National security and the exception in the Common European Asylum System.

Abstract

Summary

1. Introduction. 2. Problems related to security and its scope in the current European Common Asylum System (CEAS). 2.1. The impact of national security on the current CEAS. 2.2. Demystifying the current correlation between asylum and terrorism. 3. Security in the proposal for CEAS: keys to the new reform. 4. Radicalisation as an exception to the security assessment parameter in the CEAS. 4.1. Emerging challenges of radicalization and recruitment in the area of international protection. 4.2. Online radicalization as a means of combating terrorism: an emergent conflict law asylum vs. security. 5. Conclusions.

Abstract

Since the terrorist attacks of the 11th of September 2001 until the recent refugee crisis in the EU, some exceptions for security purposes have simply been provided in the different phases of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). These modifications seriously restrict the rights of the applicants for international protection. National security policies in the field of asylum have been gradually aligned to the procedure for the processing and recognition of international protection status. This causal link may criminalise this particularly vulnerable group a priori, undermining the lowest-common-denominator of Community legislation. Consequently, the current legal framework becomes too fragmented, incoherent and even contrary to the heart of the CEAS when its axis pivotes around the dimension of national security.

The forthcoming reform of the CEAS aims at providing real improvements in the interrelationship between national security and international protection. Competence problems related to security is expected to be progressively transferred from the Member States to the community level. It addresses all of these concerns “by default” not only through the greater improvement of the competence regime but also creating enhanced bodies and agencies to ensure the effective control of EU external borders. However, this proposal does not develop appropriate responses to new challenges such as the radicalisation or recruitment of applicants for international protection and refugees, which requires a novel “proactive framework” that enables Member States to deal with unforeseen terrorist actions or serious crimes.