Renewed Inter-institutional Im balance after the Lisbon Treaty? The External Dimension of the EU’s Migration Policy

Abstract

With the commencement of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009, the EU member states have committed themselves to the creation of “a common immigration policy”. Despite the increasing “communitarisation” of EU migration policy over the past decade, there has been a tendency to retain intergovernmental control over the EU policy-making process. The assertive responses of member states to purported migratory flows associated with the EU’s immediate neighbourhood, particularly the old member states subject to high levels of intra-EU secondary migration, are particularly resonant for the external dimension. Mapping out the legal and institutional framework of EU migration policy after the Lisbon Treaty, the article assesses the renewed inter-institutional balance in the EU related to policy towards the immediate neighbourhood and candidate countries

Keywords

• EU migration policy, external dimension, EU neighbourhood, Lisbon Treaty, EU policymaking.

References

1. Council of the European Union, “Seville European Council 21 and 22 June 2002 Presidency Conclusions”, at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ ec/72638.pdf [last visited 23 September 2013].
2. Council of the European Union, “Brussels European Council 15/16 December 2005 Presidency Conclusions”, at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/ pressData/en/ec/87642.pdf [last visited 23 September 2013].
3. In his analysis on the post-Lisbon institutional balance of power in the EU, Jörg Monar considers “power relating to decision-making” one of the aspects of the institutional power balance in the EU. See, Jörg Monar, “The European Union’s Institutional Balance of Power after the Treaty of Lisbon”, in European Commission, The European Union after the Treaty of Lisbon: Visions of Leading Policy-makers, Academics and Journalists, Luxemburg, Publications Office of the European Union, 2001, pp. 60–89.
4. Stanley Hoffmann, “Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-state and the Case of Western Europe”, Daedalus, Vol. 95, No. 3 (Summer 1966), p. 874.
5. Robert O. Keohane and Stanley Hoffmann, “Institutional Change in Europe in the 1990s”, in Robert O. Keohane and Stanley Hoffman (eds.), The New European Community: Decision Making and Institutional Change, Boulder, Westview Press, 1991, p. 17.
6. Stanley Hoffman, “Reflections on the Nation-state in Western Europe Today”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1 (September 1982), pp. 21-38.
7. Geoffrey Garrett and George Tsebelis, “An Institutional Critique of Intergovernmentalism”, International Organization, Vol. 50, No. 2 (Spring 1996), pp. 269-99.
8. Simon Hix, “The Study of the European Community: The Challenge to Comparative Politics”, West European Politics, Vol. 17, No. 11 (1994), pp. 1-30; John Peterson, “Decision- making in the European Union: Towards a Framework for Analysis”, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 2, No. 1 (March 1995), pp. 69-93; Thomas Risse-Kappen, “Exploring the Nature of the Beast: International Relations Theory and Comparative Policy Analysis Meet the European Union”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 34, No. 1 (March 1996), pp. 53-80.

9. Hix, “The Study of the European Community”, p. 8.
10. James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 3 (September 1984) pp. 734- 749.
11. Peter A. Hall and Rosemary C.R. Taylor, “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalism”, Political Studies, Vol. 44 (1996), p. 936.
12. Ibid., p. 950. 13 Ibid.
13. “Treaty on European Union”, Official Journal of the European Union (C 191), at http://eur- lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/11992M/htm/11992M.html [last visited 27 August 2013].
14. Jörg Monar, “Justice and Home Affairs after Amsterdam: The Treaty Reforms and the Challenge of their Implementation”, in Jörg Monar and Wolfgang Wessels (eds.), The European Union after the Treaty of Amsterdam, London, Continuum, 2000, p. 268.
15. “Treaty on European Union”, at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/11992M/ htm/11992M.html [last visited 27 August 2013].
16. Virginie Guiraudon, “European Integration and Migration Policy: Vertical Policy Making as Venue Shopping”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 38, No. 2 (June 2000), pp. 256-257. 19 Ibid.
17. Sarah Collinson, “Visa Requirements, Carrier Sanctions, “Safe Third Countries” and “Readmission”: The Development of an Asylum “Buffer Zone” in Europe”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 21, No. 1 (1996), pp. 76-90.
18. Monar, “Justice and Home Affairs after Amsterdam”, pp. 267–295.
19. “Treaty of Amsterdam Amending the Treaty on European Union- The Treaties Establishing the European Communities and Related Acts”, Official Journal of the European Union (C 340), at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/11997D/htm/11997D.html [last visited 27 August 2013]. 23 Ibid.
20. Presidency Conclusions, Tampere European Council, Council of the European Union, at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/00200-r1.en9. htm [last visited 05 September 2013] 25 Ibid.
21. “The Hague Programme: Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the EU”, Official Journal of the European Union (C 53/1), at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. do?uri=OJ:C:2005:053:0001:0014:EN:PDF [last visited 27 August 2013].
22. “The Stockholm Programme, an Open and Secure Europe Serving and Protecting Citizens”, Official Journal of the European Union (C 115/1), at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri= OJ:C:2010:115:0001:0038:EN:PDF [last visited 27 August 2013].
23. Hans G. Nilsson and Julian Siegl, “The Council in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice”, in Jörg Monar (ed.), The Institutional Dimension of the European Union’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, Brussels, Peter Lang AG, 2010, pp. 69-72.
24. Annabelle Roig and Thomas Huddleston, “EC Readmission Agreements: A Re-evaluation of the Political Impasse”, European Journal of Migration and Law, Vol. 9, No. 3 (August 2007), p. 373.
25. Article 218 of the TEC (formerly Article 210 of Rome Treaty) gave the Community a legal personality to conclude international agreements with third parties on behalf of the EU.
26. Council of the European Union, “Seville European Council 21 and 22 June 2002 Presidency Conclusions”, at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ ec/72638.pdf [last visited 23 September 2013].
27. European Commission, “Irregular Migration”, at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/ what-we-do/policies/immigration/irregular-immigration/index_en.htm [last visited 24 July 2013].
28. Ahmet İçduygu and Deniz Yükseker, “Rethinking Transit Migration in Turkey: Reality and Re-presentation in the Creation of a Migratory Phenomenon”, Population, Space and Place, Vol.18, No. 4 (2012), pp. 441-456.
29. European Commission, “Proposal for a Council decision of [ ... ] concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Turkey on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation”, at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX :52012PC0239:EN:HTML [last visited 27 August 2013].
30. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, “The Irregular Migration Corridor between the EU and Turkey: Is it Possible to Block it with a Readmission Agreement?”, at http:// cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/17844/EUUS%20Immigration%20Systems%20 2011_14.pdf?sequence=1 [last visited 23 September 2013].
31. European Commission, “Evaluation of EU Readmission Agreements”, at http://eur-lex. europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0076:FIN:EN:PDF [last visited 27 August 2013].
32. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “No:172, 21 June 2012, Press Release Regarding the Mandate of the EU Commission to Start Negotiations towards Visa Exemption for Turkish Citizens”, at http://www.mfa.gov.tr/no_-172_-21-june-2012_-press- release-regarding-the-mandate-of-the-eu-commission-to-start-negotiations-towards-visa- exemption-for-turkish-citizens.en.mfa [last visited 24 July 2013].
33. “Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union”.
34. The Tampere European Council Conclusions, adopted in October 1999, confirms this implied competence and states that the Community is granted with powers regarding readmission with the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty.
35. “Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”, Official Journal of the European Union (C 115/49), at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri= OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:en:PDF [last visited 27 August 2013].
36. The agreement was signed in 1985 by Belgium, France, Germany, Luxemburg and the Netherlands. See, Europa, “The Schengen Area and Cooperation”, at http://europa.eu/ legislation_summaries/justice_ freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_ immigration/l33020_en.htm [last visited 23 July 2013].
37. Council of the European Union, “Council Conclusions on Developing Cooperation with Turkey in the Areas of Justice and Home Affairs”, at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata /en/lsa/131103.pdf [last visited 27 August 2013].
38. Statewatch, “Vetoes, Opt-outs and EU Immigration and Asylum law”, http://www. statewatch.org/news/2004/dec/eu-immig-opt-outs3.pdf [last visited 27 August 2013].
39. “Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union”. 46 Ibid.
40. “Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement”, Official Journal of the European Union (L 81), at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2001R0539:20110 111:EN:PDF [last visited 27 August 2013]. The list has been amended several times since its adoption.
41. “Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”.
42. “Ordinary legislative procedure”, introduced with the Lisbon Treaty, involves co-decision procedure and qualified majority voting in the Council. For further information on ordinary legislative procedure, see, Europa, “Legislative Procedures”, at http://europa.eu/legislation_ summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties /lisbon_treaty/ai0016_en.htm [last visited 27 August 2013].
43. European Commission, “Evaluation of the Implementation of the European Community’s Visa Facilitation Agreements with Third Countries”, at http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/ regdoc/rep/2/2009/EN/ 2–2009–1401-EN-F-0.Pdf[last visited 27 August 2013].
44. Centre for European Policy Studies, “EC Visa Facilitation and Readmission Agreements: Implementing a New EU Security Approach in the Neighbourhood”, at http://www.ceps. eu/ceps/dld/1475/pdf [last visited 27 August 2013].
45. European Commission, “Evaluation of EU Readmission Agreements”, at http://eur-lex. europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0076:FIN:EN:PDF [last visited 27 August 2013].
46. “The Hague Programme: Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the EU”, Official Journal of the European Union (C 53/1), at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. do?uri=OJ: C:2005:053:0001:0014:EN:PDF [last visited 27 August 2013].
47. Europa, “Visa Facilitation Agreements”, at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we- do/policies/borders-and-visas/visa-policy/index_en.htm [last visited 24 July 2013].
48. “Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union”.
49. Tom Delreux, “The European Union in International Environmental Negotiations: A Legal Perspective on the Internal Decision-making Process”, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Vol. 6 No. 3 (September 2006), p. 239.
50. “Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”.
51. European Commission, “The Global Approach to Migration and Mobility”, at http:// ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/news/intro/docs/1_en_act_part1_v9.pdf [last visited 21 November 2013].
52. European Commission, “Communication on the Global Approach to Migration One Year On: Towards A Comprehensive European Migration Policy”, at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri= COM:2006:0735:FIN:EN:PDF [last visited 27 August 2013].
53. Council of the European Union, “Brussels European Council 14/15 December 2006 Presidency Conclusions”, at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/ pressData/en/ec/92202.pdf [last visited 23 September 2013].
54. German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF/EMN), “Circular and Temporary Migration: Empirical Evidence, Current Policy Practice and Future Options in Germany”, at http://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/EN/Publikationen/EMN/Nationale-Studien- WorkingPaper/emn-wp35-circular-migration-en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile [last visited 27 August 2013].
55. European Commission, “On Circular Migration and Mobility Partnerships between the European Union and Third Countries”, at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. do?uri=COM:2007:0248 :FIN:EN:PDF [last visited 27 August 2013].
56. European Commission, “The Global Approach to Migration”, at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ LexUriServ /LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0743:FIN:EN:PDF [last visited 27 August 2013].
57. European Commission, “Mobility Partnerships’’, at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/ what-we-do/policies/international-affairs/global-approach-to-migration/specific-tools/ index_en.htm [last visited 24 July 2013].
58. Steve Peers and Nicola Rogers argue that, in addition to Article 63(3) (a), Article 137 of the TEC could also provide a legal basis regarding the access of third country nationals to the EU labour market. See, Steve Peers and Nicola Rogers, EU Immigration and Asylum Law: Text and Commentary, Leiden, Brill Academic Publishers, 2006, pp. 677-78.
59. “The Hague Programme: Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the EU”, Official Journal of the European Union (C 53/1), at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. do?uri=OJ: C:2005:053:0001:0014:EN:PDF [last visited 27 August 2013]. 68 Ibid.
60. During the five-year transitional period after the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty, the Commission shared its competences to initiate a proposal with the member states. Although the Commission becomes the sole initiator following the end of the transition period, the Treaty affirms that the Commission should look into requests from member states.
61. “Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”. 71 Ibid.
62. Phillippe de Schoutheete, “The European Council”, in John Peterson and Michael Shackleton (eds.), The Institutions of the European Union, Oxford, Oxford UP, 2006, pp. 45-46.
63. Jean Claude Piris, The Lisbon Treaty: A Legal and Political Analysis, Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 2010, p. 208.