Research has shown that European policy-making on asylum has let to very restrictive outcomes in the intergovernmental framework of the 1990s, heavily undermining the rights of potential refugees. Explanations for this state of affairs focus predominantly on the central position of ministers of the interior – preoccupied with internal security – who are said to perceive the European level as a strategic venue to water down national legal standards on asylum and circumvent domestic veto players. Even after the progressive integration of this policy area into the EU aquis, many scholars expect venue-shopping to be a driving mechanism in this field and hence standards to be very low. However, more recent empirical findings on national asylum legislation (post-communitarisation) present a much more nuanced image: Rather than only observing more restrictive asylum policies, communitarisation has led, in some cases, even to the adoption of provisions which go beyond standards in a number of Member States. Given these contradicting observations, this paper investigates the processes behind the adaption of EU legislation in this area more closely, investigating the interaction of interests, institutions and norms. Using the example of the qualification directive and the recast qualification directive, it furthermore shows how policy-making and legislation in this field has changed over time and with the introduction of co-decision.
