EQUIPOS FIJOS

As established previously was EU’s initiative to create a united immigration policy provoked by a significant increase in number of refugees and asylum seekers migrating into Europe. One of the explanations for why the EU chose to restrict the borders might be that it was seen as a threat against EU’s original purpose of creating a peaceful continent with a free market. This interpretation can be substantiated by looking at the distinction that the EU makes between legal and illegal immigrants as well. The fact that for instance educated migrants searching for employment can apply for visa and legally enter Europe can receive a permit to reside in Europe can be seen in the context of Europe’s lack of labour6. Refugees on the contrary are considered to have no or little benefit function for Europe. This might be one of the explanations behind why EU doesn’t seem to fight for them having a legal entry into Europe either7. This proves how migration can be seen as both a resource and a challenge. The AU also emphasizes this balance in the Migration Policy framework for Africa.

The aim of EU`s immigration policies is to regulate the immigration flow into the Schengen area. Because Europe is a continent characterized by high development and financial stability, it is also an attractive place to migrate to. If the EU removed its immigration policies, the continent could therefore risk to receiving an overload of immigrants and eventually lead to a chaotic and unfortunate situation for the continent. It can be argued that these policies are necessary in order to prevent such scenario. Another argument for EU to maintain its migration policies is that they mainly concerns activity on own territory. This argument can be understood to be in line with realism that argues all actors on global level to act in order to achieve its goal of security, sovereignty and survival. If EU`s migration policies serve this interest than that is considered unavoidable. However, it can also be argued that as long as EU’s practice conflicts with international agreements and universal moral standards such as human rights, change is necessary.

A decision to restrict external borders for migration flow seems to boil down to a balance in consideration between sovereignty and protecting human rights. In this context the EU can be understood to value sovereignty more than the latter. The European Convention on Human Rights clearly seems to illustrate this. Article 1 in paragraph 4 states that no one should have       

6

It is not necessarily given that labour immigrants are granted visa, but it exists a possibility for their application to be accepted

7

Also refugees can apply for visa to enter Europe, but will in all probability not have their application approved cf. EU`s immigration policies.  

its freedom constrained by not being able to fulfil bureaucratic requirements. This article can be understood as a paradox to EU’s immigration policies by making it legally impossible for asylum seekers to seek protection within the Schengen area. Contrary does the Convention also seem to deprive this right and thus justify its actions in article 2 point 3. This article states that article 1 is valid where there are no “restrictions” imposed by “law and justified by the public interest in a democratic society“.

5.4 What interest does the AU have to safeguard the human rights of African refugees aiming to seek asylum in Europe?

Questions could be raised to what extent AU should pay attention to actions taking place outside the African continent. Both from a realist and social constructivist perspective, AU needs to take measures in order to increase the organizations influence in international relations. Therefore it can be argued that until these measures have been implemented, the AU should primarily have an internal focus on the territory of the organizations member states within the African continent.

Regardless of that the AU is one of the actors in global politics. One way in which this is expressed is through AU`s participation in developing policies and agreements in international relations with other actors both bilaterally and multilaterally. AU`s role is here to protect the African population’s best interest. When other actors fail to operate in line with these agreements, the African population might be among those affected. AU`s emphasis in policies to take international agreements and conventions into consideration becomes essential in order to prevent this. The research question of this master thesis is based on an hypothesis that EU`s current asylum policies does not operate in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Consequences imply violations on human rights for African refugees aiming to seek asylum in Europe. Even though African refugees might migrate outside the African continent, they are still African citizens and part of the African population. It can therefore be argued that these refugees should also be part of AU’s concern. At least until an application for asylum has been granted and they have obtained citizenship somewhere else. From this perspective it can be argued that the Human Right aspect is compelling factor that makes it interesting for the AU to also take African refugees who intend to seek asylum in Europe into consideration.

5.5 What initiatives could be taken by the AU in order to safeguard the human rights of African refugees aiming to cross borders into Europe with the purpose to seek asylum The research has previously presented how the AU relates to issues regarding African refugees and asylum seekers especially in terms of specific initiatives taken to protect their human rights. The following will elaborate more specifically what initiatives the AU could take to safeguard human rights of those African refugees who aim to seek asylum in Europe. This is also connected to AU`s position in international relations, an issue which was discussed above.

All the policies the AU have developed with initiatives and statements related to issues on migration management are all directed towards the organizations member states. This is true for the Convention Governing the specific aspect of refugee problems in Africa, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, the Migration Policy framework for Africa as well as the African Common Position on Migration and Development. One initiative that the AU could take in order to ensure a better protection of African refugees’ human rights is to widen this approach to apply to countries outside the African continent as well. In their own policies, the AU recognizes the vulnerability of refugees and emphasizes the importance of individual assessment of this group of immigrants. By not exclusively judge refugees based on their legal status, more room is given to take human right into consideration. With regards to those refugees who cross continents into Europe, the AU is nevertheless dependent on that the EU also recognizes this through policies. AU`s aim for a more equal standard on a global level is especially emphasized in the Migration Policy framework for Africa as well as the African Common Position on Migration and Development.

Whether extending AU`s approach with regards to migration management to not exclusively apply to the AU member states is an efficient initiative to protect African refugees aspiring to seek asylum in Europe or not, does not have one correct answer. From a realist perspective it can be argued that AU’s member states will not be able to implement policies that conflict with EU policies because of the EU`s member states superior power. Although, from the social constructivist view can diffusion of norms be understood to be an efficient method to share policies and common goals in global politics. If the AU would have been able to create an international acknowledgement of the need to improve the humanitarian aspect of the management of refugees, the EU might be forced to change its immigration policies. This is

because acting against widely acknowledges understanding could lead to unwanted attention for the EU on a global level.

One way in which AU could encourage EU to apply the same policies is through the agreements made in the partnership between these two organizations. However, as discussed earlier in this chapter, the tendency seems to be opposite in that those policies are mainly dominated by the EU. Nevertheless, even though the AU might not have the mandate to impose these policies on EU member states, the AU`s own policies could have a more general approach than the current explicit application to only “member states”. Yet, a wider approach in this sense would only have a guiding approach. This is also the approach currently existing within the AU.

Regional organizations seem to have a stronger position than the AU within the African continent. Thus AU`s real policy involvement is dependent on the different region willingness to implementation. Some scholars argue that the agreements made in for example the Migration Policy framework for Africa and the African Common Position on Migration and Development primarily have a symbolic rather than effective function unless fully adopted by member states. Policies need to be adopted by those actors in the environment that have the power for implementation. Supported by realisms this would be the member states. From a social constructivism point of view AU`s guiding approach can be understood to be less problematic. According to this school of thought, the AU is an international organization with the power to set norms in global politics that also is reflected in the organizations own policies. An initiative to legally bind AU`s policies to the organizations member states would in this way gain more support from realism than social constructivism.

Nevertheless, based on AU`s weak position in international relations, a guiding approach might be the only option for implementation. AU`s participation in regional organizations meetings, workshops and conferences where different issues of concern can be highlighted therefore becomes important. It furthermore gives room for the AU to provide suggestions from its own agenda (Klavert 2011, 10).

Legally binding policies could be an important initiative to achieve AU`s objectives if it could guarantee a better protection of African refugees’ human rights. Nevertheless, legal obligations can only apply to member states. This initiative seems therefore not to correlate

with the previous one. Yet, it could be possible to compromise implying legally binding policies for member states in addition to a more general approach. The general approach would however in this case have to be clearly emphasized to also apply for other than exclusively African nationalities.

A third initiative that the AU could take in order to strengthen the protection of African refugees aiming to seek asylum in Europe is mainly related to The African Charter on Human and Peoples` Rights. As stated above, article 12, point 3 in the African Charter can be interpreted to state refugees` right to seek asylum only on the condition that the laws in receiving countries allow it as well as international conventions. However with such approach challenges will appear when there is a conflict of interest between national laws and international conventions. This seems to be the case with EU’s immigration policies and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on issues of migration management. One interpretation can be that according to the African Charter, refugees do not have the right to seek asylum in Europe because according to the EU immigration policies entry is illegal for this group of migrants. Contrary, the same charter can also be understood to accept African refugees seeking asylum in Europe because according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution” (article 14). Such an approach raises confusion with regards to whether article 12, point 3 states that refugees should have right to seek asylum or not. By clarifying this question the AU can enhance the protection of African refugees’ human rights also when aiming to seek asylum in Europe.

Seen in relation to AU`s already mentioned goal of achieving more equal standards on migration management, operating according to relevant international agreements and conventions seem more efficient. From a social constructivist view this could be seen as a method in which AU take advantage of other actors in international relations to distribute the organizations norms and values. In the realist tradition security, sovereignty and survival are the three ultimate goals that should have the first priority. This tradition would therefore not support the right to seek asylum not to apply as a universal human right, but rather be constrained to the receiving countries. However, the consequences of such approach might imply high variation in treatment for refugees in which the guarantee for adequate protection of this vulnerable group of migrant would be impaired.

6.0 CONCLUSION

This thesis has attempted to provide a better understanding of AU’s position in global politics. More specifically it has explored AU`s position in focus of the role that the EU plays in regard to the situation of African refugees’ and their possibility to seek asylum in Europe. The aim of the analysis presented in this thesis has been to clarify to what extent the AU can safeguard the human rights of African refugees who aim to cross borders to Europe in order to seek asylum, when such compliance also seem inconsistent with the current EU immigration policy. In this context, the thesis has investigated the synergy between the AU and EU with regards to how policies are established and maintained on issues regarding refugees and their right to seek asylum.

By analysing selected documents that the AU and EU have prepared with regards to issues on migration, the thesis has been able to proof a different approach between the two organizations in regards of the management of refugees. EU’s migration policies reflect set of rules based bureaucracy which turns refugees into illegal immigrants and should be managed in accordance to its category with strict border controls and implementation of several initiatives to prevent refugees reaching the Schengen borders. The human right to seek asylum from persecution seem to be little emphasized. The AU seems to give more recognition towards the vulnerability of this group of migrants and stronger emphasis on the importance individual assessment of this group of migrants.

The thesis concludes that part of the reason for how EU`s immigration policies can be sustained despite being in conflict with international human right law is because of EU’s superior position compared to the AU. Furthermore it concludes that the EU take advantage of this powerful position in relational processes with the AU when making agreements regarding issues related to the situation of African refugees aiming to seek asylum in Europe. It has proved that the AU can be seen as an organization with moderate autonomy in which consequently implies a small extent of influence and power in international relations. The EU in contrast has a stronger autonomy with power to exert impact on international relations. Therefore this thesis concludes that it seems difficult for the AU to safeguard the human rights of African refugees aiming to seek asylum in Europe and counteract EU`s immigration policies.

In this way the thesis has showed how international relations between the EU and the AU have affected the protection of Human Rights of African refugees who aim to seek asylum in Europe. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that the protection of this group of migrants also are affected by other international actors, the UNHCR and human rights organizations being the most obvious in this regard. Suggestions to further research could in this sense be to investigate how these organizations relate to the situation of African refugees possibility to seek asylum in Europe as well as to what extent they are able to interfere and set obstacles for EU’s current immigration policy. Furthermore investigate what measurements are needed in order for the EU to take human rights more into consideration. Another direction in which this research could be extended is by investigating how AU’s policies determine how refugees should be managed have an impact on the African continent.

7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

AU, The African Union. AU in a Nutshell. http://au.int/en/about/nutshell (accessed June 6th, 2011).

AU, the EU and the. “First Action Plan (2008-2010); For the Implementation of the Africa- EU strategic partnership. .” 2008.

Barkin, J. Samuel. International Organization; Theories and Institutions. Gordonsvill: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

Bø, Bente Puntervold. Immigration Control, Law and Mortality: Visa Policies towards

Visitors and Asylum Seekers. Oslo: Askim Grafix AS, 2002.

Castles, Miller. International Population Movements in the Modern World, The Age of

Migration. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.

Chambliss, D.F. and Shutt R.K. Making Sense of the Social World. Methods of Investigation. London : Pine Forge Press, 2010.

Duvall, Michael Barnett and Raymond. “Power in international politics.” International

Organizations, 2005: 39-75.

EU, The Council of Europe. The European Convention on Human Rights and its Five

Protocols. Convention, Rome: The Council of Europe, 1950.

EU, The Council of European Union. Global approach to migration: Priority actions

focusing on Africa and the Mediterranean. Counsil meeting, Brussel: The European Union,

2006.

EU, The European Union. Council of Europe. 2011. http://www.coe.int/lportal/web/coe- portal/european-union (accessed January 4th, 2012).

—. European Agency for the Management of External Borders – Frontex. 24th November 2010.

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons _asylum_immigration/l33216_en.htm#AmendingAct (accessed January 2011, 14).

—. European external border surveillance system (EUROSUR). 14th March 2008.

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons _asylum_immigration/l14579_en.htm (accessed January 14th, 2011).

—. Legal instruments governing migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II. 2010 July 2010.

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons _asylum_immigration/jl0010_en.htm (accessed January 14th, 2011).

—. Schengen; Europe without internal borders. 30th June 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/home- affairs/policies/borders/borders_schengen_en.htm (accessed December 15th, 2011).

—. The history of the European Union. http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/index_en.htm (accessed January 4th, 2012).

—. The Schengen area and cooperation. 3rd August 2009.

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons _asylum_immigration/l33020_en.htm (accessed January 14th, 2011).

evelinns oppgave . 12th January 2011. www.evelinn.org (accessed January 5th, 2012).

Finnemore, Michael N. Barnett and Martha. “The Politics, Power and Pathologies of International Organizations.” International organizations, 1999: 699-732.

Hanson, Stephanie. “Counsil on Foreign Relations.” The African Union. 1st September 2009.