英国脱欧后的边境庇护

Andrew Pitt
{"title":"英国脱欧后的边境庇护","authors":"Andrew Pitt","doi":"10.1163/18719732-bja10087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article considers UK government’s proposal to re-introduce an accelerated appeals system for detained asylum seekers through resort to legislation. Previously, a similar system, the ‘Detained Fast Track’, was ruled unlawful largely on the basis that it lacked procedural fairness, a core tenet of the rule of law. This article examines the interplay between the rule of law and international human rights law. It adopts a formal notion of the rule of law to assess its effectiveness in protecting asylum seeker’s rights, as a sub-group of ‘unwanted migrants’. This is applied to a case study of the previous system and legal challenges to it to explore the deficiency of legality of the system and the effectiveness of judicial review. Three stages of the previous system are examined, its inception, its survival of early legal challenges and its eventual demise to expose the marginalisation of international human rights safeguards.","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":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bordering Asylum in Post-Brexit Britain\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Pitt\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18719732-bja10087\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article considers UK government’s proposal to re-introduce an accelerated appeals system for detained asylum seekers through resort to legislation. Previously, a similar system, the ‘Detained Fast Track’, was ruled unlawful largely on the basis that it lacked procedural fairness, a core tenet of the rule of law. This article examines the interplay between the rule of law and international human rights law. It adopts a formal notion of the rule of law to assess its effectiveness in protecting asylum seeker’s rights, as a sub-group of ‘unwanted migrants’. This is applied to a case study of the previous system and legal challenges to it to explore the deficiency of legality of the system and the effectiveness of judicial review. Three stages of the previous system are examined, its inception, its survival of early legal challenges and its eventual demise to expose the marginalisation of international human rights safeguards.\",\"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\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Community Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-bja10087\",\"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-bja10087","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: 0

摘要

本文考虑了英国政府通过诉诸立法重新引入被拘留的寻求庇护者加速上诉制度的建议。此前,类似的“拘留快速通道”(detention Fast Track)被裁定为非法,主要原因是它缺乏程序公正,而程序公正是法治的核心原则。本文探讨了法治与国际人权法之间的相互作用。它采用了一种正式的法治概念,以评估其在保护寻求庇护者权利方面的有效性,寻求庇护者是“不受欢迎的移民”的一个子群体。本文通过对以往制度的案例分析和对其的法律挑战,探讨该制度合法性的不足和司法审查的有效性。本文审查了前一制度的三个阶段,即它的开始,它在早期法律挑战中幸存下来,以及它的最终消亡,以揭露国际人权保障的边缘化。
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
Bordering Asylum in Post-Brexit Britain
This article considers UK government’s proposal to re-introduce an accelerated appeals system for detained asylum seekers through resort to legislation. Previously, a similar system, the ‘Detained Fast Track’, was ruled unlawful largely on the basis that it lacked procedural fairness, a core tenet of the rule of law. This article examines the interplay between the rule of law and international human rights law. It adopts a formal notion of the rule of law to assess its effectiveness in protecting asylum seeker’s rights, as a sub-group of ‘unwanted migrants’. This is applied to a case study of the previous system and legal challenges to it to explore the deficiency of legality of the system and the effectiveness of judicial review. Three stages of the previous system are examined, its inception, its survival of early legal challenges and its eventual demise to expose the marginalisation of international human rights safeguards.
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