Browsing by Subject "C-72/22"

This thesis has been carried out in circumstances where the European security climate has changed due to the Belarusian regime’s hybrid operations as well as the Russian Federation’s attack on Ukraine. In this thesis, answers are sought to four research questions: 1) has instrumentalization been defined as a security threat, 2) has there been an attempt to securitize asylum seeking in itself, 3) why or why not has there been an attempt to securitize instrumentalization and/or asylum seeking in itself, 4) do the Finnish legislator, the Commission and the CJEU have differing motivations behind their decisions to either attempt to securitize, or not to securitize, instrumentalization and/or asylum seeking in itself. Answers to these questions are sought by analysing the Finnish legislator’s, the EU Commission’s, and the CJEU’s responses to instrumentalization. More precisely, the research subjects are 1) the Finnish Border Guard Act, 2) two Commission Proposals, and 3) the CJEU’s judgement in case C-72/22. This research utilizes multiple methods such as legal dogmatic method, discourse analysis, teleological interpretation, and methods borrowed from political studies. The answers to the first research question are that the Finnish Border Guard Act as well as the Commission Proposals define instrumentalization as a security threat. In contrast, the CJEU does not define instrumentalization as a security threat. Answers to the second question are that both the Finnish Border Guard Act and the Commission Proposals attempt to securitize asylum seeking. However, this is not the case with the CJEU’s judgement. Regarding the third question, it was found that the motivation behind the Finnish legislator’s choice to securitize was that it wanted to be able to react to anything out of the ordinary as soon as possible. Also, the Finnish politicians seemed to have wanted to safeguard as wide national leeway as possible. The Commission, in turn, was motivated by the goal of keeping the Member States content enough so that they will not close their borders. The CJEU chose to act in a manner that would safeguard the primacy, unity, and effectiveness of EU law. To summarize, and answer the fourth question, the Finnish legislator, the Commission, and the CJEU had differing motivations.