In trying to identify the most important challenge facing the European Union (EU), it is imperative to take into account the “the context of forces that have made [the EU] and are still making it”[1]. The EU is in essence a project whereby European nation-states have voluntarily conceded some of their national sovereignty to a collective supranational body. The functionality and future of the EU therefore depends on nation-states to continue to believe in and abide by the EU’s acquis communautaire[2]. Considering this context, the most important challenge facing the EU today is the on-going refugee crisis. In dealing with the highest influx of refugees into Europe since World War II[3], the EU and its member states have not upheld core EU values, namely solidarity and respect for human dignity. These values are at the forefront of the constitutional basis of the EU outlined in the Lisbon Treaty, which have been codified in Article 1a:

“‘The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.”[4]

The values of solidarity and respect for human dignity are undeniably significant as they are the values that continue to hold the EU together (internally) and set the EU out as a leader in international relations (externally). This article examines how the neglect of these constitutional values, specifically regarding the refugee crisis, by member states, has created the biggest challenge facing the EU. The argument is two-fold. The EU’s Dublin Regulation ll and specifically, its ‘first entry rule’, has created an unfair European asylum system for the EU’s external member states. This in turn had a negative domino effect, in that the pressure of refugees resulted in these external states sporadically opening their borders, creating a spiral of distrust within the EU. The consequences of undermining EU solidarity throughout the humanitarian crisis poses several internal challenges to the EU, namely a lack of EU legitimacy, the decline in centre-parties and, in turn, an increase in euro-scepticism. Such internal challenges are vastly important as they threaten the EU’s functionality and, more importantly, the future existence of the EU as a set of institution. In addition, there is a necessary examination of the way in which a lack of solidarity has resulted in disrespect for human dignity by member states when managing the crisis. This is highlighted in the prominent M.S.S v Greece and Belgium case. The consequence of not abiding by the value of respect for human dignity is extremely challenging for the EU as a global actor because it undermines the EU’s normative power[5].

Part 1: Solidarity

Dublin Regulation ll

The EU’s primary law regarding asylum seekers, the Dublin Regulation ll, does not espouse the value of solidarity, which has been codified in the Lisbon Treaty as it places a burden on member states, which lie at the external borders of the EU. The most problematic aspect of the revised Dublin Regulation ll is the ‘first entry rule’. The ‘first entry rule’ specifies that the first country an asylum seeker enters is the country solely responsible for examining their application[6]. This rule, in fact, neglects the principle of solidarity in that it places a disproportionate burden on the external southern states of the EU, such as Greece, Italy and Malta, where most refugees and migrants arrive via North Africa or the Aegean Sea[7]. Considering that these external southern states were greatly affected by the 2008 financial crisis, the first entry rule places a further strain on already weakened economies. This disproportionate sharing of responsibility, as European scholar Stefan Lehne writes, has created an “asymmetrical impact”[8]. To reiterate, Lehne means that the influx of refugees has affected some member states enormously, whilst others, due to their geographical position in Europe, have been barely affected. The ‘first entry rule’ of the Dublin Regulation ll therefore does not inspire or promote solidarity between member states as it has imposed an unfair burden on the EU’s external border states.

A spiral of distrust and lack of solidarity between member states

Having examined the Dublin Regulation ll and its ‘first entry rule’, it comes as no surprise that certain member states, such as Greece, which have been overwhelmed with asylum applications have begun to overtly disregard the Dublin Regulation[9]. As countries such as Greece did not comply with the ‘first entry rule’ of the Dublin Regulation ll, many refugees began moving onwards to other member states, further undermining the specific objective of the Dublin Regulation, which was to prevent ‘secondary movement.’

Following this series of events, member states began to neglect the value of solidarity. In light of the failures of the Dublin Regulation ll, the European Commission attempted to remedy the “asymmetrical impact” of the crisis by putting forward a series of reconstructive measures within its ‘European Agenda on Migration’. The central proposal in this agenda was to install an emergency relocation scheme of 160,000 refugees from the three ‘frontline states’, Greece, Italy and, Hungary[10]. However, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban rejected this proposal and instead erected a new fence on its border with Croatia and Serbia. Hungary’s rejection of the EU proposal demonstrates two things. Firstly, it emphasizes the negative impact that the Dublin Regulation ll has had on promoting solidarity between member states of the EU. Secondly, it highlights the way in which EU member states have boldly been defying the value of solidarity in the face of the refugee crisis. The undermining of EU solidarity poses an internal challenge for the EU internally as it compromises the values that make up the foundation of the EU.

Internal Challenges

Values, such as solidarity, are of utmost importance for the EU as it is the shared belief in values that holds the EU together as a set of institutions. However the EU and its member states have evidently not upheld this value. The EU is by its very nature a heterogeneous body and has thus, since its creation, had to construct a commonality based on shared values and principles. In reference to solidarity, Frans Timmermans rightly points out that solidarity emerged from the necessity to not repeat the devastating world wars of the early 20th century[11]. In their analysis of the principle of solidarity in an enlarged EU, Ines Hartwig and Phedon Nicolaidis conceptualise solidarity as being based on a concept of “we-ness”, which is rooted in a perception of commonality amongst members of a community[12]. This perception of commonality is vital for the survival and efficient functioning of the EU, precisely because the EU, unlike individual European nation-states, cannot draw upon a common heritage or a shared identity[13].

It therefore becomes clear that when member states defy the values that hold the EU together, the EU is exposed to further problems. Particularly, a lack of solidarity undermines the legitimacy of the EU and thus puts into question the very existence of the EU. Legitimacy can be conceptualised in sociologist Max Weber’s framework, whereby legitimacy is empirical and exists as long as a governed peoples believe that an authority is acceptable[14]. Weber’s understanding of legitimacy is useful, as it points out that for the EU to continue to exist it must be believed in by its citizens. The lack of support for the EU has manifested in a number of ways, particularly in the decline of euro-enthusiast political parties.

Across Europe, “the centre-left social democrats and centre-right Christian democrats who have dominated national politics for 60 years are in decline”[15]. Considering the EU relies upon the support of centre right and left parties[16], a decline in these parties poses a real threat to the continued existence of the EU. Furthermore, in light of the decline of centre politics in Europe, there has been an increase in the rise of euro-scepticism across the EU. An example of this can be seen in the Netherlands. The Netherlands has long been viewed as one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the EU[17]. Recent opinion polls reveal however that the PVV (Party for Freedom) is currently the most popular party in the Netherlands, which is problematic for the EU[18]. Take for instance how one of the main campaigning points of the PVV is to leave the Euro with the eventual aim of leaving the EU. The Dutch example, whilst unique in its national context, highlights the way in which there has been a rise of euro-scepticism across the EU. The rise in euro-scepticism is linked to the undermining of EU solidarity throughout the refugee crisis as it represents a decline in ‘we-ness’ amongst EU citizens and in turn a lack of legitimacy of the EU.

The challenge of not abiding to the value of solidarity can once again be analysed by drawing on Weber and his concept of ‘neighbourhood communities’[19]. One can conceptualise the EU as a community constituted on the basis of “durable spatial proximity and interest dependence”[20]. Such a conceptualisation highlights why the value of solidarity is at the heart of the EU community. Neighbours are not necessarily forced to help one another, but it can be in their social and economic interest to do so. The perceived value and importance of solidarity is therefore vital for the legitimacy of the EU. A rejection of the principle of solidarity is thus a rejection of the conceptualisation of the EU as a neighbourhood community. As Frans Timmermans pointed out in speech given at the ‘Prague European Conference’, the EU is a European construction, and “any political construction can be undone”[21]. If member states and their citizens no longer perceive themselves as being part of a wider EU community, then the future legitimacy and, consequently existence of the EU, is at stake.

Part 2: Respect for Human Dignity

General disrespect for human dignity

The lack of solidarity amongst member states has indirect consequences for the way these countries have addressed the refugee crisis. The refugee crisis has undermined the EU’s core value of respect for human dignity, as member states have not abided to the principle when dealing with the crisis. Recent examples include, but are not limited to: refugees being detained in dire conditions on the Greek islands of Lesvos and Chios[22], Macedonian police firing tear gas and rubber bullets at refugees[23], and the on-going slum conditions that make up the Calais refugee camp[24]. These examples highlight the way in which several EU member states, for perhaps economic or political reasons, have not upheld the value of human dignity when handling the refugee crisis. In all of these examples, the lack of solidarity (both economic and political) between member states is at the heart of why the value of human dignity has not been upheld. This link can be best demonstrated when examining the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case of M.S.S v Belgium and Greece.

M.S.S v Belgium and Greece

As mentioned above, the case of M.S.S v Belgium and Greece effectively demonstrates the way in which a lack of EU solidarity has far reaching negative consequences for the respect of human dignity. This case concerned a refugee who, upon arrival in Greece, was detained and then ordered to leave the country. Subsequently, he arrived in Belgium but was later sent back to Greece on the basis of the ‘first rule entry’ of the Dublin Regulation ll. After returning to Greece he was detained under conditions that did not comply with the minimum standards outlined by the EU asylum directives, and as a result he was made destitute[25]. The ECtHR held that both Greece and Belgium had violated article 3 prohibition on torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of the European Convention on Human Rights[26]. Legal PhD candidate Lillian Langford highlights how “the overextension of struggling asylum systems in Southern states contributes to inadequate reception and processing, which leads to human rights violations under EU and international law”[27]. The verdict of the case clearly demonstrates the way in which an absence of solidarity between Belgium and Greece resulted in disrespect for the value of the human dignity of the refugee.

The verdict of the case is further complicated by the EU’s constitutional values. Langford goes on to point out that a government’s “knowledge that it can be held responsible for another’s failings…is likely to stifle any feeling of solidarity that a blind presumption might [have] cultured”[28]. Langford’s analysis is useful in that it highlights the vicious cycle of a lack of mutual solidarity and disrespect for human dignity. When states do not respect the value of solidarity while handling refugees, disrespect for human dignity and human rights is more likely to occur within member states whose resources are being overstretched by a high influx of asylum applicants. As the value of human dignity is violated by member states, mutual solidarity becomes even harder to uphold as there is distrust created between member states. Such non-abidance by member states to uphold the values of solidarity and respect of human dignity poses a challenge to the EU, in that it puts into question the EU’s normative power and subsequently its influence as a global actor.

External Challenges

The actions of some member states have challenged EU’s role as a normative power in its external relations. In order to understand why the disrespect for human dignity is so challenging for the EU, it is imperative to analyse the importance of the value. Both Adler and Manners argue that the EU has adopted a ‘Kantian’ culture in order to promote an image of a ‘Cosmopolitan Europe’[29]. Cosmopolitan Europe is a self-image of the EU as a union, which abides by Kantian cosmopolitan rights of hospitality to strangers and a universal community[30]. Concerning the present analysis, the cosmopolitan value that humans should provide hospitality to strangers is of most interest. Considering that the EU has focussed on promoting these Kantian principles rather than building up military strength, it is of utmost importance that the EU, amidst the refugee crisis, continues to show “hospitality to strangers”.

By failing to demonstrate “hospitality to strangers”, the EU’s role as a normative power is undermined, as its power rests on being consistent in its internal and external actions. This in turn damages the EU’s position in international relations. The EU is firstly seen as a normative power “by virtue of its hybrid polity consisting of supranational and international forms of governance”[31]. Secondly, the EU acts as a normative power by “promoting a series of normative principles” with the aim of creating a more “cosmopolitical world”[32]. A more cosmopolitical world, as Manners describes, is one, which empowers people through universally accepted values and principles[33]. Special advisor to the European Commission, Robert Cooper, summarises such normative power well by arguing that the EU’s “magnetic allure compels countries to rewrite their laws and constitutions to meet European standards”[34]. Thus the EU has used normative power in order to expand its overall power in international relations.

Promoting a cosmopolitical world, as Manners advocates, is therefore in the interest of the EU, as it is a world in which the EU has a leading role to play. This potential normative power is, however, undermined by way of member states not upholding the values of solidarity and human dignity in the face of the refugee crisis. Manners argues that the “EU promotes substantive principles by virtue of the principles of ‘living by example’”[35]. The managing of the refugee crisis, or lack of management by EU member states, has therefore weakened the EU’s normative power. As refugees and migrants continue to live in squalid camps, such as they do in Calais, France, or on the borders of Macedonia, the normative power of the EU is weakened. Hypothesising the damage that can be caused by not living by the principles it promotes, Kalypso Nicolaidis and Sophie Meunier argue that at the heart of the EU’s legitimate exercise of power is its “claim to consistency between its internal and external actions”[36]. The EU as a normative power therefore faces a weakening of its legitimacy in the international arena by not being consistent in its internal and external actions.

It is evident that the refugee crisis has undermined two of the most fundamental EU values, namely solidarity and respect for human dignity. Internally, the undermining of solidarity is challenging in that it highlights a reduction in the commonality of values that are espoused in the EU’s acquis communautaire. This in turn undermines the legitimacy of the EU as a set of institutions. The ramifications of this are practical in nature, and have in part led to a decline in the support for centre-EU supporting political parties, giving rise to the support of euro-scepticism across Europe. This poses a very tangible threat to the EU as its continued functioning and existence rests on the support of the nation-state and its electorate. Externally, disrespect for human dignity through failed solidarity among member states is challenging for the EU in that it reduces its normative power in international relations. The refugee crisis is therefore the most important challenge facing the EU as it has undermined the EU’s core values, which lie at the very heart of the EU project.

References:

[1] Nugent, Neill (2010) The Government and Politics of the European Union 7th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, p1.

[2] Acquis communautaire is the body of common rights and obligations that is binding on all the EU member states.

[3] IOM (2015) “Irregular Migrant, Refugee Arrivals in Europe Top One Million in 2015, https://www.iom.int/news/irregular-migrant-refugee-arrivals-europe-top-one-million-2015-iom, accessed May 25, 2016.

[4] Treaty of Lisbon 2007/C 306/01

[5] Note to reader: this article was written in June 2016 and thus not take into account any events that have taken place since then.

[6] Dublin II regulation, Feb. 18, 2003.

[7] Gayle, Damien (2016), Aegean Sea Refugee Crossings Rise 35 Fold Year-on-Year in January – Watchdog, The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/30/refugee-arrivals-greece-exceed-52000-january. Accessed May 24, 2016

[8] Lehne, Stefan (2016) “How the Refugee Crisis Will Reshape the EU,” Carngie Europe http://carnegieeurope.eu/2016/02/04/how-refugee-crisis-will-reshape-eu-pub-62650

Accessed May 26, 2016.

[9] Trauner, Florian (2016) “Asylum Policy: The EU’s ‘crises’ and the Looming Policy Regime Failure,” in Journal of European Integration Vol. 38, No. 3, p321.

[10] Robinson, Duncan (2015) “Why Hungary Wanted out of EU’s Refugee Scheme,” FT (Financial Times), http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2015/09/22/why-hungary-wanted-out-of-eus-refugee-scheme/ Accessed May 23, 2016

[11] Timmermans,Frans (2015) Broederschap: Pleidooi Voor Verbondheid, Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Podium, p38.

[12] Hartwig, Ines. and Phedon Nicolaides (2003) “Elusive solidarity in an enlarged European Union” in EPIAScope, No. 3, p21.

[13] Bolleyer, Nicole and Christine Reh (2012), “EU Legitimacy Revisited: The Normative Foundations of a Multilevel Polity,” in Journal of European Public Policy Vol.19, no. 4, p474.

[14] Weber,Max (1978) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press, p213.

[15] Henley, Jon, Helena Bengtsson, and Caelainn Barr (2016), “Across Europe, Distrust of Mainstream Political Parties Is on the Rise,” The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/25/across-europe-distrust-of-mainstream-political-parties-is-on-the-rise

[16] Stefan, “How the Refugee Crisis Will Reshape the EU”

[17] EurActive (2013) Euroscepticism: More Than a British Phenomenon, https://www.euractiv.com/section/med-south/linksdossier/euroscepticism-more-than-a-british-phenomenon, accessed June 5, 2016.

[18] NOS (2016) Peilingwijzer: PVV Bij de Hond Groter Dan Bij Anderen, http://nos.nl/artikel/2080151-peilingwijzer-pvv-bij-de-hond-groter-dan-bij-anderen.html

Accessed June 5, 2016.

[19] Weber, Economy and Society

[20] Ferrera, Maurizio (2014) “Solidarity in Europe After the Crisis,” in Constellations Vol. 21, No. 2, p232.

[21] COMM (2015), Speech of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans at “Prague European summit” Conference, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-6079_en.htm.

[22] Amnesty (2016) Greece: Refugees Detained in Dire Conditions Amid Rush to Implement EU-Turkey Deal, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/04/greece-refugees-detained-in-dire-conditions-amid-rush-to-implement-eu-turkey-deal/ Accessed May 26, 2016.

[23] Al Jazeera (2016) Refugees Tear-Gassed at Macedonia-Greece Border, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/refugees-tear-gassed-macedonia-greece-border-160410140009203.html. Accessed May 26, 2016.

[24] Gentleman,Amelia (2015) “The Horror of the Calais Refugee Camp: ‘We feel like we are dying slowly,’” in The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/03/refugees-horror-calais-jungle-refugee-camp-feel-like-dying-slowly. Accessed May 29, 2016

[25] CASE OF M.S.S. V. BELGIUM AND GREECE [2011]

[26] Ibid.

[27] Langford, Lillian (2013) The Other Euro Crisis: Rights Violations Under the Common European Asylum System and the Unraveling of EU Solidarity,” in Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol. 26, p239.

[28] Langford, “The Other Euro Crisis”, p236.

[29] Adler, Emmanuel et al., eds (2006)., The Convergence of Civilization: Constructing a Mediterranean Region German and European Studies Toronto: University Toronto Press, p11; Lucarelli, Sonia and Ian Manners, eds.(2004), Values and Principles in European Union Foreign Policy, Taylor Francis: London, p39.

[30] Kant, Immanuel (1991), Kant’s Political Writings, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, p105-106.

[31] Manners,Ian, “The Normative Ethics of the European Union,” in International Affairs Vol,.84, no. 1, p65.

[32] Ibid.p65-67.

[33] Ibid. p80.

[34] Cited in Khanna, Parag (2004) “The Metrosexual Superpower,” in Foreign Policy, no. 143, p67.

[35] Manners, “The Normative Ethics of the European Union”,p66.

[36] Meunier, Sophie and Kalypso Nicolaïdis (2006) “The European Union as a Conflicted Trade Power,” in Journal of European Public Policy Vol.13, no. 6, p919.