The Road Not Taken

Martin Westlund
{"title":"The Road Not Taken","authors":"Martin Westlund","doi":"10.36969/njel.v6i3.25090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many asylum cases present an opportunity for the European Court of Justice to promote and protect EU values such as human rights and the rule of law. Yet, in central issues on the EU asylum system, the Court has opted for careful and formal readings of law rather than exploring such perspectives. The Court’s legal reasoning in asylum is examined by case analyses in NF v Council on the EU-Turkey Statement, X and X on humanitarian visas, and A.S. and Jafari on the EU asylum system. In free movement, the Court is considered a key driver of integration, whereas, in asylum law, it is seen as more restrictive. Rather than promoting EU integration and ensuring human rights protections, the Court grants discretion to the legislator or the executive. There are legitimate reasons why a different path has been taken in asylum. However, as a more extensive and dynamic method of interpretation could increase human rights protections, it is relevant to reassess the position of the Court in asylum law.","PeriodicalId":489206,"journal":{"name":"Nordic journal of european law","volume":"86 11","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic journal of european law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v6i3.25090","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many asylum cases present an opportunity for the European Court of Justice to promote and protect EU values such as human rights and the rule of law. Yet, in central issues on the EU asylum system, the Court has opted for careful and formal readings of law rather than exploring such perspectives. The Court’s legal reasoning in asylum is examined by case analyses in NF v Council on the EU-Turkey Statement, X and X on humanitarian visas, and A.S. and Jafari on the EU asylum system. In free movement, the Court is considered a key driver of integration, whereas, in asylum law, it is seen as more restrictive. Rather than promoting EU integration and ensuring human rights protections, the Court grants discretion to the legislator or the executive. There are legitimate reasons why a different path has been taken in asylum. However, as a more extensive and dynamic method of interpretation could increase human rights protections, it is relevant to reassess the position of the Court in asylum law.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
未走的路
许多庇护案件为欧洲法院提供了促进和保护人权和法治等欧盟价值观的机会。然而,在欧盟庇护制度的核心问题上,法院选择了仔细和正式的法律解读,而不是探索这些观点。法院在庇护问题上的法律推理通过NF v理事会关于欧盟-土耳其声明、关于人道主义签证的X和X以及关于欧盟庇护制度的A.S.和Jafari的案例分析进行审查。在行动自由方面,法院被认为是促进融合的关键因素,而在庇护法方面,法院则被认为更具限制性。法院没有促进欧盟一体化和确保人权保护,而是将自由裁量权授予立法者或行政部门。在庇护问题上采取不同的道路是有正当理由的。但是,由于一种更广泛和更有活力的解释方法可以增加对人权的保护,重新评估法院在庇护法方面的立场是有意义的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Digitalisation in EU Competition Law and the Swedish Principle of Transparency Transparency Unveiled: Access to Information in Digital Markets Act Proceedings at Member State Level – The German and Austrian Experience Digitalisation of the Preliminary Investigation Phase, Fundamental and Human Rights and the Principle of Openness - Balancing Conflicting Interests in the Review of Large Data Sets EU Competition Law, Fundamental Rights and the Principle of Transparency – An Evolving Relationship A Few Words on Drittwirkung, Transparency and Personal Integrity in the Light of Digitalization
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1