Humanitarianism and security: the critical case of Frontex and Greece

Abstract

This dissertation explores EU’s policies regarding the protection of refugees and migrants, specifically through Frontex. The 2015-2016 refugee crisis heightened the agency's security practices and expanded its role, resulting in increased border securitization that posed a threat to the human rights of migrants and refugees. Consequently, the agency implemented certain mechanisms to improve its consideration of fundamental rights at an operational level. However, an implementation gap exists between the theoretical introduction of these mechanisms and their practical effectiveness. The paper first analyzes and assesses the agency's mechanisms for protecting the fundamental rights of individuals on the move. This examination confirms the existence of an implementation gap, as certain regulations were not properly enforced, as indicated by the OLAF report. The second focus of the paper is Greece, where accusations of fundamental rights violations by national authorities led to a landmark ruling on July 7 by EctHR, highlighting Greece's illegal pushbacks to Turkey under Frontex's supervision. This analysis concludes that the primary responsibility for fundamental rights violations lies with the Greek authorities, as Frontex primarily serves as an advisory body without executive powers, an area of cooperation that requires enhancement. The findings are supported by primary and secondary data analysis. Primary data is obtained through qualitative research, specifically one-to-one interviews with six Frontex border guards. This dissertation aims to provide reflections and conclusions on EU policies, practices, and procedures related to the protection of fundamental rights for refugees and migrants through Frontex, as well as to propose necessary changes based on the research findings.