scholarly journals Blurred lines: Detaining asylum seekers in Britain and France

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-68
Author(s):  
Mary Bosworth ◽  
Marion Vannier

In this article, we explore the use of immigration detention for asylum seekers in Britain and France who are awaiting removal to other European Union (EU) member states for processing under the terms of the Dublin Convention. As we will show, the emphasis on risk assessment as the grounds for detaining these people recasts humanitarian protections as security matters, effectively folding asylum seekers into a broader criminalisation of migration. A punitive response to those seeking refuge, this practice blurs the line between detention and asylum, and thereby hollows out key international human rights protections that have been central to the European project.

Author(s):  
Anastasia Poulou

Having been affected by the European financial crisis that erupted in 2008, several EU Member States required financial assistance beyond that available in the financial markets. New financial assistance mechanisms, such as the EFSF and ESM, were created under international law and all financial assistance packages included the participation of the IMF. Despite their differences, these financial assistance schemes all combined supranational and international legal instruments and institutions. The hybrid nature of this European financial assistance raises the question of whether the actors involved in the award of the assistance are bound by EU and international human rights. Against this background, this chapter assesses financial assistance conditionality as applied by the different financial institutions from an EU and international human rights perspective, aiming to respond to the question whether European and international actors are bound by human rights when preparing financial assistance conditions.


Yustitia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-158
Author(s):  
Mentari Jastisia

Immigrants are people who have fled from their country to other countries where they can be referred to as refugees or asylum seekers. There are legal instruments that regulate and provide protection for them. Arrangements for asylum seekers are contained in the 1967 Declaration of Territorial Asylum, State practice, humanitarian issues, Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Meanwhile, the arrangements for refugees are contained in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951, Protocol relating to the status of Refugees 1967, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This papers uses a normative juridical method. This juridical approach is because this research analyzes existing legal aspects, and is normative because this research focuses more on the analysis of existing laws and regulations and other regulations, using secondary data, namely scientific references or other scientific writings as study material that can support the completeness of this scientific papers. Regarding legal protection for Syrian immigrants, the same applies to immigrants from other state as regulated in the arrangements that have been regulated. Countries in the European Union implement international human rights law protections for Syrian immigrants residing in European Union countries consistently as mandated in the European Convention on Human Rights, Convention applying the Schengen Agreement dated June 14, 1985, Lisbon treaty, Dublin II Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003) 2003. The indication is that there are several countries in the European Union such as Greece, Hungary which refuse and do not want to take more responsibility for their obligations as a State related to the provisions of international human rights law to provide protection for Syrian immigrants. in Europe


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3.30) ◽  
pp. 182
Author(s):  
Syafiq Sulaiman ◽  
Salawati Mat Basir ◽  
Mohd Zamre Mohd Zahir

The protection of the right to life and the duty to rescue persons in distress at sea are the fundamental obligations under two specialized international law regimes which are the international human rights law and the law of the sea. These rules when read together form a strong protection of the human rights of the asylum-seekers stranded at sea. However, often states failed to honour this obligation for various reasons ranging from national security to economic reasons. This article will analyse Malaysia’s responsibilities as regards the right to life and the duty to rescue of these asylum-seekers. It will also identify the existing international and domestic legal framework relevant to the application of these obligations upon Malaysia and whether it has acted in breach of such obligations. The article then proceeded with suggestions for further improvement that Malaysia can adopt in order to better perform its obligations. This study is a pure doctrinal legal research which is qualitative in nature. The data used in this research is collected from library-based resources. These data were then analyzed by using methods of content analysis as well as critical analysis. The article found that Malaysia has a duty to protect the right to life under international human rights law. Additionally, Malaysia is also bound under the law of the sea to perform its duty to rescue. In view of Malaysia’s failure to perform these duties in two occasions in the past consequently had resulted in a violation of international law. Therefore, it is suggested that Malaysia should initiate a revision of its national laws and policies regarding treatment of asylum-seekers stranded at sea to be in line with Malaysia’s duty under international law. Besides, the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency is call upon to comply with the international standards of treatment of persons in distress at sea which includes the asylum-seekers.  


2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Hadjigeorgiou ◽  
Elpidoforos S. Soteriades ◽  
Anastasios Philalithis ◽  
Anna Psaroulaki ◽  
Yiannis Tselentis ◽  
...  

This paper is a comparative survey of the National Food Safety Systems (NFSS) of the European Union (EU) Member-States (MS) and the Central EU level. The main organizational structures of the NFSS, their legal frameworks, their responsibilities, their experiences, and challenges relating to food safety are discussed. Growing concerns about food safety have led the EU itself, its MS and non-EU countries, which are EU trade-partners, to review and modify their food safety systems. Our study suggests that the EU and 22 out of 27 Member States (MS) have reorganized their NFSS by establishing a single food safety authority or a similar organization on the national or central level. In addition, the study analyzes different approaches towards the establishment of such agencies. Areas where marked differences in approaches were seen included the division of responsibilities for risk assessment (RA), risk management (RM), and risk communication (RC). We found that in 12 Member States, all three areas of activity (RA, RM, and RC) are kept together, whereas in 10 Member States, risk management is functionally or institutionally separate from risk assessment and risk communication. No single ideal model for others to follow for the organization of a food safety authority was observed; however, revised NFSS, either in EU member states or at the EU central level, may be more effective from the previous arrangements, because they provide central supervision, give priority to food control programs, and maintain comprehensive risk analysis as part of their activities.


Author(s):  
Artur Nowak-Far

AbstractAt present, the European rule of law enforcement framework under Article 7 TEU (RLF) is vulnerable to unguaranteed, discretionary influences of the Member States. This vulnerability arises from its procedural format which requires high thresholds in decision-making with the effect that this procedure is prone to be terminated by the EU Member States likely to be scrutinized under it, if only they collude. Yet, the Framework may prove effective to correct serious breaches against human rights (in the context of ineffective rule of law standards). The European Commission is bound to pursue the RLF effectiveness for the sake of achieving relative uniformity of application of EU law (at large), and making the European Union a credible actor and co-creator of international legal order. The RLF is an important tool for the maintenance of relative stability of human rights and the rule of law in the EU despite natural divergence propensity resulting from the procedural autonomy of the EU Member States. By achieving this stability, the EU achieves significant political weight in international dialogue concerning human rights and the rule of law and preserves a high level of its global credibility in this context. Thus, RLF increases the EU’s effectiveness in promoting the European model of their identification and enforcement.


2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-184
Author(s):  
Hannah R. Garry

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 321-342
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi

Abstract Mauritius became a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention through succession but is yet to accede to the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. It has signed but not yet ratified the OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and has not signed the African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa. Unlike many other countries in Africa, Mauritius has not yet enacted domestic legislation dealing with the issue of refugees. However, international human rights obligations and domestic legislation allow the rights of asylum seekers to be protected in Mauritius. This article argues that the principle of non-refoulement bars Mauritius from extraditing or deporting an asylum seeker to a country where he or she will be persecuted or where his or her rights will be violated, and that asylum seekers and citizens are equally protected by the Constitution with regard to absolute rights. However, limitations may be imposed on asylum seekers in their enjoyment of non-absolute rights. For such limitations to be lawful, they must aim to achieve the objectives stipulated in section 3 of the Constitution.


2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Desmond

Even before it had been fully drafted, the un International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families was blighted by a debilitating lack of support from States. Described by one of the participants in the drafting process as the un’s best-kept secret, it remains the least popular of the ten core international human rights instruments and has not been signed or ratified by any of the 28 eu Member States. This article is the first substantive examination of the Convention in the context of the un’s universal periodic review. It suggests that the universal periodic review may give the kiss of eu life to the Convention by raising awareness of it, re-energising civil society to more actively advocate for its ratification and forcing Member States to once again justify non-ratification.


2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 753-772 ◽  
Author(s):  
MIELLE BULTERMAN

Under the UN sanctions regime of Resolution 1267, UN member states are obliged to freeze the assets of persons and entities which are associated with Usama bin Laden, and which therefore reason have been listed by the UN. Within the European Union this ‘UN sanctions list’ is implemented by means of a Community regulation, having direct effect in all EU member states. The regulation was challenged by several individuals and an organization, which were added to the UN sanctions list on the basis of their association with al Qaeda. The regulation was challenged on two grounds. First, the applicants claimed that the Community did not have the competence to adopt the contested regulation. In the second place, the applicants claimed that the Community regulation infringed their human rights (right to property, right of access to court). Thus the CFI was asked to determine to what extent it is competent indirectly to review measures adopted under the UN Charter. This delicate legal question is answered in a lengthy judgment, the legal reasoning of which is not always convincing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document