Transferring Asylum Norms to EU Neighbours: Multi-Scalar Policies and Practices in Ukraine

Description

This book analyses why the Ukrainian state established asylum laws and policies in the thirty years since 1991, even though the number of asylum seekers was very low. International and non-governmental organisations transferred international asylum norms to Ukraine. Various state and non-state actors participated in this process, translating, spreading, and resisting those norms. In many cases, legislative adoption was driven by domestic politicians’ pursuit of recognition by international organisations, such as the European Union and the Council of Europe, and by their desire to meet conditionality requirements. NGOs sought to influence administrative practices, alternating between confrontational and conciliatory, formal and informal approaches, and often relying on personal contacts. Actors used and shifted between scales in order to transfer norms or resist transfer. In the process, they produced, renegotiated, and confirmed those scales. For instance, NGOs resorting to the European Court of Human Rights to prevent refoulement placed the European scale above the national scale. This book offers a new multi-actor and multi-scalar analysis of policy transfer. Preface Acknowledgements Contents List of Figures List of Tables 1 Introduction Asylum Norms and Policies Fundamental Asylum Norms The European Production of Asylum Norms and Policies How Asylum Came to Ukraine Without Asylum Seekers The Political Context in Ukraine and the European Neighbourhood Policy Transfer of Norms and Policies Transfer as Multi-Actor Translation and Resistance Transfer as (Power) Relations and Practices Multi-Scalar Transfer Practices Multiple Perspectives and Sources to Grasp the Complexity of Transfer Written Sources for Macro and Meso Perspectives Multi-Sited Fieldwork for Micro and Meso Perspectives Structure of the Book References Part I The Legislative Adoption of Asylum Norms in Ukraine: A Process Driven by International Actors 2 An Unfavourable Domestic Context for Asylum Policies Unwelcoming Treatment of “Non-Traditional” Immigrants: From Soviet Immigration Control to Restrictive Contemporary Ukrainian Immigration Policies The Soviet Legacy of Xenophobia in Post-Soviet Ukraine Building up a Ukrainian State and Establishing Selective Immigration Policies The Low Domestic Prioritisation of Asylum: From Weak Soviet Heritage to Competing Political Priorities in Contemporary Ukraine Sparse International Asylum Norms Under Soviet Rule No Public Interest in Asylum Conclusion References 3 Norm Transfer into Law: Delaying, Selecting, Translating Resistance to Norms that Limit the State’s Control Over Its Territory Prohibition of Refoulement: Shallow and Selective Adoption of a Strong International Norm The Right to Breach Immigration Laws to Seek Asylum: No Adoption of a Weak International Norm Narrow, Shallow, and Slow Adoption of Norms Entailing Budgetary Costs The Right to Social Benefits: Narrow, Shallow, and Slow Adoption The Right to Work: Early Adoption Imitation and Translation of Foreign Norms that Fit Domestic Political Interests The Broad Safe Third Country Provision: Early Imitation Filing Deadlines: Imitation of Restrictive Instruments from Abroad The Prohibition of “Impersonation”: Import and Restrictive Interpretation of a European Instrument Late but Full Adoption of EU Protection Statuses Conclusion References 4 Why Adopt International Norms? Legislators Between Contestation and Submission to International Organisations Norm Promotion by International Organisations in a Context of Lack of Domestic Political Interest in Asylum (1993–2010) Introducing International Asylum Norms for Their Symbolic Value Elaborating a First Law on Refugees as a Response to a Public Policy Problem? The Lack of Legitimacy of the Asylum Norms’ Content in the Verkhovna Rada The Symbolic Value of International Asylum Norms in the Parliamentary Debates International Organisations’ Transfer Attempts Between Persuasion, Exchange of Favours, and Monitoring Without Incentives The Council of Europe Pre-Accession Conditionality and Interactions: Legitimacy Despite Limited Official Focus on Asylum The Importance of UNHCR Lobbying and Exchange of Favours on the Ground The Weak Legitimacy of EU Monitoring and Criticism Deep Adoption of International Asylum Norms: EU Sector-Specific Conditionality (2010–2016) The Power of EU Sector-Specific Conditionality from 2010 Onwards The Introduction of an Attractive Incentive into EU-Ukraine Relations The Increase of the Power of the EU Sector-Specific Conditionality After the Maidan Protests Power in Practice: Interactions Between EU and Ukrainian Officials Monitoring to Counter Suspected Resistance Transmitting the Pressure to Fulfil EU Demands The Interrelatedness of UNHCR and EU Power The EU’s Reliance on UNHCR Knowledge Production UNHCR’s Limited Power on Its Own UNHCR’s Increase in Power through the Alliance with Other International Organisations Conclusion Conclusion to the First Part References Part II Transforming State Practices: Norm Promoters’ Multi-Scalar Adaptation to Obstacles 5 Policy Implementation in Practice: Political Power Struggles, Lack of Money, and Street-Level Bureaucrats Introduction No Implementation Without State Institutions: Political Power Struggles and Low Political Prioritisation Migration Officers Between Inaction and Improvisation Coping with Legal Obstacles and Lack of Information Coping with the Lack of Resources Attempts to Control Policy Implementation EU Conditionality as a Motor for Policy Implementation Central State Bodies’ Attempts to Control and Standardise Regional State Practices Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Discretionary Use of the Law: Social Norms, Personal Interests, Moral Judgments, and Emotions Conclusion References 6 A Multi-Scalar Transfer Chain: Capital, Control, and Contacts of Norm Promoters Introduction Creating and Controlling Domestic NGO Norm Promoters Seminars as a Vehicle to Spread International Asylum Norms’ Legitimacy Regular, Personalised Interactions and Their Influence on State Practices A Heterogeneous, Unstable Transfer Approach Turning Officials into Horizontal or Top-Down Norm Brokers From Informal to Formal Influence An Unsurprising Absence of Bottom-Up Influences Achieving Formalised Change Through Personal Contacts Conclusion References 7 Contentious Approaches to Counter Resistance to Transfer: Multi-Scalar Complaints Introduction Complaining to State Brokers at Strategic Positions Denouncing State Practices Across Scales Litigation Causing International Pressure Conclusion Conclusion to the Second Part References 8 Conclusion Asylum Norms in Ukraine: Which Case of Transfer? Norm Transfer Despite Disinterest and Resistance Among State Actors The Absence of “Empowerment” of Domestic NGOs Smooth Circulation of Norms That Fit Domestic Interests and Beliefs Studying the Role and Leeway of All Actors Involved in Transfer Multi-Scalar Analysis of Transfer Processes Instability, Contingency, and Heterogeneity of Transfer Asylum Regimes in Western Europe and Ukraine References Glossary Index