Journals / Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 1

Right or Duty? Integration of Beneficiaries of International Protection in the Common European Asylum System and Related Legislation

HAK MI, GÖREV Mİ? AVRUPA ORTAK SIĞINMA SİSTEMİ VE İLGİLİ MEVZUATTA ULUSLARARASI KORUMA ALTINDAKİ BİREYLERİN ENTEGRASYONU

Pages
129–159
Publication Date
2021-09-24
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

EU law could not surpass the least common denominator

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:International law, to which European Union (EU) members are subject, requires more support for beneficiaries of international protection (BIP) than other immigrants.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Integration of BIP in the countries of settlement is regarded as a right by the United Nations (UN) approach built upon Geneva Convention.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:EU law could not surpass the least common denominator
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Uluslararası Koruma · Entegrasyon · Birleşmiş Milletler

Abstract

International law, to which European Union (EU) members are subject, requires more support for beneficiaries of international protection (BIP) than other immigrants. Integration of BIP in the countries of settlement is regarded as a right by the United Nations (UN) approach built upon Geneva Convention. Trying to restrict asylum, EU members regard it rather as a duty. The study analyses the issue of integration in the Common European Asylum System and other legislation related to BIP, in comparison with the approaches of the UN and EU member states. The results reveal that although the general integration framework of the legislation is compatible with the UN approach, it reflects the restrictive member state approach with respect to integration indicators. EU law could not surpass the least common denominator

Özet

Avrupa Birliği (AB) üyesi devletlerin tabi olduğu uluslararası hukuk, uluslararası koruma altındaki bireylere (UKB), diğer göçmenlerden daha fazla destek olunmasını gerektirmektedir. UKB’nin yerleştikleri ülkelere entegrasyonu, Cenevre Konvansiyonu temelinde gelişen Birleşmiş Milletler (BM) yaklaşımında hak olarak kabul edilmektedir. Sığınmayı kısıtlamaya çalışan AB üyeleri ise entegrasyonu daha ziyade görev olarak ele almaktadır. Çalışma, Avrupa Ortak Sığınma Sistemi ve UKB ile ilgili diğer mevzuatta entegrasyon konusunu, BM ve AB üyesi devletlerin yaklaşımı ile mukayeseli olarak incelemektedir. Çalışmanın sonucunda, mevzuatın genel entegrasyon çerçevesinin BM yaklaşımına uyumlu olmasına rağmen, entegrasyon göstergeleri açısından kısıtlayıcı üye devlet yaklaşımını yansıttığı ortaya çıkmıştır. AB hukuku, asgari müştereklerin ötesine geçememiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇİLİNGİR, S. (2021). Right or Duty? Integration of Beneficiaries of International Protection in the Common European Asylum System and Related Legislation. Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 1, 129–159. https://ajindex.com/articles/380068

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Ager, Alastair, ve Alison Strang. “Understanding Integration: A Conceptual Framework”. Journal of Refugee Studies 21, no 2 (2008): 166-91.
  2. Amnesty International. “Kosovo (Serbia): No Forcible Return of Minorities to Kosovo”. EUR 70/004/2007, 31.5.2007. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.refworld.org/topic,50ffbce510,50ffbce537,4666d88a2,0,,,SRB.ht ml. Berry, John W. “Immigration, Acculturation, and Adaptation”. Applied Psychology 46, no 1 (1997): 5-34.
  3. Brouwer, Evelien. “Immigration, Asylum and Terrorism: A Changing Dynamic Legal and Practical Developments in the EU in Response to the Terrorist Attacks of 11.09”. European Journal of Migration and Law 4 (2003): 399-324.
  4. Carrera, Sergio. “A Comparison of Integration Programmes in the EU: Trends and Weaknesses”. CEPS Challenge Papers, 1.3.2006. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/comparison-integration-programmeseu-trends-and-weaknesses/.
  5. Castles, Stephen, ve Mark J. Miller. The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World. New York: Guilford Press, 2003.
  6. Ceyhan, Ayse, ve Anastassia Tsoukala. “The Securitization of Migration in Western Societies: Ambivalent Discourses and Policies”. Alternatives 27, no 1_suppl (2.2002): 21-39.
  7. Cheong, Pauline H., Rosalind Edwards, Harry Goulbourne, ve John Solomos. “Immigration, Social Cohesion and Social Capital: A Critical View”. Critical Social Policy 27, no 1 (2007): 24-49.
  8. Coman, Ramona ve Cécile Leconte. “Contesting EU Authority in the Name of European Identity: the New Clothes of the Sovereignty Discourse in Central Europe,” Journal of European Integration 41, no 7 (2019): 855-870.
  9. Council of the European Union. “Press Release: 2618th Council Meeting - Justice and Home Affairs. 14615/04 (Presse 321)”. 19.11.2004. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/jha/827 45.pdf. Çilingir, Sevgi. “Kriz Gündeminde AB Göç Politikasının Yetkiler, Hedefler ve Araçlar İtibariyle Değerlendirilmesi: Sınır Yönetimi Örneği”. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi 19, no 1 (19.6.2018): 19-49. da Costa, Rosa. “Rights of Refugees in the Context of Integration: Legal Standards and Recommendations”. Legal and Protection Policy Research Series. Geneva: UNHCR Division of International Protection Services, 6.2006. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021. https://www.unhcr.org/44bb90882.pdf.
  10. EASO. “Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in the EU 2018”. EASO, 24.6.2019. Erişim Tarihi: 5.2.2021.