Right or Duty? Integration of Beneficiaries of International Protection in the Common European Asylum System and Related Legislation

Abstract

International law, to which European Union (EU) members are subject, requires more support for beneficiaries of international protection (BIP) than other immigrants. Integration of BIP in the countries of settlement is regarded as a right by the United Nations (UN) approach built upon Geneva Convention. Trying to restrict asylum, EU members regard it rather as a duty. The study analyses the issue of integration in the Common European Asylum System and other legislation related to BIP, in comparison with the approaches of the UN and EU member states. The results reveal that although the general integration framework of the legislation is compatible with the UN approach, it reflects the restrictive member state approach with respect to integration indicators. EU law could not surpass the least common denominator

Keywords

• International Protection
• Integration
• United Nations
• European Union
• Common European Asylum System

HAK MI, GÖREV Mİ? AVRUPA ORTAK SIĞINMA SİSTEMİ VE İLGİLİ MEVZUATTA ULUSLARARASI KORUMA ALTINDAKİ BİREYLERİN ENTEGRASYONU

Abstract

Avrupa Birliği (AB) üyesi devletlerin tabi olduğu uluslararası hukuk, uluslararası koruma altındaki bireylere (UKB), diğer göçmenlerden daha fazla destek olunmasını gerektirmektedir. UKB’nin yerleştikleri ülkelere entegrasyonu, Cenevre Konvansiyonu temelinde gelişen Birleşmiş Milletler (BM) yaklaşımında hak olarak kabul edilmektedir. Sığınmayı kısıtlamaya çalışan AB üyeleri ise entegrasyonu daha ziyade görev olarak ele almaktadır. Çalışma, Avrupa Ortak Sığınma Sistemi ve UKB ile ilgili diğer mevzuatta entegrasyon konusunu, BM ve AB üyesi devletlerin yaklaşımı ile mukayeseli olarak incelemektedir. Çalışmanın sonucunda, mevzuatın genel entegrasyon çerçevesinin BM yaklaşımına uyumlu olmasına rağmen, entegrasyon göstergeleri açısından kısıtlayıcı üye devlet yaklaşımını yansıttığı ortaya çıkmıştır. AB hukuku, asgari müştereklerin ötesine geçememiştir.

Keywords

• Uluslararası Koruma
• Entegrasyon
• Birleşmiş Milletler
• Avrupa Birliği
• Avrupa Ortak Sığınma Sistemi

References

1. Ager, Alastair, ve Alison Strang. “Understanding Integration: A Conceptual Framework”. Journal of Refugee Studies 21, no 2 (2008): 166-91.
2. Amnesty International. “Kosovo (Serbia): No Forcible Return of Minorities to Kosovo”. EUR 70/004/2007, 31.5.2007. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.refworld.org/topic,50ffbce510,50ffbce537,4666d88a2,0,,,SRB.html.
3. Berry, John W. “Immigration, Acculturation, and Adaptation”. Applied Psychology 46, no 1 (1997): 5-34.
4. Brouwer, Evelien. “Immigration, Asylum and Terrorism: A Changing Dynamic Legal and Practical Developments in the EU in Response to the Terrorist Attacks of 11.09”. European Journal of Migration and Law 4 (2003): 399-324.
5. Carrera, Sergio. “A Comparison of Integration Programmes in the EU: Trends and Weaknesses”. CEPS Challenge Papers, 1.3.2006. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/comparison-integration-programmes-eu-trends-and-weaknesses/
6. Castles, Stephen, ve Mark J. Miller. The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World. New York: Guilford Press, 2003.
7. Ceyhan, Ayse, ve Anastassia Tsoukala. “The Securitization of Migration in Western Societies: Ambivalent Discourses and Policies”. Alternatives 27, no 1_suppl (2.2002): 21-39.
8. Cheong, Pauline H., Rosalind Edwards, Harry Goulbourne, ve John Solomos. “Immigration, Social Cohesion and Social Capital: A Critical View”. Critical Social Policy 27, no 1 (2007): 24-49.

9. Coman, Ramona ve Cécile Leconte. “Contesting EU Authority in the Name of European Identity: the New Clothes of the Sovereignty Discourse in Central Europe,” Journal of European Integration 41, no 7 (2019): 855-870.
10. Council of the European Union. “Press Release: 2618th Council Meeting - Justice and Home Affairs. 14615/04 (Presse 321)”. 19.11.2004. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/jha/82745.pdf.
11. Çilingir, Sevgi. “Kriz Gündeminde AB Göç Politikasının Yetkiler, Hedefler ve Araçlar İtibariyle Değerlendirilmesi: Sınır Yönetimi Örneği”. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi 19, no 1 (19.6.2018): 19-49.
12. da Costa, Rosa. “Rights of Refugees in the Context of Integration: Legal Standards and Recommendations”. Legal and Protection Policy Research Series. Geneva: UNHCR Division of International Protection Services, 6.2006. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.unhcr.org/44bb90882.pdf.
13. EASO. “Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in the EU 2018”. EASO, 24.6.2019. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://easo.europa.eu/easo-annual-report2018.
14. ECRE. “Position on Returns to Kosovo”. 1.6.2000. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.refworld.org/topic,50ffbce510,50ffbce537,3ae6a665c,0,,,SRB.htm l. ECRE. “Position on the Integration of Refugees in Europe”. 12.2002. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.ecre.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ECRE-Positionon-the-Integration-of-Refugees-in-Europe_December-2002.pdf.
15. Entzinger, Han, ve Renske Biezeveld. “Benchmarking in Immigrant Integration”. Rotterdam: European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations. 8.2003. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://ec.europa.eu/homeaffairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/e-library/documents/policies/legalmigration/pdf/general/benchmarking_final_en.pdf.
16. Favell, Adrian. Philosophies of Integration - Immigration and the Idea of Citizenship in France and Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1998.
17. Feller, Erika. “Refugees are not Migrants”. Refugee Survey Quarterly 24, no 4 (1.12.2005): 27-35.
18. Freeman, Gary P. “Immigrant Incorporation in Western Democracies”. International Migration Review 38, no 3 (2004): 945-69.
19. Gilbert, Geoff. “Is Europe Living Up to Its Obligations to Refugees?” The European Journal of International Law 15, no 5 (2004): 963-87.
20. Guild, Elspeth, Kees Groenendijk ve Sergio Carrera. “Understanding the Context of Community: Illiberal Practices in the EU?” İçinde Illiberal Liberal States: Immigration, Citizenship and Integration in the EU, ed. E. Guild, K. Groenendijk, ve S. Carrera, (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), 1-25.
21. Gündüz, Berna, “Non-Refoulement Principle in The 1951 Refugee Convention and Human Rights Law”, ASSAM Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi 5, no 10 (2018): 13- 23.
22. IARLJ-Europe. “An Introduction to the Common European Asylum System for Courts and Tribunals: A Judicial Analysis”. EASO. 8.2016. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.iarmj.org/iarljdocuments/general/Introduction_to_the_CEAS_FINAL.pdf.
23. Joppke, Christian, ve Eva Morawska. “Integrating Immigrants in Liberal Nation - States: Policies and Practices” İçinde Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States, ed. Christian Joppke ve Eva Morawska, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 1-36.
24. Karamanidou, Lena. “The Securitisation of European Migration Policies: Perceptions of Threat and Management of Risk” İçinde The Securitisation of Migration in the EU: Debates since 9/11, ed. Gabriella Lazaridis ve Kursheed Wadia, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 37-61.
25. Kessler, Alan E. ve Gary P. Freeman. “Public Opinion in the EU on Immigration from Outside the Community”, Journal of Common Market Studies 43, no 4 (2005) 825–850.
26. Mestheneos, Elizabeth, ve Elizabeth Ioannidi. “Obstacles to Refugee Integration in the European Union Member States”. Journal of Refugee Studies 15, no 3 (1.9.2002): 304-20.
27. Michalowski, Ines. “Liberal States - Privatised Integration Policies?” İçinde Illiberal Liberal States: Immigration, Citizenship and Integration in the EU, ed. Elspeth Guild, Kees Groenendijk ve Sergio Carrera (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), 259-275.
28. Nicholson, Frances. “The Right to Family Life and Family Unity of Refugees and Others in Need of International Protection and the Family Definition Applied”. UNHCR Division of International Protection. 1.2018. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.unhcr.org/5a8c40ba1.pdf.
29. Phillimore, Jenny, ve Lisa Goodson. “Making a Place in the Global City: The Relevance of Indicators of Integration”. Journal of Refugee Studies 21, no 3 (2008): 305-25.
30. Robila, Mihaela J. “Refugees and Social Integration in Europe”. United Nations Expert Group Meeting, New York, 15.5.2018. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.un.org/development/desa/family/wpcontent/uploads/sites/23/2018/05/Robila_EGM_2018.pdf.
31. Sigona, Nando. “Refugee Integration(s): Policy and Practice in the European Union”. Refugee Survey Quarterly 24, no 4 (2005): 115-22.
32. Sosic, Lovorka, Sara Kekus, ve Antonia Pindulic. “Croatia’s Violent Pushbacks of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers”. Open Democracy, 5.11.2019. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/croatiasviolent-pushbacks-of-refugees-and-asylum-seekers/.
33. Soysal, Yasemin. Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
34. Strang, Alison, ve Alastair Ager. “Refugee Integration: Emerging Trends and Remaining Agendas”. Journal of Refugee Studies 23, no 4 (2010): 589-607.
35. Tanner, Arno. “Owerwhelmed by Refugee Flows, Scandinavia Tempers its Warm Welcome”. Migration Information Source, 16.2.2016. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/overwhelmed-refugee-flowsscandinavia-tempers-its-warm-welcome.
36. Terpan, Fabien. “Soft Law in the European Union: The Changing Nature of EU Law”. European Law Journal 21, no 1 (2015): 68-96.
37. UNHCR. “Commentary on the Refugee Convention 1951 Articles 2-11, 13-37”. Geneva: UNHCR Division of International Protection Services, 1997. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.unhcr.org/3d4ab5fb9.pdf.
38. UNHCR. “Conclusion on Local Integration”. Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme, 7.10.2005. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.unhcr.org/excom/exconc/4357a91b2/conclusion-localintegration.html.
39. UNHCR. “Conclusion on the Provision of International Protection Including Through Complementary Forms of Protecton”. Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme, 7.10.2005. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.unhcr.org/43576e292.html.
40. UNHCR. “Global Consultations on International Protection/Third Track: Local Integration”. 25.4.2002. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.refworld.org/docid/3d6266e17.html.
41. UNHCR. “Note on the Integration of Refugees in the European Union”. 5.2007. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.unhcr.org/protection/integration/463b462c4/note-integrationrefugees-european-union.html.
42. UNHCR. “The Refugee Convention, 1951: The Travaux Preparatoires Analysed with a Commentary by Dr Paul Weis”. UNHCR, 1990. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.unhcr.org/4ca34be29.pdf.
43. UNHCR. “UNHCR Note on Refugee Integration in Central Europe”. Budapest: UNHCR, 4. 2009. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.refworld.org/docid/4bfe70d72.html.
44. Valtonen, Kathleen. “Resettlement of Middle Eastern Refugees in Finland: The Elusiveness of Integration”. Journal of Refugee Studies 11, no 1 (1.1.1998): 38-60.
45. Yıldız, Ayselin. “Göç ve Entegrasyon Politikalarında Vatandaşlık”, Göç Araştırmaları Dergisi 3, no 1(2017): 48-49.