4.1 Turkish Workers under the EEC–Turkey Association Agreement

After the examination of the evolution of the free movement framework in Chapter 2, and the ambition of extending rights to TCN workers regardless of their country of origin in Chapter 3, this chapter addresses the special arrangements made to regulate migration from specific third countries. First, it will be shown how social and economic objectives, paired with favourable economic circumstances, laid the foundation for the extensive protection of Turkish workers under the EEC–Turkey Association Agreement. Then, Section 4.2 shows how economic cooperation with specific countries that were crucial for supplying migrant labour led to the attribution of rights to third-country nationals, despite their exclusion from primary and secondary law. Finally, Section 4.3 turns to enlargement processes and investigates how Accession Treaties concluded during this period were framed in light of ensuring the promotion of economic objectives, while limiting migration rights for nationals of acceding states. The analysis reveals the constant attempts by EU institutions to ensure that migration policy is aligned with the objectives of growth and progress, and thereby with the economic and social pillars of sustainability.

The EEC–Turkey Agreement was concluded in 1963 with a view to preparing Turkey for eventual accession to the EU. Such an evolution has not materialized to this day.Footnote ¹ Despite the fact that the accession has not occurred, the rights granted by this agreement to Turkish workers are quite extensive, especially as judicially interpreted, as we will see in Chapter 7. Due to this, their privileged status compared to other third country-national workers has been acknowledged in scholarship.Footnote ² The aim of the EEC–Turkey Agreement enshrined in Article 2 was the continuous and balanced strengthening of economic relations between the parties, taking into account the need to ensure both the economic and social development of Turkey. In addition, the importance of Turkish workers for the development of the EU and for the functioning of the Turkish economy was acknowledged by all parties.Footnote ³

Labour migration was regulated in the Agreement in the following way. Article 12 provided that the parties should be guided by Articles 48, 49, and 50 EC Treaty for the purpose of progressively securing free movement of workers. Article 36 of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement provided that free movement of workers between Turkey and the Community must be secured by progressive stages in the period between the end of the twelfth and the twenty-second year after the entry into force of the agreement subject to rules adopted by the Association Council.Footnote ⁴ Article 37 provided that Turkish nationals employed in the Member States should enjoy equal treatment as regards conditions of work and remuneration. Finally, under Article 38, the Association Council had the possibility to return to issues related to the geographical and occupational mobility of Turkish workers in order to facilitate their employment in the Member States as the association progressed. Article 39 provided that the Association Council would eventually adopt social security measures for the workers and their families, whereas under Article 40, it could make recommendations for the exchange of young workers guided by Article 50 EC.

In the progressive development of the Association, the Association Council adopted specific decisions in order to implement Article 12 of the Agreement and Article 36 of the Additional protocol.Footnote ⁵ During the process of negotiating these decisions, the Turkish side put continued emphasis on the need to ensure priority for its nationals in the EU labour market.Footnote ⁶ The Community resisted this prioritization as inconceivable, since, in parallel to this Agreement, it was negotiating Association Agreements with all the countries from which it received migrant workers. Next to the Association concluded with Greece, it was negotiating with the Maghreb countries and Yugoslavia, which were also labour-exporting countries.Footnote ⁷ Thus, giving priority to Turkish workers would necessarily mean giving priority to all the other countries under negotiation, which would make the provision pointless.Footnote ⁸ At the same time, Member State delegations invoked issues of political (in relation to antagonisms with other Mediterranean countries with which they had historical bonds), economic (in relation to the effects such a priority would have in case of a potential recession in the Community economies), and technical nature (in relation to the practical procedure of recruitment).Footnote ⁹

Despite this, the Community sought to find a solution for a rational use of Turkish workers that could assist in the harmonious economic development of both the Community and Turkey.Footnote ¹⁰ What could be offered to achieve this was the implementation of the principle of non-discrimination by an analogous application of Article 48(2) EC, and the easing of restrictions to professional and geographic mobility within the Member States in a more preferential way compared to other migrant workers.Footnote ¹¹ In this regard, the position of economic and social considerations and their effects on the rights granted to migrant workers in the context of International Agreements was correctly conceptualized by Edoardo Martino, the Community Commissioner for External Relations in the period of 1967–1970, during a speech to the EEC–Turkey Joined Parliamentary Committee.

In this passage, Mr Martino suggested that the issue of granting rights to Turkish workers was very much dependent on what these workers brought to the Community markets in terms of technical expertise, and the prevailing economic conditions in the Member States. As long as there was a favourable economic climate, experienced workers would be needed to cover labour demands, and the question of granting them free movement rights became theoretical. The legal protection to be accorded to migrant workers should then be seen as closely tied to the economic conditions existing at the time when the relevant legal instruments are negotiated.

Ultimately, the rights of Turkish workers were established in Decision 2/76 adopted as the first stage in securing free movement of Turkish workers, and Decision 1/80 intended to improve the treatment of workers and their families in the social field. These Decisions provided that Turkish workers duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a member would be entitled, after a specified period of legal employment, to free access to any employment of their choice. What is more, Turkey succeeded in securing a priority status in the Community labour market, a provision which, together with the aims of the Agreement and the function of Turkish workers, can be seen as the basis for the differentiated treatment of Turkish workers compared to other TCN workers as we shall see in Section 7.1.1.Footnote ¹³

These Decisions also included safeguard clauses. Article 6 of Decision 2/76 and Article 12 of Decision No 1/80 provided that in cases where a Member State experienced or anticipated disturbances in the labour market which could affect the standard of living or level of employment in a region, branch of activity, or occupation, it could refrain from granting rights to Turkish workers and their families. This safeguard clause should be seen in parallel to Article 15 of Decision 1/80, which provided that the Association Committee should exchange information on the economic and social situation in Turkey and the outlook of the labour market to ensure that the provisions of the Decision do not cause the danger of disturbance of the Member States’ employment markets. Decision 3/80 was also adopted to coordinate social security for Turkish workers.Footnote ¹⁴

It should be noted that EEC–Turkey Agreement and its implementing Decisions did not create a right of residence for Turkish migrant workers. Member States maintained competence on regulating the admission of Turkish workers and their families under national law. What was regulated was the progressive access of Turkish workers to the Community labour market by a system based on attribution of rights depending on the period the migrant workers had spent under employment. Arguably, rights were earned by Turkish workers to the extent that they contributed to the Community project of growth by their long participation in national labour markets. The specific provisions that regulated this attribution of rights are examined in more detail in Chapter 7, together with the case-law which interpreted them. In the relevant analysis, it becomes apparent that not only the aim of the agreement but also the function of the individual migrant was taken into account by the Court in interpreting the provisions of the EEC–Turkey Agreement and its implementing Decisions.

4.2 A Minimum Right to Non-discrimination in Association Agreements

Provisions granting rights to TCN workers were also included in agreements concluded by the EU with countries from which it traditionally imported labour. Next to the Association Agreements concluded with Greece and Turkey, which foresaw the possibility of Accession, the first Cooperation Agreements that included labour migration clauses were signed with Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia in the 1970s.Footnote ¹⁵ These Agreements had the purpose of contributing to the economic and social development of these third countries.Footnote ¹⁶ They established cooperation in the field of labour, which was guided by similar provisions in all three Agreements. At the time of their negotiation, workers from Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia were employed in large numbers in various Member States.Footnote ¹⁷ The countries of origin of TCN migrants were suffering extreme demographic pressures and had no means to finance the creation of new employment.Footnote ¹⁸ Migrant work in the Community was crucial for their development, as it both eased pressure in the local employment markets and supported national economies through remittances. This support raised the purchasing power of the countries of origin, which was then used to the benefit of Europe.Footnote ¹⁹

For this reason, the third counties tried to ensure some type of preferential access to employment for their nationals.Footnote ²⁰ The interdependence created between their economies and the Community, due to the labour export from the former to the latter, meant that it would be inconceivable for any cooperation not to cover labour-related questions.Footnote ²¹ However, the Community was not willing to grant preferential treatment to workers from Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, mostly because Greece and Turkey were negotiating similar advantages at the time, and they too had a large number of workers employed in the Member States. The Commission held that any advantage for Maghreb countries would have to be extended to Greece and Turkey.Footnote ²²

However, the Commission also held that it that was ‘natural’ for any cooperation to include a guarantee of non-discrimination on working conditions and remuneration.Footnote ²³ After all, these migrants had ‘contributed, and continue to contribute to Europe’s economic development’.Footnote ²⁴ The final version of the Agreements eventually provided for equal treatment of Moroccan, Algerian, and Tunisian nationals as regards working conditions and remuneration.Footnote ²⁵ Further, the Agreements provided that TCNs of the associated countries and their family members would enjoy equal treatment in the field of social security.Footnote ²⁶

The changing economic and political circumstances that existed in the EU in the late 1970s called for a reconsideration of its approach to its Mediterranean partners. Specifically, the rise in unemployment in Member States, the introduction of restrictive migration policies to stem the inflow of foreign workers, in order to address both the lack of jobs and the need to integrate existing migrant labour and the completion of the South enlargement, whose candidates traditionally supplied migrant labour to the Community, limited the potential of large-scale migration from the Mediterranean region, as the relevant labour supply could not be absorbed.Footnote ²⁷

During this period, the Community suggested an approach to its cooperation with South Mediterranean that would emphasize both the rights of TCN workers employed in the Community and their function in the development process in their country of origin. A Commission Communication on the matter mentions: ‘The Community owes much of its prosperity to migrant workers – it cannot now refuse its responsibility for their future. It should increase its efforts to give them true equality in their conditions of life and work.’Footnote ²⁸ The Commission also mentioned the need for measures to support integration of workers and their families in the host countries.Footnote ²⁹ Once more in this context we see that the functional role of the migrant sets the basis for the attribution of rights at the Community level in a discourse that is identical to the Commission’s approach for both Community and third-country nationals.

At the same time, clauses like the ones found in the Association Agreements with the Mediterranean were not included in the agreements regulating the cooperation of the EU with the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP). At the time of conclusion of the Treaty of Rome, decolonization was under way, and the founding states set up a framework that would allow them to maintain trade with their former colonies, while excluding nationals of these countries from free movement.Footnote ³⁰ Scholars have engaged with how this exclusion privileged the interests of European states over the rights of former colonial subjects.Footnote ³¹ These interests were indeed privileged, with no consideration given to obligations of the Member States towards their former colonies. Archival material shows that underdevelopment of these states and the unskilled nature of their labour force were the reasons put forward for this exclusion.Footnote ³² As the Community states had no need for unskilled labour, the inclusion of the former colonial subjects in the free movement regime would only bring economic risks.

As decolonization proceeded and the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) gained independence, various Conventions were put in place to establish trade cooperation with no mention of migrant’s rights.Footnote ³³ It was not until late 1970s, in the Lomé II Convention, that the parties attached a Declaration on the matter. The Declaration provided that states would accord migrant workers legally employed in their territory equal treatment as regards working conditions and pay. The Declaration also provided that migrant workers and their families were entitled to enjoy equal treatment as regards social security benefits linked to employment.Footnote ³⁴ A similar Declaration was attached to Lomé III, supplemented by another Declaration acknowledging that migrant workers and their families would enjoy in the host state the fundamental freedoms derived from general principles of international law as well as treatment free from discrimination on the basis of race, religious, cultural, and social differences.Footnote ³⁵ Under Article 31 VCLT, Declarations are to be taken into account for the purposes of interpretation of international agreements. Given that no provision of Lomé included any obligation as regards migrant workers and the non-binding status of the declarations, they were unlikely to directly confer rights to migrant workers.Footnote ³⁶ Equal treatment eventually made it into the Agreement in Lomé IV. Article 5, which made extensive references to human rights in the context of development and cooperation of the parties, provided under paragraph 2 that migrant workers must not be discriminated against on the basis of racial, religious, cultural, or social differences not only as regards employment but also as regards housing, education, healthcare, and other social services.Footnote ³⁷ In parallel to this, the Joint Declaration specifying the equal treatment rights of migrant workers and their families was maintained as formulated in Lomé III.Footnote ³⁸

Overall, these agreements were not framed with the aim of creating rights for migrant workers to enter Member States. Rather they demanded the effective protection of workers who were already resident and employed in Member States under national law. Given the significant presence of migrants from the associated states in the Community labour market, the guarantee of equal treatment was inserted to ensure their social advancement by an entitlement to a certain level of protection as regards working conditions, remuneration, and social security, as compensation for their contribution to the common market. Behind such rights is the demand that migration does not only support the growth of Community industries but also the fair treatment of the migrants, thereby ensuring social progress at the individual level and social cohesion at the Member State level. The way the demands for rights were incorporated in these Agreements showcases a balancing between economic and social objectives similar to what would be conveyed today in the concept of economic and social sustainability.

4.3 Avoiding the Presumed Negative Effects of Migration in Accession Treaties

Previous sections have examined the frameworks creating rights of different extent for migrant workers from third countries (from progressive access to employment and security of residence for Turkish nationals to social rights for migrants under Association Agreements). This section considers the in-between category of migrants whose states of origin were about to become a part of the Community growth project.

Accession to the Community did not take place in an unregulated manner. Various clauses were inserted in different Accession Treaties, and the enlargement process became differentiated over the years, to minimize the economic risks that could be caused by extending free movement of workers to all nationals of the acceding states. This differentiation took into account the circumstances of the acceding states in terms of economic development, as well as the extent to which they were already labour-exporting countries to the other Member States.

The first enlargement took place through the accession of the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Denmark in the 1970s. The relevant Accession Treaty provided the nationals of the acceding Member States with direct access to the free movement of workers framework. During the decade of negotiation that led to this enlargement, issues related to migration did not come up. From the perspective of the founding six, the UK, Denmark, and Ireland did not pose any risk in that respect, as they were not emigration countries. As a result, there was no prospect of migration flows that could cause any disruption to the Community labour market. From the perspective of the acceding states, the issue of migration appeared in a marginal way in the negotiations, and was of relevance solely in the internal politics of the UK.Footnote ³⁹ In this regard, no transitional period was set as to the application of free movement of workers provisions. This meant that UK, Irish, and Danish nationals immediately enjoyed free movement rights as Community workers.

Despite the fact there was no migration-related risk, the Accession Treaty included a general safeguard clause under Article 135(1), which allowed both old and new Member States to apply for authorization to take protective measures in case of difficulties ‘which are serious and liable to persist in any sector of the economy or which could bring about serious deterioration in the economic situation of a given area’. Such an application was subject to the review of the Commission under Article 135(2). This general safeguard clause was similar to that of Article 226 of the Treaty of Rome. In this respect, it added nothing novel to the Community framework. The first free movement regulations examined in Section 4.1 also had clauses allowing derogations by Member States in case of national unemployment.Footnote ⁴⁰ Finally, the Member States also attached a declaration to the Accession Treaty, where they acknowledged that free movement of workers might potentially create difficulties for the social situation of Member States.Footnote ⁴¹ As a result, they reserved the right to bring the matter before the Community institutions, should such difficulties arise, in order to tackle it from within Community law.

In contrast to this first enlargement, which included safeguards despite the absence of risks, the Accession Treaties signed with Greece in 1979 and Spain and Portugal in 1985 were differentiated to take into account risks related to potential migration flows. In these cases, the risks stemmed from the fact that the candidate states were traditional emigration states and were less economically developed compared to the other members of the Community club. In the first enlargement, there existed a level of homogeneity between the founding and the acceding Member States.Footnote ⁴² Their level of development and industrialization was similar, allowing a smooth transition in a common market focused on promoting economic growth and social progress. Greece, Spain, and Portugal, on the other hand, were considered developing countries.Footnote ⁴³ Despite individual differences, they had recently transitioned to democracy and were all lagging behind the Community in terms of economic development.Footnote ⁴⁴ Their economies were primarily based on agriculture, their rate of economic growth was not as high as that of the Community Member States, they were facing problems with unemployment, and they were already countries of origin of labour migration to the Community.Footnote ⁴⁵ In this context, a Commission analysis on labour migration from Greece, Spain, and Portugal noted:

The difference in economic and social conditions between the acceding countries and the Member States created the risk of high concentration of migrant workers in the more developed regions of the Community. This concern was particularly connected with anticipated migration from Spain.Footnote ⁴⁷ There, the demographic prediction showed an anticipated growth in young population seeking their first job. As the Commission stated in its Opinion on the Spanish Accession, this created ‘some justification for the fear that there would be a sudden flood of immigrants if access to employment were to be made completely free upon accession’.Footnote ⁴⁸ This, in connection with the higher unemployment in the Community, created the necessity for extended transitional periods in order to allow the gradual and ‘orderly’ introduction of free movement.Footnote ⁴⁹ Safeguard clauses were also considered next to the progressive liberalization of free movement to address ‘erratic movements of labour’.Footnote ⁵⁰

Against this backdrop, the accession of the southern Member States was differentiated by the introduction of transitional arrangements specific to free movement of workers.Footnote ⁵¹ In the case of Greece, for a fixed period of six years, Greek workers would not be able to participate in the free movement framework.Footnote ⁵² During that period, Member States were allowed to regulate labour migration under national law, and thereby require prior authorization for migration of Greek workers to their territories. The members of the workers’ family were equally excluded from access to the labour market, albeit for a shorter period of five years.Footnote ⁵³ As for Greek labour migrants who were already employed in Member States at the time of accession, members of their family would be allowed to independently take up work, if they had already resided with the worker for three years in the territory of the Member State where they sought employment.Footnote ⁵⁴ From 1984 onwards, this requirement would be limited to eighteen months prior residence. This Accession Treaty also included the general safeguard clause that appeared in the first accession, allowing for protective measures to be adopted by the old Member States or Greece in case of serious problems which could bring deterioration in the economic situation in any given area for a period of six years.Footnote ⁵⁵

Similar transitional measures were adopted in the Portuguese and Spanish accession of 1985. The accession envisaged a fixed period of seven years, during which labour migration from the acceding countries would be regulated under national law or bilateral agreements.Footnote ⁵⁶ With respect to Luxembourg, the relevant transitional period was extended to ten years.Footnote ⁵⁷ A new element, added for the first time in this Accession Treaty, is that the Community could subsequently review the transitional period and adjust the measures in place for Spanish and Portuguese workers within five years following the accession.Footnote ⁵⁸ As for migrant workers employed prior to accession, members of their families residing with them would be allowed to immediately take up employment. Nevertheless, the Accession Treaty provided that such a right could be limited where special bilateral agreements put in place before the Accession Treaty provided for a different treatment.Footnote ⁵⁹ As for Spanish and Portuguese workers who moved after the accession, their family members would be allowed to independently take up work if they had already resided with the worker for three years in the territory of the Member State where they sought employment. From 1989 onwards, this requirement would be limited to eighteen months prior residence.Footnote ⁶⁰ This accession also included the same general safeguard clause, which allowed for protective measures to be adopted for a period of seven years and which was extended to ten years for Luxembourg due to the difficulties related specifically to its employment market.Footnote ⁶¹

The Accession Treaties did not make any differentiation as to how migrant workers who had been employed in Member States prior to accession should be treated during the transitional period. This gap was filled by the Court. In Peskeloglou and Lopes da Veiga, the Court dealt with restrictive policies against migrant workers and their family members who were nationals of Greece and Portugal.Footnote ⁶² The migrant workers were already employed in Germany in the case of Peskeloglou, and in the Netherlands in the case of Lopes da Veiga, prior to the accession of their states of origin to the Community. In both the cases, the Court confirmed that the aim of the derogation from free movement during the transitional period prescribed in the Accession Treaties was to prevent the disruption of the labour markets caused by the potential massive influx of migrants from the acceding Member States.Footnote ⁶³ In this context, the Court held that derogations from free movement should be interpreted strictly, and should not be applied to the detriment of the migrant workers already residing in the Community Member States.Footnote ⁶⁴ In contrast to this, in Tsiotras v Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart, the Court held that an unemployed national from an acceding Member State for whom it has become objectively impossible to find employment could not enjoy any rights under Community law during the transitional period. An ex-worker national of an acceding Member State who could no longer pursue work represented a category of migration that could pose adverse effects to economic growth.Footnote ⁶⁵ Thus, only migrants actively engaged in the objective of growth and who could not pose a risk to the disruption of the labour market could enjoy Community rights during the transitional periods.

In light of this, and under a combined reading of the Accession Treaties and Regulation 1612/68 applicable to free movement of workers at the time of the Greek, Spanish, and Portuguese accession, we can infer the following. All labour migrants from the acceding states who were employed in Community Member States before or after accession would immediately benefit from the principle of equal treatment. Specifically, Article 48 EEC was subject to the transitional provisions laid down in the Accession Treaties and analysed in this section. At the same time, Regulation 1612/68, which implemented and specified how this freedom was to be enjoyed, was subject to transitional arrangements with respect to specific articles mentioned in the Accession Treaties. Article 7 of the Regulation, which constitutes a specific expression of the non-discrimination principle, was not mentioned as a provision whose application could be derogated during the transitional period. This meant that labour migrants of the acceding states who were employed in Community Member States during the transitional period fully enjoyed equal treatment.

In essence, the transitional arrangements set in place aimed at restricting free movement rights only for soon-to-be Community nationals who were suspected of seeking work in Community Member States. The fear of economic repercussions from a potential mass exodus to the north, which was a core rationale of the transitional arrangements, was unsubstantiated for one group of individuals from the acceding Member States. These were migrants who had established themselves in the Community prior to the accession and who were actively contributing to the development of the Community by participating in national labour markets as workers. Such migrants had acquired rights which should not be restricted during the transitional period.

Overall, in the regulation of accession, but also in the rest of the legal instruments which were negotiated and adopted in this period, the following characteristics can be identified. As the period was primarily characterized by demand for migrant labour, the Community agenda was quite liberal in the sense of demanding the extensive attribution of rights to migrant workers as a compensation for their participation in the project of growth. This was without consideration of nationality. Equal treatment in working conditions and social security was a bare minimum to be enjoyed by all migrant workers implicated in the Community project. In parallel, instruments which could lead to the creation of entry rights for migrants incorporated safeguard clauses to ensure that Member States can close the valve and limit potential adverse effects in case of change of economic conditions. Such safeguard clauses could not be adopted unilaterally and were instead submitted for review to the Community institutions. These were the ways in which social and economic objectives shaped the law-making during this period with due regard for parallel pursuit of growth and progress in a way which today would be called the pursuit of social and economic sustainability.

4.4 The Incorporation of Safeguards and the Attribution of Rights

Part I has engaged in a historical study of different areas of Community law that concerned the rights of migrant workers from the Treaty of Paris to the Single European Act and it highlighted the way economic and social considerations shaped the attribution of rights to migrants. The analysis has shown how economic and social objectives have affected the attribution of rights to migrants already from the establishment of Community law. It also showed that labour demand and positive economic circumstances were behind an aligned approach to both Community and TCN migrants. During the early years of the Community project and before the oil crisis, it would not have been an understatement to say that the Commission had the objective of shaping a sustainable migration. Such a plan was envisaged as based on social rights for all migrants contributing to the post-war project of growth.

Overall, the analysis showed that until the 1970s, there was nothing distinguishing Community workers and TCN workers, as both groups provided the same contribution to the Community project, and the different action plans put forward were meant to cover both.Footnote ⁶⁶ The position of the migrant in the Community legal order was based on their market participation. By being actively engaged in the Community project of growth, Community migrants ‘earned’ social rights in return. Similarly, the Community institutions were determined to extend these rights to all other migrants engaged in this project. At the same time, the archival material revealed a link between the economic benefits of migration for the Community market and the social advancement of migrants in their capacity as workers. Social progress came in the form of rights as the result of the economic function of migrants. As long as the economy continued to develop, all migrants within the territory should draw benefits from this progress. In circumstances of unhindered economic growth, the paths of regulating migration were aligned for both Community and TCN migrants.

In the early 1980s, and with the effects of the oil crisis experienced in the Member States, the category of ‘workers’ slowly became differentiated based on nationality. Member States hesitated to extend rights to all, for fear that they could not guarantee social progress for their own citizens. And while extending rights to Community migrants is supposed by a form of solidarity between the different Member States that are all implicated in the same development project, this type of solidarity cannot extend to migrants whose state of origin is not implicated in the project at all. In that context, we do see the attribution of rights to migrants in trade and cooperation agreements, but once the crisis hit, Member States hesitated to maintain such treatment. Indeed, clauses were embedded in all frameworks and controlled by Community institutions to ensure that, in all cases, economy did not collapse under the weight of the rights granted.

In general, during this period, considerations related to economic imperatives determined the limitation, the temporal attribution, and the extension of rights for migrant workers. Depending on these economic considerations, social progress came as a by-product in the form of personal rights for the migrants and derivative rights for their family. The same considerations will continue to appear throughout the regulation of migration in Parts II and III. What changes is that during the period examined in Part II, political ambitions enter the picture in relation to the rights of Community migrants, whereas thicker perceptions of social progress in the form of rights are also found in the legal system. The interdependence and parallel pursuit of economic and social objectives via the regulation of migration framed both free movement and Association Agreements as the first manifestations of a Community sustainable migration. Similar considerations also lay behind the pursuit of coordinating national migration policies and in the transitional clauses inserted in the Accession Treaties concluded in this period. Part II will investigate how such considerations evolved after the adoption of the Single European Act and until the failed Constitutional Treaty.