Human Rights Challenges to European Migration Policy

Bast, Jürgen; Harbou, Frederick von; Wessels, Janna

doi:10.5771/9783748926740

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, Member States are free to create their own lists of additional safe third countries, but are encouraged to take into account information by the European Union Agency for Asylum and UNHCR and to review these lists regularly, taking into account up-to-date information (EUAPD, Recital 46 and 48). In addition, the EU has sponsored its own safe third country arrangement, the EU-Turkey statement of 2016, concluded by its Member States (European Council, 2016), which has raised major human rights concerns (Bast et al, 2022).…”

Section: Conditions Of Immigration Detentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviewing the reviews: the Global Compacts' added value in access to asylum procedures and immigration detention

Atak,

Grundler,

Endres de Oliveira

et al. 2023

Front. Hum. Dyn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Global Compact for Migration and the Global Compact on Refugees are based on binding international law instruments whose provisions they complement with “best practice” standards related to the treatment of refugees and other migrants. Although the Compacts are non-binding, they provide for review mechanisms to promote compliance with Compact standards. Such oversight is important to achieve progress in implementing the Compacts' commitments. Yet, the current top-down and State-led review process does not offer an efficient platform for identifying cases of non-adherence to Compact standards. This article uses a case study approach to highlight instances of non-compliance with Compact standards in Canada, South Africa, and the European Union. We use a functionalist method of comparison to analyze State practice in these three regions in relation to (i) use of immigration detention and (ii) access to the asylum procedure, with access to healthcare as a cross-cutting issue. The article discusses how the Compacts' review mechanisms could be improved and their added value in terms of their impact on domestic migration policies. It argues that both Compact review and implementation can be improved through increased civil society participation.

show abstract

Section: Conditions Of Immigration Detentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviewing the reviews: the Global Compacts' added value in access to asylum procedures and immigration detention

Atak,

Grundler,

Endres de Oliveira

et al. 2023

Front. Hum. Dyn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Informing for the sake of it: legal intricacies, acceleration and suspicion in the German and Swiss migration regimes

Borrelli

Wyss

2022

Citizenship Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In migration law, being informed about legal and administrative procedures constitutes an essential procedural safeguard. Yet, in practice, the transparency of legal practices is often structurally undermined, resulting in the curtailment of procedural safeguards and potentially affecting perceptions of procedural justice. Building on our multi-sited ethnographic research in Germany and Switzerland, we first argue that migrants find it often difficult to anticipate how laws work, contradicting the key procedural law principle of legal certainty. Second, a general trend towards acceleration in migration administration allows limited time for information to reach migrants on the ground, leaving them uninformed about legal procedures. Third, migration law is implemented in an atmosphere of suspicion, which has a negative impact on trust between migrants and state officials -and on transparency. We thus demonstrate how procedural safeguards become empty and routinised, aggravating the structural violence at the heart of the distinction between citizens and non-citizens in interactions with the state.

show abstract

The making of procedural justice: enacting the state and (non)citizenship

Andreetta

Vetters

Yanaşmayan

2022

Citizenship Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent advances in citizenship and migration studies have demonstrated the need to explore noncitizens' social, political and legal relationships to the state in their own right. Such a rethinking inevitably requires analysing how both 'citizenship' and 'the state' are enacted and performed in the negotiation of substantive rights. This special issue follows an unexplored path by scrutinizing these interactions between 'citizenship' and 'stateness' in the domain of procedural law, procedural safeguards, and perceptions of procedural justice among a variety of actors. The contributions explore empirically how procedural rules are invoked, altered, disregarded, or reinvented in different sites of interaction, ranging from asylum determination and adjudication to immigration and municipal registration offices. This interactionist approach not only recasts procedural rules as an integral part of citizenship struggles, thereby shedding light on the co-constitution of state and noncitizenship, but also stresses the importance of nuanced analyses of the nexus between procedural and substantive rights.

show abstract

Human Rights Challenges to European Migration Policy

Cited by 4 publications

References 17 publications

Reviewing the reviews: the Global Compacts' added value in access to asylum procedures and immigration detention

Reviewing the reviews: the Global Compacts' added value in access to asylum procedures and immigration detention

Informing for the sake of it: legal intricacies, acceleration and suspicion in the German and Swiss migration regimes

The making of procedural justice: enacting the state and (non)citizenship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About