Vol. 12 (August 2001) pp. 393-402.
IMPLEMENTING AMSTERDAM: IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM RIGHTS IN EC LAW. Elspeth Guild and Carol Harlow (Editors). Oxford: Hart Publishing Ltd, 2001. 325 pp. Cloth $58.00. ISBN: 1-84113-116-4.

Reviewed by Marc-Georges Pufong, Department of Political Science, Valdosta State University.

Before the Treaty of Amsterdam (ToA), which went into force on May 1, 1999, law and policymaking in the field of immigration in the European Community generally was national and administered at the member state level. That was the posture then, although in theory, there was much administrative cooperation on of the same issues arranged under the Third Pillar, Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). The new ToA effectively transferred the Third Pillar JHA functions to the Community purview under the First Pillar Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). In so doing, it incorporated portions of JHA's provision on immigration and migration into the First Pillar CFSP resulting in the enlargement of the Community's central authority. However, abstaining from the ToA were three Member States: Denmark, United Kingdom, and Ireland. They elected to opt out of the new treaty and to be precise, out of the specific arrangements that dealt the immigration and migration policies into the hands of Community.

Although this book if framed as IMPLEMENTING AMSTERDAM and subtitled IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM RIGHTS IN THE EC, the contributors seem to go beyond that to examine the effects of the transfers of authority resulting from the adoption of Treaty of Amsterdam (ToA). Some of them examine how new powers and responsibilities can be fashioned and implemented as well as any extended policy implications arising from putting ToA into practice. For example, how does the new division of responsibilities between the Community and member states manifest at the policy implementation stage? Is transparency in decisions and policy making, essential? And if so, is public and/or parliamentary input on immigration and migration policy debate necessary and/or desirable? Others question the overall policy impact on the immigrants within EC member states generated by the transfers of authority. The contributors advance several arguments, employ several analytical approaches, and also offer policy recommendations.

Before assessing key aspects of the various contributions made, a cursory overview of ToA's background is necessary to appraise its fitness within the political framework of the EC. This should render clear how the ToA altered the Community's scope of competence in the area of immigration and immigration policy. Unlike the Treaty of the European Union (TEU), which stirred high hopes, with its bold plans following the economic dynamism of the 1980s, and which almost foundered on its own ambitions, the mood leading up to the 1996 Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) was considerably cautious. This was a tribute to the lessons evidently learned from the concerted popular opposition to the 1992 Maastricht Treaty and in particular, the difficulty encountered during the ratification phase at the EC member state level. With this backdrop, its proponents more modestly stated the aims of the 1996 IGC. The purpose of what would result as the final ToA, was declared with emphasis aiming more toward consolidation of disjointed treaty instruments, while at the same time considerably downplaying any effort that it was expanding the scope of the Community's competence. Emphasis too was placed on the notion of "effectively enhancing the Community's competence to improve its decision-making processes." Although these were clever postures, the downside to the approach is that the most important matters initially slated for discussions, such as "preparing the Community for a future eastward enlargement, and any anticipated institutional and voting changes such a move could bring," were taken off the agenda, and at the end postponed (see Nice IGC and the Treaty of Nice 2000). The plain language of final ToA makes only brief references in the Protocols and declarations that became part of the final official treaty drawn in Amsterdam. There are three parts to the ToA. The first contains the substantive amendments to the TEU and other Community Treaties; the second contains the so-called tidy-up amendments intended to simplify the structure of the Treaties, and finally, the third contains the general and final provisions on matters such as Renumbering and the Ratification process of Community treaties.

Although it maybe somewhat clear what the focus of this book is about, no framework is provided to navigate the collection of essays. However, based on its title, IMPLEMENTING AMSTERDAM, it can be assumed that an interested reader might be interested in knowing something about the following questions: the exact nature of ToA and changes it introduced; how such changes affect the Community's power (positively or negatively); and finally with regard to its "implementation," how well the policy changes (e.g., on immigration and asylum issues), are being addressed at the community-wide level in the post-ToA compared to the pre-ToA when immigration policies were administered at the member state level. As shown in the evaluation of each contribution below, absent a shared framework, it remains unclear how these questions are resolved for the reader.

For those abreast with EC politics of integration, perhaps the most substantive change introduced by the TOA on the Community was the incorporation into the body of the EC Treaty law directly under the first pillar, the CFSP, a large portion of the third pillar's provisions on immigration. Under the TEU, the included portion of the third pillar was part of what was formally titled Justice and Home Affairs. The newly inserted portion of JHA into CFSP constitutes what is now the Free Movement of Persons section in EC Articles 61-69, as renumbered by ToA. This portion of the treaty covers visas, asylum, immigration and other matters on judicial cooperation in civil matters, all of which again are now under the purview of the Community. This simply means that the Community now has the power to initiate policies affecting Community wide State membership on these issues. These new arrangements lead the United Kingdom and Ireland to opt out while holding special reservation for a possible future to opt in. Denmark was alone in retaining a complex partial opt out process that effectively exempted its adherence to the treaty. After the transfer of significant portions of the JHA's third pillar powers to the Community, all what is left today of that pillar is renamed the Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (PJCC) and its intent is to establish an area of freedom, justice and security within the Union.

The well-known clich, notwithstanding, I often try to resist the temptation of a well-crafted book title. Although logic may dictate that to be one obvious intention in crafting a title, it strikes me that knowing this fact has no practical consequence. I say this here to underscore a subtle but an obvious point; that a well-crafted title, as a research hypothesis, not only commands appeal but "matters" a great deal how issues are framed in a book, and perhaps often how they are understood. Such was my experience. With the title IMPLEMENTING AMSTERDAM, and in spite of its subtitle IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM RIGHTS IN EC LAW, it struck me at the first reading as a book dealing with the application of the Treaty on the European Union. Although I have since dismissed this initial impression, after further reading for this review, I still do not see much of a relationship between the title and the focus adopted in most of the essays.

The book starts with substantive discussions of provisions of the EC treaty dealing with questions of rights and delves immediately into narratives of their implications and applications. The speed at which the ideas are packed, condensed and presented assumes specialized knowledge in EC immigration and asylum law and policy. Yet, a foundation for the issues is not provided. Though unspecified, it could be assumed that the primary readership-target for the book are policymakers, not because it is an easy read, but because of the general inclination in the essays to offer what amounts to be policy commentaries. My political science colleagues, especially those in the law and court domain who might be interested, will be disappointed, and I share in their anguish. Without making this review a critique on style, my initial problem has to do with packaging and flow.

The introductory chapter titled "Freedom, Security and Justice for All" claim to set the agenda on the issues covered in the 12 chapters of the book. As discussed below, it is debatable whether it does that. As the rest of essays in the book, it is undoubtedly a difficult reading, since it provides no foundation information or perhaps yet, that is assumed. With regards to its content, Pieter Boeles, adjunct professor and a practicing attorney with Evereart Immigration Lawyers, Amsterdam, starts with what is readily a substantive query requiring the understanding of an avid EC immigration specialist. He maintains that, "the ambitious and promising overture of the new ToA on visas, asylum, immigration, and other laws is the contemporary equivalence of a mission statement." He argues that, "according to the first sentence in Article 61, the purpose of measures harmonizing the immigration and asylum laws inevitably is to 'establish progressively, an area of freedom, security and justice.'" Also, since this is the goal the EC harmonization process is meant to serve, he maintains that the ultimate touchstone for the "text" is its adequacy. In Boeles estimates, this adequacy, will serves as a prevailing source to inspire future judicial interpretation. His content analysis explicating of the meaning concepts such as "area of freedom, security and justice" in this chapter is intended to proffer "the consequences of a given interpretation of rights of individuals under the new harmonized EC immigration and asylum policies" (pp. 1-12).

The understanding of the issues that Boeles conveys in this introduction and most of the essays in the book depends on the political, historical and legal background of the reader has of EC politics of integration--since none is provided. Beside that, some of them are too legalistic and daunting to read because of the method used in conveying the information. With regard to the introduction, it might be argued that nothing is wrong with the approach adopted but it is clear that the author provides no framework for the rest of the book. Much more, if an introduction has no theme or agenda, then a fatal opportunity is missed. In this case, the opportunity missed was one to develop an agenda, provide a context, and finally a running theme consistent with the book title, and if at all, with the different essays, to rally their topics around. An obvious disconnection between the chapters and the title, and also between the various chapters is noticeable throughout the book because of the absence of integrated linkages.

Continuing with a similar substantive fervent of the introduction is chapter 1 titled "Deferential Free Movement and the Sociology of the Internal Border" which appends a sociological view on free movement with specific concerns on immigration. In this chapter, John Crowley a research fellow at the Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques of Paris argues that while the process of implementing ToA is neither straightforward nor automatic, it cannot be the best way to start. He estimates that depend on crucial points, all of which are inherently unpredictable political bargains. Crowley believes that ToA's meaning will evolve, not just organically, as anybody of law expressed in routine judicial practices must, but as a result of outside impulses--whatever that means. He views ToA as insidiously contentious. For example, he argues that quarrels, uncertainties and more or less deliberate ambiguities readily apparent in the process leading up to the ToA's adoption and the public debates surrounding it, are easily discernible in the text of the Treaty. To Crowley, where judicial intervention is significant, it plays a major role in elaborating what the Treaty eventually comes to mean. Judicial intervention, he argues, is somewhat more predictable than its political counterpart, but again he leaves much for speculation. This is an insightful piece but a hard read, and it fails to cohere with the introduction or the ensuing chapter.

Deirdre M. Curtin, a professor of law at the University of Utrecht contributes chapter 2 titled "The Developing Rights of Citizen Access to Information on Asylum and Immigration Decision-Making" (pp. 35-63). In this chapter, Professor Curtain starts by examining the notion of transparency and its pertinence to the inclusion of Schengen ACQUIS within the EC legal order through a special protocol to the 1997 ToA. She examines various positions taken relative to citizen access to information on immigration and asylum policy issues from the date of entry in force of the ToA. On selective basis, she also highlights "likely issues" in the existing legal instruments to be adopted for decision-making and for which resolutions are required in accordance with specific provisions of the new ToA. She then relates these issues to the various institutional actors in the policy making process at the Community level. Furthermore, she discusses the status quo before ToA, particularly in light of its meager body of case law on the subject of immigration and asylum law. Finally, in discussing the increased importance of the process and a more deliberative democracy in the immigration and asylum decision-making, Curtin reviews the special role played by nongovernmental organizations and public interest groups in terms of "access to information and participation" in the policy making process. Excellent analyses with a specific focus democratic theory but again it lacks a connection, and hence stands out on its own.

Chapter 3 is titled "Primary Immigration: The Greatest Myths," by Elspeth Guild, a coauthor of this volume. Guild who has affiliations with the Center of Migration Law, University of Nijmegen, is a partner in a law firm in London and a professor of political science in Paris. In this chapter she investigates a paradox in European policy on labor and immigration issues that she terms "the greatest myths." Her formulation is that the Community has enjoyed a rather tortured relationship with "primary economic immigration" over the last ten years while trying to improve "labor mobility" among its EC member states. It also did so under the grounds of "primary immigration" a notion that pro-globalization improves or would lead to prosperity (pp. 65-66). Professor Guild notes that during this period the Community maintained a dialogue against "economic immigration" from outside of the Union. Investigation of the Commission's "Action Plan for Free Movement of Workers" (1997) and its "Communication on Immigration and Asylum Policies (1994) leads her to conclude that the EU's actions are inconsistent with the actions of the member states in the admission of persons for employment or in activities that champion the new international framework for the movements of workers. She suggests that the Community's framework for primary immigration should be to remove any possibility that an intra-member state migrant citizen might be illegal and to promote positive migration. She recommends a comprehensive approach of migration pressure that requires cooperative actions in the field of foreign and trade policies, and in developing cooperation on immigration and asylum policy between the Community and its member states. The whole panoply of international relations of the Community and its member states, especially at the various ministerial levels, she maintains, should focus on reducing migratory pressures from outside (pp. 65-94). This is a well-written essay, focused, relevant to the topic, but it creates no links to the themes of the introduction.

In chapter 4 titled "The Dublin Convention and Rights of Asylum Seekers in European Union," Nicholas Blake, a Founding member of Immigration Law Practitioners, queries the principles behind the 1990 Dublin Convention (DC) and its incompatibility with international refugee and humanitarian law (pp. 90-120). His contribution here is unique in addressing the weakness relevant prior Community instruments before ToA. Blake argues that the main problem with the DC is that it does not deliver in the promises made therein since it does not have a Union-wide consequence. He questions why the EC has elaborate interstate mechanisms if no interstate status is derived from it. Making the DC a case in point, Blake observes that, since its coming into force in September of 1997, only few states have been able to use it successfully to return asylum seekers to the first country of arrival within the European Union. To Blake the failure to use DC can only be weighted by its ineffectiveness as in the delay in asylum claims processing, its contradictory the principle of family reunion, and finally, its inability in providing a just and equitable distribution for those with such claims in the Union. He concludes that because the end process for a typical successful asylum seeker is that he or she does not get access to the Community but only to the member state where the application was lodged, DC is fatally flawed. Hence, he recommends that whatever measures the Community adopts under ToA, harmonization must address the various issues comprehensively.

Chapter 5 is titled "Abolishing Border Controls: Individual Rights and Common Control of EC External Borders," by Cristina Gortazar, a professor at University Pontificia Comillas of Madrid (pp. 121-40). She focuses on the debate on individual rights within the processes of European integration. More specifically, she reviews these rights relative to measures regarding "common control" of the external border of the EC in the pre-and-post ToA. Although she puts forth no clearly discernable argument, she offers some policy recommendations on what can be reasonably done with post ToA measures on crossing of external borders. Professor Gortazar foresees strict and extreme enforcement of internal entry requirements unfairly targeting third country nationals resulting from control of external borders. She suggests that to make the new area of freedom, security and justice workable, access to Community justice for the individual must be improved as well as resolve the yet unsolved issues pending for Community integration.

Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, professor of international refugee law, Institute of European Studies, University of Amsterdam, takes a pessimistic approach in the assessment of 1951 Refugee Convention in his essay titled "Individual Refugee, the 1951 Convention and the Treaty of Amsterdam" vis-a-vis the ToA (pp. 143-63). By electing to downplay the hopes and aspiration of the ToA and the hopes of those who believe in it, Professor Goodwin-Gill argues that--although an optimist might well conclude that the European Community is about to have a positive impact on the movement of refugees--asylum seekers and migrants to the region, such an outlook is unjustified. He sees the central question as one that probes whether greater transparency of decision making will result given that the exercise of legislative authority will proceed without an effective control by the European Parliament or by the Court of Justice. The changes introduced by Amsterdam, Professor Goodwin-Gill argues, perhaps offer some grounds for optimism, but the proof will lie in the products. Enough ambiguity remains in his view, to give causes for concern. For example, he argues that even where principles seem clear on matters of compliance of treaty provisions, their effective implementation depends upon levels of official action that are not always forthcoming. Professor Gortazar's essay (Chapter 5) and Professor Goodwin-Gill's in chapter 6 are far the most relevant connecting chapter to the title/theme of this book. Both pieces are very focused but again a stand alone without linkage yet the substantive treatment deals with practical pre-post ToA implementation concerns.

In chapter 7 titled "Towards a Common Asylum Procedure," Johannes Van Der Klaauw of UNHCR, offers policy recommendations for framing a common Community asylum "procedure" that can be made applicable and can be implemented by member states (pp. 165-93). With again linkage made, this essay makes a significant contribution in looking at procedures that should be used for applying rules initiated. He cautions that previous efforts made in framing and adopting measures necessary for the effective abolition of intra-Community border controls should not be equated nor should be confused with adopting a "common asylum procedure." Van Der Klaauw sees the newly acquired Community competence in ToA Article 63 transfer of authority as presenting a unique instance from which to creatively conceptualize a Community framework legislation to be transposed and implemented in member states' law and practices. He praised previous asylum law procedural resolutions made in the various Member States since the early 1990s. However, he insists that as long as the Community had no competence to develop and implement a Community-wide legislation in asylum, member states' will remain committed to respect their existing obligations under international instruments (e.g., The Geneva Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights). Hence, Van Der Klaauw sees several advantages in the adoption at the Community level of a Community-centered procedure instead of the usually state-dominated Intergovernment Council (IGC) processes of decision making. Among the advantages he sees in a Community-centered procedure is a new "uniform accord" that includes all international standards (in lieu of a possible IGC approximation of the existing Member State administrative standards and judicial practices); and a "uniform method of addressing procedural rights of asylum seekers" in all phases of an asylum review (i.e., examination, review, appeal, granting, acceptance, integration into society and even the withdrawal of refugee status). With a specific focus on "procedural" rights, this substantive chapter is yet an excellent contribution.

Even though it is another stand alone chapter, Chapter 8 introduces what might be viewed as an economic analysis on the costs and benefits of burden sharing in refugee processing at the EC member state level. Specifically in this chapter, appropriately titled "Temporary Protection and Burden-Sharing: Conditionalising Access Suspending Refugee Rights," the authors Gregor Noll and Jens Vedsted-Hansen, lecturer and professor of law, University of Sweden and University of Denmark respectively, assesses the linkage between "temporary protection" and "burden sharing" with the specific intent to explicate their importance for understanding EU's emerging immigration and asylum policies. They argue that thinking about reform of a "protection system" within the EC revolves around two major changes in cost distribution that stem from protection responsibilities. These changes, they maintain, have bearing on the relationship between the "individual protection seeker," the "host state" as well as among the other member states of the Union. Accordingly, they conjecture, only lowering the protection level of individual refugees and establishing temporary protection attain cost limitation. Costs that are equitably distributed among the states, also, establish the essence of burden sharing. The advantages of burden sharing, they argue, is that it prevents peak burdens on one state while at the same time fosters predictability for all states by sharing the cost of protection. To this end, Noll and Vedsted-Hansen conclude, both temporary protection and burden sharing improves the predictive value of protection system for each member state of the Community (pp. 195-223).

In chapter 9 titled "Securities of Residence and Access to Free Movement for Settled Third Country Nationals under Community Law" Kees Greonendijk, professor of sociology, University of Nijmegen explores the question of the security of residence of the third country nationals legal resident in the EU. He seeks to provide rationalizations why this is an important policy issue worth tackling by the Community (pp. 225-40). The approach he adopts is to locate the core facts having baring n the issues, appraise their sources, evaluate their implication within the larger context of the community, and offer policy recommendations. He points to increased immigration and the equivalent void in Community laws addressing the issue. For example, he argues that there is an increase in sheer number of third country nationals that are "legal residents" within the EC member states. However, the continued narrow focus of Community law on EC citizens rights and its explicit exclusion of third countries nationals from the "free movement of persons" and "equal treatment" rules are at the core of this policy area. As an important first step solution in his policy initiative, Professor Greonendijk would favor extending the existing rights of EC citizens to established third country nationals in free movement of persons and equal treatment (pp. 239-40).

Chapter 10 titled "Family Reunion, Third Country Nationals and the Community's New Powers" continues on the issue covered in chapter 9. However, the focus of the chapter is on the exclusive coverage of "families" of third country nationals (pp. 241-66). Both chapters are close related in themes, even if linkages are not stated. Offering a similar policy recommendation as Professor Greonendijk in chapter 9, Gisbert Brinkmann, an official in the German Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, analyzes the concept "family reunification" into two phases. First, his analysis covers existing international and regional EC standards. Second, he assesses prospects for such binding standards in the EC with regard to the proposal of the 1999 Commission for a Council Directives on the rights to family reunification (p. 245). He maintains that the new comprehensive powers of the Community provided by ToA, especially in the area of family law, empower the Community to undertake vigorous integration policies that grant rights and obligation to family reunions comparable to those of EC citizens. Measures for the integration of immigrants in the host countries, he argues, are essential to promote social cohesion, avoid exclusion, and prevent racism and xenophobia. Finally, he views the principle of legal certainty, an important concept in the law, as essential for maintaining and generating the respect for the rule of law and the right of family life.

The focus of chapter 11 is on the role of the Court of Justice (COJ) in immigration and asylum issues in the post Maastricht and ToA era. It is well connected to the title/theme of the book. Titled "Deference or Defiance? The Court of Justice's Jurisdiction over Immigration and Asylum," Elspeth Guildand Steve Peers' focus on the evolving role of the COJ in cases about individual immigrants and asylum seekers in the Union. To do so they review the Court's jurisdiction and judgments within the scope of such jurisdiction prior to May 1999. They conclude that, in the absent of an explicit EC provision allocating powers post-Maastricht, the Court simply fashioned during this period to "circumscribe its jurisdiction and temper its judgments" (pp. 268-77). It is precisely because of the Court's activism that interior ministers fought hard for the exclusion of immigration and asylum matters not only from the Community competence but also from the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court. With regard to the expanded community competence under ToA (effective May 1, 1999), they conclude that COJ also acquired "some" jurisdiction with possible extensions, but also lost some of its interpretative powers too (pp. 277-83). Guild and Peers conclude, however, that because of conditions imposed on the COJ under the ToA that empowered the EC Council to alter its jurisdiction, the IGC, as the body responsible for reviewing expansion proposals, proved to be a "missed" opportunity (pp. 284-87). Why this is the case is unclear because the restriction on the COJ's jurisdiction (now in ToA Article 68) was backed by the Court with its 1999 report entitled, "The Future of the Judicial System of the European Union." In that document the Court reversed its previous stance that all Community matters should be covered by identical judicial rules. It thereby favored a new position that acknowledged that some solutions couldn't be directly transposed to rules governing the EC internal market. I surmise the obvious conclusion here to be that whatever is the fate of the Court's jurisdictional or interpretative powers post-Amsterdam is partly of the result of the Court own creation Therefore, the COJ will handle issues of immigration policy consistent with community law but with significant deference and consultation with national courts and member states' laws.

In chapter 12, entitled "Aliens, Workers, Citizens, or Humans? Models for Community Immigration Law," Steve Peers, reader of law, University of Essex, United Kingdom, weighs in against the inherent problems and confusions caused by the lack of a uniform immigration law model in the EU. For example, prior to the ToA, an extensive patchwork of treaties developed overtime to grant rights to nationals of third countries could lead one to conclude that there are perhaps two systems of immigration laws with two different sets of substantive rules for EC and non-EC nationals. Such a conclusion, he submits, is misleading. The entry into force of the ToA, he argues, presents the Community with choices between alternatives of models in the effort to adopt its immigration law, all of which admittedly has their pluses and minuses. Peers evaluates the existing models of immigration already in effect, and he offers his opinions on their suitability weighing upon their relative strength and weakness (pp 291-308). For example, he evaluates the "alien model" of the pre-Amsterdam; the "workers model" in the rules of agreements with third countries; and finally, the "citizen model" of the rules applicable to EC citizens. His assessment clearly favors the "citizen" model, followed by the "worker" model, since he finds serious deficiencies "substantively and institutionally" with the "alien" model. Although concluding that "the Community could improve upon the rules applicable to European Community citizens and develop a "human" model of immigration law, he also concedes that "this may not be politically realistic at present because of the wealthier Member States fear an influx of nationals of poorer Member States seeking to draw benefits" (p. 307).

Finally, chapter 13, entitled "Endpiece," is the contribution of Carol Harlow. Harlow, professor of public law, London School of Economics, United Kingdom, presents a summary conclusion that finally gives teeth to this book. But, it is too little too late. Arguing that the sibylline language in the ToA belies the acutely sensitive issues of migration and freedom of movement in EU, she frames the issue into that of a struggle over fundamental political values. For example, she argues that the proclamation of an area of "freedom, security and justice, is vague and inchoate and worse yet utopian in character." Given level of sensitivity and nature of the issue, she follows in suggestion that grave consideration must be undertaking before and during policy implementation of the ToA. Briefly, in an attempt to summarize the contributions made in the book and hence, she finally forges a theme, the missing link in the introduction. Also, beyond the summary and in her attempt to forge a context, she argues that the contributions can be seen as arguing favorably for a positive interpretation of the ToA's core concept of "freedom, security and justice." She sees the concept of "liberty" at the core of the arguments on EC immigration and asylum issues which is also central to western political theory and philosophy that implying a right to self determination as a fundamental right whereby man is born free and is the holder of inalienable rights and freedom.

To sum up, as a book focusing on policy changes brought by the adoption of ToA and the transfer of authority over immigration to the Community, it provides mix results. It does so for several reasons, including its failure to provide a historical and political framework and a context for understanding the ToA within the framework of EC politics and the policy debate on immigration and asylum. In a few of the articles the authors independently attempted to forge such contexts, but the editors did not do so for the whole book. An inherent attribute of a text consisting of collections of essays is the relationship of the issues to and with each other, one established by the introduction in creating linkages among the various essays. Although the first establishes flow, second deals with cohesion of ideas hence given meaning. The role of a volume editor, comparable to a maestro is for a symphony, is paramount in this process. As an initiator of the theme, the editors provide a context and meaning to enable live in the expression of the content. Undeniably a text editor, as a maestro of a symphony, has an invaluable responsibility for the final product.

As noted in my assessment, the book purports to cover a narrow topic of policy implementation on immigration and asylum law and ends in that attempt establishing none context that gives meaning to the issues. In the effort perhaps to offer diverse opinions as well as policy recommendations on immigration and asylum issues, it falls short in establishing cohesion and linkages among the essays assembled. Another way to surmise the book is to look at the link between the title and essays. Although the title summons what amounts to a theme or purpose of the book, the collection of essays tries too hard to rally around that theme. The importance of a context and linkages again cannot be overstated. The last essay of the book titled "Endpiece" attempt to do just that but as a summary chapter, it is too little too late but nevertheless, is welcomed. Reading the chapter apart will not be too helpful, if done before reading the other essays in the book. Overall, policymakers and practitioners adept with pertinent issues of immigration and migration in the European Community will find useful some the detailed essays in this book.

REFERENCES:

"Treaty on the European Union" (TEU) 1992, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities

"Treaty of Amsterdam" (ToA) 1997, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities.'

"Treaty on Nice (ToN) 2001, Amending TEU, Treaties Establishing the European Communities, and Certain Related Acts," Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities.

****************************************************************

Copyright 2001 by the author, Marc-Georges Pufong.