The EU-Turkey agreement : the Unions norms and values at stake

(1)

The EU-Turkey agreement:

The Unions norms and values at stake

Master Thesis

Author: Jeroen van Wilpen Student Number: 12283983 e-mailadres: jeroenvanwilpen@gmail.com August 2019 Master Thesis Words: 23866 University of Amsterdam

Political Science - International Relations Supervisor: Gordon Arlen

(2)

Introduction

The refugee crisis began in 2015. Since then, the European Union (EU) has tried to solve the problem with different measures. The refugee crisis is framed as both a humanitarian crisis that persists outside the EU and as a political, security related and migration crisis within the EU. Thus, the refugee crisis is a case for domestic and international politics. One of the most infamous solutions to the crisis is the EU Turkey agreement (Akkerman, 2018, p. 12). Since the agreement’s implementation on 18 March 2016, the agreement has been subjected to controversy regarding legitimacy, EU responsibility, current and future human rights violations, and ignored norms and values. Some have even called the EU Turkey agreement the start of a European value crisis (Van Liempt, et al. 2017, p. 5). According to Zoomers et al. (2018), the agreement between the EU and Turkey conforms to the trend within the EU of externalizing migration policies. This externalization removes the responsibility for migrants and refugees from the European Union to Turkey and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). Due to a lack of other migration policies, the European Turkey agreement is marked as the solution to the refugee migration crisis and is used as an example for new deals with countries along the border of the European Union (Zoomers et al., 2018). The European policy makers tried to prove that the EU Turkey agreement was and still is a success, but in theory and practice, the agreement has many flaws (Alpes et al., 2017). These flaws were first acknowledged by the media and NGOs. In 2017, NGOs, like Doctors Without Borders and Human Rights Watch (HRW), sent an open letter to the EU expressing their concern regarding violations of human rights in Turkey and the Greek Islands since the implementation of the EU Turkey agreement (Action Aid et al., 2017).

In 2018, a project was started by influential researchers from all over the EU: NoVaMiGra, Norms and Values in the European Migration and Refugee Crisis. The project’s researchers are funded by Horizon 2020, a European Commission funding programme. The researchers thought the EU is in a ‘value crisis’. Since the European Commission is funding this initiative, the European Commission appears to agree. Until the EU Turkey agreement, European values were at the core of the European project. The NoVaMiGra project in the orientating research with the different EU components’ staff came to the following conclusions regarding norms and values in policy making. In the migration/integration policy making process, the normative argument does not seem to play a significant role. The decisions regarding the migration crisis, especially the EU Turkey agreement, were made

(5)

during crises and directed by urgency, not by moral concerns (NoVaMiGra, 2018). The European norms and values do not play a role in making and assessing new policies, but they are used when policies have to be justified and implemented. Thus, these norms and values are used defensively. European Union policy making and policy evaluation regarding the EU Turkey agreement has not been dominated by norms and values but by a security and emergency approach. This approach has led to tensions within the EU, the ‘value crisis’ (Schlierkamp & Gördemann, 2018, p. 3).

If the shift in values exists, it is dangerous for the EU. The EU currently appears to be the leading model in cosmopolitan structure and is a normative actor, spreading its civic principles and universal values to other countries worldwide. The EU Turkey statement has instilled a sense of doubt about the EU’s adherence to its norms and values in the EU’s citizens and researchers alike. The migration crisis has started a value crisis within the EU, which led to a moral uncertainty within the EU member states. Critics of the EU Turkey agreement, like researchers and NGOs, say that normative arguments were forgotten in the entire EU Turkey agreement process.

Aims

The first aim of the thesis is to analyse which norms and values are violated by the incorporation of the EU Turkey agreement. This aim was accomplished through a step by step analysis of the norms and values violated by the agreement. The analysis started assessing the pre-agreement state of the EU and Turkey. Second, the agreement was assessed as a solution. Third, the solutions made within the agreement were analysed, and fourth, the direct consequences of the EU Turkey agreement were researched. The step by step analysis in other papers was only performed in a general way. Different researchers concluded that EU’s norms and values are generally violated, but there was no close reading involved in the document. Through close reading, this paper aims to discover the document and its impact to determine all the norms and values violated in the different aspects of the document. In this way, every aspect is mentioned regarding violating the norms and values as result of the EU Turkey agreement.

The second aim of the thesis is to determine the actual impact of the EU Turkey agreement in Turkey and in the EU, in particular what happened after the EU Turkey agreement was implemented and how the EU reacted to the results. The impact and actions

(6)

after the EU Turkey agreement are aligned in this thesis and a deeper understanding of four countries impacted by the migration crisis is constructed.

The third aim of the thesis is to research whether the EU can still be called a normative power after the implementation of the EU Turkey agreement. To analyse this claim, the assumption is made that the EU before the EU Turkey agreement was a normative power. The theory of Manners (2009) was used to analyse whether the EU still can be called a normative power. Manners’ theory is accepted by a wide range of researchers in the constructivist field and the EU sees itself as a normative power. By following the three concepts, principles, actions and impact, of Manners’ theory, this thesis determines whether the EU can be called a normative power and addresses multiple solutions for the EU to be a better normative power than the EU Turkey agreement allows. By analysing whether the EU is still a normative power, the identity the EU created and Manners described can be contested or affirmed. Multiple researchers have contested the idea of the normative power Europe, but none used the EU Turkey agreement as an example of either confirming or denying the theory.

Relevance

Over the last several years, norms and values in International Relations have been debated, mostly norm change and the political behaviour. Furthermore, norms versus interest have been a much-debated topic. This debate in a broader understanding has been won by constructivists, which say the EU is a normative actor. This thesis touches upon both aspects. First, the study deepens the understanding of norms used by the EU in a specific case, the EU Turkey agreement. Second, the thesis engages in the debate of norms versus interests. The thesis concludes by contesting the normative power Europe theory and recommends steps the EU can make to regain the title of a normative power.

The goal of this essay is to determine whether the EU still can be called a normative power after the implementation of the EU Turkey agreement. The essay evaluates the value crisis begun with the EU Turkey agreement and examines how the public and the EU can understand these norms and values in the future. This essay answers the following research question:

To what extent can the European Union still be seen as a normative power according to Manners (2009) after the implementation of the EU Turkey agreement?

(7)

Methodology

For this thesis, qualitative research was chosen. Qualitative research aims to produce well-rounded understandings based on rich, contextual and detailed data. With qualitative research, new insights can be found and phenomena can be studied in their context (Mason, 1996). A qualitative design was selected because the research aims to determine whether the EU after the EU Turkey agreement still is a normative actor. To this end, the study discovers whether the norms and values were violated, as well as the reactions and the impact of the EU Turkey agreement. The research is an in-depth case study and thus quantitative research was not chosen. Quantitative research can be used when the focus is making phenomena measurable and for the generalisation of theories. In other words, quantitative research is appropriate for objectively measuring aspects and finding general conclusions independent of context (Verhoeven, 2018). Qualitative research uses existing research and a variety of empirical materials (Mason, 2017).

The research has a descriptive nature to discover whether, after the EU Turkey agreement, the EU still can be called a normative actor. To determine whether the EU is a normative actor, the theory of Manners (2009) was used. He explains that to be a normative actor, a state must be normative in nature (its principles must be normative), the state must take actions to influence other states and these actions must be inherently normative. Furthermore, the normative state must influence and change other states to act toward the norms of the normative state (impact). By following the three aspects of Manners and discuss them textually regarding the EU Turkey agreement, this thesis determined whether the EU can still be called a normative actor. The study measures a phenomenon, the normative actor Europe, in the context of the EU Turkey agreement. Due to the set-up of Manners’ theory, the conclusion of this thesis can be generalized and confirm or refutes Manners’ theory. If the theory is confirmed, the EU still can be called a normative actor; if refuted, Europe cannot be called a normative actor and the EU will act in a pragmatic way. The following qualitative research methods are used to determine whether the EU can be called a normative actor: literature research, desk research and document analysis.

Literature study

As mentioned, in this thesis, different data sources are used. First, an extensive literature study was performed. In literature study, existing research was used to find information gathered by others. In this kind of research, different documents and articles with their own

(8)

interpretations of theories and conclusions are analysed. The literature study was completed in the theoretical framework stage. In this thesis, the study was used to gather information about the role of the EU as a normative actor, as well as European norms and values and how these norms and values are generally interpreted and used.

The EU Turkey relations before the EU Turkey agreement is discussed. Next, the EU Turkey agreement is explained. The role of the EU is discussed using different researchers, such as Diez (1999, 2005), Borzel and Rizze (2009), Finnemore (1996, 1998) and Manners (2009, 2002). For this section, the following research terms are used: normative actor, role of the EU, influence EU, EU politics, externalisation and EU law (migrations policy).

The norms and values were studied via secondary research, like Manners and Young, and primary research on the EU treaties 2, 3 and 21. The terms norms EU, values EU, acting normatively and normative actor are used. The EU Turkey relations are discussed from the first moment Turkey wanted to join the European Economic Commission through the EU Turkey agreement. This information was found through articles about the EU Turkey relations and the relationship between the EU and Turkey is described in the overview. The main term of research was EU Turkey relations.

The EU Turkey agreement was researched by analysing the main document and through secondary research from van Liempt et al. (2017), Spijkerboer (2016), and others. Further, primary research was completed on documents from the EU Facility of Refugees in Turkey (FRIT) and the European Commission. The main research terms were EU Turkey agreement, migration crisis response and securitization.

Desk research

Sometimes desk research is used for literature research. However, literature research is designed to find theoretical knowledge on a subject or theory, in this thesis, the role of the EU, norms and values, EU Turkey relations and the EU Turkey agreement. Desk research is used to find facts and existing research data (Verhoeven, 2018). For this study, desk research was used to find which solution violates the norms and values described, to uncover the impact of the violations, and to determine reactions to, and the aftermath of, the EU Turkey agreement.

For the desk research, the information and ground research of different large NGOs, like the Red Cross, Amnesty International and Medicines Sans Frontiers, was used. In addition, secondary literature was used to find facts about the impact of the EU Turkey

(9)

agreement and data on Hungary, the Netherlands, Italy and Germany, including their reactions after and during the EU Turkey agreement and their further solutions regarding the migration crisis. For this research, the following research terms were used: EU Turkey agreement, norms and values, migration, refugee’s crisis, NGO, securitisation and impact EU Turkey agreement.

Document analysis

The document analysis research refers to the contents of different documents. In this method, different documents on the subject EU Turkey agreement were gathered and studied. The focus is language and close reading (Verhoeven, 2018).

Studying the documents provided insights into the norms and values of the EU, uncovering the violations of the norms and values with the EU Turkey agreement and the impact of these violations. Furthermore, this analysis helped determine how the EU norms and values are integrated into the agreement.by discovering these norms and values, as well how they are used and what kind of impact the EU and the violated norms and values have, the research could determine whether the EU is still a normative actor. The thesis uses secondary research, reports and documents and primary documents, like treaties and the European Law, to find these norms and values. The document analysis provides useful insights into the way the EU Turkey agreement works and how different states respond to the migration crisis and the EU Turkey agreement. The documents consist of publicly accessible documents on the EU websites, different governmental documentation and secondary research. The primary sources, together with the secondary research, were used to uncover the EU’s norms and values.

The primary sources are the following: The meetings and documents from Dutch government on the EU Turkey agreement and migration crisis. To find these documents, the Dutch parliamentary website was used with the keywords migration crisis and EU Turkey agreement. These documents were compared, and general conclusions were drawn.

Countries like Hungary, Italy, and Germany were researched on the way they reacted to the EU Turkey agreement and the migration crisis. This information was gathered by researching local and international newspapers, UNHCR documents and Human Rights Watch documents.

(10)

The EU Turkey agreement was researched by closely reading the document. The implications made by different words were highlighted and solutions were studied. Through this research, the exact agreement information was found.

The thesis chapters use different methods of research throughout. First, the research finds a context in which the EU handles the EU Turkey agreement principles. Second, the study determines how the EU Turkey agreement works and what it does. Third, the research discovers how the agreement impacts others and the EU. Fourth, the study finds reactions to the actions after the EU Turkey agreement. Fifth, the study determines the impact of the choices made after the implementation of the EU Turkey agreement. The findings presented in these chapters lead to conclusions within one or two topics of Manners’ (2009) theory. The chapter conclusions lead to an overall conclusion of whether the EU can still be called a normative actor. After this conclusion is presented, a recommendation is provided for the EU to act as a normative actor.

(11)

Thesis Overview

The theoretical framework focuses on the theoretical basis of the essay and begins by describing the EU’s norms and values. The norms and values can be found in the EU’s treaties and constitutions. Next, the way EU researchers conceptualize these norms and values is researched. Afterward, the tactics the EU uses to spread these norms and values and the EU’s specific policies are examined. Last, the theoretical framework discusses the situations researchers consider when contesting the claim that the EU is a normative actor.

The first chapter discusses the results of the EU Turkey agreement and focuses on the agreement’s meaning and function. The procedures in the agreement are carefully examined, and the results of the agreement are determined based on the European Commission’s viewpoint.

In the second chapter, the norms and values, forgotten during the EU Turkey statement, are discussed and the ways in which these norms and values are violated is determined. Then, the EU’s decision-making process and its outcomes are normatively examined. European Union norms and values are compared to the EU Turkey statement and its outcomes. For the outcomes, a qualitative content analysis is used. The thesis reviews, newspapers, reports from NGOs, government statements, magazines and secondary research on the status of refugees in Greece and Turkey are used to discover the outcome of three years of the EU Turkey agreement. These outcomes are compared with the EU norms and values to determine whether the norms and values were followed or violated. In this first section, how the policies are made is highlighted: considering the norms and values or violating them as an emergency response.

The third chapter explains how the EU justifies the agreement and its violations. The third chapter uses different types of sources, for example, the statements made by EU leaders in newspapers and magazines and secondary literature were studied to explain how the EU and its leaders justify the agreement.

In the fourth chapter, the impact of the EU violating its own norms and values with the EU Turkey agreement is examined through the way researchers, State leaders, EU representatives, EU leaders, the public and NGOs view the EU’s decisions.

Afterward, the conclusion is presented. The conclusion provides an overview of all four chapters. Furthermore, the conclusion suggests the way forward for the EU after the implementation of the EU Turkey agreement.

(12)

Theoretical Framework

In the theoretical framework, the EU’s norms and values are stated. Understanding these norms and values, as well as how the EU uses them, is the main goal of the theoretical framework. The norms and values of the EU are stated in the Treaty on European Union (TEU), one of the primary treaties of the EU:

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom,

democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. (Article 2 - TEU 2012)

According to the EU, these values are common to the member states. Other values like, justice, solidarity, tolerance, non-discrimination, pluralism and equality between women and men are also found in the member states (EU, 2018, p. 23). The explanation of these values demonstrates how one EU goal leads to another. The first goal of the EU is to promote peace, EU values and the well-being of its citizens. The Lisbon Treaty and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights establishes the EU’s foundational goals and values (EU, 2019), which form the basis of EU projects. According to researchers (NoVaMiGra, 2018), because of the migration crisis, the EU is now at the start of a value crisis. The value crisis describes the EU’s misuse and abandonment of its norms and values.

Role of the EU

The EU’s role in the world is seen as new. Researchers look for the most applicable concept to fit the EU as an actor. In the literature, the distinction is made between the way the EU acts in international relations and the EU’s ontological nature in world politics. All researchers try to find the concept that best describes the nature of the EU.

Hülls (2011) highlighted that in researching the EU, the divergent character aspects of the EU toward the existing concepts have been emphasised. With this strategy, aberrant attitudes are focused on to form new concepts fitting the EU (Hülls, 2011, p. 16). Researching the EU concerns the concepts more than the understanding of what the concept does in international politics. In addition to the most highlighted normative power of Manners (2002), this thesis focuses on Nye (2002), who constructed the concept of soft power, the

(13)

ethical power composed by Aggestam (2008), transformative power in the light of Borzel and Risse (2009), and the relatively recent market power of Damro (2012). As the basis of these concepts stands the article of Duchene (1973), who describes the European community as a civilian non-military power.

The concept of Normative Power Europe (NPE) (Manners, 2002) is the most debated concept among scholars, but also the concept most scholars agree upon. The concept has two core principles. First, the power can shape and change what passes for normal (p. 10). Second, the founding values of the EU are at the heart of the European community, at the core of the relations within the EU between the member states, and at the base of the EU’s international relations (Manners 2002, p. 241).

The notion of NPE has been criticized since other actors can be categorized as normative powers (e.g., Diez, 2005, p.7). Bicchi (2006, p. 286) argues that the EU’s norms promotion is only used to promote their own institutional model because it is in the nature of institutions to promote their own models. Another argument raised against the NPE is claiming the legitimacy of the universal values of the EU as the nature of the EU is not enough because the meaning of the EU’s values in practice are contested (Aggestam, 2009, p. 30). Hyde-Price (2006, p. 227), a neo-realist critic of the NPE, argues that the EU is used by its most influential member states to promote stability and security for their own benefit to secure their own external environment.

The general debate in international relations theory underlying the EU’s foreign policy debate is the norms versus interests’ debate. Rationalist approaches defend the self-interest side of the debate. In their view, self-self-interests are pursued to logical consequences. The behaviour of states and the EU in this can be explained through two aspects. First is the assumptions of actors according to the outcomes of their actions. Second is the self-interests and the resources actors have (March and Olsen, 1998, p. 950). Realism is recognized for such views because it sees self-centeredness and self-interest as basic human nature. (Jackson and Sørensen, 2010, p. 69). States that have realist views will be interested in power. For security and stability of the state, leaders are not led by moral concerns. States will always pursue power above pursuing moral concerns (Morgenthau, 1985, p. 5-14). The EU decisions will, in the realist view, always follow the interests of the member states. The EU is a vehicle to pursue the individual power of the member states (Hyde-Price, 2006, p. 220). High-stake values in the EU are in practice subordinate to the security and stability of the member states. However, when the moral concerns are in line with the member states’ interest, the states will

(14)

use the EU as a safe place for the morals, which can spread these norms through its institutions (Hyde & Price, 2006, p. 222-223). Furthermore, the realist view sees the NPE as an approach to compensate for the lack of the EU’s hard power and sees the NPE as an instrument to promote the interests of the EU member states (Hyde & Price, 2006; Kagan, 2002).

In contrast to the logic of consequences, states can follow the logic of appropriateness. In this theory, states behave in line with their identity rather than their interests. Furthermore, states rely more on rules than on expectations of actions. Appropriateness can refer to the way a state see itself or can be based on ethical considerations (March and Olsen, 1998, p. 951). This theory fits how social constructivists theorize international relations. Social constructivism constructs the international system as a system of ideas. These ideas vary from policy prescription to ideologies (Jackson & Sørensen, 2010, p. 165).Constructivists acknowledge the importance of interests, but in their view, the interests are socially based and not material. (Wendt, 1999, p.135). According to Finnemore (1996), international organisations will form norms and values for states. Furthermore, the constructivists focus on the value-based nature of the NPE. The EU tries to project its own values and tries to externalize its own legitimacy (a.o. Diez, 1999).

According to Rosamund (2014) and Youngs (2004), reducing the EU’s foreign politics to the debate of norms versus interests is wrong and incomplete. Diez (2005) argues that the power of the NPE lies in two aspects. First, the power provides identity for the European Community, and second, it imposes changes in norms and values on other state. The foreign politics must consider every aspect of interests and norms, not one or the other. What situations the EU handles and how it handles them characterize its power. Only after different crises can one determine whether the EU can hold the concept and idea of a normative power (Forsberg, 2011, p. 21).

Principles, Actions, and Impact

For the thesis, the theory of Manners (2009) is followed. The EU thinks of itself as a normative power, and Manners’ theory describes the theory of normative power in the most engaging way. Manners understands normative power in three-fold: principles, actions and impact.

According to Manners, normative power in its purest form is ideational and is less interested in material or physical interests. For actions taken, a normative power uses

(15)

normative justification. The relation with other countries should be normatively sustainable. Normative power can be analysed through principles, actions and impact.

First, the principles are the norms that the normative actor pursues. These principles should be legitimized. The power of the normative power is that it consistently promotes legitimate principles. Second, the normative power needs take action to promote the norms actively. These actions must involve the norms, and the justification for them must be normative. Third, the impact is the power side of the normative power. The normative power needs to change the norms of others through the actions it takes (Manners, 2009).

Principles: Norms and Values

The first aspect of Manners’ theory is principles. In literature, the EU is often described as a normative actor (Börzel & Risse, 2009; Manners ,2002). Furthermore, the EU is often seen as a soft power or a humanitarian power (Kreutz, 2006). According to Borchardt (2010, p. 29), the values of democracy and the rule of law are of utmost importance for a soft power. In addition, the EU is described as both a civilian actor by Manners (2002) and a military actor due to the Common Security and Defence Policy (Whitman, 2011). Tulmets (2007) argues the EU’s projections of its rules, standards, values, and institutions to member and non-member countries is normative behaviour. Moreover, the EU tries to attract partners by setting a positive example for countries. In other words, the EU’s actions are guided by its rules, values, and standards, and through these actions, it tries to influence third country politics (Manners, 2002).

According to Tulmets (2007), normative power not only suggest that the EU’s fundamentals are normative. The term that implies the EU performs normatively on the world stage. The EU is defined normatively both by what it does and by what it is. The EU changes norms, acts to change norms, and wants to extend its norms to the international system (Manners 2002, p. 252). The concept indicates that the EU is a unique international actor and focuses not just on behaviour, but also on its fundamental identity and the importance of its actions.

The EU’s norms and values are all based on the acquis Communautaire, the European Law and the acquis politique, the European Democracy. The basic norms include democracy, the rule of law, liberty and freedom as the foundations of the EU (Manners 2002, p.242). These norms are acceptable behaviour for actors within the EU because the member states have similar identities (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998, p. 891). Supported norms create a

(16)

standard system that forms the foundation of institutions like the EU. The standard system guides member states, EU institutions, and EU projects through law and legal instruments (Borchardt, 2010, p. 79).

Since 1993’s Copenhagen Criteria, the EU has actively promoted norms for membership. The new member states have to implement at least five norms important to the EU: human and minority rights, the rule of law, the acquis communautaire, stable democratic institutions, democratic principles and a functioning market economy capable of handling the European market (Park 2005, p. 236). The EU protects human rights and other norms through international and European Law. In addition to liberal democracy and human rights policies, the free market is an important EU value (Buonfino, 2004, p. 45).

According to Risse and Sikkink (1999, p.9), the EU defines norms and values for other democratic states. If states comply with these values, they can eventually join the EU or join the market of the EU. Human rights in the EU are mostly defined by appropriate and inappropriate state behaviours (Risse & Sikking, 1999, p.8). The preamble of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights explains all the rights the European Union is founded on:

universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. (EU, 2012, p. 8)

All the charter’s listed rights are subordinate to the EU’s main values (EU, 2012), which are focused on the EU member states, used abroad, and applied to EU projects. The EU should protect and promote these fundamental norms in every action they take (EU, 2012).

There are multiple interpretations of ‘European values’; thus, the expression is subject to misuse by individuals and institutions. The norms and values are stated in the EU Treaties. There are three articles that specifically address values: 2, 3 and 21. The clearest expression of values is in Article 2 of the TEU, which states the following:

The EU is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. (TEU, article 2)

Most of the EU’s attention is on the rule of law. According to the EU, the rule of law is necessary to establish all other values. Article 3 states that ‘in its relations with the wider

(17)

world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests’, which according to the EU treaty falls into the ‘common provision’. Article 21 makes a similar statement:

The Union's action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired its own creation, development and enlargement, and which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.

In the chapter ‘EU external action’, article 3 refers to every EU project and article 21 specifies all the external actions. However, all three articles identify the same values. Thus, human dignity, human rights, rule of law, democracy, equality and freedom are the most important values for the EU.

The EU developed the norms and values it promotes. According to Börzel and Risse (2009) and other scholars (e.g., Manners, 2002), the most fundamental norms are spreading human rights, peace and democracy. The EU advocates for three generations of human rights. Each generation builds on the generation before (see Table 1). The human rights are the result of the globalization process and can still expand. Manners (2002) divides the EU’s norms into five main norms and four minor norms (see Table 2).

Table 1: Human Rights promoted by the EU

First Generation Civil and Political Rights

Second Generation Social Rights

(18)

Table 2: European Union’s Norms

Main Norms Minor Norms

Peace Social Solidarity

Liberty Anti-Discrimination

Human Rights Sustainable Development

Rule of Law Good Governance

Democracy

(Manners, 2002, p. 243)

A legal approach by Herlin-Karnell (2012) focuses on the norms and values in treaties. The EU, as stated in TEU article 2, should equally promote human rights, democracy, equality, sustainable development, human dignity, freedom, and the rule of law. The EU should promote these values in all its relations, according to TEU articles 3 and 21 (Herlin-Karnell, 2012, p. 1227-1228).

Moreover, the fundamental norms are not only intertwined with the EU’s actions and identity but are also used as the groundwork for foreign policy. This external governance is aimed at third countries and partner countries, and the EU wants these countries to embrace the acquis communautaire and the basic EU norms and values (Lavenex, 2004, p. 681).

Acting Normatively

The EU acts in different ways to promote norms and values. The external governance moves the governmental boundaries, letting governance shift from institutional integration to institutional expansion. Furthermore, although third countries cannot join the EU, they are now included in the EU’s norms and values, and the EU is trying to change these countries international policies (Lavenex, 2004, p. 683). For example, the EU promotes and exports its method of institutionalization and spreads its norms and values (Schimmelfennig &

(19)

Sedelmeier, 2004, p. 662). Börzel and Risse (2009) particularly focus on these spreading norms and values. The EU’s laws, constitutional and secondary, reflect the EU’s norms. The EU employs five approaches to circulate norms and values, according to Börzel and Risse (2009 p. 9). These approaches are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: EU Approaches to Diffusing Norms and Values

Approach Meaning

Coercion Coercive authority, legal or physical force Manipulation of utility calculations Providing positive or negative incentives Socialization Promoting ideas through providing an

authoritative model

Persuasion Promoting ideas as legitimate or true

through rationalization

Emulation Indirectly influencing third countries’ norms and values

(Börzel & Risse, 2009, p. 9)

The first method of spreading norms and values is coercion. Actors must follow the EU’s ideas or risk threats of the actual use of physical violence or the removal of benefits (Hurd 1999); thus, countries have no choice but to adopt the norms. The second approach is manipulation of utility calculations. The promoters’ ideas are advanced by making implementation of norms and values attractive through providing negative and positive incentives. For example, the EU might provide funding if norms are implemented or raise import costs if they are not (Legro, 1997). The third method is Socialization. Socialization works through the acceptance of norms by third countries and teaches third countries the norms of the EU. Afterward, the norms can be adopted for various reasons, such as reputation, international legitimacy and esteem (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998, p. 902; Börzel & Risse, 2009). The fourth approach is persuasion, which is founded on the logic of arguing. This method provides logical reasons to adopt certain norms and demonstrates the legitimacy

(20)

of these norms (Finnemore, 1996). The fifth method of norm diffusion is emulation, which is the spillover effect of norm implementation. Third countries see that norms work and thus are indirectly influenced by these norms, wanting to implement them themselves (Börzel & Risse, 2009).

Manners (2002) introduced another six methods to promote and export values, some of which overlap with Börzel and Risse’s (2009) methods. First, contagion is the same as Börzel and Risse’s (2009) emulation. When the EU indirectly demonstrates that norms actually work, third countries will implement these norms themselves. Informational diffusion, the second method, works by spreading reports and other information to directly inform third countries how and why norms and values succeed. Manner states the third approach is procedural diffusion, which is the institutionalization of democracy. The fourth is transference, the diffusion of norms through trading with third countries. Contact causes norms to spread. The fifth method is overt diffusion, overt diffusion is caused by the physical presence of EU officials. The sixth is the cultural filter, or the way norms are adopted by other cultures and how the EU tries to slowly convince these cultures to employ its norms (Manners, 2002, p. 244-245).

According to Nye (2004), the EU mostly uses ‘soft power’, which is the principal way to impose power in international relations because this method gives a country more tools than hard power. In short, the EU uses economic power and diplomatic power and is willing to use supranational institutions to reach its goals (Manners, 2002). Through soft power, the EU imposes its norms and values on third countries. These forms of norm diffusion can be found in the different EU policy areas.

EU Policy

This paper uses the EU Turkey agreement as a case study for the EU’s norms and values. The EU Turkey agreement is both a foreign and domestic policy problem. Therefore, the most important policies regarding the EU Turkey agreement are explained below.

Common Commercial Policy

The common commercial policy is focused on the EU’s trade policy (Van Vooren & Wessel, 2014). The EU is currently focused on trade and investment, so it combines its values with the trade policies. The EU only starts trade talks with third countries when these countries are willing and when they can demonstrate that they will adapt to the EU's values.

(21)

Promoting values is one of the most important strategies in this policy (European Commission, 2014a).

Common Foreign and Security Policy

The common foreign and security policy describes the EU’s external strategies. This policy explains that the EU’s most important goals are the preservation of peace, the reinforcement of international security, the promotion of international cooperation, and the promotion of a few EU basic norms and values: democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. This policy demonstrates that the exportation of norms and values is important to the EU (EP 2009).

The Common Security and Defence Policy

The common security and defence policy explains how to lead peacekeeping operations. Furthermore, this policy was implemented to prevent conflict and to secure international security (EEAS, 2016c). The EU uses its values here only in solidarity: the EU wants to stabilize neighbouring countries and keep peace and order. The word ‘security’ is not defined in the TEU, but it may refer to domestic security in all its forms, from security against terrorist attacks, to having food and a safe environment. Defence entails every state defending the EU when it is under attack or threatened (TEU, article 42).

Development Policy

The development policy is one of the most important EU foreign affairs building blocks (European Commission, 2016a). The development policy aims to abolish poverty and create sustainable development (European Commission, 2016a). For sustainable development, the EU must adapt its norms and values. The EU wants countries to democratize in all aspects, and it wants to spread human rights, but it requires the countries it helps implement human rights; otherwise, no help is given. According to the EU, democracy and a good rule of law are necessary for a country’s sustainable development (Pech, 2011, p. 21). The EU exports its norms and values by helping only the countries that accept them (European Parliament, 2016).

(22)

The European neighbourhood policy (ENP) is aimed at third countries that are not able to join the EU. The EU tries to become economically and politically close to these third countries to spread its norms and values (EEAS, n.d.-b). Article 8 of the TEU describes the neighbourhood policy as follows:

The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation (TEU, article 8).

The EU indicates here that it assumes that its norms and values will economically and democratically improve every country. The EU states that the closer relations become with a third country, the more stable the relationship between the EU and the third country will be. In addition, different countries will attract each other due to their common interests (European Commission, 2016b).

Enlargement Policy

The enlargement policy is intended for states to possibly join the EU. This policy requires potential EU members to comply to all the EU's standard norms, values, and rules and recognize all its institutions and member states. Furthermore, states must respect all citizens and both their democratic vote and will (European Commission, 2016d-e).

As a normative actor, the EU visibly spreads its norms and values through these policies. Diffusing its norms and values is integrated in every action the EU takes. According to Puigernau (2005), speaking for the Secretary-General of the European Commission, the EU wants to show the European vision and European values to third countries. The EU wants to use the norms and values to shape the globalising world and spreads these norms and values through trade, international labour norms, and worldwide health and security issues. The EU can accomplish these actions because it has a large market and is leading in sustainable development. To enter the market, third countries need to move toward the EU’s norms and values. Furthermore, to receive the EU’s help in development and crisis management, the EU demands third countries adopt its norms and values. The norms of democracy, the rule of law, social justice, and human rights are key. Since the EU was founded, it has domestically and internationally promoted its norms and values. The EU

(23)

promotes its values in policy, but it has not always promoted them in projects, although it has tried to promote them (Puigernau, 2005, p. 4, 13-14).

Norms and Values Contested in the Past

Most researchers believe the EU is a normative actor. However, they disagree as to how this normativity works. In the past, the EU has had its norms and values contested, but since it still tried to spread them, these are the exceptions to the rule of the EU’s normativity. These minor disturbances do not make the EU a realist or a pragmatic actor.

Russia

The EU’s relationship with Russia demonstrates that the EU does not always diffuse its norms and values. Although the EU wanted to spread its norms and values to Russia, it was unsuccessful:

A stable, democratic and prosperous Russia, firmly anchored in a united Europe free of new dividing lines . . . [and] a stable, open and pluralistic democracy in Russia, governed by the rule of law and underpinning a prosperous market economy benefiting alike all the people of Russia and of the European Union. (European Council, 1999, p. 7)

According to Haukkala (2009, p. 1), every step Europe has wanted to take when cooperating with Russia has failed. Russia has not become the democratic, stable state the EU intended it to be. The Russian rule of law is unjust and corrupt. Whether the EU has not tried to change Russia or whether Russia is too large to change is unclear. The Russian market is full of state capitalism and is led by protectionism, which is difficult to breach. The Russian government is bellicose toward the EU’s normative agenda and challenges EU norms as the building blocks for the international order (Haukkala, 2009, p.1; Van der Togt, 2018).

European Neighbourhood Policy

According to Dimitriadi (2016), the ENP drifted toward realist politics. Tempted to use the neighbourhood as a buffer zone and a service provider to protect its own interests, the EU used coercion in the form of the policy tool ‘mobility partnerships’ to pressure countries into honouring the ENP. This meant implementing readmission agreements with third

(24)

countries. Emiliani (2016 p. 4), Dimitriadi (2016), and others believe the way the EU uses the ENP as a buffer zone and for migration management is a form of political realism. Since 2016, the ENP has securitized the EU, but still the EU diffuses norms and values to the ENP under coercion.

Rule of Law Under Pressure within the EU

According to Luining (2019), a situation within the EU contests the EU’s consistency in its norms and values. Poland has violated its own constitution multiple times. Since Poland’s ultra-conservative law and justice party has been in power, this party has tried to modify the Polish system, among other changes to the constitutional Tribunal, in an attempt to secure their own position and to side-track governmental checks. The party officials stated that people’s lives and security are more important than the course of the law. The party fired five sitting judges and appointed new judges to the constitutional court. Furthermore, they made policies to overrule the tribunal (Brandlin, 2017). These changes violate the norm of the rule of law because they shift the legal system toward one political party. Although these practices are illegal according to Polish law, the commission and the European court could not act. Thus, although single states breach EU norms, the EU as an institution wants to positively and legally change this practice. Therefore, the EU as an institution is still normative, although some members are not (Luining, 2019).

Externalisation

Outsourcing national policies to third countries, mostly neighbouring countries, is called externalisation. Lavenex (2006, p. 346) argues that according to its current management of the migration, the EU wants to replace the boundaries of the union further away from the existing borders. By shifting the boundaries, the responsibilities shift outwards, toward neighbouring countries. Through externalization, the EU continues a line of policy more focused on control, securitization, and migration (Lavenex, 2006, p.330). In the literature, readmission agreements and mobility partnerships are considered the most important means of externalization for the EU, according to neighbouring countries. The EU integrates third countries, neighbouring countries, into its migration regime and tries to enlarge its sphere of influence (Brocza & Paulhart, 2015, p. 6). Expanding EU policies toward neighbouring countries means the third countries are becoming buffer zones for the union against migrants. Furthermore, externalization broadens the scope of the EU rules and values beyond its

(25)

borders (Lavenex & Schimmelfennig, 2009, p. 791). Broadening EU policies regarding migration is framed as shared responsibility and solidarity for migrants. Responsibility is aimed at the countries of destination, transit, and origin to together manage the migration flows. The EU has incorporated neighbouring countries deep into the external migration governance, through readmission agreements and mobility partnerships. The neighbouring countries function as border security for the EU and manage the influx of migrants and refugees, mostly by blocking legal migration routes (Wolff, 2014, p. 77).

Through the policy of externalization, the migration control, the EU shifts the responsibility for the migrants to the neighbouring countries. Thus, externalization mobilizes the neighbouring countries for the EU’s cause, which creates advantages. Shifting responsibility relieves the pressure on the external EU borders, thus relieving the tensions on the border controls. Furthermore, the EU does not have to reform its own failing asylum and migration systems, instead shifting the largest problems outside its own borders.

The EU is familiar with the idea of extra territorialisation (Lavenex, 2006, p. 337). The policy has been used by the EU Justice and Home affairs and throughout many policies. Externalization of policies was performed in the early 1990s in Eastern Europe with enlargement procedures. In 1991, Poland was the first eastern country with a readmission agreement. The exportation of the migrations policies was, for most countries in the contemporary EU, a catalyser for the European enlargement process (Bouteillet-Paquet, 2003, p. 364).

Since 2002, the EU has included a readmission clause in every EU trade, partnership, or association agreement. The ENP, launched in 2004, marked the expansion of the usage of externalization. In 2007, the inclusions of the readmission clause resulted in new mobility partnerships. The EU’s externalization policy was not exclusively used within the migration policies but is present in the migration and asylum policy and characterizes the overall tendency of the EU in external policy making (Lavenex, 2006, p. 335). In times of high migration influx, since 2014, the externalization of the EU has been taken to a higher level. The securitization of the EU borders has been solidified and strengthened and asylum and migration policies have been sharpened toward the neighbouring countries (Crépeau & Purkey, 2016, p. 10).

According to Crepue and Purkey, the externalization results in human rights violations. The principle of non-refoulement is breached, and for migrant and refugees, access to justice is difficult to obtain. Adepoju’s (2009, p. 49) confirmed the idea that

(26)

externalization can violate human rights. He concludes that the externalization of migration and asylum policy toward Sub-Saharan countries may lead the violation non-refoulement. The EU, through externalization, shifts its responsibility and its legal obligations to refugees to keep them safe and stop them from entering the EU.

Lavenex and Schimmelfennig (2009) argue due to the ‘power based explanation’ that the EU is only capable of externalization when the union is more powerful, politically and economically, then the third countries. The ‘power based explanation' states that externalization works when one country, the EU, has leverage on the third country. In this way, the EU has more bargaining power and, if necessary, can coerce the third country into a deal. The EU, imposing hierarchical governance upon the neighbouring countries, is using its interdependence and asymmetric power for its own interests (Lavenex & Schimmelfennig, 2009, p. 803).

EU Turkey Relations

For the EU, the most important condition is that its norms and values are adopted and honoured by its member states. Furthermore, for the EU it is important that third countries apply the European norms and values (Schimmelfennig, 2005, p. 113). In 1959, the republic of Turkey wanted to join the European Economic Commission for to first time. Since then, due to internal and external reasons, Turkey has never been allowed to join the EU (Dagdeverenis, 2014, p. 1). In 1999, Turkey wanted to join the EU again and again became a candidate country. After six years’ renegotiations started, and Turkey had to apply the norms of the EU inside its borders. Turkey had to reform its economy, democracy and human rights (Müftüler-Baç, 2016, p. 1). In 2014, the European Commission reported that Turkey had implemented some political reforms. However, due to uncertainty about Turkey from the EU member states the negations stopped and Turkey could not enter the EU (Dagdeverenis, 2014, p. 4, 15). Due to the stagnation in the negotiations, the EU lost the higher ground. Turkey also drifted further away from the conditions of the EU (Paul & Schmidt, 2017).

For a long time, Turkey has been a transit country or a country of origin for migrants. Turkey has been the natural route for migrants form the middle east and Asia to Europe and for migrants from the Balkans (Içduygu, 2011, p. 1). Illegal migration has led to mistrust between Turkey and the EU for securitization reasons (Kirișci, 2008, p. 21).The EU used the situation of migrants in Turkey as a bargaining point for the 2003 readmission agreement. This readmission only came into effect in 2014 (Bal, 2016, p. 15). For Turkey to gain EU

(27)

membership, it must securitize its borders and control migration flows. Furthermore, Turkey needs to adjust its asylum law to European standards (Benvenutti, 2017, p. 4). However, Turkey fears that the EU wants to shift the burden of migration to Turkey instead of sharing the burden of the migration flows (Içduygu and Yükseker, 2012, p. 453). Turkey did change it laws on asylum to European standards. In 2012, the country introduced its first law regulating asylum, the Law on Foreigners and International Protection (Kirișci, 2014, p. 3; Soykan, 2012, p. 40). Since the war in Syria in 2011, five million refugees have been fled the country. In 2017, 3,2 million Syrian refugees have found refuge in Turkey, which always has had an open-door policy (Bal, 2016, p. 15; European Commission, 2017, p. 3).

During the influx of refugees, the Dublin regulations and Schengen Regions came under severe pressure. The EU due to failing systems tried to close and securitize the borders (Benvenutti, 2017, p. 9). Within the EU no sustainable solutions have been made, so the EU tried the neighbouring countries (Müftüler-Baç, 2015, p. 4).The EU opened the negotiations again with Turkey in the light of the migration crisis and developed the EU Turkey joint action plan activated in November 2015 (European Commission, 2015), hoping for Turkey’s help. The action plan focuses on solidarity action between the EU and Turkey. The EU needs Turkey to help with the failed Dublin regulations (European Commission, 2015c).

Since 2014, the member states are divided about the accession of Turkey due, to for example, the coup d’état in 2016 (EURACTIV, 2016). In 2016, shortly after the coup, the EU parliament voted in a non-binding resolution. This resolution was later reaffirmed in 2017, after the Turkish referendum and suspends the membership of Turkey (European Parliament, 2016, European Parliament, 2017). Turkey stated that if the EU does not honour the agreement, Turkey will not keep its end of the deal (Benvenutti, 2017, p.11)

(28)

The EU Turkey Statement: Facts and Figures

The beginning of the migration crisis was in 2015. This crisis has been and is one of the EU’s greatest challenges. Due to political circumstances and the war in Syria, thousands of people have tried to flee Syria. The most used route in 2015 was over the Aegean Sea, between Turkey and Greece. Seeking safety in Greece, around 200,000 refugees per month tried to cross the sea (Spijkerboer, 2016, p. 2). Different solutions were developed to solve the refugee crisis. One of the most anticipated solutions was the EU Turkey agreement, enforced since 18 March 2016, the major action taken in the migration crisis. To discover how the action relates to the principles, in this chapter, the action is fully explained. The actions made are the second concept of Manners’ theory about a normative power.

In 2016, the EU member states, because of the high influx of irregular migrants, decided to implement a rigorous solution to stop refugee migration from Turkey to the EU. Member state leaders and Turkey's former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ahmet Davutoğlu, met in councils to discuss an agreement. This agreement detailed methods to stop the irregular migration flows from Turkey to the EU (European Council, 2016). The EU Turkey agreement has been much debated because the public, NGOs, scientists, politicians, and advisory bodies of the EU believe the agreement between the EU and Turkey is controversial. When the agreement was still in the pipeline, as well as after its release, it was criticized on almost every facet. First, the agreement seems to violate human rights in letter and in practice. Second, the agreement was never signed, so who is responsible for it is unclear. Third, this agreement’s legitimacy is questioned. Van Liempt et al. (2017) argue that the EU Turkey agreement has been under much controversy since its implementation (Van Leimpt et al., 2017, p. 5).

The EU Turkey Statement

In the EU Turkey agreement, two categories of instruments compose the solution. The first category contains the provisions. This section appears to be an extended and upgraded version of the readmission agreement, which already existed between Turkey and the EU. The second category contains the incentives. These incentives are extra benefits that the EU gives to Turkey to join the cooperation to stop the migration flows (Gkliati, 2017, p. 86-87).

(29)

The first half of the EU Turkey agreement is framed as a refugee crisis. In this portion, the refugees coming to Greece and Turkey need protection from the EU and Turkey. The first part of the agreement, or the action plan, aims to weaken the migration crisis push factors. The agreement tries to accomplish this goal through financial and technical support. The second half of the agreement is based on stopping the migration flows because the migration crisis is a security issue (EU Council, 2016). The migration flows are irregular and so need a solid solution to stop. The language in the two sections are purposefully different from each other. By changing the language, the solutions’ implementation and people's perceptions of problems change (Adam, 2017, p. 45).

Furthermore, the EU Turkey agreement has multiple intentions. The agreement was created like an action plan, with solutions to different refugee crisis issues. The overall intention of the agreement seems to be to reduce the quantity of refugees crossing the Aegean Sea through cooperation between Turkey and the EU. The agreement states that it aims to reduce the flow of irregular migration by protecting the refugees. The protection starts by stopping human trafficking, decreasing deaths in the Aegean Sea and ensuring fewer human rights violations. However, the protection is forceful regarding the security crisis: increased border controls, increased Frontex at sea, and the deportation of irregular migrants to Turkey (European Council, 2016).

Procedures

In addition to the two action plan categories, the agreement includes three major resettling procedures and seemingly minor other procedures. The first procedure is as follows:

The rapid return of all migrants not in need of international protection crossing from Turkey into Greece and to take back all irregular migrants. (European Council, 2016a)

Due to the new agreement between Turkey and the EU, refugees can be deported from the Greek islands to the mainland of Turkey; when a migrant has crossed the Aegean Sea, that migrant is returned and readmitted to Turkey. When readmitted, the refugees are held under temporary protection, as are the asylum seekers who have been declared inadmissible. Furthermore, the temporary protection has no time limit. In Turkey, refugees can be under temporary protection indefinitely. When under temporary protection, refugees have fewer

(30)

rights than regular asylum seekers. This procedure was founded on the fast-track method. With the fast-track method the procedures are simultaneous instead of separate and linear. Using this method, Turkey was identified as a safe third country and a safe first country of asylum (European Council, 2016; Adam, 2017, p. 45). According to the agreement, Turkey must accept all migrants sent back from Greece and needs to protect the refugees, rather than send migrants back to their home countries if they are at risk in those countries. In addition, Turkey is the main player in stopping migrants from crossing the Aegean Sea and has adequately allowed migrants to find new ways into the EU.

The second procedure in the agreement entails the 1:1 resettlement scheme. This procedure describes the transfer of refugees from Turkey's refugee camps to European member states. The plan states that the EU resettles the same number of Syrian refugees from Turkey to the EU as there are Syrian refugees deported from the Greek islands to the Turkish mainland. The EU Turkey statement explains that refugees who never tried to enter the EU will be settled earlier than refugees who had tried to enter (European Council, 2016). The EU has a budget of three billion euros to support the Turkish state’s acceptance and support of Syrian refugees. If Turkey maintains its part of the deal, another three billion euros will be pledged to Turkey. The entire six billion euros is managed by the FRIT (European Council, 2016; Adam, 2017, p. 45). These two procedures are central to the EU Turkey agreement.

The third procedure is the Voluntary Humanitarian Admission Scheme:

Once irregular crossings between Turkey and the EU are ending or at least have been substantially and sustainably reduced, a Voluntary Humanitarian Admission Scheme will be activated. EU Member States will contribute on a voluntary basis to this scheme. (European Council, 2016)

This plan was implemented at the activation of the EU Turkey agreement. The scheme favours refugees who voluntarily want to share information. The Voluntary Humanitarian Admission Scheme is accomplished by using newly implemented systems in both Turkey and Greece and entails screening tests, refugee identification and more. The Voluntary Humanitarian Admission Scheme should protect human rights. However, this scheme reinforces the minimal human conditions for migrants in Turkey because all refugees are kept under the temporary protection law and are not protected as refugees. The agreement makes

(31)

the crisis for the EU clear and easier to comprehend (European Council, 2016; Adam, 2017, p. 45).

These three large procedures all describe refugee resettlement methods. In addition to resettling, the EU Turkey agreement also has other procedures in its seemingly minor plans. The action plan aims to reduce the influx of migrants through the cooperation between the member states and the EU and to prevent refugees entering the EU. Refugee camps in Turkey should become better places to live than in the past. Border controls are strengthened and the refugees’ routes between Turkey and Europe are increasingly patrolled. These measures aim to discourage refugees from moving to Europe. Frontex also receives more money and more people on the border between Turkey and Europe, so crossing the sea is not desirable. To target human traffickers and stop refugee smuggling, a harder approach from the army and the police in Turkey and at sea was enacted (Van Liempt et al., 2017, p. 7-8).

While the three major procedures were outlined as the migration crisis, the minor procedures are included within the security crisis. For these procedures, Turkey receives a three-billion-euro investment. This first three billion euros is controlled by the FRIT and are mostly used to improve the border control and refugee’s admittance (European Council 2016). If Turkey works as agreed, it will receive six billion euros from the EU. The additional three billion euros is reserved for developing infrastructure and institution buildings for refugee admittance. The agreement eases the EU visa applications for Turkish citizens, which makes it considerably easier for Turkish citizens to travel and work in the EU. Furthermore, the agreement also opens new negotiations for Turkey to join the EU in the long term (Van Liempt, 2017, p. 6 & European Council, 2016).

Results

The drop in migrants entering Europe was considerable in the three years after the implementation of the EU Turkey agreement. In 2015, 2347 migrants arrived on the Greek Islands per day, three years after implementation, the daily arrival of migrants dropped to 83 on the Greek islands. According to the European Commission, refugees arriving in Greece dropped by 97% (European Commission, 2019). In 2018, the decrease in migrants arriving in the EU is even greater: 116,647 people, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR). This total number of refugees crossing the Mediterranean Sea constitutes an 89% decrease from the refugees who made the trip in 2015. Therefore, fewer migrants are coming

The EU-Turkey agreement : the Unions norms and values at stake