ΑΛΛΗΛΕΓΓΥΗ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΕ: ΕΞΕΛΙΞΕΙΣ ΣΤΟ ΠΕΔΙΟ ΤΗΣ ΠΡΟΣΦΥΓΙΚΗΣ ΠΡΟΣΤΑΣΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΡΟΚΛΗΣΕΙΣ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΕ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ

Πρόλογος XV pecially since 2015 and till the most recent version of June 2019 8 ). However, the paradox is that despite the extensive presence of Solidarity in the EU treaties (on- ly in the EU Treaty solidarity appears in 16 different articles), and notwithstanding the separate Title IV in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the content and the nature of the notion remains vague, without a conceptual delineation, no clear definition and most importantly without any mention on who bears the obligation of being “solidaire” and to whom is such an obligation addressed 9 . Although experts now conclude that the term “refugee crisis” was wrongly at- tributed 10 since the number of newcomers was not so big that would prevent Eu- ropean states from hosting them in conformity with their international human rights obligations, the increase of migration flows in the Eastern Aegean islands in the summer of 2015 found EU member states unprepared. Obstacles of access to asylum in the EU on the ground that Turkey should qualify as a “safe third coun- try” should be considered as a high challenge for fair responsibility – sharing and solidarity both at global and EU level. While negotiations on the revision of the Dublin Regulation have been stalling due to the lack of consensus among Member States 11 , efforts seem to focus on mechanisms for shifting responsibility towards the first countries of entry but also outside the EU. The political will of using “safe country” mechanisms expressed by the EU-Turkey Joint Statement seems as an ad- ditional effort for shifting the “burden” towards countries hosting the vast major- ity of refugees rather than a tool of fair responsibility – sharing. Thus, while Turkey hosts the largest number of refugees worldwide since the beginning of the Syrian crisis and despite the serious protection concerns 12 , the Statement focused on the return of the refugees who survived the perilous journey to Greece. At the same time, in the absence of a commonly accepted solution to the revision of the legal- 8. On the adoption of a Common European Asylum and Migration Policy, see relevant efforts on a Common European Asylum and Migration Policy from Tampere to Stockholm: European Commission Tampere: Kick-start to the EU’s policy for justice and home affairs, https://ec.europa.eu/councils/bx20040617/tampere_09_2002_en.pdf ; then European Commission, Report on the Implementation of the Hague Programme for 2007. 2008, COM(2008)373 final; as well as Council of the European Union. The Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens. 2009 Doc. 17024/09 and 2010/C 115/01 para 6.2.2., p.32 9. See Supiot A. (dir.), La solidarité, Enquête sur un principe juridique, Odile Jacob, 2015, pp.311 et seq. See also the important work of D. Akrivoulis in the current volume on the concept of solidarity. 10. Especially compared to the number of refugees under protection in countries bordering countries of origin of refugees. See Gilbert G., Why Europe Does Not Have a Refugee Crisis, Int. Jour. Refug. Law, 2015. 11. See Capicchiano Young S. , Dublin iv and excom: Aspirational Blunders and Illusive Soli- darity, Eur. Jour. Migr. Law, 2017, p. 370–395. 12. See for instance the contribution of E. Koutsouraki in this book.