the european illegal immigration issue and the assessment of the efficiency of the eu’s frontex...
TRANSCRIPT
1
LUDWIG MAXIMILIAN UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH
MUNICH INTERNATIONAL SUMMER UNIVERSITY 2012
EUROPEAN STUDIES PROGRAM
The European illegal immigration
issue and the assessment of
the efficiency of the EU’s
FRONTEX agency in
Central and Eastern Mediterranean
By Evangelos Marios Kemos
Paper Supervisor: Arnold Kammel
September 2012
2
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4
1. EU’s immigration issue .......................................................................................... 4
2. EU’s immigration policy ........................................................................................ 7
3. Main Objectives ...................................................................................................... 9
3.1.1. Legal migration ...................................................................................... 10
3.1.2. Illegal Immigration ................................................................................ 10
4. Frontex .................................................................................................................. 12
4.1. Tasks.............................................................................................................. 13
4.2. Means - Equipment ....................................................................................... 14
4.3. Operations - Missions.................................................................................... 15
4.3.1. Central Mediterranean Route ................................................................. 15
4.3.2. Eastern Mediterranean Route ................................................................. 15
5. Efficiency Assessment .......................................................................................... 16
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 17
3
Table of Figures
Figure 1 Illegal border-crossing between BCPs……………………………………….5
Table of Tables
Table 1 Routes of the immigration flows into the EU………………………………...5
Table 2 Frontex’s Budget…………………………………………………………….14
4
Introduction
Although the European debt crisis has monopolized the International and European
interest after 2009, one of the largest and most complex problems that the European
Union [EU] and its Member States are facing at the moment is illegal immigration.
Throughout history, immigration has altered the development of Europe as a continent
and it continues to do so today. As a policy subject within the EU, the topic of
immigration as compared to other policy issues has appeared late on the agenda, but
in recent years significant changes were made in the direction of stronger European
legislation to address this particular matter. Today, it is quite clear that in an EU of
open borders, illegal immigration does not affect only the countries which the
immigrants first enter. Often, they only use those countries as transit points to their
final destination. This essay aims to analyse this particular issue, to assess the actions
taken so far by the EU, to resolve and address this issue and to suggest ways to
improve the coordination and effectiveness of those actions.
A significant improvement created by the EU with regard to illegal immigration
has to do with the formation of the European Agency for the Management of
Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the
European Union [Frontex]. This agency was created in 2005 with the purpose of
increasing cooperation between EU Member States on managing their external
borders. However, while the EU members were historically allowed to set their own
policy on migration, the Treaty of Amsterdam [ToA] and the Tampere European
Council in 1999 gave the EU responsibility for setting a Common Immigration and
Asylum Policy, with the principal aim of making migration safe and legally
controlled. Since 1997, EU member states have made slow progress in developing a
common position on these issues. The above improvements were put into action
mainly as a consequence of the EU’s plan for the creation of a European area of
freedom, security and justice.
1. EU’s immigration issue
Migration has become an increasingly important phenomenon for European societies.
Patterns of migration flows can greatly change over time, with the size and
composition of migrant populations reflecting both current and historical patterns of
migration flows, but the motivation in each and every migration flow is the same, the
5
quest of better life conditions and a prosperous future. Combined with the complexity
and long-term nature of the migrant integration process, this can present challenges to
policymakers who need good quality information on which to base decisions. It is
important that the statistics should go beyond the basic demographic characteristics of
migrants and present a wider range of socio-economic information on migrants and
their descendants.
According to the latest data published by Frontex, the pattern of illegal border-
crossing between border crossing points has changed in the year 2011, mainly as a
consequence of the “Arab Spring”. Due to the general civil unrest erupting in the
countries of North Africa with sea borders affecting the EU Mediterranean countries,
Source: Frontex, 2012, p. 14
Illegal border-crossing between BCPs
Detections reported by routes and top three nationalities at the external borders
6
the EU saw a big influx of immigrants from Tunisia, Libya and to a lesser extent
Egypt. This particular pattern shift can be observed by the detections made by Frontex
and reported based on the routes of the immigration flows into the EU (See Figure 1).
Routes of the immigration flows into the EU
The significant increase of the percentage of detections made in the Central
Mediterranean Route in 2011 as compared to 2010 indicates this enormous shift
registering a record change of 1344% of detected illegal border crossings (See Error!
Reference source not found.). According to the same data collected by Frontex,
most of the illegal border-crossings occurred between February and August 2011 and
represented one of the largest numbers of detections in a single area over such a short
Source: Frontex, 2012, p. 17
7
period of time (Frontex, 2012, p. 15). The Central Mediterranean Route and the
Eastern Mediterranean Route show a combined total of 86% of the detections of
illegal border crossings. These areas were of specific interest to me over the other
areas on the figure because of the dramatic influx of numbers in one years’ time.
Taking into account all of the above, it is more than obvious that Frontex should be
reinforced and supported even more, in order to cope with the increased migration
flows to the EU mainly from the countries with external borders along the
Mediterranean sea.
2. EU’s immigration policy
Europe as a continent has confronted many waves of immigration during its long
history. Countries of the region have always been part of intra- and extra European
immigration waves and this historic fact has been of significant importance to the
formation of the European identity. The process of forming what is now known as the
EU began just after the war. Later on in the 1980’s, this process evolved and included
the Schengen Agreement of 1985. This agreement formed the Schengen Area which
saw the complete abolition of border controls between signatory states and provided
common rules on visa issuing. This also included police and judicial cooperation
between those states involved. At first, those states were the BENELUX region with
Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, but also included France and West
Germany. Although this project was independent from the European Communities,
which at that time would not consent on the acceptance of the agreement, it soon
became clear that the Schengen Area was the key that was needed by the European
Communities towards a unified European Union. Its members would greatly benefit
from and enjoy custom union and the unified criteria concerning immigration from
outside of this area.
Moreover, 1990 was an important year as two significant treaties on this particular
matter were introduced. Those were the Schengen Implementing Convention, which
came into force in 1995 (Monar, 2005, p. 146), and the Dublin Convention on Asylum
which set the guidelines for the future European cooperation. The first treaty, “[…]
devised ‘compensatory measures’ for removal of frontier controls, covering asylum, a
common visa regime, illegal immigration, cross-border police competences, and a
common computerized system for the exchange of personal data.” (Wallace, Pollack,
& Young, 2010, p. 459), meanwhile the second treaty “[...] incorporated the asylum
8
rules, […] and established the responsibility of the state in which the asylum-seeker
first enters for the examination of an asylum claim.” (Wallace, Pollack, & Young,
2010, p. 459). The treaty of Maastricht [ToM] of 1992 introduced a new structure in
which the matters of Asylum, the external border controls, and the immigration policy
were going to be addressed in the future as matters of common interest and therefore
they formed the third pillar. The ToA of 1997 transferred the policies mentioned
above to the first pillar and integrated Schengen into the treaties. The period
beginning with the ToA in the 1990s can be characterized and differentiated by the
previous periods because of the increase of “communitarisation” (Faist & Ette, 2007,
p. 6). It has to be stressed that Schengen arrangements at that time were described as
rather messy with a copious body of treaties, decisions, letters and other documents,
which eventually were pulled together in order to establish the “Schengen acquis”
(Guild & Bigo, 2010, p. 259). However, it is important to note that further
developments were made after the establishment of the “Schengen acquis” in order to
transform it to a more legal precise document.
A key point in the creation of the EU’s area of freedom, security and justice was
the Tampere European Council in 1999. The Tampere European Council set “[…] far-
reaching objectives and fixed deadlines for their adoption” (Wallace, Pollack, &
Young, 2010, p. 464). On the basis of the 1999 meeting of the European Council in
Tampere the EU has developed a common migration policy around four main points
which still exist in current legislation (Frattini, 2007, p. 35):
Legal immigration and integration of third country nationals,
Combating illegal immigration,
A Common European Asylum System [CEAS]
Cooperation with countries of origin and transit.
In the year 2004, the multiannual Hague Programme for the years 2005-20091 was
adopted at the European Council. This programme set out 10 priorities for the EU
with the view to strengthening the area of freedom, security and justice in the next
five years. The programme's main focus was on setting up a common immigration
and asylum policy for the 25 EU member states and also involved the gradual
1 OJ C53 of 03.03.2005 - THE HAGUE PROGRAMME: STRENGTHENING FREEDOM,
SECURITY AND JUSTICE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2005:053:0001:0014:EN:PDF
9
expansion of the European Refugee Fund (Cini, 2007, p. 315) and the Qualified
Majority Voting. In 2010 the current multiannual Stockholm Programme for the years
2010-20142 was adopted. According to this programme, the main points concerning
the area of freedom, security and justice are that:
A new mandate should be given which would allow the role of Frontex to be
reinforced and enhanced so that it can respond more effectively to existing and future
challenges (changing migration flows etc.). It is essential that the activities of Frontex
and of the European Asylum Support Office [EASO] be coordinated when it comes to
the reception of migrants at the Union’s external borders.
The development of the European Border Surveillance System [Eurosur] in
the Southern and Eastern borders be standardized with modern electronic
technologies. The idea is that the system be a support to the Member States in an
effort to promote interoperability and uniform border surveillance standards and for
ensuring that the necessary cooperation is established between the Member States as
well as with Frontex to share necessary surveillance data without delay.
3. Main Objectives
The main objectives set by the current framework within the Stockholm Programme,
urge that integration, immigration and asylum policies are built on full respect of
fundamental rights. Moreover, according to the article 79 and 80 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the EU [TFEU]3 the “EU shall develop a common immigration policy
aimed at ensuring, at all stages, the efficient management of migration flows, fair
treatment of third-country nationals residing legally in Member States, and the
prevention of, and enhanced measures to combat, illegal immigration and trafficking
in human beings” and immigration policies shall be governed by the principle of
solidarity and fair division of responsibility, including its financial implications,
between the Member States. The TFEU makes it clear that there will be a different
approach and measure adoption in the case of legal migration and illegal immigration.
2 OJ C115 of 04.05.2010 - THE STOCKHOLM PROGRAMME — AN OPEN AND SECURE
EUROPE SERVING AND PROTECTING CITIZENS: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:115:0001:0038:en:PDF 3 OJ C115 of 09.05.2008 - CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE
FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0047:0199:en:PDF
10
3.1.1. Legal migration
Regarding legal migration, the EU has the competences to clear the conditions of
entry and residence of third country nationals for purposes of employment, study or
family reunification. Member States still retain the right to determine the volumes of
admission of people coming from third countries to their territory in order to seek
work (Peers & Rogers, 2006, pp. 9-10).
The admission of the people to the EU is regulated and monitored according to the
common visa policy which also includes regulations on the security of documents and
which in the end requires information exchanges between the Member States4. This
particular information exchange is possible with the introduction of various electronic
systems such as the European Schengen Information System [SIS] I and II and the
Visa Information System (Faist & Ette, 2007, p. 28). Taking into account all of the
EU’s current regulations, it is quite clear that the EU’s main objective is to better
organize legal migration and further enhance the integration of non-EU nationals
across all EU communities.
It is also more than evident that the EU Member States need to implement a
genuinely organised and well-coordinated policy on immigration. For this to succeed,
the responsibilities and financial burdens must be shared amongst all Member States,
but also the policy planning should include local and regional authorities that will
provide the Member States and the EU in general with all the required information
about the needs of each local or peripheral area. Local and regional authorities can
also be of great help in the case of integration in that the local communities are the
ones that provide the space and time for processing legal migrants. Again, the EU can
provide help in various other ways, from using certain programmes aiming at curing
specific pathogeneses, for example, providing equal treatment to legal migrants, but
also to include positive actions such as helping with family reunifications. These
programmes should include language training, cultural and civic training, and the
teaching of European values.
3.1.2. Illegal Immigration
Regarding illegal migration, the EU is asked to prevent and reduce irregular
immigration, notably by an effective return policy, in full respect of fundamental
4 European Parliament’s summary on Immigration Policy:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/en/FTU_4.12.3.pdf
11
rights and by signing readmission agreements with countries of origin and transit of
migrants. An irregular migrant is a person who comes to the EU without the correct
visa or permit or who overstays after the expiry of his visa. He may be seeking
asylum, but he may simply be coming to find a job or stay with his family5.
The EU addresses the illegal immigration problem in various ways. In general, the
EU focuses on curbing irregular, “illegal” immigration but also tries to address this
problem by managing immigration through partnership with non-EU countries,
countries of origin or transit of illegal immigrants. Cooperation with third countries
can be achieved in cases of training of border controllers, or by providing and
supporting those third countries with border control equipment and methods (Faist &
Ette, 2007, pp. 44-45). The funds that the EU allocates, according to the current
multiannual financial framework for the years 2007-2013, to the area of solidarity and
management of migration flows and cover those two objectives of illegal immigration
are6:
The External Borders Fund, which receives €1820 million, includes the
control and surveillance of borders and the implementation of the visa ,
The European Return Fund, which receives €676 million, contributes to the
return of third-country nationals illegally residing in the EU,
The European Fund, which receives €825 million, for the integration of third-
country nationals,
The European Refugee Fund, which receives €628 million, supports EU
countries’ efforts in receiving refugees and displaced persons and establishes
common asylum procedures.
Of significant importance to the area of immigration policy are the thematic
programmes for cooperation with third countries in the areas of migration and asylum
that aim to support third countries in their efforts to ensure better management of
migratory flows in all their dimensions. For the period 2007-2013, the budget for
those thematic programmes is approximately €384 million. The EU also provides
financial and technical assistance in the framework of its Neighbourhood Policy, the
Mediterranean Policy and other development oriented programmes mainly targeting
5 Ibid
6 The EU’s Financial Framework 2007-2013: Investing in our future:
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/fin_fwk0713/investing_2007-2013_en.pdf
12
Africa (Bendel, 2009, p. 191). Those programmes have a multitude of purposes, but
one aim is to provide stability in the region around the EU and eventually reduce
migration from the surrounding EU countries, to the EU itself.
4. Frontex
Frontex is a European Union agency. The seat of the Agency is in Warsaw, which can
be taken as an indication of the importance attached to the responsibilities of the new
Member States regarding the control of EU external borders (Monar, 2006b, p. 185).
It was created in 2004 and came into force on May 1st 2005 as “[…] a specialised and
independent body with the task to coordinate the operational cooperation between
Member States in the field of border security”7 and currently has 290 employees.
Frontex forms a constitutive part of the common border management strategy. It’s
human as well as financial resources have been generously increased since it began
operating in May, 2005 (Pollak & Slominski, 2009, pp. 909-910), a fact
demonstrating the growing importance of such an agency in the EU.
At the top of the list of Frontex tasks is the coordination of the intelligence-driven
operational cooperation between Member States in the management of external
borders (Laitinen, 2007, p. 59). It must be stressed that Frontex does not replace, but
complements and provides particular added value to the national border management
systems of the Member States. Frontex focuses on six principal areas, which are
defined in the Frontex regulation:
Frontex manages the Operational Cooperation of Member States at the External
Borders of the European Union with its main activity of organising and managing
cooperative patrol operations at external borders of the EU.
The border controls operations are only as good as the intelligence upon which they
are based. For this reason, Frontex places particular emphasis on risk analysis to
assess threats, look at vulnerabilities and weigh consequences. The Agency balances
and prioritises the available resources against risks so that it can ensure the right
amount of protection for Member States with the aim of avoiding both under-
protection and over-protection.
7 OJ L349 of 25.11.2004 – COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004
establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External
Borders of the Member States of the European Union: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:349:0001:0011:EN:PDF
13
Frontex provides assistance to Member States in the training of national border
control authorities, including the establishment of common training standards. The
Agency contributes to the improvement of the professionalism of Member States’
border authorities and enhances their ability to work with each other for the benefit of
the EU as a whole.
By following the development of research relevant for the control and surveillance
of external borders, Frontex strengthens the border control capabilities of Member
States’ border guard institutions. It keeps them informed about the latest technologies
which are available and ensures that the specific interests of border guard authorities
are properly taken into account in security research.
Frontex helps Member States face situations requiring increased technical and
operational capability at external borders. To be able to respond to unexpected
situations of heightened pressure, which may arise at the EU’s external borders,
Frontex has set up pre-structured rapid intervention packages in the form of Rapid
Border Intervention Teams [RABITs].These include both experts and technical
assets that can be deployed at short notice to provide immediate assistance to those
Member States which may need additional support.
Frontex’s main responsibility is to provide Member States with the necessary
support in organising joint return operations. Frontex assists Member States to
jointly return illegally-staying third country nationals to their countries of origin in the
most efficient manner and to the highest human rights standards.
4.1. Tasks
The main tasks of FRONTEX, according to its regulation document, are (Guild &
Bigo, 2010, pp. 266-267):
Coordinate operational cooperation between the Member States in the field of
management of external borders,
Assist Member States on training of national border guards, including the
establishment of common training standards,
Carry out risk assessments.
Stay current on developments in research relevant to the control and
surveillance of external borders,
Technical and operational assistance to Member States, when circumstances
require it,
14
Support in organizing joint return operations.
4.2. Means - Equipment
A very important fact on Frontex activity is that the Agency does not have its own
technical or human resources to be deployed in the actual course of operations.
Therefore, each time a new need appears, Frontex approaches other Member States
with a request that they participate in the operation by offering their resources. This
means that a prerequisite of all of Frontex activities in this regard is the willingness of
the Member States to cooperate and share the burden of illegal migration. This burden
sharing can take different forms, be it in the form of sharing expertise, experts or
technical capabilities (Laitinen, 2007, p. 59).
However, despite the fact that in its founding year, 2005, Frontex had no budget
for operational activities but only for covering the costs for its staff and the meetings
of its Management Board, this changed significantly in 2006, as expenditure
independence with regard to operational tasks such as joint operations, risk analysis,
training activities and research was introduced (Pollak & Slominski, 2009, p. 909).
From 1st October 2006 it was agreed that Frontex gained full financial independence.
Frontex’s budget has increased dramatically since its inception – nearly quadrupling
between 2006 and 2008 (See Table 2) and continued expanding – showing the
political determination to invest substantial sums into its operational readiness (Pollak
& Slominski, 2009, p. 909).
Frontex’s Budget
Author’s compilation based on Pollak & Slominski, 2009; Frontex
YEAR EURO
2005 2,133,000
2006 19,166,300
2007 42,150,300
2008 70,432,000
2009 88,250,000
2010 92,846,928
2011 118,187,000
15
4.3. Operations - Missions
Frontex’s operations are initiated on the basis of needs identified in a risk analysis.
Those would be in the form of periodical risk analyses which are carried out annually
and cover the whole area in a given period, or are tailored risk analyses which
concentrate on a particular phenomenon at the external border. It is also possible for a
Member State to request support in circumstances requiring increased technical and
operational assistance at the common external borders. In any case, a risk analysis is
carried out. A draft of the operational initiative is made by Frontex after consultation
with the Member State or States, whose territory is affected by the particular
phenomenon which needs to be addressed (Laitinen, 2007, pp. 59-60). However,
Frontex operations in every case are based on risk analyses as far as each operation is
uniquely formed to the circumstances identified by Frontex as adequate to enable such
actions as a joint operation suggest.
4.3.1. Central Mediterranean Route
In the Central Mediterranean Route, Member States reported a total of 64,000
irregular detections in 2011, compared to only 5000 in 2010 (Frontex, 2012, p. 15),
which justified the request for intensive operations that Frontex put into effect in the
previous year in this particular area. Initially, detections in the Central Mediterranean
Route showed a dramatic increase in early 2011 due to the unrest which became
known as the “Arab Spring”. The result of this particular situation in Northern African
countries was that between January and March some 20,000 Tunisian migrants
arrived on the Italian island of Lampedusa (Frontex, 2012, p. 15). In the second
quarter of 2011, the above situation was moderated mainly because of various
agreements that came into force concerning repatriation of immigrants (See Figure 1).
4.3.2. Eastern Mediterranean Route
Compared to the Central Mediterranean Route, the Eastern Mediterranean Route is
undeniably more established as an illegal entry point for irregular migrants and
facilitation networks. In the past, the main flows of immigrants were traditionally
entering the EU via the sea border between Greece and Turkey. In 2010, the records
detected significant irregular activity at the land borders between those two countries
(Frontex, 2012, pp. 17-18) (See Figure 1).
16
5. Efficiency Assessment
A lot of progress has been made in Frontex’s operations during the years from its
foundation in 2005 through to today, but there is much to be accomplished. With
effective external border management considered to be one the most vital elements of
the EU’s approach to internal security and migration management, the agency at its
initial start-up was on the right track for its potential future development (Monar,
Justice and Home Affairs, 2006a). Its creation was a necessity but it needs to be
amended as times change.
The assessment of any issue is an important challenge for a researcher. Policy
related assessments, such as this one, depend largely on current situations - the
vagaries of time - this refers to events that occur for only a specific period of time but
which are of paramount importance and significance. However, there are certain
issues that can be observed and analysed independent of those “vagaries of time”
which show a more long-term situation. It is these long-term issues that, for the
purpose of this paper, I intend to address.
In recent years, due to the increase of migration flows to the EU, Frontex and its
policies have been tested. It has become more evident than ever before the severity of
flaws and problems that are inherent in the current structure. Frontex has to review
and analyse these issues urgently in order to overcome these weaknesses to become
more efficient. Such problems can be found in the actions taken to date by the agency.
For example, a review needs to be done with regard to the brevity of the operations,
the ad-hoc nature of the operations, the uneven involvement of the Member States and
the accountability issues (Pollak & Slominski, 2009, pp. 913-915). The issue of
accountability includes the following aspects: political, legal, administrative and
social (Pollak & Slominski, 2009, pp. 916-919).
Of important notice are the discrepancies and distortions of the ad-hoc nature of
the operations and the uneven involvement of the Member States. Member States’
involvement differs widely with some member states being more inclined to
participate than others. This uneven participation shows that the Member States seem
to follow a pick-and-choose approach which is based on the view that those countries
have of Frontex’s utility. Moreover, this participation in many cases depends on the
resources that the Member States have available at hand (Pollak & Slominski, 2009,
p. 915).
17
Another issue concerning the effective operation of Frontex is that the agency and
the EU must overcome the mandate limitations and restrictions on which the agency
was formed on. These are the issues stressed in this particular efficiency assessment.
In recent years and especially in this period of economic crisis, Frontex fared well
operationally to overcome its mandate limitation. Recently, the various austerity
measures introduced throughout Member States of the EU resulted in an increase in
disparities between Member States with regard to their capacity to perform border
controls. With the Member States being severely affected financially by the crisis and
their funding capabilities of their non-EU border protection programmes decreasing, a
stronger border control agency should be formed to provide unified services. The
illegal immigration problem should eventually be treated as a fully communitarized
problem which would require a fully communitarized solution. This solution will have
many advantages with the agency being centrally administered by the EU and the
Member States contributing equally in a financial manner. Under this administration,
the only way for the sovereign border protection issue to be resolved would be to
create a European Border Guard agency.
By introducing an agency of such a kind the aim would be to provide an
instrument of solidarity for sharing the burden of controlling external borders in the
enlarged Union and allow for a better use of personnel and technical resources, as
well as of available expertise, while at the same time marking a step forward for
political integration as scholars have pointed out (Monar, 2006b). Although an effort
to establish a European Border Guard was initiated in the past, it actually led to the
establishment of the agency discussed in this essay. The creation of Frontex was the
compromise between two opposing proposals and, as in many cases, it was a decision
based on the lowest common denominator between the Member States.
Conclusion
At first glance, the establishment of Frontex in 2005 was a great step towards the
development of a common border management system, but as the years passed the
Member States showed an unwillingness to provide the agency with the needed means
to do what was required which then resulted in a number of operational issues. In
recent years, under the continuous pressure of the illegal immigration flows entering
the EU from its Mediterranean borders, many efforts were made for those issues to be
18
resolved in order for the agency to be more efficient. Unfortunately they have not yet
borne the fruits of their labour.
Moreover, it is of crucial importance that the EU maintains a balance between
these three areas: promoting mobility and legal migration, optimising the link between
migration and development, and preventing and combating illegal immigration. There
is only one agency that has the ability to fulfil such a need: Frontex. For the EU to
become an area of freedom, security and justice, the EU must go forward and
strengthen its presence and provide a convincing plan through actions rather than
words.
Furthermore, with many border countries going through difficult financial times
and having to implement austerity measures which could directly impact the counties’
ability to safeguard the borders, it is even more pressing that Frontex take on an
expanding role in external border security. It would be a good idea to eventually
transform the agency to the initially proposed model of a European Border Guard
agency which would also be based on the Member States involvement and
contribution. By forming such an agency it is expected that it would respond with
greater efficiency and speed when serving the needs and obligations assigned to it.
The agency would have the power to act on its own in order to maintain planning,
management and enforcement of the external sovereign borders in a uniform manner
based on the EU’s idea with regard to services across border countries. Member States
should see the benefit of this necessity and be involved and contribute to Frontex in
any way needed.
19
Works cited
Bendel, P. (2009). Migrationspolitik der Europäischen Union: Aufbruch oder
Blockade? In T. Fisher, & D. Gossel (Hrsg.), Migration in internationaler
Perspektive (S. 190-220). München: Allitera Verlag.
Cini, M. (Hrsg.). (2007). European Union Politics (2nd Ausg.). Oxford University
Press.
Faist, T., & Ette, A. (Hrsg.). (2007). The Europeanization of National Policies and
Politics of Immigration: Between Autonomy and the European Union.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Faist, T., & Ette, A. (2007a). Between Autonomy and the European Union: The
Europeanisation of National Policies and Politics of Immigration. European
View, V, 19-26.
Frattini, F. (2007). Towards a stronger European Immigration Policy. European View,
V, S. 35-40.
Frontex. (05. September 2012). Annual Risk Analysis 2012. Von Frontex:
http://www.frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Risk_Analysis/Annual_Risk
_Analysis_2012.pdf abgerufen
Guild, E., & Bigo, D. (2010). The Transformation of European Border Controls. In B.
Ryan, & V. Mitsilegas (Hrsg.), Extraterritorial Immigration Control: Legal
Challenges (S. 252-273). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
Hobbing, P. (August 2005). Integrated Border Management at the EU Level. CEPS
Working Document(227). Center for European Policy Studies (CEPS).
Jeandesboz, J. (August 2008). Reinforcing the Surveillance of EU Borders: The
Future Development of FRONTEX and EUROSUR. CHALLENGE Liberty &
Security Research Paper(11). Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS).
Klug, A., & Howe, T. (2010). The concept of state jurisdiction and the applicability of
the nonrefoulement principle to extraterritorial interception measures. In V.
Mitsilegas, & B. Ryan (Hrsg.), Extraterritorial immigration control: Legal
challenges. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
Laitinen, I. (2007). Frontex and the Border security of the European Union. European
View, V, S. 57-62.
20
Léonard, S. (2009). The Creation of FRONTEX and the Politics of Institutionalisation
in the EU External Borders Policy. Journal of Contemporary European
Research, 5(3), 371-388.
Lutterbeck, D. (March 2006). Policing Migration in the Mediterranean.
Mediterranean Politics, 11(1), 59–82.
Monar, J. (2005). The European Union’s 'integrated management' of external borders.
In J. DeBardeleben (Hrsg.), Soft or hard borders? Managing the divide in an
enlarged Europe (S. 145-164).
Monar, J. (2006a). Justice and Home Affairs. JCMS: Journal of Common Market
Studies, 44, S. 101-117.
Monar, J. (2006b). The Project of a European Border Guard: Origins, Models and
Prospects. In M. Caparini, & O. Marenin (Hrsg.), Borders and Security
Governance: Managing Borders in a Globalised World (S. 174-189). Geneva:
Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF).
Peers, S., & Rogers, N. (Hrsg.). (2006). EU Immigration and Asylum Law: Text and
Commentary. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
Pollak, J., & Slominski, P. (September 2009). Experimentalist but not Accountable
Governance? The Role of Frontex in Managing the EU’s External Borders.
West European Politics, 32(5), S. 904-924.
Wallace, H., Pollack, M. A., & Young, A. R. (Hrsg.). (2010). Policy-Making in the
European Union (6th Ausg.). Oxford University Press.