614 Revista del Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos Núm. 2 / 2013 internal policy measures were not sufficient to address the problem of migration. There is, however, a third important domestic factor which has had an impact on externalisation: institutional dynamics at the state level. Joppke97, for example, argues that limited sovereignty might explain why states accept unwanted immigration. In Europe, judicial and moral constraints have prevented states from complying with zero migration targets since the channel for hiring immigrants was closed. This is due in large part to the fact that the courts have invoked the rights of immigrants and their families in open opposition to restrictionist policymakers98. Based on this, Guiraudon99 claims that the design and implementation of policy has taken on a vertical dimension since the 1980s, and that an ongoing venue-shopping framework is the most adequate to account for the timing of the creation, the form and the content of EU cooperation on migration matters. This framework implies that governments have circumvented national constraints on migration control by creating transnational cooperation mechanisms backed by the law and the public officers responsible for migration control.100 In other words, constraints at the state level (judicial and logistics restrictions) to managing global migration control have prompted national actors to “flee” to the inter-governmental level that is externalisation. The major problem here is that because the latter arena is not restricted by supra-national bodies, there is very little transparency, making it the ideal setting in which to strengthen reactive policies over proactive ones. The externalisation scenario currently fosters the remote control approach, and has become the main obstacle to shifting towards a more proactive approach based on development and “root causes”. 3. IN CONCLUSION: PREMISES FOR A NORMATIVE DEBATE The policy shift in the management of migration flows known as “externalisation” requires setting the terms for a new normative debate based on the idea put forward by Zolberg101, i.e., that “remote policies” exist. This type of policy orientation calls for reflection, because, in a way, it challenges the traditional migration debate framework. 97 JOPPKE, Christian, “Why Liberal States Accept Unwanted Immigration” World Politics, vol. 50 no. 2, 1998, pp. 266-293 98 See also BOSWELL, Christina, op cit., 2001, pp. 619-683, and LAVENEX, Sandra, op cit, 2006, pp. 329-350. 99 GUIRAUDON, Virginie, op cit., 2000, 251-271. 100 ibidem 101 ZOLBERG, Aristide “Matters of State: Theorizing Immigration Policy”, in C. Hirschman, P. Kasinitz and J. Dewind (eds.) The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience, New York, Russell Sage, 1999, pp. 71-93.
REVISTA IEEE 2
To see the actual publication please follow the link above