The Greens in de European Parliament organize a public conference with the subject ‘Beyond Dublin: Rethinking Europe’s Asylum System’. The event will be held on 3 June 2015 from 15-18.30 in Brussels. It is organized by the MEPs Bodil Ceballos, Ska Keller, Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini, and Josep-Maria Terricabras.
For more more information about the event and the speakers, click here.
The European Inter-University Centre for Human Rights and Democratisation is organising a training on ‘Dublin III, two years on: refugees and asylum seekers in the EU and beyond’. The training will be held 19-21 June in Venice, Italy.
Two years into the endorsement of the “Dublin III regulation”, international protection provided by the EU to the increasing number of asylum seekers fleeing their countries is being challenged. Efficacy of these norms and policies is under scrutiny, as well as the complex relationship between the EU and its member states when it comes to concrete implementation. Is Dublin III – and more broadly the common European asylum system – meeting human rights concerns emerging from the migration crisis and the many recent humanitarian disasters? What are the dilemmas faced by European lawyers and legal practitioners when it comes to everyday application of EU and international legal standards on asylum?
The training seminar on “Dublin III, two years on. Asylum seekers and refugees in the EU and beyond” is set to analyze these important questions. It is designed to provide participants with an overview of the European asylum system and foster cross-border cooperation and networking among legal practitioners from all EU and non-EU countries involved in the application of the relevant national, EU and international standards.
More information can be found here.
It is with great pleasure that the ESIL Interest Group on Migration and Refugee Law, in close cooperation with EJIL:Talk!, launches its first blog symposium, which will run on EJIL:Talk! this week. The blog symposium focuses on the idea that, despite the normalcy of migration, states have come to treat it more and more as an abnormality in recent times. Many policies bear testimony to this development; one need only think of increasing restrictions on family reunification, measures of migration-related detention, and the introduction of civic integration tests. At the same time, countries crucially depend on migration, either upon the (un)skilled workforce it delivers, or upon the revenue it creates. Policies introduced therefore aim to limit and shape migration, so that only ‘the wanted’ embark on the journey. The person of the migrant is the object of such limiting, discouraging and selective policies.
Three members of the interest group took on this overarching topic in their contributions to the blog symposium, each in their own way. Juan Amaya-Castro kicks off the blog symposium. He argues that international migration law is “about selecting among potential or prospective migrants” and that it therefore provides a “license to discriminate” on the basis of economic worth. In the next post, Nikolaos Sitaropoulos counters this argument by saying that it “confuses differential with discriminatory treatment”. With reference to the case law of the Strasbourg Court, he shows that human rights provide a “protective layer” against discriminatory treatment. Concluding the blog symposium is Francesca Pizzutelli, who takes the potential for protection even further. She discusses “three types of limitations on state sovereignty with respect to migration”.
The blogs can be found here in the course of this week.
Blogpost by a member of our Interest Group
by Tamás Molnár
International migration law (hereinafter: IML) is a multi-layered body of law. It is composed of an ever-growing number of norms relating to various branches of international law such as human rights law, international refugee law, international labour law, international trade law, law of the sea, nationality law, diplomatic and consular protection, and international humanitarian law. Despite this rich normative content, these norms and principles do not constitute a logically structured, coherent and integrated system. That is why some refer to IML as “substance without architecture” (A.T. Aleinkoff, ‘International Legal Norms on Migration: Substance without Architecture’ in R. Cholewinski – R. Perruchoud – E. MacDonald (eds.), International Migration Law. Developing paradigms and Key Challenges, The Hague, T.M.C. Asser Press, 2007, 467-480) or describe it as a “giant unassembled juridical jigsaw puzzle, [in which] the number of pieces is still uncertain and the grand design is still emerging” (R. Lillich, The Human Rights of Aliens in Contemporary International Law, Manchester, MUP, 1984, 122). It is thus not surprising that there exists no worldwide codification regulating all legal aspects of migration. The only universal instrument is UNGA Declaration No 40/144 of 1985 on the human rights of individuals who are not nationals of the country in which they live, but this is a non-binding soft law instrument. Neither does the definition of the term ”migrant” exist under general international law.
Against this backdrop, this blog entry endeavours to give the readers a comprehensive insight into the most striking normative as well as structural asymmetries and contradictions in IML. Continue reading
The Queen Elizabeth II Academy for Leadership in International Affairs (London, UK) is inviting research proposals on the topic of ‘Migration and Cross-Mediterranean Relations’ which is open to citizens from Greece and hosted by Chatham House’s Europe Programme and International Law Programme. The call is for one of our forthcoming fellowships for the 2015-16 year. The application window for the fellowships is open until 31 May 2015.
Emerging and experienced leaders will spend between six and 12 months in London as Academy fellows or senior fellows respectively. Beginning in September 2015 and February 2016, the current fellowships are open to citizens from Greece, Turkey, and a number of countries within the Middle East (further fellowships will be available later in the year from other regions).
More information on the fellowship and the Academy can be found here.
The Centre for European Policy Studies has issued a commentary on the priorities for the new European agenda on migration. The authors of the commentary argue that the EU shold focus on two sets of thematic priorities: first, to develop rule of law-driven actions towards more effective sharing and uptake of responsibility by member states in rescuing people at sea and providing access to asylum. Second, to devise legal and flexible mechanisms ensuring access to Europe for would-be immigrants.
On burden-sharing, the commentary notes that it “is limited in almost every respect, but particularly in terms of rescue operations at sea. The 2014 Italian-led operation Mare Nostrum was mainly financed from national coffers. It was considered too expensive, but the overall cost was estimated at €8-9 million per month or about €100 million (not billion) per annum. This is less than 1/1000th of the EU budget and less than 1/10,000th of Italian GDP. The sums involved were thus clearly negligible, but given that they are not shared, they have played an outsized role in the political discussions.”
Read the commentary here.
Publication by a member of the Interest Group
by Sergio Mananashvili
In the Common Market Law Review, Sergio Mananashvili co-authored (with De Bruycker) an article on the right to be heard in immigration detention procedures and the consequences of the violation of this right in the light of Strasbourg and Luxembourg case-law. The authors critically examine recent decision of the ECJ in the G. and R. case in which the court decided that a failure to respect the rights of defence in a decision extending detention for the purpose of removal does not automatically bring about the lifting of the detention.
According to the Court, where the extension of adetention measure has been decided in an administrative procedure in breachof the right to be heard, a national judge may order the release only if theinfringement deprived the TCN concerned of the possibility of arguing hisdefence better, to the extent that the outcome of that administrative procedurecould have been different.
The authors wonder how this is possible in light of Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
You can access the article here.
Nikolaos Sitaropoulos has written a blog about the judicial review of migrant detention in Europe.
He writes: “Detention has been highlighted in recent years by a number of international and non-governmental organisations as an ineffective and inefficient tool of migration control employed by a large number of states. In 2013, the European Court of Human Rights continued to find violations of Article 5(4) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“ECHR”) by various state parties and even rendered a quasi-pilot judgment in the case of Suso Musa v. Malta.”
Read more here.