The reform of the Common European Asylum System

Abstract

The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) still stands as one of the leading problems dividing the European Union (EU) today, due to its inability to provide sufficient benefits to both Member States (MSs) and asylum-seekers. First-border countries are left to bear the burdens while other countries refuse to open their borders and examine asylum applications as a revolt against the EU’s inability in the area of asylum. The most prominent problems of the CEAS have always been the Dublin Regulation and its system of determining responsibility, along with MSs’ objection to a consistent uniform asylum policy. The Dublin Regulation has failed in its significance because of the inconsistencies that are found within, such as the irregular dispersion of asylum burdens, the infringement of asylum seekers’ rights in seeking relocation and the lack of solidarity within the area of asylum. Successive reforms within the last two decades have led to an impasse in further negotiations because of the failure of previous reforms. Nonetheless, it is commonly accepted that a subsequent reform is needed in order to reshape the system. Moreover, there is also a difficulty in transposing asylum policies from the Member States’ side. National leaders are refusing to adhere to the EU’s policies and are triggering returns towards previous national practices. This outcome is nonetheless undesirable and a greater understanding is to go into the intentions behind the backtracking on asylum policy, particularly by Eastern European MSs who feel a higher disregard towards asylum-seekers. Thus, this dissertation entails an examination of these two concepts as part of an initiation towards the reform of the CEAS, in order to understand what has caused the breakdown in negotiations. It finds that there are legal insufficiencies within the Regulation that have to be revised, such as the imposition that is placed upon first-border countries, the heavy focus on iv

responsibility as one of the determining factors for the Regulation’s success and the objection towards secondary movements due to the predicaments that they cause. An overview of the Dublin System’s past criticisms is given preceding this examination, upon which the basis for the research will be established. The methodology of the research is also established, where it defines that the research will be split into two parts: 1) a systematic review analysing articles from the Dublin Regulation and 2) a thematic analysis of discourse and rhetoric extracted from Eastern European national leaders and politicians. This research will lead to answering the two research questions associated with this study: 1. How can the Dublin Regulation be adjusted in the CEAS to regulate migration and prevent detriments without imposing responsibilities on certain MSs and levying them off of others? 2. What are the reasons for political actors and MSs’ disagreements on the establishment of a constitutionalized set of policies regarding asylum-seekers in the CEAS?

Throughout the writing of this dissertation, a conclusion will be formulated with recommendations on what is to be done to restart the reform of the CEAS through Dublin and re-establish cooperation between MSs on asylum.