Frontex Working Arrangements: Legitimacy and Human Rights Concerns Regarding ‘Technical Relationships’

Fink, Melanie

doi:10.5334/ujiel.be

“…A body of the Union, FRONTEX has been given a specific mandate to cooperate with individual member states. A certain vagueness on its actual powers and responsibilities has raised doubts about the legitimacy of its mandate and activities (Guild et al 2011, Fink 2012. Since its creation, FRONTEX has had the power to sign framework agreements with third countries.…”

Section: Independent Regulatory Agenciesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Mapping out the institutional geography of external security in the EU

Steindler¹

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growth of European Union (EU) competences in the field of external security in the last decade has produced a substantial increase in the number of EU institutions and bureaucratic actors engaged in the planning and management of these policies. Moreover, the expansion of competences in such a sovereign sensitive area comes up against the persistent intergovernmental nature of the security sector. This has resulted, on the one hand, in a complex institutional architecture with heavy demands in terms of coordination, and on the other hand, in a stark differentiation and stratification of the legal regimes with a potential to impact on policy outcomes. This state of uncertainty is particularly relevant when looking at relations with countries bordering the Union, as the long-standing web of interactions there has developed a more complex institutional environment. While most of the scholarly literature focuses on single institutional sectors or policies (Common Security and Defence Policy, European Neighbourhood Policy, or the external side of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice), this study seeks to address the issue with a comprehensive analysis of the institutional framework that has emerged in the last decade, more notably, since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. The article provides, first, an overview of the EU's institutional actors responsible for security policies in the regions bordering the EU, and second, an examination of the different mechanisms established to address the coordination issue. Finally, this study will argue that the traditional military dimension is but one, and certainly not the most developed, of the security instruments employed by the EU. At another level, it will be argued that the shift of focus from the military to other security tools has altered the institutional balance in the security sector, substantially adding to the relative influential weight of the Commission.

show abstract

“…For instance, the agency has information exchange networks involving third countries, and makes their Core Curriculum on border guard training available for third countries. Examples of joint operations that involved third countries include Nautilus and Hera II (Fink 2012). The agency may deploy liaison officers to third countries (Regulation EU 2016/1624.…”

Section: Frontex's Cooperation With Third Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 Member states may also cooperate individually with third country authorities as long as it is in line with FRONTEX activity. Whilst FRONTEX's operations have been examined from various angles, studies of agency interaction with third countries have so far only focused on legal aspects (Vara 2015;Fink 2012). Through its focus on the ideational dimension of FRONTEX's cooperation with third country authorities, this paper contributes with new insights to our understanding of FRONTEX's external dimension.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Normative Power Frontex? Assessing agency cooperation with third countries

Ekelund¹

2019

The External Dimension of EU Agencies and Bodies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human rights groups frequently criticise FRONTEX and the legality of the agency's operations has been questioned in scholarly literature. At the same time, recent studies have shown that humanitarian concerns are increasingly emphasised in FRONTEX's rhetoric. Drawing on Manners' concept of 'Normative Power Europe', and Niemann and de Wekker's framework for empirical analysis of normative power Europe, this paper assesses FRONTEX's cooperation with third countries with a focus on one norm: respect for fundamental rights. It examines to what extent the agency shows a genuine commitment to the implementation of fundamental rights and to what extent the agency is acting in a normative way, i.e. applying universal norms and showing willingness to listen to and learn from the experiences of third countries. The analysis suggests that that the agency has moved towards a more genuine commitment towards fundamental rights implementation and that there is a fair degree of inclusivity and reflexivity to third country cooperation. However, the possibility of internal conflicts of interest as well as discrepancies between what is stated on paper and what is happening on the ground may stand in the way of the agency's exercising normative power.

show abstract

“…For instance, the agency has information exchange networks involving third countries, and makes their Core Curriculum on border guard training available for third countries. Examples of joint operations that involved third countries include Nautilus and Hera II (Fink 2012). The agency may deploy liaison officers to third countries (Regulation EU 2016/1624, art.…”

Section: Frontex's Cooperation With Third Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whilst FRONTEX's operations have been examined from various angles, studies of agency interaction with third countries have so far only focused on legal aspects (Vara 2015;Fink 2012). Through its focus on the ideational dimension of FRONTEX's cooperation with third country authorities, this paper contributes with new insights to our understanding of FRONTEX's external dimension.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Normative Power FRONTEX? Assessing Agency Cooperation with Third Countries

Ekelund

¹

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human rights groups frequently criticise FRONTEX and the legality of the agency's operations has been questioned in scholarly literature. At the same time, recent studies have shown that humanitarian concerns are increasingly emphasised in FRONTEX's rhetoric. Drawing on Manners' concept of 'Normative Power Europe', and Niemann and de Wekker's framework for empirical analysis of normative power Europe, this paper assesses FRONTEX's cooperation with third countries with a focus on one norm: respect for fundamental rights. It examines to what extent the agency shows a genuine commitment to the implementation of fundamental rights and to what extent the agency is acting in a normative way, i.e. applying universal norms and showing willingness to listen to and learn from the experiences of third countries. The analysis suggests that that the agency has moved towards a more genuine commitment towards fundamental rights implementation and that there is a fair degree of inclusivity and reflexivity to third country cooperation. However, the possibility of internal conflicts of interest as well as discrepancies between what is stated on paper and what is happening on the ground may stand in the way of the agency's exercising normative power.

show abstract

Frontex Working Arrangements: Legitimacy and Human Rights Concerns Regarding ‘Technical Relationships’

Cited by 20 publications

References 1 publication

Mapping out the institutional geography of external security in the EU

Mapping out the institutional geography of external security in the EU

Normative Power Frontex? Assessing agency cooperation with third countries

Normative Power FRONTEX? Assessing Agency Cooperation with Third Countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About