英国内政部关心法治吗?

S. York
{"title":"英国内政部关心法治吗?","authors":"S. York","doi":"10.1163/18719732-bja10088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The instrumentalisation of law for the purposes of creating a ‘hostile environment’ and deterring ‘unwanted migration’ is particularly visible in the UK. The new Nationality and Borders Act 2022 contains proposals on asylum which show a rejection of international law norms and conventions, without having had the political courage to put that rejection squarely to the public. That is not new. Right from the emergence of asylum as a political issue in the 1980’s, the lukewarm official ‘welcome’ never quite hid the stance of disbelief which underlay the UK’s legal and procedural responses. A parallel process, beginning even earlier but accelerating from 2010 onwards, has taken place in UK domestic immigration law. New legislation, Immigration Rules, policies, application procedures and litigation practices show diminishing respect for rule of law principles. This article uses simple and hopefully uncontroversial definitions of international law norms and accepted common law rule of law principles against which to analyse and critique key aspects of UK immigration control. It concludes that UK policies and practice have over time displayed an increasing hostility to those norms and principles, resorting to ignorant and even brazen indifference to facts, evidence, and analysis, and widening the gap between domestic and international law in important respects.","PeriodicalId":43487,"journal":{"name":"International Community Law Review","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does the UK Home Office Care about the Rule of Law?\",\"authors\":\"S. York\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18719732-bja10088\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The instrumentalisation of law for the purposes of creating a ‘hostile environment’ and deterring ‘unwanted migration’ is particularly visible in the UK. The new Nationality and Borders Act 2022 contains proposals on asylum which show a rejection of international law norms and conventions, without having had the political courage to put that rejection squarely to the public. That is not new. Right from the emergence of asylum as a political issue in the 1980’s, the lukewarm official ‘welcome’ never quite hid the stance of disbelief which underlay the UK’s legal and procedural responses. A parallel process, beginning even earlier but accelerating from 2010 onwards, has taken place in UK domestic immigration law. New legislation, Immigration Rules, policies, application procedures and litigation practices show diminishing respect for rule of law principles. This article uses simple and hopefully uncontroversial definitions of international law norms and accepted common law rule of law principles against which to analyse and critique key aspects of UK immigration control. It concludes that UK policies and practice have over time displayed an increasing hostility to those norms and principles, resorting to ignorant and even brazen indifference to facts, evidence, and analysis, and widening the gap between domestic and international law in important respects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43487,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Community Law Review\",\"volume\":\"6 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-bja10088\",\"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-bja10088","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

为创造“敌对环境”和阻止“不受欢迎的移民”而将法律工具化的做法在联合王国尤为明显。新的《2022年国籍和边界法案》包含了关于庇护的建议,这些建议表明了对国际法准则和公约的拒绝,而没有政治勇气直接向公众表示拒绝。这并不新鲜。从20世纪80年代庇护作为一个政治问题出现以来,官方不温不火的“欢迎”从来没有完全掩盖不相信的立场,这是英国法律和程序回应的基础。在英国国内移民法中也出现了类似的过程,这个过程开始得更早,但从2010年开始加速。新的立法、移民规则、政策、申请程序和诉讼做法表明,对法治原则的尊重日益减少。本文使用简单且希望没有争议的国际法规范定义和公认的普通法法治原则来分析和批评英国移民控制的关键方面。报告的结论是,随着时间的推移,英国的政策和做法对这些准则和原则表现出越来越大的敌意,对事实、证据和分析采取无知甚至厚颜无耻的冷漠态度,在重要方面扩大了国内法与国际法之间的差距。
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
Does the UK Home Office Care about the Rule of Law?
The instrumentalisation of law for the purposes of creating a ‘hostile environment’ and deterring ‘unwanted migration’ is particularly visible in the UK. The new Nationality and Borders Act 2022 contains proposals on asylum which show a rejection of international law norms and conventions, without having had the political courage to put that rejection squarely to the public. That is not new. Right from the emergence of asylum as a political issue in the 1980’s, the lukewarm official ‘welcome’ never quite hid the stance of disbelief which underlay the UK’s legal and procedural responses. A parallel process, beginning even earlier but accelerating from 2010 onwards, has taken place in UK domestic immigration law. New legislation, Immigration Rules, policies, application procedures and litigation practices show diminishing respect for rule of law principles. This article uses simple and hopefully uncontroversial definitions of international law norms and accepted common law rule of law principles against which to analyse and critique key aspects of UK immigration control. It concludes that UK policies and practice have over time displayed an increasing hostility to those norms and principles, resorting to ignorant and even brazen indifference to facts, evidence, and analysis, and widening the gap between domestic and international law in important respects.
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