Hubbry Logo
Area of freedom, security and justiceArea of freedom, security and justiceMain
Open search
Area of freedom, security and justice
Community hub
Area of freedom, security and justice
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Area of freedom, security and justice
Area of freedom, security and justice
Area of freedom, security and justice
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

This article is part of a series on
Politics of the European Union
Member states (27)
Candidate countries
Countries with suspended accession negotiations
Applicant countries
States not on the agenda
Microstates and the European Union
Treaties and Declarations
Opt-outs
Treaties of accession
1972, 1979, 1985, 1994, 2003, 2005, 2011
Treaties of withdrawal
1984, 2020
Other treaties
Abandoned treaties and agreements
Executive institutions
European Council
European Commission
Legislative institutions
Council of the EU
Presidency
Denmark Denmark
(July–December 2025)
Configurations
European Parliament
(Members)
National parliaments
Judicial institutions
Court of Justice of the EU
Auditory institutions
European Court of Auditors
Other auditory bodies
European Central Bank
Other bodies
European Investment Bank Group
European Stability Mechanism
European University Institute
Unified Patent Court
Agencies, decentralised independent bodies and joint undertakings
Other independent bodies
Advisory bodies
Inter-institutional bodies
Euratom
Euratom members
Associated states
Euratom since 1 January 2021
Euratom since 1 January 2021
Economic and Monetary Union
Eurozone members
Eurogroup
Other currencies in use
Non Euro countries relationship to Euro
Eurozone since 2023
Eurozone since 2023
Schengen Area
Non-EU members
Non-Schengen area EU member states
Schengen Area from January 2025
Schengen Area from January 2025
European Economic Area
EEA members
Non-EU members
Topics
European Economic Area
European Economic Area
Elections
European elections
Elections in EU member states
Law
Policies and issues
Foreign relations
High Representative
Foreign relations of EU member states
Defunct bodies
flag European Union portal

The area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) of the European Union (EU) is a policy domain concerning home affairs and migration, justice as well as fundamental rights, developed to address the challenges posed to internal security by collateral effects of the free movement of people and goods in the absence of border controls or customs inspection throughout the Schengen Area, as well as to safeguard adherence to the common European values through ensuring that the fundamental rights of people are respected across the EU.

Scope

[edit]

Over the years, the EU has developed a wide competence in the area of home affairs and migration, fundamental rights and justice. As internal borders have been removed within the EU, cross-border police cooperation has increased to counter cross-border crime. Some notable projects related to the area are the European Arrest Warrant, the Schengen Area and Frontex patrols. Fields covered include the harmonisation of private international law, extradition arrangements between member states, policies on internal and external border controls, common travel visa, immigration and asylum policies and police and judicial cooperation.

Home affairs and migration

[edit]

For example, the EU operates facilities such as the Schengen Information System,[1] the Visa Information System, the Common European Asylum System, the European Travel Information and Authorisation System, the Entry/Exit System, the Eurodac, the EUCARIS, the European Criminal Records Information System, the European Cybercrime Centre, FADO, PRADO and others.

Justice

[edit]

Furthermore, the EU has legislated in areas such as extradition (e.g. the European Arrest Warrant),[2] family law,[3] asylum law,[4] and criminal justice (e.g. the European Investigation Order).[5]

The European Commission has listed seven offences that become European crimes.[6][failed verification] The seven crimes announced by the commission are counterfeiting euro notes and coins; credit card and cheque fraud; money laundering; people-trafficking; computer hacking and virus attacks; corruption in the private sector; and marine pollution. The possible future EU crimes are racial discrimination and incitement to racial hatred;[7] organ trade; and corruption in awarding public contracts. It will also set out the level of penalty, such as length of prison sentence, that would apply to each crime.

Fundamental rights

[edit]

Prohibitions against sexual and nationality discrimination have a long standing in the treaties.[8] In more recent years, these have been supplemented by powers to legislate against discrimination based on race, religion, disability, age, and sexual orientation.[9] By virtue of these powers, the EU has enacted legislation on sexual discrimination in the work-place, age discrimination, and racial discrimination.[10]

Opt-outs

[edit]
  States which fully participate
  State with an opt-out that can opt-in on a case-by-case basis
  State with an opt-out

Denmark and Ireland have opted out from the area of freedom, security and justice. While Ireland has opt-ins that allows it to participate in legislation on a case-by-case basis, Denmark is fully outside the area of freedom, security and justice.[citation needed] Denmark has nonetheless been fully implementing the Schengen acquis since 25 March 2001, but on an intergovernmental basis.[11] Ireland has in turn opted out from the Schengen Area in order to preserve the Common Travel Area. Nevertheless, it applied to participate in the police and judicial cooperation provisions of the Schengen acquis in June 2000 and obtained approval by a Council Decision in 2002,[12][13] though it has not been implemented.[14]

Despite AFSJ opt-out, Denmark participates through various arrangements in all AFSJ decentralised agencies except CEPOL; in parallel, Ireland has arrangements to participate in all AFSJ decentralised agencies except Frontex. Under the AFSJ opt-out, Denmark and Ireland are barred from joining the European Public Prosecutor's Office, while Hungary has decided not to participate.

In the negotiations leading up to the signing to the Lisbon Treaty, Poland (and the United Kingdom at the time) secured a protocol to the treaty limiting the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the country.

The United Kingdom had an opt-out like Ireland prior to its withdrawal from the EU. It applied to participate in several areas of the Schengen acquis, including the police and judicial cooperation provisions, in March 1999.[12] Their request was approved by a Council Decision in 2000[15] and fully implemented by a Decision of the Council of the EU with effect from 1 January 2005.[16]

Organisation

[edit]

Legislature

[edit]

The EU legislative organs dealing specifically with the AFSJ affairs are:

Secretariats of both institutions feature also a related structure, the Legal Service.

European Commission

[edit]

The area comes under the purview of the European Commissioner for Justice, the European Commissioner for Equality and the European Commissioner for Home Affairs. They deal with the following matters: EU citizenship; combating discrimination, drugs, organised crime, terrorism, human trafficking; free movement of people, asylum and immigration; judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters; police and customs cooperation; and these matters in the acceding countries.[17] The relevant European Commission departments are the DG Justice & Consumers and the DG Migration & Home Affairs.

EC DG Portfolio Name Member state European party EP group
DG JUST European Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders  Belgium ALDE Party Renew
European Commissioner for Equality Helena Dalli  Malta PES S&D
DG HOME European Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson  Sweden

In addition, other EC members supervise services and directorates-general of the European Civil Service, technically not parts of AFSJ, but related to it thematically:

Agencies, decentralised and corporate bodies

[edit]

As many as ten decentralised EU agencies have been incorporated under the AFSJ policy domain:

Three of the executive agencies established by the European Commission are also active in the domain:

There is also a related decentralised independent body:

Further two related corporate body also exists:

Other institutions and bodies

[edit]

Other EU institutions and bodies directly involved in the domain include:

Funding

[edit]

The domain has been financed by four EU funds:

Criticism

[edit]

There has been criticism that the EU's activities have been too focused on security and not on justice.[18][19] For example, the EU created the European Arrest Warrant but no common rights for defendants arrested under it.

History

[edit]

Origins (TREVI – Schengen – Dublin – Maastricht)

[edit]

The first steps in security and justice cooperation within the EU began in 1975 when the TREVI group was created, composed of member states' justice and home affairs ministers.

TREVI was an intergovernmental network, or forum, of national officials from ministries of justice and the interior outside the European Community framework, proposed during the European Council meeting in Rome, 1–2 December 1975. It was formalized in Luxembourg on 29 June 1976 at a meeting of the European Council's Interior Ministers. It ceased to exist when it was integrated into the so-called Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) pillar of the European Union (EU) upon the entry into force of the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993.

Council agreement on establishment of TREVI

"The European Council adopted a proposal by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that Community Ministers for the Interior (or Ministers with similar responsibilities) should meet to discuss matters coming within their competence in particular with regard to law and order."

The European Council in Rome, p.9 (Conclusions of the meeting, 2 Dec 1975)[20]

The first TREVI meeting at the level of senior officials was held in Rome where the famous Trevi Fountain is located and the meeting was chaired by a Dutchman by the name of Jacques Fonteijn (English: Fountain). In some French textbooks, it is noted that TREVI stands for Terrorisme, Radicalisme, Extrémisme et Violence Internationale.[citation needed]

The creation of TREVI was prompted by several terrorist acts, most notably the hostage taking and subsequent massacre during the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, and the inability of Interpol at that time to effectively assist the European countries in combatting terrorism. While TREVI was initially intended to coordinate effective counterterrorism responses among European governments, it slowly extended its remit to many other issues in crossborder policing between the members of the European Community. Many of the practices and a large part of the structure of the former Third Pillar traced their origins to TREVI.

The first real cooperation was the signing of the Schengen Implementing Convention in 1990 which opened up the EU's internal borders and established the Schengen Area. In parallel the Dublin Regulation furthered police cooperation.[21]

Justice and Home Affairs (Maastricht – Amsterdam)

[edit]

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) pillar was created, on the foundations of the TREVI cooperation, by the Maastricht Treaty in order to advance cooperation in criminal and justice fields without member states sacrificing a great deal of sovereignty. Before the Maastricht Treaty, member states cooperated at the intergovernmental level in various sectors relating to free movement and personal security ("group of co-ordinators", CELAD, TREVI) as well as in customs co-operation (GAM) and judicial policy. The Maastricht Treaty established that, while reaching the objectives of the Union, and notably the freedom of movement, the member states consider the following as areas of common interest under Justice and Home Affairs:

  1. Asylum;
  2. Rules concerning the entrance of external borders;
  3. Immigration policies and policies concerning third countries' citizens:
    • Conditions of entry and circulation for foreign citizens in the territory of the Union;
    • Conditions of residence for foreign citizens in the territory of Member States, comprising families and employment access;
    • Fight against irregular immigration, residence and work of foreigners within the territory of the Union;
  4. Combating illicit drugs where this is not covered by point 7), 8) and 9);
  5. Fight against international fraud where this is not covered by points 7), 8) and 9);
  6. Judicial co-operation in civil matters;
  7. Judicial co-operation in penal matters;
  8. Customs co-operation;
  9. Police co-operation for preventing and fighting terrorism, drugs trade and other grave forms of international criminality, comprising, if necessary, certain aspects of customs co-operation.

With Maastricht, Justice and Home Affairs co-operation aimed at reinforcing actions taken by member states while allowing a more coherent approach of these actions, by offering new tools for coordinating actions. Decisions were taken by a unanimous vote of the Council without participation of the European Parliament (as opposed to decisionmaking in the European Community areas).

The Justice and Home Affairs pillar was organised on an intergovernmental basis with little involvement of the EU supranational institutions such as the European Commission and the European Parliament. Under this pillar the EU created the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) in 1993 and Europol in 1995. In 1997 the EU adopted an action plan against organised crime and established the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). In 1998 the European Judicial Network in criminal matters (EJN) was established.[21]

Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters and the concept of an area of freedom, security and justice (Amsterdam – Nice – Prüm – Lisbon)

[edit]
Plaque commemorating the 1999 European Council meeting in Tampere

The Treaty of Amsterdam transferred the areas of illegal immigration, visas, asylum and judicial cooperation in civil matters from the JHA to the European Community pillar, while the extant part of the intergovernmental 3rd pillar was renamed Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters (PJCC) to reflect its reduced scope.[22] During this time further advancements were made.The European Police College (CEPOL) was also created.

The treaty was also the first legal act to introduce the concept of area of freedom, security and justice, stating that the EU must "maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is assured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime."[23] The first work programme putting this provision into effect was agreed at Tampere, Finland in October 1999. Subsequently, the Hague programme, agreed in November 2004, set further objectives to be achieved between 2005 and 2010.[24]

The Treaty of Nice enshrined Eurojust in the EU treaties and in 2001 and 2002 Eurojust, Eurodac, the European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters (EJNCC) and European Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN) were established. In 2004 the EU appointed an anti-terrorism coordinator in response to the 2004 Madrid train bombings and the European Arrest Warrant (agreed in 2002) entered into force.[21]

In 2005, the Prüm Convention was adopted by Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Spain in the town of Prüm in Germany, and which has been open to all members of the European Union, 14 of which are currently parties. Its goal has been to enable the signatories to exchange data regarding DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration of concerned persons and to cooperate against terrorism. It also contains provisions for the deployment of armed sky marshals on flights between signatory states, joint police patrols, entry of (armed) police forces into the territory of another state for the prevention of immediate danger (hot pursuit), and cooperation in case of mass events or disasters. Furthermore, a police officer responsible for an operation in a state may, in principle, decide to what degree the police forces of the other states that were taking part in the operation could use their weapons or exercise other powers.

In 2006, a toxic waste spill off the coast of Côte d'Ivoire, from a European ship, prompted the commission to look into legislation against toxic waste. Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas stated that "Such highly toxic waste should never have left the European Union". With countries such as Spain not even having a law against shipping toxic waste Franco Frattini, the Justice, Freedom and Security Commissioner, proposed with Dimas to create criminal sentences for "ecological crimes". His right to do this was contested in 2005 at the Court of Justice resulting in a victory for the commission. That ruling set a precedent that the commission, on a supranational basis, may legislate in criminal law. So far though, the only other use has been the intellectual property rights directive.[25] Motions were tabled in the European Parliament against that legislation on the basis that criminal law should not be an EU competence, but were rejected at vote.[26] However, in October 2007 the Court of Justice ruled the commission could not propose what the criminal sanctions could be, only that there must be some.[27]

Some of the Prüm Convention provisions, falling under the former third pillar of the EU, were later subsumed into the police and judicial cooperation provisions of European Union law by a 2008 Council Decision,[28][29] commonly referred to as the Prüm Decision. It provides for Law Enforcement Cooperation in criminal matters primarily related to exchange of fingerprint, DNA (both on a hit no-hit basis) and Vehicle owner registration (direct access via the EUCARIS system) data. The data exchange provisions are to be implemented in 2012. The remaining provisions of the Convention falling under the former third pillar are not yet adopted into EU law.

The area of freedom, security and justice (Lisbon – onwards)

[edit]
English Wikisource has original text related to this article:

The 2009 Treaty of Lisbon abolished the pillar structure, reuniting the areas separated at Amsterdam. Both the extant intergovernmental areas (the PJCC) and those transferred from JHA to the Community were once again reunited to form a single area of freedom, security and justice of the reformed European Union, thus turning the concept into a policy domain entirely under both the community method decisionmaking and the judicial purview of the Court of Justice, with the relevant legislation being thereafter made in any case through co-decision of the Council voting with qualified majority and the European Parliament. The Charter of Fundamental Rights also gained legal force and Europol was brought within the EU's legal framework.[30] As the Treaty of Lisbon came into force, the European Council adopted the Stockholm Programme to provide EU action on developing the area over the following five years.[24] With the strengthened powers under Lisbon, the second Barroso Commission created a dedicated commissioner for justice (previously combined with security under one portfolio) who is obliging member states to provide reports on their implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Furthermore, the commission is putting forward proposals for common rights for defendants (such as interpretation), minimum standards for prison conditions and ensure that victims of crime are taken care of properly wherever they are in the EU. This is intended to create a common judicial area where each system can be sure of trusting each other.[31]

The border agency Frontex, which is responsible for overseeing the security of the EU's external borders, has been upgraded.[32] This reformed body, now called the European Border and Coastguard Agency, involves having a pool of armed guards, drawn from different EU member states, that can be dispatched to EU countries at three days' notice.[33] The European Border and Coastguard Agency functions more in a supervisory capacity.[34] The border agencies of host countries still retain day-to-day control,[35] and the personnel from the new agency are required to submit to the direction of the country where they are deployed.[36] However, interventions happen sometimes against the wishes of a host country.[37] They include instances such as "disproportionate migratory pressure" occurring on a country's border.[38] For this intervention to happen, the new border agency has to gain consent from the European Commission.[39] The border guards are allowed to carry guns.[40] The agency is also able to acquire its own supply of patrol ships and helicopters.[41]

Future perspectives

[edit]

The European Union's growing role in coordinating internal security and safety policies is only partly captured by looking at policymaking within the area of freedom, security and justice. Across the EU's other (former) pillars, initiatives related to food security, health safety, infrastructure protection, counter-terrorism and energy security can be found. New perspectives and concepts have been introduced to examine the EU's wider internal security role for the EU, such as the EU's "protection policy space"[42] or internal "security governance".[43] Furthermore, EU cooperation not covered by a limited lens of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice—namely EU cooperation during urgent emergencies[44] and complex crises[45]—has received a growing amount of attention.

See also

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Area of freedom, security and justice

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) constitutes a core policy domain of the European Union, designed to establish a territory without internal frontiers in which the free movement of persons is assured, complemented by robust safeguards for public security and equitable access to justice across member states. This framework, enshrined in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, integrates measures on border management, asylum and immigration, police cooperation, and judicial collaboration in both civil and criminal matters to balance individual liberties with collective protection against threats like organized crime and terrorism. Originating from the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999, which transferred key responsibilities from intergovernmental cooperation to supranational decision-making, the AFSJ evolved significantly under the 2009 Lisbon Treaty, enabling qualified majority voting and enhanced European Commission oversight to foster deeper integration. Key components include the for visa-free travel and external border controls, the Common European Asylum System to standardize processing, and instruments like the for expedited , which have facilitated cross-border efficiency. Achievements encompass operational agencies such as for intelligence sharing and for coordinating prosecutions, contributing to dismantling transnational criminal networks, though empirical assessments reveal persistent gaps in implementation uniformity among diverse member states. Controversies arise from erosions, as national governments relinquish control over sensitive domains like migration enforcement, leading to disparities where weaker external borders in some states undermine security for all, as evidenced by recurrent migration surges straining resources and . Opt-out protocols for countries like and previously the highlight inherent tensions between uniformity aspirations and national variances in legal traditions and threat perceptions, often resulting in fragmented application and calls for recalibration to prioritize causal links between policy design and tangible security outcomes over ideological harmonization.

Treaty Provisions and Evolution

Article 67 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the (TFEU) establishes the core mandate for the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), stating that "The Union shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States". Enacted through the , which entered into force on 1 December 2009, this provision requires the to ensure the absence of internal controls, facilitate free movement of persons, and adopt measures to prevent and combat crime, , and threats to security while approximating the laws of Member States on individual rights and judicial cooperation. Subsequent articles in Title V of the TFEU (Articles 67–89) delineate specific competences, balancing the facilitation of cross-border mobility with safeguards against irregular migration and criminality, all while mandating respect for national legal diversity to mitigate supranational overreach. The AFSJ's treaty framework evolved from the intergovernmental approach of the third pillar on Justice and Home Affairs under the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht, where decisions required unanimity and excluded direct involvement. The 2009 Lisbon Treaty dismantled this pillar structure, transferring AFSJ to the TFEU's supranational domain and applying the ordinary legislative procedure—qualified majority voting in the alongside co-legislation—to most areas, such as asylum, , and , thereby expanding legislative authority while retaining unanimity for sensitive matters like and operational police cooperation. To accommodate national sensitivities, Protocol No. 21 permits (and formerly the ) to opt into AFSJ measures selectively, participating in 98% of proposals as of 2023 reviews, whereas Protocol No. 22 affords a comprehensive from Title V, exempting it from binding acts in this field unless it chooses otherwise via separate agreements. Complementing these provisions, Article 6(1) of the (TEU), effective post-Lisbon, confers binding legal force on the of Fundamental Rights, obligating all AFSJ legislation to uphold its enumerated protections, including , non-discrimination, and , with the Court of Justice empowered to review compliance. Article 6(2) TEU further mandates EU accession to the , intended to ensure consistency between EU law and jurisprudence, though accession negotiations have stalled since a 2014 Court of Justice opinion deemed certain draft terms incompatible with EU autonomy. This framework underscores causal frictions: supranational harmonization drives efficiency in addressing transnational threats but risks eroding Member State , as evidenced by Article 67's explicit deference to diverse legal traditions, which limits uniform application amid varying national priorities on security versus individual liberties.

Core Objectives: Freedom, Security, and Justice in Tension

Article 3(2) of the establishes the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) as a core objective, aiming to provide EU citizens with an area without internal frontiers where free movement of persons is ensured alongside measures for external border controls, asylum, immigration, and crime prevention. This triad—freedom through unrestricted internal mobility, security via border management and policing, and justice through mutual recognition of legal decisions—relies on mutual trust among member states to function without centralized . However, supranational uniformity often overrides national variations in perception and response capacity, creating inherent trade-offs where enhanced freedom can erode security absent effective external safeguards. From a causal standpoint, the absence of internal borders presupposes robust external controls, yet empirical evidence reveals how freedom-enabling policies have facilitated irregular migration surges that strain resources. In 2015, over 1.3 million asylum applications were lodged in states, with more than 1 million sea arrivals, exacerbating pressures on internal systems and prompting temporary border reintroductions by multiple member states. responses, such as the 2016 (PNR) Directive adopted on April 21 to analyze data for and serious crime prevention, illustrate compensatory measures but also highlight intrusions that tension with freedom ideals. Justice objectives, embodied in principles like ne bis in idem under Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights—which prohibits prosecuting the same person twice for the same offense—depend on harmonized standards, yet divergent national interpretations undermine mutual trust and enable for lenient jurisdictions. These objectives clash fundamentally: open internal movement incentivizes external inflows without corresponding return mechanisms, as evidenced by persistently low deportation rates for rejected asylum seekers, often below 20% in key member states. Supranational mandates prioritize integration over tailored national strategies, such as sovereignty-retaining bilateral agreements for readmissions, which could better align with local contexts but are sidelined by uniformity demands. Empirical realism underscores that without prioritizing causal links—like linking free movement to verifiable external efficacy— and devolve into reactive patches, eroding the triad's coherence and exposing citizens to unbalanced risks.

Scope of EU Competences

Internal Security and Police Cooperation

The European Union's competences in internal security and police cooperation are primarily outlined in Articles 87 to 89 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Article 87(1) mandates the establishment of police cooperation involving all Member States' competent authorities, including police, customs, and other specialized law enforcement services, to prevent and detect criminal offences and pursue investigations through measures such as approximation of non-operational police rules, training programs, exchange of information and experience, and common risk analyses. These provisions aim to address shared threats like organized crime and trafficking networks that transcend national borders, while respecting the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) TEU. A core mechanism for is the II (SIS II), which enables national authorities to enter and consult alerts on persons and objects relevant to police activities, such as wanted persons or stolen vehicles, facilitating real-time cross-border data sharing among participating states. Implemented since 2013, SIS II has processed millions of queries annually—over 7 billion hits reported in 2022—supporting in identifying risks without internal border checks, though access is restricted to authorized purposes to mitigate privacy concerns under the SIS II Regulation. Article 87(2)(b) TFEU further empowers the EU to adopt directives on the exchange of police , emphasizing standardized formats to enhance despite varying national technical infrastructures. Operational cooperation under Article 89 TFEU allows for framework decisions enabling cross-border operations by national police forces, such as or joint patrols, limited to cases involving serious and requiring prior agreement between states involved. Mutual assistance in criminal matters, rooted in conventions like the 2000 EU Mutual Assistance Convention, obliges states to provide investigative aid, including witness interviews or evidence seizure, which has facilitated operations dismantling networks like drug cartels, with coordinating over 1,000 such exchanges yearly as of 2023. However, these measures impose binding obligations that curtail national , as Member States must align procedures with EU minima, potentially constraining tailored responses to localized threats. Empirical assessments of effectiveness reveal mixed outcomes, with cooperation credited for disrupting rings—e.g., a 2022 Europol report noted arrests in 15 states from shared intelligence—but hampered by inconsistent national recording practices that distort EU-wide threat analyses. Over-reliance on harmonized standards under Article 87(2)(a) TFEU risks overlooking variances in patterns, such as higher urban violent in some states versus rural property offences in others, where Eurostat data show recording methodologies differ significantly, leading to unreliable aggregated statistics for policy-making. Truth-seeking evaluations thus prioritize granular, state-specific data over uniform benchmarks to causally link interventions to reduced offending rates, as blanket approximations may dilute effectiveness by ignoring contextual factors like cultural enforcement norms.

Migration, Asylum, and External Borders

The 's competences in migration, asylum, and external borders are outlined in Articles 77 to 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Article 77 establishes the framework for a common policy on border checks, asylum, and , emphasizing the gradual introduction of an integrated management system for external borders while ensuring the absence of internal border controls. Article 78 mandates a common European asylum system (CEAS) that upholds the 1951 Refugee Convention, including uniform standards for qualification, procedures, reception, and partnership with third countries. Article 79 covers conditions for entry and residence of third-country nationals, integration measures, and efforts to combat , while Article 80 requires solidarity and fair burden-sharing among member states, particularly for those bearing disproportionate pressures. The CEAS, implemented through regulations like the Dublin III Regulation (EU No 604/2013), assigns responsibility for examining asylum applications primarily to the first country of irregular entry, aiming to prevent multiple claims and secondary movements across the . However, empirical data reveals systemic implementation gaps: outgoing Dublin transfer rates averaged below 30% from 2014 to 2019, with only 22,098 transfers executed out of 117,000 requests in 2019, undermining the deterrent effect on onward irregular migration. This has led to persistent secondary movements, where asylum seekers bypass peripheral states like and —facing overloads from Mediterranean crossings—for northern destinations like and , driven by perceived better reception and economic opportunities rather than uniform criteria. In 2024, EU+ countries received over 900,000 first-time asylum applications, with front-line states such as (157,000), (136,000), and (52,000) absorbing disproportionate initial arrivals relative to , exacerbating national capacities without effective relocation under solidarity mechanisms. These disparities highlight how geographic proximity to migration routes from and the imposes uneven fiscal and social costs, with limited intra-EU transfers (fewer than 10,000 relocations under 2015-2016 pacts) failing to offset primary reception burdens. Management of external borders falls under the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (), established in 2004 and reinforced by Regulation () 2019/1896 to conduct risk assessments, deploy rapid interventions, and facilitate returns, with a mandate to support member states in integrated border management. coordinates joint operations, such as those in the Aegean and Central Mediterranean, providing via aerial assets and training, but its effectiveness is constrained by reliance on national authorities and voluntary host-state , resulting in irregular entries exceeding 380,000 detections in 2023 despite expanded standing corps of 10,000 personnel by 2027. Global migration drivers, including instability in origin countries and networks, persist beyond border tools, as evidenced by repeated surges uncorrelated with policy harmonization efforts. EU immigration policy includes directives on legal migration pathways, such as for highly qualified workers (Directive 2011/98/EU), but emphasizes returns for irregular stays via Directive 2008/115/EC, which sets common standards for identification, voluntary departure periods (up to 30 days), and enforced removals with safeguards against refoulement. Return rates remain low, averaging 20-30% of issued orders annually, due to logistical challenges, third-country non-cooperation, and judicial appeals, perpetuating irregular populations estimated at 3-4 million in the EU. Differentiated integration reflects recognition of uniform policies' limitations: Denmark maintains a full opt-out from Title V TFEU measures under Protocol 22, exempting it from asylum and migration rules; Ireland holds an opt-in/opt-out under Protocol 21, selectively participating (e.g., opting into the 2024 Pact on Migration and Asylum but historically avoiding transfers); and the UK exercised similar opt-outs pre-Brexit, underscoring how one-size-fits-all approaches amplify pressures on exposed states without addressing root causes like demographic imbalances and economic pull factors in destination countries.

Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Criminal Matters

The European Union's judicial cooperation in civil matters, governed primarily by Article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), emphasizes mutual recognition of judgments and decisions with cross-border implications to streamline across member states. Key legislation includes Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia), adopted on 12 December 2012 and applicable since 10 January 2015, which establishes uniform rules on and the recognition and of judgments in civil and commercial matters, abolishing the prior procedure to enhance efficiency while maintaining limited grounds for refusal, such as violations. This framework addresses practical challenges like service of documents and taking of evidence through additional measures, such as Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 on cooperation between courts, yet national divergences in procedural standards—ranging from evidentiary rules in systems to inquisitorial approaches in civil law traditions—persist, leading to inconsistent application and occasional refusals based on compatibility with domestic legal orders. In criminal matters, Articles 82–86 TFEU facilitate cooperation through mutual recognition and minimum harmonization of procedural rights and , exemplified by the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA establishing the (EAW), issued on 13 June 2002 as the first concrete measure of mutual recognition, replacing lengthy with simplified surrender procedures limited to 32 categories of serious offenses. Post-, effective from 1 2009, this area shifted from intergovernmental decision-making under pillar to the ordinary legislative procedure with qualified voting (QMV) for most instruments, enabling broader adoption of directives on procedural safeguards like the right to interpretation (Directive 2010/64/) while expanding the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) jurisdiction to ensure uniform interpretation. Empirical data underscores enforcement gaps: in 2022, member states issued approximately 20,000 EAWs, with surrenders executed in about 60% of cases within 10 days for consent cases but delays averaging 2–3 months overall, attributed to refusals on grounds of proportionality, risks, or ne bis in idem violations, revealing causal frictions where presumed mutual trust erodes due to disparities in national judicial reliability. The principle of ne bis in idem, enshrined in Article 50 of the of Fundamental Rights, prohibits retrying or repunishing individuals for the same offense across borders, requiring both a final judgment and effective enforcement in the first state to bar subsequent proceedings, as clarified in ECJ jurisprudence like Case C-398/12 (Spasic, 2014), which mandates actual enforcement to trigger protection. However, implementation gaps arise from interpretive variances: some states apply it strictly to identical facts, while others allow parallel investigations if enforcement lapses, leading to double jeopardy risks in cross-border cases involving or , with reporting over 1,200 EAW-related conflicts in 2023 alone. ECJ oversight via preliminary rulings enforces this uniformity but encroaches on national judicial autonomy, as seen in rulings mandating EAW refusals for systemic deficiencies like overcrowded prisons (Case C-404/15, Aranyosi, 2016) or flawed judicial appointments (Commission v , 2019), potentially halting cooperation when EU-derived standards—prioritizing Charter minima—diverge from stricter national practices, thus exposing tensions between supranational and sovereign divergences in penal severity and procedural rigor. These dynamics highlight causal realism in cooperation: while mutual recognition accelerates justice, unaddressed heterogeneities in rule-of-law adherence undermine efficacy, with refusal rates climbing 15–20% in recent years for rights-based grounds.

Fundamental Rights Enforcement and Limitations

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed in 2000 and binding since the 2009 Lisbon Treaty under Article 6(1) TEU, applies fully to AFSJ policies, requiring Member States to respect its provisions when implementing EU law in areas like migration, policing, and judicial cooperation. The Court of Justice of the EU enforces compliance through preliminary rulings on rights interpretations and infringement actions against non-compliant states, as seen in cases challenging mutual recognition instruments that risk undermining Charter protections. Article 7 TEU further enables determination of serious rights breaches, triggering preventive measures or sanctions like voting suspensions, though its activation remains rare and politically contested. Data protection mechanisms, governed by Articles 7, 8, and 52 of the alongside the 2016 GDPR, impose strict limits on AFSJ tools involving , such as databases or passenger name records. Yet, operational systems like the (EES), mandated by Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 and slated for 2025 rollout, and the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS), under Regulation (EU) 2018/1240, mandate biometric collection from non-EU travelers, prompting documented risks including up to five years and with databases. While EU assessments claim proportionality under Article 52(1), independent analyses highlight potential overreach, with insufficient evidence of necessity for blanket clashing against rights. Rights limitations manifest in derogations for public security under Charter Article 52, yet empirical enforcement reveals imbalances, particularly in migration where non-refoulement obligations per Article 19(2) frequently halt deportations of security threats via appeals citing risks of ill-treatment. Eurostat data for 2023 shows 996,000 non-EU nationals ordered to leave, but effective returns numbered only 298,000—a 30% execution rate—often stalled by human rights claims, enabling prolonged stays despite criminal records. This pattern prioritizes protections for irregular migrants over host populations' security, as non-EU citizens comprise disproportionate shares of suspects in offenses like theft and sexual assault; for example, a 2023 Danish study found non-Western immigrants overrepresented by factors of 3-4 in violent crimes relative to demographics. Island-based empirical research further links 1% higher refugee influxes to 1.7-2.5% crime rises, underscoring causal trade-offs where rights invocations impede threat removal. Investigatory shortfalls compound these tensions, with EU Fundamental Rights Agency reports documenting persistent failures in probing border violations, including pushbacks breaching access to asylum under Article 18 of the . While AFSJ frameworks rhetorically integrate rights via ex ante impact assessments, post-implementation data exposes selective rigor—robust against state overreach in data handling but lax in curbing security gaps from unexpelled risks—reflecting institutional preferences that elevate migrant entitlements amid uneven citizen safeguards.755914_EN.pdf)

Institutional Framework

Legislative and Decision-Making Mechanisms

The ordinary legislative procedure, codified in Article 294 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the (TFEU), governs the adoption of most measures in the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) following the entry into force of the on 1 December 2009. Under this procedure, the submits proposals to the and the , which act as co-legislators on an equal footing, requiring a qualified in the Council and an absolute in Parliament for adoption. This supranational approach replaced the pre-Lisbon intergovernmental unanimity requirement for many AFSJ domains, aiming to enhance decision-making efficiency amid growing cross-border challenges like irregular migration and . Exceptions persist in sensitive criminal justice areas, where Article 82(3) TFEU provides an "emergency brake" mechanism for directives on mutual recognition or of procedural rules. A may request that the refer a proposal to the if it believes the measure would seriously threaten fundamental aspects of its system, suspending the ordinary procedure until the decides by consensus within four months whether to settle the issue or refer it back. This safeguard, also applicable under Article 83(3) TFEU for substantive directives, has rarely been invoked since 2009, reflecting political pressures to avoid procedural delays despite underlying concerns. The plays a strategic oversight role in AFSJ pursuant to Article 68 TFEU, defining guidelines for legislative and operational planning by consensus among heads of state or . These non-binding orientations set priorities, such as enhanced controls or asylum reforms, but in practice enable circumvention of national vetoes in votes by framing contentious issues—like mandatory migration mechanisms—as overarching imperatives. This dynamic has intensified debates over diluted consensus, as evidenced in the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, where proposals stalled for eight years from until adoption on 10 April 2024 via qualified majority voting, overriding objections from and others on relocation quotas and screening standards. Such deadlocks underscore causal tensions between supranational efficiency, which resolves through , and the preservation of unanimous agreement on sovereignty-sensitive matters, where empirical patterns suggest recurrent overrides risk eroding implementation compliance.

Key Agencies and Operational Bodies


The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice relies on specialized operational agencies to implement EU-wide cooperation in policing, judicial coordination, , and information systems. These bodies, empowered post-Lisbon Treaty, include for law enforcement intelligence, for criminal justice collaboration, for external border management, and for large-scale IT infrastructure, each with mandates to support but not supplant national authorities. , the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation, facilitates member states' efforts against serious international , , and cyber threats through and operational coordination. Established in 1999 and strengthened under the 2016 Europol Regulation following Lisbon's communitarization, it processes from national units but faces empirical limitations in efficacy due to persistent trust deficits among states, resulting in incomplete information sharing and suboptimal products. For instance, analyses highlight failures in cross-border exchanges, where national reluctance to disclose sensitive hampers threat detection, underscoring causal barriers rooted in concerns rather than technical shortcomings. , the Agency for Cooperation, coordinates prosecutors and judges from member states to combat cross-border crimes like trafficking and via joint investigation teams and mutual legal assistance. Post-Lisbon enhancements, including the 2018 Regulation, granted it powers to initiate investigations and monitor compliance, yet evaluations reveal uneven efficacy, with cooperation often stalled by divergent national legal traditions and varying commitment levels, limiting its impact on harmonized prosecutions. , the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, assists in managing the EU's external borders through risk analysis, joint operations, and return coordination. The 2019 Regulation, building on Lisbon's framework, introduced a standing corps of up to 10,000 personnel, with over 2,000 deployed by 2021 to bolster operational capacity amid migration pressures. However, performance metrics show mixed results, with enhanced deployments correlating to increased interceptions but persistent gaps in rapid response due to reliance on voluntary national contributions, alongside criticisms of insufficient mechanisms that exacerbate tensions over centralized control eroding state . , the EU Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems, maintains databases like the (SIS) for alerts on persons and objects, Eurodac for asylum seeker fingerprints, and the Visa Information System (VIS) to support border security and asylum processing. Operational since 2012 post-Lisbon, it ensures system interoperability but encounters efficacy challenges from data quality inconsistencies and national input variations, which undermine reliable identification and causal links in security assessments. Collectively, these agencies operate under oversight, including budgetary discharge and hearings, yet structural expansions have drawn scrutiny for fostering bureaucratic layers that dilute national vetoes and accountability, as evidenced by recurring calls for stronger parliamentary checks amid opaque decision-making. Empirical performance thus hinges on overcoming intergovernmental frictions, where trust deficits causally constrain flows and operational outputs despite formalized mandates.

Funding, Resources, and Accountability

The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) is primarily funded through the European Union's (MFF) 2021-2027, with home affairs policies allocated approximately €18 billion across instruments such as the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), Internal Security Fund (ISF), and Border Management and Visa Instrument (BMVI). Of this, AMIF receives €9.882 billion in shared management funding for member states, plus additional thematic facility resources totaling around €10 billion to support asylum processing, migration management, and integration measures. These allocations aim to harmonize policies but have drawn empirical scrutiny for inefficiencies, as non-EU migrants often impose net fiscal costs on host countries, with projections indicating limited offset to aging-related pressures despite inflows. Critiques highlight potential misuse, including grants to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) whose sea rescue operations in the Mediterranean have been linked to sustained irregular entries rather than deterrence, correlating with fiscal strains on net contributor states like and , which absorb disproportionate relocation and welfare costs estimated in billions annually. from economic modeling underscores that such centralized funding incentivizes supranational expansion over decentralized national models, where localized enforcement has demonstrated higher efficacy in and integration outcomes, yet EU mechanisms prioritize uniformity that amplifies burdens on high-contribution economies. Accountability relies on the (OLAF), which investigates irregularities in EU funds, recommending recoveries exceeding €870 million in 2024 across budgets including home affairs, though specific AFSJ fraud detections remain opaque with limited public breakdowns. The European Parliament's annual discharge procedure provides political oversight, granting or withholding approval for budget execution based on Court of Auditors reports, yet persistent gaps in transparency—such as incomplete tracking of NGO fund utilization—undermine effective scrutiny, as evidenced by recurring audit findings on implementation delays and unproven returns on migration control investments. This structure fosters centralization incentives, despite evidence favoring resource allocation to proven national capacities for security and justice enforcement.

Historical Development

Pre-Maastricht Foundations (TREVI, Schengen, Dublin)

The TREVI group, established in 1975 following waves of across Europe—including attacks by groups such as the in and the in —initiated informal intergovernmental cooperation among European Community member states on internal security matters. Named after the Latin term for "three times" but acronymously derived from "Terrorisme, Radicalisme, Extrémisme et Violence Internationale," it focused on coordinating police exchange, counter- strategies, and responses to , operating outside formal EC institutions to preserve national in sensitive areas. By 1976, TREVI had formalized subgroups: TREVI I for and security policy, and TREVI II for police and cooperation on public order, reflecting causal pressures from cross-border threats that individual states could not address unilaterally without risking information leaks or sovereignty dilution. This framework laid groundwork for later EU mechanisms by demonstrating the practical need for shared threat assessments, though decisions remained consensus-based and non-binding, with limited accountability to EC bodies. The Schengen Agreements emerged in 1985 as a parallel initiative to eliminate internal border controls, driven by economic imperatives for free movement under the while compensating with enhanced external frontier security and compensatory measures like visa harmonization. Signed on 14 June 1985 aboard the MS Princesse Marie-Astrid on the Moselle River near , by , , , , and the —the so-called "Schengen Five"—the initial agreement proposed gradual abolition of checks at internal borders to facilitate trade and travel, amid growing intra-EC mobility post-1970s . A complementary Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement, signed on 19 June 1990 in , detailed operational rules including police cooperation, asylum procedures, and a common visa policy, entering into force on 26 March 1995 for initial signatories after ratification delays. Germany's advocacy stemmed from its central geographic position and economic reliance on labor flows, with reunification pressures in 1990 accelerating implementation to manage potential east-west migrations without internal barriers, though the process highlighted tensions between open borders and controls. These agreements operated intergovernmentally, outside EC treaty frameworks, underscoring member states' reluctance to supranationalize and affairs amid fears of uneven burden-sharing. The Dublin Convention, signed on 15 June 1990 in Dublin, Ireland, addressed allocation by designating a single responsible member state for examining applications, primarily the first country of entry, to prevent "asylum shopping" and multiple claims across borders amid rising post-Cold War migrations from and beyond. Building on Schengen's asylum provisions, it established criteria such as family ties, prior visas, or irregular entry to assign responsibility, aiming to streamline procedures and deter secondary movements while upholding the 1951 Convention's principle. Ratified by all then-EC states by 1997, the convention reflected empirical responses to overburdened frontier states like and , where asylum applications surged from 100,000 in 1983 to over 400,000 annually by 1990, driven by Balkan conflicts and Soviet dissolution, yet it prioritized national interests in load-balancing over uniform protection standards. Like its precursors, Dublin's intergovernmental nature avoided EC Court oversight, preserving state control but exposing gaps in enforcement due to varying national capacities.

Maastricht to Amsterdam: Pillar Structure

The , signed on 2 February 1992 in and entering into force on 1 November 1993, introduced a three-pillar structure for the , with the third pillar dedicated to cooperation in justice and home affairs (JHA). This pillar encompassed areas such as asylum policy, external border crossing, immigration policy, combating drug addiction, and judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters, aiming to create an area of freedom, security, and justice without internal frontiers while preserving national competences. Under Title VI of the treaty, decisions required unanimity in the , reflecting member states' insistence on retaining veto power over sensitive internal security issues. The intergovernmental nature of the JHA pillar excluded direct involvement of supranational institutions: the had no exclusive right of initiative, the European Parliament's role was consultative at best, and the Court of Justice of the (ECJ) lacked jurisdiction, limited instead to rendering opinions on request or addressing disputes between member states or institutions. This framework prioritized national sovereignty, as evidenced by Article K.3, which mandated close cooperation among member states' authorities without compelling uniform implementation or enforcement. Consequently, progress remained incremental, with measures like joint positions and conventions requiring by national parliaments, often stalling amid divergent security priorities. The Treaty of Amsterdam, signed on 2 October 1997 and effective from 1 May 1999, partially reformed the JHA pillar by transferring competencies on visa policy, asylum, immigration, and judicial cooperation in civil matters to the first pillar (European Community), subjecting them to qualified majority voting and ECJ oversight where applicable. However, police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters stayed within the reconfigured third pillar—renamed provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (PJCC)—retaining unanimity and excluding full ECJ jurisdiction to safeguard national prosecutorial and policing autonomy. This selective communitarization addressed immediate pressures, such as harmonizing external border controls, but preserved intergovernmentalism for core criminal justice elements. These pillar structures inherently constrained due to embedded protections, as enabled single states to block advances amid rising irregular migration flows in the —estimated at hundreds of thousands annually, fueled by post-Cold War instability and conflicts like the —which exposed uneven national capacities without yielding deeper integration. The reluctance to erode vetoes stemmed from causal realities of disparate threat perceptions and domestic political costs, limiting JHA to non-binding frameworks despite empirical needs for coordinated responses to cross-border crime and asylum pressures. This intergovernmental design, while averting supranational overreach, resulted in fragmented outcomes, as seen in the slow adoption of conventions like the Dublin Convention on asylum responsibility, which relied on voluntary compliance.

Amsterdam to Lisbon: Shift to Supranationalism

The European Council conclusions of 15–16 October 1999 established the first multi-annual programme for advancing the (AFSJ), prioritizing mutual recognition of judicial decisions in civil and criminal matters as the cornerstone of cooperation to enhance cross-border enforcement while preserving national procedural autonomy. This approach aimed to operationalize the partial shift from the intergovernmental third pillar to supranational mechanisms introduced by the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty, though implementation remained constrained by unanimous decision-making in remaining third-pillar areas like police cooperation. The , signed on 26 February 2001 and entering into force on 1 February 2003, introduced minor institutional tweaks to AFSJ, extending qualified majority voting and co-decision procedures to specific asylum and immigration measures while broadening provisions to allow progress without vetoes from non-participating states. These changes facilitated incremental supranational gains amid preparations for eastward enlargement but preserved opt-outs for states like the and , reflecting ongoing resistance to uniform integration. In parallel, the 2005 , signed on 27 May by , , , , , , and the , enabled automated multilateral exchange of DNA profiles, fingerprints, and vehicle registration data for combating and cross-border , bypassing EU institutions initially due to third-pillar limitations. This intergovernmental initiative underscored partial supranational shifts but also highlighted uneven adoption, as Schengen enlargements—from and in 2007 onward—imposed disproportionate border management burdens on peripheral states like , where weak external controls exposed systemic implementation gaps despite formal accession commitments. Deeper supranational ambitions faltered with the Treaty establishing a for , which proposed merging the third pillar into a unified AFSJ under qualified majority voting and full Court of Justice oversight; it was rejected by 54.7% of French voters in a 29 May 2005 referendum (turnout 69.4%) and 61.6% of Dutch voters on 1 2005 (turnout 62.8%), with opposition rooted in fears of dilution, , and an unaccountable EU super-state rather than abstract integration ideals. These empirically driven backlashes, encompassing left-wing concerns over social protections and right-wing defenses, compelled a retreat from , preserving national vetoes in sensitive areas and illustrating causal limits to supranational momentum amid public and peripheral resistance.

Post-Lisbon Expansion (2009–Present)

The , entering into force on 1 December 2009, abolished the EU's three-pillar structure, integrating the AFSJ into the Union's first pillar and subjecting it to qualified majority voting, ordinary legislative procedure, and full jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the EU, thereby enhancing supranational oversight while allowing transitional opt-outs for , , and the until their respective withdrawals or adjustments. This shift marked a departure from , enabling accelerated harmonization in asylum, , and judicial cooperation, though implementation faced delays due to national reservations and the need for mutual trust among member states' judiciaries. The adopted the Programme on 10-11 December 2009 as the first post-Lisbon multiannual framework for AFSJ, spanning 2010-2014 and prioritizing citizen rights, a common area of protection and solidarity, and external dimensions like partnerships with third countries for migration . Succeeding strategic guidance evolved without a formal successor programme, transitioning to the 2020-2025 Security Union Strategy, which emphasized resilience against , , and hybrid threats, including enhanced information sharing and border controls amid rising irregular migration flows exceeding 1 million arrivals in 2015. By 2025, the Commission introduced the ProtectEU internal security strategy, responding to geopolitical pressures such as Russia's 2022 invasion of , which prompted reinforced focus on protection and countering state-sponsored , with proposed increases in staffing and border guard resources. Trends toward externalization intensified, exemplified by agreements with in 2016 and subsequent partnerships with and involving €6 billion in funding for migration control and returns, aiming to stem flows at origin but yielding mixed results due to concerns and inconsistent enforcement in partner states. Persistent internal divisions, particularly from and , which refused EU relocation quotas for over 160,000 asylum seekers post-2015 and faced rulings in 2020 for breaching solidarity obligations, underscored causal fractures rooted in priorities and varying threat perceptions, limiting uniform AFSJ advancement despite crisis-driven expansions. These tensions, compounded by dynamics, have fostered realism about AFSJ's uneven integration, with eastern member states prioritizing national border fortifications over supranational redistribution.

Key Policies and Operational Instruments

Schengen Integration and Border Management

The forms a cornerstone of the European Union's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice by abolishing routine checks at internal borders among participating states, thereby facilitating the free movement of persons while mandating harmonized controls at external frontiers. This core acquis is codified in Regulation (EU) 2016/399, the Schengen Borders Code, which establishes uniform rules for crossing borders, including requirements for third-country nationals to possess valid travel documents, visas where applicable, and proof of sufficient means during short stays. The code emphasizes compensatory measures, such as police cooperation and the , to mitigate risks from internal openness, though empirical evidence indicates persistent strains on external border integrity. Enlargements of the Schengen Area from 2007 onward have extended this framework to additional states, incorporating nine EU members—Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia—on December 21, 2007, followed by further accessions including on January 1, 2023. These expansions have amplified disparities in border management capacities, as newer participants often manage longer or more exposed external frontiers with varying resources and enforcement effectiveness, thereby heightening vulnerabilities to irregular entries that exploit the promise of unimpeded internal transit. Robust external enforcement, including systematic checks and risk-based profiling under the Borders , remains essential to counter incentives created by internal openness, rather than proposals to dismantle the system amid evident pressures. The Schengen Borders Code permits temporary reintroduction of internal border controls as a last resort for serious threats to or internal security, limited initially to six months and extendable up to two years under foreseeable circumstances. Following the 2015 migration surge, multiple states invoked this provision, with initiating controls on May 26, 2015, at s with and others; by September 2025, such reintroductions had occurred over 400 times across the Area. The prompted further widespread activations, with at least 17 member states imposing closures from March 2020 onward to curb risks, underscoring how internal abolition shifts disproportionate burdens to uneven external perimeters. These derogations, while legally framed as exceptional, reveal systemic fragilities, as open internal borders causally encourage irregular crossings at frontiers—evidenced by detections of approximately 380,000 such entries in 2023, the highest since 2016, straining resources and enabling secondary movements. Prioritizing fortified external controls, informed by these data, addresses root causal dynamics over reliance on temporary internal fixes.

Common European Asylum System (CEAS)

The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) comprises EU legislation establishing common standards for asylum procedures, qualification criteria, reception conditions, and responsibility allocation among member states. Key instruments include the Recast Qualification Directive (2011/95/EU), which defines grounds for granting refugee status and subsidiary protection; the Recast Asylum Procedures Directive (2013/32/EU), harmonizing application processing; and the Recast Reception Conditions Directive (2013/33/EU), setting material reception standards. The Dublin III Regulation (Regulation 604/2013) determines the member state responsible for examining applications, primarily the first country of entry, while the Eurodac Regulation enables fingerprint-based identification to enforce transfers. Despite aims of uniformity, implementation reveals significant disparities in recognition rates across member states, with rates for applicants from the same origin countries varying from near 0% to nearly 100%, fostering "" where applicants select perceived lenient states. Overall EU+ recognition rates dropped to 25% in early 2025, among the lowest recorded, indicating stringent assessments amid high volumes. Secondary movements—unauthorized relocations from responsible states to preferred destinations—undermine the Dublin system's allocation mechanism, driven by factors including , perceived better welfare provisions, and higher expected recognition probabilities, with evidence of applicants bypassing frontline states like and for . The 2015-2016 surge, exceeding 1.25 million first-time applications in alone and similar peaks in , overwhelmed national capacities, exposing CEAS frailties such as inadequate enforcement of returns (with low transfer rates under ) and insufficient solidarity in burden-sharing. These pressures revealed causal incentives for misuse, as generous welfare in destination states acted as pull factors beyond persecution claims, with many applicants ultimately rejected yet contributing to backlogs and irregular secondary flows rather than effective redistribution. Reforms under the 2020 New Pact on Migration and Asylum, adopted in 2024 with application from June 2026 following a two-year transition, introduce a mandatory solidarity mechanism replacing ad-hoc relocations with flexible contributions (e.g., relocations, financial aid, or operational support) and enhanced screening at borders to curb secondary movements via stricter responsibility rules. As of mid-2025, progress assessments highlight ongoing challenges in achieving full operationality, underscoring persistent enforcement gaps over reliance on redistribution without bolstering returns and external border controls. Empirical data emphasize that systemic efficacy hinges on prioritizing rapid returns for unfounded claims—historically under 50% effective—over internal reallocations, which fail to deter inflows or address root economic motivations misframed as asylum needs.

Europol, Eurojust, and Judicial Networks

serves as the European Union's , tasked with supporting member states in preventing and combating serious international and through , operational coordination, and . Established initially by the 1995 Europol Convention and integrated post-Lisbon Treaty under Article 88 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, its mandate expanded via the 2016 Europol Regulation, effective May 1, 2017, which broadened competencies to include rapid-response specialized units for emerging threats and enhanced data processing capabilities. Lacking direct enforcement powers, facilitates cross-border operations by analyzing data from national authorities and prioritizing threats through mechanisms like the European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats (EMPACT), which sets operational action plans across priorities such as high-risk criminal networks, drug trafficking, and . EMPACT-driven efforts have yielded measurable outcomes in disrupting , with 2024 actions initiating 6,635 investigations, leading to 13,575 arrests, identification of 5,024 victims, and seizure of €1.05 billion in assets and proceeds. These results stem from coordinated intelligence sharing rather than autonomous policing, as Europol's hinges on voluntary national contributions and ; persistent challenges, including incomplete data access and varying capacities, underscore that such hubs augment but cannot replace sovereign enforcement structures. Eurojust, the EU's judicial cooperation unit, complements Europol by coordinating prosecutions and investigations across borders, assisting national authorities in resolving jurisdictional conflicts and supporting joint investigation teams (JITs). Post-Lisbon, its role solidified under Council Decision 2009/426/JHA, emphasizing facilitation of mutual recognition of judicial decisions and MLA requests, with 2024 handling nearly 13,000 cross-border cases—a 60% increase over five years—and supporting 25% more JITs than in 2023. In 2023, Eurojust backed 288 JITs, funding 46% of them, contributing to dismantlement of networks involved in drug trafficking and , though outcomes depend on national prosecutorial follow-through. The European Judicial Network (EJN) networks prosecutors and judges as contact points to expedite mutual legal assistance (MLA) and in criminal matters, streamlining requests under frameworks like the European Investigation Order. Operational since 1998 and expanded post-Lisbon, the EJN facilitates direct communication to reduce delays in gathering and execution of judicial decisions across member states, enhancing coordination without supplanting domestic judicial . Collectively, these bodies have enabled operations dismantling over 800 high-threat networks identified in EU-wide assessments, yet causal limitations persist: intelligence and prosecutorial alignment accelerates targeted actions but cannot overcome disparities in national resources or political will, risking inefficiencies in a decentralized system.

Counter-Terrorism and Crisis Response Measures

Following the 2015 Paris attacks, which killed 130 people and were linked to jihadist networks exploiting intra-EU mobility, the intensified counter-terrorism efforts within the AFSJ framework, focusing on enhanced information exchange and preventive tools. The (PNR) Directive, adopted on April 21, 2016, mandates airlines to share passenger data with national authorities for analysis against terrorist profiles, enabling preemptive interventions across borders. This measure addressed gaps exposed by the attacks, where perpetrators moved freely within Schengen, contributing to a reported decline in completed jihadist attacks from 17 in 2015 to 10 by 2017, attributed partly to improved data sharing via systems like the . Empirical data from Europol's annual Terrorism Situation and Trend (TE-SAT) reports indicate a sustained reduction in jihadist incidents post-2015, with completed attacks dropping to 14 in 2023 amid 120 arrests for related plots, facilitated by EU-wide coordination on indicators and foreign fighter tracking. However, causal analysis reveals these measures as largely reactive; over 5,000 EU citizens joined jihadist groups in and between 2011 and 2015, with many returning undetected via porous Schengen borders and migration routes, underscoring how open internal mobility amplified risks before enhanced screening. The (EEAS) has supported external coordination, including counter-terrorism dialogues and partnerships to disrupt overseas networks, though primary efficacy stems from national intelligence primacy rather than supranational mandates. Radicalization prevention under AFSJ emphasizes non-legislative coordination, such as the EU Internet Forum for removing terrorist content online and guidelines for deradicalizing prison inmates, with over 2,000 pieces of jihadist propaganda taken down annually by 2020 through voluntary platform commitments. These efforts, while expanding post-2015, face critiques for balancing against ; PNR data retention for up to five years has prompted concerns over erosion without proportional threat mitigation, as evidenced by limited standalone convictions directly from PNR hits. In 2024–2025, AFSJ priorities shifted toward hybrid threats blending with state-sponsored disruption, as outlined in the EU Internal Security , prioritizing resilience against and cyberattacks over purely jihadist focus, yet reaffirming national agencies' lead in operational to avoid supranational overreach. TE-SAT data for 2024 records 58 total attacks across ideologies, with jihadist plots foiled at higher rates (19 foiled versus 34 completed), reflecting matured info-exchange protocols but highlighting persistent vulnerabilities from uneven member-state implementation.

Criticisms and Sovereignty Concerns

National Sovereignty Erosion and Opt-Out Dynamics

The , entering into force on December 1, 2009, substantially centralized authority in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) by abolishing the intergovernmental third pillar and subjecting key domains—including asylum policy, external controls, and judicial —to qualified voting (QMV) in the alongside co-decision with the . This shift replaced requirements in numerous areas, effectively curtailing national powers and subordinating parliaments to supranational decision-making, as EU legislation now binds non-consenting states without recourse to override via domestic . In asylum matters, for instance, QMV enables policies like mandatory relocation mechanisms to be imposed despite opposition from individual governments, fostering a dynamic where uniformity trumps national priorities. Opt-outs serve as negotiated exceptions mitigating this erosion, allowing select states to retain legislative autonomy in AFSJ. Denmark maintains a comprehensive opt-out under Protocol 22 of the , exempting it from Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the (TFEU), which encompasses AFSJ competences; this enables to forgo participation in binding measures such as the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) while selectively cooperating on non-legislative initiatives like Schengen via bilateral arrangements. , under Protocol 21, adopts a partial opt-in model, evaluating AFSJ proposals case-by-case and abstaining from Schengen integration to preserve territorial control over borders and justice matters. These protocols, ratified in 2009, pragmatically preserve national veto equivalents by insulating opting-out states from QMV-imposed obligations, contrasting with the compulsory adherence faced by the majority of members. Empirical instances underscore sovereignty erosion in non-opt-out states through infringement proceedings that enforce supranational uniformity. The launched actions in December 2015 against , , and the for non-implementation of the 2015 temporary relocation quotas under Council Decision 2015/1601, culminating in (ECJ) rulings on April 2, 2020, declaring their persistent refusal a breach of EU law and obliging compliance via potential fines. alone accrued penalties exceeding €500 million by April 2025 across related migration disputes, illustrating how ECJ enforcement prioritizes acquis enforcement over national constitutional objections, thereby diminishing through financial coercion and judicial supremacy. faced parallel proceedings, including ECJ condemnations for judicial reforms conflicting with AFSJ , reinforcing a causal chain where non-compliance triggers supranational sanctions that override domestic policy choices. Opt-outs demonstrably safeguard control, countering narratives of seamless integration benefits with evidence of alleviated burdens in exempt states. Denmark's AFSJ exemption has facilitated stringent national asylum criteria—such as paradigmatic shifts toward external and family reunification restrictions—resulting in asylum application rates averaging under 5,000 annually from 2016–2023, markedly below EU averages for integrated members experiencing policy-mandated inflows and processing backlogs. Ireland's selective opt-ins have similarly avoided full CEAS entanglements, enabling tailored border outside Schengen and averting the overloads observed in non-exempt states bound by QMV decisions like the 2024 Migration Pact, where mandatory solidarity mechanisms impose redistributive quotas. Non-opt-out countries, lacking such flexibility, confront amplified administrative strains from harmonized rules, as seen in sustained infringement escalations and resource diversions, underscoring opt-outs' role in preserving causal autonomy over security and justice domains.

Migration Policy Failures and Security Risks

The 2015 saw over 1.2 million first-time asylum applications in the , with arrivals primarily via and overwhelming frontline states and exposing the Dublin Regulation's core flaw of assigning responsibility to the first-entry country without effective burden-sharing mechanisms. This led to secondary movements northward, as applicants evaded returns, straining internal borders and contributing to the emergence of parallel security challenges in reception areas, including localized spikes in and the formation of no-go zones in cities like and parts of where state authority diminished due to concentrated migrant populations and inadequate vetting. In , which received over 440,000 asylum seekers in 2015 alone, official BKA crime statistics revealed non-citizens—comprising about 12% of the —accounting for 41% of suspects in s by 2022, with migrants from and the overrepresented by factors of 3-5 times relative to demographics in offenses like and knife attacks. Empirical studies confirm a causal link, showing refugee inflows correlated with a 10-20% rise in local and rates one year post-arrival, attributable to demographic factors such as young male composition and lower employment deterrence rather than solely socioeconomic deprivation. These patterns persisted through 2023, with federal reports noting immigration-related offenses (e.g., unauthorized entry) comprising up to 15% of total crimes, exacerbating public insecurity and straining police resources. Subsequent policy responses, such as the March 2016 EU- deal—under which agreed to accept returns of irregular migrants from in exchange for €6 billion in aid and accelerated visa liberalization talks—temporarily halved crossings but served as an external bandage, failing to address internal pull factors like disparate welfare benefits and lax harmonization that incentivized onward migration. The proposed New Pact on Migration, tabled in 2020 amid ongoing border pressures, faced years of negotiation delays due to East-West divides over mandatory solidarity, only achieving adoption by the on May 14, 2024, with implementation phased in from July 2026; critics, including data-driven analyses, argue it perpetuates Dublin-era inequities by allowing opt-outs and financial substitutions rather than resolving root incentives for mass flows. Integration shortfalls amplified these risks, with non-EU migrants exhibiting rates of 12.3% in 2024—more than double the native average of 5.8%—and persistent overreliance on social benefits, as evidenced by indicators showing third-country nationals in low-skilled sectors with employment gaps widening over time due to skill mismatches and cultural barriers. Such failures fostered parallel societies, correlating with populist surges as empirical surveys link perceived integration breakdowns to heightened anti-immigration sentiment across member states. Security vulnerabilities manifested in undetected radicals exploiting asylum channels, including high-profile attacks like the 2016 Berlin truck ramming by a rejected Tunisian killing 12, and the 2015 Paris Bataclan massacre involving perpetrators who entered via migrant routes; Europol data from 2015-2023 attributes 20-30% of thwarted jihadist plots to recent arrivals or failed applicants, underscoring vetting gaps in high-volume processing that prioritized speed over scrutiny. This nexus of unchecked inflows and integration deficits not only elevated risks but also eroded trust in supranational policies, as causal metrics tie policy leniency to sustained insecurity metrics.

Implementation Inconsistencies and Rule of Law Issues

Implementation of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) has revealed significant disparities across member states, particularly in migration policy . Eastern European countries such as and have consistently resisted mandatory relocation quotas under the Common European Asylum System, voting against the 2024 EU migration reform pact that imposes solidarity mechanisms like relocations or financial contributions. In contrast, frontline Western states like and have faced criticism for inconsistent border controls and asylum processing, with reports indicating irregular secondary movements and overburdened systems despite EU funding for enhanced . These divergences stem from differing national priorities and capacities, eroding the supranational coherence intended by AFSJ instruments and fostering perceptions of unequal burden-sharing. Judicial cooperation tools like the (EAW) exhibit practical backlogs and refusal variances that highlight implementation gaps. In 2022, EU member states issued 22,684 EAWs, with execution rates averaging around 90%, but refusals grounded in rule-of-law concerns—particularly systemic judicial independence deficits in and —have risen, prompting national courts in , the Netherlands, and to deny surrenders in specific cases since 2018. The Court of Justice of the EU's 2018 LM ruling established that "mutual trust" can be rebutted by evidence of violations, yet uneven application persists, with preliminary references to the CJEU on AFSJ matters originating disproportionately from a minority of states (80% from 20% of member states). This has led to delays averaging 50-100 days for EAW processing in some jurisdictions, complicating cross-border prosecutions. Rule-of-law tensions further undermine AFSJ uniformity, as Article 7 TEU procedures—activated against Poland in 2017 and in 2018 for judicial reforms perceived as eroding —clash with the presumption of mutual trust essential to instruments like the EAW and Framework Decisions. Despite these sanctions threats, which remain unenforced due to requirements, the Commission has pursued over 100 infringement proceedings since 2019 for non-transposition of AFSJ directives, including those on procedural and anti-money laundering, with 26 member states failing to notify full implementation for key justice measures as of 2024. Such non-compliance reflects causal mismatches between harmonized EU standards and divergent national legal cultures, where Eastern states prioritize over supranational norms, while Western states occasionally invoke exceptions selectively. Incomplete harmonization exacerbates forum-shopping, where actors exploit jurisdictional differences to delay justice or secure favorable outcomes. Variations in criminal penalties and procedures across states enable "criminal forum shopping," as noted in analyses of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, where parallel proceedings arise from unaligned ne bis in idem rules and evidence standards. This realism-driven inefficiency—rooted in ignoring entrenched legal traditions—results in protracted cases, resource duplication, and eroded trust, with empirical data showing elevated cross-border investigation delays in AFSJ matters compared to pre-Lisbon levels. Overall, these inconsistencies reveal the limits of top-down AFSJ integration without addressing underlying national variances, compromising the area's foundational goals of swift, equitable .

Overreach in Fundamental Rights and Data Surveillance

The European Court of Justice's (ECJ) expansive interpretations of the Charter of have imposed stringent data protection requirements that constrain cross-border intelligence sharing essential for counter-terrorism. In the Schrems II ruling on July 16, 2020, the ECJ invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield framework, determining that US surveillance laws under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act lacked adequate safeguards against indiscriminate access to EU citizens' data transferred for commercial purposes, thereby requiring case-by-case assessments for all such transfers using Standard Contractual Clauses. This decision disrupted cooperation, as agencies like rely on seamless data flows with US counterparts to track terrorist networks, with analyses indicating it increased compliance burdens and delayed investigations into threats originating from transatlantic data. Empirical assessments highlight trade-offs, such as reduced effectiveness in for prevention, where mandates limit bulk data processing that has proven vital in disrupting plots, as evidenced by post-9/11 intelligence operations hampered by similar restrictions. Critiques of these rulings emphasize causal imbalances favoring individual privacy over collective security, with the Charter's provisions—particularly Articles 7 (privacy) and 8 (data protection)—frequently invoked to challenge surveillance tools despite evidence of their role in averting attacks. For instance, the ECJ's proportionality tests in data retention cases, such as Digital Rights Ireland (2014) and subsequent affirmations, struck down blanket retention directives, arguing they constituted general and indiscriminate interference, even as targeted retention has correlated with higher detection rates of organized crime and terrorism in member states with flexible national regimes. In deportation contexts, the Charter's non-refoulement principle under Article 19 has been applied to halt removals of convicted foreign offenders when they allege risks of ill-treatment abroad, normalizing appeals that prioritize claimant assertions over verified threat assessments and victim impacts from recidivism data showing elevated crime rates among non-deported offenders. Such applications, often upheld despite rebuttable evidence of safe return options, reflect an interpretive bias toward expansive rights protections that overlooks empirical patterns, including studies linking delayed deportations to sustained security risks in high-migration areas. To counter these gaps, the has mandated enhanced surveillance systems like the (EES), established by Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 and operationalized from October 12, 2025, which registers of non-EU nationals to detect overstays and irregular entries, addressing limitations in manual passport stamping that previously obscured 20-30% of visa overstayers per annual reports. However, rollout has faced bureaucratic delays and technical glitches, including prolonged queues at borders due to insufficient infrastructure preparation and integration challenges with national systems, postponing full efficacy and underscoring how procedural hurdles—exacerbated by ongoing privacy litigation—impede timely security enhancements. These mandates represent pragmatic responses to rights-driven constraints, yet persistent ECJ scrutiny risks further erosion of operational tools, as seen in challenges to biometric databases under the Charter's data minimization principles.

Empirical Impacts and Evaluations

Security Outcomes: Terrorism and Crime Data

's Terrorism Situation and Trend Reports (TE-SAT) document a marked decline in terrorist fatalities in the EU, from a 2017 peak exceeding 60 deaths amid jihadist attacks to 4 deaths in 2022, comprising 2 from jihadist incidents and 2 from . This trend continued into 2023, with low single-digit annual fatalities reported amid 58 total terrorist attacks, including 19 foiled plots across 14 member states. Post-Lisbon Treaty enhancements to AFSJ, including strengthened mandates for intelligence sharing, have supported operational disruptions, yet primary successes in foiling plots stem from national agencies' groundwork, with EU coordination providing ancillary value rather than decisive causation. Attribution to supranational efforts is limited by the decentralized nature of counter-terrorism, where member states retain core investigative authority and . On organized and cross-border crime, AFSJ-driven tools like the Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment (SOCTA) identify enduring threats from networks exploiting internal mobility, but empirical impacts on overall rates show inconsistency due to incomplete harmonization. data indicate 5,387,857 registered thefts in 2023, up 4.8% from 2022, reflecting partial gains in cross-border detection yet persistent variances in national reporting standards that undermine EU-level trend analysis. Such gaps, including underreporting in certain categories owing to disparate methodologies, favor reliance on granular national for causal insights over aggregated AFSJ metrics, which often mask underlying discrepancies. Overall, while AFSJ facilitates information exchange, quantifiable security improvements are tempered by evidentiary challenges in isolating EU-specific effects from domestic policing advancements.

Migration Effects: Socio-Economic and Integration Realities

Non-EU migrants in the face persistent employment disparities relative to native-born populations, with data indicating unemployment rates for non-EU citizens aged 20-64 at approximately 12.3% in recent years, compared to 5.1% for nationals, representing a gap exceeding twofold. In 90% of EU regions, rates remain higher for nationals than for non-EU citizens, reflecting structural barriers including mismatches and lower among migrants from developing regions. These gaps contribute to elevated reliance on social welfare systems, as evidenced by rates and higher shares in low-skill occupations for non-EU groups. Fiscal assessments underscore net burdens from non-EU migration, particularly from low-income origin countries. A Danish Ministry of Finance analysis calculated the 2018 net cost of non-Western immigrants at 31 billion Danish kroner (about €4.2 billion), driven by lower labor market participation and higher benefit transfers. EU-wide modeling similarly projects that extra-EU migrants yield negative net fiscal contributions over lifetimes, with natives outperforming due to higher productivity and tax payments, while migrant inflows strain public finances without commensurate economic offsets. Peer-reviewed evaluations attribute these outcomes to selective migration patterns favoring low-skilled entrants, amplified by welfare state generosity that reduces incentives for rapid workforce entry. Integration shortcomings extend to social cohesion, with evidence of overrepresentation in correlating to assimilation deficits. Swedish official statistics show foreign-born individuals are 2.5 times more likely to be suspected of than native-born with two Swedish parents, a disparity reaching fivefold for among second-generation migrants from certain backgrounds. Such patterns, comprising 58% of suspects from migrant backgrounds despite representing 33% of the , link causally to enclave formation and cultural non-convergence, fostering isolated communities resistant to host norms. AFSJ-driven policies, by facilitating unchecked inflows from culturally divergent sources, have intensified these realities, with data revealing sustained gaps in , civic participation, and intermarriage rates that hinder long-term societal fusion. Empirical reviews thus support prioritizing selective, skill-based migration to mitigate costs and enhance integration viability.

Justice Harmonization: Efficiency and Backlogs

The (EAW) framework, established by Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, has resulted in substantial caseload volumes, with member states issuing approximately 15,000 to 20,000 EAWs annually in recent years, leading to thousands of surrenders that enhance cross-border judicial efficiency compared to prior bilateral processes. In 2021, for instance, 14,789 EAWs were issued across the EU, reflecting a procedural simplification that reduced average surrender times from several months under the pre-2004 European Convention on Extradition to weeks in many cases, as evidenced by implementation assessments. However, execution rates are tempered by refusals, which averaged below 1% overall in aggregate data from reporting states, though rates climb higher—up to several percentage points in specific jurisdictions—when grounded in concerns such as inadequate prison conditions or fair trial risks. Post-Lisbon Treaty enhancements, including expanded Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) oversight over AFSJ matters since 2009, have imposed greater uniformity in interpreting EAW refusals but correlated with rising preliminary references, contributing to institutional backlogs. The CJEU's caseload in justice-related preliminary rulings has grown, with over 900 new cases registered in 2024 alone across its docket, including AFSJ disputes that delay EAW executions pending clarifications on mutual trust and rights safeguards. Empirical data from indicates that while EAW involvement in coordinated cases reached 1,262 in 2022, varying national standards—such as differing or detention practices—causally undermine consistent efficiency, prompting refusals that fragment harmonization outcomes. Harmonization's net impact reveals limited proportional gains in justice delivery, as high-execution volumes mask administrative strains on efficient member states like , which issued 3,783 EAWs in 2018 yet faced 226 refusals when acting as executing authority, often diverting resources to vet issuing states' compliance. States with superior domestic efficiency, per Justice Scoreboard metrics on disposition times and clearance rates, incur elevated costs from processing EAWs originating in backlog-heavy systems, without commensurate EU-wide reductions in unresolved cross-border caseloads, as mutual recognition assumptions overlook persistent divergences in judicial capacity. This dynamic suggests that while EAW accelerates individual transfers, broader harmonization yields marginal systemic improvements, prioritizing procedural speed over addressing root inefficiencies in underperforming jurisdictions.

Overall Effectiveness: Causal Analyses and Metrics

Evaluations of the AFSJ framework reveal partial operational successes in cross-border judicial and police cooperation, such as the , which facilitated over 221,000 surrenders by 2022, enhancing efficiency in combating networks spanning multiple states. Causal analyses from think tanks attribute these gains to mutual recognition principles, enabling faster responses than pre-AFSJ bilateral agreements, though reliant on high trust levels among member states that have eroded amid divergent national priorities. However, these mechanisms involve trade-offs, as states relinquish veto power over foreign judicial rulings, leading to uneven implementation where politically sensitive cases, like those involving irregular migrants, face delays or refusals. Empirical metrics indicate overall crime stability, with homicide rates holding steady at approximately 0.7 per 100,000 inhabitants from 2016 to 2022 per data, reflecting effective coordination in traditional transnational threats like drug trafficking via . Yet, causal studies link migration policy laxity—manifest in persistent irregular crossings exceeding 380,000 annually since 2020 despite externalization efforts—to localized spikes in property and violent offenses, as evidenced by immigration waves correlating with modest property crime rises and refugee inflows in showing delayed crime increases one year post-arrival. externalization failures, such as ineffective deals with North African states, have failed to curb Mediterranean surges, amplifying risks through unchecked entries that strain national resources and enable secondary movements. Net effectiveness tilts negative when weighing verifiable outcomes against counterfactuals: opt-out states like , retaining national controls, report lower irregular migration rates (under 5,000 asylum applications per million residents in 2023 versus EU average of 12,000) and fewer associated incidents compared to full AFSJ participants. Mainstream assertions of AFSJ efficacy, often from EU institutions, overlook these alternatives by emphasizing anecdotal cooperation wins while downplaying how centralized harmonization dilutes incentives for rigorous national enforcement, perpetuating vulnerabilities in an era of geopolitical flux. Prioritizing empirical failures in integrity over partial judicial gains underscores a causal imbalance where enhanced has not proportionally bolstered , as sustained inflows correlate with elevated risks absent robust external controls.

Future Directions and Reforms

Recent Initiatives (New Pact on Migration, 2020–2025 Priorities)

The New Pact on Migration and Asylum, proposed by the European Commission in September 2020, was adopted by the European Parliament and Council in May 2024, with its regulations entering into force on 11 June 2024 following legislative approval. This framework introduces mandatory solidarity mechanisms among member states, requiring those facing disproportionate migratory pressure to receive support through relocation of asylum seekers, financial contributions, or operational assistance, aiming to replace ad hoc crisis responses with structured burden-sharing. Border screening procedures are standardized, mandating identification, health, and security checks within seven days for irregular arrivals, integrated with the Eurodac database for biometric data to enhance asylum claim processing and returns. Full implementation is deferred until mid-2026 to allow for a two-year transitional period focused on capacity-building and IT system upgrades. Complementing the Pact, the EU's 2021–2025 strategic agenda emphasizes digital border enhancements under the smart borders package, including the (EES), which became operational on 12 October 2025 to automate tracking of non-EU nationals' short stays by replacing manual passport stamps with biometric records of entries, exits, and overstays. The (ETIAS), scheduled for rollout in the fourth quarter of 2026 following EES activation, requires pre-travel authorization for visa-exempt third-country nationals, using automated risk assessments to flag security or irregular migration threats. These systems, managed by the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems (eu-LISA), support the Pact's screening and asylum goals by interconnecting with existing databases like the . eu-LISA's role extends to IT infrastructure upgrades outlined in its operational priorities for 2025–2027, including enhanced cybersecurity with the (ENISA) via a dedicated plan signed on 6 February 2025, to secure data flows amid rising hybrid threats. Early assessments of the Pact's burden-sharing amid 2023–2025 migratory pressures reveal implementation challenges, with irregular border crossings declining to approximately 380,000 in 2024 from peaks exceeding 1 million in prior years, yet asylum applications dropping to under 1 million in 2025, straining front-line states like and without uniform relocation uptake. Delays in EU-commissioned solidarity reports as of October 2025 highlight persistent divisions, with eastern and southern member states questioning enforceability due to flexibilities and varying national capacities, underscoring the Pact's reactive design to post-2015 crises rather than preventive enforcement.

Potential Reforms: Enhancing National Controls

One proposed reform involves broadening the scope of opt-outs and emergency brakes beyond their current limitations in under Articles 82(3) and 83(3) TFEU, extending them to asylum and migration directives to allow member states greater discretion during influxes exceeding national capacities. This would enable unilateral suspension of EU-wide obligations, as has utilized its Title V opt-out to maintain independent policies, resulting in asylum approval rates dropping to 35% in 2023 from over 50% pre-2015. Empirical precedents suggest such mechanisms preserve national sovereignty without undermining overall EU cohesion, as evidenced by the UK's pre-Brexit case-by-case opt-ins, which correlated with controlled border inflows. Emulating Denmark's model, reforms could prioritize over indefinite integration by incentivizing voluntary returns through time-limited benefits and external agreements conditioned on third-country . Denmark's 2019 emphasized temporary , achieving a 20% rate for non-integrated migrants by 2024, compared to the EU average of under 10%, by linking residency to thresholds unmet by 70% of non-Western immigrants after five years. Causal analysis indicates strict national controls reduce secondary movements and welfare dependency, as Denmark's net migration fell to 20,000 annually post-reform versus 100,000+ in high-inflow states like . External pacts could shift focus from border outsourcing to enforcement, mandating data-sharing for return metrics and penalties for non-compliant partners, building on the EU-Turkey deal's precedent that halved Aegean crossings but underdelivered on returns due to weak incentives. Data-driven incentives, such as tiered aid tied to return rates—e.g., Australia's offshore model resettling 12,000 annually while deterring boats—offer a blueprint, with EU adaptations potentially increasing returns by 15-20% based on pilot evaluations. Prioritizing citizen through these measures addresses empirical failures of uniform integration, where non-EU migrant crime rates exceed natives by 2-3 times in multiple states, rendering open-ended policies causally ineffective for social cohesion.

Strategic Challenges: Geopolitical Shifts and EU Enlargement

The , commencing on February 24, 2022, has intensified hybrid threats to the EU's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), including cyberattacks, campaigns, and along external borders. These tactics, blending conventional and unconventional methods, challenge AFSJ mechanisms such as the and Europol's operational responses, as state actors like exploit vulnerabilities in border management and internal security coordination. EU assessments indicate a surge in such incidents, with over 1,000 cyberattacks attributed to Russian-linked actors targeting in 2022–2023, necessitating enhanced resilience measures under AFSJ frameworks like the Cybersecurity Act. EU enlargement efforts, accelerated by the Ukraine conflict to counter geopolitical influence from and , introduce structural strains to AFSJ implementation. Ukraine's candidate status, granted on , , alongside Western Balkan aspirants like , , , and , requires alignment with AFSJ acquis chapters on , , and migration policy, yet persistent rule-of-law deficits in these states—such as indices averaging 40–50 on Transparency International's 2023 scale—undermine uniform enforcement. Croatia's full Schengen accession on January 1, 2023, exemplified these tensions, with documented pushbacks of over 10,000 migrants in raising concerns over compliance with AFSJ return directives and straining external controls amid Balkan migration routes handling 150,000 irregular crossings annually. Prospective enlargement to , with its 40 million pre-war population and 1,000+ km eastern exposed to ongoing conflict, risks amplifying migration pressures without proportional AFSJ capacity enhancements; analyses project potential increases in asylum claims by 20–30% if instability persists, overwhelming allocations and operations already stretched by 380,000 irregular entries in 2023. This dynamic highlights AFSJ's original internal-oriented design—rooted in mutual trust among established member states—clashing with causal realities of contested and asymmetric threats, where supranational harmonization yields to divergences, as evidenced by temporary reintroductions by seven member states post-2022. Recalibration toward geopolitically attuned policies, prioritizing bilateral external engagements over uniform internal rules, emerges as a pragmatic imperative to mitigate these vulnerabilities.

References

  1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/area-of-freedom-security-and-justice.html
  2. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/area-of-freedom-security-and-justice.html
  3. https://epthinktank.eu/2019/05/14/area-of-freedom-security-and-justice-cost-of-non-europe/
  4. https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/european-issues/766-a-union-of-criminal-law-the-vital-european-area-of-freedom-security-and-justice
  5. https://www.cer.eu/publications/archive/policy-brief/2022/there-future-eus-area-freedom-security-and-justice
  6. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2016/art_67/oj/eng
  7. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/history/
  8. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/111615.pdf
  9. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/en/FTU_4.2.1.pdf
  10. https://emn.ie/protocol_21/
  11. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/fiches_techniques/2013/010106/04A_FT%282013%29010106_EN.pdf
  12. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12016M/TXT
  13. https://www.pewresearch.org/global-migration-and-demography/2016/08/02/number-of-refugees-to-europe-surges-to-record-1-3-million-in-2015/
  14. https://www.unhcr.org/node/17361
  15. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/04/21/council-adopts-eu-pnr-directive/
  16. https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/sites/default/files/assets/2024-cjeu-case-law-on-ne-bis-in-idem.pdf
  17. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781803925189/chapter8.xml
  18. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen/schengen-information-system_en
  19. https://www.eulisa.europa.eu/activities/large-scale-it-systems/sis
  20. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7e3a9fed915d74e33f0e3d/PCJlegalAnnex.pdf
  21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386404523_Efficiency_of_Police_Cooperation_in_Criminal_Investigations
  22. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/crim_sims.htm
  23. https://www.cepol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/CEPOL_European_Law_Enforcement_Research_Bulletin_Issue_21.pdf
  24. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/asylum-eu_en
  25. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-09/evaluation_of_the_dublin_iii_regulation_en.pdf
  26. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/MPIe-Asylum-DublinReg.pdf
  27. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum_applications_-_annual_statistics
  28. https://www.frontex.europa.eu/about-frontex/who-we-are/tasks-mission/
  29. https://www.frontex.europa.eu/
  30. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/strengthening-external-borders/
  31. https://epthinktank.eu/2025/03/18/a-common-system-for-the-return-of-third-country-nationals-staying-illegally-in-the-european-union-eu-legislation-in-progress/
  32. https://www.thedanishparliament.dk/eu-information-centre/the-danish-opt-outs-from-eu-cooperation
  33. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/ireland-will-participate-eu-pact-migration-and-asylum-2024-07-31_en
  34. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT
  35. https://e-justice.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2015-01/civil_justice_guide_EU_en.pdf
  36. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/519225/IPOL_STU%282015%29519225_EN.pdf
  37. https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/32810655-fe94-44c2-9099-2813c42c9adb_en?filename=EAW%2520Statistics%2520Report%25202022.pdf
  38. https://eucrim.eu/articles/limitations-of-the-transnational-ne-bis-in-idem-principle-in-eu-law/
  39. https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/annual-report-2023/european-arrest-warrant
  40. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI%282023%29753955
  41. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012M/TXT
  42. https://www.statewatch.org/automated-suspicion-the-eu-s-new-travel-surveillance-initiatives/conclusions-your-personal-data-is-going-on-a-journey/
  43. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT
  44. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Enforcement_of_immigration_legislation_statistics
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292123002337
  46. https://fra.europa.eu/en/news/2024/investigations-rights-violations-eu-borders-remain-ineffective
  47. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/ordinary-legislative-procedure-codecision.html
  48. https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/analyses/no-115-lisbon-treaty-decision-making.pdf
  49. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/brake-clauses.html
  50. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3736605
  51. https://portal.research.lu.se/files/107725939/eu_law_blog_211007_final_draft.pdf
  52. https://summit.uni-koeln.de/sites/summit/user_upload/SUMMIT_Dossier_EUCO_and_the_AFSJ.pdf
  53. https://academic.oup.com/book/3325/chapter/144393968
  54. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/10/eu-passes-asylum-and-migration-pact-after-eight-years-of-deadlock
  55. https://www.euractiv.com/news/eus-historic-migration-pact-passes-amidst-divisions-and-far-right-fears/
  56. https://epc-web-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/content/PDF/2023/EUMigrationPact_DP_v3.pdf
  57. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/internal-security/law-enforcement-cooperation/operational-law-enforcement-cooperation_en
  58. https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/eu-agencies-in-the-security-of-europe/51493064
  59. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/694200/IPOL_STU%282021%29694200_EN.pdf
  60. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324532427_Europol_paper_-_information_sharing
  61. https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/8460/3/Europol%2527s%2520crime%2520analysis%2520system%2520-%2520practical%2520determinants%2520of%2520its%2520success.pdf
  62. https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/
  63. https://commission.europa.eu/publications/evaluation-eurojust_en
  64. https://www.frontex.europa.eu/publications/2021-in-brief-GDngLH
  65. https://www.statewatch.org/analyses/2022/frontex-more-power-no-responsibility-mega-agency-lacks-real-accountability-structure/
  66. https://prd.frontex.europa.eu/wp-content/uploads/annual-implementation-report-2021.pdf
  67. https://www.eulisa.europa.eu/activities/large-scale-it-systems
  68. https://eucrim.eu/news/eu-lisa-new-legal-basis-new-mandate/
  69. https://academic.oup.com/book/2829/chapter/143373435
  70. https://www.uaces.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/Jaseff%2520Raziel%2520Yauri%2520Miranda%2520-%2520paper.pdf
  71. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021/06/14/home-affairs-funds-council-adopts-18-billion-funds-for-2021-2027/
  72. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/funding/asylum-migration-and-integration-funds/asylum-migration-and-integration-fund-2021-2027_en
  73. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC121937/fiscal_impact_report_final_online.pdf
  74. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-5890.12314
  75. https://www.publicnow.com/view/390B9AA104B3F81AAA9EDD0EE64072326759397E?1750081619
  76. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/how-it-works/annual-lifecycle/assessment/discharge-procedure_en
  77. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eulj.12509
  78. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/memo_04_59
  79. https://www.cvce.eu/en/recherche/unit-content/-/unit/02bb76df-d066-4c08-a58a-d4686a3e68ff/458df652-8c49-4626-8541-cfe71c1199e6
  80. https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/news/handbook-trevi.pdf
  81. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/the-gradual-establishment-of-an-area-of-freedom-security-and-justice.html
  82. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen/schengen-area/history-schengen_en
  83. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/schengen-area/
  84. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/schengen-and-free-movement-people-across-europe
  85. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/networks/european-migration-network-emn/emn-asylum-and-migration-glossary/glossary/dublin-convention_en
  86. https://www.refworld.org/legal/agreements/eu/1990/en/36990
  87. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/contemporary-european-history/article/dublin-convention-and-the-introduction-of-the-first-entry-rule-in-the-allocation-of-asylum-seekers-in-europe/85E24D2299210D99EB1DAD8578E46BFD
  88. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:11992M/TXT
  89. https://www.cvce.eu/en/education/unit-content/-/unit/d5906df5-4f83-4603-85f7-0cabc24b9fe1/e038b310-f139-407f-9bfb-a1b2e901fb56
  90. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e642
  91. https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/41b6c8784.pdf
  92. https://www.cvce.eu/en/education/unit-content/-/unit/d5906df5-4f83-4603-85f7-0cabc24b9fe1/bb4a9f06-34fc-41e1-b237-ccc7543dd9f6
  93. https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1057
  94. https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1083
  95. https://www.iom.int/resources/migration-europe-christina-boswell
  96. https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/3ae6a0c93.pdf
  97. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/tam_en.htm
  98. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/treaty-of-nice.html
  99. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/parliament-and-europe/overview/from-the-treaty-of-nice-to-the-treaty-of-lisbon/
  100. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/stepping-up-cross-border-cooperation-the-pr-m-decision.html
  101. https://www.ekathimerini.com/news/205846/eu-agrees-greece-border-demands-heralding-schengen-suspension/
  102. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/02/eu.politics
  103. https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/viewFile/6675/3251
  104. https://www.kas.de/documents/252038/253252/7_dokument_dok_pdf_6849_2.pdf/f88ed99b-949b-d71e-dabe-b8d9b3caa91e
  105. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571373/IPOL_STU%282016%29571373_EN.pdf
  106. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/IPOL-LIBE_ET%282013%29493012
  107. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-proposes-facilitate-application-safe-third-country-concept-2025-05-20_en
  108. https://www.euractiv.com/news/eu-leaders-fail-to-resolve-migration-dispute-with-poland-and-hungary/
  109. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/399/oj/eng
  110. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%253A32016R0399
  111. https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/enlargement_of_the_schengen_area_21_december_2007-en-630560e1-7e8c-4773-93df-ffe3b5f8e960.html
  112. https://epthinktank.eu/2025/05/28/state-of-the-schengen-area/timeline-of-schengen-enlargement/
  113. https://www.frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news/news-release/significant-rise-in-irregular-border-crossings-in-2023-highest-since-2016-C0gGpm
  114. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen/schengen-area/temporary-reintroduction-border-control_en
  115. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/09/border-controls-europe-undermine-schengen-area-and-eu-itself
  116. https://mv.gov.cz/mvcren/article/temporary-reintroduction-of-border-at-the-internal-borders-control-by-germany.aspx
  117. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/post-covid-prospects-border-free-schengen-zone
  118. https://www.frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news/news-release/irregular-border-crossings-into-eu-drop-sharply-in-2024-oqpweX
  119. https://euaa.europa.eu/asylum-report-2020/21-common-european-asylum-system-and-current-issues
  120. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/595920/EPRS_BRI%25282017%2529595920_EN.pdf
  121. https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/public/BZ0216138ENN.pdf
  122. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2022/11/23/why-do-recognition-rates-for-asylum-seekers-differ-so-dramatically-across-the-eu/
  123. https://euaa.europa.eu/latest-asylum-trends-monthly-overview/recognition-rates
  124. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2024/762326/EPRS_BRI%282024%29762326_EN.pdf
  125. https://jrs.net/en/news/secondary-movements-in-europe-result-of-a-flawed-system/
  126. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7203832/3-04032016-AP-EN.pdf/790eba01-381c-4163-bcd2-a54959b99ed6
  127. https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/public/LatestAsylumTrends20151.pdf
  128. https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/50a4c1c39.pdf
  129. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/pact-migration-and-asylum_en
  130. https://epthinktank.eu/2025/01/30/implementation-of-the-eu-pact-on-migration-and-asylum/
  131. https://www.rescue.org/eu/article/what-eu-pact-migration-and-asylum
  132. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/pact-migration-and-asylum-commission-report-assesses-progress-and-next-steps-halfway-through-2025-06-11_en
  133. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07036337.2016.1140756
  134. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1177068.pdf
  135. https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/europols-new-regulation
  136. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-promoting-our-european-way-of-life/file-strengthening-of-europol-s-mandate
  137. https://www.europol.europa.eu/crime-areas-and-statistics/empact
  138. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/internal-security/law-enforcement-cooperation/empact-fighting-crime-together_en
  139. https://www.europol.europa.eu/publications-events/publications/empact-2024-results-factsheets
  140. https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/news/global-partnerships-drive-justice-results-says-eurojusts-annual-report-2024
  141. https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/publication/eurojust-annual-report-2024
  142. https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/annual-report-2023/eurojust-services-and-judicial-cooperation-instruments
  143. https://commission.europa.eu/law/cross-border-cases/judicial-cooperation/networks-and-bodies-supporting-judicial-cooperation/european-judicial-network_en
  144. https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/europol-report-identifies-most-threatening-criminal-networks-in-eu
  145. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/passenger-name-record/
  146. https://www.europol.europa.eu/publications-events/main-reports/tesat-report
  147. https://www.europol.europa.eu/publication-events/main-reports/european-union-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report-2024-eu-te-sat
  148. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/EPRS-Briefing-579080-Foreign-fighters-rev-FINAL.pdf
  149. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/counter-terrorism_en
  150. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/internal-security/counter-terrorism-and-radicalisation/prevention-radicalisation_en
  151. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3233/IP-211531
  152. https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/commission-presents-european-internal-security-strategy-2025-04-01_en
  153. https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/new-report-major-developments-and-trends-terrorism-in-europe-in-2024
  154. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/qualified-majority-voting-and-the-ordinary-legislative-procedure.html
  155. https://www.coleurope.eu/sites/default/files/research-paper/researchpaper2_2008_0.pdf
  156. https://academic.oup.com/rsq/article/31/4/1/1572616
  157. https://research.vu.nl/files/836554/Denmark-AFSJ%2520HerlinKarnell.pdf
  158. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=219670&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=9030281
  159. https://eumigrationlawblog.eu/coming-to-terms-with-relocation-the-infringement-case-against-poland-hungary-and-the-czech-republic/
  160. https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/current/migration-fine-penalty-hungary-eu-commission-ecj-ruling/
  161. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42270239
  162. https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/Clingendael_Report_In_Search_of_Control_Denmark.pdf
  163. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/denmark-migration-profile-pioneer
  164. https://www.eunews.it/en/2024/07/31/ireland-migration-and-asylum-pact-eu/
  165. https://refugeeswelcome.dk/en/information/focus/the-new-eu-pact-on-migration-and-asylum-how-does-it-affect-denmark
  166. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-euro-indicators/-/3-04032016-ap
  167. https://cjil.uchicago.edu/print-archive/you-shall-not-pass-how-dublin-system-fueled-fortress-europe
  168. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/europes-migration-crisis
  169. https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/51931/germany-crime-statistics-and-migration
  170. https://www.nzz.ch/english/germanys-muddled-response-to-crimes-involving-foreign-nationals-ld.1879233
  171. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537123001410
  172. https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/AnnualReportsAndSituationAssessments/OrganisedCrime/organisedCrimeSituationReport2023.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5
  173. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/eu-turkey-statement/
  174. https://www.rescue.org/eu/article/what-eu-turkey-deal
  175. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/05/14/the-council-adopts-the-eu-s-pact-on-migration-and-asylum/
  176. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Migrant_integration_statistics_%25E2%2580%2593_labour_market_indicators
  177. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2023/06/indicators-of-immigrant-integration-2023_70d202c4.html
  178. https://icct.nl/publication/reframing-threats-migrants-europe
  179. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=ijr
  180. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/05/14/eu-completes-reform-of-migration-rules-despite-poland-and-hungary-voting-against
  181. https://utrechtlawreview.org/articles/10.36633/ulr.779
  182. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2024/755914/IPOL_STU%282024%29755914_EN.pdf
  183. https://commission.europa.eu/publications/replies-questionnaire-quantitative-information-practical-operation-european-arrest-warrant_en
  184. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_2486
  185. https://ejls.eui.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2022/08/06.-EJLS-141-Boha%25CC%2581c%25CC%258Cek.pdf
  186. https://eucrim.eu/media/issue/pdf/eucrim_issue_2024-01.pdf
  187. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=228677&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=151848
  188. https://itif.org/publications/2020/12/03/schrems-ii-what-invalidating-eu-us-privacy-shield-means-transatlantic/
  189. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1246&context=faculty_publications
  190. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2022/730581/IPOL_STU%282022%29730581_EN.pdf
  191. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/european-court-justice-rules-deporting-refugees-convicted-crimes
  192. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/does-the-european-convention-on-human-rights-stop-foreign-criminals-being-removed-from-the-uk/
  193. https://travel-europe.europa.eu/ees
  194. https://etias.com/articles/technical-glitches%2C-long-queues-mark-eu%25E2%2580%2599s-entry/exit-system-rollout
  195. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/terrorism-eu-facts-figures/
  196. https://www.europol.europa.eu/publications-events/main-reports/socta-report
  197. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Crime_statistics
  198. https://www.europol.europa.eu/crime-areas/terrorism-and-violent-extremism
  199. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Migrant_integration_statistics_-_regional_labour_market_indicators
  200. https://www.thelocal.dk/20211015/denmark-says-non-western-immigrants-cost-state-31-billion-kroner
  201. https://docs.iza.org/dp8844.pdf
  202. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28126/w28126.pdf
  203. https://www.government.se/government-of-sweden/ministry-of-justice/facts-about-migration-integration-and-crime-in-sweden/
  204. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2021-003972_EN.html
  205. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338563093_Migrants_and_Crime_in_Sweden_in_the_Twenty-First_Century
  206. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sociology/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2025.1504127/full
  207. https://www.reminder-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/REMINDER-D4.3-Institutions-and-Fiscal-Effects.pdf
  208. https://commission.europa.eu/law/cross-border-cases/judicial-cooperation/types-judicial-cooperation/european-arrest-warrant_en
  209. https://eucrim.eu/articles/european-implementation-assessment-2004-2020-european-arrest-warrant/
  210. https://eucrim.eu/news/statistics-use-eaw-2018/
  211. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/642839/EPRS_STU%282020%29642839_EN.pdf
  212. https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7032/en/
  213. https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/annual-report-2022/judicial-cooperation-instruments/european-arrest-warrant
  214. https://stream-eaw.eu/country-reports/
  215. https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-05/eu_justice_scoreboard_2022.pdf
  216. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-risk-regulation/article/between-aims-and-execution-value-tradeoffs-in-the-practical-implementation-of-the-european-arrest-warrant/EDBD9FA39846CA6F2FC62AC27AAE92DC
  217. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/eu-law-in-populist-times/progress-and-failure-in-the-area-of-freedom-security-and-justice/9B1EE133DFA6DD371331A3533EDA52A5
  218. https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/27990/1/Jagdhuber_Stefan.pdf
  219. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/59323/1/CEP_Bell_Fasani_Machin_Crime-and-immigration_2013.pdf
  220. https://ecfr.eu/publication/road-to-nowhere-why-europes-border-externalisation-is-a-dead-end/
  221. https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/european-issues/787-hybrid-threats-the-new-horizons-for-a-europe-of-internal-security
  222. https://eucrim.eu/news/new-pact-on-migration-and-asylum/
  223. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-migration-asylum-reform-pact/
  224. https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/how-new-digital-borders-system-works-2025-10-13_en
  225. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/revised-timeline-ees-and-etias-2025-03-06_en
  226. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen/smart-borders/european-travel-information-authorisation-system_en
  227. https://www.eulisa.europa.eu/activities
  228. https://www.eulisa.europa.eu/news-and-events/news/eu-lisa-and-enisa-strengthen-cooperation-new-2025-2027-plan
  229. https://etias.com/articles/eu-migration-trends-shift-in-2025-asylum-claims-down%2C-border-crossings-fall
  230. https://etias.com/articles/eu-split-deepens-over-migration-solidarity-plan
  231. https://www.euractiv.com/news/eu-migration-chief-calls-ministers-to-hash-out-burden-sharing-plan/
  232. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346200432_%27Exit_Voice_and_Consensus-_A_Legal_and_Political_Analysis_of_the_Emergency_Brake_in_EU_Criminal_Policy%27
  233. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06087/SN06087.pdf
  234. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/international/21766.pdf
  235. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mgkd93r4yo
  236. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/irregular-migration-and-return/effective-firm-and-fair-eu-return-and-readmission-policy_en
  237. https://www.epc.eu/publication/An-Australian-model-for-the-EUs-migration-crisis-1d7ae0/
  238. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/07/31/denmarks-migration-reset-sets-stage-for-eu-wide-rethink
  239. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russian-hybrid-warfare-europe-should-study-ukraines-unique-experience/
  240. https://philarchive.org/archive/ORRRID
  241. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/hybrid-threats/
  242. https://therestjournal.com/2025/01/30/a-new-strategic-responsibility-for-the-eu-eu-nato-cooperation-against-hybrid-warfare-from-russia/
  243. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9980/
  244. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2022/06/what-has-stopped-eu-enlargement-in-the-western-balkans?lang=en
  245. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/737109/IPOL_STU%282023%29737109_EN.pdf
  246. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/western-balkans-route/
  247. https://journalse.com/?download=1&kccpid=7865&kcccount=/pliki/pw/3-2024-Yaris.pdf
  248. https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2024/number/6/article/the-european-union-s-geopolitical-ambitions-enlargement-neighbourhood-and-necessary-institutional-changes.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.