Emotions in the European Union's decision-making: the reform of the Dublin System in the context of the refugee crisis

Figures & data

Table 1. Connection of basic emotions to action tendencies and emotion-based strategies.

Master emotions	Action tendencies	Emotion-based strategies (examples)
Fear	Neutralization of danger Closure Avoidance of risk	Fearmongering Dehumanization
Compassion Empathy	Improve others’ situations Helping behavior Pro-social activism	Humanization Promoting communication and cultural interaction
Anger (combined with fear or compassion)	Punishment Regulation Risky behavior Change	Naming and shaming
No emotion	No action/decision/urgency	Dehumanization (mechanistic) De-dramatization Toning-down

Table 2. Documents analyzed.

	Content	Total pages /words
European Council and Council	Speeches and press releases by the president of the European Council and the presidency of the Council from 2015 to 2018 on the topic of migration/refugees	86 pp. 42,294 words
EP	20 EP debates from 2015 to 2019 (selected using keyword migration/refugee in title)	772 pp. 362,840 words
Germany	51 articles, speeches and statements from 2015 to 2019, from the website of the Federal Chancellor (selected using keyword Auswartiges)	108 pp. 43,066 words
VG	Press releases from 2015 to 2019 on the topic of migration	43 pp. 19,427 words
Amnesty International	Press releases from Amnesty International on the topic of migration/refugees from 2015 and 2016	130 pp. 58,922 words

Table 3. Crisis frames based on fear and compassion.

	Security frame (fear)	Human dignity frame (compassion)
Definition of problem	Security problem Focus on irregular arrivals and illegal migrants	Refugees welcomed Focus on asylum seekers fleeing war; focus on human rights and human dignity, on moral obligations and legal responsibilities
Policy solutions	Border control Focus on registration and finger-printing Focus on pull factors Focus on preventing arrivals through Outsourcing/externalization of the problem	Legal paths to asylum seekers Rescue missions in the Mediterranean Focus on the well-being of migrants Focus on relocation, resettlement and integration
Emotion-based strategies	Fearmongering Dehumanization Blaming/shaming	Humanization Blaming and shaming
Examples of key players	VG, right-wing populist groups	Germany, NGOs, Liberal, Left and Green EP groups
Divided key players	European Council and Council, EP, European People's Party

Table 4. Word-markers used by different key-players in the decision-making process^a.

Keywords	VG	%	CoM	%	Germany	%	EP	%	NGOs	%	total
Border control	2 (0,01)	1,5	4 (0,009)	2,06	1 (0,002)	0,63	48 (0,01)	4,69	10 (0,02)	2,61	65 (0,01)
Control	23 (0,12)	17,42	29 (0,07)	14,95	11 (0,026)	6,33	280 (0,07)	27,37	28 (0,05)	7,31	371 (0,08)
Threat	10 (0,05)	7,58	6 (0,01)	3,09	11 (0,026)	6,33	29	2,83	25 (0,04)	6,53	187 (0,04)
External Borders	29 (0,15)	21,97	35 (0,08)	18,04	40 (0,09)	25,32	48 (0,01)	4,69	7 (0,01)	1,82	159 (0,03)
Islam	1 (0,005)	0,76	0	0	0	0,63	90 (0,024)	6,74	8 (0,01)	2,09	99 (0,02)
Pull factor	6 (0,03)	4,55	1 (0,002)	0,51	1 (0,002)	0,63	6 (0,002)	0,59	0	0	14 (0,003)
Security	31 (0,16)	23,48	18 (0,04)	9,28	26 (0,06)	16,46	72 (0,02)	7,04	41 (0,07)	10,71	188 (0,04)
Terrorism	12 (0,06)	9,09	6 (0,01)	3,09	8 (0,02)	5,06	29 (0,008)	2,83	8 (0,01)	2,09	63 (0,01)
Fear	0	0	9 (0,02)	4,64	3 (0,007)	1,90	45 (0,01)	4,40	54 (0,07)	14,10	111 (0,02)
Sub-total	114 (0,59)	86,36	108 (0,26)	55,67	101 (0,23)	63,92	647 (0,18)	63,25	181 (0,31)	47,26	1151 (0,24)
Human rights	0	0	2 (0,004)	1,03	1 (0,002)	0,63	66 (0,02)	6,45	101 (0,17)	26,37	170 (0,035)
Humanity	0	0	2 (0,004)	1,03	1 (0,002)	0,63	11 (0,003)	1,98	6 (0,01)	1,57	20 (0,004)
Legal response	0	0	0	0	0	0	2 (0,001)	0,20	0	0	2 (0,001)
Quotas	1 (0,005)	0,76	10 (0,02)	5,15	4 (0,009)	2,53	32 (0,009)	3,13	6 (0,01)	1,57	53 (0,01)
Relocation	6 (0,03)	4,55	21 (0,05)	10,82	2 (0,005)	1,27	69 (0,02)	6,74	29 (0,05)	7,57	127 (0,03)
Solidarity	11 (0,06)	8,33	45 (0,11)		46 (0,11)	29,11	131 (0,04)	12,81	11 (0,02)	2,87	244 (0,05)
Save lives	0	0	2 (0,004)	1,03	3 (0,007)	1,90	25 (0,007)	2,44	15 (0.03)	3,91	45 (0,01)
Shame	0	0	3 (0,007)	23,20	0	0	26 (0,007)	2,54	26 (0,04)	6,79	55 (0,01)
Compassion	0	0	1 (0,002)	0,51	0	0	14 (0,003)	1,39	8 (0,01)	2,09	23 (0,005)
Sub-total	18 (0.09)	13,64	86 (0,20)	44,33	57 (0,13)	36,08	376 (0,10)	36,75	202 (0,34)	52,74	739 (0,15)
Total	132		194		158		1023		383		1890
Total words	19427 (100)		42294 (100)		43066 (100)		362840 (100)		58922 (100)		483483 (100)

Note: Elaborated by the author. Speeches and press releases by VG, and by the Councils very often discussed several topics (and not only refugees/migration). Thus, I deleted all codes that did not correspond to the topic of the refugee crisis/migration.

Keywords: The keywords were selected because they represent key aspects of each one of the identified frames. The list is by no means exhaustive. It only aims at illustrating the use of different keywords that can be related to frames.

^aThis figure includes two types of percentages:

• the number between parenthesis indicates the % in relation to the total amount of words

• the % in a separate column indicates the percentage in relation to the total amount of keywords selected for this figure.

Table 5. Examples of keywords used by key-Players at the European Parliament.

	CoM**	EC	HR	EPP	S&D	ALDE	Green	GUE/NGL	ECR	EFDD	ENF	NI
Border	13 30,2%	45 33,3%	1 3,0%	22 22,4%	9 13,0	10 33,3%	6 13,6	1 11,1%	10 25,6%	5 35,7%	7 31,8%	0
Control	13 30,2%	10 7,4%	1 3,0%	30 30,6%	23 33,3%	8 26,7%	8 18,2	4 44,4%	12 30,8%	12 42,9%	7 31,8%	0
Pull factor	0	1 0,7%	0	0	1 1,4%	0	0	0	3 7,7%	0	0	0
Security	4 9,3%	11 8,1%	17 51,5%	12 12,2%	3 4,3%	2 6,7%	1 2,3%	0	1 2,6%	5 17,8%	0	0
Terrorism	0	0	2 6,1%	8 8,2%	7 10,1%	0	1 2,3%	0	1 2,6%	2 7,1%	2 9,0%	2 66,7%
Human Rights	0	5 3,7%	9 27,3%	3 3,1%	3 4,3%	4 13,3%	15 34,1%	2 22,2%	1 2,6%	0	6 27,2%	1 33,3%
Legal paths	0	3 2,2%	0	1 1,0%	0	0	1 2,3%	0	0	0	0	0
Relocation	9 20,9%	21 15,6%	0	8 8,2%	7 10,1%	2 6,7%	2 4,5%	2	8 20,5%	1 3,6%	0	0
Solidarity	4 9,3%	39 28,9%	3 9,1%	14 14,3%	16 23,2%	4 13,3%	10 22,7%	0 22,2%	3 7,7%	3 10,7%	0	0
Total	43 100%	135 100%	33 100%	98 100%	69 100%	30 100%	44 100%	9 100%	39 100%	28 100%	22 100%	3 100%

Note: CoM: Council of Ministers; EC: European Commission; HR: High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy; EPP: European People's Party; S&D: Progressive Alliance of Socialist and Democrats; ALDE: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe; Green: European Green; GUE/NGL: Confederal group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left; ECR: European Conservatives and Reformists; EFDD: Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy; ENF: Europe of Nations and Freedom; NI: Not attached to any political group.

*Table 5 covers 16 EP debates instead of 20 (the coding per political groups was not available for 4 out of the 20 debates). It is important to consider that after 2012 EP Debates are not translated into English. Most MEPs speak in their own language while representatives of EU institutions usually express themselves in English. **Table 5 only includes analysis of speeches given by representatives of the CoM in the European Parliament.

Table 6. Examples of keywords indicating dehumanization and humanization^a.

	Germ.	%	VG	%	CoM	%	EP	%	NGO	%	Total
Death	2 (0,005)	2,53	1 (0,005)	1,81	1 (0,002)	1,54	25 (0,007)	6,23	43 (0,07)	16,35	72
Children	6 (0,01)	7,59	1 (0,005)	1,81	3 (0,007)	4,05	152 (0,04)	37,90	91 (0,15)	34,60	253
Family	4 (0,009)	5,06	1 (0,005)	1,81	2 (0,005)	2,70	20 (0,005)	4,99	45 (0,08)	17,11	72
Victim	4 (0,009)	5,06	1 (0,005)	1,81	1 (0,002)	1,54	21 (0,006)	5,24	10 (0,002)	3,80	37
Tragic	3 (0,007)	3,80	1 (0,005)	1,81	6 (0,01)	8,11	20 (0,005)	4,99	10 (0,002)	3,80	40
Life	7 (0,02)	8,86	2 (0,01)	3,64	4 (0.009)	5,4	60 (0.02)	14,96	34 (0,06)	12,93	107
Subtotal	26 (0,06)	32,91	7 (0,04)	12,72	17 (0,04)	22,97	298 (0.08)	74,31	233 (0,40)	88,59	581 (0,12)
Irregular migrant/migration	9 (0,02)	11,39	9 (0,05)	16,36	12 (0,03)	16,22	23 (0,006)	5,74	5 (0,008)	1,90	58
Mass migration	0	0	2 (0,01)	3,64	0	0	4 (0.001)	1,00	0	0	6
Migration/Migrant pressure	0	0	2 (0,01)	3,64	0	0	4 (0,001)	1,00	0	0	6
Illegal migrant/migration	35 (0,08)	44,30	14 (0,07)	25,45	16 (0,04)	21,62	5 (0,001)	1,25	0	0	70
Flow	9 (0,02)	11,39	21 (0,1)	38,18	19 (0,04)	25,68	60 (0,02)	14,96	20 (0,03)	7,60	129
Wave	0	0	0	0	10 (0,02)	13,51	7 (0,002)	1,75	5 (0,008)	1,90	22
Subtotal	53 (0,12)	67,09	48 (0,25)	87,27	57 (0,13)	77,03	103 (0,03)	25,69	30 (0,05)	11,40	291 (0,060)
Total	79	100	55	100	74	100	401	100	263	100	872 (0,18)
Total words		43066 (100)	19427 (100)		42294 (100)		362840 (100)		58922 (100)		483483 (100)

Keywords: Selecting keywords to grasp a de/humanization process is challenging. The keywords selected are by no means exhaustive. They only aim at giving a preliminary illustration. Further research would be needed to show a dehumanization process more systematically.

^aThis Table includes two types of percentages:

• the number between parenthesis indicates the % in relation to the total amount of words. It is important to take into account that the EP debates are written in several languages while all other texts are in English. Thus, the % for the EP is lower than it would be if only the number of English words had been considered.

• the % in a separate column indicates the percentage in relation to the total amount of keywords selected for this figure.

Table 7. Use of keywords at the European Council and the Council of Ministers between 2015 and 2018**.

	2015	%	2016	%	2017	%	2018	%	Total	%
Border control	2	2,78	1	3,57	1	5,56	0	0	4	2,96
Security	4	5,56	7	25	1	5,56	6	35,29	18	13,33
External borders	16	22,22	7	25	6	33,33	4	23,53	33	24,44
Fear	1	1,39	7	25	1	5,56	0	0	9	6,67
Human rights	2	2,78	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	1,48
Quotas	4	5,56	0	0	5	27,78	1	5,88	10	7,4
Relocation	10	13,89	1	3,57	3	16,67	4	23,53	18	13,33
Solidarity	32	44,44	5	17,86	1	5,56	2	11,76	40	29,63
Compassion	1	1,39	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0,74
Total	72	100	28	100	18	100	17	100	135	100

*The great majority of speeches correspond to Donald Tusk, president of the European Council during this period.

Table 8. Evolution of usage of keywords Council and urgency at the European Parliament.

2016							2017			2019	Total
	Debate 12–04	Debate 11–05	Debate 07–06	Debate 04–07	Debate 14–09	Debate 26–10	Debate 18–01	Debate 17–02	Debate 12–09	Debate 15–01	EP
Conseil	1	1	1	0	10	0	1	0	0	0	97
Council	1	1	8	1	5	1	2	1	1	14	196
Total	2 (0,01)	2 (0,01)	9 (0,03)	1 (0,01)	15 (0,11)	1 (0,01)	3 (0,02)	1 (0,01)	1 (0,01)	14 (0,10)	293
Urgent	6 (0,03)	3 (0,01)	3 (0,01)	0	3 (0,02)	4 (0,04)	28** (0,20)	3 (0,03)	3 (0,01)	1 (0,01)	170
Total	20166	17233	22506	11116	13386	9139	13846	9610	16927	13852	362840
	2014	2015						2016
	Debate 25–11	Debate 29–04	Debate 20–05	Debate 09–09	Debate 14–09	Debate 06–10	Debate 16–12	Debate 02–02	Debate 08–03	Debate 08–03
Conseil	1	20	5	7	22	9	10	8	0	1
Council	13	23	39	3	16	6	5	42	12	2
Totals	14(0,08)	43(0,15)	44 (0,16)	10(0,06)	38(0,16)	15(0,20)	15(0,11)	50(0,11)	12(0,06)	3 (0,02)
Urgent*	8 (0,05)	14(0,05)	19 (0,07)	12(0,08)	21(0,10)	8 (0,11)	3 (0,02)	15(0,03)	8 (0,04)	8 (0,05)
Total	16692	28187	27962	15752	23568	7604	13431	47090	18587	16186

Note: Elaborated by the author. The keyword Council/Conseil was chosen because this institution was the main target of blaming and shaming by the We can do it supporters. The keyword giving a sense of urgency (urgent, urgence and emergency) was selected because the use of emotions and a blaming and shaming strategy is often used by NGOs to create a sense of urgency for the adoption of policy changes (Sanchez Salgado 2018). The gray boxes indicate the debates where the keywords Council/Conseil where the most used as well as the keywords related to urgency.

• the number between parenthesis indicates the % in relation to the total amount of words.

**The great number of occurrences is explained by the title of the Debate: Emergency aid for refugees and migrants facing severe weather conditions in European Camps.

Sanchez Salgado, R. 2018. “The Advocacy of Feelings: Emotions in EU-based Civil Society Organizations’ Strategies.” Politics and Governance 6: 103–114. doi:https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i4.1505.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar