Eiko Thielemann has carried out extensive research into asylum policies in the EU. A new film, produced as part of an LSE ‘Research Impact’ case study, examines how his research has informed policymakers, focusing on the issue of fair distribution of refugees.
Migration has become one of the biggest issues in European politics. The summer of 2015 bought this in to sharp focus, as our screens were filled with reports of those seeking asylum from conflict and suffering. There have always been questions surrounding the fair distribution of asylum seekers amongst EU states and the suitability of the ‘Dublin regulation’, which allocates responsibility for asylum seekers among the Member States. With the sustainability of the ‘Dublin system’ being increasingly questioned, wider questions are being asked about what role the EU can and should play in the management of migration flows across Europe.
Dr Eiko Thielemann has conducted research on fairer responsibility-sharing of refugees, which has proved influential on policymaking at the highest level. After founding the Migration Studies Unit in 2007, he contributed to three major EU reports on Migration, which have helped to shape the asylum debate among EU policy-makers. Following his 2010 report on asylum burden-sharing Dr Thielemann served as a Special Rapporteur to the European Parliament for EU burden-sharing initiatives, providing evidence and advice to various party groups and the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee.
This short film, produced as part of the LSE’s ‘Research Impact’ initiative, examines Dr Thielemann’s research which asks, how the EU can better equip itself to tackle the challenges posed by the current refugee crisis? As Dr Thielemann observes, “Despite the progress we’ve made in recent years, clearly there is a lot more work to be done. I think there is a duty to seize this moment to act and recognize that we are really facing questions of basic human dignity and solidarity.”
____
Note: This was originally published on LSE Government. You can read Eiko’s full case study here while the Research Impact website includes more case studies from the LSE Department of Government.
Dr Eiko Thielemann is Associate Professor in Political Science and Public Policy in the Department of Government and the European Institute at the LSE and Director of the Migration Studies Unit.
The dublin system is clear you ask for refuge in the first safe nation you come to, once you have gone through a safe nation you become a migrant and lose all refugee status, by ignoring this the eussr nations due not least to Merkel thinking she would get a couple of hundred thousand cheap labourers, is being inundated with young fit economic migrant males. We have seen the outcome of this in places like Cologne, and the destruction food stuffs that were being imported to the UK by illegal travellers breaking into the backs of the wagons. It is time that any illegal immigrant was removed from the nation and if they want to appeal they do it from their own nation where they should have applied for a visa in the first place. There is no acceptible reason for the UK to accept any of these migrants.
I agree on what you said about the Dublin Agreement applying to people once inside Europe, in that they must register in the first country upon arrival in Europe. However, I will also add that most of these people have no legal right to be labeled “refugees” even within Europe.
The interpretation of the asylum laws and of “refugees” is subject to dispute, and thus it must be debated beyond the current one-sided version in this article. This article takes the absolute position that a person who is a “refugee” (as opposed to an economic migrant) maintains the “refugee” status indefinitely until they reach their desired destination, despite that person passing through safe countries en route to the desired country. Alternatively, another interpretation of the asylum laws is that a person who may be a “refugee” does not maintain that status indefinitely; rather the “refugee” status remains up to the point that person is no longer in danger and has become safe (relatively speaking of course; no place is completely safe, as there are parts of London [for instance] that may be quite unsafe).
Once the person is “safe”, then they lose the “refugee” status, and by them continuing their journey, their status changes to that of “migrant”. (For Syrians, Turkey and Jordan and Lebanon are safe options. Similarly for sub-Saharan Africans, Egypt and Tunisia and Algeria and Morocco are safe; moreover, they can also go further south for safety. Travelling the more perilous road through Libya should not be a loophole argument that there was no safety cushion that separates “danger” from “safety”. The use of loopholes to remain a “refugee” goes counter to the spirit and intent of the asylum laws). Despite these two possible interpretations of the asylum laws, this article is treating its position as indisputable law.
When it comes to burden sharing, most countries became signatories to the conventions and treaties regarding “refugees” and the asylum laws not only because it is the humanitarian thing to do, but also because countries globally agreed to share the burden of taking in refugees. (In other words, because countries globally honor this principle as law, then the burden of taking in refugees would not fall on just a few countries). If a country were to have been told prior to becoming a signatory that the burden of taking in refugees were to fall on just a limited number of countries (as opposed to globally), then it is likely that these countries would have declined becoming signatories because the burden would be unfair, unbalanced, and too burdensome.
Today, although the asylum laws have global recognition, the burden seems to be falling predominantly upon Europe. Is that fair? No! So why is Europe (i.e., Merkel) taking the burden upon itself without demanding other countries/regions do their part as well. Why not Russia, or China, or India, or Pakistan, or the former Soviet Republics, or the Maghreb, or southern Africa? In actual size, the land mass of Western Europe is tiny relative to these other specified countries/regions; 1.5 million migrants/refugees per year in Europe is alarming, while 1.5 million migrants/refugees per year spread out amongst these other countries/regions is a “drop in the bucket”. But these other countries do not want to take on this burden as long as Merkel alone unilaterally volunteered Europe to take on this mission, so the other countries are allowing this to occur either due to them being unsympathetic to the situation AND/OR it may be selfish-opportunism on their part for this to be the downfall of Europe in its present form. (Let’s not be naïve as to the hatred of other countries against European society). But regardless of the reason, what is presently occurring contradicts the principle of shared-sacrifice, and it is unfair. The long-term consequence of this unshared sacrifice is that some countries will refuse to take on refugees (ex. Hungary and other Balkan nations), which may lead to the domino-effect of countries withdrawing from these conventions and treaties, and repealing their domestic legislation that bound them, thus jeopardizing the future of asylum laws globally.