EU member state responsibilities are central to asylum governance and crisis response, yet they are rarely the focus of empirical analysis by scholars. It is important to understand how responsibilities related to both humanitarian protection and sovereignty play a role in shaping state action, since asylum governance is characterized by the management of tensions by governments between humanitarian protection and state sovereignty. Within the EU, member state responsibilities related to asylum are shaped by humanitarian and sovereignty imperatives within the context of supranational governance institutions and result in prescribed state actions. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relation among EU member state responsibilities and asylum governance through a conceptual examination of the construction of state responsibilities in global statist and regional supranational systems. By critically analysing state responsibilities associated with humanitarian protection and sovereignty, this paper synthesises a typology of state responsibilities in asylum governance. The analysis identifies four types of state responsibility related to humanitarian protection (general, reparative, remedial, and distributive) and three state responsibilities related to sovereignty (civil, legal, and political). These state responsibilities prescribe responses to asylum crises which governments must discharge through policy design and implementation. The paper argues that in responding to asylum crises, governments will select policy instruments which navigate the tensions among these responsibilities. For example, in response to the 2015 asylum crisis, the German government experienced a tension between providing humanitarian protection (general responsibility) and maintaining the legitimacy of an overwhelmed asylum system (civil responsibility). In response to this tension, the government added Albania, Kosovo, and Montenegro to the safe country of origin list. The expansion of Germany’s safe country of origin list would ostensibly increase the efficiency of the German asylum system, thereby facilitating the provision of resources to refugees while also maintaining the integrity of the asylum system. The typology of state responsibilities developed in this paper provides a useful framework for future empirical research analysing the drivers of EU member state actions in responding to asylum crises. Insights from the paper also help expand our understanding of implementation gaps and theory-practice gaps in EU and member state asylum governance.

Does the work of Frontex produce new border geographies? Does the remit of Frontex end at the EU borders? Revolving around these questions, the paper seeks to explore the role of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency – Frontex – beyond the EU borders. Challenging the dominant view and portrayal of Frontex as a technical ‘tool’ of border control deployed at the EU borders, this paper unpacks Frontex’s impact outside the EU geographic space. Analysing Frontex’s cooperation with third countries, it casts light on Frontex’s cultural impact within the Western Balkan region using Albania and Serbia as case studies. In doing so, it focuses on Frontex’s impact as an active enabler and/or implementer of cultural diffusion as well as on the means and strategies for the implementation of this diffusion. The paper argues that Frontex is expanding and diffusing the EU border control culture beyond the EU borders. In so doing, Frontex transcends its institutional mandate set by its creators and the technical nature of cooperation agreed by its third partners. It is shown that through its cultural impact Frontex both solidifies and expands its role and salience in border control escaping the EU geographic limits.

Faced with major refugee movements following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the European Union and its member states have shown an unprecedented response by invoking the ‘Temporary Protection’ Directive (TPD), waving asylum application procedures and granting generous residency permits to those fleeing the war. This course of action constitutes a stark contrast to the response the European Union had shown faced with the so-called refugee crisis. In 2015/2016, deep rifts between the member states’ preferences vis-à-vis asylum cooperation have manifested themselves, revealing a veritable solidarity crisis. In light of Europe’s response to Ukraine’s plight, it may seem that the solidarity crisis has been overcome.

In my contribution, I will examine the notion of a ‘paradigm shift’ in European asylum policy that supposedly has heralded the end of its solidarity deficit. By showcasing an analytical framework to assess EU solidarity and applying it to a case study and policy analysis, I will set out why European asylum cooperation is characterised by a continuous solidarity crisis since its origins, why the so-called refugee crisis is a symptom of said solidarity crisis, and how the EU’s political reaction in 2015/2016 compares to the response given to the refugee movements emerging from Ukraine. I will analyse the rationale behind the historic application of the TPD and assess whether this could mean an end to the solidarity crisis. My paper seeks to explain and contextualise an ostensible double standard in the treatment of people seeking protection in the EU in addition to the rationale behind the ‘paradigm shift’.