Okabe Midori

EU migration diplomacy is at a crossroads. The EU has long sought for an effective mechanism of immigration control by extending the sphere of governance. However, deepened European integration has not been their choice. The EU is not headed for closer cooperation in the field of redistributive policies which would include policies with regard to the Third Country Nationals (TCNs) becoming better integrated into their host societies. Instead, in the field of migration policy, the EU has opted for a system of burden-sharing where non-EU countries are expected to share the responsibility with the EU. The diplomatic strategy to set up effective policy linkages has become increasingly significant along this line. This paper claims that the current set of policy packages presented by the EU to the rest of the world is becoming less effective than before. Although the strengthened economic and political ties with the EU has been one of the significant objectives of many non-EU countries in the neighboring regions of the EU in particular, these countries are more prone to keep the status quo, selecting not to cooperate to satisfy the EU’s needs. Through a case analysis on EU-Turkey, EU-Africa (Morocco) and EU-ASEAN relations, this paper shows that the power of the EU (be it normative or not) is waning because non-EU countries do not appreciate the global institutional framework in which the EU burden is “pushed back” on them. Underneath is the transformation of the international structure where the economic growth has made the EU’s neighboring countries more stabilized, while the EU member states are in turmoil due to factors that could jeopardize the foundation of the union. The “Enlargement” is no longer attractive to some non-EU countries. Moreover, it is increasingly difficult for the EU member states to form an agreement to build the strategy because the burden of accepting refugees (and asylum seekers) is already unequally distributed among them.

資料形態 : テキストデータ プレーンテキスト コレクション : 国立国会図書館デジタルコレクション > デジタル化資料 > 雑誌

Facing 5^th Enlargement, current EU member states had apparently been worrying over the future trend in 'East-West' labour migration. Some econometrical analysis showed that only the limited scale of labour movement is to be seen after Enlargement, whose impact on the whole EU labour market is modest. The member states have succeeded so far in persuading the citizens with the data, while Germany urged EU to set up 7-year transition period in the area of 'free movement of people, ' for the protection of its domestic market.<br>Concerns over migration in the enlarged EU are in fact wider-ranged. Most member states now see new members, not so 'migrant-sending' as 'migranttransit' countries; the new member states have been requested high-qualified capability in external immigration control, to prevent sudden and unlimited influx of illegal migrants from outside the enlarged EU. These states were therefore obliged to meet the criteria of various JHA policies; they were even under pressure to sign such international treaties as 1951 Geneva Convention and Dublin Convention.<br>EU's policy towards its new members as above is well understood as a part of EU strategy on global migration control. 'The Strategy Paper on Immigration Policy' presented by Austrian Presidency in 1998, whose essence has benignantly been modified in Tampere, considers EU's political strategy to 4 areas respectively; (1) Schengen area, (2) EU, (3) future EU, and (4) others. The strategy aims at strengthening external border control facilities of EU, as well as combating illegal migratory movement through 'root-cause'-approach-based negotiation with migrant-sending countries. Area (4) apparently matches for the target of the negotiation, while in most cases area (3) needs effort to provide sound immigration control system. The EU accession dialogue has so far been effective for countries of area (3) to be set in the EU strategic script. The 5th enlargement can also be explained in this logic. Cooperation with area (4), however, has not yet fully established as there is few means to be found up until today of motivating area (4) countries to set themselves for the cooperation with EU.