Search

De houding van de Europese Unie en omringende landen, terugkerende angsten voor een kernoorlog en opvallende dubbelzinnigheden in het Europese asielbeleid; in dit essay bespreken Galina Cornelisse en Martijn Stronks de Europese omgang met de Russische inval in Oekraïne en de vluchtelingen. Een unicum is de toepassing van de Tijdelijke beschermingsrichtlijn. Betekent de omgang met de oorlog in Oekraïne een paradigmaverandering of is het juist een indicatie voor het voortduren van eenzelfde blik op de wereld?

Grootse maar weinig veelbelovende plannen voor de herziening van het Europees asielrecht, etnisch profileren door de Marechaussee, een langzaam in het asielrecht tot ontploffing komende bom over de herhaalde aanvragen in asielprocedures, en een scherpe uitspraak van het Hof van Justitie over gebrekkige terugkeerbesluiten voor onbegeleide kinderen. En natuurlijk nogal treurigstemmende berichten over de situatie aan de buitengrenzen van Europa. Bovendien een aantal pikante prejudiciële vragen die van grote invloed kunnen zijn op het Nederlandse beleid, zoals die over het openbare ordebeleid ten aanzien van ‘criminele vreemdelingen’ of over de ambtshalve toetsing van de voorwaarden van de bewaringsmaatregel. Maar ook de nodige voorbeelden van ‘tijdspolitiek’ in het migratierecht, zoals een zaak over een achttien jaar durende tijdelijke verblijfsvergunning voor ouders van een Unieburger of het steeds permanentere karakter van de herinvoering van de binnengrenzen.

This article demonstrates that the role of the European Commission in the area of asylum policy is characterised by an imbalance between politicisation and rationality. Politicisation of the role of the Commission is especially visible in its proposals for border procedures in the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. We show that the efficiency and effectiveness of these proposals are not supported by evidence or a thorough assessment of past EU action, as required by Better Regulation. The result is that they fail to address the structural problems that exist with regard to the implementation and application of EU law at external borders. The broken balance between politicisation and rationality in the legislative process leads to a prioritisation of security over freedom and justice. We argue that it needs to be compensated by a stronger role of the judiciary.

Grootse maar weinig veelbelovende plannen voor de herziening van het Europees asielrecht, etnisch profileren door de Marechaussee, een langzaam in het asielrecht tot ontploffing komende bom over de herhaalde aanvragen in asielprocedures, en een scherpe uitspraak van het Hof van Justitie over gebrekkige terugkeerbesluiten voor onbegeleide kinderen. En natuurlijk nogal treurigstemmende berichten over de situatie aan de buitengrenzen van Europa. Bovendien een aantal pikante prejudiciële vragen die van grote invloed kunnen zijn op het Nederlandse beleid, zoals die over het openbare ordebeleid ten aanzien van ‘criminele vreemdelingen’ of over de ambtshalve toetsing van de voorwaarden van de bewaringsmaatregel. Maar ook de nodige voorbeelden van ‘tijdspolitiek’ in het migratierecht, zoals een zaak over een achttien jaar durende tijdelijke verblijfsvergunning voor ouders van een Unieburger of het steeds permanentere karakter van de herinvoering van de binnengrenzen.

Border procedures have so far received little attention in the legal literature dealing with European asylum law. Literature on immigration detention in Europe has also neglected the use of detention in border procedures. This is remarkable because one of the reasons that Member States resort to border procedures can be traced back to the centrality of territorial presence within the modern State for the enjoyment of rights. The triangular relationship between an application for international protection, refusal of entry, and a deprivation of liberty has remained imprecise. This indeterminacy has had important repercussions for the way in which the right to liberty has been protected at the borders of Europe. However, the way in which the Recast Asylum Procedures Directive circumscribes Member States' use of this procedure is unprecedented. This article uses the Dutch implementation of the Asylum Procedures Directive in order to unpack the above-mentioned triangular relationship between an application for international protection, refusal of entry, and a deprivation of liberty. It will show that European Union regulation in this area is distinctive because it entails recognition of the fact that, when it comes to the enforcement of migration control, individual rights are at stake.

This chapter argues that judicial dialogue on the scope of the Return Directive has resulted in an ever more dense covering by EU law of the diverse national procedural practices applied to third-country nationals who are regarded as illegally staying by the Member States. Some of these rulings, for example those in Gnandi and K.A. thus exemplify an intricate legal configuration of diverse, overlapping and intersecting legal regimes, in which slowly and surely, little decision-making power of administrative authorities is solely regulated by national law. An increase in legal questions potentially covered by EU law also transpires from cases brought before the Court of Justice in which Member States have resorted to their criminal law to ‘regulate’ irregular migration. In this particular area we see that previous rulings regarding the delimitation of EU law and national law by the Court of Justice have spurred new preliminary questions, which – no matter how technical the court keeps its approach - will inevitably draw into the sphere of EU law questions that were previously reserved for national administrative, criminal or constitutional courts. This dynamic is illustrated by taking a close look at the case that was recently referred to the Court of Justice by the Dutch Supreme Court, regarding the compatibility of Dutch criminal law on irregularly staying third-country nationals with EU law. I argue that the question referred to the Court can only be answered by situating it within the larger context of the Charter, and principles of criminal procedural law protected in the constitutional traditions of the Member States and by the ECHR, most notably legality.

Mary Bosworth has written a valuable ethnography of life inside British immigration detention centers. By detailing the effects of immigration detention, both on the individuals detained and those ...

Border disputes thrived in the Schengen system over the last few years. There was litigation before the ECJ on differentiated integration; there were institutional skirmishes between Parliament and Council; and there were real border disputes between France and Italy in the wake of the Arab Spring. This article uses Schengen's crises in order to elaborate upon a number of flaws and inconsistencies in the acquis, most of which can be traced back to the way in which national and European competences have been delimited in this area. The demarcations in turn betray the contradictory driving forces for Schengen integration. The article concludes that integration in a field so riddled with national sensitivities and supranational symbolism cannot follow a linear, comprehensive and predictable path, which may be problematic in that the European judicial system currently lacks instruments that can contribute towards greater coherence and consistency. As such, Schengen's crises may also tell us something about the shortcomings of traditional legal theories on integration.

This contribution argues that immigration detention’s distinctly territorial logic needs to be fully accounted for in any attempt to understand the contemporary use of this instrument. As such, penal approaches to the study of detention policies need to be complemented and informed by constitutional and transnational legal scholarship, not only so that we can fully grasp the distinctiveness of immigration detention but also in order to be able to formulate adequate legal responses to this measure. This chapter substantiates these claims by taking a look at the case law of both the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) concerning the detention of irregular migrants.

The present international legal system is so determined to protect the interests of states and their territorial boundaries that any people who seek to move across those boundaries are seen as intruders. If they can enter at all, they enter at their own risk.

Deportation and detention of unwanted foreigners make clear what state sovereignty is about, both with regard to its aspect of monopolist violence and with regard to its claim to determine the “inside” from the “outside.” Ultimately, the indiscriminate detention of unwanted foreigners under conditions that seem in flagrant violation of some of the very values that supposedly underpin liberal Western democracies, makes painfully clear that the modern discourse of human rights has not been able to live up to its universal aspirations. The aim of this paper is twofold. On the one hand, it seeks to elucidate the relationship between territoriality, sovereignty and immigration detention. Put differently, what does the immigration prison tell us about the contemporary organization of the global political system and present forms of state power? On the other hand, it explains the related issue of the impotency of the international human rights discourse when it comes to the imprisonment of thousands of people under exceptional conditions, not on account of what they have done, but on account of what they are. Hannah Arendt’s observations on the “perplexities of the rights of man” (Arendt 1976: 291-302) have retained their validity, exemplified as they are in the contemporary immigration prison, and as such they will prove particularly valuable in order to contextualize the two specific concerns of this chapter.

Excerpt of table of contents: Acknowledgments; Abbreviations; 1 Introduction: Immigration Detention in Contemporary Europe; PART I: THEORY: 2 Sovereignty, People and Territory; 3 Limiting Sovereign Power; PART II: DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE: 4 Freedom of Movement I: The Right to Leave as a Human Right; 5 Freedom of Movement II: Decisions on Entry as a Sovereign Prerogative?; 6 Reaffirming Sovereignty and Reproducing Territoriality: Deportation and Detention; 7 International Human Rights Law on Immigration Detention; 8 The ECtHR: Detention as a ‘Necessary Adjunct’ to an ‘Undeniable Sovereign Right’?; PART III: CONCLUSIONS: 9 Destabilizing Territorial Sovereignty through Human Rights Litigation in Immigration Detention Cases; Bibliography; Table of Cases. Published version of EUI PhD thesis, 2007

This important collection examines deportation as an increasingly global mechanism of state control. Anthropologists, historians, legal scholars, and sociologists consider not only the physical expulsion of noncitizens but also the social discipline and labor subordination resulting from deportability, the threat of forced removal. They explore practices and experiences of deportation in regional and national settings from the U.S.-Mexico border to Israel, and from Somalia to Switzerland. They also address broader questions, including the ontological significance of freedom of movement; the historical antecedents of deportation, such as banishment and exile; and the development, entrenchment, and consequences of organizing sovereign power and framing individual rights by territory. Whether investigating the power that individual and corporate sponsors have over the fate of foreign laborers in Bahrain, the implications of Germany’s temporary suspension of deportation orders for pregnant and ill migrants, or the significance of the detention camp, the contributors reveal how deportation reflects and reproduces notions about public health, racial purity, and class privilege. They also provide insight into how deportation and deportability are experienced by individuals, including Arabs, South Asians, and Muslims in the United States. One contributor looks at asylum claims in light of an unusual anti-deportation campaign mounted by Algerian refugees in Montreal; others analyze the European Union as an entity specifically dedicated to governing mobility inside and across its official borders. The Deportation Regime addresses urgent issues related to human rights, international migration, and the extensive security measures implemented by nation-states since September 11, 2001. Contributors : Rutvica Andrijasevic, Aashti Bhartia, Heide Castaneda , Galina Cornelisse , Susan Bibler Coutin, Nicholas De Genova, Andrew M. Gardner, Josiah Heyman, Serhat Karakayali, Sunaina Marr Maira, Guillermina Gina Nunez, Peter Nyers, Nathalie Peutz, Enrica Rigo, Victor Talavera, William Walters, Hans-Rudolf Wicker, Sarah S. Willen

This paper seeks to deepen the understanding of European integration in the specific policy area of immigration. In the first place, by addressing the relationship between immigration, territorial borders, and conceptions of sovereign power, it will shed much needed light on what the very sovereign power that individual Member States allegedly wish to preserve is about. In the second place, this paper describes the implications of Member States’ inability to think beyond the national sovereign paradigm on the legal regime regulating immigration of third-country nationals within and into Europe. We will see that Member States’ desire to preserve the traditional function of the national territorial border within Europe – despite their formal commitment to establishing an area without internal frontiers – has led to ambiguity in the separation of powers between the EU and its Member States.

International audience; De prime abord, on pourrait penser que les juges nationaux – administratifs et judiciaires – jouent le jeu de la primauté du droit de l'Union, en assurant le respect de la directive "retour", à savoir l'effectivité des mécanismes assurant le « retour » des ressortissants de pays tiers en séjour irrégulier et la garantie de leurs droits fondamentaux. Mais l'examen attentif de la jurisprudence montre que loin d'être les bons élèves européens les juridictions françaises procèdent à une interaction judiciaire en trompe l'oeil Cette instrumentalisation par les hautes juridictions françaises du « dialogue » judiciaire, entre elles et avec la Cour de justice à propos de la DR, vise, essentiellement, à assurer leur marge d'appréciation et celles de l'administration, sans nécessairement assurer une meilleure effectivité des mécanismes de « retour » ni protéger effectivement les droits fondamentaux des étrangers.