Turkey and the European Union: A Review of Turkey’s Readmission Agreement

Abstract

Our aim in this article is to analyze Turkey’s Readmission Agreement with the EU in light of Turkey’s membership goal. More specifically, our aim is to propose the most rational political decision for concluding this process. Our study addresses three questions: (1) the impact of the Readmission Agreement on Turkey’s accession negotiations; (2) the outcomes of the implementation of the Readmission Agreement for Turkey; and (3) Turkey’s aim of becoming a full member of the EU by concluding the Agreement. By assessing the three potential scenarios of the Readmission Agreement process—minimum, optimum, and maximum benefit—we conclude that, whereas the first scenario does not coincide with our analysis, the other two, especially the third scenario, do coincide with it. Because the optimum benefit scenario does not disrupt the Readmission Agreement process it appears to be the most rational, balanced and beneficial agreement for both Turkey and the EU.

Notes

1. Luxembourg Council of the European Union, Council Conclusions on Developing Cooperation with Turkey in the Areas of Justice and Home Affairs, 21 June 2012.

2. In “Migration, Refugees and Population Committee” (Doc. 12168; 16 March 2010), it was noted that the European Parliamentary Assembly prefers “irregular migrants” to what the EU calls “illegal immigrants.”

3. Ahmet İçduygu, “The Irregular Migration Corridor between the EU and Turkey: Is It Possible to Block It with a Readmission Agreement?” EU-US Immigration Systems 2011/14 (San Domenico di Fiesole, Italy: Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies European University Institute, 2011), 12–13, 15.

4. Alexander Bürgin, “European Commission’s Agency Meets Ankara’s Agenda: Why Turkey Is Ready for a Readmission Agreement,” Journal of European Public Policy (2011): 1–17; doi:10.1080/13501763.2011.614151, accessed 16 August 2012.

5. See Gamze Avcı, Kemal Kirişci, “Turkey’s Immigration and Emigration Dilemmas at the Gate of the European Union,” in Migration and Development Perspectives from the South, ed. Stephan Castles and Raul Delgado Wise, IOM International Organization for Migration, 2007. Janja Vukosinovic, “Illegal Migration in Turkey-EU Relations: An Issue of Political Bargaining or Political Cooperation?” Journal on European Perspectives of the Westerns Balkans 3.2(5) (October 20110. Sandra Lavanex, “Shifting Up and Out: The Foreign Policy of European Immigration Control,” West European Politics 29.2 (2006): 329–50. Zeynep Şahin-Mencütek, “Immigration Control in Transit States: The Case of Turkey,” European Journal of Economic and Political Studies 5.1 (2012). Özgür Ünal Eriş, “The Emergence of New Security Threats to the EU and Their Implications for EU-Turkey Relations: The Case of Illegal Migration,” in Turkey’s Accession to the European Union: An Unusual Candidacy, ed. Constantine Arvanitopoulos (Berlin: Springer, 2009).

6. See Imke Kruse and Florian Trauner, “EC Visa Facilitation and Readmission Agreements: A New Standard EU Foreign Policy Tool?” European Journal of Migration and Law 10.4 (2008): 411–38. Kees Groenendicjk and Elspeth Guild, Visa Policy of Member States and the EU Towards Turkish Nationals After Soysal (Economic Development Foundation Publications, No. 232, 2010). Saime Ozcurumez, Nazlı Şenses, “Europeanization and Turkey: Studying Irregular Migration Policy,” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 13.2 (2011): 233–48.

7. See Reimund Seidelmann, “Costs, Risks, and Benefits of a Global Military Capability for the European Union,” Defence and Peace Economics 8 (1997): 123–43; A. Z. Hilali, “The Costs and Benefits of the Afghan War for Pakistan,” Contemporary South Asia 11 (2002): 291–310; doi:10.1080/0958493032000057717, accessed 7 August 2013; Giampiero Giacomello, “Bangs for the Buck: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Cyberterrorism,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 27 (2004): 387–408; doi:10.1080/10576100490483660, accessed 11 August 2013; Mehmet Karlı, “A Constitutional Convention for Cyprus: Costs, Benefits and Shortcomings,” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 11 (2009): 397–411; doi:10.1080/19448950903382022, 4 accessed August 2013; Neill Nugent, “The EU’s Response to Turkey’s Membership Application: Not Just a Weighing of Costs and Benefits,” Journal of European Integration 29 (2007): 481–502; doi:10.1080/07036330701502480, accessed 11 August 2013.

8. David L. Weimer and Aidan Vining, Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998): 270–74.

9. Kay Stevens and Jonathan Boymal, Evaluation of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy 2000–2004: Qualitative Cost Benefit Analysis (Melbourne: RMIT University Circle, 2008), 8.

10. Nugent, “The EU’s Response to Turkey’s Membership Application,” 500.

11. Daniel H. Cole, “Law, Politics, and Cost-Benefit Analysis,” Alabama Law Review 64 (2012): 55–897.

12. Ibid., 55–89.

13. An example of this type of international agreement: although the European Defense Community (EDC) Treaty was signed by six member states of the European Coal and Steal Community (ECSC) in 1952, the agreement did not enter into force as it was not approved by the French Parliament.

14. On the future of EU-Turkey relations, see Kenan Aksu, Turkey-EU Relations, Power, Politics and the Future (Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2012).

15. Nils Coleman, Third Country Interests and Refugee Rights (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009), 181.

16. Bürgin, “European Commission’s Agency Meets Ankara’s Agenda,” 7.

17. Kemal Kirişçi, “Harmonisation of Migration Policy and Turkey’s Security Challenges,” Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies (2009): 7.

18. Türkiye İçin Müzakere Çerçeve Belgesi ve Diğer Belgeler, 2005; at http://www.abgp.gov.tr/files/AB_Iliskileri/AdaylikSureci/MuzakereCercevesi/Muzakere_Cercevesi_2005.pdf, accessed 11 August 2012.

19. Brussels Council of the European Union, Criteria for the Identification of Third Countries with which New Readmission Agreements Need to be Negotiated, Draft Conclusion 7990/02 MIGR 32 COR 1, 16 April 2002. The draft decision 2423 was approved at the Justice, Home Affairs and Civil Defense Council meeting.

20. Amanda Paul, “Turkey’s EU Journey: What Next?” Insight Turkey 14 (2012): 29.

21. Bürgin, “European Commission’s Agency Meets Ankara’s Agenda,” 10.

22. Coleman, Third Country Interests and Refugee Rights, 179.

23. Syria, Greece, Kyrgyzstan, Romania, Ukraine, Pakistan, Russia, Nigeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Moldova. The Readmission Agreement was signed and put into effect with Syria, Greece, Kyrgyzstan, Romania, and Ukraine. It was signed with Pakistan, Russia, Nigeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Moldova but did not enter into force.

24. Serbia, Belarus, Montenegro, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Georgia, Libya, Lebanon, Macedonia, Uzbekistan, Sri Lanka, and Jordan.

25. Algeria, China, Ethiopia, Morocco, India, Israel, Mongolia, Sudan and Tunisia. Hayati Şahin, Head of Department of Foreigners, Borders and Asylum. 1st Degree Police Chief e-mail message to H. Burç Aka, 30 October 2012; Tamer Kurtuluş, Head of Department of Foreigners, Borders and Asylum V. 2nd Degree Police Chief e-mail message to H. Burç Aka, 12 December 2012.

26. İçduygu, “The Irregular Migration Corridor between the EU and Turkey,” 10.

27. Frontex Risk Analysis Unit, Annual Risk Analysis 2012, 12, 4.

28. The European Convention on Human Rights, “The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,” Protocol No. 4 Article 3.2, 16 September 1963; the United Nations, “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” Article 12.4, 16 December 1966.

29. European Union, “Readmission Agreements,” Press Release MEMO 05/351, 5 October 2005.

30. Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, “Readmission Agreements: A Mechanism for Returning Irregular Migrants – Report of the Committee on Immigration, Refugees and Population,” reported by Tineke Strik, Doc. 12168, 26 March 2010, 29

31. European Court of Human Rights, Signh and Others vs Belgium Application No: 33210/1, ECHR 362, 2 October 2012.

32. Nils P. Coleman, “European Readmission Policy: Third Country Interests and Refugee Rights,” in Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy in Europe, ed. Elspeth Guild and Jan Niessen (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009), 13–14, 14–15.

33. Werner Gumpel and Alpay Hekimler, “Avrupa’ya Yasal ve Yasadışı Göçün Yarattığı Sorunlar,” Sosyal Siyaset Konferansları Dergisi 46 (2003): 8.

34. The intention of the Dublin Convention, which entered into force in 1997, long after it had been signed, was to develop EU immigration policy by identifying the member states responsible for asylum seekers.

35. EU Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Right of Asylum, SEC (91) 1857 Final, 11 October 1991. EU Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Immigration, SEC (91) 1855 Final, 23 November 1991.

36. Coleman, Third Country Interests and Refugee Rights, 19–21.

37. “Pillars of the EU” is an institutional structure of the EU which is introduced by Maastricht Treaty and remained until the entry into force of Lisbon Treaty. See EU Glossary at Official Web Site; accessed 14 December 2014, at http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/eu_pillars_en.htm

38. Mariagiulia Giuffre, “The European Union Readmission Policy after Lisbon,” Interdisciplinary Political Studies 1 (2011): 2–19.

39. Directorate-General Justice and Home Affairs of the European Commission, Tampere: Kick-Start to the EU’s Policy for Justice and Home Affairs Fact Sheet No.3.1 (Brussels: Information and Communication Unit of the Directorate General Justice and Home Affairs of the European Commission, 2002).

40. Seville European Council, Presidency Conclusions 21 and 22 June 2002, 13463/02, 24 October 2002, 7–10.

41. European Parliament, Official Web Site; at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/en/FTU_4.12.3.pdf., accessed 1 September 2012.

42. Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi İnsan Hakları İnceleme Komisyonu, Edirne İli Yasa Dışı Göç İnceleme Raporu, 2014; accessed 14 December 2014, at http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/komisyon/insanhaklari/docs/2014/edirne_yasadisi_goc_inceleme_rap.pdf.

43. Zeynep Özler, “Türkiye-AB GKA Müzakerelerinde Son Durum ve AB Sınır Gücünün Türk-Yunan Sınırında Konuşlandırılması,” İKV Değerlendirme Notu 26 (2010): 1–2, 6.

44. Valentina Pop, “EU Hopes Turkey Deal Will Kept Out African Migrants,” EU Observer, 25 February 2011; accessed 15 August 2012; and “Turkey to EU: No Visa-free, No Clampdown on Migrants,” 27 January 2011; accessed 15 August 2012, at http://euobserver.com/enlargement/31708.

45. “Will Turkey Finally Get Visa Liberalization?” Today’s Zaman, 26 June 2012; at http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-284683-will-turkey-finally-get-visa-liberalization.html, accessed 16 August 2012; Valentina Pop, “EU Hopes Turkey Deal Will Kept Out African Migrants.”

46. Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, Press Release, 08.10.2013; at https://www.afad.gov.tr/TR/HaberDetay.aspx?ID=5&IcerikID=1552; accessed 25 October 2013.

47. Lisa Schaefer, “Visa Free Europe, a Utopia for Turkey?” Turkish Weekly, 13 December 2010; at http://www.europeanunionplatform.org/2010/12/13/visa-free-europe-a-utopia-for-turkey/; accessed 9 July 2012.

48. In August 2009 a Turkish citizen who entered Germany without a visa, to buy a car, was referred to the town court in Cham and then ordered to be released. The National Court ruled that he could enter the country without a visa in accordance with the “Prohibition of Retroactive Exacerbation” (the unconditional legal obligation to avoid certain actions). Article 41, paragraph 1 states that “the Contracting Parties are to refrain from introducing between themselves any new restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services.” This norm was accepted by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) not only as a definite obligation for member states but also as an obligation that directly favors individuals affected by exacerbation and thus establishes the rights of individuals. See Harun Gümrükçü, ABHaber, “Comprehensive Report by the German Professor: Visa Applied to Turks Unlawful,” 16 July 2012; at http://www.abhaber.com/abhaber-yorum-analiz/abhaber-yorum-analiz/alman-profesorden-kapsamli-rapor-turklere-uygulanan-vize-hukuksuz-044354, accessed 9 September 2012. In February 2011 the case of Turkish businessman Cahit Yılmaz was concluded as the Sosyal case, ruling that the visa requirement violated the Ankara Treaty and the Additional Protocol. This was the first ruling of its kind in the Netherlands.

49. European Commission, Council Decision, COM (2012) 239 Final, 22 June 2012; “AB-Türkiye Vize Muafiyeti Müzakereleri Başladı,” CNNTurk, 21 June 2012; at http://www.cnnturk.com/2012/dunya/06/21/ab.turkiye.vize.muafiyeti.muzakereleri.basladi/665984.0/index.html., accessed 23 August 2012.

50. Deniz Zeyrek, “Vizesiz AB 2015’te,” Radikal, 22 June 2012; at http://www.radikal.com.tr/Radikal.aspx?aType=RadikalDetayV3&ArticleID=1091892&CategoryID=81, accessed 22 July 2012.

51. Council of the European Union, Council Conclusions on EU-Turkey Readmission Agreement and Related Issues 307, 1st Justice and Home Affairs Council Meeting, 24–25 February 2011.

Zeynep Lüle, “Vize Serbestisine Rum Müdahalesi,” Hürriyet, 22 June 2012; at http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/planet/20812002.asp., accessed August 2012.

52. Luxembourg Council of the European Union, Council Conclusions on Developing.

53. Paul, “Turkey’s EU Journey,” 30.

54. T. C. Dış İşleri Bakanlığı, AB Komisyonu’nun Türk Vatandaşlarına Vize Muafiyeti Sağlanması Doğrultusunda Müzakereleri Başlatmak için Yetkilendirilmesi Hakkında Açıklama 172, 21 June 2012.

55. İçduygu, “The Irregular Migration Corridor between the EU and Turkey,” 5.

56. T. C. Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı, Kayıtdışı İstihdam ve Yabancı Kaçak İşçi İstihdamı, 116 (2004).

57. İstanbul Serbest Muhasebeci Mali Müşavirler Odası, Yabancı Kaçak İşçiler ve Türkiye’ye Göç Raporu, 24 June 2012.

58. “Hurdles Remain on Readmission Agreement between Turkey and EU,” Today’s Zaman, 31 May 2010; at http://www.todayszaman.com/., accessed 8 August 2012.

59. Anna Kicinger, “International Migration as a Non-Traditional Security Threat and the EU Responses to this Phenomenon,” Central European Forum for Migration Research Working Paper 2 (2004): 2.

60. For Voegel’s views, see http://www.abhaber.com/abhaber-yorum-analiz/abhaber-yorum-analiz/alman-profesorden-kapsamli-rapor-turklere-uygulanan-vize-hukuksuz-044354; For Harun Gümrükçü’s views, see http://www.haberler.com/vizede-geri-kabul-anlasmasi-na-bilim-dunyasindan-3727392-haberi/; For Haluk Kabalioğlu’s views, see http://www.euractiv.com.tr/yazici-sayfasi/interview/ikv-bakan-kabaaliolu-geri-kabul-anlamasyla-trkiyenin-ne-kazanaca-belirsiz-013553.

61. Gerald Knaus and Alexandra Stiglmayer, “Türkiye’ye Adil Davranmak AB’nin de Çıkarına,” euobserver.com, 12 March 2012; at http://www.esiweb.org/pdf/, accessed 15 September 2012.

62. Bürgin, “European Commission’s Agency Meets Ankara’s Agenda,” 7.

63. Today’s Zaman, “Hurdles Remain.”

64. Lenka Petkova, “EU’s Readmission Agreement and Visa Liberalization Talks with Turkey: Backing Up Turkey’s Protracted Way to the EU,” Global Political Trends Center Policy Brief, 2012, 7.

65. European Commission, “Commission Carries Out the First Schengen Health Check,” Press Release, 16 May 2012; at , http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-481_en.htm, accessed 1 August 2012.

66. Petkova, “EU’s Readmission Agreement,” 9.

67. Nugent, “The EU’s Response to Turkey’s Membership Application,” 483.