The Migration Crisis: A Time for
Solidarity Lessons?
MA Thesis in European Studies: European Policy Graduate School of Humanities
University of Amsterdam
Author: Kristina Dimitrova Student number: 11104120
Main supervisor: dhr. mr. dr. A.C.van Wageningen Second supervisor: dhr. dr. P. Rodenburg
2 | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ... 3 Acknowledgements ... 4 List of tables/figures ... 5 List of Abbreviations ... 6 1. Introduction ... 71.1. Background and Current State of Affairs ... 7
1.2. Purpose and Research Question ... 11
1.3. Outline ... 13
2. Theoretical analysis and methodological approach ... 15
2.1. Defining solidarity ... 15 2.2 Theories on EU solidarity ... 22 2.3. Methodological approach ... 29 3. EU perspective ... 34 3.1. Legal perspective ... 34 3.2. Policy perspective ... 45 4. National Perspectives ... 57 4.1. Bulgaria ... 60 4.1.1. Legal Perspective ... 60 4.1.2. Policy Perspective ... 65 4.2. Italy ... 67 4.2.1. Legal Perspective ... 68 4.2.2. Policy Perspective ... 73
4.3. Supranational and national comparison. ... 75
5. Conclusion ... 77
3 | P a g e
ABSTRACT
The migratory challenge that the EU and its Member States are facing, since 2011, raised important questions about the essence, significance, and drawbacks of one of the Union's fundamental values and principles - solidarity. Taking into account the existing gap in the knowledge about the concept's role in the context of asylum policy, this master thesis examines the possibilities of solidarity to be an effective tool for overcoming challenges such as the migration one. The paper argues that due to heterogeneous incorporation and interpretation of the concept at EU and national level, solidarity has relatively small possibility to be a panacea for the current crisis. Despite the ample presence of the concept in the EU policy and legal order, the thesis's findings reveal that at national level the concept is underdeveloped. In order to strengthen solidarity's normative power reexamination of the concept is hereby recommended.
Key words: solidarity, asylum policy, migration crisis EU, constructivism,
4 | P a g e
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dedicated to the memory of my mother, Mariana Peykova, who always believed in my ability to be successful.
I would like to use the opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Anne van Wageningen for his support throughout the writing of this master thesis, his patience and insightful comments which have motivated me to widen my research from various perspectives.
I would like to thank my parents and brother for believing in me. Thank you for your trust, love and appreciation. Thank you for allowing me to realise my own potential and dreams. Thank you for all the support provided over the years as this is the greatest gift anyone has ever given me.
To all my friends, thank you for helping me to keep sane and for giving me valuable support and encouragement during the last year.
5 | P a g e
LIST OF TABLES/FIGURES
Table 1 Concepts of Solidarity, Steinar Stjerno ... 20 Table 2 Contributions to solidarity ... 21 Table 3 Criteria for analysis of the legal and policy perspective of solidarity ... 33 Table 4 Framework for comparison and analysis of the correlation between solidarity at EU and national level ... 76
Figure 1 Solidarity's virtuous circles ... 24 Figure 2 Number of people sought asylum (01.01.1993 -31.01.2017) ... 64
6 | P a g e
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BCP - Bulgarian Communist Party
CEAS Common European Asylum System CFSP - Common Foreign and Security Policy
CNDA - Commissione nazionale per il diritto di asilo (National Commission for the Right of Asylum)
CPR - Return Detention Centre
CPT - Centers for Temporary Detention
CTRPI - Territorial Commissions for International Protection EASO - European Asylum Support Office
EC - European Community ECJ - European Court of Justice EP – European Parliament
ESM - European Stability Mechanism EU - European Union
JHA - Justice and Home Affairs LAR – Law on Asylum and Refugees
NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization NGO - Non-Governmental Organization SAR - State Agency for Refugees
SEA - Single European Act
SPRAR - Sistema di Protezione per Richiedenti Asilo e Refugiati Protection (System for Refugees and Asylum Seekers)
7 | P a g e
“We must not allow Europe to fall into a moral crisis, a crisis of
lack of solidarity, a crisis of values.”
Rosen Plevneliev
President of the Republic of Bulgaria
11. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background and Current State of Affairs
In 2011, the political upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa became a reason for an unprecedented number of people to flee their country. The migratory influx that crossed the borders of the European Union (EU) challenged the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The attempt of the EU to speak with one voice and to find a common solution to the crisis failed since reaching a consensus among the Member States was currently impossible. The unwillingness of some Member States to agree with a fair share of the migration burden eroded the unity in the EU. The divisions of opinion and the different attitude and actions of the EU countries towards the migratory influx and the secondary movements from Member State of first arrival provoked serious debates at EU level. Hence, the migration crisis, by “crossing” the European borders, turned to be a reason for disunity of the EU.2 Furthermore, this raised important questions about the nature, significance, and pitfalls of one of the Union’s fundamental values, legal and political principles - solidarity. In the recent decades, the notion of solidarity could be found in various contexts – for example, environmental solidarity, financial solidarity, social solidarity, asylum solidarity.
The concept of solidarity exists in the EU legal order since the very beginning of the European integration idea. Solidarity could be initially found in those fields of
1 Speech to the European Parliament on June 8, 2016 2 Munchau, W., 2017.
8 | P a g e EU law that were harmonised. For instance, references to the principle were made in the iron and steel sector and later in the agriculture and fisheries.3 The concept gradually received more significance with the Treaty of Maastricht when it was mentioned in the context of the economic and social cohesion policy, the common external and security policy and in the Declaration on Asylum.4 The common rules that governed the harmonised policy fields were based on the solidarity rationale, which meant that in return of their competences, the Member States are receiving from the EU equal treatment, rights and obligations.5 However, that was not the case with those sectors that were partially harmonised, for instance, environment and disaster management.6
The term environmental solidarity is linked with the common aspirations of the Member States to ensure the protection of the environment. Solidarity has been widely mentioned in EU environmental law and policy documents related to climate change, energy, sustainable development and disaster management.7 For instance, Article 222 TFEU, the so-called solidarity clause, explicitly states that the Member States “shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity” in case of natural disaster. However, it does not specify the way the countries should do so. Some authors emphasise on the global aspect of environmental solidarity as the concept cannot be limited to the premises of one country.8 However, in this field, as argued by some9, solidarity “is underdeveloped, because Member States do not agree on the extent of their solidarity obligations to cooperate”10. In this regard, the creation of a transnational European solidarity in the environmental field is contested as it is not based on “sameness”, as
3 Barnard, C., 2010, p.75.
4 Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty), 1992, Preamble; Article A; Article J.1.4; Protocol on economic and social cohesion; Declaration on Western European Union; Declaration on Asylum.
5 Domurath, I., 2013, p. 464. 6 Idem.
7 Hilson, C., 2010, p. 137. 8 Ibid, p.136.
9 For more information on the concept of environmental solidarity in EU consult: Ahman, T. 2009. The Treaty of Lisbon and civil protection in the European Union. Stockholm: Swedish Defence Research Agency; Jans, J.H., and H.H.B. Vedder. 2008. European environmental law. Groningen: Europa Law
9 | P a g e social solidarity, but on acceptance of differences, as each country faces different challenges.11
In other areas, such as the monetary one, the arising challenges affect the Member States in a similar way. For instance, almost seven years ago, when the global economic crisis reached a significant number of European countries, the notion of solidarity gained significant popularity in the European political discourse and debates. The term financial solidarity was widely spread in the public discussions in the context of the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis. The crisis was used by political leaders to call for a better coordination in the economic field. According to scholars, the term was implicitly connected with responsibility and with the assumption that richer countries have to take care of poorer ones.12 During the negotiations for the establishment of a European Stability Mechanism (ESM) the topic of solidarity was widely discussed. Scholars researched the promotion of the principle of solidarity through the ESM and its ability to solve the financial crisis.13 Financial solidarity emerged as part of the negotiations of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020.14 Furthermore, in the context of the economic crisis scholars examined the connection of solidarity with responsibility and cooperation.15
As a consequence of the financial crisis, the level of unemployment in the EU raised significantly which provoked a new discourse – the one on social solidarity. Social solidarity is directly linked with the intra-EU labour mobility.16 The role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and its jurisprudence became significant for the clarification of this notion. The ECJ “routinely refers to ‘principles of solidarity’ to
determine the proper balance between market
principles and social protection objectives in EU law”17. Furthermore, in the field of
11 Idem.
A more extensive analysis of the idea of transnational social solidarity can be found in Chapter 3 of this thesis.
12 Raspotnik, Jacob and Ventura, 2012, p. 2.
13 A. Sangiovanni, 2013 (Solidarity in the European Union) and K. Klatzaki, The application of the principle of European Solidarity: Another victim of the EU financial crisis? Katarina Klaitzaki , 2016, available at: http://www.uclancyprus.ac.cy/files/1014/7809/0 976/JMMWP_Series2_Kalaitzaki.pdf
14 Raspotnik, A., Jacob, M. and Ventura, L., 2012, p. 2. 15 Fernandez, S. and Rubio, E., 2012, p. 7-8.
16 Raspotnik, A., Jacob, M. and Ventura, L., 2012, p.4. 17 Sangiovanni, A., 2013, p. 214.
10 | P a g e health services, the ECJ develops a framework that highlights the importance of balance between solidarity and market access.18
The market dynamics are explicitly connected with one of the four freedoms of the EU – the freedom of movement. On the other hand, freedom of movement is also a fundamental characteristic of the Schengen area. It has a connection with border and asylum management, where solidarity plays a pivotal role. The recent migration crisis highlighted the notion of asylum solidarity. The term was linked with responsibility-sharing as part of the instruments for effective application of the CEAS.19 Despite the extensive reference to solidarity, not much analysis has been done on the nature of the concept in the field of asylum and its potential for alleviating the current migration crisis.
18 Ibid, p. 215.
Further Reference: Giubboni, S. (2007). Free Movement of Persons and European Solidarity. European Law Journal, 13(3), pp.360-379.; Giubboni, S. (2010). A Certain Degree of Solidarity? Free Movement of Persons and Access to Social Protection in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice. In: M. Ross and Y. Borgmann-Prebil, ed., Promoting Solidarity in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.166-197.; Giubboni, S. (2015). Free Movement of Persons and European Solidarity Revisited. Perspectives on Federalism, 7(3), pp.1-18. Dougan, M. 2005 ‘Wish you weren’t here…” New models of social solidarity in the European Union, in Social Welfare and EU law, eds. E. Spaventa and M. Dougan, 180-218. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Barnard, C. 2005 EU citizenship and the principle of solidarity. In Social Welfare and EU law, eds. E. Spaventa and M. Dougan, 157-180, Oxford: Hard Publishing.
11 | P a g e
1.2. Purpose and Research Question
Since 2015, the topic of migration penetrated the European leaders’ speeches and the political discourse at EU level. The notion of solidarity became an inseparable part of the discussions on the migration crisis. The European Commission has appealed that “[s]olidarity is part of how the European society works and how Europe engages with the rest of the world”20. Moreover, in the latest State of the European Union, the President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Junker emphasised on the principle of solidarity as “the glue that keeps our Union together”21. Despite the importance and popularity that was given to the concept, the available knowledge and understanding of solidarity in EU are partial. In fact, no legal definition of solidarity in the EU legislation is available and thus various interpretations of the concept exist.22 In addition, not much has been done on studying solidarity in the context of asylum and its normative power.23
This master thesis aims to address this existing gap in the knowledge throughout a comprehensive analysis of the concept of solidarity in the EU legal and political order. Furthermore, by examining consecutively the place of solidarity in the legal and political order of two Member States, namely Bulgaria and Italy, the goal of this thesis is to find out what the real possibility for solidarity to be an effective tool for overcoming the current migration crisis is. At the moment, a greater emphasis is put on the migration crisis as an exogenous challenge for the EU (the migration crisis as an external factor that occurs outside the EU's territory but has impact on the EU as a whole; affects the EU- non-EU countries relations), however, in this paper focus will be put on the migration crisis with its endogenous influence on the EU (the impact of the event on the EU internal dynamics, unity and inter-Member States relations), which could be a reason for triggering or revealing an internal solidarity “crisis". The thesis
20 European Commission, 2007. 21 European Commission, 2016. 22 Sangiovanni, A., 2012, p. 387.
23 In this regard it is important to highlight Ian Manners’s work on the normative power of Europe and specifically his categorization of core and minors norms of the EU, among which is solidarity. See: Manners, Ian. (2002) ‘Normative Power in Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?’, Journal of Common Market Studies 40(2): 235–58.
12 | P a g e will study the nature, dynamics and limitations of solidarity as a political and legal concept. Therefore, this paper would attempt to give insight to the question:
What is the possibility for solidarity to be an effective EU tool for overcoming the current migration crisis?
In order to do so, the following research sub-questions will be answered: How can we conceptualise the term solidarity?
How is solidarity incorporated in the EU legal order?
What is the place of solidarity in the EU asylum policy?
What is the place of solidarity in the asylum legal and policy order of two of the Member States, namely Bulgaria and Italy?
What is the correlation between solidarity in the EU law and asylum policy and solidarity in the law and asylum policies of two of the Member States – Bulgaria and Italy?
This paper represents in its entirety a pragmatic qualitative research which would enable the author to use elements such as historical, legal, constitutional, policy and socio-cultural analyses for creating a more diverse account of the issues at hand. It also uses content analysis in order to identify the presence of solidarity in legal and policy documents and its relationship to other concepts. The methodological approach for comparison and analysis of the correlation between solidarity at EU level and national level is based on three criteria. The first one is conceptual analysis with the aim to discover the frequency of solidarity usage in the legal and policy documents. The second and the third criteria are based on a relational analysis and aim on finding the relation of solidarity to asylum and to other concepts. The thesis draws to some extent on constructivist assumptions of the role of norms for the European integration process. Since, the motivation behind this present study is to draw lessons and conclusions about solidarity, in the context of the current migration crisis, such approach is believed, to provide a better understanding of the role of solidarity in EU policies, such as asylum.
The hypothesis of this thesis is that solidarity in the field of asylum policy has relatively small possibility to be an effective tool for tackling the current migration crisis due to the heterogeneous incorporation, application and understanding of the
13 | P a g e concept at EU and national level. By postulating the main research question, the significance of this thesis can be found in its added value for the ongoing debates on the current migration crisis. The aim of this thesis is it to provide a comprehensive analysis of solidarity, which could be useful in areas different than asylum. Furthermore, this thesis aims to contribute to the development of a better understanding of solidarity which can serve as a point for recommendations and future improvements. By using constructivist theoretical assumptions about the role of norms this thesis could also contribute to the study of the significance of norms and values for the European integration process.
In terms of delimitations and limitations, it should be noted that the research was encouraged by the recent migration movements caused by the political upheavals in the Middle East and Northern Africa that began in 2011. Thus, the so-called migration crisis is an ongoing crisis with unclear legal and policy outcome, which means that this thesis does not aim to establish a general conclusion about this event. Hence, when referring to the term migration crisis this thesis will only encompass specific timeframe – from 2011 until the first quarter of 2017. Secondly, the national perspective of this thesis is explicitly based on two cases studies – Bulgaria and Italy. Having in mind the time and length limitation of this thesis, examination of more Member States is not feasible. Moreover, this thesis could be criticised on establishing narratives about solidarity in the EU without taking into account a comprehensive analysis of solidarity in fields different than the asylum one.
1.3. Outline
In order to address the current issues that the EU is facing, and particularly the possibility of solidarity as an effective tool for overcoming the present migration crisis, this thesis will be divided into five distinctive but yet complementary chapters. The paper starts with a general presentation of the background and current state of affairs, followed by a concise overview of the main research problem and the limitations of this study. The second chapter concentrates on some of the major theoretical perspectives relevant to the purpose of this study. By combining core elements of fundamental and contemporary theories for the development of a comprehensive understanding of the notion of solidarity, in this chapter the author
14 | P a g e aims to develop the theoretical approach that will provide with enough information for a conceptualization of the term solidarity and solidarity at EU level. The chapter includes contributions made by Emile Durkheim, Max Scheler, Richard Rorty, Steinar Stjernø, Malcolm Ross and Floris de Witte. This will be followed by an explanation of the developed methodological analysis. The third chapter will examine the rise, development, and evolution of solidarity in the EU legal order. An analysis of EU’s primary sources of law and a summary of relevant case law practice of the European Court of Justice in the field of solidarity will be presented. Furthermore, the policy analysis of this chapter will comprise of tracing the historical development of the EU’s asylum policy, the creation of the Common European Asylum System, an analysis of Article 80, TFEU, and presentation and analysis of the current legislative proposals on asylum. The role of solidarity in this policy field will be carefully drawn. Chapter four will deal with the case studies chosen for completing the national perspective of this thesis (Bulgaria and Italy). The chapter will finish with a comparison between the EU and the national perspective with the aim to find what the correlation of solidarity is. The final chapter will summarise the main findings, draw conclusions, answer the main research question and give recommendations for a future discussion and research.
15 | P a g e
2.
THEORETICAL
ANALYSIS
AND
METHODOLOGICAL
APPROACH
This chapter presents various theories that explain the concept of solidarity. Furthermore, the chapter examines solidarity, as a principle and fundamental value of the EU, and its meaning and significance for the European integration process. Finally, the chapter sets out the developed methodological approach, which will be based on constructivist theoretical postulates and content analysis, with the aim to better understand and examine the selected case studies.
2.1. Defining solidarity
Defining solidarity is a difficult task because one common definition does not exist. The analysis of prevailing different approaches on solidarity would help to gain essential knowledge about the concept and its nature. The very beginning of solidarity is traced back to the Roman civil law, where the notion was used to explain the relationship between a creditor and a group of people responsible for a debt.24 In the XIX century, the French Revolution gave birth to the French social solidarity that represents an outset of the contemporary interpretation of the notion. Sociologists, philosophers, and legal scholars developed their own understanding and conceptualization of solidarity while trying to find out its role in the society.25
Today, the definition of solidarity in the Oxford Dictionary is: “Unity or agreement of feeling or action, especially among individuals with a common interest; mutual support within a group”26. Hence, the concept entails the idea of likeness among a group of individuals that are united by a common interest and “are bound together by a feeling of community”27. Furthermore, the individuals are equal and have responsibilities and obligations.28
24 Noll, G., 2016, p.3. 25 Ross, M., 2010, p. 24. 26 Anon, 2016. 27 Domurath, I., 2013, p.460. 28 Idem.
16 | P a g e In the last two decades, the rise and nature of solidarity were investigated by many social researchers and scientists such as Sven-Eric Liedman, Kurt Bayertz, and Andreas Wildt.29 A contribution to the study of solidarity in modernity is also made by Jurgen Habermas30, who attempted to create “a moral philosophy with universal validity where justice and solidarity are key concepts”31. The present theoretical analysis will encompass Emile Durkheim's fundamental theory of mechanical and
organic solidarity, which has been considered by many as a departing point for
conceptualization of solidarity, Max Scheler, and Richard Rorty's contributions and perspectives, and a more contemporary conceptualization of solidarity made by the Norwegian academic Steinar Stjernø, who traces the establishing of solidarity as idea by doing an extensive research on classic social theory, political thought, and religious perspective.
As it has been just mentioned, many scholars while trying to define solidarity depart from Emile Durkheim’s conceptualization of mechanical solidarity and organic
solidarity, expressed for first time in the book The Division of Labour in Society (1893).
Durkheim attempt was to give an answer to one of the central questions of sociology:
What holds a society together? To answer this question, he departs from the
assumption that people have two types of consciousness – individual consciousness, particular to a person, and collective (common) consciousness, that is shared with every member of the society. Durkheim insists that people in a society, or in a community, share common social norms and values, which creates a feeling of moral obligation. According to him, this phenomenon, known as collective (common) consciousness, is a reason for the emergence of solidarity among people in a group. Durkheim states that solidarity is the normative tool that integrates people in one community or society.32 Furthermore, he considers the existence of two types of solidarity: mechanical
solidarity and organic solidarity. Mechanical solidarity, according to him, is a
characteristic of traditional societies, which are defined by a degree of differentiation
29 See Att se sig själv i andra: Om solidaritet by Sven-Eric, Liedman (Stockholm: Albert Bonniers Förlag, 1999); Solidaritat. Begriff und Problem, published in 1998 and Solidarit, published in 1999, by Kurt Bayertz;
Solidarity: its history and contemporary definition by Andreas Wildt, published 1999. 30 See Habermas, J., (1984) Justice and Solidarity: On the Discussion Concerning "Stage 6". 31 Stjernø, S., 2005, p. 302.
17 | P a g e that is very low.33 In fact, mechanical solidarity innates in societies which are homogenous, people play a similar role, have similar lifestyles and share the same values.34 That is to say, “[s]olidarity is strong in traditional society, because people are alike and because they think alike”35. Thus, in mechanical solidarity, characteristic of traditional societies, collective (common) consciousness dominates the individual one. This means that “the individual does not belong to himself; he is literally a thing at a disposal of society”36. However, nowadays such mechanical solidarity is rare due to the fact that it is easily challenged by the complexity of globalisation and the division of labour.37 Thus, organic solidarity emerges as a characteristic of modern societies which are highly differentiated, people have a different lifestyle, culture, and beliefs and offer a different relationship between collective and individual consciousness. This creates a novel type of individual freedom but also a higher interdependence between the individuals. In such societies or communities, “occupational differences create a complex interdependence between the activities of different producers”38. In other words, people in a society are interconnected by the division of labour although the bond of shared values might be weak.
In short, since the division of labour becomes the chief source of social solidarity, it becomes, at the same time the foundation of the moral order.39
Thus, Durkheim argues that such division of labour is the mean that can intensify unity in a society or community and the outcome would be social progress. Furthermore, according to him solidarity, as a moral principle and law, has the ability to bind people within a society. Durkheim indicates that organic solidarity in modern societies can only exist if justice exists in this society. Such link between solidarity
33 Guyette, F., 2010 p. 409.
34 Andersen, M. and Taylor, H., 2006, p. 130. 35 Stjernø, S., 2005, p. 33.
36 Durkheim, E. and Lukes, S., 2013, p. 102. 37 Andersen, M. and Taylor, H., 2006, p. 130. 38 Stjernø, S., 2005, p. 34.
18 | P a g e and justice is acknowledged by Jürgen Habermas a century later.40 Moreover, Durkheim considers justice as “the necessary accompaniment to every kind of solidarity”41. Hence, inequality and inequities should be reduced in order to keep the society (or community) united and prosperous.42
Years later, Durkheim expresses a newfangled understanding of solidarity in
The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1915). He adds another element to the
explanation of solidarity – "the role of expressive emotions in forming solidarity"43. By acknowledging the power of religion for establishing of social connection and bonds, the new dimension of Durkheim's upgraded understanding suggests that religion reinforces social solidarity. Thus, the role of emotion and feeling, previously ignored by Durkheim, receives a significance for establishing solidarity in a social community.44 In contrary to Durkheim's later approach on solidarity, Max Scheler45 acknowledges the existence of an emotional dimension of solidarity that is based on a form of compassion rather than a religious ritual. He considers four forms of sympathy that contribute to the establishment of solidarity. Scheler creates an account of solidarity that is criticised for showing the nature of the concept without being able to provide with the incentives that would make a community stick to it.46
Contemporary accounts on the concept have taken into account the influential analysis of solidarity made by Durkheim and the attributions of scholars such as Scheler. Richard Rorty in Contingency, Irony and Solidarity (1989), states that what stimulates the existence of solidarity in a community is the fact that people realise that everyone is equally "vulnerable to hurt and humiliation"47. According to him the existence of solidarity between distinct groups is better achieved by “sewing a thousand little stitches to invoke, a thousand little commonalities between their
40 See Rehg, W. (1994). Insight and solidarity – the discourse ethics of Jurgen Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.
41 Durkheim, E. and Lukes, S., 2013, p. 95. 42 Stjernø, S., 2005, p. 35.
43 Guyette, F., 2012, p. 410. 44 Idem.
45 Max Scheler. (1974). Formalism in Ethics and Non-Formal Ethics of Values, trans. Manfred Frings and Roger Funk (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1974): 526.
Further reference: Rainer Ibana, The Essential Elements for the Possibility and Necessity of the Principle of Solidarity According to Max Scheler, Philosophy Today, 1989, 33: 42–55
46 Guyette, F., 2012 p. 411.
19 | P a g e members, rather by a specifying one great big one, their common humanity”48 Rorty's understanding of solidarity was criticised for being difficult to be preserved for generations. On the other hand, his assumption that solidarity is “the ability to think of people wildly different from ourselves as included in the range of “us””49 has been also acknowledged by the contemporary scholar Steinar Stjernø in Solidarity in
Europe, (2005)50. In this regard, as important characteristic of the modern type of solidarity, Stjernø considers that the concept is based on the acceptance of diversity and not on the idea of "sameness"51.
As a date of birth of the concept Stjernø identifies the middle of the XIX century. The idea of solidarity, born during the French Revolution, he suggests, is closely related to the notion of fraternité. French social philosophers created the notion of solidarity with the intention to find a solution of the political and social disturbances. The French idea of solidarity was “inclusive one and it aimed at restoring the social integration that had been lost”52. In Germany, the concept was introduced later and it was related to Marxism and the goal of uniting the work class members. Hence, the German idea of solidarity implies limitations because of its focus on workers but it also signifies inclusiveness outside the borders of the country due to the fact that workers outside Germany were also considered. Nevertheless, Stjernø states that the German notion of solidarity was more an example of a conflict rather than integration.53
To develop an understanding of solidarity as a concept in the social and political science, Stjernø offers a unique analytical approach. Departing from the assumption that one single universal concept of solidarity does not exist, the scholar
48 Kuipers, R., 1997, p. 73. 49 Rorty, R., 1989, p. 192.
50 Steinar Stjernø provides a contemporary, in-depth research of the concept of solidarity. Considering solidarity as a key concept of social theory and politics, Stjernø makes a comprehensive research that examines the three main traditions contributing to the establishing of solidarity as an idea – classic social theory, political thought, and religious perspective. The book traces the development of solidarity in XIX, the political dimension of solidarity, analyses the socialist theories of Karl Marx and Karl Kautsky, links solidarity with religion, and in particular Catholicism and Protestantism. It also examines the development of the idea of solidarity in political parties in Europe and makes an extensive comparison between solidarity in social democratic and Christian democratic parties. Stjerno offers predictions about solidarity a modern conceptualization of solidarity.
51 Stjernø, S., 2005, p. 199. 52 Ibid, p. 25.
20 | P a g e concludes that in modernity there is a diverse range of ideas of solidarity that differ in terms of four aspects – foundation, objective/function, inclusion/exclusion, collective orientation (see Table 1). Based on this, he concludes that solidarity has different configurations. Thus, the concept can be descriptive, normative or a mixture of both. Furthermore, it may indicate inclusion or exclusion.54 In Stjerno’s modern definition, solidarity refers to the “preparedness to share resources with others, through taxation and redistribution organised by the state” and the “readiness for collective action and will to institutionalise it through the establishment of rights and citizenship”55. According to his definition, solidarity is expressed when an individual can stand up for those who are in need or in struggle and has the will to support disadvantaged groups.
Table 1 Concepts of Solidarity, Steinar Stjerno56
Thus, Stjernø’s comprehensive examination of the conceptual transformation of solidarity, since its emergence until the modern days, offers significant contributions
54 Stjernø, S., 2005, p. 18. 55 Ibid, p. 326.
21 | P a g e to the development of a unified approach on solidarity. He considers that solidarity is founded not on the base of interest but on humanism thus, he concludes that “[t]he goal of solidarity is not socialism, but the creation of a feeling of community, social integration, and sharing risks”57. He concludes that throughout the years the idea of solidarity became more inclusive, by including not only workers but other social groups and problems. Hence, there is a tendency “towards a broad and inclusive idea of solidarity that has justice or social integration as a main objective”58.
The theoretical presentation of essential contributions for the conceptualization of the term solidarity leads to various findings. The first part of this chapter aimed at presenting diverse theories on solidarity which either has been influenced by each other, contradict one another, or complement one another. The main contributions of the presented theories and accounts on solidarity can be summarised in Table 2. Table 2 Contributions to solidarity
Scholar Contribution
Emile Durkheim
Mechanical
Organic Later understanding
Normative tool that integrates people in one community or society
Characteristic of traditional societies; people are alike.
Characteristic of modern societies; people are interconnected because of the division of labour Emotional dimension of solidarity - role of religious rituals
Max Scheler Emotional dimension of solidarity - compassion Richard Rorty The ability to see "others" as "us"
Steinar Stjernø Standing for those that are underprivileged
and/or in need; humanism as a base of solidarity; tendency for broader inclusiveness
57 Stjernø, S., 2005, p.199. 58 Ibid, p. 320.
22 | P a g e
2.2 Theories on EU solidarity
The classic theories explaining solidarity were developed with a particular focus on the nation state. However, the EU and its legal norms, as suggested by different scholars59, suggest the existence of a new type of solidarity that goes beyond the borders and scope of the Member States. The “sui generis” nature of EU assumes the existence of a revived solidarity. The EU, with its peculiar legal, political and social dimensions and complex relations between the different actors and levels of the EU governance, is an example of a co-existence of national and supranational constitutional order. This order, however, could be sometimes challenged by internal (endogenous) or external (exogenous) threats, for instance in the field of economy or migration, and unpredictable conflicts that can lead to crises with different scope and nature.
In order to explain different crises and challenges scholars have developed particular theories about the nature of EU solidarity. Some have made a link between the EU solidarity and Durkheim's idea of organic solidarity as the shared common values between the Member States and the feeling of the interconnection and common responsibility for the current and future prosperity of the EU create a specific transnational EU solidarity. In fact scholars suggest that such type of interstate organic solidarity in the EU can be based on two rationales, either direct reciprocity, in which helping someone is linked with the expectation of being helped in case of need, or "enlightened self-interest" that is based on the genuine belief that doing the right thing for the EU and its members will, in fact, help one's self-interest. A presentation of two contemporary EU solidarity theories and complementary opinions will follow: the Virtuous circle model of EU solidarity 60 and the Theory of transnational solidarity61.
59 For instance: Ross, M. and Borgmann-Prebil, Y., 2010; De Witte, F., 2015; Domurath, I., 2013.
60 Malcolm Ross in Promoting Solidarity in the European Union, (2010) edited by Malcolm Ross and Yuri Borgmann-Prebil, provides an extensive analysis of the role of solidarity in shaping EU policies and law. The book is based on contributions of experts in fields such as sociology, political science, and law.
61 Floris De Witte, in Justice in the EU: The Emergence of Transnational Solidarity, published in 2015 by Oxford University Press.
23 | P a g e As it has been presented in the previous section, Stjernø studies and summarises the different traditional conceptualizations of solidarity and gives his own definition of the term. However, scholars, such as Malcolm Ross, introduce the idea that in the case of the European Union, it is not necessary to identify solidarity with accordance to the peculiarities of the examined by Stjernø traditions, due to the sui
generis nature of the EU. Furthermore, this means that the EU offers a unique case
for studying which could suggest a special type of solidarity with a legal, political and economic dimension, which is not a characteristic of any other social tradition or entity. As a matter of fact, Ross acknowledges the existence of solidarities in the EU.62 His aim is to study the constitutional significance of solidarity in the European law and the normative nature of the concept while considering that the concept has a specific role in the EU and it is an important part of the Union's legal order.
Departing from the assumption that solidarity is a mean through which the integrity of the society can be preserved, Ross summarises some of its elements.63 For instance, based on Heyd’s work, he concludes that solidarity also signifies exclusion, although this does not automatically presume a hostile meaning. 64 Furthermore, according to him, “mutuality”, understood as a balance between the feeling of responsibility and sympathy, and seen as a mean of encouraging mutual support among the people in a community, is an important element of the concept. The notion promotes equality, well-being, and fairness among the members of a group and does not require “self-sacrifice”. In contrast to Stjerno, Ross expands on the legal applications of solidarity, by exploring the interconnection of the term with responsibilities. Another important assumption about the concept is its connection with the public sphere. Ross states that together with the social dimension, the concept has its own political nature and participates actively in political discourses, and thus, should not be compared to an action or feeling of charity.65 Such observation is also shared by Karagiannis, who states that “solidarity is the periodic specification of social bonds in a political perspective”66. With regards to this, Ross concludes, the multi-dimensional nature of the concept of solidarity suggests that 62 Ross, M., 2010, p. 28. 63 Ibid, p. 24, 28-29. 64 Heyd, D., 2007. 65 Ross, M., 2010, p. 28-29. 66 N. Karagiannis, 2007.
24 | P a g e different political projects could “contain” different dimensions of solidarity and thus, conflicts between them are possible. 67
In order to explain the diverse and multilevel nature of the concept and its implications, Malcolm Ross develops a model of a virtuous circle. This model constitutes of three elements which are linked to each other – creation, expression and sustainability (See Figure 1 Solidarity's virtuous circles). While creation and
sustainability have social and political
nature, the “expression of solidarity is a strongly – though not uniquely – legal phenomenon” 69 . With creation, Ross implies the idea of solidarity that is based on a particular consolidation of bonds that form the nature of the concept. Those bonds include “identity, shared values and belief, positive rights and responsibilities, and levels of security and anxiety”70. In the case of the EU and the
presumption that different solidarities exist, “a theoretical model of European solidarity can credibly occupy a place that is neither an extremely thin ‘legal rights’ base nor a very thick statist or nationalist identity”71. By expression, Ross highlights the constitutional character of solidarity in the EU. The legal framework, the acquis
communitaire, gives solidarity a pivotal role in the EU. The ratification of the Lisbon
Treaty is a moment of the reassertion of the importance of the principle. Ross states that solidarity, as a constitutional value, has a significant impact on the European legal order. For instance, it can influence and transform other EU core values, such as citizenship and fundamental rights. As regards to citizenship, Habermas also emphasises on the existing connection with solidarity by stating that citizenship can be understood as an “abstract, legally mediated solidarity between strangers”72. Ross makes another important observation that both citizenship and solidarity are linked to 67 Ross, M., 2010, p. 29. 68 Source: Ross, M., 2010, p.30. 69 Ross, M., 2010, p. 35. 70 Ibid, p. 36 71 Idem
72 Jurgen Habermas, in Ross, M., 2010, p. 36.
25 | P a g e the idea of equal treatment. It has been also emphasised that citizenship and solidarity share the idea of inclusion or exclusion towards others especially in regard to immigration. The anti-EU movements oppose the expansion of the political community and the grant of rights to non-nationals, which suggests “that traditional class conflict has been replaced by a conflict of migrant versus citizens”73. Despite the lack of a stable position in the case law practice of the ECJ on citizenship, Ross concludes that the Court’s judgments imply that solidarity can be used as a tool to expand the rights granted by citizenship.74As regards to fundamental rights, Ross examines that the connection between solidarity and fundamental rights is more precarious, considering that in some occasions the latter could be restricted by the former. The author notes that such clash could occur, for example, in relation to the “question of how solidarity and rights-led approaches play out in relation to typical providers of services of general economic interest”75.
The last component of Ross’s virtuous circle model of solidarity is sustainability. According to Ross, this dimension of the concept has the power to contest or re-estimate other discourses and paradigms, for instance – the trend of the nation state to ‘securitize’ issues in order to justify its interventions. The author proposes solidarity as a counterbalance to the securitizing biases and adds that nowadays, the “political power of ‘security’ can attempt to appropriate solidarity for its own ends – as witnessed by calls for ‘international solidarity’ in the so-called war on terror”76. The link between solidarity and security is considered ambiguous. For instance, enforcing politics of security would diminish the perception of threats, insecurities and over-all fears (for instance, fears about immigration and terrorism), thus, could strengthen the sense of solidarity. However, solidarity could be also abducted by security matters. Nevertheless, Ross considers solidarity as a powerful concept that has the power to shape policies, such as security. Furthermore, according to him, the existence of transnational solidarities can better ensure security in a society than nationalistic ideologies.77
73 Ross, M., 2010, p. 37.
74 See European Court of Justice Judgment, Case C-303/06 Coleman v Attridge Law and Steve Law [2008] ECR I-5603.
75 Ross, M., 2010, p. 38-39. 76 Ibid, p.39.
26 | P a g e Another approach on solidarity is undertaken by Floris De Witte in Justice in
the EU: The Emergence of Transnational Solidarity, (2015). While searching for an
answer to the question “What does justice mean in the EU?", the author formulates the theory of transnational solidarity. This theory “serves to integrate the Union’s claims of freedom and equality beyond the state with the institutional and normative framework of the nation state that is indispensable in the production of norms of justice”78. According to the author, solidarity is the tool for the process of institutionalisation of justice in the EU. De Witte’s understanding of solidarity is that “it is a normative reason of action, a motive for sharing resources – and as such it becomes a mechanism that allows for the translation of obligations of justice into actual right and entitlements”79. By using case law practice of the Court of Justice, De Witte discusses three different types of transnational solidarity: market solidarity, communitarian solidarity, and aspirational solidarity.
Market solidarity covers the relationships established by the interactions in the internal market of the EU. Such relationships, based on economic benefits, have an impact on the concept of justice and create a reason for sharing resources among the different countries. De Witte states that market solidarity is a new version (a transnational one) of that type of solidarity that serves as a base for the development of the first national welfare rights. Furthermore, he points out that market solidarity reminds of what Durkheim called organic solidarity. In the case of EU, the transnational division of labour is a source of rights and obligations of solidarity. The economic interactions are not limited within the borders of the nation-state, hence, “market solidarity serves to integrate the associative connections that emerge through economic interaction on the internal market within the domestic structures of the welfare state”80.
The communitarian solidarity derives from the idea of the EU as a community and entails the rights of citizens emerging in the process of interaction with other citizens in another Member State (host state). In contrast to market solidarity, which creates economic links between the EU citizens, the communitarian one is related to the establishment of social links. This type of solidarity does not permit the Member
78 De Witte, F., 2015, p. 74. 79 Idem.
27 | P a g e States to have different approaches, based on the criteria of nationality and residence while providing welfare access. It is important to note that, according to De Witte, this does not mean that migrant citizens have unlimited and absolute access to the host country’s welfare system. In fact, communitarian solidarity suggests that there is a different condition for access to the diverse welfare goods. For instance, emergency healthcare has different conditions for access than the right to receive a student grant in the host country. Furthermore, the more integrated the citizen is, the easier the access to welfare resources will be. Hence, in the EU, communitarian solidarity is connected with the idea of a membership, which is a base for sharing welfare goods with citizens of other Member States. The purpose of communitarian solidarity is to prevent discrimination based on nationality and to provide equal access to welfare goods, for those who are socially (and economically) active and socially engaged with the host state policy.81
Aspirational solidarity, as formulated by De Witte, presents the idea that organisations, including the EU, establish a specific role for the individuals corresponding to their own aspirations and objectives. The rights, given by the EU to its citizens, do not only serve to protect them as social or economic agents but they also correspond with the EU’s aspiration – preventing the Member States to restrict the opportunities of their citizens for having a ‘good life’. Part of the EU integration aspirations is to ensure the improvement of the life of people. De Witte, points out that the EU, and in particular, the ECJ, strives to help individuals to have a better life, rather than ensuring the objectives of the Union. Thus, the EU promotes the goal of the national welfare state in establishing opportunities for people to have a ‘good life’. It can also be perceived as a “negative obligation” on the Member States because it limits their ability to restrict citizens’ access to activities, resources, and possibilities that could bring a better life to the individual. Such opportunities for ‘good’ life, could be external, as the free movement of persons in EU or internal, for instance, access to the labour market. Aspirational solidarity aims to ensure stability in the nation-state, even though in some areas, such as labour law, it is apprehended as destabilising national norms. In sum, the correct understanding of aspirational solidarity is that
81 De Witte, F., 2015, 124.
28 | P a g e “entails a conditional obligation to allow citizens to pursue their conception of the ‘good life’ [and] not an absolute obligation to accommodate or stimulate this pursuit”.82
In sum, Malcolm Ross and Bruno De Witte acknowledge that the EU’s nature suggests and proves the existence of different solidarities. Both scholars while examining the multilevel nature of the concept try to find out its normative essence. In contrast to De Witte, who is strictly engaged with finding the role of justice in the EU and the correlation between justice and solidarity, Ross offers a broader analysis of the concept and its constitutional significance. His model of virtuous circles is developed to explain the legal, sociological and political aspects of the concept. Nevertheless, both models contribute to the better understanding of the concept and offer important insights about its nature. It can be concluded that solidarity is not just a simple idea of being part of a group but a robust and influential tool that has the power to transform. An important characteristic of solidarity is its ability to be used as a “constitutional principle that must uphold values and choose between priorities”83. Solidarity seems to be a significant tool for promoting and creating EU law and ensuring justice.
82 De Witte, F., 2015, p. 172. 83 Ross, M., 2010, p. 40.
29 | P a g e
2.3. Methodological approach
The previous part of this chapter, presented the theoretical background of the thesis with the aim to provide a better understanding of the topic of solidarity. It also addressed the existing gaps of the available knowledge. The current section introduces the research design and the methodological approach used for the better analysis of the case studies.
The careful study of the existing literature and theories about solidarity revealed key components of the notion and helped for the establishing of a new unified approach of solidarity and solidarity at the EU level. It should be noted from the above theoretical and literature review, however, that limited studies on solidarity in the asylum field are available. To the best of the author’s knowledge, the case of the legal and policy dimensions of solidarity in the EU asylum policy has not been given great attention by the researchers in the past and this motivated the present thesis. Analysing the normative power of a norm and fundamental EU principle, such as solidarity, and its real ability to provide an effective response to challenges in the context of a particular policy (in this case asylum policy), would provide important basis for studying the dynamics of the European integration. Hence, the added value of this thesis could be also found in its contribution to the debates between the mainstream theories and approaches on European integration such as rationalist and constructivist ones.
Different theories and approaches on EU integration offer various explanations and suggestions of the significance of norms and their influence on policies and the policy-making process.84 Those theories on European integration considered as interest-based85 tend to disregard the role of norms and values for the integration
84 Jileva, E. ,2004, p.9.
85 Such theory is the liberal intergovernmentalism. See: Andrew Moravcsik, The Choice for Europe. Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998), 486–9; Andrew Moravcsik.
and Kalypso Nicolaidis, “Explaining the Treaty of Amsterdam: Interests, Influence, Institutions,” Journal of Common Market Studies 37, no. 1 (1999), 59–85, 61.
30 | P a g e process, while other theories, such as constructivism86, underline the importance of norms, social ideas, values, discourse and culture for the European integration process.87 Rosamond, for instance, talks about “the constitutive effect of norm” with which he implies that norms, discourses and ideas at EU level can enter the national policies and influence the EU dynamics.88
In a nutshell, rationalist theories on EU integration consider the interest of the actors as a departing and crucial point for the outcome of the decision-making process. For instance, Andrew Moravscik’s theory of liberal intergovernmentalism, predominant in the 90s89, departs from the assumption that the Member States, during the decision-making process, follow their economic interest and their bargaining power influences the outcome of the intergovernmental negotiations.90 Thus, the deepening of the European integration is closely linked with the states’ preferences and their bargaining power.91 Nevertheless, the rationalist accounts have been criticised for not being able to explain actions that are not based on interest and situations that are unexpected.92 Such lack of flexibility of the theory aims to be compensated by constructivist approaches.93 Constructivism attempts to explain outcomes of negotiations that cannot be explained by rationalist approaches and their
86 Some scholars do not consider constructivism as a theory on European integration such as neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism. Rosamond for instance considers constructivism more an ontology than a theory. See: Rosamond, B. (2000). Theories of European integration. New York: St. Martin's Press.; Moravcsik, A. (1999). 'Is something rotten in the state of
Denmark?' Constructivism and European integration. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(4), pp.669-681.
Further reference: Checkel, J. (2006). Constructivism and EU Politics. In: K. Jørgensen, M. Pollack and B. Rosamond, ed., Handbook of European Union Politics. London: SAGE
Publication, pp.57-77.; Risse, T. (2004). Social Constructivism and European Integration. In: A. Wiener and T. Diez, ed., European Integration Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.159-176.
87 Schimmelfennig, F., 2012, p. 34. 88 Rosamond, B. 2006 p. 131.
89 More about the dominance of liberal intergovernmentalism as a theory on the European integration: Pollack, Mark A. (2001) ‘Theorizing European Integration and Governance:
International Relations Theory and European Integration’, Journal of Common Market Studies 39(2): 221–44.
90 Moravcsik, A. 1993; Moravcsik, A., 1998; Moravcsik, A. and Nikolaides, K., 1999. 91 Moravscik, A., 1993, p. 480.
See also: Moravcsik, Andrew (1998) The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. and Moravcsik, A. and Nicolaidis, K. (1999). Explaining the Treaty of Amsterdam: Interests, Influence, Institutions. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 37(1), pp.59-85.
92 Jileva, E., 2004, p. 8. 93 Schimmelfennig, F., 2012.
31 | P a g e interest-based element. It takes into account the role of norms as an explanation of the states’ behaviour. In contrast to rationalist theories, constructivism gives an answer to questions such “as ‘why share costs’ [and represents] complementary or alternative account to more prominent cost–benefit models”.94 The effectiveness of integration, according to constructivist approaches, depends on the high level of “domestic or societal resonance of EU ideas”95. Constructivists consider that the “European integration is at its core a process of community building”96. According to them, communities are built upon shared values and normative beliefs. Hence, the EU considered as a community comprised of states that share common norms, values and goals has been a good case for testing constructivism.97 Moreover, such normative nature of the EU gave rise to theories about its role as an international actor and its normative power.98 For instance, Ian Manners, while examining the international role of EU as a promotor of norms, explores the normative basis of the EU and identifies “five core norms” constituting the “the acquis communautaire and acquis politique”99. Those five fundamental norms that guide the European law and policies, according to Manners, are peace, liberty, democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights and freedoms.100 Moreover, he suggests the existence of minor norms among which is solidarity.101 Thus, the approach of linking the constructivist emphasis on the significance of norms, such as solidarity, for the integration process and the normative power of EU, is believed to contribute to a coherent and valuable analysis of the current thesis’ topic.
In sum, constructivism with its norm-based approach has been applied to various domains of EU integration and policies such as enlargement policy, EU
94 Jileva, E., 2004, p.8. 95 Schimmelfenning, p. 4. 96 Ibid, p. 3.
97 Idem.
98 See: Ian Manners. (2002). Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40:2, 235-58; Ian Manners. (2006), Normative Power Europe reconsidered: beyond the crossroads, Journal of European Public Policy, 13:2 182-199. Ian Manners, The normative ethics of the European Union, International Affairs, 84:1 (2008), 46-60. Helene Sjursen, The EU as a ‘normative power’: how can this be?, Journal of European Public Policy, 13:2 (2006), 235-251. Adrian Hyde-Price, ‘Normative’ power Europe: a realist critique, Journal of European Public Policy, 13:2 (2006), 218-234.
99 Manners, I., 2002, p.242. 100 Idem.
32 | P a g e citizenship, economic integration and foreign policy. 102 By setting a focus on the importance of socially constructed values and norms for the integration dynamics, constructivism offers a reasonable base for the present study on the essence, significance and normative power of solidarity in the EU asylum policy.
After presenting different theories on solidarity in the first chapter, with the aim to answer the first research question: How can we define the notion of solidarity and
solidarity in the EU?, the rest of the thesis will attempt to further extend the knowledge
about the role and significance of solidarity in the EU, through an analysis of solidarity at supranational level (EU) and national level (two Member States: Bulgaria and Italy). The first step is a comprehensive legal and policy analysis of the role of solidarity at EU level by using historical, legal, and policy analysis of the Treaties of the EU and the EU asylum policy documents. Such analysis will provide answers to the research sub-questions: How is solidarity incorporated in the EU legal order? and
What is the place of solidarity in the EU asylum policy? The second step of the thesis is
the assessment of the place of solidarity in the legal and policy asylum order of Bulgaria and Italy and thus developing the national perspective of this thesis. It is based on constitutional, historical and policy analysis. The selection of the two case studies is not random. The two cases were selected due to their direct engagement with the issue of providing asylum in the current migration challenge. Both countries represent external borders of the EU. Furthermore, due to the difference of the accession time to the EU, Italy is a founding member and Bulgaria only became a member of the EU in 2007, a comparison between an “old” and “new” Member State can be made. Both countries have a similar type of government. Furthermore, both are parliamentary republics and the fact that both have the continental type of constitutions offers a suitable ground for comparison.
102 On the topic solidarity and enlargement policy see: Schimmelfennig, F. and Sedelmeier, U. (2002). Theorizing EU enlargement: research focus, hypotheses, and the state of research. Journal of European Public Policy, [online] 9(4), pp.500-528. and Jileva, E. (2004). Do norms matter? The principle of solidarity and the EU's eastern enlargement. Journal of International Relations and Development, [online] 7(1), pp.3-23.
On the topic of foreign policy and solidarity see: Thanasis Pinakas "The notion of solidarity in European Foreign Policy: a realist-constructivist approach", presented at the European Foreign Policy Conference 2006, London; Glarbo Kenneth, (1999) "Wide-awake Diplomacy:
Reconstructing the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union", Journal of European Public Policy, 6:4 Special Issue, pp..634-51; Tonra Ben, (1999) "Social
Constructivism and the Common Foreign and Security Policy", Conference Paper, Workshop on Social Constructivism and European Studies, Ebeltoft, Denmark.
33 | P a g e The methodology for comparison and analysis of the correlation between solidarity at EU level and national level includes three criteria (see Table 3). These criteria will be applied both to the legal and policy perspectives and they will be based on analysis of the examined documents. As a research approach, this thesis uses a content analysis to determine the presence of the concept of solidarity within the identified set of texts. Two types of content analysis will be used – conceptual and relational. The first criteria will be based on conceptual analysis with the aim to discover the frequency of solidarity usage in the legal and policy documents. The second and the third criteria are based on a relational analysis which will permit to go further in the analysis by finding out what is the relation of solidarity to the concept of
asylum in the examined texts and what kind of meanings emerge from the context in
which solidarity is used. The analysis of solidarity at supranational (EU) and national level (Bulgaria and Italy) is believed to effectively outline the evolution of the concept in the EU legal and policy order, its presence at national level, its characteristics, and to provide basis for comparison that will answer the final research sub-question of the thesis: What is the correlation between solidarity in the EU law and asylum policy and
solidarity in the law and asylum policies of two of the Member States – Bulgaria and Italy?
Table 3 Criteria for analysis of the legal and policy perspective of solidarity
Legal and Policy perspective of Solidarity
Criteria 1 Conceptual analysis – frequency of usage of the term
solidarity in the examined legal/policy documents
Criteria 2
Criteria 3
Relational analysis - relation of solidarity to asylum
Relational analysis – relation of solidarity to other concepts
