Search

While Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming a key element in supporting the migration and border management policies of the European Union and its Member States, so far, AI‐based migration technologies have been tested and implemented with limited public scrutiny. In this context, the EU AI Act holds the promise of a regulation in line with the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law. While Member States are bound by existing EU legislation when deploying AI, the Act represents the first attempt to regulate this technology in migration and border management. This paper examines the evolution of the Act throughout the negotiation process and its potential to hold actors involved in AI‐driven migration technology accountable, thereby promoting the rule of law. It argues that while the regulation offers promising and important elements, a closer examination brings to light important concerns about its ability to ensure accountability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the article is to fill a gap in the literature on the externalisation of immigration control by focusing not on practices of extraterritorial immigration control but on the externalisation of immigration control at the EU external border. The article will examine four parallel and inter‐related trends of preventive injustice on the border: the denial of law and pushbacks, and their handling by judicial authorities and EU institutions and agencies; the emerging framework of the instrumentalisation of migration; the normalisation of border procedures based on the fiction of 'non‐entry'; and detention of third‐country nationals at the border, to back up non‐entry policies. The article will highlight the rule of law deficit such externalisation entails. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The endorsement/affirmation of the Global Compact on Migration and the Global Compact for Refugees in December 2018 has been accompanied by an intense discussion about the need to introduce new norms in these fields and about the actual legal force of the respective provisions. There was and there persists an open contrast between the openly declared non‐bindingness of these Compacts and the widespread fear that they would either severely constrain national sovereignty in highly delicate areas or dilute arduously achieved standards (especially with regard to refugee law). Eventually, this whole discussion leads to the question about the meaning and the status of soft law in international law. With regard to the European Union, the transformative impact of the Global Compacts will depend on whether the EU further proceeds on its path of "emancipation" from international law while internally finding no consensus on the values here at issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the author discusses the various topics within the issue, including migration, asylum, and the European Union (EU) return system.