The contribution looks into what be be termed a paradigm shift in the field of asylum law, decisively away from a focus on the individual and towards harsh, indiscriminate measures, whenever ‘security’ so dictates.
The Italy-Albania deal provides a new, some say innovative, approach to externalization in migration procedures. It differs from the current EU toolbox, raising issues related to these differences and the treatment of procedural rights. Where these issues arise and how they will be litigated nationally and/or in front of the ECJ is unclear but will shape migration discourses beyond Italy.
On September 13, the new Dutch government led by Dick Schoof outlined its programme for the next years. Unsurprisingly, a major point of this programme regards asylum and migration, for which the greatest ambition is to install the strictest regime ever and to include the Netherlands within the category of Member States of the European Union with the strictest admission rules. This post reviews these proposals through the lens of European Law to challenge their legal feasibility and flag the potential incompatibility with Dutch obligations stemming from EU and international law.
On 13 September 2024, ahead of the presentation of the State Budget, the new Dutch coalition presented their finalized plan to implement what it has labelled as the strictest admission regime ever in the field of asylum law. To implement its Outline Agreement, titled ‘Hope, Courage and Pride,’ the government plans to rely on an derogation provision in the Dutch Aliens Act 2000. We argue that the provision does not apply to the current situation and that the Dutch government therefore does not have the jurisdiction to render parts of the Dutch Aliens Act 2000 inoperative.
This week, the Polish government unveiled its new migration strategy which lays out a proposal that, “in the event of a threat to destabilize the country by an influx of immigrants, it should be possible to temporarily and territorially suspend the right to accept asylum applications.” This blog argues that the proposal is not only unlawful but also poses a threat to the common European asylum system. This is so especially in light of the upcoming implementation of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, a set of new rules managing migration and establishing a common asylum system at EU level.
Fünf Fragen an Lilian Tsourdi
Zweimal Solingen, zweimal unterschiedlichste extremistische Motivlagen, und doch: zweimal Solingen als Verstärker für Verschärfungen des Asylrechts, einmal 1993, und ganz aktuell 2024 mitzuerleben beim Migrationsgipfel und neuen Asylpaketen, gefordert nicht nur von rechts, sondern umgesetzt aktuell von der Ampelregierung. Damals wie heute waren die Anschläge, im Vorfeld wie im Nachgang, von einem Wording begleitet, dass Verunsicherung, Wut, Ärger und scheinbare Hilflosigkeit erzeugt(e) – und nein, das ist nicht verständnisvoll gemeint. Eine rechtssoziologische und kriminologische Perspektive zeigt, wie gefährlich Diskursverschiebung und Gesetzesverschärfungen als alleiniges „Allheilmittel“ in Reaktion auf das Attentat sind. Diese Spirale erhöht die Gefahr, dass sich weitere „Solingen“ – hier oder anderswo – ereignen.
Laut OVG Nordrhein-Westfalen besteht für Zivilpersonen in Syrien keine ernsthafte, individuelle Lebensgefahr mehr aufgrund des Bürgerkriegs; Rückkehrer:innen hätten außerdem keine zielgerichteten Menschenrechtsverletzungen zu befürchten. Das Politik- und Medienecho war gewaltig. Die Urteilsgründe zeigen allerdings, dass die große politische und mediale Aufmerksamkeit in keinem Verhältnis zum Inhalt der Entscheidung steht.
Migration and border control are amongst the most pressing topics throughout the regions in this global super-election year. How to tackle this issue seems to be the million-dollar question and the urgency of this topic seemingly has pushed President Joe Biden – who previously pledged to reverse restrictive migration policies – to drastic measures. After failed attempts to pass a bipartisan immigration deal earlier this year, Biden is now in a race with Republican candidate Donald Trump to show a “tough stand” on the matter while ignoring core refugee law principles and arguably with little lasting effects on numbers of arrivals at the southern border.
The governance of migration, in particular of asylum migration, is caught in the contrast between the political relevance of numbers, and the individuum-based structure of the law. For politics, it matters how many persons arrive, require shelter, enter procedures. For the legal assessment, however, numbers mostly do not matter: The right not to be rejected at the border, the right to access an asylum procedure and to shelter during that procedure are individual rights that are independent from the overall number of arrivals. This contrast is visible in periodical debates about a maximum number of asylum seekers per year, or proposals to abolish the individual right to protection altogether. Such proposals disregard that individual rights to protection are enshrined not just in constitutional law, but also in European and international law, and for good reason. However, it is worth taking the perspective of numbers seriously – while respecting the individual right to protection.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters