Justice and Home Affairs (Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ)) Flashcards
How was the AFSJ thought of in the 1980s? Spillover?
1985 Schengen Agreement: eliminated internal border control amongst MS. This was pushed by both internal and external motors, such as the spillover from achievement of freedom of movement within single market
How was the AFSJ thought of in the 1990s? (2 things)
What do these two things highlight?
- 2 Important international treaties set the guidelines for future European cooperation in the field:
1. Schengen Implementory Convention (SIC) (between France, Germany and the Benelux states) which removed frontier controls by states on major AFSJ areas
2. Dublin Convention on Asylum: if asylum seeker first enters this state, the state is responsible for checking them
Highlights: that even before Maastricht, there were heavy networks of cooperation in JHA issues
What was the AFSJ like under Maastricht?
What pillar and what policy areas did it include?
Intergovernmental and cumbersome. Institutions such as EP and CJEU were marginalised and there was a lack of communiterisation
3rd Pillar: Fell under the 3rd pillar which included asylum, external border-crossing, immigration, police and judicial
What was the AFSJ like under Amsterdam?
What did MS do to restrain EU?
Shortcomings: attempted to address the shortcomings of the third pillar and contained substantial changes for the JHA
1st pillar: transferred migration and other related policies to first pillar in hope to increase communitarisation e.g. include commission to initiate
3rd pillar: police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters remained under the now revised third pillar
Communitarisation without guarantee and CJEU: certain measures had to be met before any suprantational decision-making may occur and the CJEU still played an overly restricted role. this symbolised MS hesitance toward communitarisation without guarantee
What were 3 main characteristic problems with regards to evolving JHA?
Sovereign
Democratic Deficit
Transgovernmental Governance
Sovereign Right Rethink: JHA touches on issues which are deeply ingrained into national political and judicial systems and have strong affinities to questions of state sovereignty since the 27th century, such as its justification of sovereignty through its protection of its citizens
Democratic Deficit: the intergovernmental decision-making displays Member states privileging toward security considerations rather than those relating to ‘freedom’ or ‘justice’
Transgovernmental governance: as AFSJ topics were sensitive to national debates and effected things such as elections
What is transgovernmental governance?
Community method with intergovernmental follow-through: It has weak legal harmonisation and a focus instead on operational aspects of coordination between national authorities
What did The Hague and Stockholm Programmes do?
Stressed partnership with countries of origin and/or transit, such as African states and Turkey
How may we depict Lisbon as a ‘strengthener’ of the JHA area?
Charter Upgrade: Upgraded the Charter of Fundamental Rights to a legally binding instrument
Justice and Freedom Upgrade: provided basis for stronger supranational legislation. The power to use this sense of communitarisation however remains in the hands of MS
Eurobarometer: Internal security and citizens’ expectations that EU should ‘do something’ about it (Eurobarometer, 2008).
Monar: the terms ‘area of freedom, security and justice’ was an attempt to make Europe ‘more relevant for its citizens’
What do the article changes in Lisbon say about the JHA?
Article 3 TFEU: Established AFSJ as second highest priority of EU
Article 77 TFEU: Integrated border management
Article 78+79 TFEU: Common policies of asylum and immigration but the right of member states to determine volume of administrations
Article 82 TFEU: Mutual recognition on criminal law
How has the role of the institutions changed from Maastricht to Lisbon?
Commission: Consultative pre-Maastricht -> Exclusive right of initiative in all areas JHA post-Lisbon
EP: No powers pre-Maastricht -> Ordinary legislative procedure post-Lisbon
Council: dominant actor until Lisbon -> role of enhancing global cooperation post-Lisbon
CJEU: No power pre-Maastricht -> Right to express jurisdiction over all AFSJ affairs post-Lisbon (most affected)
What is an example of JHA in action and what are the main points of this?
- Asylum and Immigration Policy
- Fears of Immigration after Arab Spring and Economic Crisis
- Violation of Schengen and Dublin
French and Danish decided to reintroduce checks at their internal borders in 2011, effectively violating the Schengen rules. In the same year, the CJEU prohibited transfers of asylum seekers to Greece, suspending the core of the ‘Common European asylum system’ (CEAS), the Dublin Regulation.
- 2 Directives of 2003
Agreement of which forms of immigration to classify as legal has proved particularly difficult. Adoption of two directives in 2003 helped to counter this: One on the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents in a member state of the EU, and the other Council Directive on the right to family reunification.
- EP vs. Council of the EU
Council failed to consult EP and possibility that children over the age of 12 could be excluded from the right to family reunification led EP to file complaint with CJEU, which was rejected, and the commission said the Council Directives were overly vague (the goal of the Stockholm Programme was to recast these directives but has failed to do so up until 2015).
- Blue Cards
shows a reluctance of member states to tie their hands with European immigration rules. Originally designed as to attract skilled workers, they were not given free movment rights and so choose to use national immigration schemes over the EU’s.
- Global Approach
with immigration pressure always occurring, there has been a movement of the EU to talk with countries of transit and origin as to help assist in management so termed the ‘Global Approach’ and has consequently become a focal point of the ENP although…
- Mobility Partnerships
newest idea of the global approach whereby the EU works with outside countries to help labour migration and development of cooperation, benefitting the host state.
- TCN as democratic deficit
with countries not abiding by this law, it shows a democratic deficit within the EU and a lack of commitment toward basic human rights
Who are the main scholars?
- Monar
- Eurobarometer
- Emek (European Union Politics)
- Lavanex (Policy-Making)
