Senior visiting fellow at the European Institute, Dr Francesca Pusterla Piccin, discusses how domestic considerations, such as territorial sovereignty and state political fragility, influence EU member states’ migration policies.
Migration is not a new phenomenon. Since the end of World War II, Europe has become a destination of significant migratory flows, and records from the last 20 years show a steady increase in international migration. Our work shows that, starting in 2015, ‘the EU had to face the rise of a severe humanitarian crisis where hundreds of thousands of refugees, migrants and asylum-seekers, especially from North Africa, the Middle East and Near East, left their countries in search of shelter and better life conditions. These groups reached the EU borders by sea and land and were largely able to access the territory of EU Member States’. The EU member states’ reaction to the incoming migrants is at stake, especially given the consequent potential economic, social and political implications, as Céline Cantat depicts. The EU and member states’ provision of humanitarian assistance to migrants fleeing towards their borders seems conflicting between a logic of care, safety and rescue and the defence of interwoven national interests, as well explained by Austin Crane & Victoria Lawson. How do domestic considerations influence member states’ policy-making towards migration?
Territorial sovereignty and state political fragility
The moral and political dilemma refers to territorial sovereignty and state political fragility. Territorial sovereignty grounds the categories of the moral and political dilemma between state authority over the incoming migrants and coordinated response to international migration crises. The choice is between member states’ national and common intervention through the EU institutions. State political fragility impinges upon domestic member states’ political legitimacy, public services, respect for human rights, and the rule of law, which are dimensions of a possible process of state fragilisation. But what does fragility mean, and how can it impact states’ decisions? States dread that the incoming migrants can represent humanitarian and security challenges and increase their internal fragility, especially if they fear not having the necessary absorption capacity and adequate resources. What are the main apprehended consequences? Loss of territorial sovereignty regarding physical control, erosion of authority over state decisions, capacity to provide public services for citizens, and socio-cultural pressure. For these reasons, the EU experiences significant differences in migration management approaches by its member states depending on their perception of internal fragility and consequent implications for territorial sovereignty.
Member States and migration management
Four categories of member states are depicted here. First, some fragile states that experience a deterioration of their political legitimacy in coping with the management of migrants seem to privilege the defence of territorial sovereignty through national intervention to stop flows towards their territories. This is typically the case of new member states integrating the EU after the 2004 enlargement, such as, for example, Hungary, the Czech Republic or Slovakia, which do not have a long history and political tradition of migrant integration and, meanwhile, are still strengthening their political apparatus in terms of legitimacy, public services, respect for human rights and the rule of law. In this way, they aim to keep control over their territorial sovereignty and avoid the potential increase in internal fragility due to the pressure put on by migrants.
Second, non-fragile states could also be inclined to defend their national interest to maintain the status quo. In this case, e.g., the Netherlands or Belgium prefer to oppose the EU economic aid to member states that are more exposed to the direct income of migrants. This led, for example, to ‘multiple convictions against the Belgian state and Fedasil, including by the European Court of Human Rights’. Such a restrictive approach towards welcoming migrants has become relevant in the last decade and, in parallel, has seen a resurgence of populist national movements in the EU. Such an approach strikes against other member states’ attitudes, which pushes towards EU intervention to increase the effectiveness of the response possibly.
This third category includes fragile member states asking for solidarity and the EU intervention to contain the costs. This is typically the case of EU border member states with many directly incoming migrants, such as Italy, Cyprus, Malta, Greece and Spain, advocating economic support to the EU. Euronews reported how ‘European Union member states on the Mediterranean Sea pushed back against their northern neighbours for not accepting asylum-seekers under a voluntary relocation initiative’. Aware of their internal fragility and fear of an increase due to the incoming of migrants, they seem contextually and contemporarily also aware that the costs of facing migration management unilaterally are hard to sustain on the economic, social, and political levels.
Finally, a fourth category of member states that are not experiencing the fragilisation of their political apparatus supports the EU intervention. Such a category generally includes member states with a long history of incoming migration and integration of migrants in the territory (such as France and Germany). Despite the political, social, and cultural integration difficulties that have not been lacking in recent years, their condition of non-fragile states and their pivotal coordination role at the EU level encourage them to favour the EU intervention over the national one. The centralised management of migration can thus become a tool to strengthen their central political position within the EU.
Migration and national political interest: two facets, same issue
Which considerations can thus be drawn about these significant differences, and what could be the implications in the medium and long run at the EU level? What can indeed be said is that the question of migration management is very divisive, and the domestic considerations of member states seem to significantly influence their choices, much more than the logic of caring for and supporting migrants’ needs. This is also well exemplified by the MPE’s discussions and vote on the EU asylum and migration rules on the 10th of April 2024. The EU stresses the importance of strengthening cooperation while promoting flexible solidarity. The EU migration policy remains a big issue, showing huge tensions and differences among states and national governments. On the one hand, the defence of territorial sovereignty is still a crucial topic for fragile states and states seeking an EU status quo that seems to favour their territorial sovereignty. On the other hand, member states that are much more supportive of the EU migration legislation do not fear internal fragility and aim to strengthen their sovereignty by promoting their central role in the EU.
The views expressed in this post are those of the author and in no way reflect those of the International Development LSE blog or the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Sustainability initiatives in Singapore have gained significant traction over the last decade.
The city-state is actively working towards establishing a greener future.
### Government-Led Initiatives
The government in Singapore has rolled out several green initiatives aimed at
reducing carbon footprints and advocating environmental
preservation. One notable program is the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint, which details
a comprehensive strategy for reaching environmental sustainability by 2030.
### Corporate Contributions
Many corporate entities in Singapore are also playing leadership roles
by embracing green practices. Corporate sectors are more and more choosing energy-efficient solutions and sustainable materials to minimize environmental impact.
### Community Engagement
Community engagement is essential in promoting sustainability in Singapore.
Various community groups organize events to engage citizens about
the importance of eco-friendly practices.
### Education and Research
Education institutions and scientific communities in Singapore are actively involved in green initiatives.
Institutes are leading research projects to create innovative solutions for eco-friendly technology.
### Future Prospects
With ever-growing efforts from the government, private sectors, and the community, Singapore is heading towards to
becoming a global leader in green initiatives.
The city-state advances to embrace sustainable living, aiming for a sustainable
future.