scholarly journals THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE DETAINED PERSONS

2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Iveta Adijāne
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Illegal Immigration ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
The Other ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Entry Regulations ◽  
The Eu

The recent incidents in the EU prove the fact that the problem of prevention of illegal immigration exists and becomes more and more urgent. The number of detained foreigners increases and enrages the whole EU migration policy. However, we cannot speak only about the security of the EU member states, on the other side of the problem there are foreigners, who due to different reasons have broken residence and entry regulations. And the most important here we have to remember about is the human rights of the detained foreigners. It does not matter where and when somebody is, no one can infringe his or her rights, which according to the definite normative acts should be respected and recognised by all control institutions. At the same time foreigners have to respect our laws, which define their duties. Latvia still gets in touch with the problems connected with both applying foreigners’ rights and providing fulfilment of duties.

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 Rule of Law Framework in the European Union: Its Rationale, Origins, Role and International Ramifications

2021 ◽  
pp. 305-331
Author(s):  
Artur Nowak-Far
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Eu

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.

Human Rights in EU Migration Laws and Policies

2021 ◽  
pp. 463-538
Author(s):  
Jan Wouters ◽  
Michal Ovádek
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Immigration And Emigration ◽  
Free Movement Of Workers ◽  
Treaty Of Rome ◽  
Laws And Policies ◽  
The Eu

This chapter analyses the tools used as part of EU migration policy and argues that these are very much focused on control which has negative implications for the human rights of migrants. The EU's current status as a major international player in migration governance has become only possible after the development of the relevant competences on migration and asylum. The original Treaty of Rome included no provisions on migration other than those ushering in the free movement of workers among EU Member States. Today, the free movement of EU Member State nationals has been incorporated into the notion of EU citizenship which does not create a new and separate bond of nationality between the EU and the citizen, but refers to a collection of rights, duties, and political participation stemming from EU law. While the notion of migration covers both immigration and emigration, the chapter focuses on the laws and policies regulating immigration into the EU and briefly touches upon third country nationals' (TCNs) rights of residence and movement within the EU.

EU Migration Policy: Evolving Ideas of Responsibility and Protection

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Haddad
Keyword(s):  
Forced Migration ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Eu

AbstractWhile humanitarian intervention in cases of state instability remains a disputed concept in international law, there is consensus in the international community over the need to provide protection to refugees, one of the corollaries of such instability. Using the European Union (EU) as a case study, this article takes a policy perspective to examine competing conceptions of both 'responsibility' and 'protection' among EU Member States. Responsibility can be seen either as the duty to move refugees around the EU such that each Member State takes its fair share, or the duty to assist those Member States who receive the highest numbers of migrants due to geography by way of practical and financial help. Similarly, protection can imply that which the EU offers within its boundaries, encompassed within the Common European Asylum System, or something broader that looks at where people are coming from and seeks to work with countries of origin and transit to provide protection outside the Union and tackle the causes of forced migration. Whether one or both of these concepts comes to dominate policy discourse over the long-term, the challenge will be to ensure an uncompromised understanding of protection among policy-makers.

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 EU ASYLUM SYSTEM IN AND AFTER THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: DISCLOSING THE WEAKNESSES OF THE CURRENT RULES AND ASSESSING THE PROSPECTS OF THE NEW PACT ON MIGRATION AND ASYLUM

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bojana Čučković
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Current Phase ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Emergency Situations ◽  
Human Rights Standards ◽  
The Eu

The paper analyses the influence that the Covid-19 pandemic has had on the functioning of the European asylum system. The analysis is divided into three parts and addresses problematic issues associated with different stages of the pandemic. In the first part of the paper, the author outlines the asylum practices of EU Member States in the initial stage of the Covid-19 pandemic during which the pandemic was perceived as a state of emergency. By exploring the legal possibilities to derogate both from the EU asylum rules and international human rights standards, the author offers conclusions as regards limits of derogations and the legality of Member States’ practices, especially their failure to differentiate between rules that are susceptive of being derogated in emergency situations and those that are not. The second part of the paper analyses the current phase of the pandemic in which it is perceived as a 'new normal' and focuses on making the EU asylum system immune to Covid-19 influence to the greatest extent possible and in line with relevant EU and human rights rules. The author insists on the vulnerability as an inherent feature of persons in need of international protection and researches upon the relationship between the two competing interests involved – protection of asylum seekers and ensuring public health as a legitimate reason for restricting certain asylum seekers’ rights. The final part of the paper analyses the prospects of the future EU asylum system, as announced by the New Pact on Migration and Asylum in September 2020, to adapt to the exigencies of both the current Covid-19 crisis and pandemics that are yet to come. With an exclusive focus on referral to Covid-19 and provisions relevant for the current and future pandemics, the author criticizes several solutions included in the instruments that make up the Pact. It is concluded that the Pact failed to offer solutions for problems experienced during the Covid-19 pandemic and that, under the pretext of public health, it prioritizes the interests of Member States over the interests of applicants for international protection.

scholarly journals Beyond emergency measures: The need for a holistic and truly European approach to migration

European View ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-171
Author(s):  
Loredana Teodorescu
Keyword(s):  
Migration Policy ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Approach ◽  
Irregular Migrant ◽  
Emergency Measures ◽  
The Eu

Since mid-2017 there has been a reduction in irregular migrant arrivals, and this has partially been attributed to the various initiatives undertaken by the EU. However, migration remains a controversial and pressing issue for which the EU is still struggling to find an adequate and shared response. Migration has become a divisive issue among EU member states, calling into question the meaning of solidarity within the EU and within the member states themselves. This article argues that it is time to move beyond short-term emergency measures and work on a long-term, holistic and truly European approach to migration, combining internal and external policies. Reinforcing control of the European borders will not be enough. While it is necessary to reduce the number of irregular arrivals, the EU needs to equip itself with a future-proof, efficient migration policy that also addresses the Union’s internal weaknesses, as the challenge is not only to reduce the number of arrivals, but also to increase the capacity to manage the flows.

scholarly journals Human Rights in the EU Return Policy: The Case of the EU-Albania Relations

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sokol Dedja
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Return Policy ◽  
The Third ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Effectiveness And Efficiency ◽  
Return Process ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The examination of the approach of the EU return policy to Albania – a country to which the EU returns about one fifth of the total number of the third country nationals removed – demonstrates that the predominant focus of the EU return policy on the effectiveness and efficiency of returns has left little room for safeguarding the human rights of the returnees. The article finds that the return procedures of the readmission agreement that should guarantee the protection of human rights in the return process are not observed by the EU member states. There are insufficient guarantees that the reception and possible detention of returnees in Albania will offer a dignified treatment. Moreover, the readmission agreement opens the way for the return of asylum seekers to Albania in line with the ‘safe third country’ practice in the absence of conditions that ensure effective access to fair and efficient asylum procedures and protection in the country.

Resolution 2300 (Council of Eur. Parl. Assembly)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 487-494
Author(s):  
David Lewis
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
The Eu

This Resolution was adopted in October 2019 following a report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. It has to be seen in the context of previous Council of Europe activity on this topic as well as the European Union (EU) Directive on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. The content of the EU Directive was agreed earlier in 2019 and EU Member States are obliged to transpose it into national legislation by December 2021.

scholarly journals Prisoner Transfer Within the Irish-UK Common Travel Area (CTA) After Brexit: Human Rights Between Politics and Penal Reform

2020 ◽  
pp. 002201832097752
Author(s):  
Tim J Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Penal Reform ◽  
Long Duration ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

The UK Government proposed in February 2020 that sentenced prisoner transfers with EU member states should continue after Brexit, but using a more ‘effective’ process than the existing CoE convention. The article analyses, with a particular focus on the Irish-UK CTA, the significance of continued UK human rights compliance for the achievement of this objective and the interrelationship of this issue with extradition/surrender (including the surrender of fugitive prisoners). It is concluded that Brexit has most probably raised the level of formal and institutional human rights compliance (including legal aid/assistance and the direct enforcement of prisoners’ rights in domestic courts) required from the UK for criminal justice cooperation with EU member states. Entering into such undertakings would not assist criminal impunity or the evasion of lawfully imposed penalties. Such undertakings, however, cannot help to resolve many problems inherent in prisoner transfer within the EU. The creation of a truly effective and rehabilitative transfer system would require (a) constructive UK Government participation in inter-governmental (including the UK devolved governments)/EU arrangements capable of incrementally resolving or effectively mitigating criminal justice cooperation problems and (b) acceptance at Westminster that this aspect of post-Brexit readjustment is likely to be intermittent and of long-duration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document