LAUSR

ABSTRACT Research in the field of migration diplomacy has empirically focused mainly on host and transit states, meaning that their interaction with donor states and the effect of their strategies on the donor states’ decision-making has been left implicit. Building on original interviews with decision-makers, this paper provides a unique insight into the interaction between host state and donor state, and sheds light on how the strategies of the former translate into policies of the latter. The paper addresses the following research questions: how do donor countries interpret the actions of host countries, and what makes donors respond? To address these questions, the paper investigates EU decision-makers’ perceptions of the negotiations with Jordan, which led to the establishment of the EU-Jordan Compact in 2016 and its revision in 2018. Through analysis of 19 original interviews with the negotiation participants and official documents, the paper demonstrates how the EU perceived Jordan's proposal as morally justified and how this made it difficult for them to decline. Furthermore, that the threats that Jordan made were not perceived as credible and had little effect. The case demonstrates the importance of bringing donor states into the analysis when concluding on the efficiency of host state strategies.