Since February 2020, a number of EU Member States and Schengen associated countries have declared emergencies and introduced epidemiological measures. These included restrictions on freedom of movement: border closures, temporary internal border controls or temporary bans on all non-essential travel. The author argues that since the Member States had recently used border restrictions to restrict the (visible) migration, border restriction as means fighting the (invisible) pandemic is only another precedent on behalf of Member States’ unwillingness to preserve freedom of movement when it contradicts internal policies, and underlines the need for Schengen’s reform. The article argues that although justifying derogations from the principles of border-free area is in the hand of the Member States, the lack of coordination has created the exact the same situation as during the migration crisis. Though the reintroduced border restrictions of 2015 targeted irregular migrants, the present ones affected EU citizens, too. The research aims to analyze the means and margins that the situation created by the pandemic contrasts to the restrictive border measures introduced during the migration crisis. The final research objective is to emphasize the need for cooperation in this policy field and the need of an integrated approach. 

International migration is not a new phenomenon. However, because of a growing number of people coming from less developed countries to the more developed ones migration has become a serious challenge creating a need for new approaches how to cope with it. International migration can be interpreted in light of both positive and negative consequences. Migration from Sub-Saharan countries to the European Union Member States has been seen by populist politicians and thus the media as a threat for European future. Therefore, most migrants coming to Europe are considered by general public to be economic migrants looking for better living conditions. However, unacceptable living conditions in many Sub-Saharan countries can be understood as violations of basic human rights and thus these immigrants have to be regarded as refugees. The aim of the paper is to describe trends in the number of asylum applicants coming to the EU Member States from Sub-Saharan Africa, and to assess if the prospects for better economic well-being can explain differing number of asylum applicants registered in the EU Member States. Conclusions are based on a review of relevant academic literature as well as on own statistical analysis done for the 2008–2017 period.

Dans un contexte migratoire moins tendu, du moins en termes de flux, un bilan des dégâts de la violente tempête méditerranéenne n’est pas superflu; il nous aidera sûrement à mesurer le long chemin qui reste à accomplir dans la construction de l’union. Cette improvisation dans sa gestion a révélé les problèmes qui ont ébranlé le rêve européen, notamment après le Brexit. Sans une remise en cause fondamentale de son mode de fonctionnement, et un sursaut collectif et urgent, l’Union ne restera qu’un vaste marché de libre échange livré au diktat des places financières, loin des préoccupations de ses citoyens. Il est vital, pour son équilibre, de renouer avec le sousensemble méditerranéen, comme partenaire historique privilégié et non comme auxiliaire de la surveillance de ses frontières. A la croisée des deux visions, pays d’origine et pays d’accueil, il est opportun de contribuer au débat pour tenter de répondre aux défis posés par les flux humains au sein de l’Union Européenne.

In the last decades, the EU has been analysed by many scholars through diff erent theoretical perspectives. In this context, the 2008 fi nancial crisis has provoked diff erent EU policy crises which have in turn led to a reassessment of the theoretical frameworks needed to analyse them. Th is paper seeks to contribute to this reassessment, taking the EMU and the European migration and asylum policy as case studies to investigate to what extent these regimes have suff ered internal policy crises via the application of two theoretical perspectives: neo-functionalism and neo-institutionalism. On the one hand, under the neo-institutionalism approach, institutions constrain political actors in a norm-based way. According to this perspective, migration and asylum policy change during the crisis may be explained by European institutional constraints on the Member States. On the other hand, neo-functionalism may be used to investigate the EMU Europeanization policy process in which EU Member States’ cooperation has reinforced the process of integration in this policy domain. In addition, due to the recent developments in European asylum cooperation, many important questions arise about the nature of the legal measures within the criteria of internal security. Th is paper tries to shed light on the problématique of asylum and migration policy-making process by looking at an innovative theoretical framework based on the cost/benefi t and public goods theories.

In December 2018, the Italian Parliament definitely confirmed the so-called “Immigration and Security” Decree, which deeply reformed the regulation of Migration and Integration. The present work aims at summarizing the innovations introduced by the new Decree and confront them with the critical remarks and concerns of legal scholars and asylum experts, stressing its conceivable risks of unconstitutionality. Final goal of the article is to challenge what the real aim of the new Decree is: if it ends up increasing precarious and instable living conditions for migrants on Italian soil and therefore threatening social security, rather than improving public safety and protection for citizens and legal residents.