Pub Date : 2022-12-09DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340137
Joana Abrisketa Uriarte
The New Pact on Migration and Asylum contains two pieces of proposed legislation which raise several concerns. A closer look at the Proposal for a Screening Regulation and the Proposal for Crisis and Force Majeure Regulation reveals that the frontline States are obliged to become border guards in an exacerbated way. The legislation is excessively technical and unrelated to the capacities of the affected States and, as such, will be difficult, if not impossible, for frontline States to implement. The primary argument of this article is that the mechanisms of the New Pact that are intended to contain the arrival of migrants and to level the imbalances caused by the geographical location of the EU Member states with external borders will actually allow the derogation of migrants’ rights and will hardly compensate for the special circumstances faced by frontline EU States. Instead of balancing the burdens of migration among Member States, the weight will be disproportionately borne by the very States the legislations propose to relieve.
{"title":"The European Pact on Migration and Asylum: Border Containment and Frontline States","authors":"Joana Abrisketa Uriarte","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340137","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340137","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The New Pact on Migration and Asylum contains two pieces of proposed legislation which raise several concerns. A closer look at the Proposal for a Screening Regulation and the Proposal for Crisis and Force Majeure Regulation reveals that the frontline States are obliged to become border guards in an exacerbated way. The legislation is excessively technical and unrelated to the capacities of the affected States and, as such, will be difficult, if not impossible, for frontline States to implement. The primary argument of this article is that the mechanisms of the New Pact that are intended to contain the arrival of migrants and to level the imbalances caused by the geographical location of the EU Member states with external borders will actually allow the derogation of migrants’ rights and will hardly compensate for the special circumstances faced by frontline EU States. Instead of balancing the burdens of migration among Member States, the weight will be disproportionately borne by the very States the legislations propose to relieve.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42379016","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-09DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340141
Mariagiulia Giuffré, Chiara Denaro, Fatma Raâch
This article questions whether Tunisia – a country of departure, transit and destination of migrants and refugees, and a key interlocutor in EU externalization and readmission policies – can be considered a “safe country of origin” for Tunisian nationals and a “safe third country” for foreigners in search of protection. In discussing the rapidly evolving domestic legal and political system and the treatment of minorities, vulnerable groups, and refugees in Tunisia, this article adopts a socio-legal perspective also relying on interviews with key stakeholders. Finally, it proposes a reflection on the main (conceptual and empirical) elements of continuity between the “safe country of origin” notion and the “safe third country” one, by highlighting their deep relationship, how they may mutually influence each other, and the need to reconnect various perspectives on safety, avoiding reproducing Eurocentric analytic approaches, interpretations, and narratives.
{"title":"On ‘Safety’ and EU Externalization of Borders:","authors":"Mariagiulia Giuffré, Chiara Denaro, Fatma Raâch","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340141","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340141","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article questions whether Tunisia – a country of departure, transit and destination of migrants and refugees, and a key interlocutor in EU externalization and readmission policies – can be considered a “safe country of origin” for Tunisian nationals and a “safe third country” for foreigners in search of protection. In discussing the rapidly evolving domestic legal and political system and the treatment of minorities, vulnerable groups, and refugees in Tunisia, this article adopts a socio-legal perspective also relying on interviews with key stakeholders.\u0000Finally, it proposes a reflection on the main (conceptual and empirical) elements of continuity between the “safe country of origin” notion and the “safe third country” one, by highlighting their deep relationship, how they may mutually influence each other, and the need to reconnect various perspectives on safety, avoiding reproducing Eurocentric analytic approaches, interpretations, and narratives.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41520870","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-09DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340140
M. Gkliati
The effective return of irregularly staying migrants is identified as an overriding objective in the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, while return operations are the fastest-growing activity of Frontex. Since the 2019 amendment of its Regulation, the agency has received a significant augmentation of its mandate and capacity in pre-return and return-related activities. This way, Frontex takes a centre-stage role in the Commission’s plan to intensify returns. This article fills the relevant gap in existing literature, updating our knowledge on the latest legislative developments in EU return operations and answering questions related to their human rights implications at a time when the scrutiny over Frontex is at its peak. The article discusses the human rights risks of these operations and the effectiveness of the available safeguards. This article is the product mainly of legal doctrinal research, i.e. the analysis of the relevant EU law and legal literature, along with civil society and institutional reports and other empirical documentation. At the same time, it also looks at quantitative data on the agency’s return activities from 2004 until 2019.
{"title":"The EU Returns Agency: The Commissions’ Ambitious Plans and Their Human Rights Implications","authors":"M. Gkliati","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340140","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340140","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The effective return of irregularly staying migrants is identified as an overriding objective in the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, while return operations are the fastest-growing activity of Frontex. Since the 2019 amendment of its Regulation, the agency has received a significant augmentation of its mandate and capacity in pre-return and return-related activities. This way, Frontex takes a centre-stage role in the Commission’s plan to intensify returns. This article fills the relevant gap in existing literature, updating our knowledge on the latest legislative developments in EU return operations and answering questions related to their human rights implications at a time when the scrutiny over Frontex is at its peak. The article discusses the human rights risks of these operations and the effectiveness of the available safeguards. This article is the product mainly of legal doctrinal research, i.e. the analysis of the relevant EU law and legal literature, along with civil society and institutional reports and other empirical documentation. At the same time, it also looks at quantitative data on the agency’s return activities from 2004 until 2019.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47665431","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-09DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340139
Matteo Bottero
Integration is one of the major challenges posed to the European Union by the immigration of third-country nationals. And it is even more so in view of the mass influx of displaced persons stemming from the Russian military invasion of Ukraine. This article discusses the controversial concept of (immigrant) integration underpinned by the current EU legal and policy framework. It argues that, on the one hand, the concept of integration resulting from instruments of primary and secondary EU legislation, soft law and policy is inspired by the respect for fundamental rights and prohibition of discrimination. On the other hand, it stresses that the EU action mainly aims at preserving Member States’ sovereignty over immigration. The resulting EU normative framework for integration, including the newly adopted EU Blue Card Directive and the extension of temporary protection for Ukrainian refugees, allows and encourages the strategic selection of the most socio-economically and culturally desirable immigrants.
{"title":"Integration (of Immigrants) in the European Union: A Controversial Concept","authors":"Matteo Bottero","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340139","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340139","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Integration is one of the major challenges posed to the European Union by the immigration of third-country nationals. And it is even more so in view of the mass influx of displaced persons stemming from the Russian military invasion of Ukraine. This article discusses the controversial concept of (immigrant) integration underpinned by the current EU legal and policy framework. It argues that, on the one hand, the concept of integration resulting from instruments of primary and secondary EU legislation, soft law and policy is inspired by the respect for fundamental rights and prohibition of discrimination. On the other hand, it stresses that the EU action mainly aims at preserving Member States’ sovereignty over immigration. The resulting EU normative framework for integration, including the newly adopted EU Blue Card Directive and the extension of temporary protection for Ukrainian refugees, allows and encourages the strategic selection of the most socio-economically and culturally desirable immigrants.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44046469","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-12DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340132
Laura Letourneux
Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 enables Frontex to launch operations in the territory of third countries. Accordingly, status agreements between the EU and the Western Balkan countries as well as Moldova have been concluded. This article provides an in-depth analysis of these instruments. As this article will demonstrate, the conclusion of the status agreements constitutes an improvement, in comparison with the instruments of cooperation already in place. Yet, their implementation could lead to human rights violations. The status agreements provide that the team members sent by Frontex act under the instructions of the host state. Consequently, the third state would incur the prime responsibility for human rights violations committed by these border guards. This transfer of authority has not been stemmed from a transfer of jurisdiction over acts committed by the members of the team: rather they are entitled to immunity for all acts committed during their official functions.
{"title":"Protecting the Borders from the Outside","authors":"Laura Letourneux","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340132","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340132","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 enables Frontex to launch operations in the territory of third countries. Accordingly, status agreements between the EU and the Western Balkan countries as well as Moldova have been concluded. This article provides an in-depth analysis of these instruments. As this article will demonstrate, the conclusion of the status agreements constitutes an improvement, in comparison with the instruments of cooperation already in place. Yet, their implementation could lead to human rights violations. The status agreements provide that the team members sent by Frontex act under the instructions of the host state. Consequently, the third state would incur the prime responsibility for human rights violations committed by these border guards. This transfer of authority has not been stemmed from a transfer of jurisdiction over acts committed by the members of the team: rather they are entitled to immunity for all acts committed during their official functions.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43786368","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-12DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340131
Constança Urbano de Sousa
The war in Ukraine has caused a massive influx of people seeking protection in the European Union and has led to the activation, for the first time, of the Temporary Protection Directive. Although this influx mainly affects neighbouring countries, such as Poland and Romania, Portugal triggered, as early as 1 March 2022, the national temporary protection regime, thus granting immediate protection to people who were arriving because of the war. This article analyses this temporary protection regime, as well as the measures adopted to allow the rapid integration of those displaced persons, such as simplifying the recognition of professional qualifications, essential for their access to the labour market. Being special measures that only benefit citizens affected by the war in Ukraine, their compatibility with the constitutional principle of equality is questioned, as other foreigners equally affected by war and violation of human rights are excluded.
{"title":"The Protection of Displaced Persons from Ukraine in Portugal","authors":"Constança Urbano de Sousa","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340131","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340131","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The war in Ukraine has caused a massive influx of people seeking protection in the European Union and has led to the activation, for the first time, of the Temporary Protection Directive. Although this influx mainly affects neighbouring countries, such as Poland and Romania, Portugal triggered, as early as 1 March 2022, the national temporary protection regime, thus granting immediate protection to people who were arriving because of the war. This article analyses this temporary protection regime, as well as the measures adopted to allow the rapid integration of those displaced persons, such as simplifying the recognition of professional qualifications, essential for their access to the labour market. Being special measures that only benefit citizens affected by the war in Ukraine, their compatibility with the constitutional principle of equality is questioned, as other foreigners equally affected by war and violation of human rights are excluded.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49079383","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-12DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340134
V. Protopapa
This article critically assesses the criminal law approach to labour exploitation and challenges the assumption that its limited effectiveness depends on the hesitation and unwillingness of migrant workers to collaborate with competent authorities. It adopts a legal mobilisation approach to explore how law and litigation can effectively play a role in fighting labour exploitation. It does so by focusing on the experience of collective mobilisation of migrant farmworkers in the Agro Pontino in Italy. In accordance with the findings emerging from the case study, the article makes an attempt at rethinking strategies for fighting labour exploitation in Europe, based on the needs and expectations of exploited workers as described in the 2019 FRA Report on labour exploitation. It proposes therefore an exercise of “legal imagination” that aims to identify under EU law the provisions that would allow to translate these needs and expectations into legal claims.
{"title":"From Rights to Collective Action. A Way Out of Labour Exploitation","authors":"V. Protopapa","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340134","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340134","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article critically assesses the criminal law approach to labour exploitation and challenges the assumption that its limited effectiveness depends on the hesitation and unwillingness of migrant workers to collaborate with competent authorities. It adopts a legal mobilisation approach to explore how law and litigation can effectively play a role in fighting labour exploitation. It does so by focusing on the experience of collective mobilisation of migrant farmworkers in the Agro Pontino in Italy. In accordance with the findings emerging from the case study, the article makes an attempt at rethinking strategies for fighting labour exploitation in Europe, based on the needs and expectations of exploited workers as described in the 2019 FRA Report on labour exploitation. It proposes therefore an exercise of “legal imagination” that aims to identify under EU law the provisions that would allow to translate these needs and expectations into legal claims.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44960809","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-12DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340133
P. Canga, S. Behrman
In the context of rising populist and nationalist politics amongst some EU states and throughout the world, the EU prides itself on the principle of free movement, and its adherence to a detailed set of human rights norms. However, this dichotomy obscures a more complex reality. The problem is that ‘free movement’ is conceived of, in EU terms, as solely relating to internal movement. When it comes to its external relations, the EU arguably comes to more closely resemble the politics of the critics of ‘free movement’ in the UK and elsewhere. The policy, colloquially known as ‘Fortress Europe’ has been around for some time, and the EU’s response to the refugees attempting to enter via the Mediterranean in recent years has not been defined by a humanitarian approach. Another way in which the EU’s prejudices around non-European migration can be observed is through its external relations with other states. We explore the case of EU-Turkey relations, and by doing so reveal the ways in which the EU has attempted to alter the policies of its partner, and putative member state, in ways that place burdens on migrants rather than relieving them. Turkey as the EU’s ‘candidate’ country has adopted these policies without much debate about alternatives to detention or ethics of detaining people as long as certain standards were met. This candidate-EU relationship, although strained a few years back, has finally led to the readmission agreement in 2015 where immigration detention became the norm.
{"title":"The Impact of the European Union on Turkey’s Policy of Immigration Detention","authors":"P. Canga, S. Behrman","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340133","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340133","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In the context of rising populist and nationalist politics amongst some EU states and throughout the world, the EU prides itself on the principle of free movement, and its adherence to a detailed set of human rights norms. However, this dichotomy obscures a more complex reality. The problem is that ‘free movement’ is conceived of, in EU terms, as solely relating to internal movement. When it comes to its external relations, the EU arguably comes to more closely resemble the politics of the critics of ‘free movement’ in the UK and elsewhere. The policy, colloquially known as ‘Fortress Europe’ has been around for some time, and the EU’s response to the refugees attempting to enter via the Mediterranean in recent years has not been defined by a humanitarian approach. Another way in which the EU’s prejudices around non-European migration can be observed is through its external relations with other states. We explore the case of EU-Turkey relations, and by doing so reveal the ways in which the EU has attempted to alter the policies of its partner, and putative member state, in ways that place burdens on migrants rather than relieving them. Turkey as the EU’s ‘candidate’ country has adopted these policies without much debate about alternatives to detention or ethics of detaining people as long as certain standards were met. This candidate-EU relationship, although strained a few years back, has finally led to the readmission agreement in 2015 where immigration detention became the norm.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47626545","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-12DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340136
Katarina Hyltén-Cavallius
This article analyses the legal origins of the ‘substance of rights’ doctrine, and its judicial development since its creation in landmark Union citizenship cases over a decade ago. It is demonstrated how the status of Union citizenship has evolved from being a proclaimed fundamental status for the individual in a lawful cross-border situation, to an increasingly operational and legally effective status regardless of the nature of the free movement situation. Under a genuinely substantive status of Union citizenship, any and all Member States are obligated to neither restrict freedom of movement under art. 21 TFEU, nor deprive, de jure or de facto, a Union citizen of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of Union citizenship rights under art. 20 TFEU. Thereby, the relevance of art. 20 TFEU is no longer reserved to the Union citizen’s relationship to their home Member State. In addition, it is argued that, as the jurisdictional spheres of art. 21 TFEU and 20 TFEU merge, the legal mechanisms of EU fundamental rights protection should also be streamlined across Directive 2004/38, art. 21 TFEU and art. 20 TFEU; thereby giving further substance to the citizenship ideal of civis europaeus sum.
{"title":"The Unfolding Destiny of Union Citizenship: From a Fundamental Status to a Status of Genuine Substance","authors":"Katarina Hyltén-Cavallius","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340136","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340136","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article analyses the legal origins of the ‘substance of rights’ doctrine, and its judicial development since its creation in landmark Union citizenship cases over a decade ago. It is demonstrated how the status of Union citizenship has evolved from being a proclaimed fundamental status for the individual in a lawful cross-border situation, to an increasingly operational and legally effective status regardless of the nature of the free movement situation. Under a genuinely substantive status of Union citizenship, any and all Member States are obligated to neither restrict freedom of movement under art. 21 TFEU, nor deprive, de jure or de facto, a Union citizen of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of Union citizenship rights under art. 20 TFEU. Thereby, the relevance of art. 20 TFEU is no longer reserved to the Union citizen’s relationship to their home Member State. In addition, it is argued that, as the jurisdictional spheres of art. 21 TFEU and 20 TFEU merge, the legal mechanisms of EU fundamental rights protection should also be streamlined across Directive 2004/38, art. 21 TFEU and art. 20 TFEU; thereby giving further substance to the citizenship ideal of civis europaeus sum.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44885473","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-12DOI: 10.1163/15718166-12340135
Annick Pijnenburg, Kris van der Pas
Migration control policies at Europe’s borders that lead to human rights violations are widespread. As a result, NGO s, law clinics and individual lawyers mobilise the law against different actors in an attempt to seek accountability for these violations and end the policies that cause them. Accordingly, the aim of this article is to present an overview of and initial reflection on strategic litigation concerning the Central Mediterranean migration route. The article first depicts European migration control policies in the Central Mediterranean and their human rights consequences. It then provides an overview of recent strategic litigation before various domestic, regional and international forums. Finally, the article discusses the potential of these litigation efforts to overcome the accountability challenges caused by European migration control policies in the Central Mediterranean.
{"title":"Strategic Litigation against European Migration Control Policies: The Legal Battleground of the Central Mediterranean Migration Route","authors":"Annick Pijnenburg, Kris van der Pas","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340135","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Migration control policies at Europe’s borders that lead to human rights violations are widespread. As a result, NGO s, law clinics and individual lawyers mobilise the law against different actors in an attempt to seek accountability for these violations and end the policies that cause them. Accordingly, the aim of this article is to present an overview of and initial reflection on strategic litigation concerning the Central Mediterranean migration route. The article first depicts European migration control policies in the Central Mediterranean and their human rights consequences. It then provides an overview of recent strategic litigation before various domestic, regional and international forums. Finally, the article discusses the potential of these litigation efforts to overcome the accountability challenges caused by European migration control policies in the Central Mediterranean.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48808063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：