Presentation

The current economic crisis of debt, the euro and unemployment takes place in a framework of highly dynamic creative and destructive processes occurring at various levels: globalization, heightened nationalisms, continued migration, shifting cultures, rising inequality, concerns over security, climate change, sustainable development, etc. All of these transform definitions of Europe: of its geographical boundaries; of what institutions are needed to structure and resolve issues of policy and democracy; and of how Europe can and might interact with other parts of the world, from North America to revolutionary North Africa to the new powerhouses in Asia and Latin America. The intellectual challenge of grappling with these changes in our world provides the foundations for an exciting meeting, held in one of the founding capitals of a global Europe.

In order to propose a session (roundtable with 6 participants) for the 20th International Conference of Europeanists on the theme "Crisis and Contingency: States of (In)stability", that will take place in Amsterdam, on June 25-27 2013 (http://www.councilforeuropeanstudies.org/conferences/2013-ces-conference), it is called for papers that deal with the problematics of the EU immigration and asylum policy.

The title of the considered session could be "border controls and human rights : the construction process of the EU identity facing dilemmas and imperatives"

We can wonder whether the measures that are adopted on immigration and asylum issues comply with international and European legal instruments of human rights protection, as interpreted by the ECJ and the European Court of Human Rights. The context is appropriate for such an analysisThe Lisbon Treaty consolidates the scope of such juridical instruments, and reinforces the control the ECJ develops on the EU norms pertaining to the Area of freedom, security, and justice, particularly the norms dealing with immigration and asylum matters.

The directive 2008/115 of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country – the famous return directive – that was supposed to be implemented in the MS before 24 December 2010 has been interpreted by the ECJ in the Kadzoev case (CJUE, Grand Chamber, 30 November 2009, Said Shamilovich Kadzoev, C-357/09 PPU), in the El Dridi case (CJUE, 28 April 2011, Hassen El Dridi, alias Soufi Karim, C-61/11 PPU), and in the Achugabbian case (CJUE, Gr. Ch., 6 décembre 2011, Achughbabian, C-329/11). Moreover such a directive will be examined some other times as national judges (Italian, French) have introduced different other  requests for preliminary ruling about the compatibility of their  national TCNs legislation with this text. Furthermore, the new asylum package adopted by the European Parliament on May 7, 2009 is going to be implemented: various norms are supposed to be modified, such as the directive laying down minimum standards on the reception of applicants for asylum in Member States, the Dublin regulation, the Eurodac system for the comparison of fingerprints of asylum applicants and illegal immigrants, the Frontex status.Yet the Commission ensures that the HR will be respected in its Communication Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe’s citizens – Action plan implementing the Stockholm Programme (COM (2010) 171, 20 April 2010). Indeed, the Commission states: “A European area of freedom, security and justice must be an area where all people, including third country nationals, benefit from the effective respect of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union” (p. 2).

Nevertheless, the objectives the realisation of such an AFSJ is aimed at are worrying. Why? Because they are dictated essentially by security concerns. According to the Commission, “An Internal Security Strategy, based upon the full respect of fundamental rights and on solidarity between Member States, will be implemented with care and firm resolve to face the growing cross-border challenges” (p. 5). Yet such challenges are not only linked to the problems related to growing cross border crime, organised crime, and terrorism; they are also associated with the problems that are related to man-made and natural disasters and to the migrations thus generated. That is why the TCNs tend to be considered not as the ones that need our help and hospitality, but as the ones that causes our fear and hostility. The European immigration and asylum policies are then essentially conceived to limit TCNs’ reception possibilities and to promote drastic management of the TCNs’ migratory influx. But, in so doing, the EU appears to infringe some human rights, endangering the main element of its constitutional identity.

before September 30th