into a detailed analysis of the constitutional, legal and institutional framework of Turkey’s national migration management system, which has gone through significant transition in the last few years. The report points out that due to Turkey’s geographical limitation to the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 Convention), and its associated 1967 Protocol; Turkey does not grant refugee status to people fleeing from conflicts and persecution in non-European countries. But it does provide ‘conditional refugee status’ along with ‘refugee’ and ‘subsidiary’ protection. The report reveals a key duality regarding European and non-European asylum seekers to be an important characteristic of Turkey’s asylum system. The first group can obtain ‘refugee’ status’; while the second group can only obtain ‘conditional refugee status’. However, regardless of their nationality, due to the Syrian mass migration, Syrian refugees1 are given another international protection status, which is called ‘temporary protection’. The report concludes by highlighting that part of Turkey’s recent migration policy efforts are tied to encouragement coming from the EU for Turkey to improve conditions regarding access to the asylum process and status determination as well as enhancement of its facilities forasylum-seekers’ protection. Although these developments bring Turkey closer to satisfying the EU demands on migration and asylum policy, Turkey is still expected to abolish the geographical limitation of the 1951 Convention to create a full-fledged asylum system and to solve remaining implementation problems. Ensuring equal and fair access to asylum procedures and facilitating the full access of asylum-seekers to legal aid remain priorities still to be achieved.

1 - 26 of 26
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf