Articles for tag: AsylFlüchtlingsschutzMigrationNon-Refoulement-Gebot

The Global Politics of Refugee Protection and Return

Voluntary, safe and dignified return is one of the durable solutions to forced displacement and, thus, hosting states have the responsibility to provide international protection to refugees until the conditions for voluntary repatriation are met. Premature or forced return that is falling short of international standards would mean a violation of the principle of non-refoulement. Current global governance of forced displacement impeding seeking asylum, delaying resettlement, and facilitating return ends up violating the very founding principles of the international refugee regime while exposing refugees and asylum-seekers to violence and higher risks.

The Burden of Being „Safe“

Cooperation on migration management has been recently characterised by a process of “informalisation”, most prominently in relation to readmission, which saw the proliferation of informal agreements of a dubious legal nature – particularly from a rule of law perspective. This expansion has been two-fold. First, the use of informal agreements has expanded from the national level to the EU level. Second, the informalisation of cooperation with third countries has extended to include not only migration and border management, but also asylum management. This post aims to analyse both expansive shifts, highlighting their impact on international responsibility sharing mechanisms and the protection of asylum seekers’ fundamental rights.

Frequent Recourse to the Principle of ›Effectiveness‹ in ECJ Asylum Jurisprudence

An empirical study of all asylum-related preliminary rulings reveals a disquieting trend: the Court has adopted an administrative, passivist role within the area. Its distinguishing features include an overzealous concern for the technicalities of the legislative instruments before it and sparse to no references to human rights instruments or values in the operative parts of the judgments. In light of the symbolic power carried by the Court’s language, this trend risks sending the wrong signal to national judicial instances; namely, that concerns for the system can legitimately trump concerns for the individuals caught in it.

The External Dimension of EU Migration and Asylum Policy

This online symposium is being held just before the ACES-Asser conference on ‘Migration deals and their damaging effects’, which will take place online on 8-9 October. The conference and the contributions in this symposium aim to examine the legal and policy implications of the increased informalisation of the EU’s external action in the field of migration and asylum. The use of informal instruments in EU external relations is nothing new. At the same time, the increasing recourse to such instruments in the past few years has been a growing cause of concern over their potential detrimental effects on the rights of migrants and refugees, the EU’s institutional balance, the rule of law, as well as the global regime for protection of refugees.

Bad Role Models

Over the past several months, there has been an increase in asylum seekers and refugees crossing the English Channel in small inflatable boats. This prompted the UK government to propose stemming arrivals with an Australian-style approach: ‘pushing back’ boats to France before they can reach British territorial waters. The UK already funds France to prevent asylum seekers leaving French territory through ‘pullback’ measures. Such pushback and pullback practices likely violate several international refugee, human rights and law of the sea obligations.

Ask the Dust

Last week, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) condemned France for violating Article 3 of the Convention, by reducing asylum seekers to destitution in such an intensity that it constitutes a degrading treatment. It asserts that the French authorities failed to fulfill their obligations under national law against three of the plaintiffs. According to the Court, the national authorities must be held responsible for the conditions in which they left the asylum seekers, who lived for months on the street, without any resources, without any access to sanitary facilities, without any means of providing for their basic needs and in the constant anguish of being attacked and robbed

Wer glaubt meinem Glauben?

Wenn Geflüchtete im Asylverfahren geltend machen, wegen einer Konversion zum Christentum bei einer Rückkehr in ihr Herkunftsland einer Verfolgung ausgesetzt zu sein, ist das ein Asylgrund. Die weiterhin offenen Fragen jedes Einzelfalls sind freilich: Ist die Konversion und der christliche Glaube glaubhaft? Und lebt die einzelne Antragstellerin ihren christlichen Glauben in einer Art und Weise, dass ihr im Herkunftsland eine Verfolgung droht? Und vor allem: Wer hat die rechtliche wie tatsächliche Kompetenz, diese Fragen zu beantworten? Dazu hat sich jetzt das Bundesverfassungsgericht geäußert.

Expelled from Humanity

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights in M.N. and Others v. Belgium will undoubtedly further propel the debate on the scope of extraterritorial state jurisdiction. More importantly, however, it reveals the necessity of addressing the systemic exclusion of refugees from the international legal order.

First Order, then Humanity

While most news platforms are providing up-to-date information on Covid-19, one can easily forget the people trying to enter Greece to seek asylum, waiting at the Turkish side of the border or that are being detained and punished on Greek territory on the grounds of illegal entry. Europe’s response to the situation at the Greek external border does not follow its own rules. It abandons European values and foundational principles. The decision to launch a Frontex activity seems to follow a current trend to perceive human rights as subordinate to the unfettered sovereign rights of States.