Externalization Policies and their Impacts on Migrant and Refugee Flows to Europe during the “Crisis.” A preliminary study
Résumé
In the past two decades European states have increasingly sought to stem irregular
migration to Europe by cooperating with non-European countries to “externalize” migration
and asylum management beyond European borders and territories. The externalization of
migration policy amounts to delegating border control in third countries, enabling
deportations of irregular migrants through readmission agreements (RA), while also including
aid and development packages that address the drivers of migration in origin and transit
countries. It is unclear, however, whether or under what conditions such policies have had
their intended effects. In this paper, we aim to measure how migrant and refugee flows
respond to such European externalization of migration and asylum management. Our
analyses cover the period of the so-called “migrant” or “refugee crisis” of 2015, which offers
a unique context in which to study the relationship between migration policies and flows.
After introducing a new database on external migration policy instruments, we use
Frontex data to describe the patterns in irregular migration flows, focusing on the spatial and
categorical distribution of migrants and refugees from 2009 to 2018. We first introduce a
useful distinction between “likely irregular migrants” and “likely refugees”, who both cross
borders illegally into Europe. We then explore the extent to which the closure of migration
routes led to the rerouting of migration flows. We show that such a phenomenon is actually
limited to few nationalities. We eventually argue that externalization policies, although
partially effective at reducing the overall number of irregular border crossings into Europe,
directly affect “likely refugees” who remain stranded in transit countries or who renounce
fleeing their country of origin.
Then, we present key policy trends across European states and third countries in
regard with externalization. We first argue that the 2015 crisis reinforced existing dynamics
of diplomatic engagement and cooperation with third countries in matters of migration and
asylum and extended their geographical scope. We then examine the impact of policies on
irregular flows. Focusing on the impact of readmission agreements, we contend that bilateral
agreements are not effective in limiting irregular migration from the signing countries of
origin. However, we also observe that bilateral implemented protocols of EU readmission
agreements (EU RA) are associated with fewer irregular border crossings from the relevant
third countries. We suggest that this effect can be explained by pre-existing political relations
between the parties to the EU readmission agreements and the limited number of irregular
border crossers from these nationalities. Overall, our findings call into question the
appropriateness of externalization policies as tools for addressing migration issues, in
particular large refugee flows in times of crisis.