THE EUROPEAN MIGRATION CRISIS (2015 – 2016) AND ITS IMPACT ON COOPERATIVE PROCESSES WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION (IN THE EXAMPLE OF ITALY)

Vira Savaryn,

PhD student,

Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine

 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/2524-048X.2025.31.2

 

Abstract.

The aim of the article is to examine how the European migration crisis affected cooperation within the European Union. In addition, the author analyzed the strategy Italy adopted as a key country in the migration crisis and changes brought about by the events of 2015 – 2016. Equally important was the examination of how different strategies influenced cooperation within the shared European area of freedom, security, and justice. The research methodology is based on the principle of historicism. The author applies analytical, chronological, comparative, historical-legal, and comparative-legal methods. The scientific novelty lies in the fact that this study fills a gap in the academic literature and attempts to analyze the cooperative processes within the European Union during the European migration crisis.

Conclusions. The 2015 – 2016 migration crisis presented significant challenges to the European Union, particularly regarding migration policy, cooperation and principles of solidarity among member states. After analyzing the legislation, the author concludes that the Dublin Regulation, which assumed that the first-entry countries are responsible for processing asylum applications, created an excessive burden on border states.

The principle of solidarity, which the EU tried to implement through the relocation scheme, was ineffective, as some countries, such as Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, refused to participate in its implementation. This highlighted the solidarity crisis and revealed internal differences in the EU regarding migration policy. Italy, despite limited support from the EU, took measures to address the crisis, including initiating the Mare Nostrum operation aimed at rescuing migrants in the Mediterranean Sea.

The author emphasizes that, although the EU has taken certain steps in the direction of helping Italy, such programs as Operation Triton had a much smaller scale and funding compared to the Italian initiative. Based on the analysis, the article concludes the need to reform the European migration policy, strengthen the principle of solidarity, and introduce more effective financial and technical tools to support countries that are at the epicenter of crisis situations.

Keywords: Italy, migration policy, Schengen area, EU, European integration, migration crisis, Dublin Convention.

 

Submitted 10.02.2025

Download

References:

  1. Conclude Mare Nostrum, al via Triton. (2014, October 31). Ministero dell’Interno. Retrieved from: https://www.interno.gov.it/it/notizie/conclude-mare-nostrum-triton [In Italian].
  2. Council Decision 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015 Establishing Provisional Measures in the Area of International Protection for the Benefit of Italy and of Greece (2015, September 14). Council of the European Union. Retrieved from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri= OJ%3AJOL_2015_239_R_0011 [In English].
  3. Council Decision 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015 Establishing Provisional Measures in the Area of International Protection for the Benefit of Italy and Greece (2015, September 22). Council of the European Union. Retrieved from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT [In English].
  4. Saving lives at sea (2023, April 30). Council of the European Union, Retrieved from: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/saving-lives-sea/ [In English].
  5. Diodato, E. (2017). L’Italia e la crisi di Schengen: Implicazioni sull’integrazione europea. In Antico mare e identità migranti: un itinerario interdisciplinare (pp. 47–63). [In Italian].
  6. Dudley, D. (2017). Challenged Integration: Europe’s Refugee Crisis. Political and Military Sociology: An Annual Review, 45, 106–121. [In English].
  7. Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (1985, June 14). European Economic Community. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al33020 [In English].
  8. Regulation No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (2013, June 26). European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013R0604 [In English].
  9. Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the Rules Governing the Movement of Persons Across Borders (Schengen Borders Code). (2016, March 9). European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32016R0399 [In English].
  10. Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2012). Official Journal of the European Union. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012E%2FTXT [In English].
  11. Giornata mondiale del rifugiato, Mattarella: “Italia, sete forte dovere della solidarietà”. (2015, June 20). La Repubblica. Retrieved from: https://www.repubblica.it/solidarieta/profughi/2015/06/20/news/giornata_mondiale_del_rifugiato [In Italian].
  12. Gülzau, F. (2021). A «New Normal» for the Schengen Area. When, where and why member states reintroduce temporary border controls?. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 38(5), 785–803. [In English].
  13. Italy threatens to release refugees into EU unless help increases (2014, May 13) Reuters. Retrieved from: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/italy-threatens-to-release- [In English].
  14. Longo, F. (2017). Italy and the Refugee Crisis. The Humanitarian Dilemma. Political and Military Sociology: An Annual Review, 45, 91–105. [In English].
  15. Mangiameli, S. (2021) L’Unione europea e la crisi umanitaria. Rivista giuridica on-line – ISSiRFA – CNR. Retrieved from: https://www.ipof.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/MANGIAMELI-LUnione-europea-e-la-crisi-umanitaria.pdf [In Italian].
  16. Menonna, A. (2017). Aspetti differenziali nelle richieste di asilo in Italia e nell’Unione Europea. Retrieved from: https://www.ismu.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Menonna_FS_ [In Italian].
  17. Niemann, A., & Bloeser J. (2021). Migration and the Mediterranean: The EU’s response to the European refugee crisis. Retrieved from: https://internationale.politik.uni-mainz.de/files/2023/05/D5_Niemann-A.-and-Bloeser-J.-2020 [In English].
  18. Orini, G., & Roos, C. (2017). EU hotspots, relocation and absconded migrants in Italy. How to save Schengen within a failing Dublin system? Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321797520 [In English].
  19. Paoli, S. (2020). The challenge of interdependence International migration in Euro-Mediterranean relations. In Europe between Migrations, Decolonization and Integration (1945–1992) (pp. 39–52). [In English].
  20. Ratto Trabucco, F. (2021). La risposta alla crisi migratoria degli Stati membri UE nel quadro dell’apparente immobile Trattato di Dublino. Retrieved from: www.amministrazioneincammino.luiss.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/RATTO-TRABUCCO-1.pdf. [In Italian].
  21. Savino, M. (2017). La risposta Italiana alla crisi: un bilancio. In La crisi migratoria tra Italia e Unione Europea: Diagnosi e prospettive (pp. 13–32). [In Italian].
  22. Zaiotti, R. (2011). Selecting a New Culture of Border Control: Schengen. In Cultures of border control: Schengen and the evolution of European frontiers. University of Chicago Press, (pp. 91–116). [In English].