Controlling Asylum Migration to the Enlarged EU: The Impact of EU Accession on Asylum and Immigration Policies in Central and Eastern Europe

  • Catherine Phuong
Part of the Studies in Development Economics and Policy book series (SDEP)

Abstract

In May 2004, ten new Member States, namely Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and the three Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) joined the EU. Around the year 2007, Bulgaria and Romania will probably also join. Previous enlargements have taken place,1 but the accession of ten countries, mainly from Central and Eastern Europe, is unprecedented not only in terms of scale, but also for its political symbolism. For these states, EU membership confirms the success of their democratic and economic transition efforts and represents their (re-)integration to the European family after decades of political isolation.

Keywords

Migration Europe Romania Kazakhstan Exter 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anagnost, S. (2000). ‘Challenges Facing Asylum Systems and Asylum Policy Development in Europe: Preliminary Lessons Learned from the Central European and Baltic States (CEBS)’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 12: 380–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, M. (2000). ‘Border Regimes and Security in an Enlarged European Community: Implication of the Entry into Force of the Amsterdam Treaty’, RSC Paper, No. 2000/8. Florence: Robert Schumann Centre, European Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Bouteillet-Paquet, D. (2001). L’Europe et le droit d’asile, Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  4. Byrne, R., G. Noll and J. Vested-Hansen (eds) (2002a). New Asylum Countries? Migration Control and Refugee Protection in an Enlarged European Union, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  5. Byrne, R., G. Noll and J. Vested-Hansen (2002b). ‘Western European Asylum Policies for Export: The Transfer of Protection and Deflection Formulas to Central Europe and the Baltics’, in R. Byrne, G. Noll and J. Vested-Hansen (eds), New Asylum Countries? Migration Control and Refugee Protection in an Enlarged European Union, The Hague: Kluwer Law International: 5–28.Google Scholar
  6. Chlebny, J. and W. Trojan (2000). ‘The Refugee Status Determination Procedure in Poland’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 12: 212–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Czaplinski, W. (1994). ‘Aliens and Refugee Law in Poland – Recent Developments’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 6: 636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ECRE (European Council on Refugees and Exiles) (1998). ‘Position on the Enlargement of the European Union, in Relation to Asylum’, London and Brussels: ECRE, September. Available at: www.ecre.org/positions/eu.pdf.Google Scholar
  9. Grabbe, H. (2000). ‘The Sharp Edges of Europe: Extending Schengen Eastwards’, International Affairs, 76: 519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guild, E. and C. Harlow (eds) (2001). Implementing Amsterdam: Immigration and Asylum Rights in EC Law, Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  11. Hailbronner, K. (1998). ‘European Immigration and Asylum Law under the Amsterdam Treaty’, Common Market Law Review, 35: 1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hailbronner, K. and C. Thiery (1997). ‘Schengen II and Dublin: Responsibility for Asylum Applications in Europe’, Common Market Law Review, 34: 957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. House of Lords (2000). Select Committee on European Union, Enlargement and EU External Frontier Controls, HL Paper No. 110, London: The Stationery Office, 24 October.Google Scholar
  14. Iglicka, K. (2001). ‘Migration Movements from and into Poland in the Light of East– West European Migration’, International Migration, 39: 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IOM/ICPMD (International Organization for Migration/International Centre for Migration Policy Development) (1999). Migration in Central and Eastern Europe – 1999 Review, Geneva: IOM.Google Scholar
  16. Jerczinski, M. (1999). ‘Patterns of Spatial Mobility of Citizens of the Former Soviet Union’, in K. Iglicka and K. Sword (eds), The Challenge of East–West Migration for Poland, London: Macmillan: 105–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jileva, E. (2002). ‘Visa and Free Movement of Labour: The Uneven Imposition of the EU Acquis on the Accession States’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28: 683–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klaczynski, M. (1997). ‘Re-admission Agreements Concluded by Poland’, Available at: www.ujhrc.org/en/articles/klaczynski.htm.Google Scholar
  19. Laczko, F., I. Stacher and A. K. von Koppenfels (eds) (2002). New Challenges for Migration Policy in Central and Eastern Europe, Geneva: IOM, ICPMD and TMC Asser Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lambert, H. (1999). ‘Protection Against Refoulement from Europe: Human Rights Law Comes to the Rescue’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 48: 515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Latawski. P. (1999). ‘Straz Graniczna: The Mission, Structure and Operations of Poland’s Border Guard’, in K. Iglicka and K. Sword (eds), The Challenge of East–West Migration for Poland, London: Macmillan: 90–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lavenex, S. (1998a). ‘Asylum, Immigration, and Central–Eastern Europe: Challenges to EU Enlargement’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 3: 275.Google Scholar
  23. Lavenex, S. (1998b). ‘Passing the Buck: EU Refugee Policies towards Central and Eastern Europe’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 11: 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lavenex, S. (2002). ‘EU Enlargement and the Challenge of Policy Transfer: the Case of Refugee Policy’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28: 701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Le Monde (2002). ‘A la frontière roumano-moldave’, 9 June.Google Scholar
  26. Mikolajczyk, B. (2002). ‘Poland’, in R. Byrne, G. Noll and J. Vested-Hansen (eds), New Asylum Countries? Migration Control and Refugee Protection in an Enlarged European Union, The Hague: Kluwer Law International: 48–77.Google Scholar
  27. Monar, J. (2001). ‘Justice and Home Affairs’, in H. Wallace and A. Mayhew (eds), Poland: A Partnership Profile, OEOS Policy Paper, Brighton: University of Sussex, April.Google Scholar
  28. Noll, G. (2002). ‘Protection in a Spirit of Solidarity?’, in R. Byrne, G. Noll and J. Vested-Hansen (eds), New Asylum Countries? Migration Control and Refugee Protection in an Enlarged European Union, The Hague: Kluwer Law International: 305–24.Google Scholar
  29. O’Keefe, D. (1999). ‘Can the Leopard Change Its Spots? Visas, Immigration and Asylum – Following Amsterdam’, in D. O’Keeffe and P. Twomey (eds), Legal Issues of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Oxford: Hart: 271–88.Google Scholar
  30. Petersen, M. (2002). ‘Recent Developments in Central Europe and the Baltic States in the Asylum Field: A View from UNHCR and the Strategies of the High Commission for Enhancing the Asylum Systems of the Region’, in R. Byrne, G. Noll and J. Vested-Hansen (eds), New Asylum Countries? Migration Control and Refugee Protection in an Enlarged European Union, The Hague: Kluwer Law International: 351–72.Google Scholar
  31. Seiffarth, O. (2000). ‘The Enlargement Process and JHA Cooperation’, in P. J. van Krieken (ed.), The Asylum Acquis Handbook, The Hague: TMC Asser Press: 61–72.Google Scholar
  32. Sesickas, L., V. Siniovas, M. Urbelis and L. Vysckiene (2002). ‘Lithuania’, in R. Byrne, G. Noll and J. Vested-Hansen (eds), New Asylum Countries? Migration Control and Refugee Protection in an Enlarged European Union, The Hague: Kluwer Law International: 226–66.Google Scholar
  33. Shaw, J. (2001). ‘The Treaty of Nice: Legal and Constitutional Implications’, European Public Law, 7: 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simpson, G. (1999). ‘Asylum and Immigration in the European Union, after the Treaty of Amsterdam’, European Public Law, 5: 91.Google Scholar
  35. Stainsby, R. A. (1990). ‘Asylum-seekers in Poland: Catalyst for a New Refugee and Asylum Policy in Europe’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2: 636.Google Scholar
  36. Stola, D. (2001). ‘Poland’, in C. Wallace and D. Stola (eds), Patterns of Migration in Central Europe, London: Longman: 175–202.Google Scholar
  37. UNHCR (2002). Statistical Yearbook 2001: Refugees, Asylum-seekers and Other Persons of Concern – Trends in Displacement. Protection and Solutions, Geneva: UNHCR.Google Scholar
  38. van der Klaauw, J. (2001). ‘Towards a Common Asylum Procedure’, in E. Guild and C. Harlow (eds), Implementing Amsterdam: Immigration and Asylum Rights in EC Law, Oxford: Hart: 165–93.Google Scholar
  39. van Krieken, P. J. (ed.) (2000). The Asylum Acquis Handbook, The Hague: TMC Asser Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wallace, C. (2002). ‘Opening and Closing Borders: Migration and Mobility in East– Central Europe’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28: 603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wolczuk, K. (2001). ‘Poland’s Relations with Ukraine in the Context of EU Enlargement’, Briefing note, No. 4/01, Brighton: ESRC One Europe or Several Programme.Google Scholar
  42. Wolczuk, K. (2002). ‘The Polish–Ukrainian Border: On the Receiving End of EU Enlargement’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 3: 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zielonka, J. (2001). ‘How New Enlarged Borders Will Reshape the European Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 39: 507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© United Nations University — World Institute for Development Economics Research 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine Phuong

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations