Assignment Sample on Asylum Procedures Directive

1.0 Introduction

The members of the EU commissioners have proposed to execute the law for the protection of asylum and various approaches for the policy based on any slams. This essay will discuss a comprehensive analysis of one of the elements in the legislation of European asylum. The main aim of the EU commissioners is to protect all the members in their state and ensure compliance “with the principle of non-recoupment”. Even in the end, the EU is fighting for the development of a common system and its policy of asylum. The system of the EU is based on the three main pillars: return procedure, efficient asylum, fair share, and solidarity of strengthened partnership and responsibility with third countries.

2.0 Discussion

The European Union serves as an area for the protection of issues that can harm the origin of the country (Lavenex, 2018). They aim to protect the fundamental rights of human beings in their nationality and also for the third country. The obligations are based on international perspectives and they were recognized in the convention of Geneva for the sake of protecting the refugees. The freedom of movement and the open borders in the member countries of European nations have shared the values of fundamental rights for preserving the value of human rights to provide the best approach for guaranteeing the standard of refugee’s protections. The study of analyzing the common European Asylum system instruments by the parliamentary system of European policy departments for preserving the rights of the citizens at the request of the “LIBE Committee ” provides a detailed analysis of the elements of the EU asylum system. This research paper was requested by the Parliament’s committee of European nations on “Civil liberties justice”, commissioned and home affairs of the EU policy departments for preserving the rights of the citizen and supervising the Constitutional affairs of the European Parliaments. The policy departments of EU legislation provide the expertise that is independent by nature both internally (in tiger house) and externally, to support the parliamentary committees of the European nations.

The CEAS (“Common European Asylum System”) is a policy and legal framework that

“Develops guarantees for harmonized and uniform standards for people seeking international protection in the EU” (Hathaway, 2018). In 1999, the common elements of the European asylum system were formed. There are many terms and conditions that the executive officers of asylums need to conduct for determining whether a person is eligible for asylum or not. Assisted insight, participation, and order of any person irrespective of their nationality, race, caste, origin, religion, customs, beliefs, and birthplace, it also includes the political opinion and the social groups (Niemann and Zaun, 2018). Aggravated felonies and a person who is convicted of a serious crime are also considered and they are undertaken as a serious matter before determining whether the person is eligible for asylum or not. In 2015, more than 1.3 million nationals had applied for the CEAS which resulted in complexity and shook the prospects of CEAS (“Common European Asylum System”). In 2015, CEAS welcomed all the candidates from routes of Western Balkans, after six months the same legislation was applied to invite nationals from the border fences. The present procedure of CEAS is based on “Irregular arriving refugees and migrants”. The debate of this matter certainly shifted from “welcoming refugees and people in need of protection” to emphasizing the importance of “arrival in economic migrants or illegal” (Grimmel and Giang, 2017). The policymaker of European legislation is overwhelmed and tends to remain on the verge of candidates for migrants and refugees and the candidates or the nationals who were migrating or entering the European nations.

In the year of 2005, the asylum system of the European countries had faced a huge issue for the lack of suitable methods or structure of the entire process. It might be because of the limited rules and regulations of the entire system. To overcome the situation the importance of introducing the appropriate rules becomes very high. To fulfill the requirements of the management of the system some rules and regulations were introduced in late 2009 (Panebianco and Fontana, 2018). The rules were also related to the huge amount of new arrivals in European countries and an increasing number of refugees in the nation. The deficiencies and the gaps of the previously implemented policies can be detected and overcome by the implemented rules and regulations of the new asylum system of those countries.

The initial shock of the Europeans was followed by the initial shock and the Ms were recognized after the failure of CEAS instruments (Mayblin, 2019).  The difference between the national level and the European nations are in approaches that they made for the policy-making process is not more. But the policymakers of the EU level are putting more emphasis on the creation of “solitary could shoulder the unprecedented mass arrivals”. The MS and EU are based on two opposite operations. The operation is based on introducing the ceiling (upper), including the fences of buildings and wider assets of discretion to create the CEAS in the national asylum system and makes it unattractive (Dahlvik, 2017). This asylum deters the seekers and shows the commitments that are minimal to solidarity measures.

CEAS health state

The instruments of CEAS provide the benchmarks which are full of clarity for the countries belonging to the policymakers of European nations; they have adapted their asylum statements for the development of harmonization’s in the standards which they have applied (Biermann et al. 2019). In the sense of policymakers in the European nations CEAS is not a common factor, at the same time the policymaker of European nations has made them in a single system procedure. This system is used in each of MS and the European Union. On the contrary, CEAS (“Common European Asylum System”) are counted to be online, occupying 28 different systems of asylum among different countries with different actors’ responsibilities occupying different results with different procedures.

For many years, some of the instruments of CEAS have been referred to as the subjects of strong and active criticism. Above all the “Dublin III Regulation” is the most acceptable instrument despite the tag of the CEAS “cornerstone” (Xanthopoulou, 2018). “The Asylum Procedures Directive and the Reception Conditions Directive ” have actively criticized the statement because it was too complex and it was leaving much discretion to “EU MS”. The protection directives which are temporary are ignored but at the same time, it is supposed to be the special techniques of European nations to address the influx of mass that seeks international protection for the nationalities of Europe and across the borders (World Health Organization, 2018). The recent phases of the instruments in CEAS have not succeeded in suggesting the deficiencies of fundamental laws and regulations. Thus the opportunities were fundamentally lost and it was reconsidered in the architecture of CEAS instruments particularly in the system of Dublin.

The policymaker of the European nations has aimed to provide security for every human being by providing legislation for the preservation of human rights. This law protects all the citizens if they feel that they are having “fear of persecution or other serious harm”. The EU is still striving to develop their CEAS and the policymakers are trying to provide this scheme for every human being’s equality irrespective of their caste, colors, gender, class, nationality, origin, and many more (Bansak et al. 2017). The value and dignity of every citizen need to be protected in order to achieve peace and harmony among various peoples belonging to different cultural backgrounds.

The CEAS in the context of the rising migratory flow

The number of asylum applications in the year 2015 has shown the main flaw and it was doubled by last year. The system normally locates MS in the borders and they fail to deal with the internal flow of solitary between all the MS.  Consequently, the policy frameworks that were developed under the agenda of European nations on migration consist of a “mosaic of emergency-driven ad hoc legislations without any coherent vision” for the long durations (Papoutsi et al. 2019). The council of EU policymakers is being supportive for preventing the measures under the agenda of European in migrations and to alleviate the pressure on the member’s state and they directly impact on the increased arrivals that control the current crisis of solidarity.

In respect to the research study in the parliamentary prospects of the European nations should be:

• The ongoing policy should be closed, monitored for development, and undertaken through taking the assessments of its achievements and shortcoming since 2015 has been increasing the flow.
• The global obligations of European nations should be closely monitored and the agreements with the countries (third countries)  in the areas of global protections on credible responsibilities and mechanism sharing and to make conditional agreements on compliances with global refuges and preserving the rights of the humans being with a higher standard of protection in the asylum of Europeans standards acquis as one of the leading benchmarks.
• The commitments of protecting the child should stay in commitments to uphold the essential principles of migration of the European unions, and the procedure in both the regular and emergency departments, mainly against the background of rising numbers of children accompanied in “EU MS”.

Access to protection

Due to the principle of territory “as a precondition to claiming asylum, an applicant needs to be physically present in an EU MS” (Gough and Gough, 2019). The absence of multiple-choice protections for EU refugees is a major problem in the political environments of the nations. However, the past “EU MS” was not generous for the resettlements of places. Resettlement is based on voluntary participation by the members of the EU policymakers; the tools have proved to be effective in the last recent years. To make the system more effective, the EU policymakers have implemented the use of a strong legislation process in their parliamentary system of law-making procedure (Allsopp and Chase, 2019). In the sense of policymakers in the European nations, CEAS is not a common factor, at the same time the policymaker of European nations has made them in single system procedure in their Parliamentary system of the law-making process. The Dublin system promotes the replacement of allocations mechanism that operates and governed the soldiery principles and “fair sharing of responsibility”. The critical review of the proposal of the Commission for the last years of responsibility is totally based on the quota of fair distribution. The solitary measures contain a mixed solution which provides incentives for European unions to provide positive incentives (Brekke and Staver, 2018). The positive incentives of the applicants in the EU asylums “to refrain from the secondary movements”, hence, the asylum seeks the choice thereby taking the account while informing the better relocations and provides the limited choice of the perspectives to gather the rights for mobility with the unions of Europe.

The monitor implements the relocation of the mechanism into two Council decisions under the introductions of EUN policymakers.

The Common European Asylum System

The Unions of the European system of Asylum is an area and concept of protecting the serious harm of the citizen or protecting the nationalist from fleeing persecution in their origin or country. In the European common system of Asylum, it is considered as the fundamental right and obligation of international protection for the different countries in the European nations (Triandafyllidou, 2018).  In 1951, the Asylum was recognized by the Convention of Geneva on the “protection of refugees”. In the unions of European areas where the freedom of movement and the open borders are allowed in the member’s countries, share the values of fundamental law for the protection of human rights and making an approach of a joint venture to guarantee the standard of refugees protections in the policy-making procedure of the European Unions.

The asylum seekers are welcomed by the European countries with shared responsibility in a dignified manner (Betts, 2018). The countries of the European Union have ensured that the provided treatments are fair and the cases are examined by following the general standards. It also confirms that the location does not matter. Any application from any place is granted in the same way. But the procedures must be followed properly and this must be efficient and effective for the whole EU. The flow of the asylum is not constant; also they are not evenly distributed in all the EU. As an example, they have deviated from more than 1.8 million to almost 142, 000 million from the year 2015 to 2019 (Castelli Gattinara, 2017). This is a decrease of almost 92%. Keeping this in mind, in 1999 the EU established a “Common European Asylum System (CEAS)”. And in 2020, it was reformed by the commission of EU by a comprehensive approach for migrating the policy of asylum based on the 3 main pillars;

• Return procedures and efficient asylum
• Fair and solidarity responsibility share
• Strengthen their partnerships with the help of the other third countries

Legislations

The CEAS had made cooperation and standard for confirming that the asylum seekers get fair and equal treatment, at any place where they will apply for treatment (Hodes et al. 2017). And for looking over this system some legislative instruments are present and one agency is responsible to handle this system.

Asylum Procedures-Directive:

This instrument is responsible to set out a fair, and quick system and making quality decisions for the asylum. The persons who are seeking asylum and who have special requirements can get their required support for explaining their requirements and claims (Depraetere and Oosterlynck, 2017). Also, they can get specific protections from the tortured victims and unaccompanied minors.

Reception Conditions-Directive:

This instrument aims to ensure the standard of the receptions are provided for the asylum seekers in the EU for ensuring the standard that is dignified. The living standards depend on the fundamental rights of the Charter. And the Reception conditions can be food, clothes, housings, medicinal care, education, health care, employment, etc.

Qualification Directive:

 This instrument is used to clarify the grounds that are granted for providing the protection at the international level and also helps to make the decisions of the asylum (Sandri, 2018). This also gives access to measuring the integrations and rights for the international protection beneficiaries.

Dublin Regulations:

 This instrument can help to increase the protection to the asylum seekers in the state responsible for establishing processes to examine the applications and to clarify the rules and regulations that are governing the state relations. It also can create a system for detecting the issues that are faced in the national asylums (Ceccorulli, 2019). It has the potential to deal with the problems in the reception systems by addressing the root causes for the development of these asylums from crisis situations.

EURODAC Regulation:

This instrument can help to determine the responsibilities of the member state that are under the “Dublin Regulations”. And this also allows the authorities of law enforcement to access the database of the EU and the fingerprints of those people who are seeking asylum based on the strictly limited circumstances for providing the prevention, detection, and investigation of the serious and major crimes, like terrorism, murders, etc.

The agency that handles all the systems of CEAS is the “European Asylum Support Office”. This agency supports the CEAS’s implementations with the help of the member states by capacity building, developing training, information & analysis, emergency assistance, and the cooperation activities of the third country.

In 1999, the first law of CEAS was established by the European councils (Manhart, 2020). At that time, the European Councils gave a commitment to establish a “Common European Asylum system”. And that system is based on the inclusive and full applications of the “Geneva Convention”. The commitment was taken based on the “Tampere Programme” and different laws of the EU. In between 1999 to 2005, some new legislative instruments have set a standard for the asylums that were adopted. And those instruments are: the “Temporary Protection Directive”, the “Eurodac Regulations”, the “Reception of asylum seekers”, the “Dublin Regulations”, the “Qualification Directives”, and the “Asylum Procedures Directive” (Gurer, 2019). This was the first step of this system. After completing this stage, a reflection period is important for determining the direction that can help the CEAS to develop their system. The EU member states’ situations are varying as well as the protection levels are not so strong. After analyzing this, in 2008 the “European Commission’s Policy Plan on Asylum” was presented. By this policy, the standard is set in which the building of the system is made based on the uniform and common protection standard. Based on this plan, the EU commission has presented a series of reformed laws of EU asylum that were completed in the year 2013 (Bucken‐Knapp et al. 2019). The “European Asylum Support Office” was created especially for assisting the member states to implement the asylum laws of the EU as well as for increasing practical cooperation. This is in the period between 2008 to 2013. And after that, in 2015, because of the high number of irregular migrants and refugees who have arrived in the EU and because of that there were some gaps and deficiencies in the Union policies of asylum. So, in 2016, the European commission proposed the third package of the 7 pieces legislations for moving towards the fair, humane, and fully efficient asylum policies that can be functioned effectively at the time of migrant pressure. And in 2017, the “European Parliament and the Council” made a huge political agreement based on the out of 7 proposals (Baldwin-Edwards et al. 2019). Those are “the setting-up of a fully-fledged European Union Asylum Agency”, “the reform of Eurodac”, “the review of the reception condition detective”, “the Qualification Regulation”, and “the EU Resettlement framework”. The council was not able to be in a position for the reform of “the Dublin system and the Asylum procedure Regulation”. In 2020, the EU commission proposed amendments for some of these proposals. The proposals include the following points:

The Qualification Regulations

Replacing the Qulaitification Drive (“Ditective 2011/95/EU”) with the policies and regulations aims to achieve convergence at a higher level in the decision-making process of the European asylum (Bose, 2018). The current optional rule of the EU regulation can be changed by the current regulations which provide the criteria that are most common for recognizing the application of the asylum to the obligatory rules. It also clarifies the further classifications wish specifies the “content of the international problems” in particulars regarding the residence permits duration and preserving the rights of the citizen in the European nations by establishing the rules and regulations that have to focus on preventing movements that are unauthorized.

With the help of regulations, the Qualifications Directives can protect the standards of the European citizen, they are aligned to harmonize the standards across the European standards by creating convergent at the highest level of recognition rates and creating the forms of human right reorganizations rates in the verge of human rights protections (D’Angelo, 2019). The current regulations of the EU have introduced more strict rules by sanctioning the movements that are unauthorized and putting more effort into the integration of incentives for the beneficiaries of the citizen in the internal environments of the European nations. The current regulation has clarified the rules and criteria for granting the “international protection in particular by mankind the applications of the internal protection alternative mandatory” especially for the Member states of the European nations and the assessment of their applications for the protection of the International citizens. In this section, the content also offers the obligations and rights of the beneficiaries for the protection of international citizens across the European nations.

A recast Reception-Conditions-Directive

The “Reception Conditions Directive” can confirm the receipt of the asylum seekers that they will get the treatment in decent conditions at all the period of EU by reducing the incentives to increase and abuse the probability of the asylum seekers of being self-reliant. Member states are required to have a contingency plan for ensuring the sufficiency of the reception capacity for all the time, including the disproportionate pressure time (Madziva and Thondhlana, 2017). The persons who are seeking asylum are provided with good reception conditions and the member states are only responsible for the application of the asylum. And this has a potential to prevent asylum seekers from running from one member state to another member state. In order to ensure efficient procedures, the member states can allocate a geographical area to the asylum seekers within their nation or territory. And also assign a residence for the asylum seekers and force reporting obligations for discouraging them from the absconding. The asylum seekers who have well-founded claims are considered for the right to work but it must not be 6 months after the registration of the applications. The minor people can get the education within 2 months after lodging the asylum request. And the minors who are unaccompanied can get the assistance of the asylum and within 15 days of the application, they can get a representative.

A reinforced European-Union-Asylum Agency

By adopting this regulation, a “fully-fledged EU Asylum Agency” is set up. Also the operational capacity, and equipped it according to the required tools, financial means, and staff for supporting the member state throughout the total procedure of the asylum.

An EU Resettlement frameworks

The resettlement framework of the EU was a framework of permanent law and it was a procedure of the unified law for the resettlement of EU across the nations in their continent. While the EU members states will remain in the position of deciding that how many citizens or candidates will be resettled in each year (Janmyr, 2017). The coordination of the efforts made the nationalists of the Eu have more impact and it will be capable of collectively contributing one of the single voices to the resettlement of the global efforts.

The “Recast of Return Directives” was proposed by the Eu policymakers in 2018, in response to the existing barriers at an efficient policy of return. The recast aim of the policymakers in the EU has aimed to make the purpose fit and make it worthy by successfully addressing the barriers or “risk of absconding”, it also provides assistance to the returns of a voluntary approach. It aloe ensures the monitoring of the procedures that have been praised in the national movements of the EU nations. In 2019, the council of the EU nations has provided free border access for returns to the European citizen. In the European nations, the Parliament has strived to achieve the negotiation of the mandates.

The CEAS or “Common European Asylum System” created its first law between the years of 1999-2005. At this time the approach was adopted by the European countries. This period was a very crucial time for the approach. During the time the application of the approach was introduced in the nation. The introduction of the approach was caused by the suitable laws and processes related to the asylum system. The laws and process smoke of the regulation are also introduced by the individual or the governing body for implementing those approaches successfully and improve the process or operation of the system of the asylums of the European countries. The common European asylum system may be introduced by many facts and regulations. All the regulation is directly connected with the laws of the asylum and the well-being of the patients who are admitted into that asylum. The regulations are governed by the suitable instruments and the individual body of the nation. The regulations can be expressed as follows.

The directive procedure of asylum:

The main aim of the regulation is to set the condition for the correct, fast, and appropriate decisions taken by the management of the asylum. The seekers of the asylum system implemented the regulation to fulfill the needs of the system and produce suitable help to the governing body of the asylum system. The regulation is like a law of protection for the related minors and the victims who become mentally sick for the reason of huge torture. By implementing the regulation the governing body of the asylum system is able to provide suitable medical help and support to every person of the nation.

The condition to direct the reception:

The regulation is able to ensure the quality of service and the condition of the reception of the asylums in the European countries. The services that are taken care of by the regulation are the quality of food, treatment, clothing, and the suitable method of the healthcare system of the European countries. The regulation adopted by the management of the asylum is also able to make them capable of providing a dignified and standard quality of living, the proper fundamental rights, and accordance for all the members of the asylum. The seekers of the asylum system implemented the regulation to fulfill the needs of the system and produce suitable help to the governing body of the asylum system. The regulation is like a law of protection for the related minors and the victims who become mentally sick for the reason of huge torture The condition of the reception can have the ability to express the healthcare strength of the nations.

The direction of the qualification:

 The regulation is directly connected to the international system of protection for the members of the asylum in the European countries. The regulation is responsible to provide the ability to take the suitable decision for the management and the governing bodies of the asylum system of the countries of the European nation. The adopted regulation by the authority of the asylum system of the European countries is also responsible to boost the capability of taking the suitable decision and maintaining the effectiveness of the international protection system implemented by the asylums of the European countries. The qualification directives are based on the grounds of implementing and granting the international protection system to the asylums of the European countries.

The regulation of Dublin:

 The regulations adopted by the asylum system of European countries are considered the most effective system of the entire management of all the asylums in the nation. The regulation is responsible for the enhancement of the process of protection to the seekers of asylum. The process is conducted during the time of examination of the application by the management of the STATE and its management to measure or realize the requirements of the asylum system. The regulation is also applied for maintaining the interrelation between the multiple states. The direction of the problem of the international asylum system and the reasons behind it also can be determined or resolved by the implementation of regulation to the asylum system of the European countries.

The regulation of EURODAC:

The regulation of EURODAC stands for the term “European Asylum Dactyloscopy Database”. The regulation is introduced for providing support to the members of the State who are responsible for the implementation of the Dublin regulation with the determining process and idea. The regulation is also responsible for quick access to the database of the asylum system of European countries. The regulation is able to introduce the protection methods with the process of fingerprint and the strict rules and awareness of the management of the asylum system among the countries of Europe. The regulation is related to the safety issues of the members of the asylums and the effectiveness of the management of the asylum to improve the system of the European countries.

The support of the office for the asylum system of European countries:

 The regulation is implemented by the state members of the asylum system of the common European countries. The main focus of the implementation was to provide the suitable infrastructure and better service of all the related officials of the asylum system of the European countries. The regulation is also related to the providing of suitable information, the proper process of maintaining and conducting the suitable analysis of all the related members of the Asylum system. The introduction of the regulation was very important and effective for improving the policies and conventional rules of the asylums of those countries. The importance of the produced information, analysis, and the other essential elements are not only limited for the European countries, it is also similarly effective for the activities of cooperation of the third world countries.

All the described approaches are directly connected with the asylum system of the European countries and the process of innovation of it. The responsibility of implementing the approach belongs to the management and the governing body of all the asylums of the nation. The regulation is also regulated for the improvements and the required transformation of the laws and operations of the asylum system. The compilation of the first phase of the implementation of all the regulations is able to determine the development process of CEAS.

Conclusion

This project has helped a lot to gain detailed analysis about the law proposed by the European Commission through a comprehensive approach for the asylum policy and migration based on the three pillars. This project contains a detailed analysis of the common system of asylum in the European nations; the legislation framed the policymakers of Europe. Further, in the Legislations, the Qualification drive, EURODAC Regulations, Dublin Regulations, and the Support office of the European asylum has been discussed in more detail and discussed in a comprehensive approach. Apart from that the quality of the regulations is also discussed in big detail to make the approach of the laws in the EU nations and how it is effective in the current generations. A brief explanation is provided about the CEAS because the entire assessment has been selected in the overall project and it has also been critically evaluated in these projects, to the one key element of the CEAS instruments reflected in a brief study approach.
Reference List

Journals

Lavenex, S., 2018. ‘Failing forward’towards which Europe? Organized hypocrisy in the common European asylum system. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(5), pp.1195-1212.

Hathaway, J.C., 2018. The global cop-out on refugees. International Journal of Refugee Law, 30(4), pp.591-604.

Niemann, A. and Zaun, N., 2018. EU refugee policies and politics in times of crisis: theoretical and empirical perspectives. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(1), pp.3-22.

Grimmel, A. and Giang, S.M., 2017. Solidarity in the European Union. Springer2017.

Panebianco, S. and Fontana, I., 2018. When responsibility to protect ‘hits home’: the refugee crisis and the EU response. Third World Quarterly, 39(1), pp.1-17.

Mayblin, L., 2019. Imagining asylum, governing asylum seekers: Complexity reduction and policy making in the UK Home Office. Migration Studies, 7(1), pp.1-20.

Dahlvik, J., 2017. Asylum as construction work: Theorizing administrative practices. Migration Studies, 5(3), pp.369-388.

Biermann, F., Guérin, N., Jagdhuber, S., Rittberger, B. and Weiss, M., 2019. Political (non-) reform in the euro crisis and the refugee crisis: a liberal intergovernmentalist explanation. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(2), pp.246-266.

Xanthopoulou, E., 2018. Mutual trust and rights in EU criminal and asylum law: three phases of evolution and the uncharted territory beyond blind trust. Common Market Law Review, 55(2).

World Health Organization, 2018. Report on the health of refugees and migrants in the WHO European Region: No public health without refugees and migrant health.

Bansak, K., Hainmueller, J. and Hangartner, D., 2017. Europeans support a proportional allocation of asylum seekers. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(7), pp.1-6.

Papoutsi, A., Painter, J., Papada, E. and Vradis, A., 2019. The EC hotspot approach in Greece: creating liminal EU territory. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(12), pp.2200-2212.

Gough, H.A. and Gough, K.V., 2019. Disrupted becomings: The role of smartphones in Syrian refugees’ physical and existential journeys. Geoforum, 105, pp.89-98.

Allsopp, J. and Chase, E., 2019. Best interests, durable solutions and belonging: Policy discourses shaping the futures of unaccompanied migrant and refugee minors coming of age in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(2), pp.293-311.

Brekke, J.P. and Staver, A., 2018. The renationalisation of migration policies in times of crisis: the case of Norway. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(13), pp.2163-2181.

Triandafyllidou, A., 2018. A “refugee crisis” unfolding:“Real” events and their interpretation in media and political debates. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 16(1-2), pp.198-216.

Betts, A., 2018. The global compact on refugees: Towards a theory of change?. International Journal of Refugee Law, 30(4), pp.623-626.

CastelliGattinara, P., 2017. The ‘refugee crisis’ in Italy as a crisis of legitimacy. Contemporary Italian Politics, 9(3), pp.318-331.

Hodes, M., Vasquez, M.M., Anagnostopoulos, D., Triantafyllou, K., Abdelhady, D., Weiss, K., Koposov, R., Cuhadaroglu, F., Hebebrand, J. and Skokauskas, N., 2018. Refugees in Europe: National overviews from key countries with a special focus on child and adolescent mental health. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 27(4), pp.389-399.

Depraetere, A. and Oosterlynck, S., 2017. ‘I finally found my place’: a political ethnography of the Maximiliaan refugee camp in Brussels. Citizenship Studies, 21(6), pp.693-709.

Sandri, E., 2018. ‘Volunteer Humanitarianism’: volunteers and humanitarian aid in the Jungle refugee camp of Calais. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(1), pp.65-80.

Ceccorulli, M., 2019. Back to Schengen: the collective securitisation of the EU free-border area. West European Politics, 42(2), pp.302-322.

Manhart, M., 2020. ” Backpack Refugee Rights Advocating” in Greece–Access to Justice through Legal Empowerment. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice/Recueilannuel de Windsor d’accès à la justice, 37, pp.68-87.

Gurer, C., 2019. Refugee perspectives on integration in Germany. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 3(2), pp.52-70.

Bucken‐Knapp, G., Fakih, Z. and Spehar, A., 2019. Talking about integration: the voices of Syrian refugees taking part in introduction programmes for integration into Swedish society. International Migration, 57(2), pp.221-234.

Baldwin-Edwards, M., Blitz, B.K. and Crawley, H., 2019. The politics of evidence-based policy in Europe’s ‘migration crisis’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(12), pp.2139-2155.

Bose, P.S., 2018. Welcome and hope, fear, and loathing: The politics of refugee resettlement in Vermont. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 24(3), p.320.

D’Angelo, A., 2019. Italy: the ‘illegality factory’? Theory and practice of refugees’ reception in Sicily. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(12), pp.2213-2226.

Madziva, R. and Thondhlana, J., 2017. Provision of quality education in the context of Syrian refugee children in the UK: Opportunities and challenges. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 47(6), pp.942-961.

Janmyr, M., 2017. No Country of asylum:‘Legitimizing’Lebanon’s rejection of the 1951 refugee convention. International Journal of Refugee Law, 29(3), pp.438-465.