庇護政策歐洲化之研究：以英國與丹麥為例

Abstract

1999年後，歐盟共同庇護系統隨著指令、規章及輔助機構的推出而被建構，變為一愈來愈共同化、制度化，以及對庇護尋求者更具保護性的歐盟庇護政策。然而，面對此政策，歐盟成員國國內仍有不同的調適過程與執行結果，為了了解其背後原因，英國與丹麥為本文揀選的兩個案例。英國與丹麥同樣擁有退出條款，得以置外於歐盟共同庇護系統的強制力，使研究得以透過二國找出較具解釋力之因素。此外，二國庇護政策對歐盟共同庇護系統——尤其是《接收條件指令》、《難民資格指令》、《庇護程序指令》——不同的調適情況，使本文得以進行比較、找出促使國家政策與歐盟政策相異或一致的關鍵原因。 透過歐洲化三步驟框架，檢視其中六項因素在英國、丹麥之影響力，本研究有三點發現：第一、中介正式制度及多重否決點無法直接影響國家歐洲化與否，前者僅作為政策執行工具，隨政策性質加強或減弱歐洲化程度，後者則僅呈現決策作成之可能性高低，國家歐洲化與否仍端視政策內容或影響政策內容的其他因素；第二、契合度與學習提供國家歐洲化之背景與機會；第三、行為者權力之差異化增長或政治與組織文化，其中一者對國家歐洲化發揮關鍵的影響力，而行為者受文化、反對壓力的限制與否，則端視國內多重否決點、政黨政治等結構而定。在英國與丹麥，二國退出條款的差異亦為影響決策者能動性高低的因素。

Since 1999, the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) has become more communitized, institutionalized, and protective to asylum seekers through the introduction of Regulations, Directives, and supporting institutions regarding asylum affairs. Nevertheless, divergent adaptational processes and implementation continuously exist in EU member states. To understand the causes behind the phenomenon, the United Kingdom and Denmark are two appropriate examples. The “opt-out clauses” enjoyed by the UK and Denmark enables them to maintain the sovereignty over national asylum policies, allowing the research to find the factors with strong explanatory power. In addition, the comparison of the responses of the two states to the CEAS – the Reception Conditions Directive, the Qualification Directive, and the Asylum procedures Directive in particular – is conducive for the investigation on reasons affecting the consistency of the national policy with the CEAS. By the approach of three-step framework of Europeanization, the explanatory power of six factors is examined in the UK and Denmark. There are three findings in the research: first, mediating formal institutions and multiple veto points are not main factors that lead the state to Europeanization. Formal institutions only serve as implementation tools, facilitating or impeding the process of Europeanization according to the content of the policy. The structure of veto points only reveals the possibility of Europeanization but doesn’t identify the direction of it. Second, the goodness of fit and the effect of learning provide opportunities and positive environment for states to adopt EU policies at the national level. Third, either differential empowerment of actors or organizational and political cultures influence greatly on states’ decision to be Europeanized or not. Whether the actor is constrained by the cultures depends on the domestic structure of veto points and the party system. In the cases of the UK and Denmark, the interaction between the actor and the cultures was also affected by the differences of the opt-out clauses between the two states.