Humanity has a long history of moving. Since the earliest times, people have been moving for different reasons including but not only, in search of work, better economic opportunities, to study, to escape wars, human rights violations, national conflicts or even due to environmental factors (natural disasters, climate change). Article 13 and Article 14 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates: “ (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. … (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
Considering the fact, that Human Rights are universally recognized rights, it supposes that all people no matter who they are and where they live are entitled to those rights equally. The number of people leaving their home countries increases year by year. The UNDP’s Human Development Report defines Migrant as the follow: “an individual who has changed their usual place of residence, either by crossing an international border or moving within their country of origin to another region, district or municipality’ (HDR, 2009; Human Development Report, UNDP, p15). Migration on the other hand, involves “the (more or less) permanent movement of individuals or groups across symbolic or political boundaries into new residential areas and communities’ (Marshall, 1998: 415; Social Science Dictionary).” It needs to be mentioned that whereas many individuals migrate out of choice, many others migrate out of necessity. According to The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), the number of globally forcibly displaced people worldwide was 79.5 million at the end of 2019. Of these, 26 million were refugees, 45.7 million people were internally displaced, 4.2 million were asylum-seekers, and 3.6 million were Venezuelans displaced abroad (UNHCR).
Today, more people than ever live in a country other than the one in which they were born. According to the International Organization for Migration’s (IOM) Report 2020, there were around 281 million international migrants in the world in 2020, which equates to 3.6 per cent of the global population. “Overall, the estimated number of international migrants has increased over the past five decades. The total estimated 281 million people living in a country other than their countries of birth in 2020 was 128 million more than in 1990” (IOM Report 2020). However, International migration is not uniform across the world, instead it is shaped by economic, geographic, demographic and other factors resulting in distinct migration patterns, such as migration “corridors” developed over many years. “Migration corridors represent an accumulation of migratory movements over time” (IOM Report 2020).
In recent years, the number of international migrants has increased in all UN regions, but most to a greater degree in Europe and Asia. “Europe and Asia each hosted around 87 and 86 million international migrants, respectively – comprising 61% of the global international migrant stock” (IOM Report 2020).
Migrant Crisis in Europe
The European Migrant Crisis or the Refugee Crisis marks the period between 2014-2018, when significantly high number of forced migrants arrived in Europe overseas from across the Mediterranean Sea or overland through Southeast Europe. The top three nationalities among over one million refugees arriving from the Mediterranean sea were Syrian (46.7%), Afgan (20.9%), and Iraqi (9.4%) according to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. The massive displacement and suffering was caused due to several reasons: at some point it was related to the Arab Spring that has continuously resulted in upheavals in the Middle East since July-October 2011, as well as the new conflicts in the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Ukraine, and Iraq, among others. The UNHCR has announced that the 2014, has witnessed unprecedented mass displacement in the recent history. The worldwide forced displacement numbers had reached 51.2 million in the beginning of 2014, a level not previously seen in the post-World War II era. Twelve months later, this figure has grown to a staggering 59.5 million (UNHCR Global Trends 2014).
Eurostat (2013, 2016a) points to 1,2 million asylum seekers that then came through Greece and Italy to Hungary, Austria, Germany, France and Sweden, Denmark and Norway, with Germany, Hungary, Sweden and Austria as countries with the most applications (Eurostat, 2016b). Beforehand, the Southern periphery EU member states bordering the Mediterranean – Italy and Greece – were the most affected ones with other EU member states largely ignoring problem (Amnesty International 2016). Both nations remained heavily burdened particularly after the closure of the so-called Balkan route from Greece to Germany in March 2016 previously used by at least 700,000 migrants (Karolewski and Benedikter 2018). According to the UNHCR, the EU countries with the biggest numbers of recognized refugees at the end of 2014 were France (252,264), Germany (216,973), Sweden (142,207) and the United Kingdom (117,161) (UNHCR 2014). From August 2015 to October 2017, approximately 1,400,000 refugees arrived in Germany alone, as the country opened its borders to refugees stuck in Hungary since September 2015. Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel declared at the end of August 2015, that there were no limits to the number of refugees Germany could accept: “Wir schaffen es” – we can do it” (BBC 2015).
The migration wave was followed by the tragic humanitarian crisis, the number of deaths at sea rose to record levels in April 2015, when five boats carrying approximately 2,000 migrants to Europe sank in the Mediterranean sea, with the combined death toll estimated at more than 1,200 people (UNHCR 2015). The International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimates that more than 1,011,700migrants arrived by sea in 2015, and almost 34,900 by land.
The migration challenge quickly became continental, threatening to undermine the decades-long project of European integration and broke the notion of Europe as a united entity that could speak with single voice. Unfortunately, the EU countries failed to engage in closer cooperation and responsibility-sharing policy. Tensions have been rising due to the disproportionate burden faced by some countries such as Greece, Italy and Hungary. The EU ministers voted for the relocation of 160,000 refugees EU-wide, applying for those who were in Italy and Greece. Another 54,000 were to be moved from Hungary, but the Hungarian government rejected this plan and instead received more migrants from Italy and Greece as part of relocation scheme. The EU has been unable to develop and implement a coherent strategy in order to deal comprehensively with the crisis. In contrast, the refugee/migrant crisis has proved the uneven nature of the EU and the asymmetrical burden sharing approach adopted by the countries. As a result, the crisis provoked far-reaching political conflicts and polarization that so far could not be bridged through negotiation processes within the EU (Karolewski and Benedikter 2018).
Turkey’s part
Relation between the EU and the Republic of Turkey has a complex and turbulent background. This is well manifested in the accession process of Turkey to the EU, as it represents the only case of an accession process that has lasted over a decade. The accession negotiations proceeded slowly in the first few years and stalled altogether between 2010 and 2013. Together with political and economic obstacles, the process was burdened with discontent on both sides. In recent years, migration crisis played a crucial role in shaping EU-Turkey relations and Turkey’s accession process. This is partly due to the transformation of Turkey “from an emigration country into an immigration and transit country” (Benvenuti 2017:3). Turkey implemented important reforms in the field of migration and asylum in the 2000s for the purpose of meeting the pre-accession requirements. This process, commonly referred to as the Europeanization of migration and asylum law, strengthened the role of Turkey as gatekeeper of Europe and guardian of “Fortress Europe (ibid).” In particular, Ankara engaged in a large-scale revision of its migration and asylum regulations in order to ensure the opening of accession negotiations with the EU, granted in 2005. After the first package of reforms, adopted in 2002-2005, Turkish authorities approved the “National Action Plan for the Adoption of the EU Aquis in the Field of Asylum and Migration (NAP), in an effort to identify the areas that would need further improvement to align with European legislation” (Benvenuti 2017:4-5). Following 2013, the EU and the Republic of Turkey entered into the readmission agreement and visa liberation negotiations. Readmission Agreements are part of the European migration external policy, enabling the return of non-EU nationals to their country of origin and to countries through which they transited. In exchange for third country cooperation in migration management, the EU offered financial incentives, circular migration schemes – i.e. “recognition of vocational or academic qualifications from the partner country – or visa facilitation and sometimes visa liberalization” (Benvenuti 2017:5). This was the case when visa liberation was granted to Balkan countries (Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina). However, when it comes to Turkey, visa liberation negotiations have lasted longer than anticipated. The EU countries expressed constant mistrust and fear that after visa liberation many Turkish citizens would settle in Europe permanently, whereas Turkey expressed its concerns and frustrations and blamed the EU in double standards.
The migrant crisis led to the opening of a new period in EU-Turkey relations in 2015. The EU began to realize the shortcomings of their migration and asylum laws what would soon be known as the migrant crisis. The EU member countries started to develop responsive mechanisms for the crises, however no unanimous agreement was achieved over how to manage migrants within the EU territory. The efforts were directed at addressing the issue with countries of origin and transit and Turkey was identified as the provider of the solution to the political chaos in the EU.
Consequently, in March 2016, the European Union entered into a landmark agreement with the Republic of Turkey, through which hundreds of thousands of migrants had transited to reach EU, to limit the number of asylum seeker arrivals. Irregular migrants attempting to enter Greece would be returned to Turkey, and Ankara would take steps to prevent new migratory routes from opening. In exchange, the European Union agreed to resettle Syrian refugees from Turkey on a one-to-one basis, reduce visa restrictions for Turkish citizens, pay 6 billion euros in aid to Turkey for Syrian migrant communities, update the customs union, and re-energize stalled talks regarding Turkey’s accession to the European Union. Turkey was at the time the largest refugee-hosting country in the world—a position it continues to hold—with the vast majority of its approximately 3 million refugees coming from Syria, though there were also large numbers of Iraqis, Iranians, and Afghans (Migration Policy Institute 2021).
The 2016 agreement was just one of several efforts to slow migration to Europe at the time. Like other agreements, this agreement also resulted in complaints on both sides. The European Union agreed to provide 6 billion euros in humanitarian assistance, education, health care, municipal infrastructure, and socioeconomic support for Syrian refugees in Turkey between 2016 and 2019. However, Turkish government has claimed that key elements of the deal were not met. Undoubtedly, the responsibility for managing European migration crisis has been shifted to Turkey. The latter, in turn, engaged in utilizing manipulative policies and misusing migration crisis by threatening to open doors and to let hundreds of thousands of migrants into the EU countries. …“You started asking what you would do if Turkey would open the gates. Look at me — if you go further, those border gates will be open. You should know that” (The New York Times, Erdogan’s speech addressing Europe 2016). Moreover, the 2016 agreement has enabled Turkey to strive for the highest benefits and to apply strategic maneuvers that would increase its presence in Cyprus. Apart from that, there are deep concerns whether Turkey meets the standard for effective protection of asylum seekers, and respects the human rights convention. Many refuges remain in difficult conditions, often relying on low wages in the informal sector, lacking social supports, and with large numbers of Syrian children not enrolled in school. Amnesty International Report concludes that although the main justification for the EU-Turkey Deal is the assumption that Turkey is a safe place to which asylum-seekers and refugees can be returned, however asylum-seekers and refugees are denied effective protection in Turkey (Amnesty International 2016).
References
Amnesty International (2016), EU’s reckless refugee returns to Turkey illegal, accessed 6 June 2021 <https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/06/eus-reckless-refugee-returns-to-turkey-illegal/>.
Amnesty International. 2016. No Safe Refuge: Asylum-Seekers and Refugees Denied Effective Protection in Turkey. London: Amnesty International, accessed 6 June 2021 <https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur44/3825/2016/en/>.
BBC (2016c), Migrant crisis: Migration to Europe explained in seven charts, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911, accessed on 4 June 2021.
BBC (2015), Migrant crisis: Merkel urges Germans to see ‘opportunity’, accessed 6 June 2021 <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35204495>.
Benvenuti, B. (2017). (Rep.). Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), accessed 3 June 2021 <http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics, accessed 6 June 2021.
Eurostat (2016b), Asylum in the EU Member States, Eurostat News Release, 44/2016, 4 March, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7203832/3-04032016-AP-EN.pdf/790eba01-381c-4163-bcd2-a54959b99ed6.
International Organization for Migration, accessed 6 June 2021 <https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/wmr_2020.pdf>.
Karolewski, I. & Benedikter, R. (2018). Europe’s refugee and migrant crisis: Political responses to asymmetrical pressures. Politique européenne, 2(2), 98 132. <https://doi.org/10.3917/poeu.060.0098>.
Marshall, G., Ed. (1998). The Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Migration Policy Institute (2021), accessed 6 June 2021 <https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/eu-turkey-deal-five-years-on>.
The New York’s Times, accessed 6 June 2021 <https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/turkey-recep-tayyip-erdogan-migrants-european-union.html>.
UNDP, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, accessed 6 June 2021 https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
United Nations Global Issues, accessed 6 June 2021 <https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/migration>.
UNDP (2009). ‘Human Development Report 2009. Overcoming Barriers: Human mobility and development’. New York: United Nations Development Programme, accessed 6 June 2021 http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/269/hdr_2009_en_complete.pdf.
United Nations High Commission on Refuges (2015), accessed 6 June 2021 <https://www.unhcr.org/556725e69.html>.
UNHCR Global Trends (2014), accessed 6 June 2021 <https://www.unhcr.org/556725e69.html>.
By Nino Zotikishvili: The European Institute for International Law and International Relations.
