International Migration and State Sovereignty in an Integrating Europe
| Author | Andrew Geddes |
| Published date | 01 February 2001 |
| Date | 01 February 2001 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2435.00177 |
Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd.,
108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK, and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
© 2001 IOM
International Migration Vol. 39 (6) SI 2/2001
ISSN 0020-7985
* European University Institute, San Domenico di Fiesole, Italy.
International Migration and State
Sovereignty in an Integrating Europe
Andrew Geddes*
ABSTRACT
This article examines the development of migration policy competencies of
the European Union (EU) since the 1990s. It pays particular attention to policy
framework that developed after the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties
entered into effect in 1993 and 1999 respectively.
In order to chart these developments, the article focuses on five analytical
themes that illustrate key trends in EU migration policy. Reasons for and
implications of shift from “pillarization” in the Maastricht Treaty to
“communitarization” in the Amsterdam Treaty.
- Blurring of the distinction between external and internal security.
- The role that supranational institutions such as the European Commission
are playing (or trying to play) in policy development.
- Debates about migrants’ rights in an integrating Europe.
- Links between migration and EU enlargement.
It is argued that far from weakening EU member states or symbolizing some
“loss of control”, EU cooperation and integration have thus far helped
member states consolidate and reassert their ability to regulate international
migration through the use of new EU-level institutional venues. This raises
legitimacy issues as the EU moves into politically sensitive policy areas.
Although talk of “fortress Europe” is overblown, the EU is likely to face
legitimacy challenges on both the “input” (democracy, openness and
accountability of decision-making) and “output” (implementation and
compliance) elements of decision-making.
22 Geddes
INTRODUCTION
This article shows how EU migration policy responsibilities have developed
during recent years; examines the form that these policies take and considers the
implications (such as the ways in which migration policy responsibilities overlap
with the creation of the EU’s single market); changing ideas about security,
social rights and welfare state issues, and to the EU’s impending enlargement.
Because migration has become a central aspect of these debates, it has risen up
the European political agenda.
The deeper, underlying issue is how developing EU migration policy responsibilities
affect the sovereign capacity of states to regulate international migration. The
article argues that cooperation and integration between EU member states on
migration policy do not necessarily weaken these states in the sense that they
“lose” or “surrender” power to the EU. Member states now share power – that
much is clear – but this does not mean that their relevance is waning. Instead,
EU responsibilities provide new international venues for the pursuit of policy
objectives. Cooperation has thus far tended to strengthen the hands of the
executive branches of national governments (particularly interior ministries) at
the expense of courts and parliaments.
To develop these points, the article provides an overview of recent EU
developments, paying particular attention to the 1990s when immigration and
asylum were first “pillarized” and then “communitarized” by the Treaties of
Maastricht (ratified in 1993) and Amsterdam (ratified in 1999). The Amsterdam
Treaty’s “communitarization” of immigration and asylum was important because
it meant that aspects of immigration and asylum policy were moved closer to
normal EU decision-making processes, thus providing a role for the Commission,
European Parliament and European Court of Justice. Immigration and asylum
now reside with free movement in Title IV of the EU. Even though immigration
and asylum have become subject to the more usual Community-based decision-
making processes, there remain significant limitations on the power of
supranational institutions.
Because discussions about competencies, communitarization, supranationalization
etc., can be jargon-heavy, analysis is complemented by addressing key themes
that draw out some of the dynamics underpinning the development of EU
migration policy responsibilities: the shift from “pillarization” to “communitariza-
tion” and its implications for the content and form of EU policy; blurring of the
distinction between external and internal security; the role that supranational
institutions such as the European Commission are playing (or trying to play) in
policy development; debates about migrants’ rights; and the thorny issue of
migration and its links to EU enlargement. These themes touch on one of the key
aspects of the EU-studies research agenda – Europeanization. In the area of
migration policy, “incompleteness” of European integration refers to its uneven-
To continue reading
Request your trial