This paper deals with the Swedish Aliens Act and the "Provisions on cooperation in the fields of justice and home affairs" - the so called "third pillar" - of the European Union. More specifically, it is about the "free movement of persons" and its implications for Swedish refugee policy. It also examines the context of Swedish party politics. The setting is a kingdom changing status from being outside to being inside the European Union.
But, why write about Swedish refugee policy in relation to Sweden's impending membership in the European Union? Answer: The subject concerns one of the most fundamental changes for a "sovereign nation state" entering a union where the "free movement of persons" is established. As we shall see, by membership, the nation state, in this case the Kingdom of Sweden, is being deprived of the right to check the influx of aliens from the other contracting nation states. Also, despite its significance, refugee policy was one of the least discussed issues in the Swedish debate preceding the referendum on membership in the European Union.
From the view of political science, the starting point is the nation state's objective to maintain control over its actions. There are essentially two ways for the nation state to attain to this objective; 1. to ensure sovereignty over its actions, 2. to guarantee influence over the unit/units whose behaviour affect the nation state's own actions. Therefore, when the nation state's sovereignty is threatened and it cannot be defended at an acceptable cost, the nation state will search for ways to obtain influence, and vice versa.
Let us now descend a step towards reality. When entering a union without internal frontiers, or in other words, when changing status from being outside to being inside, the nation state loses sovereignty as it is being deprived of the right to check the influx of aliens from the other contracting nation states. To regain control, the nation states involved demand influence over each other's national policies governing the entry of aliens at the external borders of the union. The demand is met by harmonization of the relevant national policies.
A step further down we find the European Union and a nation state called the Kingdom of Sweden. As one of the relevant policies is refugee policy, we might put forward the politically interesting question: Is Swedish membership in the European Union a case for an adjusted refugee policy? The principal purpose of this paper is to find an answer to this overarching question. What course of action should then be taken?
I will try to answer the question by comparing the Swedish Aliens Act and the applicable documents of the European Union and thereby seek to visualize the implications for Swedish refugee policy of membership in the European Union. Will membership imply a more restrictive refugee policy? A more generous? Or will there be no need for adjustment?
In addition to this, I will compare the Swedish parliamentary parties' proposals on refugee policy before and after the Swedish application for membership, i.e. prior to and after an indisputable outside became a possible inside. I will also discuss the parties' positions at the latter point of time as compared to the results of the public policy analysis; are the parties' positions on refugee policy consistent with Swedish membership in the European Union? But first, let us have a look at the Swedish political context.
Sweden's borders are "to a large extent" closed to people fleeing persecution or war . This does not, however, imply that the right to asylum, or the opportunity for an alien to be granted a residence permit on humanitarian grounds, have been restricted by a revision of the Swedish Aliens Act. They have been restricted by a reduction of the list of countries whose nationals are exempted from visa requirements.
To illustrate the point, let us have a look at Bosnia-Hercegovina. Nationals of this former Yugoslav republic are since 21 June 1993 subject to visa requirements. As pointed out in the paper EG, Sverige & flyktingpolitiken, due to sanctions on carriers there is a risk that persons with well-founded claims for asylum, or protection on humanitarian grounds, but without the necessary documents, are denied transportation . As visas are issued for only a "certain limited period of time", e.g. for tourism or business, visa requirements, inter alia taken together with the prescribed sanctions, prevents fleeing Bosnian citizens from submitting applications for asylum with the Swedish authorities . Thus, for this category of aliens, the Swedish borders are "to a large extent" closed without even one sentence being altered in the Aliens Act .
There should be no doubt today that refugee policy is a burning issue. A quick look at the "street level" confirms the observation. On 8 October 1993, a manifestation for a free, open, and multi-cultural society, gathering more than four thousand people, took place in Göteborg. The day after when a few hundred xenophobic fascists held a public meeting, the police were attacked by stone-throwing, so called, anti-racists. The incident was repeated on 6 November the same year, when police and anti-racists again had a violent encounter, this time in Stockholm. Newspapers and television revelled in the latter events.
When it comes to negotiations involving Sweden and the European Union, the following might be noted. The Treaty on European Union finally entered into force 1 November 1993. The EEA Agreement repeated the achievement 1 January 1994. The membership negotiations between Sweden and the European Union was completed in March 1994 and the referendum on Swedish membership was subsequently held 13 November 1994.
I remarked in the introduction of my 1992 paper on "the non-existence of an official Swedish analysis of the consequences of the cooperation between the Member States in the fields of justice and home affairs, more specifically refugee policies". If we by consequences mean the outcome for the persons who are subject to the agreements resulting from the cooperation, such an official analysis still does not exist. The only serious attempts to carry out an analysis are made by students of political science, e.g. Tamas 1991 and Olseke 1992.
According to the European Commission, as reported on in its "opinion on Sweden's application for membership", Sweden has followed the questions concerning the above mentioned cooperation "closely because of their implications for the workings of the Nordic Passport Union". When it comes to refugee policy specifically, the Commission states that Sweden "would not have difficulty in participating in the cooperation in this area". Does the Swedish Government agree with this opinion? The answer and the argument supporting it remains to be officially declared.
As a result of the outcome of the referendum on membership and its sequel confirmation by the Swedish Parliament, Sweden will join the European Union 1 January 1995.
As a member, Sweden will be inside the external borders of the union. True. As a non-member, situated on the outskirts of the union, the kingdom would have been outside these external borders. Not true. Well, at least not completely. The picture needs to be modified.
Before we take on this assignment, a definition is needed. For the purpose of this section, an alien shall mean a person who is not among the nationals of the union concerned.
As should be well known, Sweden is a member of the Nordic Passport Union. Owing to this union, passport inspection, i.e. checks on entry, at the internal Nordic frontiers is abolished. In addition, the agreement of the union establishes common rules governing the entry of aliens at the external Nordic frontiers.
As a Nordic country, Denmark is a contracting party of the Nordic Passport Union. But Denmark is also a member of the European Union, a union with the "free movement of persons" as one of its objectives. In order to achieve this "freedom", the Member States of the European Union have drawn up the so called Convention between the Member States of the European Communities on the crossing of their external frontiers (hereafter referred to as the External Frontiers Convention). This convention comprises common rules governing the entry of aliens at the external frontiers of the European Union. Needless to say, these rules prescribe compulsory passport inspection.
Consequently, the Danish-Swedish border would be external to the European Union, but internal to the Nordic Passport Union. Now, the obvious question arises; are the provisions of the Agreement of the Nordic Passport Union and the External Frontiers Convention compatible? To restate the question at a lower level of abstraction: Could the Nordic "freedom from passport inspection" have been maintained when the External Frontiers Convention entered into force? That this question is valid can easily be shown.
In the Final Act of the External Frontiers Convention, Denmark has made a declaration "that controls at Denmark's external Community frontiers will be carried out with due regard for the obligations incumbent upon Denmark within the framework of the Nordic Passport Union".
During a transitional period, controls will be conducted as a combination of the effective controls that the other Nordic countries carry out at their external Nordic frontiers and the controls that can be made within the framework of the Nordic Passport Union at the internal Nordic frontiers between Denmark and the other Nordic countries.
These combined controls [...] will be as effective as the controls that will be established at the external frontiers of the other Community Member States.
Thus, Denmark regarded a strict implementation of the External Frontiers Convention as incompatible with its obligations "within the framework of the Nordic Passport Union". To overcome the problem, Denmark proposed "combined controls" as an alternative to carrying out the controls on the entry of aliens prescribed in the External Frontiers Convention at Denmark's internal Nordic frontiers. The other Member States of the European Union agreed to the proposal . Hence, by means of Denmark's design, the Nordic "freedom from passport inspection" could have been maintained and in relation to Denmark, as a side effect, Sweden and the other Nordic non-European Union members suddenly would have found themselves inside the external borders of the European Union.
The observant reader might, however, raise the question: What does "during a transitional period" mean? Was the Nordic Passport Union going to be dissolved after this period? Or was the substance backing the clause a confident prediction that Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden would join the European Union? The wording was originally put in print in 1991! The initial question still remains to be answered.
It should be added that "the controls that can be made within the framework of the Nordic Passport Union at the internal Nordic frontiers" are in the form of spot-checks. Compulsory passport inspection is, however, permitted in the case of massive illegal entry due to divergence in visa policy between the members of the union.
Now that the modification is done, let us return to the opening sentence of this section and then ask the questions logically in line; as a member of the European Union, Sweden will be inside the external borders of the union. This fact should by now be understood, but what does it mean to be inside? What are the implications of this status? These questions lead us in to the discussion on control as composed of sovereignty and influence (not to be confused with control as meaning checks on entry). Since such a discussion also can be found in Olseke 1992, I will only give a brief additional outline here.
To recapitulate and complete; the point of departure is that the non-existence of internal border checks is a matter of sovereignty, more precisely a loss of sovereignty. As every nation state, in this case the Member States of the European Union, "aims at control" over its actions, this non-existence requires that the Member States can trust each other, i.e. that one Member State does not permit entrance to an alien that another would have refused access to the territory of the union. For this mutual confidence to be at hand, every single Member State requires influence on the actions of the other Member States. This necessity materialises in harmonization of provisions governing the entry and stay of aliens and the right to asylum and hence, immigration and refugee policy becomes matters of common interest. Thus, increased influence through harmonization regains the level of control that the nation state possessed when being outside the external borders of the union (ceteris paribus).
Let us also have a look at the definitions of harmonization and cooperation established in Olseke 1992. Harmonization is said to be the approximation of national policies; "the divergence between [the policies] has to be reduced" and might eventually disappear. In contrast to this, cooperation is defined as the "drawing-up of agreements that regulates the nation states obligations towards each other". Using these two definitions, the provisions agreed upon by the Member States can be divided into two groups: cooperation applies principally to the so called Dublin Convention, harmonization to subsequent documents such as recommendations and resolutions.
To complete this section, let us have a look at the legal context of the inside phenomenon "free movement of persons"; from where does this "freedom" originate? And which institutions attend to its implementation?
In the "Principles" of the Treaty of Rome, as amended by the Treaty on European Union, the following is stipulated:
The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union [...], to promote throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States. [...] [T]he activities of the Community shall include [...] an internal market characterized by the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital.
In article 7a of the Treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act, the "free movement of persons" is further established:
The Community shall adopt measures with the aim of progressively establishing the internal market [...] The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured.
The "free movement of persons" is thus a characteristic of the internal market and originates from the Treaty of Rome. The Treaty on European Union reaffirms the "objective to facilitate the free movement of persons, while ensuring the safety and security of their peoples, by including provisions on justice and home affairs". Among the matters of concern of these provisions are refugee policy, immigration policy and rules governing the checks on entry at the external borders.
The prediction presented in the discussion on control here finds an explicit legal confirmation. To recapitulate, due to the lack of internal border checks, or rephrased, the existence of a union without internal frontiers - a union which has established the "free movement of persons", immigration and refugee policy becomes matters of common interest for the members of the union.
Next question. Who then attends to the implementation? Let us have a look at article 100a of the Treaty of Rome, as amended by the Treaty on European Union:
The Council shall, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in article 189b and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, adopt the measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market. [This] shall not apply to fiscal provisions, to those relating to the free movement of persons nor to those relating to the rights and interests of employed persons.
Consequently, the implementation is the responsibility of the Member States, not the supranational institutions. The necessary cooperation, starting out from the so called Palma Document of 1989, has therefore so far been of an interstate nature. However, in the Treaty on European Union, a portion of competence is given to the European Commission. In the above mentioned "Provisions on cooperation in the fields of justice and home affairs", the Commission is afforded the right of initiative. In addition, from the coming into force of the mentioned treaty, the cooperation is formally carried out within the Council of the European Union.
Implications of "free movement of persons"
My first analysis concerns the implications of the inside phenomenon "free movement of persons" for Swedish refugee policy. I will not assign any space for an interpretation of this "freedom". I will simply take as my point of departure the existing lack of a common interpretation and then examine the agreements that, in spite of this lack, have been concluded by the twelve Member States of the European Union.
The lack of a common interpretation can reasonably briefly be illustrated by a comparison of the External Frontiers Convention and the so called Schengen Convention . The latter convention has only nine Contracting Parties, while the former, being a convention "between the Member States of the European Communities", has twelve. Simple arithmetic. The three Member States missing are Great Britain, Ireland and Denmark.
The Schengen Convention stipulates that "internal borders may be crossed at any point without any checks on persons being carried out". An alien who legally enters the territory of one of the Contracting Parties "may move freely within the territories of the Contracting Parties". In contrast, the External Frontiers Convention contains a declaration which confirms that the convention "does not contain any express or implicit obligation upon Member States concerning controls at intra-Community frontiers". With an implicit reference to the Schengen Convention, it is further stated that the External Frontiers Convention "does not affect agreements between Member States on the movement of persons which provide for greater freedom of movement [...] than that resulting from the provisions of this Convention".
Why the distinction? The explanation lies in the Member States' interpretations of article 7a of the Treaty of Rome. Some Member States interpret article 7a with regard to "free movement of persons" as requiring the abolishment of the checks on entry at the internal borders, others hold the view that a relaxation of these checks is sufficient to establish the considered "freedom".
Let us get back to the implications of "free movement of persons". Among the agreements drawn up by all twelve Member States of the European Union, and growing out of article 7a of the Treaty of Rome, are the Dublin Convention "determining the state responsible for examining applications for asylum" and, accordingly, the before mentioned External Frontiers Convention. Together with subsequent reports, recommendations and resolutions, these conventions form the basis for an analysis of the implications of the implementation of article 7a of the Treaty of Rome with regard to "free movement of persons" for Swedish refugee policy as manifested in the Swedish Aliens Act (and preparatory documents).
When analysing the implications for Swedish refugee policy, I will start out from a situation where all checks on entry at the internal borders of the European Union are abolished (as anticipated in the "Principles" of the Treaty of Rome).
The Swedish Aliens Act
The Swedish Aliens Act stipulates rules governing the entry, exit, residence and employment, by aliens, and the right to asylum. It also states the conditions for, and the impediments to, refusal of entry and expulsion. It contains both substantive and procedural rules.
Since my focus is on refugee policy, I will examine the substantive rules governing, the right to asylum and, to include persons seeking refuge from war, occupation, and civil war, the admission of aliens on humanitarian grounds. I will, thus, principally discuss admission rules applicable to refugees. In addition, I will also examine rules which in practice affect the refugees' opportunities of submitting an application for asylum or protection on humanitarian grounds. As already hinted at, these rules concern visa requirements and so called sanctions on carriers. That the said rules "have repercussions" on the right to asylum is also recognised by the European Commission .
However, also certain other rules, both substantive and procedural, included in the Aliens Act have implications for the right to asylum and admission on humanitarian grounds, e.g. impediments to the enforcement, and handling, of refusal of entry and expulsion, but to limit the scope of my inquiry, I will not consider these rules in the analyses.
When it comes to visa requirements, it should be emphasized that these, inter alia in combination with sanctions on carriers, are used to restrict the right to asylum and the opportunity for aliens to be granted residence permits on humanitarian grounds . That this is in fact the case can be shown by an inquiry into the history of Swedish visa policy . Unfortunately, although interesting on its own merits, such a retrospect would be too voluminous for the present paper. However, to at least illustrate the point, let us make just one "stop", a stop at the government bill of the national budget for 1994-95. According to this bill, the number of applicants for asylum reaching Sweden in one year is expected to drop from 81.000 to 15.000 owing to the fact that nationals of Bosnia-Hercegovina and Serbia (Kosovo) are subject to visa requirements .
To sum up: Sanctions on carriers and visa policy are in practice determinants for the right to asylum and the opportunity for an alien to be granted residence permit on humanitarian grounds, and will accordingly be taken into consideration in the analysis. Taken together, we have four components of refugee policy to consider: visa requirements, right to asylum, admission on humanitarian grounds, and sanctions on carriers.
The analysis will be carried out in three parts: 1. The Swedish Aliens Act, 2. Agreements in the European Union, and 3. Implications for Swedish refugee policy. Each of these sections will be subdivided according to the four specified components of refugee policy.
Swedish refugee politics and the European Union
My second analysis is concerned with politics, or more precisely, Swedish refugee politics. The temperature in this arena of politics seems in general to be far above the one generated by most other political debates. But when it comes to explicitly connecting refugee politics with the debate on Swedish membership in the European Union, the fever recedes.
That this connection exists has already been shown . Still, the parliamentary parties rarely concern themselves with it. Can an explanation to this behaviour be that they see their positions on refugee policy and membership as incompatible? And that membership in the European Union is more important than the fight for a "just" refugee policy, as the parties see it? Basically, the lack of effort to make the connection is a question of democracy; does one have to be a student of political science to find out if Swedish membership in the European Union calls for an adjustment of Swedish refugee policy?
An indisputable inside becomes a possible inside
As already stated, I will compare the Swedish parliamentary parties' proposals on refugee policy before and after the Swedish application for membership, i.e. prior to (t0) and after (t1) an indisputable outside became a possible inside; have the parties changed their positions? And, can the possible changes be seen as an adjustment to the provisions of the European Union? I will also discuss the parties' positions at the latter point of time as compared to the results of the public policy analysis; regardless of change or not, are the parties' positions consistent with Swedish membership in the European Union? How do I choose the two points of time?
After a long debate in June 1989, the Swedish Parliament passed the Aliens Act now in force (the Act that constitutes the basis for the public policy analysis). June 1989 is also the point of time when two years remained until the calendar would show June 1991; it is two years before the then Swedish Prime Minister submitted the Swedish application for membership in the then European Community. The time of the passing of the Aliens Act is thus well before membership in the European Union was written down on the official political agenda. Taken together, these circumstances motivates my choice of 1989 as t0 in my inquiry.
In February 1993, the membership negotiations between Sweden and the European Union was opened. During 1993, the point in time two years after the Swedish application was passed. No one will doubt that the political agenda by now was smeared with the letter combinations EG and EU, the Swedish abbreviations for the European Community and the European Union. The year 1993 will therefore serve as t1, the time when the present view of the Swedish parliamentary parties on refugee policy will be examined.
As I will compare the parties' refugee policies at two different points of time, I have only included the parties with seats in the Parliament at t0 and t1, i.e. the Moderate Party, the Liberal Party, the Center Party, the Social Democratic Party and the Left Party. Consequently, the Green Party, the Christian Democratic Party and New Democracy, have been excluded from the analysis.
The analysis will be carried out in four parts; in Chapter 4: 1. 1989 - An indisputable outside..., 2. 1993 - ...becomes a possible inside, and 3. 1989-1993 - Consistency or change? Like in the chapter on refugee policy, I will subdivide the party refugee policies into the four established components of refugee policy. In Chapter 5 I will sum up and further discuss the results of part 3. Thereafter, as part 4, I will discuss the parties' positions in 1993 as compared to the results of the public policy analysis in Chapter 3, and examine whether the possible changes can be seen as an adjustment to the provisions of the European Union.
As previously declared, this paper deals with the "free movement of persons" and its implications for Swedish refugee policy. The principal purpose is to find out if Swedish membership in the European Union is "a case for an adjusted refugee policy".
I will seek to fulfil this purpose by comparing Swedish refugee policy as manifested in the Swedish Aliens Act of 1989 with the refugee policy of the European Union as expressed in applicable documents and thereby seek to visualize the implications for Swedish refugee policy of membership in the European Union.
The paper also examines the context of Swedish party politics. I will for this purpose compare the Swedish parliamentary parties' proposals on refugee policy before and after the Swedish application for membership, i.e. in 1989 and 1993. I will also discuss the parties' positions at the latter point of time as compared to the results of the public policy analysis. The questions at issue are three:
When proceeding along both lines of action, i.e. when analysing public policies and party policies respectively, I will examine visa requirements, right to asylum, admission on humanitarian grounds, and sanctions on carriers.
Who is a refugee? The only universally recognised legal definition is the one given in the Geneva Convention; a refugee is there a person who
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Still, this definition does not correspond to the meaning we normally assign when we talk about refugee policy. In this context we use a much wider definition, e.g. "the refugee is an involuntary migrant, a victim of politics, war, or natural catastrophe" , or, a refugee is "any uprooted, homeless, involuntary migrant who has crossed a frontier and no longer possesses the protection of his government" .
The vital difference between the refugee definition in the Geneva Convention and the wider definitions is that the latter ones embody persons fleeing from war or natural catastrophes. It should be evident that a European refugee policy must take such persons seeking refuge into consideration. Accordingly, the definition employed in this paper will be of the wider kind. Refugees in accordance with the Geneva Convention will be termed convention refugees.
Let us also have a look at some legal terms. What do conventions, resolutions, etc., mean? A convention is an interstate (international) agreement, subject to ratification by the Member States. Resolutions and recommendations are non-binding political declarations. However, as established in two of the resolutions quoted in this paper, it is the responsible Ministers' of the Member States task to "seek to ensure that their national laws are adapted, if need be, to incorporate the principles" of the resolutions.
Furthermore, when I use the word restrictive, e.g. a more restrictive refugee policy, I refer to the potential asylum applicant's point of view; that the opportunity of seeking and/or obtaining asylum will be affected in a restrictive direction. The same applies to generous.
The concepts harmonization and cooperation have already been defined. Note, however, that the definition of cooperation only applies in relation to harmonization, i.e. cooperation is also used in its wider meaning, "the act of working together".
Some additional terms used in the paper: Implication denotes "a possible later effect of an action, decision, etc." To be adjusted implies to be changed in order to be made "suitable for a particular purpose or situation". Change denotes "to become different", regardless of the direction of the alteration. Consistency means to keep "to the same principles".
The analyses presented build above all on my own interpretations of primary sources, i.e. official documents such as the Swedish Aliens Act and its preparatory documents, European Union treaties, conventions and other documents, party and government bills and party programs, and interviews with party representatives.
In the Introduction, Chapter 1, I start out from Lane's article "Some theoretical notes on institutional autonomy". Empirical examples, in this part of the paper, as well as in other parts, build primarily on articles in the Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter. The pre-analysis carried out is mainly based on the Agreement of the Nordic Passport Union (SÖ 1958:24 with subsequent amendments; Wikrén & Sandesjö 1992), the External Frontiers Convention (see below), Olseke 1992, the Treaty of Rome (in Treaties establishing the European Communities), the Treaty on European Union, and the Schengen Convention (Convention applying the Schengen Agreement of the 14 June 1985). Translations from Swedish originals are my own. Where not stated, italics are added.
Chapter 2 provides summaries of, and comments on, previously available academic studies and governmental reports. This part of the paper thus makes clear the official "level of knowledge" when it comes to refugee policy in a European Union perspective, and, hopefully, adds new insights to the subsequent analyses. For more details, please see the introductions given in Chapter 2.
Thereafter, we find Chapter 3 on refugee policy in Sweden and the European Union. The opening part analysis of the Swedish Aliens Act start out from an official English translation of "Utlänningslag (1989:529)" (Aliens Act (1989:529) Aliens Ordinance (1989:547); available from the Swedish Ministry of Culture). Supplementary details originate essentially from government bill 1988/89:86 proposing the Aliens Act of 1989. Also other government bills have been examined, primarily 1983/84:144 and 1993/94:94.
The part analysis of the agreements in the European Union is built on documents coming from the interstate cooperation accomplished prior to the coming into force of the Treaty on European Union, and on the Treaty on European Union itself. Primarily the following documents have been used:
Also the European Commission's Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the right of asylum has been quoted. Together with subsequent recommendations, resolutions and conclusions, the specified conventions and the report, thus form the basis for this part analysis. All of the titles can be found in the list of references at the end of this paper. All documents are copies of the English originals and they make up all the relevant documents available to the public.
When finally analysing the "implications for Swedish refugee policy" with the two previous part analysis as basis, secondary sources, such as Melander & Nobel 1984, Wikrén & Sandesjö 1992 and Olseke 1992, have been to my assistance.
What about Chapter 4 on refugee politics? To recapitulate, as I have compared the parties' refugee policies at two different points of time, i.e. 1989 and 1993, I have only included the parties with seats in the Parliament in each of these years in the analysis.
When analysing party policies in 1989, I start out from the protocol of the parliamentary debate held prior to the passing of the Aliens Act. Thereafter, party bills introduced in 1989 and committee report 1988/89:SfU19 have been examined.
During 1993, four of the selected political parties published programmes on refugee policy; Moderate Party: En flyktingpolitik för 1990-talet (March 1993); Center Party: Flyktingpolitik i fokus (August 1993); Social Democratic Party: Gemensamt ansvar (May 1993); Left Party: Vänsterpartiet och flyktingpolitiken (June 1993).
The analysis of the parties' refugee policies in 1993 takes these programmes as its starting point. In addition, party bills introduced in 1993, and committee report 1992/93:SfU7, have been examined. The printed material is then complemented by interviews made in January 1994 with party representatives. When it comes to the Liberal Party, I rely almost exclusively on an interview, since this party has neither published any programme on refugee policy, nor introduced any party bill on refugee policy during 1993.
In Chapter 5, I sum up the two previous chapters, discuss "harmonization" and "Swedish refugee politics and the European Union", before making the final conclusions concerning the "implications for Swedish refugee policy" and examining the question whether Swedish membership in the European Union is "a case for an adjusted refugee policy".
After the last chapter follows a one-page summary of the whole paper and a list of references. Appended to the paper is a summary of Olseke 1992: EG, Sverige & flyktingpolitiken.
When it comes to the Swedish legal documents, I have to finally emphasize that concerning practice, I account for what is prescribed in the preparatory documents, i.e. government bills. I do not examine whether practice have changed between 1989 and 1993/94. Such an inquiry was requested in 1993 by the Swedish Ministry of Culture and subsequently presented in April 1994.