1

LUDWIG MAXIMILIAN UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH

MUNICH INTERNATIONAL SUMMER UNIVERSITY 2012

EUROPEAN STUDIES PROGRAM

The European illegal immigration

issue and the assessment of

the efficiency of the EU’s

FRONTEX agency in

Central and Eastern Mediterranean

By Evangelos Marios Kemos

Paper Supervisor: Arnold Kammel

September 2012

2

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4

1. EU’s immigration issue .......................................................................................... 4

2. EU’s immigration policy ........................................................................................ 7

3. Main Objectives ...................................................................................................... 9

3.1.1. Legal migration ...................................................................................... 10

3.1.2. Illegal Immigration ................................................................................ 10

4. Frontex .................................................................................................................. 12

4.1. Tasks.............................................................................................................. 13

4.2. Means - Equipment ....................................................................................... 14

4.3. Operations - Missions.................................................................................... 15

4.3.1. Central Mediterranean Route ................................................................. 15

4.3.2. Eastern Mediterranean Route ................................................................. 15

5. Efficiency Assessment .......................................................................................... 16

Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 17

3

Table of Figures

Figure 1 Illegal border-crossing between BCPs……………………………………….5

Table of Tables

Table 1 Routes of the immigration flows into the EU………………………………...5

Table 2 Frontex’s Budget…………………………………………………………….14

4

Introduction

Although the European debt crisis has monopolized the International and European

interest after 2009, one of the largest and most complex problems that the European

Union [EU] and its Member States are facing at the moment is illegal immigration.

Throughout history, immigration has altered the development of Europe as a continent

and it continues to do so today. As a policy subject within the EU, the topic of

immigration as compared to other policy issues has appeared late on the agenda, but

in recent years significant changes were made in the direction of stronger European

legislation to address this particular matter. Today, it is quite clear that in an EU of

open borders, illegal immigration does not affect only the countries which the

immigrants first enter. Often, they only use those countries as transit points to their

final destination. This essay aims to analyse this particular issue, to assess the actions

taken so far by the EU, to resolve and address this issue and to suggest ways to

improve the coordination and effectiveness of those actions.

A significant improvement created by the EU with regard to illegal immigration

has to do with the formation of the European Agency for the Management of

Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the

European Union [Frontex]. This agency was created in 2005 with the purpose of

increasing cooperation between EU Member States on managing their external

borders. However, while the EU members were historically allowed to set their own

policy on migration, the Treaty of Amsterdam [ToA] and the Tampere European

Council in 1999 gave the EU responsibility for setting a Common Immigration and

Asylum Policy, with the principal aim of making migration safe and legally

controlled. Since 1997, EU member states have made slow progress in developing a

common position on these issues. The above improvements were put into action

mainly as a consequence of the EU’s plan for the creation of a European area of

freedom, security and justice.

1. EU’s immigration issue

Migration has become an increasingly important phenomenon for European societies.

Patterns of migration flows can greatly change over time, with the size and

composition of migrant populations reflecting both current and historical patterns of

migration flows, but the motivation in each and every migration flow is the same, the

5

quest of better life conditions and a prosperous future. Combined with the complexity

and long-term nature of the migrant integration process, this can present challenges to

policymakers who need good quality information on which to base decisions. It is

important that the statistics should go beyond the basic demographic characteristics of

migrants and present a wider range of socio-economic information on migrants and

their descendants.

According to the latest data published by Frontex, the pattern of illegal border-

crossing between border crossing points has changed in the year 2011, mainly as a

consequence of the “Arab Spring”. Due to the general civil unrest erupting in the

countries of North Africa with sea borders affecting the EU Mediterranean countries,

Source: Frontex, 2012, p. 14

Illegal border-crossing between BCPs

Detections reported by routes and top three nationalities at the external borders

6

the EU saw a big influx of immigrants from Tunisia, Libya and to a lesser extent

Egypt. This particular pattern shift can be observed by the detections made by Frontex

and reported based on the routes of the immigration flows into the EU (See Figure 1).

Routes of the immigration flows into the EU

The significant increase of the percentage of detections made in the Central

Mediterranean Route in 2011 as compared to 2010 indicates this enormous shift

registering a record change of 1344% of detected illegal border crossings (See Error!

Reference source not found.). According to the same data collected by Frontex,

most of the illegal border-crossings occurred between February and August 2011 and

represented one of the largest numbers of detections in a single area over such a short

Source: Frontex, 2012, p. 17

7

period of time (Frontex, 2012, p. 15). The Central Mediterranean Route and the

Eastern Mediterranean Route show a combined total of 86% of the detections of

illegal border crossings. These areas were of specific interest to me over the other

areas on the figure because of the dramatic influx of numbers in one years’ time.

Taking into account all of the above, it is more than obvious that Frontex should be

reinforced and supported even more, in order to cope with the increased migration

flows to the EU mainly from the countries with external borders along the

Mediterranean sea.

2. EU’s immigration policy

Europe as a continent has confronted many waves of immigration during its long

history. Countries of the region have always been part of intra- and extra European

immigration waves and this historic fact has been of significant importance to the

formation of the European identity. The process of forming what is now known as the

EU began just after the war. Later on in the 1980’s, this process evolved and included

the Schengen Agreement of 1985. This agreement formed the Schengen Area which

saw the complete abolition of border controls between signatory states and provided

common rules on visa issuing. This also included police and judicial cooperation

between those states involved. At first, those states were the BENELUX region with

Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, but also included France and West

Germany. Although this project was independent from the European Communities,

which at that time would not consent on the acceptance of the agreement, it soon

became clear that the Schengen Area was the key that was needed by the European

Communities towards a unified European Union. Its members would greatly benefit

from and enjoy custom union and the unified criteria concerning immigration from

outside of this area.

Moreover, 1990 was an important year as two significant treaties on this particular

matter were introduced. Those were the Schengen Implementing Convention, which

came into force in 1995 (Monar, 2005, p. 146), and the Dublin Convention on Asylum

which set the guidelines for the future European cooperation. The first treaty, “[…]

devised ‘compensatory measures’ for removal of frontier controls, covering asylum, a

common visa regime, illegal immigration, cross-border police competences, and a

common computerized system for the exchange of personal data.” (Wallace, Pollack,

& Young, 2010, p. 459), meanwhile the second treaty “[...] incorporated the asylum

8

rules, […] and established the responsibility of the state in which the asylum-seeker

first enters for the examination of an asylum claim.” (Wallace, Pollack, & Young,

2010, p. 459). The treaty of Maastricht [ToM] of 1992 introduced a new structure in

which the matters of Asylum, the external border controls, and the immigration policy

were going to be addressed in the future as matters of common interest and therefore

they formed the third pillar. The ToA of 1997 transferred the policies mentioned

above to the first pillar and integrated Schengen into the treaties. The period

beginning with the ToA in the 1990s can be characterized and differentiated by the

previous periods because of the increase of “communitarisation” (Faist & Ette, 2007,

p. 6). It has to be stressed that Schengen arrangements at that time were described as

rather messy with a copious body of treaties, decisions, letters and other documents,

which eventually were pulled together in order to establish the “Schengen acquis”

(Guild & Bigo, 2010, p. 259). However, it is important to note that further

developments were made after the establishment of the “Schengen acquis” in order to

transform it to a more legal precise document.

A key point in the creation of the EU’s area of freedom, security and justice was

the Tampere European Council in 1999. The Tampere European Council set “[…] far-

reaching objectives and fixed deadlines for their adoption” (Wallace, Pollack, &

Young, 2010, p. 464). On the basis of the 1999 meeting of the European Council in

Tampere the EU has developed a common migration policy around four main points

which still exist in current legislation (Frattini, 2007, p. 35):

Legal immigration and integration of third country nationals,

Combating illegal immigration,

A Common European Asylum System [CEAS]

Cooperation with countries of origin and transit.

In the year 2004, the multiannual Hague Programme for the years 2005-20091 was

adopted at the European Council. This programme set out 10 priorities for the EU

with the view to strengthening the area of freedom, security and justice in the next

five years. The programme's main focus was on setting up a common immigration

and asylum policy for the 25 EU member states and also involved the gradual

1 OJ C53 of 03.03.2005 - THE HAGUE PROGRAMME: STRENGTHENING FREEDOM,

SECURITY AND JUSTICE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2005:053:0001:0014:EN:PDF

9

expansion of the European Refugee Fund (Cini, 2007, p. 315) and the Qualified

Majority Voting. In 2010 the current multiannual Stockholm Programme for the years

2010-20142 was adopted. According to this programme, the main points concerning

the area of freedom, security and justice are that:

A new mandate should be given which would allow the role of Frontex to be

reinforced and enhanced so that it can respond more effectively to existing and future

challenges (changing migration flows etc.). It is essential that the activities of Frontex

and of the European Asylum Support Office [EASO] be coordinated when it comes to

the reception of migrants at the Union’s external borders.

The development of the European Border Surveillance System [Eurosur] in

the Southern and Eastern borders be standardized with modern electronic

technologies. The idea is that the system be a support to the Member States in an

effort to promote interoperability and uniform border surveillance standards and for

ensuring that the necessary cooperation is established between the Member States as

well as with Frontex to share necessary surveillance data without delay.

3. Main Objectives

The main objectives set by the current framework within the Stockholm Programme,

urge that integration, immigration and asylum policies are built on full respect of

fundamental rights. Moreover, according to the article 79 and 80 of the Treaty on the

Functioning of the EU [TFEU]3 the “EU shall develop a common immigration policy

aimed at ensuring, at all stages, the efficient management of migration flows, fair

treatment of third-country nationals residing legally in Member States, and the

prevention of, and enhanced measures to combat, illegal immigration and trafficking

in human beings” and immigration policies shall be governed by the principle of

solidarity and fair division of responsibility, including its financial implications,

between the Member States. The TFEU makes it clear that there will be a different

approach and measure adoption in the case of legal migration and illegal immigration.

2 OJ C115 of 04.05.2010 - THE STOCKHOLM PROGRAMME — AN OPEN AND SECURE

EUROPE SERVING AND PROTECTING CITIZENS: http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:115:0001:0038:en:PDF 3 OJ C115 of 09.05.2008 - CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE

FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0047:0199:en:PDF

10

3.1.1. Legal migration

Regarding legal migration, the EU has the competences to clear the conditions of

entry and residence of third country nationals for purposes of employment, study or

family reunification. Member States still retain the right to determine the volumes of

admission of people coming from third countries to their territory in order to seek

work (Peers & Rogers, 2006, pp. 9-10).

The admission of the people to the EU is regulated and monitored according to the

common visa policy which also includes regulations on the security of documents and

which in the end requires information exchanges between the Member States4. This

particular information exchange is possible with the introduction of various electronic

systems such as the European Schengen Information System [SIS] I and II and the

Visa Information System (Faist & Ette, 2007, p. 28). Taking into account all of the

EU’s current regulations, it is quite clear that the EU’s main objective is to better

organize legal migration and further enhance the integration of non-EU nationals

across all EU communities.

It is also more than evident that the EU Member States need to implement a

genuinely organised and well-coordinated policy on immigration. For this to succeed,

the responsibilities and financial burdens must be shared amongst all Member States,

but also the policy planning should include local and regional authorities that will

provide the Member States and the EU in general with all the required information

about the needs of each local or peripheral area. Local and regional authorities can

also be of great help in the case of integration in that the local communities are the

ones that provide the space and time for processing legal migrants. Again, the EU can

provide help in various other ways, from using certain programmes aiming at curing

specific pathogeneses, for example, providing equal treatment to legal migrants, but

also to include positive actions such as helping with family reunifications. These

programmes should include language training, cultural and civic training, and the

teaching of European values.

3.1.2. Illegal Immigration

Regarding illegal migration, the EU is asked to prevent and reduce irregular

immigration, notably by an effective return policy, in full respect of fundamental

4 European Parliament’s summary on Immigration Policy:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/en/FTU_4.12.3.pdf

11

rights and by signing readmission agreements with countries of origin and transit of

migrants. An irregular migrant is a person who comes to the EU without the correct

visa or permit or who overstays after the expiry of his visa. He may be seeking

asylum, but he may simply be coming to find a job or stay with his family5.

The EU addresses the illegal immigration problem in various ways. In general, the

EU focuses on curbing irregular, “illegal” immigration but also tries to address this

problem by managing immigration through partnership with non-EU countries,

countries of origin or transit of illegal immigrants. Cooperation with third countries

can be achieved in cases of training of border controllers, or by providing and

supporting those third countries with border control equipment and methods (Faist &

Ette, 2007, pp. 44-45). The funds that the EU allocates, according to the current

multiannual financial framework for the years 2007-2013, to the area of solidarity and

management of migration flows and cover those two objectives of illegal immigration

are6:

The External Borders Fund, which receives €1820 million, includes the

control and surveillance of borders and the implementation of the visa ,

The European Return Fund, which receives €676 million, contributes to the

return of third-country nationals illegally residing in the EU,

The European Fund, which receives €825 million, for the integration of third-

country nationals,

The European Refugee Fund, which receives €628 million, supports EU

countries’ efforts in receiving refugees and displaced persons and establishes

common asylum procedures.

Of significant importance to the area of immigration policy are the thematic

programmes for cooperation with third countries in the areas of migration and asylum

that aim to support third countries in their efforts to ensure better management of

migratory flows in all their dimensions. For the period 2007-2013, the budget for

those thematic programmes is approximately €384 million. The EU also provides

financial and technical assistance in the framework of its Neighbourhood Policy, the

Mediterranean Policy and other development oriented programmes mainly targeting

5 Ibid

6 The EU’s Financial Framework 2007-2013: Investing in our future:

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/fin_fwk0713/investing_2007-2013_en.pdf

12

Africa (Bendel, 2009, p. 191). Those programmes have a multitude of purposes, but

one aim is to provide stability in the region around the EU and eventually reduce

migration from the surrounding EU countries, to the EU itself.

4. Frontex

Frontex is a European Union agency. The seat of the Agency is in Warsaw, which can

be taken as an indication of the importance attached to the responsibilities of the new

Member States regarding the control of EU external borders (Monar, 2006b, p. 185).

It was created in 2004 and came into force on May 1st 2005 as “[…] a specialised and

independent body with the task to coordinate the operational cooperation between

Member States in the field of border security”7 and currently has 290 employees.

Frontex forms a constitutive part of the common border management strategy. It’s

human as well as financial resources have been generously increased since it began

operating in May, 2005 (Pollak & Slominski, 2009, pp. 909-910), a fact

demonstrating the growing importance of such an agency in the EU.

At the top of the list of Frontex tasks is the coordination of the intelligence-driven

operational cooperation between Member States in the management of external

borders (Laitinen, 2007, p. 59). It must be stressed that Frontex does not replace, but

complements and provides particular added value to the national border management

systems of the Member States. Frontex focuses on six principal areas, which are

defined in the Frontex regulation:

Frontex manages the Operational Cooperation of Member States at the External

Borders of the European Union with its main activity of organising and managing

cooperative patrol operations at external borders of the EU.

The border controls operations are only as good as the intelligence upon which they

are based. For this reason, Frontex places particular emphasis on risk analysis to

assess threats, look at vulnerabilities and weigh consequences. The Agency balances

and prioritises the available resources against risks so that it can ensure the right

amount of protection for Member States with the aim of avoiding both under-

protection and over-protection.

7 OJ L349 of 25.11.2004 – COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004

establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External

Borders of the Member States of the European Union: http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:349:0001:0011:EN:PDF

13

Frontex provides assistance to Member States in the training of national border

control authorities, including the establishment of common training standards. The

Agency contributes to the improvement of the professionalism of Member States’

border authorities and enhances their ability to work with each other for the benefit of

the EU as a whole.

By following the development of research relevant for the control and surveillance

of external borders, Frontex strengthens the border control capabilities of Member

States’ border guard institutions. It keeps them informed about the latest technologies

which are available and ensures that the specific interests of border guard authorities

are properly taken into account in security research.

Frontex helps Member States face situations requiring increased technical and

operational capability at external borders. To be able to respond to unexpected

situations of heightened pressure, which may arise at the EU’s external borders,

Frontex has set up pre-structured rapid intervention packages in the form of Rapid

Border Intervention Teams [RABITs].These include both experts and technical

assets that can be deployed at short notice to provide immediate assistance to those

Member States which may need additional support.

Frontex’s main responsibility is to provide Member States with the necessary

support in organising joint return operations. Frontex assists Member States to

jointly return illegally-staying third country nationals to their countries of origin in the

most efficient manner and to the highest human rights standards.

4.1. Tasks

The main tasks of FRONTEX, according to its regulation document, are (Guild &

Bigo, 2010, pp. 266-267):

Coordinate operational cooperation between the Member States in the field of

management of external borders,

Assist Member States on training of national border guards, including the

establishment of common training standards,

Carry out risk assessments.

Stay current on developments in research relevant to the control and

surveillance of external borders,

Technical and operational assistance to Member States, when circumstances

require it,

14

Support in organizing joint return operations.

4.2. Means - Equipment

A very important fact on Frontex activity is that the Agency does not have its own

technical or human resources to be deployed in the actual course of operations.

Therefore, each time a new need appears, Frontex approaches other Member States

with a request that they participate in the operation by offering their resources. This

means that a prerequisite of all of Frontex activities in this regard is the willingness of

the Member States to cooperate and share the burden of illegal migration. This burden

sharing can take different forms, be it in the form of sharing expertise, experts or

technical capabilities (Laitinen, 2007, p. 59).

However, despite the fact that in its founding year, 2005, Frontex had no budget

for operational activities but only for covering the costs for its staff and the meetings

of its Management Board, this changed significantly in 2006, as expenditure

independence with regard to operational tasks such as joint operations, risk analysis,

training activities and research was introduced (Pollak & Slominski, 2009, p. 909).

From 1st October 2006 it was agreed that Frontex gained full financial independence.

Frontex’s budget has increased dramatically since its inception – nearly quadrupling

between 2006 and 2008 (See Table 2) and continued expanding – showing the

political determination to invest substantial sums into its operational readiness (Pollak

& Slominski, 2009, p. 909).

Frontex’s Budget

Author’s compilation based on Pollak & Slominski, 2009; Frontex

YEAR EURO

2005 2,133,000

2006 19,166,300

2007 42,150,300

2008 70,432,000

2009 88,250,000

2010 92,846,928

2011 118,187,000

15

4.3. Operations - Missions

Frontex’s operations are initiated on the basis of needs identified in a risk analysis.

Those would be in the form of periodical risk analyses which are carried out annually

and cover the whole area in a given period, or are tailored risk analyses which

concentrate on a particular phenomenon at the external border. It is also possible for a

Member State to request support in circumstances requiring increased technical and

operational assistance at the common external borders. In any case, a risk analysis is

carried out. A draft of the operational initiative is made by Frontex after consultation

with the Member State or States, whose territory is affected by the particular

phenomenon which needs to be addressed (Laitinen, 2007, pp. 59-60). However,

Frontex operations in every case are based on risk analyses as far as each operation is

uniquely formed to the circumstances identified by Frontex as adequate to enable such

actions as a joint operation suggest.

4.3.1. Central Mediterranean Route

In the Central Mediterranean Route, Member States reported a total of 64,000

irregular detections in 2011, compared to only 5000 in 2010 (Frontex, 2012, p. 15),

which justified the request for intensive operations that Frontex put into effect in the

previous year in this particular area. Initially, detections in the Central Mediterranean

Route showed a dramatic increase in early 2011 due to the unrest which became

known as the “Arab Spring”. The result of this particular situation in Northern African

countries was that between January and March some 20,000 Tunisian migrants

arrived on the Italian island of Lampedusa (Frontex, 2012, p. 15). In the second

quarter of 2011, the above situation was moderated mainly because of various

agreements that came into force concerning repatriation of immigrants (See Figure 1).

4.3.2. Eastern Mediterranean Route

Compared to the Central Mediterranean Route, the Eastern Mediterranean Route is

undeniably more established as an illegal entry point for irregular migrants and

facilitation networks. In the past, the main flows of immigrants were traditionally

entering the EU via the sea border between Greece and Turkey. In 2010, the records

detected significant irregular activity at the land borders between those two countries

(Frontex, 2012, pp. 17-18) (See Figure 1).

16

5. Efficiency Assessment

A lot of progress has been made in Frontex’s operations during the years from its

foundation in 2005 through to today, but there is much to be accomplished. With

effective external border management considered to be one the most vital elements of

the EU’s approach to internal security and migration management, the agency at its

initial start-up was on the right track for its potential future development (Monar,

Justice and Home Affairs, 2006a). Its creation was a necessity but it needs to be

amended as times change.

The assessment of any issue is an important challenge for a researcher. Policy

related assessments, such as this one, depend largely on current situations - the

vagaries of time - this refers to events that occur for only a specific period of time but

which are of paramount importance and significance. However, there are certain

issues that can be observed and analysed independent of those “vagaries of time”

which show a more long-term situation. It is these long-term issues that, for the

purpose of this paper, I intend to address.

In recent years, due to the increase of migration flows to the EU, Frontex and its

policies have been tested. It has become more evident than ever before the severity of

flaws and problems that are inherent in the current structure. Frontex has to review

and analyse these issues urgently in order to overcome these weaknesses to become

more efficient. Such problems can be found in the actions taken to date by the agency.

For example, a review needs to be done with regard to the brevity of the operations,

the ad-hoc nature of the operations, the uneven involvement of the Member States and

the accountability issues (Pollak & Slominski, 2009, pp. 913-915). The issue of

accountability includes the following aspects: political, legal, administrative and

social (Pollak & Slominski, 2009, pp. 916-919).

Of important notice are the discrepancies and distortions of the ad-hoc nature of

the operations and the uneven involvement of the Member States. Member States’

involvement differs widely with some member states being more inclined to

participate than others. This uneven participation shows that the Member States seem

to follow a pick-and-choose approach which is based on the view that those countries

have of Frontex’s utility. Moreover, this participation in many cases depends on the

resources that the Member States have available at hand (Pollak & Slominski, 2009,

p. 915).

17

Another issue concerning the effective operation of Frontex is that the agency and

the EU must overcome the mandate limitations and restrictions on which the agency

was formed on. These are the issues stressed in this particular efficiency assessment.

In recent years and especially in this period of economic crisis, Frontex fared well

operationally to overcome its mandate limitation. Recently, the various austerity

measures introduced throughout Member States of the EU resulted in an increase in

disparities between Member States with regard to their capacity to perform border

controls. With the Member States being severely affected financially by the crisis and

their funding capabilities of their non-EU border protection programmes decreasing, a

stronger border control agency should be formed to provide unified services. The

illegal immigration problem should eventually be treated as a fully communitarized

problem which would require a fully communitarized solution. This solution will have

many advantages with the agency being centrally administered by the EU and the

Member States contributing equally in a financial manner. Under this administration,

the only way for the sovereign border protection issue to be resolved would be to

create a European Border Guard agency.

By introducing an agency of such a kind the aim would be to provide an

instrument of solidarity for sharing the burden of controlling external borders in the

enlarged Union and allow for a better use of personnel and technical resources, as

well as of available expertise, while at the same time marking a step forward for

political integration as scholars have pointed out (Monar, 2006b). Although an effort

to establish a European Border Guard was initiated in the past, it actually led to the

establishment of the agency discussed in this essay. The creation of Frontex was the

compromise between two opposing proposals and, as in many cases, it was a decision

based on the lowest common denominator between the Member States.

Conclusion

At first glance, the establishment of Frontex in 2005 was a great step towards the

development of a common border management system, but as the years passed the

Member States showed an unwillingness to provide the agency with the needed means

to do what was required which then resulted in a number of operational issues. In

recent years, under the continuous pressure of the illegal immigration flows entering

the EU from its Mediterranean borders, many efforts were made for those issues to be

18

resolved in order for the agency to be more efficient. Unfortunately they have not yet

borne the fruits of their labour.

Moreover, it is of crucial importance that the EU maintains a balance between

these three areas: promoting mobility and legal migration, optimising the link between

migration and development, and preventing and combating illegal immigration. There

is only one agency that has the ability to fulfil such a need: Frontex. For the EU to

become an area of freedom, security and justice, the EU must go forward and

strengthen its presence and provide a convincing plan through actions rather than

words.

Furthermore, with many border countries going through difficult financial times

and having to implement austerity measures which could directly impact the counties’

ability to safeguard the borders, it is even more pressing that Frontex take on an

expanding role in external border security. It would be a good idea to eventually

transform the agency to the initially proposed model of a European Border Guard

agency which would also be based on the Member States involvement and

contribution. By forming such an agency it is expected that it would respond with

greater efficiency and speed when serving the needs and obligations assigned to it.

The agency would have the power to act on its own in order to maintain planning,

management and enforcement of the external sovereign borders in a uniform manner

based on the EU’s idea with regard to services across border countries. Member States

should see the benefit of this necessity and be involved and contribute to Frontex in

any way needed.

19

Works cited

Bendel, P. (2009). Migrationspolitik der Europäischen Union: Aufbruch oder

Blockade? In T. Fisher, & D. Gossel (Hrsg.), Migration in internationaler

Perspektive (S. 190-220). München: Allitera Verlag.

Cini, M. (Hrsg.). (2007). European Union Politics (2nd Ausg.). Oxford University

Press.

Faist, T., & Ette, A. (Hrsg.). (2007). The Europeanization of National Policies and

Politics of Immigration: Between Autonomy and the European Union.

Palgrave Macmillan.

Faist, T., & Ette, A. (2007a). Between Autonomy and the European Union: The

Europeanisation of National Policies and Politics of Immigration. European

View, V, 19-26.

Frattini, F. (2007). Towards a stronger European Immigration Policy. European View,

V, S. 35-40.

Frontex. (05. September 2012). Annual Risk Analysis 2012. Von Frontex:

http://www.frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Risk_Analysis/Annual_Risk

_Analysis_2012.pdf abgerufen

Guild, E., & Bigo, D. (2010). The Transformation of European Border Controls. In B.

Ryan, & V. Mitsilegas (Hrsg.), Extraterritorial Immigration Control: Legal

Challenges (S. 252-273). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

Hobbing, P. (August 2005). Integrated Border Management at the EU Level. CEPS

Working Document(227). Center for European Policy Studies (CEPS).

Jeandesboz, J. (August 2008). Reinforcing the Surveillance of EU Borders: The

Future Development of FRONTEX and EUROSUR. CHALLENGE Liberty &

Security Research Paper(11). Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS).

Klug, A., & Howe, T. (2010). The concept of state jurisdiction and the applicability of

the nonrefoulement principle to extraterritorial interception measures. In V.

Mitsilegas, & B. Ryan (Hrsg.), Extraterritorial immigration control: Legal

challenges. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

Laitinen, I. (2007). Frontex and the Border security of the European Union. European

View, V, S. 57-62.

20

Léonard, S. (2009). The Creation of FRONTEX and the Politics of Institutionalisation

in the EU External Borders Policy. Journal of Contemporary European

Research, 5(3), 371-388.

Lutterbeck, D. (March 2006). Policing Migration in the Mediterranean.

Mediterranean Politics, 11(1), 59–82.

Monar, J. (2005). The European Union’s 'integrated management' of external borders.

In J. DeBardeleben (Hrsg.), Soft or hard borders? Managing the divide in an

enlarged Europe (S. 145-164).

Monar, J. (2006a). Justice and Home Affairs. JCMS: Journal of Common Market

Studies, 44, S. 101-117.

Monar, J. (2006b). The Project of a European Border Guard: Origins, Models and

Prospects. In M. Caparini, & O. Marenin (Hrsg.), Borders and Security

Governance: Managing Borders in a Globalised World (S. 174-189). Geneva:

Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF).

Peers, S., & Rogers, N. (Hrsg.). (2006). EU Immigration and Asylum Law: Text and

Commentary. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

Pollak, J., & Slominski, P. (September 2009). Experimentalist but not Accountable

Governance? The Role of Frontex in Managing the EU’s External Borders.

West European Politics, 32(5), S. 904-924.

Wallace, H., Pollack, M. A., & Young, A. R. (Hrsg.). (2010). Policy-Making in the

European Union (6th Ausg.). Oxford University Press.