ABSTRACT
At first sight it seems paradoxical to choose the field of immigration and asylum policy as an example to critically discuss the achievements and shortcomings of the multi-level governance (MLG) model.1 It is difficult to imagine any other policy field in the EU in which national interests determine the agenda to a similar degree. At least until very recently, the unchallenged and sole prerogative of the single nation states have prevailed in this area and, thus, it appears to be perfect proof of the statecentric model in opposition to which the MLG approach is formulated. The right to control and to determine the amount, as well as the selection, of non-nationals entering into a state’s territory and to bestow these individuals with a specific set of rights and duties can be seen, next to the defence of the integrity of its borders, as the essence of the modern concept of state sovereignty. The very cautious provisions stipulated in the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties are a forceful indication of the reservation almost all member states share with regard to the potential of losing their principal jurisdiction in this domain. It is not by accident that a European immigration and asylum policy has come to be seen as a powerful mark for the degree to which nation states are willing, or better unwilling, to give up their claims to national sovereignty.
