Cooperation within Reason: Tunisia’s Approach to Asylum and Readmission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since 2011, migration and asylum have grown in salience in EU-Tunisia international cooperation. Through various agreements, the EU has provided technical and financial support to Tunisia to strengthen its border management capabilities, develop a national migration strategy, legislate a national asylum framework, and re-integrate Tunisians who were returned from Europe. However, among the points of contention between Tunisia and the EU, two key issues stand out: the continued absence of a national law governing asylum in Tunisia, and Tunisia’s refusal to include clauses related to readmission (of its own nationals and third-country nationals) in its agreements with the EU. Drawing on an analysis of cooperation on asylum and readmission between the EU and Tunisia from 2011 to 2021, this article argues that the EU’s perceptions of a lack of cooperation from its Tunisian counterparts are misplaced. Rather, Tunisia is willing to work cooperatively with the EU as long as it does not see this cooperation serve the sole purpose of supporting the EU’s externalization agenda. We see this attitude as a form of resistance to EU pressure, with the unfortunate consequence being the undermining of protection for vulnerable populations in Tunisia and in the EU. Tunisian authorities see the adoption of an asylum law as paving the way for disembarkation platforms, the use of the safe third country concept to return foreign nationals and contain them to Tunisia. This has been fueled by issue linkage in negotiations with the EU between the passing of the asylum act and the return of third-country nationals to Tunisia. Similarly, while Tunisia has concluded agreements with some EU countries regarding the readmission of its nationals, its priorities with respect to facilitating returns lie in the protection of its nationals’ social rights rather than in meeting quantitative targets set by the EU.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".