Juridisk Institut

This paper analyses the language of EU leaders and its influence on the implementation of EU asylum law by triggering derogations, exceptions and amendments. It compares this process with regards to the 2015 refugee crisis, the Belarus border crisis and the current Ukrainian crisis to portray how the reaction to similar facts differs and, hence, to show how EU asylum policy suffers from a lack of rule of law. As the crisis in Ukraine unfolds, one can observe how strongly the narrative of EU leaders differs regarding these refugees compared to those from, e.g., Syria and Afghanistan in previous years. It shows a “U-turn” of the EU’s agenda since 2015. Hence, it has become clear that the problem lies less in sufficient contingencies for a sudden influx, but rather a feeling – or lack – of solidarity. From a legal perspective, there is no distinction between the responsibility for asylum applicants based on their nationality. To the contrary, refugee protection builds on the prohibition of discrimination. This has potentially negative implications for the rule of law in the EU. Hence, this paper investigates how EU leaders “talk” their way into applying or not applying EU law and even create EU law at their will simply by describing the arrivals as a security threat, a “hybrid attack” or instead as neighbors in need, as “family”.