Leticia Almeida, The University of California – Santa Barbara
Abstract
This article analyses the European Union’s response to the 2015 Migration Crisis, exploring how the mixture of supranational and intergovernmental institutions within the Union’s hybrid structure further complicates the policy-making process, especially when it comes to foreign policy and migration. The 2015 Syrian Civil War exposed how the European powers failed to properly deal with one of the major humanitarian crises of the 21st century. The influx of refugees, primarily driven by the Syrian Civil War, exposed the limitations of intergovernmentalism within the EU, as national interests frequently overrode coordinated, supranational solutions. The paper argues that the lack of consensus among member states led to fragmented and often inadequate responses, fueling political consequences such as the rise of far-right parties, increased Euroscepticism, and events like Brexit. Ultimately, the article contends that the 2015 crisis revealed enduring challenges in EU integration, particularly regarding sovereignty and solidarity, and continues to shape European politics and migration policy debates.
Keywords: Intergovernmentalism, Supranationalism, European Union, Migration Crisis, Dublin Regulation, Joint Action Plan, Syrian Civil War, Brexit, AfD, Sovereignty
I. Introduction
The European Union’s pioneering integration strategy and its unique position between a nation-state and an international organization complicate the analysis of its role in global politics. Its mixture of supranational and intergovernmental traits created controversies and critiques of the union of nation-states that decided to cooperate to prevent future wars. However, the reluctance of many states to relinquish full sovereignty placed the EU member states in a tricky position that ended up in many gridlocks over important decision-making topics. The 2015 Migration Crisis in Europe revealed the limitations of intergovernmentalism in the EU, as national interests outweighed the European Union’s ability to coordinate. For this reason, the refugee crisis that originated with the Syrian Civil War exposed the inefficiencies within the system, which failed to deal effectively with the large influx of migrants coming into Europe in a short period.
This article will analyze the historical context that contributed to the lack of an action plan to deal with the crisis, the impact of the Syrian conflict on Europe, and the EU’s response mechanism, hoping to explain how they failed to handle the migration crisis in 2015. Additionally, it will analyze how the issue evolved, reshaping European politics, fueling the rise of far-right parties, and eventually contributing to Brexit. Therefore, this is important because understanding the EU’s response to the 2015 Migration Crisis provides vital insights into the broader challenges of European integration and how intergovernmental traits still present in the EU’s structure can undermine collective efforts for further coordination and integration in future years. Through an analysis of the weaknesses exposed by the European Union, this text will also evaluate the EU’s response and how it continues to impact the EU’s political scenario to this day. Finally, this discussion is still relevant, as it sheds light on the EU’s key role in international affairs and global migration.
II. Terms
A brief overview of conceptual terms relating to the European Union’s integration process is vital to understand how the peculiarities of this regional bloc influence its decision-making. The EU is a supranational political and economic community formed by 27 countries as of 2025. The integration process began after World War II, when some national leaders saw the need for cooperation to prevent another world war. Slowly, through several treaties and agreements, the community grew in numbers and level of integration to what can be seen today: a fully operational regional bloc that collectively handles economic and political matters.
This integration process matters for sovereignty and refugee migration questions because the EU is not a single nation-state. Instead, it is a regional bloc where certain powers are shared among member states, while others remain under national control. This division of authority shapes how the EU responds to collective challenges, such as migration crises, where agreement among member states is often necessary for decisive action. Thus, the terms supranationalism and intergovernmentalism are crucial to this understanding. First, intergovernmentalism refers to the decision-making process that depends on the nation-states’ interests. This means that the intergovernmental EU organizations, such as the Council of Ministers and the European Council, protect the interests of the member states through representation in forums and debates. Second, supranationalism means that the protected interests are those of the EU citizens. The European Commission, for example, consists of 27 independent members from each EU state, who get together to fight for the common interests of the European Union’s citizens.
Accordingly, hybrid characteristics of European institutions matter to policy making because they result in a mix of integrated and non-integrated policies which give rise to inconsistency and challenges when taking collective action. For example, the EU’s economic policy is fully integrated, making EU economies dependent on one other in such a way that if one EU member country falls into a recession, other countries within the Union are compelled to help to prevent a region-wide recession. On the other hand, the EU’s foreign policy is the least integrated, resulting in scattered and differentiated policies among Union members. Thus, member states find it challenging to surrender sovereign power over matters of national security, making EU border security as a whole a most difficult operation. Only designated issues are delegated to specific competencies of the EU, but most sensitive issues, including migration and asylum-seeking are addressed within borders. In terms of the EU’s refugee crisis, the lack of a single sovereign authority over all EU migration translates to fragmented responses depending on the country. Some aspects (like border control under Schengen) are managed supranationally, but key decisions (such as quotas for refugee relocation) often require intergovernmental agreement, leading to a deadlock if consensus cannot be found. The EU’s integration process has built a system where intergovernmentalism and supranationalism coexists. This duality is central to understanding the EU’s challenges in resolving issues that test the balance between national sovereignty and collective action, such as refugee migration.
III. EU Migration Policy
To understand the EU’s challenges in collectively grappling with the 2015 Migration Crisis, it is vital to learn the history of EU migration policy. With an objective to fully integrate the Single Market, EU countries attempted to eradicate fiscal, technical, and physical barriers to eliminate any borders between member states. To advance this goal, member states Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands signed the Schengen Agreement to remove physical obstacles for the movement of people on June 14th, 1985. This led to a series of debates on shared databases and the need for a regulatory system that regards visa and asylum applications in a uniform manner. Despite this agreement being a milestone in European integration, it unfortunately opened the path for the explosive issues revolving migration.
In conjunction with this agreement, after the Geneva Conventions set a new goal to establish fundamental rules of international humanitarian law, another regulation was signed to protect civilians: the Dublin Regulation. This regulation works within the Geneva Convention framework to determine which EU member state is responsible for examining asylum applications and ensuring that each claim receives fair examination. Usually, an asylum-seeker must go through all the procedures in the EU country through which they entered. However, attempts to coordinate migration policy at the supranational level failed as European nations refused to share the burdens of the 2015 migration crisis, resulting in minimal cooperation. The failure to account for the unprecedented number of immigrants seeking a permanent home and other political issues, the 2015 refugee crisis exposed the failures within the intergovernmental system of the EU.
IV. The Syrian Crisis and Its Impacts on the EU
Before the peak of the Syrian Civil War in 2015, the EU had never seen such a large influx of migrants across its borders. The extremely violent war that has roots in the 2011 Syrian Revolution killed people and displaced even more, forcing many Syrians to seek asylum. Most immigrated to neighboring countries, but in search for better living conditions, many decided to head for Europe, where they entered mostly through Greece, Italy, the Balkans, and Turkey. According to data from the Pew Research Center, a record 1.3 million refugees entered the EU and applied for asylum because of this crisis that originated in 2011. This number is nearly double the previous record of approximately 700,000 people who entered the EU in 1992 after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The number of immigrants in a short time overwhelmed European powers and led to one of the largest refugee crises in history.
Consequently, initial responses to manage the large number of migrants entering the EU failed, despite considerable commitment to humanitarian aid and relocation policies intended to share burdens. Overwhelmed by the inefficient EU coordination response, the EU response ultimately hinged on the supranational level and were shadowed by state self-interest. Therefore, it is clear that intergovernmentalism prevailed, and the lack of a unified supranational decision-making institution hindered the proper resolution of the crisis.
V. The EU’s Response Mechanisms
The EU’s disconnected response was characterized by failed policies due to the unwillingness of member states to share the burden of the crisis. So instead of there being a unified response, intergovernmental structures among individual EU members made unilateral decisions regarding their country’s response to the crisis. According to research by European public policy experts, three options were available: “border states and popular host states could be supported [1] financially through transfer payments, [2] administratively through operational assistance in border protection, asylum registration and the hosting of refugees, and [3] physically by relocating refugees to other states.” However, member states’ socioeconomic and political differences impacted their decision-making in the crisis as the Dublin Regulation was much a much cheaper policy option to implement in landlocked states than for those countries with easy-access borders, such as Greece, Italy, and the Balkans.
The initial response, jointly with the Asylum, Migration, and Integration Fund (AMIF), was to pledge 2.4 billion euros over six years to help states manage the large influx of migrants. Moreover, Frontex – the European Border and Coast Guard Agency since 2016 – has been strengthened to monitor and manage irregular immigration, especially those through sea routes. However, the investment was relatively low compared to other EU expenditures. Additionally, as no country wanted to bear responsibility for the newly arrived persons, physical burden-sharing was even harder. The 2015 proposal of relocating 120,000 refugees from Greece and Italy to other Schengen states was heavily supported by the most affected countries (Italy and Greece) and by Germany and France, which pushed for the approval of this policy to attempt a supranational solution to the crisis. They outvoted the Eastern European states, which were reluctant, and the policy was implemented in 2015, but due to the lack of implementation by many countries, it did not work.
Consequently, the debate divided European countries and complicated the cooperation that had once existed. Angela Merkel, Germany’s former chancellor, advocated an open-door policy claiming that “we must not give in to the temptation to fall back on national government action. On the contrary, what we need now is more Europe. More than ever, we need the courage and cohesion that Europe has always shown when it was really important.” Unfortunately, despite support for union and supranational solutions, many EU governments shut their door on migration. According to Szydlo, Poland’s representative during the crisis, “one cannot call solidarity the attempts to export the problems that some states had brought up, without any involvement of other states to be burdened with the [crisis].” Nonetheless, Szydlo fails to consider that the EU’s integration depends upon mutual consideration by all member states and the recognition that one financial crisis will almost always lead to a collective crisis if not managed well. Similarly, the migration crisis wasn’t just a Greece or Italy problem – it had real world economic, political and social impacts on all EU countries.
Another response employed by the EU was the controversial EU-Turkey agreement – an agreement designed to deal with the massive number of immigrants entering the EU in 2015. The EU-Turkey Joint Action Plan was designed to regulate migratory flows through tighter Turkish controls of border-crossings in exchange for EU financial support and visa leniency for Turkish citizens travelling to the Schengen area. Moreover, the “one-for-one” program was also implemented, which determined that “for every Syrian returned from the islands, EU Member States would accept one Syrian refugee who had waited inside Turkey.” According to research, the deal managed to reduce the number of refugees crossing the sea from Turkey to Greece “from 853 per day in March 2016 to 137 in April 2016.”
This specific program was highly criticized and even accused of violating the principles stated in the Geneva Convention and the European Human Rights Convention as “the collective deportation of a group from a particular nationality to a country where they cannot claim asylum and may not thus be a safe third country” violates principles of humanity. In fact, in The EU-Turkey Deal in the 2015 Refugee Crisis: When Intergovernmentalism Casts a Shadow on the EU’s Normative Power, the authors argue that intergovernmental security concerns prevailed over normative considerations of solidarity and humanitarian concerns. Ultimately, the EU’s response to the 2015 migration crisis was shaped by intergovernmental institutions despite the diverging positions of supranational institutions.
VI. Political consequences
Hence, the 2015 ineffectiveness of the EU in dealing with the refugee crisis had profound political consequences all over Europe. It led to the rise of anti-immigration sentiments and deepened Euroscepticism, fueling the rise of far-right nationalist parties. This article will analyze two important examples to illustrate the rise of right-wing populist movements that reshaped European politics. Based on research found in The Limits of Tolerance: Before and After Brexit and the German Refugee Crisis, the authors argue that majority intolerance and minority perceptions increased after the Syrian refugee crisis of 2015, leading to Brexit – the British departure from the EU – and the German refugee crisis after Merkel’s open-door policy.
Cross-border migrations and relocations of refugees across the Schengen Area resulted in divided opinions about the refugees’ impact on the citizens’ daily lives. Unfortunately, the “present-day climate of xenophobia, rooted in racism and the perceived threat from ethnic minorities (especially Muslims) to the wellbeing and security of the nation, fosters the revival of ethnic nationalism and the ascendance of a new radical right.” First, the EU’s migration policy played a pivotal role in the Brexit referendum, as Boris Johnson and Nigel Farade framed the campaign for the “leave” camp as a movement to regain the UK’s sovereignty and increase control over its borders. As public fears were manipulated to promote the rise of anti-immigrant sentiment, the “leave” camp successfully gathered enough voters in the 2016 referendum. The UK officially left the EU after invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which initiates 2 years of negotiations for a country to leave the EU, for the first time. Second, Germany’s open-door policy was followed by economic hardship, creating anxieties reinforced by the AfD (“Alternative für Germany”) party, which emerged as a significant political force in the following elections. Unsurprisingly, the crisis heightened public fears about border security and national sovereignty, increasing support for right-wing populist movements such as the AfD and the British “leave” movement on the Brexit referendum.
The indisputable shift in public opinion contributed to the rise of Euroscepticism and the decline in trust in EU policy making, as many citizens questioned the union’s ability to deal with crises effectively. Across Europe, Eurosceptic movements gained force, with increasing calls for stronger national controls over immigration and a reduction in the EU’s influence over domestic policies. Ultimately, the migration crisis not only reshaped national political landscapes but also deepened divisions within the EU, challenging the European integration project.
VII. Conclusion
The 2015 Migration Crisis was a turning point in EU history as it exposed the EU’s inability to cooperate effectively due to the limitations of the intergovernmental system. Instead, it demonstrated how the EU’s reliance on intergovernmental mechanisms led to fragmented, inconsistent policies prioritizing national sovereignty over collective security and burden-sharing, further straining European unity. The crisis reshaped migration policy but also had lasting political consequences that reverberate today, fueling the rise of nationalist movements, such as the AfD in Germany, increasing Euroscepticism, and interfering in key political events such as Brexit.
Thus, as migration remains a global issue, these findings can lend insight into how to better prepare for future migration crises when coordination is a condition for successful response. Further research still needs to be done to understand the core issues of the EU intergovernmental and supranational framework, and how it can ensure the rights of refugees are guaranteed despite conflicting national policies. While reforms have been introduced as possible solutions, the effectiveness of these measures remains uncertain in Europe’s new political scenario. With rising xenophobic movements, anti-immigrant sentiments, and far-right parties earning seats in local parliaments, further research on the new political scene of Europe can offer important information on how the EU will respond to future migration crises.
To conclude, the crises reinforced the need for a more unified and cohesive approach to crisis management. They demonstrated how national sovereignty took precedence over unified security and collective humanitarian principles. Whether the EU can overcome its internal divisions and gridlock and learn to work together from such challenges remains an open question, leaving the result of a future crisis to be determined.
The Global Affairs Journal 
Leave a comment