Abstract
In the 21st century, the European Union and Migration have become two overlapping phenomena in the global arena. The European Union is on its way to see itself as a global power different from other actors in the international arena with normative values such as human rights, democracy and the rule of law. However, the “immigration problem” brought about by globalizing world and the question of how the EU uses foreign policy tools against immigration are frequently criticized. European Union; Whether it really defends the norms of the union or is its priority to solve the security problem of the union, a detailed analysis will be made about it. In the international system, the concepts of migration and security are always on the agenda for all actors. Among the reasons for the various conflicts, there is a change in their perspective towards the issue of migration, such as the change in security issues over time. This study is trying to explain the policies of the European Union in order to securitize migration and how it secures migration. In general, the influence of the European Union on the basis of security policies against unsolved migration problem problematic influxes is discussed.
Key Words: European Union, Migration, Securitization, Foreign Policy, Normative Power.
Introduction
Migration has been a hot topic in many areas, including international relations, since the past. The concept of migration, which is sometimes discussed as a social phenomenon, is sometimes discussed by including it in political and economic issues. Immigration action means people leaving their country for a number of reasons. The reasons for people leaving their country include the social and economic welfare of the countries, political factors and preferential migration. In regions with low social and economic welfare, people can migrate because they want to live in places with higher living standards. In addition, it is observed that people who left their country for political reasons fled due to negative situations such as war, civil war and terrorism. It is obvious that people who are persecuted by their country also want to live in democratic countries. Historically, different perspectives on security have also been developed. It is seen that security has changed again as a result of the events experienced in recent periods. For example, it is experienced in what is called an age of communication and information. In addition, due to the temporal and dimensional limitlessness of globalization, the mutual dependence of the states has increased immensely, now bringing different security problems to humanity. There are serious global problems such as migration, terrorism, international crime organizations and cyber-attacks. Since its establishment, in order for the EU to become a global power, it had to be able to enforce its norms in the international arena and continue this. The legitimate spreading of principles such as democracy, human rights, rule of law, social solidarity, fundamental rights and freedoms, sustainable development, and the persuasion of third countries to act in the light of these principles are indicators that will prove whether the EU has normative power. Increasing immigration movements to Europe have led to the making of migration policies together with the concern for ‘internal security‘.
The Concept of Immigration
Migration is a situation that is frequently experienced today as in every period of human existence. Looking at the historical processes of the phenomenon of migration, for example, in the 1950s, it is seen that labour migration was experienced heavily. During this period, there was a serious labour migration to the European continent. Labour movement in the European continent caused by labour migration has seriously affected the development of the countries there. European states did not complain about the migration flow during this period.
In the years when globalization increases, the phenomenon of immigration also increases. Due to the increasing migration, various problems are beginning to arise. This situation affects states and other actors positively or negatively. There are also good aspects of the immigration situation, especially in terms of the European Continent. These include intra-European worker mobility and achieving economic welfare. On the other hand, it is considered as one of the negative effects of immigration that it may cause the deterioration of the social unity structure that is tried to be homogenized within Europe. However, when immigration does not benefit the European continent in general, it has come under discussion as an undesirable situation.
Today, discussions on migration in the axis of the European Union continue. It is clear that opposing opinions on immigration have increased. Although the European Union has tried to implement common migration policies with the member states on migration, it has not been very successful. Among the biggest reasons for this are the negative effects of anti-immigrant practices and discourses on the public. Immigration is now viewed as a security issue for states.
Immigration to Europe
While European countries were ‘emigration‘ countries until the Second World War, they became a center of attraction for immigrants after the Second World War. Among the reasons for this, it is possible to say that the role model stance of Europe in foreign policy in the post-war period and the economic interest cooperation between Europe and Immigrants. While people were looking for opportunities to work and better life, European countries also suffered from labor shortages, which resulted in many casualties after the war. Workers who migrated to Europe from many parts of the world were regarded as ‘guest workers’ and ‘temporary residents‘, so it did not pose any problem for European countries. Since there was no need to determine any negative or common policies regarding immigrants during the establishment years, there was no situation that would pose a problem for the Community (Samur, 2008, p. 4).
The migration movements that started with ‘guest workers’ continued later with the demands of families to reunite. With the disappear of blocks in the post Cold War era, immigration to Europe intensifyed. Thus, it caused Europe to prepare the first Common Immigration Policy under the 1957 Rome Founding Treaty. In this way, the free movement of people, services, capital and workers is targeted. While the aim of the European Community from the beginning was to make maximum benefits of the labor potential, the intensity of immigration was higher than the earnings from labor. When we focus on the 1970s, increasing unemployment and economic crises with the intensification of immigration were the years when anti-immigrant discourses began. However, the 1973 Oil Crisis increased the problem of unemployment in the global context, and anti-immigrant movements continued to increase by citizens who were already European, fear losing their jobs. Immigrants and asylum seekers are no longer regarded as people who require humanitarian aid and protection or serve an economic purpose, such as worker migrants, but as people who try to benefit from the social services of the state or endanger the social order and pose a threat to the borders (ORSAM, 2012, p. 13).
In the 1980s, the developing production technologies caused the changes in the demanded worker profiles. Thus, restrictions were imposed on recruitment of foreign workers. This was provided the basis of the illegal immigration or irregular immigration, which creates the perception of Europe as the ‘migrant problem‘. The continuation of the irregular immigrant flow has led to the start of seeing immigrants as “foreign invaders” for reasons that can easily be refuted, such as not being able to adapt to the cultural structure of the society they are going to, and being a burden on the labor market and welfare state policies (Nas, 2015, p. 177). Especially since 2010, when the Arab Spring and the Syrian civil war and the aftermath of the refugee crisis broke out, it has been observed that there has been a great increase in the number of people who want to immigrate to Europe and apply for asylum for the first time (Kanca, 2019, p. 29).
Mass migration, which began in 2011, reached record levels in 2015. The inability of Syrian asylum seekers to build a future in Turkey and the realization that the war in Syria will not end in the short term has led some asylum seekers to cross to Greece via Turkey and asylum in Europe. In the second quarter of 2015 compared to the same period of the previous year, the increase in the rate reached 85%. Among the 213,200 people who applied for asylum, Syrians, Afghans and Albanians make up the largest share (Nas, 2015, p. 177). The European Union has embarked on a platform of democratic values and human rights, on the one hand, and national sovereignty, security and economy on the other, to seek balance in international migration, and while increasing its measures to prevent new migrations, it has also tried to produce policies to ensure the integration of existing immigrants (ABKDBB, 2006, pp. 1-3).
European Union Immigration Policies
Increasing immigration movements to Europe since the 1970s have led to the making of migration policies together with the concern for ‘internal security‘. Considering migration as a union – though not in a legal context – began with the establishment of the Trevi Group in 1975. The main reason why Trevi Group was created is the establishment of an effective organization against terrorism. The 1985 Schengen Agreement, which is the basis for intergovernmental cooperation within the Union, was signed to strengthen border controls in Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. In this context, the establishment of the Schengen Group is seen as an attempt to strengthen borders and restrictions against immigration (Gaddes, 2001, pp. 23-24). Although the Single European Act of 1986 introduced freedom of movement of persons, it emphasized the need for new measures regarding ‘internal security’ controls. In addition, common security policies and common migration policies have been among the priorities of the Union.
In the context of immigration, the Dublin Convention has an important place in intergovernmental cooperation. According to the contract; If an asylum seeker who has applied for asylum in an EU country crosses to another EU country illegally, he / she is sent back to the country of application (Anadolu Ajansı, 2015). However, in order to prevent asylum seekers from applying to each country separately, it has been decided that all asylum applications will be evaluated by the country determined by the Convention. Migration and terrorism issues, which were initially addressed within the Trevi Group, were the issues that the member countries of the Union worked legally and jointly with the Maastricht and Amsterdam agreements. Institutional handling of these issues was integrated into the “Justice and Home Affairs” area with Maastricht, while it was included in the “Freedom, Security and Justice Area” with Amsterdam. Actually, handling immigration and security issues together stand out with the Amsterdam Treaty. The Amsterdam Agreement can be regarded as a turning point for the supranational development of migration policies in Europe. However, the regulations of the Amsterdam Agreement on the subject have brought the question of whether the Community institutions have sufficient capacity and speed in the decision-making process regarding visa, asylum and immigration arrangements and criticisms on this issue (Özerim, 2014, p. 30).
On the other hand, the 1999 Tampare and 2003 Lahey Summits were important in terms of establishing relations with transit and third countries in the context of immigration. In this way, migration is not only a matter of the Union.At the Tampere Summit, the EU revealed the need for a European common asylum system that would meet the commitments of the 1951 Geneva Convention (Kaya, 2017, p. 97). The Lahey Summit has also been a place where tight decisions have been made in terms of increasing border security to arming via FRONTEX. The FRONTEX and EUROSUR partnership plays an active role in migration management, but has also raised concerns about the right to life of migrants at the borders.
Increasing terrorist attacks in the 21st century – 9/11 Attacks, 2004 Madrid, 2005 London – have increased anti-immigration in Europe and caused the migration-terrorism relationship to become an undeniable issue. The fact that immigration became a security problem within the EU made it necessary to implement the 2008 European Union Asylum and Migration Pact. The main purpose of this pact is to prevent illegal immigration, and to increase more brain drain to Europe. In addition, the 2009 Lisbon Treaty aimed to make new regulations on immigration and asylum claims. At the same time, the Stockholm Program implemented here has demonstrated the idea of a more tightly integrated Europe against irregular immigration, with the goal of “A More Open and Safe Europe that Serves and Protects Its Citizens“. Although the member states of the European Union aim to implement a common policy against immigration and terrorism, each EU country has its own policy.
In addition, it is not possible to say that the European Union has a specific policy, since it adopted different policies according to the conjuncture of the period. Moreover, when we look at the migration policies of the EU in general, we can say that it has adopted nationalist policies aimed at driving Europe away from refugees rather than making Europe a center of attraction. Besides, we can see that it applies an assimilation model for the ‘Europeanization‘ policy for refugees living in Europe. When looking at the criticism of the EU’s migration management, basically two points are emphasized. Both criticisms in question claim that the EU does not get to the root of the problem of irregular immigration and is looking for increasingly restrictive and short-term solutions to the problem or directing solutions to third country territory (ORSAM, 2012, p. 14).
The European Union and the Migration Problem
Today, many countries of the world have developed various policies and discourses regarding securitization. The securitization of refugees and their examination under the name of actors are also the applications of these discourses. These statements are accompanied in many European countries 2015 As from producing policies on restricting the freedom to travel back no longer are, and some of the major countries to Hungary from Turkey, however, also have developed policies to ensure that controls their limit (Demirtaş, 2019, p. 5). First of all, countries that do not consider immigration to be a security threat on their borders, after some time have put up walls on their borders. Germany, which is the best example of this situation, did not hesitate to follow restrictive policies on the issue of refugees, despite the effects of the global economic crisis and European economic crisis with a strong economy. However, the fact that the anti-immigration of the far-right parties in Germany cannot be stopped during this period has also been an important issue in terms of securitizing migration (Demirtaş, 2019, p. 5).
The European Union member states, which enabled the public persuasion process to be realized before the securitization of migration, could not eliminate the negative effect of the increasing far-right parties and anti-immigration on the people. This situation can be shown as a result of the weakness of the European Union in migration policies.
Unlike Germany, it is seen that the National Unity Party’s anti-immigration opposition is also gaining momentum in France. In addition, the Brexit process, which is an important development for the European Union, results in the departure of the UK from the union. One of the underlying reasons for Britain’s departure from the European Union is the union’s unsuccessful immigration policies.
The EU, which carries out various studies on migration management, has had difficulties in gathering the member states under a common roof and policy. The most important reason why countries unite in common policies is that they do not want to adapt their migration policies to their national interests. In this context the European Union, migration associated with Turkey, to sign several treaties with countries like Jordan and the immigration problem is trying to externalize by moving around the country (Demirtaş, 2019, p. 6).
The European Union works on the externalization of migration as well as on the securitization of migration. However, securitization of migration is a multidimensional phenomenon. In Europe, the most prominent example of this situation is the active and accelerating anti-immigration attitudes of the far-right parties.
The most important of the studies carried out by the European Union within the scope of immigration is accepted as the Schengen Agreement. In this practice, it is seen that it is aimed to take various measures on issues such as immigration and asylum. With this agreement, the EU has determined its external borders against other countries. However, the immigration flow from the Mediterranean to Europe has also started to worry the member states of the Union (Özerim, 2014, p. 30). Protecting the external borders of Europe, ensuring border controls, and combating illegal immigration become the main objectives of the union on immigration.
Due to security concerns, the European Union focuses on conducting global policies regarding the management of migration issues. The European Union, which encourages regular immigration, includes illegal immigration in security studies by operating around events such as violence and terrorism.
Foreign Policy Instruments of the European Union
The EU is a sui generis structure that plays an active role in the international arena. The purpose of its establishment was initially to provide economic unity and peace. The fact that the EU is an international actor shows that it has developed various foreign policy tools in foreign policy; civilian power, normative power and military power. Deciding what fundamental power the EU has been a controversial issue.
Civil power, which includes economic power and as its name suggests, is the fulfillment and maintenance of an actor’s interests in the international system by using non-military means and methods (Duchene 1972; Zielonka 1998; K. Smith 2004; Treacher, 2004). Union was defined as a civilian power at that time, as the EU aimed at an economic union aimed at peace during its foundation years. For Europe that wants to recover itself after the war; Humanitarian and economic assistance between countries, acceptance of ‘guest worker’ to provide employment, diplomatic relations are the practices of the EU to define itself as a civilian power. Although these practices made the EU a community rivaling the USA and the Soviets in the international arena, it was not sufficient to show itself strong in foreign policy in every field. As stated by Ginsberg, the EU has limited influence on member countries, especially in foreign policy, since it is not “a nation-state, a non-state actor, nor an international organization or regime” (Ginsberg 1999, p. 432) remains (Aksoy, Uğur 2016, p. 214).
Manners suggests that in contrast to Duchene’s rhetoric about Europe as a civil power, the EU’s preferences for economic, social solidarity and sustainable peace are the most obvious traces of the EU’s normative power (Manners, 2002, p. 240). Since its establishment, in order for the EU to become a global power, it had to be able to enforce its norms in the international arena and continue this. The legitimate spreading of principles such as democracy, human rights, rule of law, social solidarity, fundamental rights and freedoms, sustainable development, and the persuasion of third countries to act in the light of these principles are indicators that will prove whether the EU has normative power (Yıldız, 2015, p. 209). Of course, the effects of normative power differ according to the conjuncture of the period. While the aims were democratization in the 19th century, in the 21st century it was based on human rights and democracy. After the Cold War, the EU was a community that stand out with its normative values. The contributions of Central and Eastern Europe in the democratization process show that power was used effectively for that period. However, it would not be possible to say that it had the same effect in the implementation of the Arab Spring. During the Arab Spring period and before it, the EU’s expansion policies to Central and Eastern Europe caused problems with the Mediterranean. In the context of the enlargement strategy, its aid for the partners has been effective in the Arab-Israeli conflict. In Egypt, where there was more violence and casualties compared to Tunisia, the EU issued a statement of condemnation of violence, but did not make a call for the Mubarak administration to leave the office, which is a step that will prevent further incidents (Küçükkeleş, 2013, p. 10-11).
Accordingly, the attitude of the EU to the process was delayed institutionally due to the reactions of the leading countries of the EU such as France, England and Germany based on national interests rather than the normative values on which the Union is based (Siypak, 2016, p. 89-90). Even within the EU itself, there are criticisms that the member states fully implement these norms. Of course, it will be difficult to have a common attitude towards the values of the Union due to the presence of 27 countries and a multi-institutional structure.
Especially with the increasing globalization in the 21st century, migration, terrorism, nationalism and ethnic diversity have also increased along with it. As a result of all these developments, the normative power of the EU has been insufficient to solve global problems and has become questionable. According to the European Security Strategy, securing the EU in the global context is now the first issue and terrorism, which increases with migration, is perceived as the primary threat. In terms of these goals, the European Defense Agency has been established. However, at this point, it becomes difficult to understand the EU’s policy. Because it is mentioned about intervention before a crisis or a threat and using military power together with other means (Özcan and Yardımcı, 2005, p. 120). Due to the insufficiency of the civilian power of the EU with globalization and the change in its goals as ‘security’ it was insufficient to make the normative power effective without military power. While EU member states and institutions were having problems in terms of making common decisions within themselves, they also showed themselves as ‘global actors‘ to third countries alone. Accordingly, it did not hesitate to use military power as well as its civil and normative power. The main focus of the development of military capabilities initiated to increase the effectiveness of EU foreign policy in the international system – in light of the lessons learned from previous experience – was to allow the formation of a military force in the form of humanitarian and rescue missions, crisis management, peacekeeping and conflict prevention tasks (Howorth, 2011, p. 208). The need to use the EU’s military power was deemed necessary for the success of normative and civilian power. Increasing terrorism activities due to immigration in the 2000s also brought the EU’s decision to develop military capacity. From this perspective, we can say that the military power of the EU has been more effective in foreign policy in recent years. Although it is thought that the EU should resort to hard power to ensure its soft power, its increasing military foreign policy tools have been criticized. For example, with regard to democracy and human rights, the EU is criticized by many developing countries. In particular, some criticisms are made that the EU is trying to develop or support democracy in third countries such as Iraq and Libya by force of arms from time to time, while maintaining good relations with the regimes in Arab countries where it has economic interests, while ignoring human rights violations in these countries (Keukeleire and Delreux, 2014, p. 143).
Migration and the Declining Impact of EU Normative Power
When we look at the history of migration, we see that there is actually a human right that shapes the world. In the post-war period, migration was needed for the welfare of many countries and people. In this context, the establishment of the European Union and the norms it has adopted and the role model stance it exhibits towards the external has become a desired target point for immigration. Due to population deficit and economic reasons, Europe’s acceptance of immigration was a situation that it deemed necessary in order to establish a union. Temporary migrants who came to Europe as ‘guest workers‘ were contributing to the provision of employment in Europe and it was not a problem for Europe to be treated as temporary. In this way, the European Community could apply the union norms comfortably and without preoccupation. In any case, what causes the European Union to become a global power different from other actors is the values and norms it has and represents.
However, even if the EU has a common foreign policy, the right of each member country to pursue different policies has also made the concept of a common norm is problematic.Principles such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law are based on the norms of the Union, and at the same time, it tries to maintain intermixing relations within different boundaries in domestic and foreign policy. However, in the context of preserving the integrity of the union, the internal and foreign policy of the union can be messed. One of the most obvious examples of this situation is the migration policy of the EU, which is on the agenda within the framework of the ongoing refugee problem (Tuncel, 2017, p. 976). Although immigration policies are primarily a matter of concern to the internal affairs of the union, it has become a subject that is also included in foreign policy due to the increasing terrorism and the cooperation with third countries. The EU, which wants to progress towards becoming a global power, tries to advance its enlargement and integrated policies by solving the security problem of the union. Anti-immigration discourses, which started with the economic crisis, accelerated with the increasing terrorism. The situation that Europe finds itself in within the framework of the ongoing “immigration crisis” shows that the common values, norms and the interests that are supposed to overlap with them are not as compatible as they are thought (Tuncel, 2017, p. 986).
In addition, the attitude of the EU in foreign policy after the Arab Spring was not at a sufficient level to solve the crisis. While popular uprisings took place in the Arab geography, the European Union was in a dilemma between “supporting the masses who went to the streets in the name of democratic governance” and “defending the stability of authoritarian regimes in the name of fighting terrorism, energy security and illegal immigration” (Marie, 2017, p. 7). The Arab uprisings and the Syrian civil war have been the events that erupted into questioning the Union’s normative power. Since 2014, approximately 22,500 immigrants, more than half of them in the Mediterranean, have lost their lives on the migration routes of the EU. Moreover, with the migration flow towards the Union, xenophobia has increased in the Union member societies, attacks on immigrant homes have increased, and developments that threaten the fundamental human right of immigrants within the Union have been encountered (Vatandaş, 2018, p. 169). During its foundation years, the EU used immigrants as a tool for its economic interests many times. However, when it comes to national security and European culture, economic interests are secondary. The biggest problem that hinders the formation of ‘Safe Europe‘ is the problem of immigration. Although the European Union does not have a clear common policy against immigrants, it causes lack of positive change in the perception of the society of immigrants and terrorists. However, it is clear that the EU is in a dilemma between ‘human rights and values‘ and ‘the integrity and norms of the union‘, and that human rights have been ignored in recent years. According to Manners, the acceptance of basic principles and approaches such as democracy, rule of law, fundamental rights and freedoms, sustainable development and social solidarity by third countries and their persuasion to act in this direction are important criteria that determine whether the EU is a normative power. When we look at the effectiveness of the EU in crisis areas in the last period, it is seen that the persuasion and influence power of the third countries in the context of these principles is quite weak (Kaçar and Öztürk, 2017, p. 366).
The Concept of Security
The concept of security is one of the issues that are always on the agenda in international relations, as the concept of immigration. Security is a phenomenon that states and all other actors attach importance to and is undesirable. States are struggling to survive by developing various strategies in this regard.
It is observed that the perception of security has changed in the post-Cold War period. It is known that issues such as immigration and terror rather than the military field are also a matter of security. It is seen that the perspective on migration has changed in this period and in the mid-2000s. As a result of the Syrian civil war in 2011, there was a serious influx of immigrants to Europe. As a result of this influx of immigrants, it has been understood that the European Union has no potential to endure this incident.
The European Union and its member states, which were not prepared, faced serious problems regarding immigration. Today, this situation has not been solved or improved. On the contrary, it has become worse. The most important reason for its deterioration is that the national interests of the member countries are considered to be endangered. The migration and refugee problems they dealt with within the scope of security have reached unsolvable levels for the European Union. The most important reason for this is the claim that asylum seekers and refugees destroy the social structure of the member countries and damage their identities. It is seen that the phenomenon of immigration has become a security issue in this way. It is observed that the immigration problem, which is dealt with within the scope of security, can be solved by the states through political policies, but by resorting to military means when appropriate.
Within the scope of the European Union, security-oriented policies are carried out along with political policies on immigration. An example of this situation is the increase of the control of the borders of the member states against the immigration threat.
The Securitization Case
States have various strategies on security that have changed and developed since the past. In this regard, states and other actors deal with issues that they make security issues at international level. In addition, some issues and problems dealt with at national level are also wanted to be resolved within the framework of security. The European Union wants to solve the migration issue by making it a security issue today.
The Copenhagen School and the Paris School are among the two most important schools that work on securitization. The Copenhagen School, led by Barry Buzan, argues that the securitization issue gains value through discourses (Demirtaş, 2019, p. 2). The Copenhagen School speaks of how a certain issue can be resolved through political means, but instead it is turned into a security issue and resolved by these means (Demirtaş, 2019, p. 3). The subject is secured in this way. The Copenhagen School expresses that securitization is done mostly through discourses and that their applications are revealed.
In the Copenhagen School, it is mentioned that there are two ways for securitization to work properly. The first of these is the “Existential Threat” and the other is the “Reference Object“. Existential threat is the processing of the subject matter as a threat in the company of the state or another actor. If considered within the scope of refugees, the claim that refugees have a devastating effect on the existing identity model of the state and society is supported by the far-right parties within the European Union member states (Demirtaş, 2019, p. 2). This situation shows that the securitization action and policies are shaped by the discourses of the states. Another way, making it a Reference Object, is described as threatening issues or situations.
In the case of migration under consideration, it is alleged that refugees threaten the host country and disrupt its existing homogeneity. In this case, the state is considered as a reference object (Demirtaş, 2019, p. 2). As a result of this perspective, it is seen how important the actors are while shaping the perspectives on security at the international level. In this construction process, it is very important to identify threats and to adopt the policies implemented around these problems. As a result, it is inevitable to be used as a power tool (Mandacı ve Özerim, 2013, p. 107).
The Paris School, on the other hand, provides some fundamental contributions to the Copenhagen School’s propositions. He says that not only discourses have the effect and importance of securitization but also the policies implemented are also very important. It highlights a number of issues in this regard. These include building borders with neighbouring countries and increasing controls (Demirtaş, 2019, p. 4).
Conclusion
As a result, the issue of migration and refugee has become a substantial issue that determines the tools used by the European Union against foreign policy. It is criticized that the influence of the normative power, which is one of the foreign policy instruments of the Union, has decreased due to globalization and the increasing terrorist acts, while the recruitment of immigrants for various interests during the establishment years makes the civil and normative power displayed by the Union against foreign policy apparent.
First of all, the European Union is an actor known with normative values and waiting for the implementation of these values for membership conditions. On the other hand, the Union’s decisions contrary to its own norms in the context of the migration problem raise suspicions of mistrust towards the EU. Merkel said, “If Europe fails in the refugee problem, it will not be the Europe we dream of”. Increasing loss of migrant lives at the borders in recent years has created a perception of ‘fortress’ for Europe that does not care about human rights. Focusing on the Union’s migration policies and foreign policy instruments in general context, the article shows that the EU focuses on ‘securitization‘ policies as well as its use of normative values and fails to address the migration problem. As a result, the phenomenon of immigration has become the agenda in today’s Europe. It is seen that the internal conflicts and events of Europe have an effect on the Europeanization of the issue of immigration. On the other hand, the result of trying to produce common policies for immigration problems in Europe, but not being able to be produced, is that the phenomenon in question becomes a security issue.
Since the issue of migration has been examined in relation to security, the union’s perspective on security has been reshaped. Securitization of migration also takes place within this scope. In terms of the change and development of immigration governance, it is seen that a global perspective is being given to migration in Europe. Immigration problem, which still continues in Europe, will continue to exist as a process. Many policies, which take into account the values of the Union, are tried to be implemented on the security axis.
Başak ÇELİK
Duygu TEMİZ
European Studies Internship Programme
Bibliography:
Aksoy, M., Uğur, Ö. (2016). ‘The European Union Foreign Policy and Power Factors Affecting its Actorness: Civilian Power, Military Power and Normative Power’, The International Journal of Economic and Social Research, 12(1). 213-225.
Bigaç, O. (2019). ‘Avrupa Birliği’nin Orta Doğu Politikası’, Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University.
Demirtaş B. (September 2019). “Mülteciler ve Güvenlikleştirme”, Güvenlik Yazıları Serisi, (8).
Güleç C. (July 2015). “Avrupa Birliği’nin Göç Politikaları ve Türkiye’ye Yansımaları”, Turkish Journal of TESAM Academy, 2(2). 81-100.
İKV. (2017).‘Türkiye-AB İlişkilerinde Yeni Bir Konu: Mülteci Sorunu ve Türkiye-AB İşbirliği’ Economic Development Foundation Publication, (293).
Kaçar, F. and Öztürk, K. (2017) ‘Avrupa Birliği’nin Normatif Gücü Kavramsal İnceleme’, Süleyman Demirel University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, (28). 359-370.
Kanca, R. (2019). ‘The Concept of ‘’The Other” and European Union Migration Policy’. İstanbul University.
Karakaş D. (June 2016). “Mülteci Sorunu Çerçevesinde Avrupa Birliği – Türkiye İlişkileri”, ORMER, (16).
Koçak, O. And Gündüz, R. ‘Immigration Policies of European Union and It’s impact to Social Inclusion of Migrants’, Yalova Journal of Social Sciences, 66-88.
Kütük, B. (2015). ‘The Reflection of Labour Migration from Turkey to Western Europe to Sociological Studies’, Sociology Conferences (52). 609-654.
Mandacı, N. ve Özerim G. (2013). “Uluslararası Göçlerin Bir Güvenlik Konusuna Dönüşümü: Avrupa’da Radikal Sağ Partiler ve Göçün Güvenlikleştirilmesi”, Journal of Uluslararası İlişkiler, 10(39). 105-130.
Nas, Ç. (2015). ‘Türkiye-AB İlişkilerinde Geri Kabul ve Vize Serbestliği : Hareketliliğin Yönetimi’Marmara European Research Journal, 23(2). 169-185.
ORSAM (2012). ‘Global Migration and Development of Migration Policies of Turkey and the European Union Report, (123). 7-24
Özcan, M. and Yardımcı, S. (2005) ‘Avrupa Birliği ve Küresel Terörizmle Mücadele’ Economics, Political Sciences Monthly Internet Journal, (39).
Özerim G. (2014). “Supranationalisation Of The Migratıon Policies In Europe and Transformation Into A Securıty Issue: A New Phase In Hıstory Of European Migration?, Ege Strategic Research Journal, 1(1). 11-48.
Pace, M. (2007). ‘The Construction of EU Normative Power’, University of Birmingham, JCMS, 45(5). 1041–1064.
Siypak, İ. (2016). ‘Avrupa Birliği’nin Komşuluk Politikası ve Normatif Güç Tartışmaları Arap Baharı Örneği’. (Master Thesis). İzmir Kâtip Çelebi University.
Şemşit S. (2018). “Avrupa Birliği Politikaları Bağlamında Uluslararası Göç Olgusu ve Türleri: Kavramsal Bakış”, Journal of Yönetim ve Ekonomi, (25/1).
Tuncel, Z. (2017). ‘Migration and the Changing Identity Conception of the European Union in its External Relations’, Atatürk University Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 31(4). 975-990.
Vatandaş, S. (2018). ‘Avrupa Birliği’nin Normatif Gücü”: İnsan Hakları ve Demokrasi İdeali Bağlamında Bir Analiz’, Bilge Strateji, 10(19). Fall, 149-176.
Yaldız, F. (2012). ‘Individual Rights in the EU and the Treaty of Lisbon’, Bilge Strateji, 4(7). Fall, 107-125.
Zorba, H. (2016). ‘Ab’nin Göçmenlere Yönelik Politikalarını Etkileyen Faktörler’, Journal of Peace Research and Conflict Resolutions, (4).
