The Dynamics of Justice and Home Affairs: Laboratories, Driving Factors and Costs

Abstract

The rapid development of justice and home affairs into a major field of EU policy-making since the beginning of the 1990s can be explained by a combination of specific 'laboratories' -which helped pave the way -and 'driving factors' which triggered development and expansion. Whereas the Council of Europe, Trevi and Schengen have served as effective laboratories, new or increasing transnational challenges to internal security, Member States' interests in a 'Europeanization' of certain national problems and the dynamic of its own generated by the launching of the 'area of freedom, security and justice' as a major political project have all acted as major driving forces. Yet the rapid development has also had its price in terms of deficits in parliamentary and judicial control, complexity and fragmentation, an uneven development of the main justice and home affairs policy areas and a tendency towards restriction and exclusion.

Constructing Fortress Europe: Third Country Nationals As Unwelcome Guests

“…There, Monar (2001) notes that certain immigration issues under the auspice of the JHA were communautarized to the first pillar under Title IV of Amsterdam that governs "visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to the free movement of persons," which consequently created an area of freedom, security, and justice (AFSJ). Not only that, but Amsterdam also gave the ECJ mandate in those former-JHA areas, which meant that the ECJ could take and rule in cases under Amsterdam's Title IV, only if requested by national member states' courts.…”

“…Not only that, but Amsterdam also gave the ECJ mandate in those former-JHA areas, which meant that the ECJ could take and rule in cases under Amsterdam's Title IV, only if requested by national member states' courts. QMV was also introduced as a new voting mechanism in order to streamline the problematic unanimity-requirement of intergovernmental procedure (Monar, 2001). In a lot of ways, however, the expansion of EU competence in areas of immigration and asylum happened more after Amsterdam-specifically pointing to the provisions of the 1999 Tampere Programme (Tampere).…”

The Dynamics of International Migration and Settlement in Europe : A State of the Art

“…According to other interpretations (Monar 2001, Stetter 2000) the main factor pushing national governments to adopt more 'communitarised' forms of decision making in the area of immigration is the poor performance of the decision making system itself. This system includes the strong procedural constraint of the unanimous vote, which has made it particularly difficult to reach decisions on highly conflictual but nonetheless relevant matters such as immigration and asylum policy.…”

“…30 The importance of 'problem' pressure (i.e. the evolution of immigration and asylum in Europe) has also been stressed by Monar (2001). The pressure exercised on governments by international criminal organisations and activities is listed as one of the 'drivers' of international cooperation.…”

“…In general, the EU level has gained more and more relevance after the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) and the incorporation of immigration policy into the first pillar. This increase in significance is demonstrated by the growth of research in this field over the last five years (Geddes 2000, Guiraudon 2000, Monar 2001, Stetter 2000, Uçarer 2001, Lahav 2004). This increase in interest has taken place even though the Treaty of Amsterdam represents only a tentative and partial step towards the communitarisation of immigration and immigrant policies.…”