欧盟加入欧洲人权公约之路

Maria-Louiza Deftou
{"title":"欧盟加入欧洲人权公约之路","authors":"Maria-Louiza Deftou","doi":"10.1163/18719732-bja10090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The dual European judicial protection of fundamental rights with the two Courts, namely the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), represents a multi-layered, yet dialectic, model of protection with no formal hierarchy between its components. In the aftermath of Opinion 2/13 and faced with uncontrolled ‘unwanted migration’ flows, the EU judicature defended the principle of mutual trust at any cost and appeared to prioritise the protection of the Dublin regime (the EU responsibility allocation mechanism for examining asylum applications) instead of addressing the novel human rights challenges facing the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Yet, their interplay has entered a new era since the renegotiation of the EU’s accession to the ECHR launched. By analysing the case law of the two Courts, this article thinks anew their relationship to ascertain whether the evolution of the accession project, throughout the latest decade, has affected the protection offered to ‘unwanted migrants’ in Europe.","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Road to the EU’s Accession to the ECHR\",\"authors\":\"Maria-Louiza Deftou\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18719732-bja10090\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The dual European judicial protection of fundamental rights with the two Courts, namely the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), represents a multi-layered, yet dialectic, model of protection with no formal hierarchy between its components. In the aftermath of Opinion 2/13 and faced with uncontrolled ‘unwanted migration’ flows, the EU judicature defended the principle of mutual trust at any cost and appeared to prioritise the protection of the Dublin regime (the EU responsibility allocation mechanism for examining asylum applications) instead of addressing the novel human rights challenges facing the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Yet, their interplay has entered a new era since the renegotiation of the EU’s accession to the ECHR launched. By analysing the case law of the two Courts, this article thinks anew their relationship to ascertain whether the evolution of the accession project, throughout the latest decade, has affected the protection offered to ‘unwanted migrants’ in Europe.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43487,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Community Law Review\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Community Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-bja10090\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Community Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-bja10090","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

欧盟法院(CJEU)和欧洲人权法院(ECtHR)这两个法院对基本权利的双重欧洲司法保护,代表了一种多层次但辩证的保护模式,其组成部分之间没有正式的等级关系。在第2/13号意见之后,面对不受控制的“不受欢迎的移民”流动,欧盟司法部门不惜一切代价捍卫相互信任的原则,似乎优先考虑保护都柏林制度(欧盟审查庇护申请的责任分配机制),而不是解决欧洲共同庇护制度(CEAS)面临的新人权挑战。然而,自欧盟加入《欧洲人权公约》的重新谈判启动以来,它们的相互作用进入了一个新时代。通过分析这两个法院的判例法,本文重新思考了它们之间的关系,以确定在最近十年中,加入计划的演变是否影响了对欧洲“不受欢迎的移民”的保护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Road to the EU’s Accession to the ECHR
The dual European judicial protection of fundamental rights with the two Courts, namely the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), represents a multi-layered, yet dialectic, model of protection with no formal hierarchy between its components. In the aftermath of Opinion 2/13 and faced with uncontrolled ‘unwanted migration’ flows, the EU judicature defended the principle of mutual trust at any cost and appeared to prioritise the protection of the Dublin regime (the EU responsibility allocation mechanism for examining asylum applications) instead of addressing the novel human rights challenges facing the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Yet, their interplay has entered a new era since the renegotiation of the EU’s accession to the ECHR launched. By analysing the case law of the two Courts, this article thinks anew their relationship to ascertain whether the evolution of the accession project, throughout the latest decade, has affected the protection offered to ‘unwanted migrants’ in Europe.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: The Journal aims to explore the implications of various traditions of international law, as well as more current perceived hegemonic trends for the idea of an international community. The Journal will also look at the ways and means in which the international community uses and adapts international law to deal with new and emerging challenges. Non-state actors , intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, individuals, peoples, transnational corporations and civil society as a whole - have changed our outlook on contemporary international law. In addition to States and intergovernmental organizations, they now play an important role.
期刊最新文献
Reflections on the Role of Fairness for the Sources of International Law The Imbalanced Geography of the Law on Use of Force in Self-Defence Government Recognition and the Dispute over the Venezuelan Gold Reserves in the Bank of England The Role of General Assembly Resolutions in the Identification of Customary International Law and the Chagos Archipelago Advisory Opinion An Indigenous Cosmovision for Earth-Centric Governance: Deconstructing the Normative Structure of International Law?
×
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