Tunisia-EU Cooperation in Migration Management: From Mobility Partnership to Containment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter examines select political, legal, and financial instruments regarding asylum, protection, and mobility between Tunisia and the EU. We have assessed the effectiveness, fairness, and consistency of these instruments, to determine whether they have been successful in achieving their stated aims, have been designed and implemented with accountability mechanisms, and have been aligned with international and regional human rights standards. The chapter concludes that while some of the instruments have achieved their stated results of building the Tunisian state’s capacity to host refugees, they have been lacking in transparency, accountability mechanisms, and compatibility with international and regional human rights laws. With the focus predominantly having been on the containment of refugees to Tunisia through emphasis on border protection programs and readmission agreements, the instruments’ alignment with the Global Compact for Refugees is limited, as there is far more pressure exerted on Tunisia to host a growing number of third country nationals and prevent their onward movement to Europe, with few other initiatives aimed at easing this burden. While the continued absence of asylum legislation has been a barrier to upholding refugees’ rights in the country, we argue that Tunisian officials’ refusal to pass national asylum legislation has been their way of resisting EU pressure to become a safe third country of asylum, as they fear this will pave the way to other EU actions of deporting third country nationals to Tunisia, and to set up offshore asylum processing centres on Tunisian soil. The Chapter critiques the EU’s approach in its mobility partnership with Tunisia to date due to its outsized focus on security and insufficient attention to the needs and perceptions of Tunisian counterparts.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".