Thesis
The impact of migration incidents on the security framing
of migration in Europe
Name: Michiel van Aarnhem
Student ID: 10245669
E-mail: michielvanaarnhem@gmail.com Study: Political Science
Course: Transnational spaces/political geographies of security 1st Lecturer: Dr. Stephanie Simon
2nd Lecturer: Dr. Darshan Vigneswaran
Deadline: 28-01-2013
‘May tragedies like those we have witnessed this year, with so many deaths at Lampedusa, never occur again!’ Pope Francis, 2013
3 Table of contents
p.
1. Introduction 4
2. Theory and methodological framework 5
2.1 Securitization of migration 5
2.2 Europeanization as part of the securitization of migration 6
2.3 Securitization and framing 8
3. Data and Methods 9
3.1 Operationalization of migration incidents 10
3.2 Content analysis and the Van Gorp’s approach 10
3.3 Framing devices and aspects 11
3.4 Framing analysis and consequences for reliability and validity 11
3.5 Frame-matrix 13
4. Analysis 14
4.1 Framing in reports ‘without’ incidents 14
4.2 Framing in reports ‘with’ incidents 18
4.3 Comparing and discussing the influence of migration incidents 22
5. Conclusions 24
6. Reflections 25
4 1. Introduction
Migration flows from North-Africa result in migration incidents and multiple sea deaths every year. One of the biggest incidents was on 3 October 2013, when a boat with migrants sank off the coast of Lampedusa. The European Commission said that this was ‘a strong call for action from European leaders and European citizens.’ (European Commission, 2013b: p, 2). The topic of my thesis is about the impact of migration incidents on the security framing of migration in Europe. I’m interested in migration incidents at the Mediterranean coast with migrants drowning at sea. These incidents are defined as ‘incidents with at least one hundred estimated (sea) deaths’. In this thesis I will investigate the way in which these incidents, influence the security framing of migration in Europe. The research question of this thesis is: How do migration incidents at the Mediterranean coast influence the security framing of migration issues in the European Union?
The research question refers to migration as a security issue of the EU, but why is migration a European security issue? This is mainly because of the Schengen Agreement. This agreement allows people to freely move from one Schengen country to another without being subjected to passport controls. This way of organizing space in the European Union has a profound effect on the securitization of migration, as well as on the Europeanization process (Huysmans, 2006; Bigo, 2008; Burgess, 2009). This process of Europeanization means that the traditionally domestic policy areas of migration and border control, become increasingly subject to European migration and border security policy. Within Europe, the topic of migration has become securitized. This process of the securitization of migration is described by Huysmans (2006), and will be further developed in the theory section of this thesis.
To answer the research question I will do content analysis on the use of framing in the migration communication reports of the European Commission to the Parliament and Council of the EU. Is there a change in the way the European Commission use framing in their migration communication reports after these incidents have occurred? Are these incidents framed as a humanitarian-problem or a security-issue? The timeframe of this analysis is 2007-2013, because 2007 marks the year that the department of Justice and Home Affairs was created. The department of Justice and Home Affairs prepares EU-level rules on cross-border issues, such as asylum, migration, border control, organized crime and terrorism. The creation of this department marks a shift in the way Europe deals with migration and border security issues, and therefore serves as the justification of the timeframe 2007-2013.
The relevance of this topic is that migration affects not only all European countries and their peoples, but also the lives of thousands of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants. Europe has to deal with a ‘migration crisis’, this crisis is transnational, because it affects people, nation states
5 and continents (Huysmans, 2006). The European debate on this topic has changed radically during the last decade, some scholars argue that Europe has become a ‘fortress’, since the process of the securitization of migration started (Berg and Ehin, 2006; Huysmans, 2006; Bialaciewicz, 2012). The migration incidents at the European border expose the often deadly outcomes of the EU migration and asylum policies. These incidents emphasize a tension between humanitarian disasters and/or security issues. It is this tension and the way Europe deals with these incidents, that underscore the relevance of this topic for further analysis. The research of this thesis has additional value for the work of Huymans, because it analyzes European (policy) documents after the publication of his work in 2006. In this way, the analysis contributes to a better understanding of the process of framing migration as a security issue in Europe.
2. Theory and methodological framework
Within the field of security studies, there have been major contributions to the topic of security framing of migration. This section explains why migration is a European security issue. It also explains framing theory and how the concept of framing was used for the securitization of migration in the EU. The theory section is divided into three parts, the first part works out the concept of securitization, by referring to Wæver(1993), Huysmans (2006) and Bigo (2008). The second part elaborates on the Schengen Agreement and the concept of Europeanization, to explain why migration is a European issue. The third part provides the link between the securitization of migration and framing.
2.1 Securitization of migration
How did migration became a (European) security issue? To answer that question, it is important to understand the concept of securitization. I will describe securitization by using the classical articles of Wæver (1993) and Buzan (1998). The book ‘Securitization and desecuritization’, written by Wæver in 1993, describes securitization as the process whereby ‘security issues’ or ‘threats’ are identified or constructed in order to mobilize opinion and constitute legitimacy and authority for means of dealing with that threat (Wæver, 1993). This definition of securitization is an important step towards the analysis of a ‘new security agenda’ which include a ‘wider range of sectors than the traditional military and political’ (Buzan and Wæver, 1998: p, 195). Because of the end of the cold war in 1989, security studies turned its attention away from arms control and nuclear deterrence, and started to focus on a ‘wider range of security areas’ such as environmental and migration issues (Huysmans, 2006: p, 15-19). The description of the process of securitization by Wæver, has been used by authors in this field to describe the process of the securitization of
6 migration. According to Huysmans and other authors, the start of the process of securitization in the field of migration was during the 1980s (Wæver, 1993; Huysmans, 2006; Guild, 2006; Bigo, 2008; Neal, 2009). These authors argue that migration has become a ‘security issue’ and has been identified or constructed as a ‘threat’ (Huysmans. 2006; Bigo, 2008; Burgess, 2009; Neal, 2009).
An important author in the field of security studies is Didier Bigo. In his studies, Bigo links the Schengen Agreement to the securitization of migration using the concept of border security. Bigo argues that the United States and his allies created ‘the idea of a global (in)security (Bigo, 2008: p, 5-9). This leads, according to Bigo, to the creation of a professional field of management of unease. This field shows ‘how police cooperation is linked to the question of border control, immigration and the fight against terrorism’ (Bigo, 2008: p, 15). As a consequence, there has become a tendency to operate beyond national borders, through the activities linked to the Schengen system of surveillance. I quote Bigo on this point to make this clear.
‘These police activities [linked to Schengen] are themselves undergoing a redefinition, the effect of which is to enlarge the spectrum in a particular way. It would be patently misguided to assume that these activities are primarily oriented towards crime or anti-terrorist actions despite rhetoric. Fifteen years of intensive rhetoric have created the belief that poverty, crime and mobile population are inextricably linked, but the correlation between crime, foreignness and poverty is altogether false.’ (Bigo, 2008: p, 16).
Bigo tries to investigate the motives and relations between the securitization of migration, Schengen and police border control. His main point is that trans-nationalization and the (free) movement of people, lead to globalized (in)security. In other words, migration has become a security issue in the ‘field of security’. The claims of Bigo are interesting for the analysis of this thesis, to see how the link between Schengen, crime, anti-terrorism, poverty and mobile populations is created in the official European documents. The next paragraph will further develop this argument of Bigo, by using his example of Schengen and describing how Europeanization contributed to the securitization of migration.
2.2 Europeanization as part of the securitization of migration
The process of Europeanization has contributed to the securitization of migration in the EU. One of the best examples of the Europeanization of migration is the 1990 Convention Applying the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985, ‘which connects immigration and asylum with terrorism, transnational crime and border control.’ (Huysmans, 2006: p, 68). Twenty-six states, mostly European member states, signed the Schengen Agreement, which was the beginning of the dismantling of controls at the internal borders of the EU. In the literature about migration and
7 border security, many scholars are critical about the need for a stricter control of the external border of the EU because of the realization of the free movement of people (Berg and Ehin, 2006; Guild, 2006; Huysmans, 2006; Burgess, 2009; Bialaciewicz, 2012).
‘Europeanization is a process by which domestic policy areas become increasingly subject to European policy making’ (Börzel, 1999). Huysmans writes about the development of the Schengen area as part of the Europeanization process. He argues that following on the Schengen Agreement, the immigration and asylum issues got further integrated in European policy (Huysmans, 2006: p, 67). Berg and Ehin develop this argument further in their article, ‘What kind of border regime is in the making?’. This article is about the objectives and goals the EU wants to accomplish with the Schengen Agreement. Schengen is created in line with the objective of completing the single market program, but with ‘an emphasis on security rather than cohesion. To reduce the risk associated with the free movement of people, the EU has strengthened controls at the external borders, harmonized visa, asylum and migration policies, created the Schengen Information System (SIS) and enhanced cooperation between police, immigration and judicial authorities’ (Berg and Ehin, 2006: p, 59). According to Berg and Ehin the control over borders has traditionally been an important attribute of the nation state. They write: ‘The continuing Europeanization of border policies creates questions (…) about implications for state sovereignty as well as the nature of the EU itself’ (Berg and Ehin, 2006: p, 55). By this they mean that a supranational organized border security can be an important step towards a federal Europe.
Supranational organization and European Community rule making can provoke Europeanization. Through [the process of Europeanization], rules and regulations [treaty provisions, secondary legislation], will provoke further and deeper integration of European politics in different policy areas (Sandholtz and Sweet, 1997). Huysmans refers to this process and provides the link between the Schengen Agreement and Europeanization. ‘The spill-over has been formalized most explicitly by (…), the incorporation of the Schengen Agreement. This spill-over has led to a further integration within Europe and has had a profound effect on the Europeanization of (security) policy.’ (Huysmans, 2006). Huysmans writes about European integration in a social constructivist way. He concludes on this matter that unease with open borders, terrorism, uncontrolled labor migration, asylum, human trafficking, and cross-border criminal activity have been integrated into an internal security field. This has contributed to ‘a governmental identity of the European Union.’ (Huysmans, 2006: p, 148). For Huysmans, the implications of the securitization of migration, shape a governmental identity which defines the European Union.
8 The domestic policy area of migration has become increasingly subject to European policy making, in accordance with the definition of Europeanization (Börzel, 1999). It has become clear that the implementation of the Schengen Agreement of 1985, has had a profound effect on making migration a European security issue. The next paragraph deals with the securitization of migration in Europe and uses the concept of framing to explain this process.
2.3 Securitization and framing
What is the link between the concept of framing and the securitization of migration? First I will explain the concept of framing. Secondly, I will explain the link between framing and the securitization of migration by using the work of Huysmans (2006). The concept of framing and framing theory is broadly applied in social and political sciences. To explain and define framing I will use the work of Entman (1993), who is an important scholars on this topic. ‘Framing is selecting some aspects of a perceived reality, to enhance their salience in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment recommendation’ (Entman, 1993: p, 53). Entman writes about four aspects of framing. First, frames define problems, they ‘determine what a causal agent is doing with what costs and benefits.’ Second, frames diagnose causes, they ‘identify the forces creating the problem’. Third, frames make moral judgments, they ‘evaluate causal agents and their effects.’ Fourth, frames suggest remedies, they ‘offer and justify treatments for the problems and predict their likely effects’ (Entman, 1993: p, 52).
Huysmans uses framing theory to make his claim. According to Huysmans, framing is an essential concept to understand and analyze the securitization of migration in the EU. Huysmans argues that the meaning of security has changed, it no longer only refers to threat definitions. ‘The use of security language can actively shape a phenomenon into a security question thereby changing the political understanding of the nature of the policy problem.’ (Huysmans, 2006: p, 23). But not only the security rhetoric is framing migration as a security issue, also the security utterances make the reality intelligible in a particular way (Huysmans, 2006: p, 23-25). One important aspect of this securitization is that security rhetoric defines an existential threat that has to be dealt with first, and all other questions become subjugated to this security question. Or to quote Huysmans, ‘if the danger is not properly dealt with first, the other policy questions lose their significance because the political community in name of which economic and welfare policies are developed seriously risks losing its independence and territorial integrity.’ (Huysmans, 2006: p, 25). This is an interesting point for the analysis of the Commission reports. Is migration framed as such an important danger that it threatens the existence of the European Union? The use of security rhetoric in this way can
9 be used to dramatize the security problem of migration and therefore helping it moving up in the list of policy priorities.
But security rhetoric can also fundamentally reframe the understanding of the policy question. Huysmans describes in his book how security rhetoric is used for political purposes to reframe migration from a humanitarian disaster to a security threat (Huysmans, 2006: p, 26). This claim is the most important one for the framing analysis in this thesis. How does Europe frame migration in reports published before or after a migration incident? It is not unlikely that the European reports use different type of frames to refer to migration in the aftermath of such an incident. In Huysmans work, this process of reframing the issue of migration is essential to explain the way the European Union handled migration, asylum and refugee issues for the last three decades (Huysmans, 2006). Huysmans is a social constructivist and he uses a framing approach for the analysis of the securitization of migration.
It has become clear that over the last three decades, the topic of migration has been securitized (Wæver, 1993; Buzan and Wæver, 1998; Huysmans, 2006; Bigo, 2008). This securitization of migration has had an enormous impact on migration policy in the European Union, especially regarding border control (Huysmans. 2006; Bigo, 2008). Framing is an essential concept to understand and analyze the securitization of migration. According to Huysmans, security rhetoric is used for political purposes to reframe migration from a humanitarian disaster to a security threat (Huysmans, 2006: p, 26).
3. Data and Methods
In this section I will discuss the process of this thesis, and I will work out the decisions I made for the analysis of the data. Furthermore I will elaborate on the consequences and the implication of these choices for the research represented in this thesis.
To answer my research question: ‘how do migration incidents at the Mediterranean coast influence the security framing of migration issues in the European Union?’, I conducted a content analysis in which I looked for the use of framing in official European documents. The data I selected for this research are the Migration Communication reports of the European Commission to the Parliament and Council of the EU. I focus on these documents because they represent the way Europe deals with migration incidents since 2007. These documents are essential, because they describe Europe’s efforts and problems in the policy area of migration. The documents of the European Commission represent the most important and influential institutions in the area of migration. These documents are used by the European Commission to clarify and update the European parliament and the Council on migration related issues. Because my research question
10 focusses on the way Europe frames migration, these documents are expected to provide clear insight on this matter.
3.1 Operationalization of migration incidents
My research question refers to migration incidents and their influence on the framing of migration. These incidents are the lens through which the framing of migration in Europe will be analyzed. I will focus on the three biggest and well-known incidents since 2007. I operationalize migration incidents, by defining them as an incident with at least one hundred estimated deaths. Using this definition makes it possible to look into the ‘List of 17306 documented refugee deaths through Fortress Europe’ published by UNITED, and select the three biggest incidents (UNITED, 2012). I use this ‘unofficial’ list because there is no official European death list or data. To increase the trustworthiness of the selected incidents on the list, I will only look into incidents that are mentioned in at least five different documented sources. The three incidents I will focus on have been selected because they have at least an estimated 100 deaths, because they are confirmed by numerous sources and because they are the most well-known incidents because of the received media attention. The three incidents are:
1. On 27 March 2009 a boat from Libya to Italy capsized, 97 bodies were found and 250 people missing.
2. On 6 April 2011 a boat from Libya to Italy sank, 20 bodies were found and 130 people went missing.
3. On 3 October 2013 a boat from Libya to Italy sank nearby the Island of Lampedusa, 359 bodies were found, and more people went missing.
I compared the European documents published in the aftermath of these three migration incidents, with the documents where no incident happened prior to publication. By doing a comparative content analysis, it is possible to measure the influence of migration incidents on the use of framing in the Commission reports on migration.
3.2 Content analysis and the Van Gorp’s approach
For the content analysis of the Commission reports, I’ve used Van Gorp’s approach of framing analysis. Van Gorp’s framing theory combines quantitative research methods with the interpretative prospects of qualitative methods. Van Gorp argues that one could start with drawing up an inventory of frames by using a literature review. By doing this literature review, the most important framing devices and aspects are identified. Van Gorp recommends to reconstruct the framing aspects and framing devices by representing them in a matrix (Van Gorp, 2005), in which the row represents the type of frames and the columns are the framing aspects and devices (Van
11 Gorp, 2007: p, 72). Aspects of framing and framing devices are used together to create a type of frame. I’ve conducted a frame-matrix, by writing a literature review and reading different strategically chosen text about the securitization of migration, this frame-matrix is presented in table 1. Two types of frames are used for the analysis, first is the ‘migration as a humanitarian-problem frame’, the second is the ‘migration as a security-issue frame’.
3.3 Framing devices and aspects
The two types of frames are represented in the frame-matrix of table 1. This frame-matrix is based on the framing theory of Entman (1993) and Van Gorp (2007; 2009). Entman writes about four aspects of framing: problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and treatment recommendation. These aspects of framing can be used for the analysis of the selected frame. Additionally, Van Gorp’s theory describes how different framing devices, such as historical examples, descriptions and word choice, are used to build a frame. He writes: ‘these devices are held together under the heading of a central organizing theme- that is, the actual frame (Van Gorp, 2007: p, 64). He further states that these framing devices contribute to the narrative and rhetorical structure of a text (Van Gorp, 2009: p, 91). In this thesis the selected frames are ‘migration as a humanitarian-problem frame’ and ‘migration as a security-issue frame’. For example, the use of a certain framing device (historical example), can lead to the perception of migration as a ‘security’ issue, and in this way refer to the ‘migration as a security-issue’ type of frame.
The analysis presented in this thesis, describes how many framing aspects and devices are used in the Commission reports to frame migration as a security-issue or humanitarian-problem. Furthermore, the analysis deprives the most salient frames that are used in the Commission reports. For example, to determine the salience of a used frame, I use Huysmans theory about security frames. Huysmans states that framing could mean that: ‘if the danger [problem definition] is not properly dealt with first [treatment recommendation], the other policy questions lose their significance [causal interpretation] because the political community in name of which economic and welfare policies are developed seriously risks losing its independence and territorial integrity [moral recommendation].’ (Huysmans, 2006: p, 25). If there is such an example of framing used in the official Commission reports, this would mean that it is a more salient frame than for example, simply stating that migration is ‘a humanitarian problem’ [problem definition]. The use of different framing aspects combined with different framing devices, makes a frame more salient.
12 I’ve analyzed all 10 Commission Communication Reports on migration since 2007. Five reports without an incident and five reports with an incident prior to publication. Each report is analyzed with the frame-matrix presented in table 1. Each sentence that uses at least one of the 14 operationalized framing aspects or framing devices is marked as referring to the security-frame or the humanitarian-frame. All the framing aspect and devices are counted and added into two graphs which represents the use of all framing devices and framing aspects in the Commission reports. These two graphs are presented in the result section of this thesis.
Doing content analysis on the use of framing has consequences for the reliability and validity of the conducted research. This concerns mostly the difficulty to demonstrate the relationship between a frame and the underlying meaning structure of a text. When doing content analysis on the use of framing, some level of subjectivity is unavoidable because the researcher is also an individual with his own cognitive knowledge (Van Gorp, 2009: p, 90). The use of a systematic technique with a coding scheme, such as presented in table 1, minimizes the subjectivity and improves the reliability and validity of the results. The coding presented in the frame-matrix of table 1, makes it possible to analyze European documents according to the same criteria, making the results more trustworthy (Bryman, 2008: p, 376, 550).
13 Table 1 Frame matrix for the issue of migration, with their representative aspects of framing and framing devices
Framing aspects: Framing devices:
Type of Role of Problem Causal Moral Treatment Descriptions Historical Word migration migrants definition interpretation evaluation recommendation examples choice Asylum People in Financial Migration It is the duty Migration as a Stories that The use of Use of application need for consequences is related to of the EU to tool for Economic refer to the historical words that because of help (3), of migration civil wars (7), help people growth (10), EU as a savior events to relate to conflicts in people for the EU (5) people who migrate The EU needs for people in explain the humanitarian
home who want provide help migrate (9) to provide need for help need for issues,
country (1), to migrate for all the because of rights for and emphasize humanitarian such as or work for work and persons who the Arab asylum-seekers the EU’s efforts help and to protection
related Asylum economic are in need spring (8) and refugees protect refer to solidarity,
with reasons (4) for (11) refugees and historical compassion
economic humanitarian asylum-seekers successes and human
benefits (2) assistance (6) (12) (13) rights (14)
Irregular Criminal who How to Because of We have to Border protection, Stories that The use of Use of Migration, resorts to protect the the Schengen protect the through strengthening refer to the historical words such as, illegal EU borders Agreement, European the operations of dangerous events to that relate to human practices (B), from illegal Europe identity Frontex (H), aspects of explain the security trafficking, person migration needs more and values, More cooperation with migration (K) negative issues, or illegal who is flows(D), how border from people third countries (I), by referring sides of such as border involved in to stop people protection who are from common visa policy, to threats migration violence, crossing(A) terroristic who are a (F) non-European and the further use terrorists for the risks, threats
activities (C) threat to third countries of the Schengen and criminal security and
European (G) Information activities of of the EU dangers (N)
identity (E) system (J) migrants (L) (M)
Huma nit aria n pro blem -fr ame Sec ur it y issue -f ra me T y pe o f f ra me :
14 4. Analysis
In this section I will present the results of the content analysis on the use of framing in European Commission reports. The results are split into two parts, the first part describes the use of the ‘humanitarian-problem frame’ and the ‘security-issue frame’ in Commission reports where no migration incidents occurred prior to publication. The second part describes the use of the ‘humanitarian-problem frame’ and the ‘security-issue frame’ in Commission reports that were published in the aftermath of an incident. In selecting which publication is prior to or after an incident, not the exact publishing date is leading but the period of time the content of the report refers to. Each part presents not only results of the amount of humanitarian and security frames used, but also present and describe the most salient frames. The importance of presenting combined quantitative and qualitative results is described by Van Gorp, (2007).
4.1 Framing in reports ‘without’ incidents, both quantitative and qualitative results
The results of the content analysis on the use of framing in reports without an incident is presented in graph 1. After counting and adding all the framing devices and framing aspects, there are some interesting results to discuss. First I will describe the quantitative results, based on the outcome of the content analysis. Second I will examine the qualitative results, quoting different security-frames and humanitarian-frames used and discussing them separately.
The results of graph 1 show that ‘treatment recommendation’ is the most frequently used framing aspect, to frame migration as a security-issue or a humanitarian-problem. This result could be explained because the main purpose of the Commission reports is to find a solution for the migration problems Europe faces. In case of the security-frame, the Commission’s main solution
37 8 30 11 4 75 15 3 43 14 26 10 3 10 57 24 4 64
Graph 1. Framing in EU documents without an incident prior to publication
15 for managing the migration flows is cooperation with third countries. In case of the humanitarian-frame, the main solution of the Commission is to use migration as a tool for economic growth. The Commission constantly emphasize the importance of cooperation with third countries, this is provided as the best possible solution against irregular migration flows.
It is not surprising that the most frequently used framing device is ‘word choice’. One of the main aspects of frame building is about the use of words (Van Gorp, 2007). The Commission often use words like ‘human rights’ and ‘social rights’, to refer to the humanitarian-problem frame. By doing this, the Commission shows its efforts in helping and protecting asylum-seekers and refugees. In case of the security-frame, the Commission mostly use words like ‘urgent’, ‘risk’ and ‘threats’. These words are often mentioned when the Commission proposes solutions for fighting irregular migration flows.
When writing about the role of migrants, the Commission reports regularly refer to migrants as people who want to work and migrate for economic reasons. The Commission sees this as an opportunity for the labor market in Europe. The reports emphasize the need for migrants to fill the labor market shortages in different economic sectors. This is interesting because when referring to ‘type of migration’, the Commission frequently writes about irregular migration flows. According to the commission, these irregular migration flows are a threat and risk for Europe. Thus, according to the Commission most migration is irregular, but most migrants are respectable people who want to work, which is profitable for the EU. It seems that the Commission reports use descriptions of ‘type of migration’ and the ‘role of migrants’, that suits them best. Finally, the main problem definition the Commission refers to is the protection of EU borders from irregular migration flows, and the provided solution is strengthening border control and the cooperation with third countries. The most framing aspects are used to refer to migration as a security issue, this is in line with the theory of Huysmans (2006) and Bigo (2008). Only ‘word choice’ and the ‘role of migrants’ are distinctive and not fully in line with the securitization of migration theory.
Europeanization and security-framing
According to Huysmans (2006) and Bigo (2008), the Schengen Agreement is essential to understand the process of the securitization of migration in Europe. Huysmans argues that the Schengen Agreement connects migration and asylum with terrorism, transnational crime and border control (Huysmans, 2006: p, 68). In the Commission reports on migration without an incident, this link is made visible by reporting:
‘The integrity of the Schengen area without internal border controls on persons should be preserved. The integrated management of the external borders should be strengthened and
16 policies on border controls should develop in coherence with policies on custom controls and on prevention of other safety and security related threats.’ (European Commission, 2008b: p, 12).
This quote shows how the Commission uses the Schengen Agreement to frame migration as a European security issue. The Commission links in this sentence the free movement of people with safety and security related threats. Furthermore, the Commission calls for deeper integration and more cooperation between member states within the EU. The framing techniques used are D, F, K and N. First this quote makes a causal interpretation between Schengen and border protection. Second, it defines the problem in terms of border protection. Third, it refers to dangerous aspects of migration. And last, the words ‘safety’ and ‘security related threats’, are related to security issues. The combination of these different framing aspects and devices makes this frame salient. It provides insight in the perspective of the European Commission on the topic of migration.
In terms of treatment recommendation, the European Commission calls for more border protection by strengthening the operations of the European police agency Frontex. This organization’s main purpose is to prevent migration flows towards the EU. Frontex is an example of ‘how police cooperation is linked to the question of border control, immigration and the fight against terrorism’ (Bigo, 2008: p, 15). The Commission’s provided solution to the problem of border control is clearly addressed in the following quote:
‘Reinforce the operational dimension of Frontex, including by extending its capacity with regard to operational command, and its powers to initiate operations involving border controls in areas identified as high-risk areas and exposed to exceptional migratory pressure.’ (European Commission, 2008b: p, 12).
The framing aspects and devices used in this quote are H, K and N. The Commission believes that border control is the essential key in the fight against irregular migration flows. The language used is part of the securitization of the issue. To identify areas as ‘high risk’ and write about ‘exceptional migratory pressure’, is a clear example of a constructed threat and refers to the concept of securitization as described by Wæver (1993).
Migration and security framing
In the Commission reports without an incident, the direct link between migration and security is mostly provided when referring to irregular migration flows and organized criminal networks. A clear example of such a frame is:
17 ‘In particular, measures must be taken to prevent large numbers of irregular migrants, often exploited by unscrupulous criminal networks, from arriving in the EU.’ (European Commission, 2011a: p, 4).
This quote shows how the Commission defines the type of migration as irregular. It emphasizes that criminal networks are involved and thereby creates the direct link between migration and security. The framing aspects and devices used are A, B, K and L. The quote describe the dangerous aspects of migration and refers to criminal activities, thereby framing the type and role of migration as criminal activity or persons who resort to illegal practices. To underscore this, the Commission report argues that Europe is in a ‘crisis and post-crisis situation.’ (European Commission, 2011a: p, 6). Therefore, the Commission asks to adopt ‘a risk-based approach’ (European Commission, 2011a: p, 7), to protect Europe from irregular migration flows. These are two clear examples of securitizing the issue of migration using security rhetoric as a framing technique.
Humanitarian-framing
The humanitarian-frame is used frequently in the Commission reports on migration without an incident. When analyzing the reports, I found a tension between humanitarian framing and economic framing. The Commission often uses economic framing in combination with humanitarian framing. Within the humanitarian frame, the reports tend to raise issues that are in the economic interest of the EU. A few aspects of this economic frame are integrated in the humanitarian frame of the frame-matrix. In the frame-matrix the economic aspects on framing are presented in numbers 2, 4, 5 and 10. This humanitarian versus economic tension becomes clear in an early report of the Commission, where it addresses this question:
‘Europe looks likely to rely more on immigrants to balance supply and demand in labor markets, and more generally to fuel economic growth. So the economic interest in immigration will add to the complex mix of questions raised by immigration’ (European Commission, 2007: p, 2).
In all 5 reports without an incident the Commission uses framing devices and aspects to refer to the humanitarian-problem frame. Mostly, the commission addresses questions of human rights and protection of asylum-seekers and refugees:
‘Based on its humanitarian traditions, Europe must continue to show solidarity with refugees and persons in need of protection.’ (European Commission, 2008a: p, 2).
The framing devices presented in this quote are 6, 9, 12 and 14. ‘Based on its humanitarian traditions’, refers to the story of Europe’s long and important tradition of protection of human
18 rights. The text mentions migrants in need for humanitarian assistance, and calls for Europe’s duty to help these migrants.
In its most recent report without an incident, the commission still often addresses questions of human rights. Two quotes give away almost all framing aspects and devices the European Commission uses to refer to the humanitarian-problem frame:
‘The human rights of migrants is a priority across all EU actions on migration and development.’ (European Commission, 2013a: p, 2). ‘International cooperation is therefore necessary to ensure that people moving in search of a better life are able to exercise their rights in a safe environment.’ (European Commission, 2013a: p, 13).
These two quotes primarily use ‘treatment recommendation’ and ‘word choice’ to build the humanitarian-problem frame. In case of treatment recommendation, both quotes emphasize the need to provide rights for asylum-seekers and refugees, this is in correspondence with framing aspect 11. In case of ‘word choice, both quotes use terms like ‘human rights’, ‘development’, ‘better life’, and ‘safe environment’. The use of this humanitarian language corresponds with framing device 14 of the frame-matrix.
4.2 Framing in reports ‘with’ incidents, both quantitative and qualitative results
The results of the content analysis on the use of framing in reports with an incident is presented in graph 2. First I will examine the quantitative results, based on the outcome of the content analysis. Second I will describe the qualitative results, quoting different security-frames and humanitarian-frames used and discussing them separately.
48 20 69 5 0 113 13 6 35 16 21 19 10 12 59 32 10 82
Graph 2. Framing in EU documents with an incident prior to publication
19 The results of graph 2 show a significant difference between the use of framing aspects and devices to refer to the security-frame in comparison with the humanitarian-frame. 48 times the reports refer to ‘type of migration’ as irregular. In terms of the humanitarian-frame, only 16 times the reports mention migration in terms of asylum application due to conflicts or economic benefits. In case of the problem definition, 69 times the reports mention the problem in terms of the need for border protection against illegal immigration flows. Only 19 times the reports mention the need to provide help and humanitarian assistance for migrants. This could be explained by the fact that the reports in the aftermath of an incident focus on irregular migration, therefore the reports define the problem in terms of strengthening border control.
The most significant difference is seen in the ‘treatment recommendation’ aspect of framing. 113 times the reports mention the need for more border protection, more cooperation with third countries and the need for a common EU visa policy. According to the Commission reports, these three aspects provide the solution for the management of migration flows and the protection of the EU against irregular migration and criminal organizations. In terms of the humanitarian-frame, only 59 times the reports refer to ‘treatment recommendation’ in terms of providing rights for asylum seekers and mention migration as a tool for economic growth.
In terms of the use of framing devices, far more words in the Commission reports mention humanitarian-problems in comparison to security-issues. The most used words to refer to the humanitarian-frame are ‘humanitarian disaster’, ‘provision of human rights’, ‘solidarity with migrants’ and ‘maximizing development’. It is interesting to see that almost all aspects of framing are used to frame migration as a security-issue, while the framing devices are used to frame migration as a humanitarian-problem. This result could be explained because framing devices refer more to the use of language, while framing aspects refer to the causal connection and link between two concepts (Van Gorp, 2007). This means that despite the humanitarian rhetoric in the Commission reports, the link between migration and security is most prominently addressed. Fully in line with theory, the results of the content analysis show that the issue of migration is securitized in the EU Commission reports on migration.
Europeanization and Security-framing
The rhetoric and security issues addressed in the Commission reports with an incident is focused on the role of Frontex and the need for border protection. Almost all provided solutions for the problem of irregular migration flows are pointing towards a stronger role for Frontex.
‘Rapidly strengthening the competences of FRONTEX and putting more effective tools at its disposal. (European Commission, 2011b: p, 5).
20 This is one of the main action points the Commission mentions. The word ‘rapidly’ refers to the need for immediate action and must be seen as a framing device used for constructing a threat, in line with the securitization theory. But the commission goes further, it uses a causal interpretation to accentuate the need for effective border controls:
‘Without well-functioning border controls, lower levels of irregular migration and an effective return policy, it will not be possible for the EU to offer more opportunities for legal migration and mobility. The legitimacy of any policy framework relies on this.’ (European Commission, 2011c: p, 5).
In this case, the consequences of ineffective border control go beyond preventing irregular migration flows. Even legal migration and mobility relies on the well-functioning of the EU borders. This causal interpretation is used to put pressure on the European Council to adopt effective legislation and provide Frontex with more tools for preventing irregular migration.
Migration and security framing
In the Commission reports with an incident, the link between migration and security issues is fully addressed. Numerous claims by the Commission are made to point out the dangers of migration and the criminal networks involved. The frequent use of security language, securitize the issue of migration further. A few examples:
‘Organized crime related smuggling networks may strengthen their activities and spread their geographical scope to other African countries than Tunisia.’ (European Commission, 2011b: p, 4). ‘It’s time to take further immediate action, to manage migration flows and refugee flows in the Mediterranean.’ (European Commission, 2011b: p, 4).
The use of framing aspects and devices in these quotations are A, B, D, K, L and N. Dangerous aspects of migration are accentuated with security rhetoric. The Arab Spring is used to point out the danger of organized crime and smuggling networks. To call for immediate action is using security language to construct a threat to mobilize opinion and constitute legitimacy to deal with that threat.
In its most recent report, after the incident of Lampedusa, the Commission still frames migration as irregular and dangerous. Furthermore it uses these incidents to emphasize the need for further measures to prevent migration flows. This development becomes clear by discussing the following quote:
‘International organized crime networks exploit the desire of migrants to achieve a better life. For this reason, the EU will take new, decisive steps to fight organized crime networks. (European Commission, 2013b: p, 14).
21 In this quote the Commission uses the ‘the desire of migrants to achieve a better life’, to assert the need to fight irregular migration and crime networks. It uses the tragedy to point out the need for new policy and instruments to stop irregular migration flows. But the Commission goes even further and refers to the dangers of extremism and terrorism, the Commission reported:
‘The EU should continue to strengthen its support to Libya by addressing radicalization, violent extremism and terrorism’ (European Commission, 2013b: p, 7).
This is the only time the Commission reports mention terrorism and radicalization. It is interesting that the use of this severe kind of threat and security language comes up in the report published after Lampedusa. One would expect a more humanitarian approach towards migration in the aftermath of such an incident. However, this is clearly not the case in a report that accentuate threats of radicalization, violent extremism and terrorism.
Humanitarian-framing
In reports with an incident prior to publication, more attention is paid to the causes of migration. The Commission also more frequently uses ‘moral evaluation’ to point out the duty of the EU to help people who migrate. Before publication of the third report of 2011, the Arab Spring was on its peak. The following quote points towards migration as a result of the Arab Spring and highlights the importance of the EU for a good response to these events:
‘Migration is now firmly at the top of the European Union’s political agenda. The Arab spring and events in the Southern Mediterranean in 2011 further highlighted the need for a coherent and comprehensive migration policy for the EU.’ (European Commission, 2011c: p, 2).
This quote is a clear example of framing aspects 8, 9 and framing device 13. It puts migration in perspective of historical events and highlights the need for Europe to react with a coherent and comprehensive migration policy. Furthermore this quote makes clear how important migration is for the European Union, mainly because of new developments in the African region.
More importantly is to see how the reports with an incident prior to publication deal with these incidents in terms of humanitarian framing. The first thing that strikes, only in the report published after Lampedusa, these incidents are mentioned in terms of the humanitarian-problem frame. A possible explanation could be the media coverage of this incident. Lampedusa is one of the biggest incidents with a boat that came very near to Italy, and dead bodies washed ashore. This incident received far more media attention in comparison to the other incidents. In its most recent report, the Commission firmly addresses this incident:
22 ‘On 3 October 2013, a boat with around 500 migrants sank off the coast of Lampedusa. The loss of human lives triggered a strong call for action from European leaders and European citizens (…). It was made clear that determined action should be taken in order to prevent deaths at sea and to prevent such human tragedies from happening again.’ (European Commission, 2013b: p, 2).
The framing aspects and devices used in this quote are 6, 9, 12, 13 and 14. Fist Lampedusa is used as a historical event to explain the need for humanitarian help. The problem is defined as human loss of live. The quote calls for determined action of the EU to prevent such tragedies from happening again, which is a moral evaluation. Words like ‘prevent deaths at sea’ and ‘human tragedies’, are words related to the humanitarian-problem frame.
4.3 Comparing and discussing the influence of migration incidents
To answer the research question, it is important to compare the presented results of the analysis. The comparison of the reports with and without an incident prior to publication will provide insight on this matter. The research question of thesis is:
How do migration incidents at the Mediterranean coast influence the security framing of migration issues in the European Union?
The analysis has two components, quantitative content analysis and qualitative framing analysis. I will use the results of both the quantitative and the qualitative approach to compare and discuss the influence of incidents on the securitization of migration in Europe.
Comparing the content
A comparison between graph 1 and graph 2 shows that migration incidents have impact on the security framing of migration in the Commission reports. The use of framing aspects and devices that refer to the security-frame is higher in both graph 1 and graph 2. The overall use of framing aspects and devices is more frequent in reports after an incident. But the ratio security-frame versus humanitarian-frame is the same in reports with and without an incident.
The big difference in the results becomes clear when looking into the specific framing aspects and devices used. Graph 1 shows a more equal distribution, a little more framing aspects refer to the security-frame, while framing devices refer slightly more to the humanitarian-frame. But in case of reports published in the aftermath of an incident, the results shift towards a less equal distribution of framing aspects and devices used. In terms of ‘type of migration’, ‘problem definition’ and ‘treatment recommendation’ far more framing aspects are used to frame migration as a security issue. In the case of the use of framing devices, far more devices refer to the
23 humanitarian-frame in these reports. This indicates that incidents lead to a shift towards more security framing in Commission reports, but with more humanitarian rhetoric.
In reports without an incident, framing is used to either present migration as a tool for economic growth (humanitarian) or in terms of border protection and the need for cooperation with third countries (security). But in reports with an incident, almost all framing aspects refer to the security-frame. In these reports, the type of migration is defined as irregular, the problem is how to protect the European borders from these irregular migration flows and the main solution is strengthening border controls using Frontex as operating agency and stricter common visa regulations. The main shift in the results is found in the framing aspect of ‘treatment recommendation’, graph 1 shows a security-frame versus humanitarian-frame ratio of 75/57, while graph 2 shows a ratio of 113/59. This indicates that the Commission reports use the incidents to define migration as a problem in terms of security and provide more security related solutions. This result is in line with securitization theory.
Another interesting result is the different use of words in reports without and with an incident. Graph 1 shows a security-frame versus humanitarian-frame ratio in word choice of 43/64, while graph 2 shows a ratio of 35/82. This result indicates a shift towards the use of more humanitarian rhetoric in reports published after an incident. Combining these results, shows that despite a more humanitarian rhetoric in reports published after an incident, the actual framing of migration shifts towards a more security approach instead of a humanitarian approach. Thus, migration incidents aggravate the security framing of migration. Hence, using the theory of Huysmans (2006) and Bigo (2008), these incident contribute to the securitization of migration in Europe. However, the use of more humanitarian language indicates that the Commission tries to use a more humanitarian discourse towards the topic of migration. This is not in line with the theory of Huysmans and Bigo, and could be attributed to the influence of migration incidents on the use of framing in the EU.
Comparing the frames
Comparing the content shows that most of the influence of migration incidents deals with the security framing of migration. Therefore, I will not compare the humanitarian frames and framing techniques, but I will focus on the way the Commission frames migration as a security-issue. To illustrate the difference in the use of security framing, I will present one quote from reports without and one quote form reports with an incident prior to publication. In the first quote, the Commission presents its goals for future migration policy in the EU. These policy goals are set in
24 the first part of 2011 and represent the way Europe tries to handle the complex situation of migration, right after the start of the Arab Spring in 2010. The Commission reported:
‘An EU common policy with five commitments: organizing legal migration, fighting against irregular migration, strengthening the external borders, building an EU asylum system and creating a global partnership for migration and development.’ (European Commission, 2011a: p, 4).
The quote above represented the way Europe dealt with migration in 2011. The five commitments are all provided solutions for the problems that arise from mass migration. Although security elements are integrated in this quote, it is still quite neutral. This differs from a quote from the most recent Commission report, published after the incident of Lampedusa. The Commission reported:
‘The role of Frontex in coordinating operational cooperation between Member States in the Mediterranean is key to ensuring effective border control in the region, whilst contributing to ensuring protection of those in need and saving the lives of migrants. The European Council called for Frontex's operations to be strengthened.’ (European Commission, 2013: p, 16).
This quote represents the new way of dealing with migration in Europe. It uses different framing techniques with an emphasis on security and border control. According to the Commission, there is need for an organization that can coordinate operations to ensure effective border control. One of the new ways in which the Commission frames migration is by using more humanitarian language. The humanitarian rhetoric used in this quote, is provided in the sentence that emphasize on ‘the contribution and protection of saving the lives of migrants’. But the underling goal of the Commission and the Council is to create a supranational organization with far-reaching powers, namely Frontex. The European Commission sees migration incidents as a chance to gain more influence in migration policy. This becomes clear in the last sentence where the Commission writes that the Council called for Frontex’s operations to be strengthened. Hence, migration incidents are used by the Commission to aggravate the security framing on migration in Europe. This contributes to the securitization of migration with an emphasis on border control, as described by the theory of Huysmans (2006) and Bigo (2008).
5. Conclusions
Framing has contributed to the securitization of migration in Europe. The use of different framing aspects and devices that refer to migration as a security-issue strengthen this phenomenon. These framing techniques are widely used by the European Commission in their reports on migration
25 published since 2007. This development is in line with the theory of Huysmans (2006), Bigo (2008) and others. By doing quantitative content analysis and qualitative framing analysis, this thesis looked for the influence of migration incident on the use of security framing in the EU. The main finding is that migration incidents are used to aggravate the security framing of migration in Europe. The content analysis shows a shift towards a more security-based framing approach in reports published after an incident. Furthermore, the content analysis shows more use of humanitarian rhetoric by the Commission in reports published after an incident. This indicates that the Commission uses this humanitarian discourse to emphasize the need for more and effective security policy in the field of migration. The results of the content analysis are found using the frame-matrix presented in table 1. This frame-matrix made it possible to analyze the Commission reports according to the same criteria, making the results more trustworthy.
The migration incidents also influence the actual frames produced by the European Commission. There is a difference between security frames in reports without an incident and reports with an incident prior to publication. The main difference is found in a shift from a more neutral framing approach, towards an approach with an emphasize on security. In reports published after an incident, the Commission repeatedly underscores the importance of extensive border control by strengthening the operation of the European agency Frontex. This call for more coordination and cooperation shows the efforts of the European Commission to gain more influence on migration policy of the European Union. This is in line with the theory of Huysmans (2006), who writes about the Europeanization of security policy and how this development creates a governmental identity in Europe.
Finally, the Commission reports show a shift towards more use of humanitarian language in the reports published after an incident. The use of significant more framing devices to refer to the humanitarian frame show this development. This shift is not in line with the theory of Huysmans and Bigo and could be an interesting topic for further research. What is the use of this humanitarian language, does in contribute to the securitization of migration or are there different reasons for the use of this humanitarian rhetoric?
6. Reflections
When doing research on the use of framing in EU Commission reports with and without incidents prior to publication, I expected to find different results. What I found was a shift towards more use of security framing after an incident occurred, what I expected to find was more use of humanitarian framing in these reports. In case of the framing aspects, the results show the opposite and point towards far more use of security framing in reports published after an incident. In case
26 of the framing devices used, the results confirm my expectations. But when examining the actual frames produced by the Commission, I found that the framing devices used, often contribute to an overall use of security framing. This result could only be found because I combined both quantitative and qualitative research methods. In doing both quantitative content analysis and qualitative framing analysis, I tried to make the results more trustworthy. The content analysis shows the trend and the added amount of used framing aspects and devices, but it doesn’t show the actual frames produced by the Commission in these documents. Therefore it was needed to do a qualitative framing analysis. The self-produced frame-matrix of table 1, made it possible for me to make the results of the content analysis more objective and trustworthy. But I realize that some level of subjectivity is unavoidable when doing quantitative and qualitative framing analysis, because the researcher is also an individual with his own cognitive knowledge.
27 References
- Berg, E., & Ehin, P. (2006). What kind of border regime is in the making? Towards a differentiated and uneven border strategy.Cooperation and conflict,41(1), 53-71.
- Bialasiewicz, L. (2012). Off-shoring and Out-sourcing the Borders of Europe: Libya and EU Border Work in the Mediterranean. Geopolitics, 17(4), 843-866.
- Bigo, Didier (2008) “Globalized (in)security: the field and the banopticon”, in D. Bigo & A. Tsoukala, eds, Terror, Insecurity and Liberty: Illiberal practices of liberal regimes after 9/11, London: Routledge, pp. 10-38.
- Börzel, T. (1999). Towards Convergence in Europe? Institutional Adaptation to Europeanization in Germany and Spain’, Journal of Common Market Studies 39(4): 573-96.
- Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Burgess, J. P. (2009). There is no European security, only European securities. Cooperation and conflict,44(3), 309-328.
- Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & De Wilde, J. (1998). Security: a new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
- Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of communication, 43(4), 51-58.
- Guild, E. (2006). The Europeanization of Europe's asylum policy. International Journal of Refugee Law,
18(3-4), 630-651.
- Huysmans, J. (2006).The politics of insecurity: Fear, migration and asylum in the EU. New York: Routledge.
- Neal, A. W. (2009). Securitization and Risk at the EU Border: The Origins of FRONTEX*.JCMS:
Journal of Common Market Studies,47(2), 333-356.
- Stone Sweet, A. and Sandholtz, W. (1997) ‘European Integration and Supranational Governance’,
in Journal of European Public Policy, No.4.
28 - Van Gorp, B. (2005). Where is the frame? Victims and intruders in the Belgian press coverage of
the asylum issue. European Journal of Communication, 20(4), 484-507.
- Van Gorp, B. (2007). The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in. Journal of
communication, 57(1), 60-78.
- Van Gorp, B. (2009). Strategies to Take Subjectivity Out of Framing Analysis. In D'Angelo, P., &
Kuypers, J. A. (Ed.), Doing news framing analysis: empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp.
84-110). New York: Routledge.
- Wæver, O. (1993). Securitization and desecuritization. Centre for Peace and Conflict Research. Commission reports on migration
- European Commission. (2007). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (Publication No. 248 final). Brussels. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0248:FIN:EN:PDF
- European Commission. (2008a). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (Publication No. 359 final). Brussels. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0359:FIN:EN:PDF
- European Commission. (2008b). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (Publication No. 611 final). Brussels. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0611:FIN:EN:PDF
- European Commission. (2009). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (Publication No. 1240 final). Brussels. Retrieved from
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&t=PDF&gc=true&sc=false&f=ST%201348 9%202009%20INIT&r=http%3A%2F%2Fregister.consilium.europa.eu%2Fpd%2Fen%2F09%2 Fst13%2Fst13489.en09.pdf
- European Commission. (2011a). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (Publication No. 248 final). Brussels. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0248:FIN:EN:PDF
29 - European Commission. (2011b). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (Publication No. 292 final). Brussels. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0292:FIN:EN:PDF
- European Commission. (2011c). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (Publication No. 743 final). Brussels. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0743:FIN:EN:PDF
- European Commission. (2012). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (Publication No. 554 final). Brussels. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/docs/uam/uam_report_20120928_en.pdf#zoom=100
- European Commission. (2013a). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (Publication No. 292 final). Brussels. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/documents/policies/immigration/general/docs/maximising_the_development_impact_o f_migration.pdf
- European Commission. (2013b). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (Publication No. 869 final). Brussels. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-is-new/news/news/docs/20131204_communication_on_the_work_of_the_task_force_mediterran ean_en.pdf
