601 Ricard Zapata-Barrero The external dimension of migration policy in the Mediterranean region: premises for normative debate 2.1 Externalisation as a response to the shortcomings of traditional policies In this section we will explore the reasons and justification for having to externalise migration policies which were initially confined to the domestic sphere (within state borders). What is the rationale behind the externalisation of policy? The general response is that domestic migration policies were insufficient for controlling migration flows and that it therefore became necessary to develop the external dimension. C. Boswell39 notes that European states have experienced an increase in illegal immigration due to the restrictive immigration policies of recent decades. This, in turn, has given rise to the need to cooperate with the countries of origin and transit in combating illegal migration until such time as immigration is established as a priority issue in EU external policy. S. Debenedetti40 speaks about the importance that coordination of national Member State legislation has had in the development of an external dimension. As a result, harmonisation of migration policy has enhanced the role played by the EU and made association and cooperation with third countries a policy instrument for the control of migration. The need of national agents to circumvent the restrictions by developing migration policy at the domestic level is another factor that has enabled the inclusion of immigration in EU external policy. Within this framework, several actors41 have highlighted the importance of the role played by internal policy and, particularly, the legal and social limitations of liberal democratic states in developing migration policy at the intergo-vernmental level. It has been pointed out that it is easier for the architects of restrictive policy to operate at the transgovernmental level because their actions lack transparency. Here, groups in favour of immigration policies (pro-migration organisations) have less room to manoeuvre. Guiraudon and Lahav42 argue, for instance, that migra-tion control functions have been delegated to three spheres. Apart from the change from the national arena to the intergovernmental one, and from here to local agents (through decentralisation), there has also been a shift outwards, from the state to non-state agents (airline companies, transport companies, etc.). For Guiraudon43, the shift from the national level to the intergovernmental level has been possible because of what she calls the venue shopping framework; and, because of the authorisation of the 39 BOSWELL, Christina, “‘The External Dimension’ of EU immigration and asylum policy”, International Affairs, vol. 79, no. 3, 2001, pp. 619-683. 40 DEBENEDETTI, Sara, op cit, 2009. 41 C. Joppke (1998), V. Guiraudon (2000), V. Guiraudon and G. Lahav (2000), and S. Lavenex (2006) 42 GUIRAUDON, Virginie and LAHAV, Gallya “A Reappraisal of the State Sovereignty Debate: The Case of Migration Control” Comparative Political Studies, vol. 33, no. 2, 2000, pp. 163-195 43 GUIRAUDON, Virginie, “European Integration and Migration Policy: Vertical Policy-making as Venue Shopping” Journal of Common Market studies, vol. 38 no. 2, 2000, 251-271.
REVISTA IEEE 2
To see the actual publication please follow the link above