The Effectiveness of Norway's Readmission Agreements with Iraq and Ethiopia
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12220 |
| Author | Maja Janmyr |
| Published date | 01 August 2016 |
| Date | 01 August 2016 |
The Effectiveness of Norway’s Readmission
Agreements with Iraq and Ethiopia
Maja Janmyr*
ABSTRACT
This article offers an analysis of the effectiveness of Norway’s readmission agreements with
Iraq and Ethiopia. Through the use of readmission agreements, Norway aims to reduce irregu-
lar presence by increasing the number of both voluntary and forced returns, as well as discour-
age future irregular migration by sending a “clear signal”to individuals without protection
needs that they will be returned when their asylum applications are rejected. The effectiveness
of these agreements thus lies in the extent to which they fulfill these objectives. While
Norway’s agreements with Iraq and Ethiopia have been explicitly highlighted as effective by
Norwegian authorities, this article argues that readmission agreements may be expected to
limit, but not to eliminate, return problems. Readmission agreements, however streamlined,
will have different effects on different groups. It finds that Norway’s readmission agreements
have been only partially successful with Iraq, and wholly unsuccessful with Ethiopia.
INTRODUCTION
Like many other European countries, Norway has long attempted to control migration flows to and
from the country. In September 2008, after a period of surging asylum arrivals, the Norwegian gov-
ernment announced a list of thirteen restrictive measures designed to limit the number of asylum
applications and to increase the return irregular migrants. Two points on the Government’s list
referred to achieving bilateral readmission agreements with countries of origin. Today, concluding
such agreements with countries outside the European Union (EU) is among the Norwegian govern-
ment’s top priorities (Janmyr, 2014: 182), even being mentioned in the Government’s 2013 Political
Platform (Government of Norway, 2013). While Norway’s early agreements were largely ad-hoc in
nature, following the development of a comprehensive and result-oriented readmission policy in the
early 2000s, it began to conclude agreements at relative speed. In 2005 alone, Norway entered into
six bilateral readmission agreements, bringing the total number of readmission agreements (or other
agreements containing a readmission clause) to 16 (AD, 2006: 3). By the end of 2013, the total num-
ber of readmission agreements had increased to 29. As such, Norway has one of the highest numbers
of readmission agreements in Europe (Janmyr, 2014). But how well do such agreements really work?
Readmission agreements are one of the oldest instruments used by states to control migratory
flows (Coleman, 2009). Such agreements help governments to overcome bilateral difficulties by set-
ting out reciprocal obligations on the contracting parties (as well as detailed administrative and
operational procedures) to facilitate the return of persons who do not fulfill the condition of pres-
ence in the requested state (JD, 2010: 187). Aiming to influence migration flows both to and from
* University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
doi: 10.1111/imig.12220
©2015 The Authors International Migration
published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf
of International Organization for Migration
International Migration Vol. 54 (4) 2016
ISSN 0020-7985
This is an open access article under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
To continue reading
Request your trial