Authors: Müge Dalkıran & Pelin Kılınçarslan, Koç University (KU
Increasingly, Intergovernmental Return Frameworks (IRFs) have become an important instrument for the return and readmission cooperation between EU+ countries and non-EU countries. While some negotiations lead to conclude an IRF relatively quickly, others take years or remain unresolved. These differences raise questions about success and effectiveness of negotiation processes. Alongside the conditions shaping the conclusion of IRFs, it is also important to assess the legitimacy of their negotiation processes and outcomes.
Building on the analysis presented in the accompanying FAiR working paper, this policy brief draws on four constellations of negotiating factors: interest asymmetry and insufficient reciprocal incentives (EU-Nigeria), converging interests and credible issue linkage (EU-Georgia), political urgency and reciprocal dependence (the March 2016 EU-Türkiye Statement), and institutional trust and pragmatic cooperation (Poland-Ukraine and Switzerland-Nigeria). These constellations illustrate how different combinations of factors shape the conclusion and legitimacy of IRFs and provide the basis for the policy recommendations presented in this brief. These constellations demonstrate how different combinations of factors can facilitate or constrain agreement, while also raising questions about whose interests are represented in negotiations (input legitimacy), the transparency and accountability of negotiation processes (throughput legitimacy), the effectiveness and acceptability of cooperation outcomes (output legitimacy), and compliance with applicable legal standards (legal legitimacy). They also show that there is no single pathway to conclusion and that reaching an agreement does not necessarily ensure its legitimacy.