Functioning of the EU Management of External Borders with Emphasis on Migration and Asylum Problems
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
p. 10 1.1.The process of externalization of EU migration policy: the externalization of control tools and the pre-emptive approach (1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000) p. 17 1.2.The policy making and the actual trends within EU migration policy (2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010) p. 23 1.3.The repatriation and removal of immigrants: the readmission agreements as a fundamental tool of EU migration policy p. 26 1.4.The latest developments in the management of regular immigration: the circular immigration and the 'Mobility partnerships' p. 33 1.5.The management of EU external borders after Lisbon: a new role for Frontex?p. 39 1.6.Conclusions.Towards a European migration and asylum policy: sustainable development, ENPy and key policy areas p. 47 2. THE RELATIONS BETWEEN EU AND RUSSIA, UKRAINE, MOLDOVA, AND BELARUS ON MIGRATION POLICY p. 49 2.1.The European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership p. 50 2.2.The relations between EU and Russia on migration, visa regimes, border controls and mobility issues p. 51 2.3.Relations between EU and Ukraine on migration, visa regimes, border controls and mobility issues p. 55 2.4.Relations between EU and Belarus on migration, visa regimes, border controls and mobility issues p. 59 2.5.Relations between EU and Moldova on migration, visa regimes, border controls and mobility issues p. 61 2.6.Conclusions and hypothesis to enhance and foster EU-Eastern Partnership on migration issues p. 62 BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES p. 65 Phase 1: 1957-1990: EC has no competences in the field of migration and asylum, policy coordination only occurs in some fields of migration and asylum such as transnational crime and terrorism.Phase 2: 1990-1999: intergovernmental cooperation: Given the high numbers of asylum seekers some European states agreed on three important regulations (see below).Phase 3: since 1999: Asylum and migration policy as a common task in the EU.In order to control the high numbers of asylum seekers with the Treaty of Maastricht, asylum policy was regarded as a policy task of common interest, to be regulated by the European Community.The Schengen System (1995) with its border control mechanisms and the Dublin Convention (1997) with the save-third-country-regulation makes it easy to control and send back undesired migrants entering one of the Schengen-Member States.But the main critics it can be made to this system is that the established mechanisms resulted in decreasing numbers of asylum seekers and increasing numbers of undocumented (so called illegal) migrants.Anyway, two cornerstones are important for the development towards the common European asylum and migration policy: 1. Cornerstone: Summit of Tampere (1999)In this summit EU declares the establishment of a Common European Asylum System based on human rights, in particular the application of the Geneva Refugee Convention and other relevant HR instruments.In order to achieve these aims, the following policies according to Tampere should be developed: Partnership with the countries of origin, Creation of a Common European Asylum System, Measures to guarantee a fair treatment of third country nationals, Management of Migration flows.These policies were transformed into a catalogue of measures relevant to these goals, to be taken within five years .After five years, the European Council launched and adopted the Hague programme. Cornerstone: The Hague Programme (2005-2010)The Hague programme is a five-year programme promoting closer co-operation in justice and home affairs from 2005 to 2010.The programme focuses on setting up a common migration and asylum policy for the 27 EU member States.Given the terrorist assaults on New York ( 2001) and Madrid (2004) the Hague Programm gives prioritizes the security aspects of migration and measures that reinforce restriction and control.The combating of terrorism is mentioned in the Hague Programme as the first and central task of the common policies in Justice and Home Affairs.Within the immigration and asylum policies, the security aspect is central and takes the form of border checks and the "fight against illegal migration".Important elements of these policy measures are: Harmonisation of asylum applications between the member states (including harmonized visa regulations, repatriation policies and measures relating to border management); Information systems: Linkage of SIS II (Schengen Information System), VIS (Visa Information System) and EURODAC (identification of asylum seekers fingerprints) and FADO (Image archiving system) in order to combat illegal immigration; Discussions on the ex-territorialisation of asylum procedures in the countries themselves; Establishment of FRONTEX in May 2005: management of restrictive border control in the EU member states. Temporary Detention Camps (hardly criticized by a number of Ngo's and citizens committed with HR protection) along the European borders, in particular in Mediterranean and Eastern Europe countries.For what concerns the protection of refugees in Europe in the last 10 years, it is possible to conclude that this process has been characterized by regresses and progresses at the same time.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,015 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».