Page 602

REVISTA IEEE 2

602 Revista del Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos Núm. 2 / 2013 officials responsible for migration control, they can operate in international spaces in different ways. Firstly, they can avoid judicial constraints and eliminate adversaries at the national level, and enlist much-needed cooperating parties, particularly in origin and transit countries. The tension between the local and state level over migration control and, particularly, the local actors’ desire to have a say in migration matters that fall within their remit also play an important role. Guiraudon and Lahav 44 point out that delegating responsibility for migration control to the local authorities is an old trick that is used when it is necessary to tighten migration policy at the state level. This demonstrates, therefore, a change of action on the part of non-state and foreign agents towards the exterior. The authors maintain that the abolition of the EU’s internal borders and, hence, the outward “shift” of its external borders is the main reason for sharing the burden of immigration with private stakeholders and third countries.45 The penalties imposed on transport companies are an example of how European states are imposing stricter controls on passengers before reaching EU territory. S. Lavenex46 has also observed a change – in the first case - “upwards” in the intergovernmental sphere, and then “outwards”, but her viewpoint is different. She sees these shifts in migration policy as part of the EU’s external policy and not as a process of sharing the burden between state and non-state actors. Following the same line of reasoning, Boswell47 and Lavenex48 highlight the fact that externalisation of migration control instruments and increased cooperation between third countries are more a logical continuation of the transnational cooperation that already existed than a new phenomenon49. The abolition of internal borders has also given rise to the development of the external dimension of migration policy, in an attempt to harmonise the policies of new Member States and transit states.50 According to Boswell51, in the 1980s and ‘90s, state and EU officials were convinced 44  GUIRAUDON, Virginie. and LAHAV, Gallya, op cit., 2000, pp. 163-195 45  FERRER-GALLARDO, Xavier, and KRAMSCH, Olivier- Thomas, “El archipiélago-frente Mediterráneo: fractura, ensamblaje y movimiento en el contorno sur de la UE”, in R. ZAPATA-BARRERO and X. FERRER-GALLARDO (eds.) Fronteras en movimiento: Migraciones en el contexto Mediterráneo, Barcelona, Edicions Bellaterra, 2012, pp. 79-102. 46  LAVENEX, Sandra, op cit, 2006, p. 334. 329-350. 47  BOSWELL, Christina, op cit., 2001, pp. 619-683 48  LAVENEX, Sandra, op cit, 2006, pp. 329-350. 49  Also see GEDDES, Andrew, “International Migration and State Sovereignty in an Integrating Europe” International Migration, vol. 39 no. 2, 2001, pp. 21-42. 50  In addition to the previous literature, see also J. Rijpma and M. Cremona (2007). 51  BOSWELL, Christina, op cit., 2001, pp. 619-683


REVISTA IEEE 2
To see the actual publication please follow the link above