Publication
EU Legal Frameworks and Colonial Legacies
| Summary: | This thesis examines whether the European Union’s migration and labor law framework functions primarily as a protector or as a curtailer of the rights of third-country nationals (TCNs) in the EU labor market. Using a mixed-methods approach that combines doctrinal legal analysis, socio-economic assessment, and historical contextualization, the study situates contemporary EU migration governance within the enduring legacies of colonialism that continue to shape migration patterns, labor hierarchies, and legal stratification. The research analyses core features of EU migration and labor law, including the legal distinction between refugees and economic migrants, the structural instability and fragmentation of EU migration legislation, and the systemic barriers that impede effective labor market integration for TCNs. Key EU legal instruments are examined to expose a persistent paradox between the Union’s formal commitments to equality, solidarity, and human dignity, and the restrictive, utilitarian, and securitized logic that often governs their implementation in practice, reflecting colonialism. Through expository case studies of Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, and Portugal, the thesis demonstrates how divergent colonial histories, political climates, administrative practices, and welfare regimes produce uneven labor outcomes for TCNs across Member States. The findings reveal that while EU migration and labor law formally articulates protective standards, it frequently undermines them through selective legal pathways, structural discrimination, and inconsistent enforcement. EU migration governance exhibits an asymmetric duality: protection for TCNs tends to be conditional and economically instrumental, whereas restriction is systemic and structurally embedded, reflecting colonial legacies and disparities in its law. |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | Silva, Victor Crespo Pinheiro da |
| Subject: | EU Migration Law EU Labor Law Third-Country Nationals Colonial Legacies Labor Market Structural Discrimination Migration Governance Decolonial Approach |
| Year: | 2026 |
| Country: | Portugal |
| Document type: | master thesis |
| Access type: | embargoed access |
| Associated institution: | Universidade Nova de Lisboa |
| Language: | English |
| Origin: | Repositório Institucional da UNL |
| Summary: | This thesis examines whether the European Union’s migration and labor law framework functions primarily as a protector or as a curtailer of the rights of third-country nationals (TCNs) in the EU labor market. Using a mixed-methods approach that combines doctrinal legal analysis, socio-economic assessment, and historical contextualization, the study situates contemporary EU migration governance within the enduring legacies of colonialism that continue to shape migration patterns, labor hierarchies, and legal stratification. The research analyses core features of EU migration and labor law, including the legal distinction between refugees and economic migrants, the structural instability and fragmentation of EU migration legislation, and the systemic barriers that impede effective labor market integration for TCNs. Key EU legal instruments are examined to expose a persistent paradox between the Union’s formal commitments to equality, solidarity, and human dignity, and the restrictive, utilitarian, and securitized logic that often governs their implementation in practice, reflecting colonialism. Through expository case studies of Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, and Portugal, the thesis demonstrates how divergent colonial histories, political climates, administrative practices, and welfare regimes produce uneven labor outcomes for TCNs across Member States. The findings reveal that while EU migration and labor law formally articulates protective standards, it frequently undermines them through selective legal pathways, structural discrimination, and inconsistent enforcement. EU migration governance exhibits an asymmetric duality: protection for TCNs tends to be conditional and economically instrumental, whereas restriction is systemic and structurally embedded, reflecting colonial legacies and disparities in its law. |
|---|