scholarly journals Detention as the Default: How Greece, with the support of the EU, is generalizing administrative detention of migrants

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasilis Papastergiou

Putting migrants and asylum seekers into detention for administrative reasons is a common practice in Greece, despite this policy contravening human rights. Greek authorities are using detention and the new EU-funded closed compounds as a way to discourage people from seeking asylum in Europe. Detention, as outlined in Greek law, should only be used as a final resort and only then in specific instances. Detention carries with it not only a financial cost, but also a considerable moral cost. Detention without just cause violates basic human rights, such as freedom of movement, the right to health and the right to family life. Alternatives to detention exist and must be prioritized.

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sunčana Roksandić ◽  
Krešimir Mamić ◽  
Robert Mikac

This research article aims to provide answers on how COVID-19 pandemics influenced migration law, policy responses, and practices in Croatia, particularly concerning migrants on the Western Balkan route. Throughout the EU, governments have reinstituted border controls in the Schengen region and any “nonessential travel” to the EU has been suspended. In this study, it is analyzed whether asylum seekers have been denied entry in violation of international refugee law and whether immigration officers held detainees because of the risks posed by COVID-19 alongside Croatian borders. In addition, the study addresses the question whether and to what degree the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the overall approach toward migrants and their access to services, primarily the right to health care. Also, it is researched whether facilities for migrants and asylum seekers have appropriate health care and whether the measures imposed by the Croatian Institute of Public Health and by the National Emergency Response Team are respected when dealing with migrants. In addition, it is researched whether the EU, UN, and WHO policies and recommendation concerning COVID-19 and migrants, where applicable, are respected in the Republic of Croatia and whether specific policies concerning migrants and COVID-19 were introduced. All legislation, policy responses, and practices will be critically approached and examined. The text will make proposals for implementation of best practices and policy responses for migrants in the context of COVID-19. All statistical data that are necessary for this research are requested from the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Croatia.


2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon Alexander

AbstractICESCR article 12 generously grants “everyone” the right to the highest attainable standard of mental and physical health. Ironically, “everyone” is reduced to “most” when held up to scrutiny, but certainly includes migrants. Migrants are entitled to the full realization of the right to health regardless of their legal or immigration status. This realization is threatened as States restrict health care, via legal and financial means, in order to punish undocumented migrants and deter migration. One such State is Sweden where the recent “Law Concerning Health Care for Asylum Seekers and Others” caused one progressive Parliamentarian to lament that its restrictive policies regarding health care and undocumented migrants would put Sweden in the “humanitarian bottom league”. Indeed, Swedish legislation, practice and policy are generally inconsistent with its international human rights obligations towards undocumented migrants, asylum seekers and refugees and their right to health. Undocumented migrants are entitled to unsubsidized health care only in immediate and emergency situations. Care is difficult to access and prohibitively expensive in many cases. Asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers who are not in hiding are only entitled to subsidized maternity care, care that cannot wait or emergency care. Moreover, a lack of cultural competence amongst caretakers may have a detrimental impact on the quality of care given to these migrants. Consequently, Swedish practice and policy are often at odds with its international human rights law obligations. This threatens to relegate a State that has always been considered a member of the “humanitarian major league” to a one that wallows in the “humanitarian bottom league”.


Refuge ◽  
2006 ◽  
pp. 81-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvie Da Lomba

The problematization of asylum has detrimentally impacted on the provision of support for asylum seekers in host countries. The threat of destitution has become instrumental in restrictive asylum policies and is increasingly used as a deterrent against asylum seeking. The EU experience reveals acute tensions between the EU asylum agenda and the EU Member States’ obligations under international refugee and human rights law. The provision of support for asylum seekers challenges narrow approaches to the realization of socio-economic rights for “others” and to host countries’ duties in that respect. The EU Reception Conditions Directive, which aims to set out standards for the reception of asylum seekers across the Union, exemplifies this predicament. Yet international refugee and human rights law provides a legal framework that establishes minimum standards critical to dignified living for asylum seekers and the protection of the right to seek refugee status in the EU and beyond.


2020 ◽  
pp. 629-646
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey ◽  
Pamela McCormick ◽  
Clare Ovey

This chapter examines the protection of the freedom of movement in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), explains the provisions of Protocols 4 and 7, and discusses the prohibition of expulsion of nationals and the right of entry to the territory of the State of nationality. It describes the complaints of violations of the freedom of movement provisions of Protocols 4 and 7, and analyses the Strasbourg Court’s interpretation of these provisions, considering the reasons given for restrictions of movement. The chapter also considers the case-law on the collective expulsion of asylum seekers and migrants who have sought protection in Europe.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 376
Author(s):  
Valentyn Zolka ◽  
Olha Tsarenko ◽  
Iryna Kushnir ◽  
Serhii Tsarenko ◽  
Roman Havrik

The article discusses the impact of the pandemic COVID-19 on the human rights, in particular, the right to freedom of movement and free choice of residence. The purpose of the article is to investigate whether the restrictions implemented to prevent spread of the infection were legitimate and necessary. The concept and content of the right to free movement according to Ukrainian legislation has been investigated. The legitimate grounds for restriction of human rights were analyzed. The state of compliance of Ukrainian legislation with the legislation of the EU and world standards was revealed. The range of issues that Ukraine faced during the pandemic COVID-19 and limitations of human rights were disclosed. Particular attention was paid to legal acts which implemented such limitations. It was revealed that the approach of the Ukrainian legislator while implementing restrictions of human rights was unconstitutional and violated fundamental human freedoms. General and special scientific methods were used in the process of research, such as dialectical, comparative, dogmatic and legal methods.


Author(s):  
Gillian MacNaughton ◽  
Mariah McGill

For over two decades, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has taken a leading role in promoting human rights globally by building the capacity of people to claim their rights and governments to fulfill their obligations. This chapter examines the extent to which the right to health has evolved in the work of the OHCHR since 1994, drawing on archival records of OHCHR publications and initiatives, as well as interviews with OHCHR staff and external experts on the right to health. Analyzing this history, the chapter then points to factors that have facilitated or inhibited the mainstreaming of the right to health within the OHCHR, including (1) an increasing acceptance of economic and social rights as real human rights, (2) right-to-health champions among the leadership, (3) limited capacity and resources, and (4) challenges in moving beyond conceptualization to implementation of the right to health.


Author(s):  
Lawrence O. Gostin ◽  
Benjamin Mason Meier

This chapter introduces the foundational importance of human rights for global health, providing a theoretical basis for the edited volume by laying out the role of human rights under international law as a normative basis for public health. By addressing public health harms as human rights violations, international law has offered global standards by which to frame government responsibilities and evaluate health practices, providing legal accountability in global health policy. The authors trace the historical foundations for understanding the development of human rights and the role of human rights in protecting and promoting health since the end of World War II and the birth of the United Nations. Examining the development of human rights under international law, the authors introduce the right to health as an encompassing right to health care and underlying determinants of health, exploring this right alongside other “health-related human rights.”


Author(s):  
Sarah Song

Chapter 6 examines three rights-based arguments for freedom of movement across borders. Three rights-based arguments have been offered in support of freedom of international movement. The first claims that freedom of movement is a fundamental human right in itself. The second adopts a “cantilever” strategy, arguing that freedom of international movement is a logical extension of existing fundamental rights, including the right of domestic free movement and the right to exit one’s country. The third argument is libertarian: international free movement is necessary to respect individual freedom of association and contract. This chapter shows why these arguments fail to justify a general right to free movement across the globe. What is morally required is not a general right of international free movement but an approach that privileges those whose basic human rights are at stake.


Author(s):  
Guido Raimondi

This article comments on four important judgments given by the European Court of Human Rights in 2016. Al-Dulimi v. Switzerland addresses the issue of how, in the context of sanctions regimes created by the UN Security Council, European states should reconcile their obligations under the UN Charter with their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to respect the fundamentals of European public order. Baka v. Hungary concerns the separation of powers and judicial independence, in particular the need for procedural safeguards to protect judges against unjustified removal from office and to protect their legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary is a judgment on the interpretation of the Convention, featuring a review of the “living instrument” approach. Avotiņš v. Latvia addresses the principle of mutual trust within the EU legal order and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document