Readmission agreements: Evidence and the prime concern

Abstract: According to a European Council recommendation, the prime concerns member states should consider when negotiating and concluding new readmission agreements are speed and simplicity. The readmission agreements are written in a reciprocal manner, but it is easy to imagine that they are not for the mutual benefit of the states involved. Usually, the state insisting on a readmission agreement has a problem with migrants, where as the other does not. This, in reality, makes only one state obligated to readmit persons from the other. Hence, the agreements, despite their wording, are not reciprocal. Is it possible to pierce through the reciprocal wording of the agreements and find said inequality in the text itself? Is it possible to assume the use of bargaining power by one state upon another to get to the conclusion of a readmission agreement, just from the wording? Most readmission agreements are quite similar. However, in the section of evidence used to identify persons considered for return, be they nationals, third country nationals or stateless persons, you can find some differences. The object of the thesis is to research the means of evidence in readmission agreements, concerning both nationals and third country nationals or stateless persons, in order to see if it is at all possible, from the text alone, see traces of inequality. Is there a difference between the readmission agreements concluded by two highly developed states and those where one state is much less developed than the other? There are tendencies that states in the north use their bargaining power when negotiating the evidence to be used for proving or substantiating nationality. The tendencies are not seen in the general acceptance of the evidentiary forms but rather the acceptance of a somewhat detrimental version of the same evidence. Therefore, these tendencies are vague and can be even further clouded by the fact that states are obligated to readmit their own nationals. The acceptance of an extensive list of proving or substantiating nationality can also be a manifestation of what states already consider them obligated to do. Concerning the evidence used for proving entry of third country nationals and stateless persons, these seem to be more than tendencies. The Community has in fact better deals for Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR than Albania and Sri Lanka. Also, Italy and Spain have a very wide range of options in proving an entry from the requested party by a third country national.