This study offers a comprehensive comparative analysis of labour market integration policies for refugees in Sweden and Germany following the 2015 refugee crisis. Adapting an institutional approach that includes new historical institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism and sociological institutionalism, this study analyses the policy changes in both countries. The research design is a most similar design to compare and find differences and similarities in both countries, and the methodology is a qualitative comparative analysis. The research concentrates on the elements of policy change – displacement, layering, conversion and drift- to explain the modifications in response to the crisis. The study reveals significant similarities and differences between the two countries. Both Sweden and Germany implemented strategies to support refugee integration into the labour market, although with different approaches. The historical legacies, societal perspectives, and institutional frameworks of each country influenced the execution of these policies.

La crise du droit d’asile au sein de l’Union Européenne fait aujourd’hui l’objet de préoccupations récurrentes. En plus de celle-ci, les personnes qui recherchent une protection dans l’ « espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice » de l’Union, se trouvent face à une autre crise, celle du droit à l’asile. A partir de ce constat, il est apparu pertinent de s’interroger sur les droits des demandeurs d’asile dans le cadre du régime d’asile européen commun (RAEC). Plus précisément, il s’agit de l’étude de l’effectivité des droits confrontés aux obstacles d’accès à l’Union Européenne et aux procédures d’asile de ses Etats membres, des droits liés à la procédure d’examen des demandes d’asile et des droits dont les personnes disposent pendant cet examen. La protection de ces droits, en plus du problème traditionnel de la mise en oeuvre des engagements internationaux au niveau national, a été confrontée à un nouveau régime régional ainsi qu’à une harmonisation ambiguë. A travers l’étude des droits, cette recherche vise à démontrer les causes de la crise et à proposer éventuellement des solutions orientées vers le respect du Droit International pour sortir de celle-ci, afin de contribuer à l’amélioration de la condition des demandeurs d’asile dans l’espace européen. A cet effet, notre approche est également comparatiste car l’examen des deux exemples concrets sert d’outil d’analyse, de réflexion et enfin d’évaluation du RAEC, qui a commencé à répartir les charges au sein de l’Union Européenne par le mécanisme de Dublin avant que les procédures d’examen des demandes d’asile ainsi que les conditions d’accueil dans les Etats membres aient été harmonisées. Une analyse de droit comparé entre deux Etats membres, en l’espèce la France et la Grèce, nous semble en effet s’imposer, afin de démontrer les enjeux actuels de l’harmonisation européenne en matière d’asile et d’éclairer les défis de la protection des droits. / The crisis of asylum law within the European Union is currently the subject of recurring concerns. In addition to that, people who seek protection in the "area of freedom, security and justice" of the European Union, face another crisis, that of the right to asylum. Following this observation, it seems relevant to consider the rights of asylum seekers under the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). More specifically, we study the effectiveness of rights before the obstacles of access to the European Union and its Member States’ asylum procedures, the rights related to the procedure for examining asylum applications and the rights accorded during this examination. The protection of these rights, in addition to the traditional problem of the implementation of international commitments at national level, was faced with a new regional system as well as an ambiguous harmonization. Through the study of human rights, this research aims to demonstrate the causes of the crisis, to propose possible solutions oriented to the respect of international law and contribute to the improvement of the status of asylum seekers in the European space. To this end, our approach is also comparative because the examination of two concrete examples is useful for analysis, reflection and finally evaluation of the CEAS, which began to distribute the burden in the European Union by the Dublin mechanism before the examination procedures and reception conditions in the member states have been harmonized. A comparative law analysis between two member states, France and Greece, it seems to be necessary in order to demonstrate the current challenges of European harmonization on asylum and illuminate the challenges of rights’ protection.Keywords :

<p>This paper studies the structural issues concerning possible human rights violations found in the Dublin Regulation; An EU regulation aiming to allocate a responsible member state to a third-country-nationals asylum application. It is one of the criticized legal documents within the scholarly field of human rights. Hence, this study aims to study the details of the regulation to find out the elements of the regulation that are prone to human rights violations. Asking the question: What are some details of the Dublin Regulation that could potentially result in human rights violation of the third-country nationals seeking international protection within the territory of member states? Hence, exploring the gap found between the regulation and human rights of the asylum seekers. This was done by a normative legal analysis study of the law, studying the text of the regulation, relevant human rights law, and jurisprudence from two courts of law: ECHR and ECJ. The findings of the study highlights, first, the regulation upholds only the superficial elements of human rights law. Second, the regulation assumes that every member state is a safe country. Third, there is an imbalance of responsibility on either of the two or more member states involved. These are the details of the regulation highlighted in this study that is potentially the result of possible human rights violations and the criticism of the topic. </p>