Zoek in de site...

CMR Lecture of June 2006 (Lezing)

Datum
dinsdag 20 juni 2006Plaats in agenda
Tijd
15:30 tot
Locatie
Th.v.A. 6.01.10
Organisator
CMR
Spreker
Dr. Jürgen Bast (Max Planck Insitute)
Beschrijving

Dr Bast (Reserach Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law) will give a presentation titled:

"The Three Musketeers Principle in European Migration Law".

Contactpersoon
H vd put
E-mail
Telefoon
024 361.20.87

How to administer a European migration space of a continental scale when establishing a Euro-pean Immigration Office, centrally deciding on the admission of foreigners (i.e., third country nationals), is neither legally nor politically feasible? This lecture offers the three musketeers principle (“one for all”) as key for understanding the structure of transnational administration in European migration law. Recent legislation and treaty-law provide ample material for an emerg-ing structure in which one state issues or withdraws a residence permit on behalf of all others. At least its decisions have to be recognized by the others should they later decide on the (re )admission or deportation of the person concerned. Examples include the issuance of visas under the Schengen Implementation Agreement, which entail a right to stay in the whole Schen-gen Area, or the Dublin-II Regulation establishing a system for determining the state responsible for examining an asylum application. Notably, the said actio pro unione structure is not limited to decisions that are based on harmonized standards. This is demonstrated by the status of ‘long term resident’ introduced by Directive 2003/109/EC. Subject to certain conditions, third-country nationals who have resided legally for five years receive a right to be admitted in all other Member States, regardless of the reasons of their first admission.
This structure of administration raises issues of policy coherence and accountability alike. It is the local immigration officer who acts as agent of a transnational system when deciding an indi-vidual application. How do we ensure that public interests beyond a single state are taken into account? Is mutual recognition without harmonized standards a legitimate option in the field of migration law? Do information exchange and inter-administrative cooperation, as foreseen in current regulation, sufficiently compensate for a lack of substantive standards? How can the system be improved in a way that, even in a field which is so closely related to defining the line between “them” and “us”, we can accept that “one” decides for “all”?