Facing the Refugee Challenge in Europe: A Litmus Test for the European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-260
Author(s):  
Cecilia Rizcallah
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Integration ◽  
Legal Perspective ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Litmus Test ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

Abstract According to mainstream discourse, the EU is facing a ‘refugee crisis’ due to a mass influx of asylum seekers, which is putting the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) under pressure. Although this article acknowledges that the CEAS is currently under pressure, it aims to take a different view from the assumption that the—admittedly significant—arrival of asylum seekers constitutes in itself a problem for the EU. It suggests that the problems encountered by the CEAS are rather symptomatic of a deeper gridlock resulting from this system’s lack of compliance with two main EU’s fundamental values, the respect of which constitutes the ‘fundamental premise’ of EU integration, namely solidarity and human rights. From both an historical and a legal perspective, the EU is indeed founded on a set of values comprising the respect of human rights and solidarity. The treaties further require their respect internally (i.e. Articles 2 and 6 TEU), but also vis-à-vis the rest of the world (i.e. Articles 3(5) and 21 TEU). However, the current responses to the arrival of asylum-seekers are, in several respects, in contradiction with these founding values. On the one hand, the internal management of the influx of refugees reveals a lack of solidarity and results in breaches of asylum-seekers’ fundamental rights. On the other, the EU’s asylum policy does not meet the requirement according to which the Union shall, in its relations with the wider world, uphold and promote these values. These observations lead us to believe that facing the refugee challenge constitutes, from a normative perspective at least, a litmus test for the EU at large. Indeed, the EU’s difficulties in dealing with the arrival of the asylum seekers—which have already been the subject of extensive research—appear to be the evidence of an identity crisis. The way the EU, hand in hand with its Member States, responds to this challenge thus amounts to a ‘decisively indicative test’ for its normative foundations that are a prerequisite for the viability of the entire undertaking, and, notably, of the principle of mutual trust.

Human rights and the rule of law in judicial cooperation in criminal matters under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442199593
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Schomburg ◽  
Anna Oehmichen ◽  
Katrin Kayß
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

As human rights have increasingly gained importance at the European Union level, this article examines the remaining scope of human rights protection under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. While some international human rights instruments remain applicable, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union did not become part of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). The consequences, especially the inapplicability of the internationalised ne bis in idem principle, are analysed. Furthermore, the conditionality of the TCA in general as well as the specific conditionality for judicial cooperation in criminal matters are discussed. In this context, the risk that cooperation may cease at any moment if any Member State or the UK leave the European Convention of Human Rights is highlighted. Lastly, the authors raise the problem of the lack of judicial review, as the Court of Justice of the European Union is no longer competent.

scholarly journals The European Union's policy on human rights and Chinese sovereignism: The case of Xinjiang

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-86
Author(s):  
Dragan Trailovic
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
The Other ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The One ◽  
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region ◽  
Rights Issues ◽  
The Eu

The article explores the European Union's approach to human rights issues in China through the processes of bilateral and multilateral dialogue on human rights between the EU and the People's Republic of China, on the one hand. On the other hand, the paper deals with the analysis of the EU's human rights policy in the specific case of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which is examined through normative and political activities of the EU, its institutions and individual member states. Besides, the paper examines China's response to the European Union's human rights approaches, in general, but also when it comes to the specific case of UAR Xinjiang. ?his is done through a review of China's discourse and behaviour within the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue framework, but also at the UN level and within the framework of bilateral relations with individual member states. The paper aims to show whether and how the characteristics of the EU's general approach to human rights in China are reflected in the individual case of Xinjiang. Particular attention shall be given to the differentiation of member states in terms of their approach to human rights issues in China, which is conditioned by the discrepancy between their political values, normative interests and ideational factors, on the one hand, and material factors and economic interests, on the other. Also, the paper aims to show the important features of the different views of the European Union and the Chinese state on the very role of Human Rights Dialogue, as well as their different understandings of the concept of human rights itself. The study concluded that the characteristics of the Union's general approach to human rights in China, as well as the different perceptions of human rights issues between China and the EU, were manifested in the same way in the case of UAR Xinjiang.

scholarly journals The European Union and Violence Against Women: Fundamental Rights and Con Games

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
R Amy Elman ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Violence Against Women ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Genital Mutilation ◽  
Institutional Actors ◽  
Human Rights Violation ◽  
Istanbul Convention ◽  
Female Genital ◽  
The Eu

Deciphering the European Union’s (EU) commitment to countering violence against women is challenging. To date, much of its response has been rhetorical. This article opens with a brief consideration of the EU’s first few initiatives to counter violence against women before turning to the polity’s enthusiastic endorsement of the Council of Europe’s 2011 Istanbul Convention, which defines such violence as a human rights violation. Not least, it offers a critical analysis of the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency’s 2014 survey on violence against women, the world’s largest international survey of its kind. That inquiry involved 42,000 in-person interviews with a representative sample of approximately 1,500 women (aged 18-74) across all of the EU’s then 28 Member States. After examining the Agency’s survey and its subsequent report in the context of those efforts that preceded it, the article suggests the EU’s rhetoric and related programs for women may conceal the more controversial manifestations of the violence directed at them. For example, the Agency’s survey excluded female genital mutilation from the rubric of violence against women. One finds a similar reluctance on the part of the Agency and other institutional actors across the EU to address the eroticized commodification of violence in prostitution and pornography that pervade the polity’s common market. Despite the EU’s occasional pronouncements to the contrary, it appears violence against women is a human rights violation that the polity deliberately circumscribes and perfunctorily condemns.

Harmonisation of Asylum Law and Policy within the European Union: A Human Rights Perspective

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-184
Author(s):  
Hannah R. Garry
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Asylum Policy ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Amsterdam Treaty ◽  
Asylum Law ◽  
The Eu

From 1986 to the present, there has been a dramatic increase in the numbers of asylum applications within the borders of the European Union largely from Eastern European countries and former colonies in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Reacting to the influxes of the 1980s, European States began to implement and coordinate policies to control entry of asylum seekers. Within this climate, the EU has moved towards harmonisation of asylum policy and procedure as necessary for its pursuit of an ‘area of freedom, security and justice’ without internal borders for the purpose of greater economic and political integration. In light of the current restrictive attitudes and practice towards asylum seekers in the individual Member States of the EU, the harmonisation of asylum policy through the institutions and law of the EU may prove to be problematic from a human rights perspective. This paper first traces the development of a common asylum policy within the EU through the Maastricht Treaty and the Amsterdam Treaty. Second, this paper analyses the implications of harmonisation after the Amsterdam Treaty with reference to the international obligations of the Member States under international human rights and refugee law. Third, this paper critiques the development of various current asylum policies and practice through intergovernmental development of ‘soft law’. Through this overview and analysis, it is argued that further steps towards harmonisation will continue to reflect European concerns with security, economic prosperity, and cultural homogeneity unless the moves towards supranationalism within the EU framework lead to a deliberate effort to make respect for human rights the core of asylum law and policy.

scholarly journals Contradictions in Frontex Operations: the Push-back

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 85-92
Author(s):  
Gábor Kemény ◽  
Michal Vít
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Influencing Factors ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Organisational Structure ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

The aim of the paper is to introduce the legal misfits between the standards of human rights as stated by the European Union and the Council of Europe and practical day to day experience related to EU member states. For this purpose, the article focuses on political and legal assessment of the so-called pushbacks at the Greek-Turkish external border and introduces the influencing factors, such as the various interpretation of the legislation, differences in the organisational structure and values. Authors concluded that these factors are endangering the fulfilment of the fundamental rights and the efficiency of the border protection thus the security of the EU and its member states.

scholarly journals The European Union and Violence Against Women: Fundamental Rights and Con Games

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
R Amy Elman ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Violence Against Women ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Genital Mutilation ◽  
Institutional Actors ◽  
Human Rights Violation ◽  
Istanbul Convention ◽  
Female Genital ◽  
The Eu

Deciphering the European Union’s (EU) commitment to countering violence against women is challenging. To date, much of its response has been rhetorical. This article opens with a brief consideration of the EU’s first few initiatives to counter violence against women before turning to the polity’s enthusiastic endorsement of the Council of Europe’s 2011 Istanbul Convention, which defines such violence as a human rights violation. Not least, it offers a critical analysis of the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency’s 2014 survey on violence against women, the world’s largest international survey of its kind. That inquiry involved 42,000 in-person interviews with a representative sample of approximately 1,500 women (aged 18-74) across all of the EU’s then 28 Member States. After examining the Agency’s survey and its subsequent report in the context of those efforts that preceded it, the article suggests the EU’s rhetoric and related programs for women may conceal the more controversial manifestations of the violence directed at them. For example, the Agency’s survey excluded female genital mutilation from the rubric of violence against women. One finds a similar reluctance on the part of the Agency and other institutional actors across the EU to address the eroticized commodification of violence in prostitution and pornography that pervade the polity’s common market. Despite the EU’s occasional pronouncements to the contrary, it appears violence against women is a human rights violation that the polity deliberately circumscribes and perfunctorily condemns.

The European Union and Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
Financial Economic ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Migration Crisis ◽  
Legislative Activities ◽  
The Eu

With the Treaty of Lisbon, the profile of human rights issues has greatly risen in relation to European Union (EU) policies, whether internal or external. The EU has made the commitment to ensure that all its actions are compliant with human rights, and to seek to promote them. Yet, the Union’s commitment has come under close scrutiny, not only for its groundbreaking character, but also because recent events have put it to the test. The EU has been faced with a number of crises such as the financial-economic crisis and the imposition of austerity measures, the migration crisis, and terrorist attacks. At the same time, the EU has made significant steps to implement its human rights commitment, such as through the binding character of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the adoption of the Strategic Framework and Action Plan on human rights and democracy, and the adoption of human rights country strategies for a large number of third countries. This volume takes stock of these developments. It comprehensively discusses the conceptualisation and operationalisation of the EU’s commitment to human rights throughout its actions, legislative activities, policies, and relationships, and critically assesses them.

EU enlargement policy and human rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 345-364
Author(s):  
Beáta Huszka ◽  
Zsolt Körtvélyesi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Eu Enlargement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Western Balkans ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
New Members ◽  
Actual Performance ◽  
Eu Integration ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
The Eu

The enlargement policy of the European Union (EU) aims at integrating new members following an accession path. EU conditionality policy is a delicate balancing exercise between keeping the partner countries on the accession path and upholding fundamental values. Enlargement countries are now concentrated, with the exception of Turkey, in the Western Balkans. A key challenge is that the current leaderships in many of these states are shifting their countries increasingly in an authoritarian direction. The EU now faces a situation of establishing illiberal regimes in the region and so far seems to lack the willingness and the tools to engage and counter this. The chapter finds that human rights conditionality seems to allow for less-than-honest domestic compliance, where the EU’s requests are (mis)used to boost the power of domestic leadership. The stated principles of the EU can clash with the state’s actual performance for various reasons, including the prioritization of more direct economic interests or security goals. Conditionality tends to remain shallow as it is built on conditions that are easy to implement and measure but remain largely formal (for example, setting up an institution, adopting legislation). In the case of the Western Balkans, our research findings indicate that the enlargement process can result in favouring strong leaders who can deliver, even if the same ‘strength’ puts human rights compliance at risk. The greatest danger is that EU integration can end up legitimising the violation of human rights by the authorities.

9. Fundamental rights in the European Union

2020 ◽  
pp. 243-282
Author(s):  
Eleanor Spaventa
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines fundamental rights in the EU. It begins by analysing the historical background and the development of the case law on fundamental rights. It then examines the main Treaty provisions relating to fundamental rights protection, before turning to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Finally, it looks at the relationship between the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including the extent to which the European Court of Human Rights agrees to scrutinize EU acts. It also considers the plan for the EU to accede to the ECHR.

scholarly journals Impartiality in the EU Asylum Procedure

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-356
Author(s):  
Pieter van Reenen
Keyword(s):  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Court ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Right To Good Administration ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The Asylum Procedures Directive stipulates that asylum applications are examined ‘impartially’ by the national authorities. This paper explores the meaning of the term impartiality in administrative settings in EU asylum law focussing on three levels: the Common European Asylum System, the administrative organisational level and the level of the individual immigration officer. CEAS does not provide for a definition of impartiality. The article connects impartiality to the right to good administration as in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. It includes jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights as well as the approach of the EU Ombudsman and EASO in its scope. These sources provide more concrete aspects of impartiality. The article is finalized with recommendations for a code of conduct.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document