Abstract:

The term shopping used in reference to two strictly legal/politically somewhat related issues ‘Asylum shopping’ and ‘Venue shopping’, belong to two different spheres of actors. Asylum shopping is descriptive of the action of asylum seekers selectivity, in choice of member state where they perceive better social and welfare conditions. Venue shopping, a concept introduced by Guiraudon in 2000, explain the action of movement by member states in the European Union from venues of national jurisdiction, less amenable to their search for more restrictive migration policy to venues howbeit transnational like transit countries and EU institutions suitable for their policy perspectives. This they did for the primary purpose of avoiding adversary activities of non-state actors and the judicial scrutiny within their national sphere. Common European Asylum System (CEAS) the Dublin Directive and the EURODAC are spill-over in the European integration Project, commonly referred to as the Schengen acquis in the area of migration and integration of third country nationals. The three directives are the results of policy search to administer the entrance and residence of third country nationals especially in the area of irregular migration. This paper seeks to examine the inter-relationship between the two actors to which the commercial term shopping describes, how an electronic regulation in EURODAC became a check to their ‘shopping.’ For the asylum seekers exposing their agency, for the member states reducing anxieties, and influenced the ceding of powers hitherto held by member states through (intergovernmental) negotiations to the EU (Supranational) and the impact of these policy measures in checking security challenges and sanitization of this angle of asylum administration in the EU.

References:

[1] ARENDT, H., Eichmann in Jerusalem. A Report on the Banality of Evil. Penguin. London 1994. [2] AUS, J. P., Supranational Governance in an “Area of Freedom, Security and Justice”, Eurodac and the Politics of Biometric Control, University of Sussex: Sussex European Institute, Working Paper No. 72. Sussex 2003 [3] AUS, J. P., EURODAC; A Solution Looking for a Problem? European International Online Paper, Vol 10 pp1-26. 2006 [4] BAUMGARTNER, F., & JONES, B., Agendas and Instability in American Politics, Chicago University Press. Chicago, 1993 [5] BIERMANN, F., PATTBERG, P., ASSELT, H., ZELLI, F., The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architecture: A Framework for Analysis. Global Environmental Politics 9, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2009. [6] BIGO, D.,“Frontiers and Security in the European Union: The Illusion of Migration Control,” In, Anderson, M. & Bort, E., (eds.), The Frontiers of Europe, London: Pinter, pp. 148-164 1998. [7] BOSWELL, C., ‘The ‘external dimension’ of EU immigration and asylum policy’, International Affairs, 79(3): 619-638 2003 [8] BOSWELL, C., Migration Control in Europe after 9/11: Explaining the absence of securitization’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol.45, no.3, pp.589-610. 2007 [9] BOSWELL, C., Evasion, Reinterpretation and Decoupling: European Commission Responses to the ‘External Dimension’ of Immigration and Asylum’, West European Politics, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 491-512. 2008 [10] BURMAN, M., VALEYATHEEPILLAY, M., Asylum Recognition Rates in Top 5 EU countries https://www.cesifo-group.de/DocDL/dice-report-2017-2-burmann-valeyatheepillay-june.pdf 2017 [11] Council of the European Union “Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 concerning the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention,” in: Official Journal of the European Communities of December 15, 2000, Vol. L 316, pp. 1-10. [12] ELSTER, J., Rationality, Economy, and Society,” in: Turner, S. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Weber, Cambridge University Press, pp. 21-41. 2000 [13] FREEMAN, G., The decline of sovereignty? Politics and immigration restriction in liberal states’, in C. Joppke (ed.), Challenge to the Nation State: Immigration in Western Europe and the United States. Oxford University Press. pp. 86-108. Oxford 1998 [14] GEDDES, A. “Getting the Best of Both Worlds? Britain, the EU and Migration Policy,” Oxford. International Affairs, Vol. 81, No. 4, pp. 723-740. 2005 [15] GEDDES, A., ‘Lobbying for migrant inclusion in the European Union: new opportunities for transnational advocacy?’ Journal of European Public Policy 7(4): 632–49. 2000b [16] GUILD, E., Seeking asylum: stormy clouds between international commitments and EU legislative measures´, European Law Review, vol.29 (2) April 2004. [17] GUIRAUDON, V. “European Integration and Migration Policy: Vertical Policy-making as Venue Shopping,” in: Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 38, (2) pp. 251-271. 2000 [18] GUIRAUDON, V. “The Constitution of a European Immigration Policy Domain: A Political Sociology Approach,” in: Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 263-282. 2003 [19] HIX, S., & HOYLAND, B., The Political System of the European Union, third edition, Palgrave Macmillan. London. 2011. [20] HOFFMANN, S., The State of War; Essays on the Theory and Practice of International Politics. Praeger Publishers. 1965. [21] JAEGER, G., Irregular movements: the concept and possible solutions. In: Martin D (ed.) The New Asylum-seekers: Refugee Law in the 1980s. The Ninth Sokol Colloquium on International Law. Dordrecht, pp 23-48 Martinus Nijhoff . Netherlands 1988. [22] JOPPKE, C., (ed)`Challenge to the Nation-State: Immigration in Western Europe and the United States´ Oxford University Press. Oxford. 1998. [23] KEOHANE, R. O., NYE, J. S., Power and Interdependence. Second edition HarperCollins, London 1989. [24] LAVANEX, S., The Europeanisation of Refugee Policies. Between Human Rights and Internal Security, Ashgate , Aldershot 2001. [25] LEVY, C. (2005), ‘The European Union after 9/11: the Demise of a Liberal Democratic Asylum Regime? Government and Opposition, pp. 26-59 [26] MAURER, A., & PARKES, R., ‘The prospects for policy-change in EU asylum policy: venue and image at the European level’, European Journal of Migration and Law 9: 173-205 2007 [27] MENZ, G., The Neolibralized State and Migration Control: The Rise of Private Actors in the Enforcement and Design of Migration Policy. Debatte; Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe Vol. 17, 315-332, 2009. [28] MOORE, K., Asylum Shopping in the Neo-Liberal social imaginary DOI: 101177/0163443712372090. SAGE. 2013 [29] MONAR, J., “Justice and Home Affairs in the Treaty of Amsterdam: Reform at the Price of Fragmentation,” in: European Law Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 320-335 1998 [30] MORAVCSIK, A., Preferences and Power in the European Community: A liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach. Blackwell Limited. Oxford. 1993. [31] MULLER, B., Globalization, security, paradox: towards a refugee biopolitics. Refuge Canada’s Journal on refugees’ vol. 22, Issue 1, 49–57. 2004 [32] OLSEN, P. O., Understanding Institutions and Logic of Appropriateness: Introductory Essay. ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, 2007 [33] PAPADIMIITIOU, P. N., & PAPAGEORGIOU, I. F., “The New ‘Dubliners’: Implementation of European [sic!] Council Regulation 343/2003 (Dublin-II) by the Greek Authorities,” in: Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 299-318. 2005 [34] PEERS, S., Justice and Home Affairs: Decision-making After Amsterdam,” in: European Law Review, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 183-191. 2000 [35] THOMSON, M., Images of Sangatte; Political Representations of Asylum-seeking in France and the UK. Sussex Migration Working Paper No. 18. Brighton: Sussex Centre for Migration Research, Sussex 2003 [36] THIELEMANN, E., ‘The Soft Europeanisation of Migration Policy: European Integration and Domestic Policy Change’, Paper prepared for the ECSA 7th Biennial International Conference, May 31 – June 02, 2001, Madison, Wisconsin 2001. [37] THIELEMANN, E., the Effectiveness of Asylum Policy in Controlling Unwanted Migration, in Parsons C., & Smeeding, T., (eds.) Immigration and the Transformation of Europe, pp. 442-72, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2006 [38] TORPEY, J., Coming and Going: On the State Monopolization of the Legitimate Means of Movement. American Sociology Association. DOI 10.1111/0735-2751.00055, vol 16, issue 3, Nov. 1998. [39] TRANHOLM-MIKKELSON, J., Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of the New Dynamism of the EC. Millennium Journal of International Studies. Vol. 20 No pp 1-22. 1991 [40] UNHCR, Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugee http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.pdf [41] VIERDAG, E. W., The Country of First Asylum: Some European Aspects; In: Martin D (ed.) The New Asylum-seekers: Refugee Law in the 1980s. The Ninth Sokol Colloquium on International Law. Dordrecht, pp 73-84 The Netherlands. Martinus Nijhoff. [42] WIlSON, D., Biometrics, borders and the ideal suspect. In: Pickering S, Weber L and Wilson D (eds) Borders, Mobility and Technologies of Control. Springer, pp. 87–109, Netherlands 2006. [43] WIENER, A., European Citizenship Practice; Building Institutions of a Non-State. Westview Press, Oxford 1998.