Introduction
According to conventional wisdom, the European Union (EU) is perpetually facing crises that move the integration process forward.[1] This research aims to examine the actual effects of crises on the integration process. Due to limited resources, conceptualizing crises is outside the scope of this research. Instead, certain situations are termed crises if they are regarded as such in public discourse. This study will explore two crises and their effects on the integration process. The study will cover the migration crisis from 2014 to 2016 and the covid crisis from 2020 to 2022. Secondary sources, such as articles from academic journals or chapters from books, will be used to address the research question. The history of migration and asylum policies will be reviewed in the first section. The migratory crisis will be examined in the second section. The impact of the migrant crisis on the European Union’s competencies and the capabilities of its institutions, authorities, and agencies in migration and asylum policy will be explored in the third section. Policy solutions to the migrant crisis can thus be linked to integration theories. The history of health policy will be addressed in the fourth section. The covid problem will be examined in the sixth section. The impact of the covid crisis on the European Union’s competencies and the capabilities of its institutions, organizations, and agencies in health policy will be explored in the sixth part. Policy responses to the covid issue can thus be linked to integration theories. It is critical to emphasize the importance of this paper. First, it is scientifically relevant because no link has been demonstrated in the existing literature between policy actions in crises and integration theories. Second, it is socially significant in that it forecasts the effects of future crises on the integration process.
The History of Migration and Asylum Policy
Due to the political sensitivity of migration and asylum matters, migration and asylum policy developments have been gradual. The European Communities initially emphasized managing intra-community migration through Regulation 1612/68 on the Freedom of Movement of Workers Within the Community, enacted in 1968. By 1985, the European Commission had made multiple attempts to harmonize regulatory frameworks on third-country migration.[2] However, member states contended that laws governing migration from third countries fall outside the purview of the European Communities. As a result, the European Commission’s efforts were futile.[3]
Nevertheless, developments were made within intergovernmental organizations such as the Trevi Group and the Ad Hoc Group.[4] They have yet to prove successful in decreasing the number of asylum applications.[5] As a result, the 1990 Dublin Convention was signed.[6] It stipulated that an asylum seeker must apply for protection in the first member state they arrive in[7].
The Maastricht Treaty, enacted in 1992, established the concept of a single European Union. The Treaty specified in Article 127 that “the Member States should each grant to individuals within their jurisdiction the freedom of movement and settlement.”[8] This implied that all members of the European Union were obliged to comply with the provisions of the Treaty. At first, member states opposed this provision because they did not want to be responsible for asylum seekers who arrived in their countries. However, this opposition gradually faded as it became clear that the Treaty could not be implemented without the free movement of people.[9] It was only in 2004 that the European Union introduced a system for sharing asylum seekers between member states.[10] This system, known as the “Dublin II” rule, is based on a quota system. Each member state is allocated a certain number of asylum seekers, which it must accept. If a member state refuses to take in an asylum seeker, the Asylum Service will transfer the person to another member state.[11]
The Migration Crisis
The term “Migration Crisis” refers to the influx of migrants to Europe in 2015. The civil unrest in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as deteriorating conditions in those nations, precipitated this crisis.[12] The number of people pursuing asylum in Europe skyrocketed, rising from roughly 100,000 annually in the 1990s to more than one million by 2015.[13]Some countries, particularly in the East and South of Europe, struggled to cope with this influx of refugees.[14] In Austria, for example, asylum seekers surpassed the country’s population.[15] Some EU member states were more proficient than others in assimilating refugees. [16] For instance, the Netherlands has a relatively high percentage of employment for asylum seekers, and they are well assimilated into Dutch society[17]. On the other hand, Germany has struggled to integrate refugees, and the frequency of attacks against refugee shelters has risen in recent years.[18]
In response to the Migration Crisis, the EU implemented some initiatives to tackle the underlying reasons for migration. The EU has supported refugee camps in countries such as Jordan and Turkey to minimize the number of individuals seeking asylum in Europe.[19] The EU also implemented containment measures to reduce the flow of people from countries such as Syria and Afghanistan into Europe.[20] These measures include a refugee resettlement program that allows for the humanitarian assistance of refugees from third-country countries in Europe and a migrant resettlement program that permits the displacement of refugees and migrants from frontline nations such as Greece and Italy to other member nations. [21]Generally, the Migration Crisis has sparked a variety of disputes within the EU over the EU’s role in tackling global challenges. Some EU members believe that the EU should play a greater role in resolving the core causes of migration, while others argue that the EU should emphasize safeguarding its territories and implementing its immigration regulations.[22]
The Effect of the Migration Crisis on the Integration Process
The migration crisis of 2015-2016 signaled a dramatic change in the European Union’s integration process. This crisis, which resulted in a major influx of asylum and migrants into the EU, has significantly impacted how the EU operates.[23]The crisis has led to a significant decrease in the already low levels of integration among member states and highlighted the need for a common asylum policy among the EU member states.[24] It has strained relations between member states and EU institutions. Some member states, for example, have been hesitant to accept many refugees, while EU institutions have attempted to impose harsher immigration regulations.[25] Furthermore, the migration crisis has hindered the flow of commodities, services, and personnel between the European community, disrupting the EU and its member countries economies and leading to social concerns such as unemployment and migration-related criminality.[26] It has also made integrating refugees into the EU more difficult. Many refugees need to become more familiar with European culture and norms, which might complicate their absorption into society.[27]
Generally, the migratory crisis effect has sparked a neo-functionalist debate in which several scholars have endeavored to characterize the post-crisis integration process.[28] According to the neo-functionalist viewpoint, crises are crucial factors in the EU’s integration process.[29] Crises present opportunities for member nations to collaborate more closely and learn from one another.[30] They also compel member states to tackle the issues that have hampered their integration and to devise specific legislation and tactics to address these concerns.[31]For instance, the migration crisis has led to a more unified asylum policy, as member states have been forced to devise a common solution to the problem of refugees. [32] It has also created new mechanisms for collaboration among EU members, such as the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex).[33]
According to the liberal intergovernmentalism viewpoint, the EU integration process is driven by the interests of member states. Since each sovereign nation has its interests and policies, the integration process is mostly governed by member-state agreements.[34] The needs of refugees and migrants are usually prioritized over the interests of member countries. Member nations, for example, typically resist proposals for unified asylum standards and are typically reluctant to share resources (e.g., financial resources, staff) with other participating countries to facilitate refugee assimilation.[35]
History of Health Policy
The European Union (EU) has a lengthy health policy history. The Directive on the Protection of the Health of Workers from the Risks Associated with Chemical Agents and Other Toxic Substances, adopted in 1965, was the first important health policy. This regulation introduced health and safety criteria for employees subjected to synthetic chemicals and other hazardous toxins.[36]Since then, the EU has launched a slew of health-related measures. The 1987 Single European Act founded a single market for goods and services. Another initiative was the creation of the 1992 Health Policies Committee, which set health-related benchmarks for member countries. Also, it launched the 2003 Framework Directive on Health and Consumer Rights, which established the framework for safeguarding consumer interests. Those mentioned above are among the most substantial policy initiatives.[37] The EU has also taken the initiative in global healthcare policy. For instance, the EU was one of the world Health Organization’s (WHO) founders and has been a big donor to WHO projects.[38] This involvement has led to the EU is considered a global health leader. For example, the EU has been a leading supporter of global measles control and has played a significant role in developing the Global Vaccine Action Plan.[39]
The Covid Crisis
The Covid outbreak started in late 2019 with the discovery of a new coronavirus in Wuhan, China. The virus, now known as SARS-CoV-2, spread rapidly around the globe, causing a catastrophic pulmonary infection crisis.[40] Over 10,000 infections had been recorded by early 2020, with WHO estimating mortality to have reached thousands, especially in Italy.[41] Most nations, however, were able to eradicate the virus in early 2022 by successfully isolating the virus and developing a vaccine. The Covid crisis spread swiftly over the world due to its unique features and many people’s lack of immunity.[42] The virus was especially dangerous since it produced chronic respiratory illnesses such as pneumonia and was highly contagious. The economic impact of the crisis was equally significant, with millions of people losing their employment and businesses trending down. [43]
The Covid crisis has had a significant impact on the global health landscape. The virus has been identified as a potential pandemic threat and has shown the potential to cause widespread outbreaks.[44]The crisis also highlighted the need for effective infection control measures and for people to be vaccinated against respiratory illnesses.[45] The global response to the Covid crisis was also a major success, with the virus being isolated and a vaccine developed. The crisis has significantly impacted the global economy, with businesses closing down and millions of people losing their jobs.[46]
The Effect of the Covid Crisis on the Integration Process
Two main theories of European integration that most scholars have used to describe the growth of the European Union are neo-functionalism and liberal intergovernmentalism (EU)[47] The current crisis, brought about by the Covid financial scandal, has had a substantial impact on the integration process, and the theory offers various hypotheses for how it will affect prospects.[48] According to Neo-functionalism, the crisis has demonstrated the weaknesses of the integration process and the necessity for stronger organizations.[49] It implies that the crisis has caused a rethinking of what comprises integration, with individuals now focusing on economic and monetary union (EMU) and the free movement of people. As a result, integration has become more conservative, with less attention on social and cultural concerns.[50]
Liberal intergovernmentalism, on the other hand, maintains that the crisis has benefited integration. It signifies that the crisis has compelled politicians to collaborate more intensively to address challenges. As a result, it has resulted in stronger organizations and more accountable governments. For instance, The EU gave the European Commission additional authority to enforce EU regulations, while the crisis has reinforced the European Legislature’s responsibilities.[51] Therefore, Liberal intergovernmentalism believes that the crisis has been a positive force for integration.
Conclusion
The paper demonstrated that crises substantially impact the European Union’s integration process. Crises can exacerbate tensions and divisions among member nations and erode trust in institutions. Historically, there has been a disconnect between policy actions in times of crisis and integration theories. However, this report anticipates future crises harming the European Union’s integration process. First, governmental responses to crises will be based on short-term solutions that fail to consider long-term effects. Second, the detrimental impact of crises on social cohesion will impair the integration process. Third, the union will be unable to effectively deal with future crises since its structures, organizations, and agencies are unprepared to integrate migrants and refugees.
Furthermore, as the study demonstrates, the Migration Crisis substantially impacted the European Union’s integration process. According to integration theories, crises will negatively influence social cohesion, resulting in less access to social services and increasing social isolation. The Migration Crisis has been shown in this research to harm the EU’s integration process. Crises are expected to negatively impact social cohesiveness and access to social services in circumstances of challenging integration processes. Given this, the European Union must promote social cohesiveness and increase access to social services to mitigate future crises’ detrimental effects.
Furthermore, the European Union must improve its understanding of integration ideas to respond more effectively to crises. The Covid Crisis profoundly impacted the European Union’s integration process. It has weakened the health policy competencies of its institutions, authorities, and agencies, harming the integration process. Furthermore, the crisis has instilled fear among member states, contributing to fragmentation and populism. As a result, concerned stakeholders must use integration theories to guide policy responses to future crises to keep the EU together.
Bibliography
Andrew Geddes, The Politics of Migration and Immigration in Europe (London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2003): 131.
Brooks, Eleanor, and Robert Geyer. “The development of EU health policy and the Covid-19 pandemic: trends and implications.” Journal of European Integration 42, no. 8 (2020): 1057-1076.
Desmond Dinan, “Crises in EU History,” in The European Union in Crisis, ed. Desmond Dinan, Neill Nugent, and William E. Paterson (London: Palgrave, 2017): 16.
Josi Seilonen, Fortress Europe – a Brief History of the European Migration and Asylum Policy: A Historical Institutionalist Analysis of the Migration and Asylum Policy and the Impacts of the Current Migration Crisis (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2016): 23.
Marco Martiniello, “The New Migratory Europe: Towards a Proactive Immigration Policy?, in Immigration and the Transformation of Europe, ed. Craig A. Pasons and Timothy M. Smeeding (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006): 315.
Purnhagen, Kai P., Anniek De Ruijter, Mark L. Flear, Tamara K. Hervey, and Alexia Herwig. “More competences than you knew? The web of health competence for European Union action in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.” European Journal of Risk Regulation 11, no. 2 (2020): 297-306.
Wolff, Sarah, and Stella Ladi. “European Union responses to the covid-19 pandemic: Adaptability in times of permanent emergency.” Journal of European Integration 42, no. 8 (2020): 1025-1040
[1] Desmond Dinan, “Crises in EU History,” in The European Union in Crisis, ed. Desmond Dinan, Neill Nugent, and William E. Paterson (London: Palgrave, 2017): 16.
[2] Marco Martiniello, “The New Migratory Europe: Towards a Proactive Immigration Policy?, in Immigration and the Transformation of Europe, ed. Craig A. Pasons and Timothy M. Smeeding (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006): 315.
[3] Josi Seilonen, Fortress Europe – a Brief History of the European Migration and Asylum Policy: A Historical Institutionalist Analysis of the Migration and Asylum Policy and the Impacts of the Current Migration Crisis (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2016): 23.
[4] Andrew Geddes, The Politics of Migration and Immigration in Europe (London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2003): 131.
[5] Josi Seilonen, Fortress Europe – a Brief History of the European Migration and Asylum Policy: A Historical Institutionalist Analysis of the Migration and Asylum Policy and the Impacts of the Current Migration Crisis (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2016): 26.
[7] Desmond Dinan, “Crises in EU History,” in The European Union in Crisis, ed.
[8] Desmond Dinan, “Crises in EU History,” in The European Union in Crisis, ed.
[9] Josi Seilonen, Fortress Europe – a Brief History of the European Migration and Asylum Policy
[10] Josi Seilonen, Fortress Europe
[11] Josi Seilonen, Fortress Europe
[12] Marco Martiniello, “The New Migratory Europe: Towards a Proactive Immigration Policy?
[13] Marco Martiniello, “The New Migratory Europe
[14] Josi Seilonen, Fortress Europe
[15] Andrew Geddes
[16] Andrew Geddes
[17] Andrew Geddes
[18] Andrew Geddes
[19] Josi Seilonen
[20] Josi Seilonen
[21] Marco Martiniello, “The New Migratory Europe
[22] Andrew Geddes
[23] Andrew Geddes
[24] Desmond Dinan
[25] Andrew Geddes
[26] Marco Martiniello
[27] Desmond Dinan
[28] Andrew Geddes
[29] Andrew Geddes
[30] Desmond Dinan
[31] Desmond Dinan
[32] Josi Seilonen
[33] Marco Martiniello
[35] Marco Martiniello
[36] Brooks, Eleanor, and Robert Geyer. “The development of EU health policy and the Covid-19 pandemic: trends and implications.” Journal of European Integration 42, no. 8 (2020): 1057-1076.
[37] Brooks, Eleanor, and Robert Geyer. “The development of EU health policy and the Covid-19 pandemic: trends and implications.”
[38] Brooks, Eleanor, and Robert Geyer.
[39] Brooks, Eleanor, and Robert Geyer.
[40] Purnhagen, Kai P., Anniek De Ruijter, Mark L. Flear, Tamara K. Hervey, and Alexia Herwig. “More competences than you knew? The web of health competence for European Union action in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.” European Journal of Risk Regulation 11, no. 2 (2020): 297-306.
[41] Purnhagen, Kai P., Anniek De Ruijter, Mark L. Flear, Tamara K. Hervey, and Alexia Herwig. “More competencies than you knew?
[42] Purnhagen, Kai P., Anniek De Ruijter, Mark L. Flear, Tamara K. Hervey, and Alexia Herwig
[43] Brooks, Eleanor, and Robert Geyer
[44] Purnhagen, Kai P., Anniek De Ruijter, Mark L. Flear, Tamara K. Hervey, and Alexia Herwig
[45] Purnhagen, Kai P., Anniek De Ruijter, Mark L. Flear, Tamara K. Hervey, and Alexia Herwig
[46] Brooks, Eleanor, and Robert Geyer.
[47] Wolff, Sarah, and Stella Ladi. “European Union responses to the covid-19 pandemic: Adaptability in times of permanent emergency.” Journal of European Integration 42, no. 8 (2020): 1025-1040.
[48] Wolff, Sarah, and Stella Ladi. “European Union responses to the covid-19 pandemic:
[49] Purnhagen, Kai P., Anniek De Ruijter, Mark L. Flear, Tamara K. Hervey, and Alexia Herwig
[50] Wolff, Sarah, and Stella Ladi.
[51] Wolff, Sarah, and Stella Ladi.
write