EU migration policy and human rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 438-456
Author(s):  
Elina Pirjatanniemi ◽  
Maija Mustaniemi-Laakso
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Reform Process ◽  
Member States ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Solid Foundation ◽  
Current Reform ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Eu

This chapter presents some of the tensions in the objectives and rationales between the fields of immigration control and human rights protection in the current EU migration policies. As it stands today, the common EU policy on asylum appears to struggle to find a solid foundation and solutions in regard of both solidarity among the different EU states and the effective realisation of human rights. The focus on securitisation and policies of non-entrée in the EU asylum structures together with a lack of solidarity among Member States have contributed to a situation where the protection of refugees has in many ways had to give way to strategic considerations of migration management. With this background, the chapter addresses the current reform process of the joint EU asylum system as an opening to opt for an approach that more coherently recognises the human rights obligations that the EU and its Member States owe to asylum seekers and migrants.

The EU’s engagement with its Member States on human rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 137-170
Author(s):  
Jan Wouters
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Reciprocal Relationship ◽  
Member States ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
The Eu

The European Union’s (EU’s or Union’s) own Member States are themselves bound, under the Treaties, to respect and promote human rights. However, in recent years, the consensus over human rights has been challenged by what has been called ‘backsliding’ in some Member States. This chapter captures the reciprocal relationship between the EU and its Member States with regard to human rights protection and promotion and surveys how the EU may engage with the Member States to uphold human rights throughout the Union. It examines the channels—legal, political/diplomatic, and others—through which they impact each other in this field. A number of opportunities and challenges are identified, followed by a set of recommendations.

“Unity in Diversity” Reloaded: The European Court of Human Rights’ Turn to Subsidiarity and its Consequences

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-123
Author(s):  
Mikael Rask Madsen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Reform Process ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Unity In Diversity ◽  
The Common ◽  
Individual Justice

Abstract The European Convention of Human Rights system was originally created to sound the alarm if democracy was threatened in the member states. Yet, it eventually developed into a very different system with a focus on providing individual justice in an ever growing number of member states. This transformation has raised fundamental questions as to the level of difference and diversity allowed within the common European human rights space. Was the system to rest on minimum standards with room for domestic differences, or was it to create uniform standards? These questions have come up as increasingly contentious issues over the past years and have triggered a number of reforms seeking to introduce more subsidiarity in the system, striking a different balance between the European and national oversight of human rights. The article analyses this turn to subsidiarity by exploring whether the reform process has introduced new forms of difference and diversity within the common space of European human rights. Covering the period from 2000 to the end of 2019 and using a dataset of all judgments of the period, the article provides a structural analysis of developments in reference to the margin of appreciation which is the European Court of Human Rights’ long-standing tool for balancing the common standards, yet leaving space for individual member states to find local solutions to implementing those standards. It concludes that recent developments have contributed to a more federal-style construction of European human rights with more space for differences within the common general standards.

scholarly journals The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence in the Polish Social Safeguard System

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Magdalena Tabernacka
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Violence Against Women ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Protective Function ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Heated Debate ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Common

The ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence in Poland was preceded by a heated debate. From the very beginning it was be object of political battles between the conservative and liberal circles. Culturally and socially conditioned position of women has influenced its operation and the scope of its implementation. The Convention is a universally binding tool which guarantees the protection of human rights in events of violence against the woman and children. The case of this Convention in Poland proofs the existence of a universal European understanding of human rights protection standards. The Convention thus has a protective function not only for individuals but also, in a broader context, for the common European cultural identity.

The EU’s engagement with foreign powers on human rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 265-292
Author(s):  
Francisca Costa Reis ◽  
Weiyuan Gao ◽  
Vineet Hegde
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Cohesive Group ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Economic Partnership ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Eu

With a mandate under the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union (EU) has been engaging with foreign powers like Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) nations on human rights issues. Despite the common and shared goals, the BRICS set-up is not institutionalised, which prompts the EU to engage with each country on a bilateral basis. Such collaborations have occurred in bilateral dialogues, multilateral fora, through developmental assistance, and negotiations in economic partnership agreements. The scope and content of the discussions and cooperation vary due to the difference in the political structures of the countries. While the EU and the BRICS may share some common goals politically and economically, pursuing shared objectives related to democracy and human rights promotion remains challenging. These countries may believe in human rights protection, but the understandings and the approaches vary drastically, as visible when issues of sovereignty and non-intervention are raised to resist comprehensive discussions. Although the BRICS are emerging as an interconnected group and have begun to cooperate more closely in multilateral fora, the EU may also have to consider dealing with it in its institutional capacity. It could be more challenging to fulfill the mandate of the Lisbon Treaty for the EU while dealing with this cohesive group that has different understandings on human rights protection within their own states.

1 The Court Over Sixty Years

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nussberger Angelika
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
Member States ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Violent Conflicts

This introductory chapter provides a background of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a multilateral treaty based on humanism and rule of law. Similar to the—albeit non-binding—Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the ECHR is a document that marks a change in philosophy and gives a new definition of the responsibility of the State towards the individual. It fixes basic values in times of change and paves the way towards reconciliation in Europe. Unlike in a peace treaty, not all wartime enemies participate in its elaboration, but, one by one, all the European States accede to it, signalling their consent to the values fixed by a small community of States in the early 1950s. Seven decades later, forty-seven European States have ratified the Convention. Admittedly, the new start based on common values could not prevent the outbreak of violent conflicts between Member States. At the same time, the resurgence of anti-democratic tendencies could not be successfully banned in all Member States, but such tendencies could be stigmatized as grave human rights violations in binding judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Thus, it is not surprising that the European model of human rights protection has been attractive and inspirational for other parts of the world. Nevertheless, there was and is a debate in some Member States to withdraw from the Convention as the Court’s jurisprudence is seen to be too intrusive on national sovereignty.

The normative framework of the EU’s commitment to human rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 79-116
Author(s):  
Chiara Altafin ◽  
Karin Lukas ◽  
Manfred Nowak
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Double Standards ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Normative Framework ◽  
The Eu

The chapter presents and assesses the various normative layers—domestic, European, regional, international—on which the European Union’s (EU’s) commitment to human rights is built. It analyses the interaction of EU primary law, general principles of law derived from constitutional traditions of Member States, and international human rights law, including relevant regional instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter, and the Istanbul Convention. It is contended that, despite an impressive and pioneering normative framework on human rights, the EU currently faces a number of challenges that call for a strong stance on human rights realisation in all areas of its competence and influence. Enduring deficiencies in the relevant normative framework include the absence of a fully fledged EU competence to legislate in the area of human rights protection and the application of ‘double standards’ in the EU’s approach to human rights internally and externally, leading to a deep divide between internal and external policies guided by starkly different logics. Further areas of concern include the difficulties of the Charter of Fundamental Rights implementation in view of EU institutions and Member States’ competencies, which have become particularly apparent in the EU’s response to the Eurozone crisis and the arising tensions between EU and Member States’ austerity measures, as well as the uneven nature of the EU and Member States’ human rights obligations with regard to the international legal framework, leading to gaps and overlaps.

EU Asylum Law and Human Rights Protection: Revisiting the Principle of Non-refoulement and the Prohibition of Torture and Other Forms of Ill-treatment

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Júlia Mink
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Norms ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Asylum Law ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The principal objective of the article is to examine the EU legal framework and international law parameters of legal harmonisation processes in a specific field of human rights protection: asylum legislation. In particular, it is to provide an in-depth analysis of the compatibility of EU asylum legislation with existing international norms in relation to the principle of non-refoulement and the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. It also aims at exploring the correspondence and controversies of relevant legal principles and norms under international law. Similarly, it attempts to provide an analysis of the incomplete and inefficient implementation of these international norms and principles by EU asylum law as well.

The EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: A Lack of Fundamental Rights, Mutual Trust and Democracy?

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 53-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sionaidh Douglas-Scott
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Identity ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Legal Accountability ◽  
To Come ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe EU’s ‘Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ is a hugely important area covering criminal law, terrorism, immigration, visa control and civil justice, as well as the massive area of free movement of persons. What is clear, however, is that measures which fall within its scope have the capacity to alienate EU citizens rather than making them feel aware of their European identity in a positive sense. This chapter examines some of the measures taken by the EU in this broad field which cause particular concern, namely a lack of democratic and legal accountability as well as inadequate regard to human rights. It focuses in particular on two areas in which human rights protection in the EU has been undermined. The first is in the field of data protection. The second is in the field of suspects’ rights, particularly in the context of the European arrest warrant. The chapter concludes by considering why so many restrictions on freedom have been allowed to come about and suggests some possible solutions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document