It can be argued the EU Reception Conditions Directive constitutes an improvement on international refugee law in that it creates entitlements to welfare for asylum seekers. However, this development is limited in two important respects. First, the Directive has often either not been fully implemented or has been poorly implemented, resulting in vast differences in practice and inadequate levels of protection across the Union. Second, the effect of the EU's immigration and border control practices is to limit access to EU territory for all migrants, irrespective of their motivations for moving. Migrants' departure points are being pushed further afield and their journeys to the EU are becoming more dangerous. Thus, the EU's highly restrictive immigration and border control policy de facto undermines the protective elements that might otherwise result from the Reception Conditions Directive.
CorneliusW.A. (2005) ‘Controlling “Unwanted” Immigration: Lessons from the United States, 1993–2004’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(4), 775–794.
2.
European Commission (2005) Communication on Regional Protection Programmes, COM(2005) 388 final.
3.
European Commission (2007a) Green Paper on the future Common European Asylum System, Brussels, COM(2007) 301 final, 6 June.
4.
European Commission (2007b) Report from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament on the application of the Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, COM(2007) 745 final.
5.
European Commission (2008) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (Recast) Brussels, COM(2008) 815 final, 3 December.
6.
European Commission (2011) Amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of asylum seekers (Recast) COM(2011) 320 final.
7.
European Council (1999) Conclusions, Tampere 15–16 October.
8.
European Council (2004) On the Obligation of Carriers to Communicate Passenger Data, Directive 2004/82/EC, 29 April.
9.
ECRE (2005) The EC Directive on the Reception of Asylum Seekers: Are asylum seekers in Europe receiving material support and access to employment in accordance with European legislation?, November.
10.
ECRE (2008) Proposals for Revisions to the EC Directive on the Reception of Asylum Seekers, May.
11.
FreemanG. (1986) ‘Migration and the Political Economy of the Welfare State’, Annals of the American Academy of Political Social Science (AAPSS), 485, 51–63.
12.
Gammeltoft-HansenT. (2011) Access to Asylum: International Refugee Law and the Globalisation of Migration Control, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
13.
Gammeltoft-HansenT. (2008) ‘The Refugee, the Sovereign and the Sea: EU interdiction policies in the Mediterranean’, Danish Institute for International Studies, Working Paper 2008/6, 1–32.
14.
Gammeltoft-HansenT.Gammeltoft-HansenH. (2008) ‘The Right to Seek – Revisited. On the UN Human Rights Declaration Article 14 and Access to Asylum Procedures in the EU’, European Journal of Migration and Law, 10, 439–459.
15.
GrantS. (2011a) ‘Irregular migration and frontier deaths: Acknowledging a right to identity’ in DembourM.KellyT. (eds.) Are Human Rights for Migrants? Critical Reflections on the Status of Irregular Migrants in Europe and the United States, Abingdon, Routledge.
16.
GrantS. (2011b) ‘Recording and Identifying European Frontier Deaths’, European Journal of Migration and Law, 13(2), 135–156.
17.
HayesD. (2000) ‘The role of welfare in the internal control of immigration’ in BatsleerJ.HumphriesB. (eds.) Welfare, Exclusion and Political Agency, London-New York, Routledge, 63–78.
18.
HolbornL. (1975) Refugees: A Problem of Our Time: The Work of The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 1951–1972, Metuchen, NJ, The Scarecrow Press.
19.
Human Rights Watch (2006) Stemming the Flow: Abuses Against Migrants, Asylum Seekers and Refugees, 18(5)(E), September.
20.
Human Rights Watch (2009) Pushed Back, Pushed Around: Italy's Forced Return of Boat Migrants and Asylum Seekers, Libya's Mistreatment of Migrants and Asylum Seekers, New York, 21 September.
21.
LambertH. (1995) Seeking Asylum: Comparative Law and Practice in Selected European Countries, Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff.
22.
London Detainee Support Group (2009) Detained Lives: The real cost of indefinite immigration detention, January.
23.
London Detainee Support Group (2010) No Return, No Release, No Reason: Challenging Indefinite Detention, September.
24.
Odysseus Academic Network (2006) Comparative overview of the implementation of the Directive 2003/9 of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers in the EU Member States, October, 111.
25.
RogersN. (2002) ‘Minimum Standards for Reception’, European Journal of Migration and Law, 4, 215–230.
26.
SalesR. (2002) ‘The deserving and the undeserving? Refugees, asylum seekers and welfare in Britain’, Critical Social Policy, 22(3), 456–478.
27.
SpijkerboerT. (2007) ‘The Human Cost of Border Control’, European Journal of Migration and Law, 9, 127–139.
28.
ThielemannE. (2003) ‘Does Policy Matter? On Governments' Attempts to Control Unwanted Migration’, Institute for International Integration Studies, Discussion Paper No. 9.
29.
TrevisanutS. (2008) ‘The Principle of Non-Refoulement at Sea and the Effectiveness of Asylum Protection’, Max Plank Yearbook of United Nations Law, 12, 205–246.
WebberF. (1996, reprinted 2000) Crimes of arrival: Immigrants and asylum seekers in the new Europe, London, Statewatch.
32.
WebberF. (2006) Border wars and asylum crimes, London, Statewatch.
33.
WeisP. (1995) The Refugee Convention 1951: The Travaux Preparatoires analysed with a Commentary by Dr Paul Weis, Cambridge International Documents Series, 7 Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
