Cooperation for Containment: An Analysis of the EU-Türkiye Arrangements in the Field of Migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Due to its strategic location, Türkiye has been a transit country for most migrants and refugees and a necessary stop on their way to Europe. However, while Türkiye is a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, it has limited its international law obligations to refugees fleeing “events occurring in Europe” and generally avoided regulating the field and establishing a national framework until early 2000s. Largely driven by the EU accession processes, Türkiye implemented legislative, institutional and policy reforms related to asylum and began making gradual changes to align its asylum and migration structures to the EU framework from 2001. Cooperation between the EU and Türkiye in the field of asylum and migration significantly changed with the so-called migration crisis in the EU in 2015. The EU-Türkiye Statement in 2016 which foresaw deliverance of one of the most significant financial assistances of the EU history relating to migrants, became a symbol -for both critics and supporters- of the EU external migration policies. This chapter based on the extensive fieldwork conducted in Türkiye between June and October 2021, analyses the political, legal and financial instruments through which the EU and Türkiye have cooperated in the field of migration and asylum between 2015 and 2021. The analysis focuses on the three main instruments: the EU- Türkiye Statement of March 2016, the EU- Türkiye Readmission Agreement, and the Facility for Refugees in Türkiye (FRiT) and these instruments are analysed on six points; transparency, accountability, conformity with international law, results, promoting containment or mobility and finally, the alignment with the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR).
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".