The EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016 (Statement) is by now a famous but controversial instrument that aims to tackle the influx of migrants and asylum-seekers into the EU. The Statement has also resulted in extensive debate in practice and academe about its authorship, legal nature under international law and especially its legality in light of EU law. Given the uncertainties that surround the Statement’s nature, the investigation adopts a pluralistic approach, and envisages three alternative scenarios: the Statement as an (binding or non-binding) instrument entered into by the Member States (scenario 1, part 2), as a non-binding arrangement entered into by the Union (scenario 2, part 3), and as a binding agreement concluded by the Union (scenario 3, part 4). The analysis suggests that scenario 1 (the Statement as an instrument entered into by the Member States) is unrealistic, despite being supported by the GC. At the same time, reasonable arguments can be formulated in favour of both scenarios 2 and 3 (a binding or non-binding Statement entered into by the Union). After having discussed the legal nature of the Statement, under each scenario, the chapter analyses its compatibility with EU institutional law. The argument is made that legal problems might potentially arise in every case, especially under scenario 3.

EU-Turkey Statement: Issues of Compatibility with EU Institutional Law

Mauro Gatti;
2019

Abstract

The EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016 (Statement) is by now a famous but controversial instrument that aims to tackle the influx of migrants and asylum-seekers into the EU. The Statement has also resulted in extensive debate in practice and academe about its authorship, legal nature under international law and especially its legality in light of EU law. Given the uncertainties that surround the Statement’s nature, the investigation adopts a pluralistic approach, and envisages three alternative scenarios: the Statement as an (binding or non-binding) instrument entered into by the Member States (scenario 1, part 2), as a non-binding arrangement entered into by the Union (scenario 2, part 3), and as a binding agreement concluded by the Union (scenario 3, part 4). The analysis suggests that scenario 1 (the Statement as an instrument entered into by the Member States) is unrealistic, despite being supported by the GC. At the same time, reasonable arguments can be formulated in favour of both scenarios 2 and 3 (a binding or non-binding Statement entered into by the Union). After having discussed the legal nature of the Statement, under each scenario, the chapter analyses its compatibility with EU institutional law. The argument is made that legal problems might potentially arise in every case, especially under scenario 3.
Constitutionalising the External Dimensions of EU Migration Policies in Times of Crisis
175
200
Mauro Gatti; Andrea Ott
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11585/727500
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact