scholarly journals Interception Practices in Europe and Their Implications

Refuge ◽  
2003 ◽  
pp. 25-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Areti Sianni
Keyword(s):  
The European Union ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Control Functions ◽  
Migration Control ◽  
State Obligations ◽  
Eu Policies ◽  
And Migration ◽  
Immigration And Asylum ◽  
The Right

The dilemma of reconciling migration control functions and State obligations for refugee protection has underlined much of the immigration and asylum debate in the European Union. In recent years, numerous measures have been introduced to block access to refugee status determination. This paper focuses on EU policies of non-entrée as they relate to the interception of individuals en route to Europe. It argues that there is a fundamental imbalance in the Union’s activities relating to asylum and migration management with recent measures having the effect of undermining the right to seek asylum and effectively blocking access to protection.

The Right to Seek – Revisited. On the UN Human Rights Declaration Article 14 and Access to Asylum Procedures in the EU

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 439-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Gammeltoft-Hansen ◽  
Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Universal Declaration ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Eu Policy ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Migration Control ◽  
Eu Policies ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article compares the "right to seek and enjoy asylum" enshrined in Art. 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the current EU policy developments to "externalize" or "extraterritorialise" migration control and refugee protection. Examining the genesis of Art. 14 during the negotiations of the Universal Declaration, it is argued that while Art. 14 clearly falls short of granting a substantive right to be granted asylum, its formulation was intended to maintain a procedural right – the right to an asylum process. While the Universal Declaration is not a legally binding instrument, going back to the fundamental norms expressed herein nonetheless provides an important starting point for evaluating current policies, especially in light of recent critiques against overly expansive interpretation of human rights law. As such, the article concludes that the current EU policies to shift migration control and refugee protection away from Europe in important respects contravenes "the right to seek asylum" as it was conceived exactly 60 years ago.

Part III Regional Regimes, Ch.19 Regional Refugee Regimes: Europe

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsourdi Evangelia (Lilian)
Keyword(s):  
European Convention ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Border Control ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Asylum Law ◽  
And Migration ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines refugee protection in Europe, defining Europe based on its two distinct legal regimes, the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe (CoE). The EU and its Member States have developed a regional asylum framework, encompassing legislative, responsibility-allocation, and practical components. In parallel, EU border control, visa, and migration measures impact asylum by deflecting protection obligations to non-EU countries. The chapter then analyses the EU’s ambivalent asylum system before turning to the CoE, focusing on both the European Convention on Human Rights and soft law adopted in the CoE framework. EU asylum law has an expansive impact beyond the EU, including in neighbouring non-EU countries. To illustrate these expansive trends, the chapter looks at refugee protection in Turkey and Ukraine.

Between Persecution and Protection: Refugees and the New European Asylum Policy

2000 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 169-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
Asylum Policy ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Amsterdam Treaty ◽  
European Court ◽  
Common Policies ◽  
The Right

The admission, reception and treatment of asylum seekers in the European Union has been an issue of continuing political and legal concern throughout the 1990’s. The rising numbers of persons seeking protection at the beginning of the period coupled with a rapidly developing regional jurisprudence on the right to protection from the European Court of Human Rights in particular, changed the nature of the debate. The Member States began to search for common policies and practices as regards asylum through intergovernmental measures. With the Amsterdam Treaty, the most important aspects of asylum have been transferred to the EC Treaty: criteria and mechanisms for determining which Member State is responsible for considering an application for asylum; minimum standards on reception of asylum seekers; minimum standards with respect to the qualification of nationals of third countries as refugees; minimum standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status amongst others.

Discretion, Competence and Migration in the European Union

1999 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Underlying Structure ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Asylum Policy ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
And Migration ◽  
Immigration And Asylum ◽  
Community Legal Order

AbstractThis article considers the underlying structure of Community law on migration. It examines the fundamental elements of the Community legal order as they apply to immigration and how those elements have been used to regulate the position of third country nationals. It then looks at the inter-governmental approach to immigration and asylum policy which the Member States have pursued and poses some questions about how these two strands of law and policy meet within the new competences of the Community in respect of immigration and asylum.

scholarly journals Canada's Refugee Status Determination System and the International Norm of Independence

Refuge ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 79-102
Author(s):  
Gerald P. Heckman
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
International Norm ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Canadian Immigration ◽  
Determination System ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights

Refugee protection decisions engage migrants’ fundamental life, liberty, and security of the person interests. As a result, refugee protection claimants enjoy institutional and procedural rights under conventional international law. These include the right to a fair adjudication of their protection claims by an independent tribunal. To be independent, a tribunal must meet the formal guarantees of security of tenure, financial security, and administrative independence and must actually be independent, in appearance and practice, from the executive and legislature, particularly in the appointments process. Refugee protection decisions must be made by first instance adjudicative bodies that either fully comply with the requirements of tribunal independence or whose decisions are subject to subsequent review by a tribunal that meets these requirements and has sufficient jurisdiction over the merits of the dispute. The Canadian refugee protection system fails, in certain respects, to meet international standards of independence. The Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board’s Refugee Protection Division enjoys statutory, objective badges of independence and appears to operate independently of the executive. However, the independence of Canadian officials engaged in eligibility determinations and in pre-removal risk assessments is very much in question because they have a closer relationship to executive law enforcement functions.

scholarly journals From the Mediterranean to the Baltic: the problem of implementing the principle of solidarity in the EU area of immigration and asylum

Baltic Region ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 17-31
Author(s):  
Vadim V. Voynikov
Keyword(s):  
Two Dimensions ◽  
Majority Voting ◽  
The Political ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Immigration And Asylum ◽  
The Baltic ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The 2015 migration crisis significantly affected the EU’s area of freedom, security, and justice and challenged the cohesion and solidarity of the European Union. Although the crisis is past its peak, it is not over yet: problems and challenges associated with it persist. One of them is the lack of a common approach among member states to the implementation of the principle of solidarity in the EU area of immigration and asylum. This work aims to consider the legal and political aspects of the implementation of the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility in the area of immigration and asylum. This study relies on the works of Russian and international experts in European integration and European law and on the analysis of EU regulations. There are two dimensions to the implementation of the princi­ple of solidarity: the political and legal ones. The legal perspective provides certain clarity to the issue. According to the European Court of Justice, this principle is binding: it is capable of imposing the legal obligation of solidarity. However, as to the political perspective, mem­ber states have not been able to reach compromise. Although it is possible to introduce a permanent relocation mechanism using qualified majority voting, the Council usually seeks consensus. In this situation, the goal of the EU is not to ensure the right decision but rather to create conditions for it to be implemented by all the member states.

24. The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: EU justice and home affairs law and policy

2020 ◽  
pp. 557-579
Author(s):  
Marios Costa ◽  
Steve Peers
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Irregular Migrants ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Eu Policies ◽  
Immigration And Asylum ◽  
Legislative Measures

This chapter examines the European Union (EU) home affairs law and policy, known in EU law as ‘the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ)’. It discusses the provisions of EU law on immigration and asylum (refugees and subsidiary protection) regulating the entry and residence of non-EU citizens, distinguishing between legal and unauthorised entry (controls at the border and expulsion and detention of irregular migrants), and the protection given to third -country nationals by a range of legislative measures. It also introduces the legal framework for the EU’s criminal justice policies, including the link between substantive criminal law and other EU policies.

Part VI Refugee Rights and Realities, Ch.48 The Right to Asylum

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gil-Bazo María-Teresa ◽  
Guild Elspeth
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Current State ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Holistic Interpretation ◽  
The Right ◽  
International Instruments

This chapter explores the right to asylum in international law of universal and regional scope, including the right to seek asylum and the right to be granted asylum,. It does so by examining the evolution of asylum in international law and practice, as well as the jurisprudence of a number of courts, most notably the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Asylum, understood as ‘the protection that a State grants on its territory or in some other place under the control of certain of its organs to a person who comes to seek it’, is a well-known institution in international law and its historical roots in State practice are well established. Asylum is different from refugee status, as the former constitutes an institution for protection, while the latter refers to the content of the protection offered to those who meet the refugee definitions under the relevant international instruments. The chapter then offers a critique of the current state of play regarding asylum, refugee status, and international protection, including in the context of the Global Compact on Refugees. It looks at trends arising in regional contexts and analyses their contribution to a holistic interpretation of States’ obligations towards refugees and others in need of protection.

scholarly journals Third State Obligations under the ICESCR: A Case Study of EU Sugar Policy

2007 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wouter Vandenhole
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Living ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The South ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Surplus Production ◽  
State Obligations ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

AbstractObligations incumbent on other states than the domestic state party under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) are contested. By way of case study, the third state obligation to respect under the ICESCR is identified and clarified through a human rights assessment of the EU sugar regime. It is submitted that the European Union (EU) member states, all of which are states parties to the ICESCR, are in violation of their third state obligation to respect the right to an adequate standard of living of small sugar producers in the South by support for or condonation of the regime of sugar subsidies for surplus production and export dumping to the South.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document