External migration policies, in which countries manage migration in cooperation with third countries, are now becoming more common. Based on new research, Mathilde Rosina and Iole Fontana Identifies the main tools used by EU Member States to implement these policies.
In a rapidly changing world, countries are forming unexpected alliances to address irregular migration. From Italy’s recent partnership with Albania to the EU’s cooperation with Egypt to the UK’s relationship with Rwanda, a new migration system is emerging that focuses on strengthening the “external dimension” of migration policy.
The external dimension of migration policy refers to the involvement of third countries in migration management. This topic has received considerable attention in recent years, especially at the EU level. However, we know little about how it works at the level of individual member states.
In a recent study, we conceptualize the external dimension of EU Member States’ migration policies, identify the main instruments on which they rely and examine how they relate to EU initiatives. We do this by proposing an analytical framework and applying it to the case of Italy using an original dataset covering more than 30 years and 125 instruments.
Our findings suggest that the external dimension of migration policy is by no means the exclusive domain of the EU. Instead, it is also well developed at the Member State level and has expanded quantitatively and qualitatively with (and against) EU initiatives.
Toolbox of External Migration Policy
What exactly does the external dimension of EU member states’ migration policies entail? Return agreements are probably the first thing that comes to mind, but our analysis reveals a much richer landscape beneath the surface.
We identify a set of nine instruments that constitute a “policy toolbox” for the external dimension of EU Member States’ migration policies. The scope is vast, ranging from plans to establish admission quotas and programs for resettling refugees to examples of political dialogue and military missions aimed at migrating targets. As a testament to the dynamic and evolving nature of these policies, today we can add a tenth instrument: the transfer of asylum procedures abroad, as demonstrated by the recent partnership between Italy and Albania. The full list of instruments is as follows:
- Re-admission contract
- Quota system
- Agreement on Labor Migration
- Resettlement Plan
- Technology and Operations Agreement
- Immigration Agreement
- Migration provisions of a broader agreement
- political dialogue
- Military mission
To explore the relevance and utility of the various tools, we have created a database focusing on migration cooperation between Italy and 17 partner countries across the Mediterranean region. The results are significant.
First, Italy has used all nine types of instruments over the past 30 years, Unofficial Tools. Specifically, political dialogue and technical agreements (such as cooperation between police and military vessels) have dominated Italy’s approach, accounting for two-thirds of new tools since 2010.
Moreover, the external dimension of Italy’s migration policy was noticeably more extensive than that of the EU. From 1990 to 2022, Italy more than doubled the number of such instruments, with 125 instruments compared to 61 in the EU. In short, the external dimension of Italy’s migration policy has grown considerably, but has also seen a trend toward informalization.
The ‘3Cs’ of Member State-EU cooperation
How do these instruments fit with EU-level initiatives? Is the interaction characterized by confrontation or does it work in harmony? We argue that the interaction between Member States and the EU in the external dimension of migration policy is shaped by the “3Cs”: competition, integration and complementarity.
Competition arises when conflicts of interest surface, and Member States prioritize national agendas over supranational cooperation. This is particularly evident in issues related to repatriation, as evidenced by Italy’s readmission agreements with Algeria and Tunisia.
Despite the European Commission being tasked with negotiating readmission agreements with these countries in 2002 and 2014, Italy has pursued its own bilateral negotiations, concluding return agreements in 2008 and 2020. This highlights the competitive position between the Member States (in this case Italy) and the EU, with the former’s unwillingness to give up national means undermining the Commission’s efforts to secure agreements across the EU.
The second scenario shows the convergence of efforts between the Member States and the EU. Convergence occurs when the Member States and the EU align on shared goals and priorities, and when individual instruments reinforce each other.
The Italian humanitarian corridor is a good example of this pattern. It has not only been praised by the European Commission and adopted by other member states, but has also played a key role in the development of the EU’s broader legal pathways strategy. It has led to a collaborative approach between Italy and the EU to strengthen resettlement efforts.
Finally, the third scenario shows complementarity in the efforts of Member States and the EU. Complementarity occurs when Member States act effectively on behalf of the EU, creating new opportunities and supporting the development of the external dimension of the EU’s migration policy. This is best demonstrated when Member States with strong bilateral relations act as facilitators or mediators to strengthen dialogue with specific countries at the EU level, as Italy did ahead of the EU-Tunisia Agreement of 2023.
In conclusion, the external dimension of the Member States’ migration policy is extensive and intricately linked to the EU’s approach. A multifaceted and dynamic network of interactions between national and EU instruments emerges, through convergence, competition and complementarity.
For further details, please see the authors’ attached paper. Journal of Common Market Research
Note: This article presents the views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the position of EUROPP (European Politics and Policy) or the London School of Economics. Source of featured image: Alessia Pierdomenico / Shutterstock.com
