Scholars assume that transnational terrorism has culminated in policy securitization with expansive restrictions on migration. I evaluate the impact of transnational terrorism on asylum recognition among European Union and Schengen member-states from 1980 until 2007. I unpack the impact of terrorism according to the location of incidents. The article illustrates that policy tightening is more pronounced when recipient states experience terrorism on their own soil or against their citizens. In contrast, measuring transnational terrorism as attacks worldwide mutes the impact of security concerns. The findings show that policy stringency is not directed against particular sources of terrorism and demonstrates that the humanitarian principles underpinning asylum recognition have not been eroded by terrorism. The article thus represents an important step in differentiating between channels of impact whereby transnational terror shapes policy outcomes.
AdamsonFB (2006) Crossing borders: International migration and national security. International Security31: 165–199.
2.
Avdan N (2013) Controlling access to territory: Economic interdependence, transnational terrorism, and visa policies. Journal of Conflict Resolution. doi: 10.1177/0022002713478795.
3.
BeckN (2001) Time series cross-section data: What have we learned in the past years?Annual Review of Political Science4: 271–293.
4.
BeckNKatzJN (1995) What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review89: 634–647.
5.
Bigo D (2000) Border Regimes and Security in an Enlarged European Community Police Cooperation with CEECs: Between Trust and Obligation. EUI Working Papers, vol. 65, London, UK: San Domenico European University Institute.
6.
Bigo D (2002) To reassure and protect after September 11th. Social Science Research Council essays. Available at: http://essays.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/bigo.htm (accessed 17 April 2014).
7.
BoswellC (2007) Migration control after 9/11: Explaining the absence of securitization. Journal of Common Market Studies45: 589–610.
8.
BoswellC (2009) Migration, security, and legitimacy. In: GivensTFFreemanGPLealDL (eds) Immigration Policy and Security: US, European, and Commonwealth Perspectives, New York: Routledge, pp. 93–109.
9.
BuzanBWaeverOde WildeJ (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Colorado: Rienner Publishers Inc.
10.
Den BoerMMonarJ (2002) Keynote article: September 11 and the challenge of global terrorism to the EU as a security actor. Journal of Common Market Studies40: 11–28.
11.
EndersWSandlerT (2002) Patterns of transnational terrorism, 1970–1999: Alternative time-series estimates. International Studies Quarterly46: 145–165.
12.
FreemanG (1992) Migration policy and politics in the receiving states. International Migration Review26: 1114–1167.
13.
GhoshB (2000) Managing Migration: Time for a New International Regime?, New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
GibneyM (2002) Political Terror Scales Dataset, Asheville, NC: University of North Carolina at Asheville.
15.
GibneyM (2004) A thousand little Guantanamos: Western states and measures to prevent the arrival of refugees. In: TunstallKE (eds) Displacement, Asylum, Migration, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 169–181.
16.
GibneyMDaltonVVockellM (1992) USA Refugee policy: A human rights analysis update. Journal of Refugee Studies5: 33–46.
17.
GibneyMStohlM (1988) Human rights and US refugee policy. In: GibneyM (eds) Open Borders? Closed Societies? The Ethical and Political Issues, New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 151–183.
18.
GleditschKSalehyanI (2007) Civil wars and interstate disputes. In: StromKObergM (eds) Resources Governance and Civil Conflict, New York: Routledge, pp. 58–76.
19.
GreeneWH (1997) Econometric Analysis, New York: Pearson Education Press.
20.
HamlinR (2012) Illegal refugees: Competing policy ideas and the rise of the regime of deterrence in American asylum politics. Refugee Studies Quarterly31: 33–53.
21.
HattonT (2009) The rise and fall of asylum: What happened and why?The Economic Journal119: 183–213.
22.
HollifieldJF (1992) Immigrants, Markets, and States: The Political Economy of Postwar Europe, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
HolmesJSKeithLK (2010) Does the fear of terrorists trump the fear of persecution in asylum outcomes in the post–September 11 era?PS: Political Science (Symposium on Terrorism and Human Rights)43: 431–436.
24.
HolzerTSchneiderG (1999) Convergence towards exclusion: The Schengen agreement and the asylum regime in the OECD area. In: SchulteAThranhardtD (eds) International Migration and Liberal Democracies, Munster, Germany: LIT, pp. 237–268.
25.
HuysmansJ (1995) Migrants as a security problem: Dangers of ‘securitizing’ societal issues. In: MilesRThranhardtD (eds) Migration and European Security: The Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion, London: Pinter, pp. 53–72.
26.
HuysmansJ (2000) The European Union and the securitization of migration. Journal of Common Market Studies38: 751–777.
27.
HuysmansJ (2006) The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration, and Asylum in the EU, New York: Routledge.
28.
JacobsonD (1996) Rights Across Borders: Immigration and the Decline of Citizenship, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
29.
JoppkeC (2006) Why liberal states accept unwanted immigration. In: MessinaAMLahavG (eds) The Migration Reader: Exploring Politics and Policies, Boulder, CO: Lynne Publishers, pp. 266–293.
30.
KeithLCHolmesJS (2009) A rare examination of typically unobservable factors in US asylum decisions. Journal of Refugee Studies22: 224–241.
31.
Koslowski R (2004) Possibles steps towards an international regime for mobility or security. Global Migration Perspectives 8. Available at: http//www.gcim.org (accessed 10 October 2013).
32.
LaFreeG (2010) The Global terrorism database: Accomplishments and challenges. Perspectives on Terrorism4: 24–47.
33.
Leblang DA, Fitzgerald J and Teets J (2009) Defying the law of gravity: The political economy of international migration. Working Paper Series. Boulder, Colorado: Social Science Research Network.
34.
LeikenRS (2002) Bearers of Global Jihad? Immigration and National Security after 9/11, Washington, DC: Nixon Center.
35.
LevyC (2005) The European Union after 9/11: The demise of a liberal democratic asylum regime?Government and Opposition40: 26–59.
36.
Loescher G (1993) Beyond charity: International cooperation and the global refugee crisis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
LoescherGSteinerNGibneyM (2003) Problems of Protection: The UNHCR, Refugees and Human Rights in the 21st Century, New York: Routledge.
38.
Marshall M, Gurr TR and Harff B (2011) State failure problem set: Internal wars and failures of governance, 1955–2011. College Park: University of Maryland. Available at: http://archive.today/hnCyM (accessed February 2014).
MickolusESandlerTMurdockJ (2007) International Terrorism: Attributes of Terrorist Events (ITERATE), Dunn Loring, VA: Vinyard Software.
41.
NeumayerE (2004) Asylum destination choice: What makes some European countries more attractive than others?European Union Politics5: 155–180.
42.
NeumayerE (2005a) Asylum recognition rates in Western Europe: Their determinants, variation, and lack of convergence. Journal of Conflict Resolution49: 43–66.
43.
NeumayerE (2005b) Bogus refugees? The determinants of asylum migration to Western Europe. International Studies Quarterly49: 389–409.
44.
NeumayerE (2006) Unequal access to foreign spaces: How states use visa restrictions to regulate mobility in a globalized world. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers31: 72–84.
45.
NollG (2000) Negotiating Asylum: The EU Acquis, Extraterritorial Protection, and the Common Martek of Deflection, The Hague, The Netherlands: Nijhoff Publishers.
46.
PoeSCCareySCVazquezTC (2001) How are these pictures different? A quantitative comparison of the US state department and amnesty international human rights reports. Human Rights Quarterly23: 650–677.
47.
PriceME (2009) Rethinking Asylum: History, Purpose, and Limits, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
RosenblumMRSalehyanI (2004) Norms and interests in US asylum enforcement. Journal of Peace Research41: 677–697.
49.
RottmanAJFarissCJPoeSC (2009) The path to asylum in the US and the determinants for who gets in and why. International Migration Review43: 3–34.
50.
Salehyan I (2008) US refugee and asylum policy: Has anything changed after 9/11? Presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, San Francisco, CA, 26–29 March.
51.
Salehyan I and Rosenblum MR (2008) International relations, domestic politics, and asylum admissions in the United States. Political Research Quarterly 61: 104–121.
52.
SchusterL (2000) A comparative analysis of the asylum policy of seven European governments. Journal of Refugee Studies13: 118–132.
53.
SoysalY (1994) Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54.
TeitelbaumMSWeinerM (1995) Threatened Peoples, Threatened Borders: World Migration and U.S. Policy, New York: Norton.
55.
ThielemannER (2006) The effectiveness of governments’ attempts to control unwanted migration. In: ParsonsCSmeedingT (eds) Immigration and the Transformation of Europe, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 442–473.
56.
ThielemannER (2009) Towards a common European asylum policy: Forced migration, collective security, and burden sharing. In: GivensTEFreemanGPLealDL (eds) Immigration Policy and Security: US, European, and Commonwealth Perspectives, New York: Routledge, pp. 167–187.
57.
Toshkov D (2013) The dynamic relationship between asylum applications and recognition rates. European Union Politics, December 23, 2013. doi: 10.1177/1465116513511710.
58.
UNHCR (2001) Asylum Applications in Industrialized Countries, 1980–1999, Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
UNHCR (2008) Statistical Yearbook, Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
61.
WeinerM (1995) The Global Migration Crisis, New York: Harper Collins.
62.
YoungJKFindleyMG (2011) Promise and pitfalls of terrorism research. International Studies Review13: 411–431.
63.
ZolbergAR (1995) From invitation to intradiction: US foreign policy and immigration since 1945. In: TeitelbaumMWeinerM (eds) Threatened Peoples, Threatened Borders: World Migration and US Policy, New York: Norton, pp. 117–159.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
