The thesis introduces the concept of ‘imagined harmonization’, which has influenced the perspective on forming the European migration and asylum legislations. ‘Imagined harmonization’ indicates the...Show moreThe thesis introduces the concept of ‘imagined harmonization’, which has influenced the perspective on forming the European migration and asylum legislations. ‘Imagined harmonization’ indicates the difference between the supranational willingness to complete the Common European Asylum System, making sure that all the member states’ asylum systems are identical, and the member states’ own political agendas, competences, and sovereignty, which make it impossible to achieve this harmonization. This then shows the weakness of the Common European Asylum System, which is not that ‘common’ at all. Real progress on reforming CEAS only had been made, once the European Commission acknowledged the disparities in the European asylum systems and the inability to harmonize the standards and procedures amidst what is known as the ‘migration crisis’, which refers to the situation of exceptional migratory pressure since 2015. This then led the Commission to let go of the idea of harmonization and create a new set of proposals that would set the foundation of a new European migration and asylum system, which would balance out solidarity and responsibility. However, the domestic political pressure of the member states and the contrasting issues they face because of the crisis, make negotiating difficult. That is why my research is focused on the question: ‘To what extent have Member States influenced the development of the reform of the Dublin system?’Show less
