Challenging Externalisation Through the Lens of the Human Right to Leave

Emilie McDonnell
{"title":"Challenging Externalisation Through the Lens of the Human Right to Leave","authors":"Emilie McDonnell","doi":"10.1007/s40802-024-00252-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Around the world, externalised migration controls continue to proliferate, leading to host of human rights harms for migrants. Migrants (and citizens) are being contained in states of origin and transit and denied their fundamental right to leave. However, externalisation is typically understood as preventing migrants entering state territory and accessing asylum, which has shaped litigation efforts and the rights and obligations that are invoked. Accordingly, this article seeks to demonstrate that the right to leave any country remains a largely overlooked avenue for challenging harmful externalisation practices and to highlight the important role it can play in remedying accountability gaps. It provides a broad overview of the right to leave in international law and its main contours as a starting point for considering the applicability of the right to externalisation measures. It examines the key jurisprudence concerning externalisation and the cases invoking the right to leave, including with respect to pushbacks, offshore processing, safe country arrangements, visa regimes, carrier sanctions and pullbacks, illustrating missed opportunities and positive developments. The article calls for a change in approach that recognises the great potential of the right to leave in tackling externalisation and containment, suggesting future opportunities for the right to be litigated and developed across different fora.</p>","PeriodicalId":43288,"journal":{"name":"Netherlands International Law Review","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Netherlands International Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-024-00252-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Around the world, externalised migration controls continue to proliferate, leading to host of human rights harms for migrants. Migrants (and citizens) are being contained in states of origin and transit and denied their fundamental right to leave. However, externalisation is typically understood as preventing migrants entering state territory and accessing asylum, which has shaped litigation efforts and the rights and obligations that are invoked. Accordingly, this article seeks to demonstrate that the right to leave any country remains a largely overlooked avenue for challenging harmful externalisation practices and to highlight the important role it can play in remedying accountability gaps. It provides a broad overview of the right to leave in international law and its main contours as a starting point for considering the applicability of the right to externalisation measures. It examines the key jurisprudence concerning externalisation and the cases invoking the right to leave, including with respect to pushbacks, offshore processing, safe country arrangements, visa regimes, carrier sanctions and pullbacks, illustrating missed opportunities and positive developments. The article calls for a change in approach that recognises the great potential of the right to leave in tackling externalisation and containment, suggesting future opportunities for the right to be litigated and developed across different fora.

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
从休假人权的角度质疑外部化问题
在世界各地,外部化的移民控制继续泛滥,给移民的人权造成了许多伤害。移民(和公民)被限制在原籍国和过境国,被剥夺了离开的基本权利。然而,"外部化 "通常被理解为阻止移民进入国家领土并获得庇护,这影响了诉讼工作以及所援引的权利和义务。因此,本文试图证明,离开任何国家的权利仍然是挑战有害的外部化做法的一个在很大程度上被忽视的途径,并强调它在弥补问责差距方面可以发挥的重要作用。本文概述了国际法中的离开权及其主要轮廓,以此作为考虑外部化措施是否适用离开权的出发点。文章研究了有关外部化的主要判例和援引离境权的案例,包括有关推回、离岸处理、安全国家安排、签证制度、承运人制裁和回撤的案例,说明了错失的机会和积极的发展。文章呼吁改变方法,认识到离境权在解决外部化和遏制方面的巨大潜力,并提出了未来在不同论坛对离境权进行诉讼和发展的机会。
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
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) is one of the world’s leading journals in the fields of public and private international law. It is published three times a year, and features peer-reviewed, innovative, and challenging articles, case notes, commentaries, book reviews and overviews of the latest legal developments in The Hague. The NILR was established in 1953 and has since become a valuable source of information for scholars, practitioners and anyone who wants to stay up-to-date of the most important developments in these fields. In the subscription to the Netherlands International Law Review the Netherlands Yearbook of International Law (NYIL) is included. The NILR is published by T.M.C. Asser Press, in cooperation with the T.M.C. Asser Instituut, and is distributed by Springer International Publishing. T.M.C. Asser Instituut, an inter-university institute for Private and Public International Law and European Law, was founded in 1965 by the law faculties of the Dutch universities. The Institute is responsible for the promotion of education and research in international law.
期刊最新文献
Environmental Intervention: An Activist Idea or a Legal Tool? An Analysis of the Possibilities of Environmental Protection in Light of the Principle of Non-Intervention Forcible Protection of Nationals Abroad: The Doctrine’s Hegemonic Use The Ukrainian–Russian Armed Conflict and the Law of Neutrality: Continuity, Discontinuity, or Irrelevance? Constructive Refoulement as Disguised Voluntary Return: The Internalised Externalisation of Migrants Meta-Borders and the Rule of Law: From Externalisation to ‘Responsibilisation’ in Systems of Contactless Control
×
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