The ‘external dimension’ of EU immigration and asylum policy

The ‘external dimension’ of EU immigration and asylum policy International Affairs 79, () ‒ CHRISTINA BOSWELL 1 European Council, Presidency conclusions, Tampere, SN 200/99, 15–16 Oct. 1999; European Council, Presidency conclusions, Laeken, 14–15 Dec. 2001, SN 300/1/01 REV 1; European Council, Presidency conclusions, Seville, 21–22 June 2002, SN 200/1/02 REV 1. Since the early 1970s, west European governments have introduced a range of measures to try to limit or manage immigration and refugee flows into their terri- tory. Most commentators now agree that these policies have had only qualified success. Attempts to restrict access to asylum systems, or curtail the rights of asylum seekers, have generated an increase in levels of illegal migration. They have also undermined states’ commitment to protect genuine refugees. Measures to restrict illegal entry and stay have driven migrants and refugees to use more dangerous routes to enter Europe, forcing many to employ the services of smuggling or trafficking networks. Restrictive migration policies have also created a number of unwelcome effects in other policy areas. They have reduced the supply of workers to many sectors in need of labour; have placed a strain on race relations; and have in some cases created tensions with migrant-sending countries. Given the shortcomings of traditional migration control policies, it is little wonder that west European states have looked for alternatives. EU states have increasingly sought to address migration management dilemmas through cooperation with migrant-sending countries and the ‘transit’ countries through which migrants and refugees travel. At the EU level, this goal has been most clearly stated in a series of European Council conclusions, calling for the integration of migration and asylum goals into the EU’s external policy. 1 This area of cooperation with third countries has become known as the ‘external dimension’ of EU cooperation in justice and home affairs (JHA). Under this rubric of cooperation with sending and transit countries, how- ever, one can discern two rather distinct approaches. The first involves forms of cooperation that essentially externalize traditional tools of domestic or EU migration control. The logic here is to engage sending and transit countries in strengthen- ing border controls, combating illegal entry, migrant smuggling and trafficking, or readmitting migrants who have crossed into the EU illegally. The second type of policy can be loosely defined as ‘preventive’: measures designed to change TA79_3_09_Boswell 5/14/03, 15:44 619