Source: https://pt.b-ok.org/book/2935475/ee49d4
Timestamp: 2020-02-19 03:12:15
Document Index: 344801891

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2008', 'art 2003', 'Art. 1', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ']

The Human Rights of Migrants and Refugees in European Law | Cathryn Costello | download
Principal The Human Rights of Migrants and Refugees in European Law
ISBN 10: 0199644748
ISBN 13: 9780199644742
Baixar (epub, 688 KB)
Бузов В.И.
File: PDF, 76.87 MB
[bookmark: p327](p.327)Annex 1States’ Selective Participation in EU Asylum and Immigration Measures
The UK and Ireland have special arrangements, whereby they may choose to opt-in to particular legislative proposals or measures adopted by the European Union (EU) in the fields of immigration and asylum.1Their positions on the various legislative measures considered in this book are set out in Table1. These special arrangements are set out in various protocols to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which differentiate between Schengen and Schengen-building measures and general measures that form part of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.2These are principally Protocol (No 19) on the Schengen Acquis Integrated into the Framework of the European Union; Protocol (No 20) on the application of certain aspects of Article 26 of the TFEU to the UK and Ireland; and Protocol (No 21) on the position of the UK and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.
Protocol No 22 is on the position of Denmark. Denmark has an opt-out from EU Justice and Home Affairs law. Denmark has however become part of the Dublin System by means of an international agreement.3Denmark is set to hold a referendum in 2015 on replacing its complete opt-out from justice and home affairs measures with a selective one, similar to the UK and Irish opt-outs.4
The Dublin System comprises all the EU Member States, together with Iceland, Norway,5Liechtenstein, and Switzerland.6
Table 1UK and Ireland’s Selective Participation in EU Immigration and Asylum Measures
Family Reunification Directive: Council Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification [2003] OJ L251/12 111
Students Directive: Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training, or voluntary service [2004] OJ L375/12
Researchers Directive: Council Directive 2005/71/EC on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research [2005] OJ L289/15 110
Long-Term Residents Directive: Council Directive (EC) 2003/109 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (2004) OJ L16/44
Blue Card Directive: Council Directive 2009/50/EC of 25 May 2009 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment (Blue Card Directive) [2009] OJ L155/17
Single Permit Directive: Directive 2011/98/EU on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State [2011] OJ L343/1.
Intra-Corporate Transferees Directive: Directive 2014/66/EU of 15 May 2014 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals in the framework of an intra-corporate transfer [2014] OJ L157/1
Seasonal Workers Directive: Council Directive 2014/36/EU of 26 February 2014 on the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals for the purpose of employment as seasonal workers [2014] OJ L94/375
Proposal for Students and Researchers Directive (recast): Proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and European Council and on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, pupil exchange, remunerated and unremunerated training, voluntary service, and au pairing (recast) COM (2013) 0151 final
Carrier Sanctions Directive: Directive 2001/51/EC supplementing the provisions of Article 26 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 [2001] OJ L187/45
Returns Directive: Council Directive (EC) 2008/115 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals [2008] OJ L348/98
Employer Sanctions Directive: Directive 2009/52/EC providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals [2009] OJ L168/24
Trafficking Directive: Council Directive (EC) 2004/81 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities [2004] OJ L261/19
EURODAC Regulation: Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 concerning the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention [2000] OJ L316/1
Dublin II Regulation; Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national [2003] OJ L50/1
Temporary Protection Directive: Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof [2001] OJ L212/12
Reception Conditions Directive: Council Directive 2003/9 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers of 27 January 2003 [2003] OJ L31/18
Qualification Directive: Council Directive 2004/83 of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted [2004] OJ L/304/12
Asylum Procedures Directive: Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status [2005] OJ L326/13
Recast EURODAC Regulation: Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 on the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person and on requests for the comparison with Eurodac data by Member States’ law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes, and amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice [2013] OJ L180/1
Dublin III Regulation: Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast) [2013] OJ L/180/31
Recast Qualification Directive: Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted [2011] OJ L/337/9
Recast Asylum Procedures Directive: Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection [2013] OJ L/180/60
Recast Reception Conditions Directive: Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast) [2013] OJ L180/96
Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund Regulation: Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 establishing the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund [2014] OJ L150/168
[bookmark: p328](p.328)[bookmark: p329](p.329)[bookmark: p330](p.330)
(1) For an overview of the UK’s selective participation, seeC Costello and E Hancox,Policy Primer: The UK, the Common European Asylum System and EU Immigration Law(Migration Observatory at Oxford May 2014).
(2) See furtherS Peers, ‘In a World of their Own? Justice and Home Affairs Opt-outs and the Treaty of Lisbon’ (2007–08) 10 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 383.
(3) Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark extending to Denmark the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national and Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 concerning the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention [2006] OJ L96/6.
(4) See furtherR Adler-Nissen, ‘Justice and Home Affairs: Denmark as an Active Differential European’ in L Miles and A Wivel (eds),Denmark and the European Union(Routledge 2014) 65;R Adler-Nissen, ‘Through the EU’s Back and Front Doors: Norway’s and Denmark’s Selective Approaches in the Area of Freedom, Justice and Security’ in C Grøn, P Nedergaard, and A Wivel (eds),Still the ‘Other’ European Community? The Nordic Countries and the European Union(Routledge 2015) 188.
(5) Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Iceland or Norway—Declarations [2001] OJ L93/38.
(6) Protocol between the European Community, the Swiss Confederation, and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland [2011] OJ L160/37; Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland [2008] OJ L53/3.
[bookmark: p331](p.331)Select Bibliography of Scholarly Works
[bookmark: acprof-9780199644742-bibliography-1.xhtml]A
Abizadeh A, ‘Democratic Theory and Border Coercion: No Rights to Unilaterally Control your Own Borders’ (2008) 36Political Theory37
Ackers D, ‘The Negotiations on the Asylum Procedures Directive’ (2005) 7EJML1
Acosta D, ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in EU Migration Law: Is the European Parliament Becoming Bad and Ugly? (The Adoption of Directive 2008/15: The Returns Directive)’ (2009) 11EJML19
Acosta D,The Long-Term Residence Status as a Subsidiary Form of EU Citizenship—An Analysis of Directive 2003/109(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2011)
Acosta D, ‘Civic Citizenship Reintroduced? The Long-Term Residence Directive as a Postnational Form of Membership’ (2015) 21(2)ELJ200
Akram S, ‘UNRWA and Palestinian Refugees’ in E Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, G Loescher, K Long, and N Sigona (eds),Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies(OUP 2014)
Akram S and Goodwin-Gill G, ‘BriefAmicus Curiaeon the Status of Palestinian Refugees under International Law’ (2000–2001) 11 Pal YIL 185
Alexy R,A Theory of Constitutional Rights(OUP 2002)
Aliverti A,Crimes of Mobility: Criminal Law and the Regulation of Immigration(Routledge 2014)
Alston P and Weiler JHH, ‘An “Ever Closer Union” in Need of a Human Rights Policy: The European Union and Human Rights’ (1998) 9European Journal of International Law658
Alter K, ‘The European Court of Justice’s Political Power across Space and Time’ (2009) 9Northwestern University School and Law and Economics Working Paper3
Alter K,The European Court’s Political Power: Selected Essays(OUP 2009)
Anker D, ‘Refugee Law, Gender and the Human Rights Paradigm’ (2002) 15 Harvard Human Rights Law Journal 133
Apap J, de Bruycker P, and Schmitter C, ‘Regularisation of Illegal Aliens in the European Union. Summary Reports of a Comparative Study’ (2000) 2 EJML 263
Arendt H, ‘The Decline of the Nation-State and the End of the Rights of Man’ inThe Origins of Totalitarianism(A Harvest Book/Harcourt, Inc 1948)
Arnull A, ‘Family Reunification and Fundamental Rights’ (2006) 31 ELRev 611
Avbelj M and Komárek J (eds), ‘Four Visions of Constitutional Pluralism–Symposium Transcript’ (2008) 2(1) EJLS 325
Azoulai L, ‘The (Mis)construction of the European Individual: Two Essays on Union Citizenship Law’ (2014) EUI Working Papers in Law 2014/14
Bader V (ed),Citizenship and Exclusion(Macmillan 1997)
Bader V, ‘Fairly Open Borders’ in V Bader (ed),Citizenship and Exclusion(Macmillan 1997)
Bader V, ‘The Ethics of Immigration’ (2005) 12 Constellations 331
[bookmark: p332](p.332)
Baldaccini A, ‘The Return and Removal of Irregular Migrants under EU law: An Analysis of the Returns Directive’ (2009) 11 EJML 1
Baldaccini A, ‘The EU Directive on Return: Principles and Protest’ (2010) 28 RSQ 114
Baldaccini A, Guild E, and Toner H (eds),Whose Freedom, Security and Justice? EU Immigration and Asylum Law after 1999(Hart Publishing 2007)
Baldwin-Edwards M and Kraler A,REGINE: Regularisations in Europe. Study on Practices in the Area of Regularisation in the Member States of the EU—Final Report(ICMPD 2009)
Battjes H,European Asylum Law and International Law(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2006)
Battjes H, ‘Landmarks: Soering’s Legacy’ (2008) 1 Amsterdam Law Forum 139
Battjes H, ‘In Search of a Fair Balance: The Absolute Character of the Prohibition ofRefoulementunder Article 3 ECHR Reassessed’ (2009) 22 Leiden Journal of International Law 583
Bauböck R,Transnational Citizenship: Membership and Rights in International Migration(Edward Elgar 1994)
Bauböck R, ‘Why European Citizenship? Normative Approaches to Supranational Union’ (2007) 8Theoretical Inquiries in Law453
Bauböck R, ‘There is a Mismatch between Citizens’ Moral Intuitions and Their Political Views’ (May/June 2009) (34)3 Boston Review 17
Bauböck R, Ersboll E, Groenendijk K, and Waldrauch H (eds),Acquisition and Loss of Nationality: Volumes I & II(Amsterdam University Press 2006)
Benhabib S,The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents and Citizens(Cambridge University Press 2004)
Benhabib S,Another Cosmopolitanism: Hospitality, Sovereignty and Democratic Iterations(OUP 2006)
Benhabib S,Dignity in Adversity: Human Rights in Troubled Times(Polity Press 2011)
Benhabib S and Resnik J (eds),Migrations and Mobilities: Citizenship, Borders, and Gender(New York University Press 2009)
Besselink L, ‘Entrapped by the Maximum Standard: On Fundamental Rights, Pluralism and Subsidiarity in the European Union’ (1998) 35 CMLRev 629
Besson S, ‘The European Union and Human Rights: Towards a New Kind of Post-National Human Rights Institution’ (2006) 6 HRLRev 323
Besson S, ‘European Legal Pluralism afterKadi’ (2009) 5 European Constitutional Law Review 237
Bignami F, ‘Creating European Rights: National Values and Supranational Interests’ (2005) 11 CJEL 241
Bigo D, ‘Border Regimes, Police Cooperation and Security in an Enlarged European Union’ in J Zielonka (ed),Europe Unbound: Enlarging and Reshaping the Boundaries of the European Union(Routledge 2003)
Boeles P, ‘Directive on Family Reunification: Are the Dilemmas Resolved?’ (2001) 3 EJML 61
Bonjour S, ‘Between Integration Provision and Selection Mechanism. Party Politics, Judicial Constraints, and the Making of French and Dutch Policies of Civic Integration Abroad’ (2010) 12(3) EJML 299
Bonjour S, ‘The Transfer of Pre-Departure Integration Requirements for Family Migrants among Member States of the European Union’ (2014) 2(2) Comparative Migration Studies 203
Bosniak L, ‘Universal Citizenship and the Problem of Alienage’ (2000) 94 Northwestern University Law Review 963
[bookmark: p333](p.333)
Bosniak L, ‘Amnesty in Immigration: Forgetting, Forgiving, Freedom’ (2013) 16 Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 344
Bryan I and Langford P, ‘The Lawful Detention of Unauthorised Aliens under the European System for the Protection of Human Rights’ (2011) 80 Nordic Journal of International Law 193
Byrne R, Noll G, and Vedsted-Hansen J (eds),New Asylum Countries? Migration Control and Refugee Protection in an Enlarged European Union(Kluwer Law International 2002)
Byrne R and Shacknove A, ‘The Safe Country Notion in European Asylum Law’ (1996) 9 Harvard Human Rights Journal 185
Byrne R, Noll G, and Vedsted-Hansen J, ‘Understanding Refugee Law in an Enlarged European Union’ (2004) 15(2) EJIL 355
Callewaert J, ‘The European Convention on Human Rights and European Union law: A Long Way to Harmony’ (2009) 6 HRLRev 768
Cantor D and Durieux JF (eds),Refuge from Humanity? War Refugees and International Humanitarian Law(Brill–Nijhoff 2014)
Carens J, ‘Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders’ (1987) 49(2) Review of Politics 251
Carens J, ‘Who Should Get In? The Ethics of Immigration Admissions’ (2003) 17 Ethics and International Affairs 95
Carens J, ‘The Case for Amnesty’ (May/June 2009) Boston Review
Carens J,The Ethics of Immigration(OUP 2013)
Carlier J and Sarolea S, ‘Le Droit d’Asile dans l’Union européenne contrôlé par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme’ (2011) 6436 Journal des Tribunaux 353
Cassese A, ‘Can the Notion of Inhuman and Degrading Treatment be applied to Socio-Economic Conditions?’ (1991) 2 EJIL 141
Castles S, ‘Guestworkers in Europe: A Resurrection?’ (2006) 40 International Migration Review 741
Chelvan S, ‘Case Comment:X, Y and Z v Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel: A Missed Opportunity or a New Dawn?’ (2013) No 5 Chambers Newsletter
Cholewinksi R,Borders and Discrimination in the European Union(ILPA/MPG 2002)
Cholewinksi R, ‘Family Reunification and Conditions Placed on Family Members: Dismantling a Fundamental Human Right’ (2002) 4 EJML 271
Cholewinksi R, ‘Preventing Irregular Migration’ in F Julien-Laferriere, H Labaye, and O Erdström (eds),The European Immigration and Asylum Policy: Critical Assessment Five Years After the Amsterdam Treaty(Bruylant 2005)
Clayton G, ‘Asylum Seekers in Europe:MSS v Belgium and Greece’ (2011) 11 HRLRev 758
Cornelisse G,Immigration Detention and Human Rights: Rethinking Territorial Sovereignty(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2010)
Costello C, ‘Accidents of Place and Parentage: Birthright Citizenship and Border Crossings’ inThe Citizenship Referendum: Implications for the Constitution and Human Rights(Law School Trinity College Dublin 2004)
Costello C, ‘The Asylum Procedures Directive and the Proliferation of Safe Country Practices: Deterrence, Deflection and the Dismantling of International Protection’ (2005) 7 EJML 35
Costello C, ‘The Bosphorus Ruling of the European Court of Human Rights: Fundamental Rights and Blurred Boundaries in Europe’ (2006) 6 HRLRev 87
[bookmark: p334](p.334)
Costello C, ‘Administrative Governance and the Europeanisation of Asylum and Immigration Policy’ in H Hofmann and A Türk (eds),EU Administrative Governance(Elgar Publishing 2006)
Costello C, ‘The Asylum Procedures Directive in Legal Context: Equivocal Standards Meet General Principles’ in A Baldaccini, E Guild, and H Toner (eds),Whose Freedom, Security and Justice? EU Immigration and Asylum Law after 1999(Hart Publishing 2007)
Costello C, ‘Metock: Free Movement and “Normal Family Life” in the Union’ (2009) 46 CMLRev 587
Costello C, ‘Citizenship of the Union: Above Abuse?’ in R de la Feria and S Vogenauer (eds),Prohibition of Abuse of Law: A New General Principle of EU Law(Hart Publishing 2011)
Costello C, ‘The Ruling of the Court of Justice inNS/MEon the Fundamental Rights of Asylum Seekers under the Dublin Regulation: Finally, an End to Blind Trust across the EU?’ (2012) 2 Asiel & Migrantenrecht 83
Costello C, ‘Courting Access to Asylum in Europe: Recent Supranational Jurisprudence Explored’ (2012) 12(2) HRLRev 287
Costello C, ‘Article 33—Family and Professional Life’ in S Peers, T Hervey, J Kenner, and A Ward (eds),The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights—A Commentary(Hart Publishing 2014)
Costello C, ‘Child Citizens &De FactoDeportation: Tender Years, Fragile Ties & Security of Residence’ in K Bradley, A Whelan, and N Travers (eds),Of Courts and Constitutions: Liber Amicorum in Honour of Nial Fennelly(Hart Publishing 2014)
Costello C, ‘Migrants and Forced Labour: A Labour Law Response’ in A Bogg, C Costello, A Davies, and J Prassl (eds),The Autonomy of Labour Law(Hart Publishing 2015)
Costello C, ‘Immigration Detention: The Grounds Beneath our Feet’ (2015) 68(1) Current Legal Problems 143
Costello C and Brown E, ‘Comity, Convergence and Contrasts –The ECHR and European Union Law’ in U Kilkelly (ed),ECHR and Irish Law(Jordans 2004)
Costello C and Brown E, ‘The EU and the ECHR before European and Irish Courts’ in U Kilkelly (ed),ECHR and Irish Law(2nd edn, Jordans 2008)
Costello C and Moreno-Lax V, ‘The Extraterritorial Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: From Territoriality to Facticity, the Effectiveness Model’ in S Peers, T Hervey, J Kenner, and A Ward (eds),The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary(Hart Publishing 2014)
Costello C and Mouzourakis M, ‘Reflections on ReadingTarakhel: Is “How Bad is Bad Enough” Good Enough?’ (2014) 10 Asiel & Migrantenrecht 404
Costello C and Freedland M (eds),Migrants at Work: Immigration and Vulnerability in Labour Law(OUP 2014)
Craig P, ‘The Nature of the Community: Integration, Democracy and Legitimacy’ in P Craig and G de Búrca (eds),The Evolution of EU Law(OUP 1999)
Craig P,EU Administrative Law(OUP 2006)
Craig P, and de Búrca G (eds),The Evolution of EU Law(OUP 1999)
Craig P and de Búrca G (eds),EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials(4th edn, OUP 2008)
Dauvergne C, ‘Sovereignty, Migration and the Rule of Law in Global Times’ (2004) 67MLR588
Dauvergne C,Making People Illegal: What Globalization Means for Migration and Law(Cambridge University Press 2008)
[bookmark: p335](p.335)
P Davies G, ‘The Right to Stay at Home: A Basis for Expanding European Family Rights’ in D Kochenov (ed),EU Citizenship and Federalism: The Role of Rights(Cambridge University Press 2016,forthcoming)
De Bruycker P (ed),Regularisations of Illegal Immigrants in the European Union(Odysseus/Bruylant 2000)
De Búrca G, ‘After the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: The Court of Justice as a Human Rights Adjudicator?’ (2013) 20 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 168
De Búrca G and Gerstenberg O, ‘The Denationalization of Constitutional Law’ (2006) 47 Harvard International Law Journal 243
De Hart B, ‘Love Thy Neighbour: Family Reunification and the Rights of Insiders’ (2009) 11 EJML 235
Den Heijer M, ‘Whose Rights and Which Rights? The Continuing Story ofNon-refoulementunder the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2008) 10 EJML 277
Den Heijer M, ‘Issues of Shared Responsibility before the European Court of Human Rights’ (2012) ACIL Research Paper No 2012-04 SHARES Series
Den Heijer M,Europe and Extratteritorial Asylum(Hart Publishing 2012)
De Jesús I and De Schutter O, ‘Binding the EU to International Human Rights Law’ (2008) 27 Yearbook of European Law 277
Dembour MB, ‘Human Rights Law and National Sovereignty in Collusion: The Plight of Quasi-Nationals at Strasbourg’ (2003) 21 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 63
Dembour MB,Who Believes in Human Rights? Reflections on the European Convention(Cambridge University Press 2006)
De Schutter O, ‘Globalization and Jurisdiction: Lessons From the European Convention on Human Rights’ NYU Center for Human Rights and Global Justice Working Paper No 9, 2005
De Schutter O, ‘The Promotion of Fundamental Rights by the Union as a Contribution to the European Legal Space (I): Mutual Recognition and Mutual Trust in the Establishment of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ (2006) REFGOV-FR-2 Working Paper
De Schutter O, ‘The Division of Tasks between the Council of Europe and the European Union in the Promotion of Human Rights in Europe: Conflict, Competition and Complementarity’ (2007) REFGOV-FR-11 Working Paper
De Schutter O, ‘Bosphoruspost-Accession: Redefining the Relationships between the European Court of Human Rights and the Parties to the Convention’ in V Kosta, N Skoutaris, and V Tzevelekos (eds),The EU Accession to the ECHR(Hart Publishing 2014)
Dewhurst E, ‘The Right of Irregular Immigrants to Outstanding Remuneration under the EU Sanctions Directive: Rethinking Domestic Labour Policy in a Globalised World’ (2011) 13 EJML 389
Dewhurst E, ‘The Right of Irregular Immigrants to Back Pay: The Spectrum of Protection in International, Regional and National Legal Systems’ in C Costello and M Freedland (eds),Migrants at Work(OUP 2014)
Douglas-Scott S, ‘A Tale of Two Courts: Luxembourg, Strasbourg and the Growing European Human Rights Acquis’ (2006) 43 CMLRev 619
Douglas-Scott S, ‘Justice, Injustice and the Rule of Law in the EU’ in G de Búrca, D Kochenov, and A Williams (eds),Debating Europe’s Justice Deficit(Hart Publishing 2015)
Douglas-Scott S, ‘The Relationship between the EU and the ECHR Five Years on from the Treaty of Lisbon’ in S de Vries, U Bernitz, and S Weatherill (eds), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as a Binding Instrument: Five Years Old and Growing Hart Publishing 2015,forthcoming)
[bookmark: p336](p.336)
Durieux JF, ‘Salah Sheekh is a Refugee: New Insights into Primary and Subsidiary Forms of Protection’ (2008) Refugee Studies Centre Working Paper No 49
Durieux JF, ‘The Vanishing Refugee: How EU Asylum Law Blurs the Specificity of Refugee Protection’ in H Lambert, J McAdam, and M Fullerton (eds),The Global Reach of European Refugee Law(Cambridge University Press 2013)
Düvell F, ‘Paths into Irregularity: The Legal and Political Construction of Irregular Migration’ (2011) 13 EJML 275
Eckes C, ‘EU Accession to the ECHR: Between Autonomy and Adaptation’ (2013) 76(2) MLR 254
Edwards A,Back to Basics: The Right to Liberty and Security of Person and‘Alternatives to Detention’of Refugees, Asylum seekers, Stateless Persons and Other Migrants(UNHCR 2011)
Edwards A and Van Waas L,Nationality and Statelessness in International Law(Cambridge University Press 2014)
Ellerman A, ‘The Rule of Law and the Right to Stay: The Moral Claims of Undocumented Migrants’ (2014) 42 Politics & Society 293
Endicott T, ‘ “International Meaning”: Comity in Fundamental Rights Adjudication’ (2002) 14IJRL280
Errera R, ‘The ECJ and Subsidiary Protection: Reflections onElgafaji—And After’ Paper presented at the IARLJ conference, Berlin, 19–20 October 2009
Errera R, ‘Cessation and Assessment of New Circumstances: a Comment onAbdulla, CJEU, 2 March 2010’ (2011) 23 IJRL 521
Ersbøll E, ‘Biao v Denmark: discrimination among citizens’ (2014) 79 EUI Working Paper RSCAS 14
Farahat A, ‘The Exclusiveness of Inclusion: On the Boundaries of Human Rights in Protecting Transnational and Second Generation Migrants’ (2009) 11 EJML 253
Fauchald O and Nollkaemper A (eds),The Practice of International and National Courts and the (De-)Fragmentation of International Law(Hart Publishing 2014)
Feldman G,The Migration Apparatus: Security, Labor, and Policymaking in the European Union(Stanford University Press 2012)
Feller E, Türk V, and Nicholson F (eds),Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection(Cambridge University Press 2003)
Ferrara A, ‘Europe as a “Special Area for Human Hope” ’ (2007) 14(3) Constellations 315
Fischer-Loscano A, Löhr T, and Tohidipur T, ‘Border Controls at Sea: Requirements under International Human Rights and Refugee Law’ (2009) 21 IJRL 256
Foster M,International Refugee Law and Socioeconomic Rights: Refuge from Deprivation(Cambridge University Press 2007)
Fredman S, ‘Human Rights Transformed: Positive Duties and Positive Rights’ (2006) Autumn, PL 498
Gammeltoft-Hansen T,Access to Asylum: International Refugee Law and the Globalisation of Migration Control(Cambridge University Press 2011)
[bookmark: p337](p.337)
Gammeltoft-Hansen T and Gammeltoft-Hansen H, ‘The Right to Seek—Revisited. On the UN Human Rights Declaration Article 14 and Access to Asylum Procedures in the EU’ (2008) 10 EJML 439
Gewith A, ‘Are There any Absolute Rights?’ in J Waldron (ed),Theories of Rights(OUP 1984)
Gibney M,The Ethics and Politics of Asylum: Liberal Democracy and the Politics of Asylum(Cambridge University Press 2004)
Gil-Bazo MT, ‘Refugee Status and Subsidiary Protection under EC Law: The EC Qualifications Directive and the Right to be Granted Asylum’ in A Baldaccini, E Guild, and H Toner (eds),Whose Freedom, Security and Justice? EU Immigration and Asylum Law after 1999(Hart Publishing 2007)
Gil-Bazo MT, ‘The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Right to be Granted Asylum in the Union’s Law’ (2008) 27 RSQ 33
Gilbert G, ‘Is Europe Living Up to Its Obligations to Refugees?’ (2004) 15 EJIL 963
Gilbert G, ‘Exclusion and Evidentiary Assessment’ in G Noll (ed),Proof, Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2005)
Goodman S, ‘Controlling Immigration through Language and Country Knowledge Requirements’ (2011) 34(2) West European Politics 235
Goodwin-Gill G, ‘Article 31 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Non-Penalization, Detention and Protection’ in E Feller, V Türk, and F Nicholson,Refugee Protection in International Law—UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection(Cambridge University Press 2003)
Goodwin-Gill G, ‘Document,R (ex parte European Roma Rights Centreet al)v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another (UNHCR intervening)’ (2005) 17 IJRL 427
Goodwin-Gill G, ‘The Search for the One, True Meaning … ’ in G Goodwin-Gill and H Lambert (eds),The Limits of Transnational Law: Refugee Law, Policy Harmonization and Judicial Dialogue in the European Union(Cambridge University Press 2010)
Goodwin-Gill G, ‘Opinion: The Right to Seek Asylum: Interception at Sea and the Principle ofNon-refoulement’ (2011) 23 IJRL 443
Goodwin-Gill G and Lambert H (eds),The Limits of Transnational Law: Refugee Law, Policy Harmonization and Judicial Dialogue in the European Union(Cambridge University Press 2010)
Goodwin-Gill G and McAdam J,The Refugee in International Law(3rd edn, OUP 2007)
Gragl P, ‘(Judicial) Love is Not a One-Way Street: The EU Preliminary Reference Procedure as a Model for ECtHR Advisory Opinions under Draft Protocol No 16’ (2013) 38(2) ELR 229
Greer S and Williams A, ‘Human Rights in the Council of Europe and the EU: Towards “Individual”, “Constitutional” or “Institutional” Justice?’ (2009) 15 ELJ 467
Groenendijk K, ‘The Directive on Mutual Recognition of Expulsion Decisions: Symbolic or Unbalanced Politics?’ in P De Bruycker (ed),The Emergence of a European Immigration Policy(Bruylant 2003)
Groenendijk K, ‘Legal Concepts of Integration in EU Migration Law’ (2004) 6 EJML 111
Groenendijk K, ‘Family Reunification as a Right under Community Law’ (2006) 8 EJML 215
Groenendijk K, ‘The Long-Term Residents Directive, Denizenship and Integration’ in A Baldaccini, E Guild, and H Toner (eds),Whose Freedom, Security and Justice? EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy(Hart Publishing 2007)
Groenendijk K, ‘Pre-departure Integration Strategies in the European Union: Integration or Immigration Policy?’ (2011) 13(1) EJML 1
[bookmark: p338](p.338)
Groenendijk K and Fernhout R, van Dam D, van Oers R, and Strik T,The Family Reunification Directive in EU Member States: The First Year of Implementation(Centre for Migration Law 2007)
Guild E, ‘Discretion, Competence and Migration in the European Union’ (1999) 1 EJML 61
Guild E, ‘Primary Immigration: The Great Myths’ in E Guild and C Harlow (eds),Implementing Amsterdam: Immigration and Asylum Rights in EC Law(Hart Publishing 2001)
Guild E, ‘Who is an Irregular Migrant?’ in B Bogusz, R Cholewiski, A Cygan, and E Szyszczak (eds),Irregular Migration and Human Rights(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2004)
Guild E and Harlow C (eds),Implementing Amsterdam(Hart Publishing 2001)
Guild E, Groenendijk K, and Carrera S (eds),Illiberal Liberal States(Ashgate 2009)
Guild E and Garlick M, ‘Refugee Protection, Counter-Terrorism, and Exclusion in the European Union’ (2011) 29 RSQ 63
Guild E, Costello C, Garlick M, Moreno-Lax V, and Mouzourakis M, ‘New Approaches, Alternative Avenues and Means of Access to Asylum Procedures for Persons Seeking International Protection’ (European Parliament 2014)
Guild E, Peers S, and Tomkin J,The EU Citizenship Directive: A Commentary(OUP 2014)
Guiraudon V, ‘European Integration and Migration Policy: Vertical Policy-making as Venue Shopping’ (2000) 38 JCMS 251
Guiraudon V, ‘European Courts and Foreigners’ Rights: A Comparative Study of Norm Diffusion’ (2000) 34 International Migration Review 1088
Guiraudon V, ‘Before the EU Border: Remote Control of the “Huddled Masses” ’ in K Groenendijk, E Guild, and P Minderhoud (eds),In Search of Europe’s Borders(Kluwer 2003)
Hailbronner K, ‘Detention of Asylum Seekers’ (2007) 9 EJML 159
Hailbronner K and Thym D, ‘Annotation of Case C-34/09Ruiz Zambrano’ (2010) 48 CMLRev 1253
Halberstam D, ‘The Bride of Messina: Constitutionalism and Democracy in Europe’ (2005) 30 ELRev 775
Halberstam D, ‘Constitutionalism and Pluralism in Marbury and Van Gend’ (2008) Michigan Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper No 104
Halberstam D, ‘Constitutional Heterarchy: The Centrality of Conflict in the European Union and the United States’ (2008) Michigan Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper No 111
Halberstam D and C Möllers, ‘The German Constitutional Court says “Ja zu Deutschland!” ’ (2009) 10 German Law Journal 1241
Hancox E, ‘The Meaning of “Implementing” EU Law under Article 51(1) of the Charter:Åkerberg Fransson’ (2013) 50(5) CMLRev 1411
Hathaway J,The Law of Refugee Status(Butterworths 1991)
Hathaway J, ‘The Emerging Politics of Non-entrée’ (1992) 91 Refugees 40
Hathaway J, ‘Harmonizing for Whom? The Devaluation of Refugee Protection in the Era of European Economic Integration’ (1993) 26 Cornell International Law Journal 719
Hathaway J, ‘What’s in a Label?’ (2003) 5 EJML 1
[bookmark: p339](p.339)
Hathaway J,The Rights of Refugees under International Law(Cambridge University Press 2005)
Hathaway J, ‘The Human Rights Quagmire of Human Trafficking’ (2008) 49(1) Virginia Journal of International Law 1
Hathaway J, ‘EU Accountability to International Law: The Case of Asylum’ (2011) 33 Mich JIL 1
Hathaway J and Neve R, ‘Making International Refugee Law Relevant Again: A Proposal for Collectivized and Solution-Oriented Protection’ (1997) 10 Harvard Human Rights Law Journal 115
Hathaway J and Foster M, ‘Internal Protection/Relocation/Flight Alternative as an Aspect of Status Determination’ in E Feller, V Türk, and F Nicholson (eds),Refugee Protection in International Law(Cambridge University Press 2003)
Hathaway J and Foster M,The Law of Refugee Status(2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2014)
Hathaway J and Pobjoy J, ‘Queer Cases Make Bad Law’ (2012) 44(2) NYU Journal of International Law & Policy 315
Hathaway J and Gammeltoft-Hansen T, ‘Non-refoulementin a World of Cooperative Deterrence’ (2014) U of Michigan Law & Econ Research Paper No. 14-016
Hein C and Damato M,Exploring Avenues for Protected Entry in Europe(Italian Council for Refugees 2012)
Héritier A, ‘Institutional Change in Europe: Co-decision and Comitology Transformed’ (2012) 50(S1) JCMS 38
Hongju Koh H, ‘YLS Sale Symposium: Sale’s Legacies’ (Opinio Juris, 17 May 2014)
Honohan I, ‘Reconsidering the Claim to Family Reunification in Migration’ (2008) 57 Political Studies 1
Howse R and Nicolaidis K, ‘Democracy without Sovereignty: The Global Vocation of Political Ethics’ in T Broude and Y Shany (ed),The Shifting Allocation of Authority in International Law: Considering Sovereignty, Supremacy and Subsidiarity(Hart 2008)
Iben Jensen U, ‘Humanitarian Visas: Option or Obligation?’ (European Parliament 2014)
Ippolito F and Velluti D, ‘The Recast Process of the EC Asylum System: A Balancing Act between Efficiency and Fairness’ (2011) 30 RSQ 24
Joppke C, ‘Comparative Citizenship: A Restrictive Turn in Europe?’ (2008) 2(1) Journal of Law and Ethics of Human Rights 128
Joppke C and E Marzal, ‘Courts, the New Constitutionalism and Immigrant Rights: The Case of the French Conseil Constitutionnel’ (2004) 43 European Journal of Political Research 823
Juss S, ‘Free Movement and the World Order’ (2004) 16 IJRL 289
Kesby AG, ‘The Shifting and Multiple Border and International Law’ (2007) 27 OJLS 101
Kesby AG,The Right to Have Rights: Citizenship, Humanity and International Law(OUP 2012)
[bookmark: p340](p.340)
Kochenov D, ‘A Real European Citizenship, A New Jurisdiction Test, A Novel Chapter of the Development of the Union in Europe’ (2011) 18 CJEL 56
Kochenov D, ‘The Ought of Justice’ in G de Búrca, D Kochenov, and A Williams (eds),Debating Europe’s Justice Deficit(Hart Publishing 2015)
Kochenov D and Pirker B, ‘Deporting the Citizens within the European Union: A Counter-Intuitive Trend in Case C-348/09, P.I. v. Overbürgemeisterin der Stadt Remscheid’ (2013) 19 CJEL 369
Kofman E, ‘Female “Birds of Passage” a Decade Later: Gender and Immigration in the European Union’ (1999) 33 International Migration Review 269
Kofman E, ‘Family-Related Migration: A Critical Review of European Studies’ (2004) 30 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 243
Kosař D, ‘Inclusion before Exclusion or Vice Versa: What the Qualification Directive and the Court of Justice Do (Not) Say’ (2013) 25(1) IJRL 87
Koskenniemi M and Castrén E,Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law(Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights 2007)
Kosta V, Skoutaris N, and Tzevelekos V (eds),The EU Accession to the ECHR(Hart Publishing 2014)
Kostakopoulou D, ‘The ‘Protective Union’: Change and Continuity in Migration Law and Policy in Post-Amsterdam Europe’ (2000) 38 JCMS 497
Kostakopoulou D,Citizenship, Identity and Immigration in the European Union: Between Past and Future(Manchester University Press 2001)
Kostakopoulou D, ‘Floating Sovereignty: A Pathology or Necessary Means of State Evolution?’ (2002) 22 OJLS 135
Kostakopoulou D, ‘ “Integrating” Non-EU Migrants in the European Union: Ambivalent Legacies and Mutating Paradigms’ (2002) 8 CJEL 187
Kostakopoulou D, ‘Ideas, Norms and European Citizenship: Explaining Institutional Change’ (2005) 68 MLR 233
Kostakopoulou D, ‘The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and the Political Morality of Migration and Integration’ in H Lindahl (ed),A Right to Inclusion and Exclusion? Normative Fault Lines of the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice(Hart Publishing 2009)
Kostakopoulou D, Acosta Arcarazo D, and Munk T, ‘EU Migration Law: The Opportunities and Challenges Ahead’ in D Acosta Arcarazo and C Murphy (eds),EU Security and Justice Law after Lisbon and Stockholm(Hart Publishing 2014)
Kraler A, ‘Regularisation: A Misguided Option or Part and Parcel of a Comprehensive Policy Response to Irregular Migration?’ (2009) IMISCOE Working Paper No 24
Kraler A, ‘Fixing, Adjusting, Regulating, Protecting Human Rights—The Shifting Uses of Regularisations in the European Union’ (2011) 13 EJML 297
Kraler A, Kofman E, Kohli M, and Schmol C (eds),Gender, Generation and the Family in International Migration(Amsterdam University Press 2011)
Kraler A, Reichel D, König A, Baldwin-Edwards M, and Şimşek M (2014): Final Report—Feasibility Study on the Labour Market Trajectories of Regularised Immigrants within the European Union (REGANE I) (ICMPD 2014)
Krisch N, ‘The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law’ (2008) 71 MLR 183
Krisch N,Beyond Constitutionalism: The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law(OUP 2010)
Kumm M, ‘The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict: Constitutional Supremacy in Europe before and after the Constitutional Treaty’ (2005) 11(3) ELJ 262
Kumm M, ‘The Idea of Socratic Contestation and the Right to Justification: The Point of Rights-Based Proportionality Review’ (2010) 4 Law & Ethics of Human Rights 140
[bookmark: p341](p.341)
LLahav G, ‘Immigration and the State: the Devolution and Privatisation of Immigration Control in the EU’ (1998) 24 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 675
Lambert H, ‘Protection againstRefoulementfrom Europe: Human Rights Law Comes to the Rescue’ (1999) 48 ICLQ 543
Lambert H, ‘The EU Asylum Qualification Directive, its Impact on the Jurisprudence of the United Kingdom and International Law’ (2006) 55 ICLQ 161
Lambert H and Goodwin-Gill G,The Limits of Transnational Law: Refugee Law, Policy Harmonization and Judicial Dialogue in the European Union(Cambridge University Press 2010)
Lambert H, Messineo F, and Tiedemann P, ‘Comparative Perspectives of Constitutional Asylum in France, Italy and Germany:Resquiescat in Pace?’ (2008) 27 Refugee Survey Quarterly 16
Lansbergen A and Miller N, ‘European Citizenship Rights in Internal Situations: An Ambiguous Revolution?’ (2011) 7 EUConst 287
Lavenex S,Safe Third Countries: Extending the EU Asylum and Immigration Policies to Central and Eastern Europe(Central European University Press 1999)
Lavenex S, ‘Mutual Recognition and the Monopoly of Force: Limits of the Single Market Analogy’ (2007) 14 Journal of European Public Policy 762
LaViolette N, ‘UNHCR Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity’: A Critical Commentary (2010) 22(2) IJRL 173
Lawson R, ‘Positieve verplichtingen onder het EVRM: opkomst en ondergang van de “Fair Balance”–Test’ (1995) 20(5) NJCM-Bulletin
Lawson R, ‘Family Reunification and the Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, Judgment of 27 June 2006, Case C-540/03Parliament v Council’ (2007) 3 European Constitutional Law Review 342
Lawson R, ‘The Monitoring of Fundamental Rights in the Union as a Contribution to the European Legal Space (III): The Role of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2006) Working Paper Series REFGOV-FR-7
Legomsky S, ‘Secondary Refugee Movements and the Return of Asylum Seekers to Third Countries: The Meaning of Effective Protection’ (2003) 15 IJRL 567
Lenaerts K and de Smijter E, ‘The European Union as an Actor under International Law’ (1999-2000) 9 Yearbook of European Law 117
Letsas G, ‘International Human Rights and the Binding Force of Interim Measures’ (2003) 5 EHRLRev 527
Letsas G,A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights(OUP 2007)
Levinson A,The Regularisation of Unauthorized Migrants: Literature Survey and Country Case Studies(COMPAS 2005)
Lindahl H, ‘Finding a Place for Freedom, Security and Justice: The European Union’s Claim to Territorial Unity’ (2004) 29 ELR 461
Lindahl H, ‘Jus Includendi et Excludendi: Europe and the Borders of Freedom, Security and Justice’ (2005) King’s College Law Journal 234
Lindahl H, ‘Border Crossings by Immigrants: Legality, Illegality and Alegality’ (2008) 14 Res Publica 117
Lindahl H (ed),A Right to Inclusion and Exclusion? Normative Fault Lines of the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice(Hart Publishing 2009)
Lock T, ‘EU Accession to the ECHR: Implications for the Judicial Review of Strasbourg’ (2010) 35(6) European Law Review 777
[bookmark: p342](p.342)
Lock T, ‘Beyond Bosphorus: the European Court of Human Rights’ Case Law on the Responsibility of Member States of International Organisations under the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2010) 10 HRLRev 529
Lock T, ‘End of an Epic? The Draft Accession Agreement on the EU’s Accession to the ECHR’ (2012) 31(1) Yearbook of European Law 162
Lopatin E, ‘The Changing Position of the European Parliament on Irregular Migration and Asylum under Co-decision’ (2013) 51(4) JCMS 740
Lutz F,The Negotiations on the Return Directive: Comments and Materials(Wolf Legal Publishers 2010)
MacCormick N, ‘Liberalism, Nationalism and the Post-Sovereign State’ (1996) 33 Political Studies 553
MacCormick N,Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State and Nation in the European Commonwealth(OUP 1999)
Macklin A, ‘ “Disappearing Refugees”: Reflections on the Canada–US Safe Third Country Agreement’ (2005) 36(2) Columbia Human Rights Law Review 101
Macklin A, ‘Transjudicial Conversations about Security and Human Rights’CEPS Special Report(CEPS March 2009)
Maduro M, ‘The Scope of European Remedies: The Case of Purely Internal Situations and Reverse Discrimination’ in B Fitzpatrick, T Novitz, and P SkidmoreThe Future of Remedies in Europe(Hart Publishing 2000)
Maduro M, ‘Contrapunctual Law: Europe’s Constitutional Pluralism in Action’ in N Walker (ed),Sovereignty in Transition(Hart 2003)
Maduro M, ‘Europe and the Constitution: What If This Is as Good as It Gets?’ in JHH Weiler and M Wind (eds),European Constitutionalism beyond the State(Cambridge University Press 2003)
Maduro M, ‘Interpreting European Law: Judicial Adjudication in a Context of Constitutional Pluralism’ (2007) 1 EJLS 1
Maduro M, ‘Courts and Pluralism: Essay on a Theory of Judicial Adjudication in the Context of Legal and Constitutional Pluralism’ in JL Dunoff and JP Trachtman (eds),Ruling the World: Constitutionalism, International Law and Global Governance(Cambridge University Press 2009)
Maduro M, ‘Three Claims for Constitutional Pluralism’ in M Avbelj and J Komarak,Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union and Beyond(Hart Publishing 2012)
Maduro M, ‘In Search of a Meaning and Not in Search of the Meaning: Judicial Review and the Constitution in Times of Pluralism’ (2013) 2 Wisconsin LR 541
Maiani F and Vevstad V, ‘Reflection Note on the Evaluation of the Dublin System and the Dublin III Proposal’ (2009) European Parliament, PE 410.690
Mantouvalou V, ‘N v UK: No Duty to Rescue the Nearby Needy?’ (2009) 72 MLR 815
Marx R, ‘Article 26 (Freedom of Movement/Liberté de Circulation)’ in A Zimmermann (ed),Commentary on the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees(OUP 2011)
McAdam J, ‘The European Union Qualification Directive: The Creation of a Subsidiary Protection Regime’ (2005) 17 IJRL 461
McAdam J,Complementary Protection in International Refugee Law(OUP 2007)
McAdam J, ‘The Refugee Convention as a Rights Blueprint for Persons in Need of International Protection’ in J McAdam (ed),Forced Migration, Human Rights and Security(Hart Publishing 2008)
[bookmark: p343](p.343)
McAdam J, ‘Interpretation of the Refugee Convention’ in A Zimmermann (ed),Commentary on the Refugee Convention(OUP 2011)
Meckled-García S and Çali B, ‘Lost in Translation: The Human Rights Ideal and International Human Rights Law’ in S Meckled-García and B Çali (ed),The Legalization of Human Rights: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Human Rights and Human Rights Law(Routledge 2006)
Milanovich M,Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and Policy(OUP 2011)
Milanovich M, ‘Al-SkeiniandAl-Jeddain Strasbourg’ (2012) 23 EJIL 121
Miller D,Citizenship and National Identity(Polity 2000)
Miller D, ‘Border Regimes and Human Rights’ (2013) 7(1) Law and Ethics of Human Rights 1
Milner D, ‘Exemption from Cessation of Refugee Status in the Second Sentence of Art. 1C(5)/(6) of the 1951 Refugee Convention’ (2004) 16 IJRL 91
Mincheva E, ‘Case Report onKadzoev, 30 November 2009’ (2010) 12 EJML 361
Moeckli D, ‘The Rules of the Game HaveNotChanged’ (2008) 8 HRLRev 534
Mole N and Meredith C,Asylum and the European Convention on Human Rights(Council of Europe 2010)
Monar J, ‘The Dynamics of Justice and Home Affairs: Laboratories, Driving Factors and Costs’ (2001) 39 JCMS 747
Monar J, ‘The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ in A Von Bogdandy and J Bast (eds),Principles of European Constitutional Law(2nd edn, Hart Publishing 2009)
Monar J, ‘Justice and Home Affairs’ (2011) 49 JCMS 145
Moreno-Lax V, ‘Must EU Borders have Doors for Refugees?’ (2008) 10EJML315
Moreno-Lax V, ‘BeyondSaadi v UK: The “Necessity” Requirement for Administrative Detention of Asylum Seekers in the EU’ (2010) Reflexive Governance in the Pub. Interest, Working Paper No. REFGOV-FR-31
Moreno-Lax V, ‘Dismantling the Dublin System:MSS v Belgium and Greece’(2011) 13(4) EJML 1
Moreno-Lax V, ‘Seeking Asylum in the Mediterranean: Against a Fragmentary Reading of EU Member States’ Obligations Accruing at Sea’ (2011) 23 IJRL 174
Moreno-Lax V, ‘(Extraterritorial) Entry Controls and (Extraterritorial) Non-Refoulementin EU Law’ in M Maes, MC Foblets, and P De Bruycker (eds),External Dimensions of EU Migration and Asylum Law and Policy(Bruylant 2011)
Moreno-Lax V, ‘The Legality of the “Safe Third Country” Notion Reconsidered: An Appraisal in Light of General International Rules on the Law of Treaties’ in G Goodwin-Gill (ed),International Migrations(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2014)
Morris L, ‘Stratified Rights and the Management of Migration’ (2001) 3European Societies387
Morris L,Asylum, Welfare and the Cosmopolitan Ideal: A Sociology of Rights(Routledge 2010)
Mouzourakis M, ‘ “We Need to Talk about Dublin”: Responsibility under the Dublin System as a Blockage to Asylum Burden-Sharing in the European Union’ (2014) RSC Working Paper Series No 105
Nafziger J, ‘The General Admission of Aliens under International Law’ (1983) 77 AJIL 804
[bookmark: p344](p.344)
Neumayer E, ‘Asylum Recognition Rates in Western Europe—Their Determinants, Variation and Lack of Convergence’ (2005) 49 Journal of Conflict Resolution 43
Nic Shuibhne N, ‘Free Movement of Persons and the Wholly Internal Rule: Time to Move On?’ (2002) 39 CMLRev 731
Nic Shuibhne N, ‘Seven Questions for Seven Paragraphs’ (2011) 36 ELRev 162
Nicolaïdis K, ‘Trusting the Poles? Constructing Europe through Mutual Recognition’ (2007) 14 Journal of European Public Policy 682
Nicolaïdis K, ‘Kir Forever? The Journal of a Political Scientist in the Landscape of Recognition’ in L Azoulai and M Maduro (eds),The Past and Future of EU Law: The Classics of EU Law Revisited on the 50th Anniversary of the Rome Treaty(Hart Publishing 2007)
Nicolaïdis K and Lacroix J, ‘Order and Justice Beyond the Nation State: Europe’s Competing Paradigms’ in R Foot, J Gaddis, and A Hurrell (eds),Order and Justice in International Relations(OUP 2003)
Noll G,Negotiating Asylum(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2000)
Noll G, ‘Formalism v Empiricism. Some Reflections on the Dublin Convention on the Occasion of Recent European Case Law’ (2001) 70 Nordic Journal of International Law 161
Noll G, ‘Fixed Definitions or Framework legislation? The Delimitation of Subsidiary ProtectionRatione Personae’ (2002) UNHCR New Issues in Refugee Research Working Paper No 55
Noll G (ed),Proof, Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2005)
Noll G, ‘Seeking Asylum at Embassies: A Right to Entry under International Law?’ (2005) 17 IJRL 542
Noll G, ‘Diplomatic Assurances and the Silence of Human Rights Law’ (2006) 7 Melbourne Journal of International Law 104
Noll G, ‘Evidentiary Assessment in Refugee Status Determination and the EU Qualification Directive’ (2006) 12 European Public Law 295
Noll G, ‘Why Human Rights Fail to Protect Undocumented Migrants’ (2010) 12(2) EJML 241
Noll G, ‘Article 31 (Refugees Unlawfully in the Country of Refuge/Réfugés en Situation Irrégulière dans le Pays d’ Accueil)’ in A Zimmermann (ed),Commentary on the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees(OUP 2011)
Noll G, Fagerlund J, and Liebaut F,Study on the Feasibility of Processing Asylum Claims outside the EU against the Background of the Common European Asylum System and the Goal of a Common Asylum Procedure(Danish Centre for Human Rights/European Commission 2002)
O’Cinnéide C, ‘A Modest Proposal: Destitution, State Responsibility and the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2008) EHRLRev 583
Olivas M and Kochenov D, ‘Case C- 34/09 Ruiz Zambrano: A Respectful Rejoinder’ (2012) University of Houston Public Law and Legal Theory Series 2012-W-1
O’Neill O,Bounds of Justice(Cambridge University Press 2000)
O’Nions H, ‘No Right to Liberty: The Detention of Asylum Seekers for Administrative Convenience’ (2008) 10 EJML 149
[bookmark: p345](p.345)
Palmer S, ‘A Wrong Turning: Article 3 ECHR and Proportionality’ (2006) 65 CLJ 438
Papastavridis E, ‘ “Fortress Europe and FRONTEX”: Within or without International Law?’ (2010) 79 Nord JIL 75
Pastore F, ‘Visas, Borders, Immigration: Formation, Structure, and Current Evolution of the EU Entry Control System’ in N Walker (ed),Europe’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice(OUP 2004)
Peers S, ‘EU Immigration and Asylum Law: Internal Market Model or Human Rights Model?’ in T Tridimas and P Nebbia (eds),EU Law for the Twenty-First Century: Rethinking the New Legal Order, vol 1 (Hart Publishing 2004)
Peers S, ‘Family Reunion and Community Law’ in N Walker (ed),Towards an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice(OUP 2004)
Peers S, ‘EC Law on Family Members of Persons Seeking or Receiving International Protection’ in P Shah (ed),The Challenge of Asylum to Legal Systems(Cavendish 2005)
Peers S, ‘Free Movement, Immigration Control and Constitutional Conflict’ (2009) 5 European Constitutional Law Review 173
Peers S,EU Justice and Home Affairs Law(3rd edn, OUP 2011)
Peers S, ‘The CJEU and the EU’s Accession to the ECHR: A Clear and Present Danger to Human Rights Protection’ (EU Law Analysis, 18 December 2014)
Peers S and S Prechal, ‘Article 52—Scope of Guaranteed Rights’ in S Peers, T Hervey, J Kenner, and A Ward (eds),The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary(Hart Publishing 2014)
Peers S, M Garlick, V Moreno-Lax, and E Guild,EU Immigration and Asylum Law: A Commentary(Rev 2nd edn, Brill Nijhoff 2015)
Pogge T, ‘Migration and Poverty’ in V Bader (ed),Citizenship and Exclusion(Macmillan 1997)
Pogge T,World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms(Polity Press 2002)
Price M,Rethinking Asylum: History, Purpose and Limits(Cambridge University Press 2009)
Provera M,The Detention of Asylum Seekers in the European Union and Australia(Wolf Legal Publishers 2013)
Provera M, ‘The Criminalisation of Irregular Migration in the European Union’ (2015) CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe No 80
Raffaelli R, ‘Criminalizing Irregular Immigration and the Returns Directive: An Analysis of theEl DridiCase’ (2011) 13(4) EJML 467
Rawls,A Theory of Justice(Harvard University Press 1971)
Reneman M,EU Asylum Procedures and the Right to an Effective Remedy(Hart Publishing 2014)
Rijpma J, ‘Frontex: Successful Blame Shifting of the Member States?’ Análisis del Real Instituto Elcano (ARI, 13 April 2010)
Rijpma J and Cremona M, ‘The Extra-Territorialisation of EU Migration Policies and the Rule of Law’ EUI Working Papers Law 2007/1
Ripoll Servent A, ‘Point of No Return? The European Parliament after Lisbon and Stockholm’ (2010) 19(2) European Security 191
Ripoll Servent A, ‘Co-decision in the European Parliament: Comparing Rationalist and Constructivist Explanations of the Returns Directive’ (2011) 7 Journal of Contemporary European Research 3
[bookmark: p346](p.346)
Ripoll Servent A, ‘The European Parliament and the Returns Directive: The End of Radical Contestation; The Start of Consensual Constraints’ in B Anderson, M Gibney, and E Paoletti (eds),The Social, Political and Historical Contours of Deportation(Springer 2013)
Risse M, ‘On the Morality of Immigration’ (2008) 22 Ethics and International Affairs 25
Risse M and Blake M, ‘Migration, Territoriality and Culture’ in J Ryberg, TS Petersen, and C Worf (eds),New Waves in Applied Ethics(Palgrave Macmillan 2008)
Rubio-Marín R,Immigration as a Democratic Challenge: Citizenship and Inclusion in Germany and the United States(Cambridge University Press 2000)
Rubio-Marín R (ed),Migration and Human Rights(OUP 2014)
Rubio-Marín R and O’Connell R, ‘The European Convention and the Relative Rights of Resident Aliens’ (1999) 5 ELJ 22
Ruhs M and Anderson B, ‘Semi-compliance and Illegality in Migrant Labour Markets: An Analysis of Migrants, Employers and the State in the UK’ (2010) 16 Population, Space and Place 195
Ryan B, ‘The Celtic Cubs: The Controversy over Birthright Citizenship in Ireland’ (2004) 6 EJML 173
Ryan B and Mitsilegas V (eds),Extraterritorial Immigration Control: Legal Challenges(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2010)
Sadurski W, ‘Partnering with Strasbourg: Constitutionalization of the European Court of Human Rights, the Accession of Central and East European States to the Council of Europe, and the Idea of Pilot Judgments’ (2009) 9 HRLRev 397
Samers M, ‘An Emerging Geopolitics of “Illegal” Immigration in the European Union’ (2004) 6 EJML 23
Sarmiento D, ‘Half a Case at a Time: Dealing with Judicial Minimalism at the European Court of Justice’ in M Claes, M de Visser, P Popelier, and C Van de Heyning (eds),Constitutional Conversations in Europe(Intersentia 2012)
Schütze R, ‘Cooperative Federalism Constitutionalised: The Emergence of Complementary competences in the EC Legal Order’ (2006) 31 ELRev 167
Schütze R, ‘On “Federal” Ground: The European Union as an (Inter)national Phenomenon’ (2009) 46 CMLRev 1069
Sen A, ‘Elements of a Theory of Human Rights’ (2004) 32(4) Philosophy and Public Affairs 315
Shachar A,Multicultural Jurisdictions: Cultural Differences and Women’s Rights(Cambridge University Press 2001)
Shachar A,The Birthright Lottery: Citizenship and Global Inequality(Harvard University Press 2009)
Shacknove, ‘Who is a Refugee?’ (1985) 95 Ethics 274
Solanke I, ‘Using the Citizen to Bring the Refugee In:Gerardo Ruiz ZambranovOffice national de l’emploi (ONEM)’ (2012) 75 MLR 101
Somek A, ‘Monism: A Tale of the Undead’ in M Avbelj and J Komarak,Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union and Beyond(Hart Publishing 2012)
Soysal Y,Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe(University of Chicago Press 1994)
Spaventa E, ‘Seeing the Wood despite the Trees? On the Scope of Union Citizenship and its Constitutional Effects’ (2008) 45 CMLRev 13
Spielmann D, ‘Whither the Margin of Appreciation?’ (2014) 67(1) CLP 49
[bookmark: p347](p.347)
Spijkerboer R, ‘Subsidiarity in Asylum Law. The Personal Scope of International Protection’ in D Bouteillet-Paquet (ed),Subsidiary Protection of Refugees in the European Union: Complementing the Geneva Convention?(Bruylant 2002)
Spijkerboer R, ‘The Human Costs of Border Control’ (2007) 9 EJML 137
Spijkerboer R, ‘Subsidiarity and “Arguability”: The European Court of Human Rights’ Case Law on Judicial Review in Asylum Cases’ (2009) 21 IJRL 1
Spijkerboer R, ‘Structural Instability: Strasbourg Case Law on Children’s Family Reunion’ (2009) 11 EJML 271
Spijkerboer R, ‘Moving Migrants, States, and Rights: Human Rights and Border Deaths’ (2013) 7(2) The Law & Ethics of Human Rights 213S
Spijkerboer R (ed),Fleeing Homophobia: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Asylum(Routledge 2013)
Stalford H, ‘Concepts of Family under EU Law: Lessons from the ECHR’ (2002) 16 International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 410
Steinorth C, ‘Üner v the Netherlands:Expulsion of Long-Term Immigrants and the Right to Respect for Private and Family Life’ (2008) 8 HRLRev 185
Stone Sweet A, ‘A Cosmopolitan Legal Order: Constitutional Pluralism and Rights Adjudication in Europe’ (2012) 1(1) Journal of Global Constitutionalism 53
Storey H, ‘EU Refugee Qualification Directive: a Brave New World?’ (2008) 20 IJRL 1
Stick T, Böcker A, Luiten M, and van Oers R,The INTEC Project: Synthesis Report. Integration and Naturalisation Tests: The New Way to European Citizenship(December 2010)
Strik R, de Hart B, and Nissen E,Family Reunification: A Barrier or Facilitator of Integration: A Comparative Study(Wolf Legal Publishers 2013)
Symes M and Jorro P,Asylum Law and Practice(2nd edn, Bloomsbury Professional 2010)
Tasioulas J, ‘Towards a Philosophy of Human Rights’ (2012) 65 CLP 1
Thym D ‘Menchenrecht auf Legalisierung des Aufenthalts?’ (2006) Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 541
Thym D ‘Respect for Private and Family Life under Article 8 ECHR in Immigration Cases: A Human Right to Regularize Illegal Stay?’ (2008) 57(1) ICLQ 87
Tiedemann P, ‘Subsidiary Protection and the Function of Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive’ (2012) 31 RSQ 123
Timmermans C, ‘The Relationship between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights’ in A Arnull et al. (eds),A Constitutional Order of States? Essays in Honour of Alan Dashwood(Hart Publishing 2011)
Torpey J,The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship and the State(Cambridge University Press 1999)
Torres Pérez A,Conflicts of Rights in the European Union. A Theory of Supranational Adjudication(OUP 2009)
Tsourdi E and Leboeuf L, ‘Towards a Redefinition of Persecution? Assessing the Potential Impact of Y and Z’ (2013) 13(2) HRLRev 402
Van Elsuwege P and Kochenov D, ‘On The Limits of Judicial Intervention: EU Citizenship and Family Reunification Rights’ (2011) 4 EJML 443
[bookmark: p348](p.348)
Vanheule D, ‘A Comparison of the Judicial Interpretation of the Notion of Refugee’ in JY Carlier and D Vanheule (eds),Europe and Refugees: A Challenge?(Kluwer Law International 1997)
Van Oers R, Ersbøll E, and Kostakopoulou D (eds),A Re-definition of Belonging? Language and Integration Tests in Europe(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2010)
Van Walsum S, ‘Comment on theSenCase. How Wide is the Margin of Appreciation Regarding the Admission of Children for Purposes of Family Reunification?’ (2002) 4 EJML 1
Van Walsum S, ‘Against All Odds: How Single and Divorced Migrant Mothers were Eventually Able to Claim Their Right to Respect for Family Life’ (2009) 11 EJML 295
Van Walsum S, ‘Transnational Mothering, National Immigration Policy, and European Law: The Experience of the Netherlands’ in S Benhabib and J Resnik (eds),Migrations and Mobilities: Citizenship, Borders, and Gender(NYU University Press 2009)
Von Bogdandy A, ‘The European Union as a Human Rights Organization? Human Rights and the Core of the European Union’ (2000) 37 CMLRev 1307
Waldrauch H, ‘Acquisition of Nationality’ in R Bauböck, E Ersboll, K Groenendijk, H Waldrauch (eds),Acquisition and Loss of Nationality, vol 1(Amsterdam University Press 2006)
Waldron J (ed),Theories of Rights(OUP 1984)
Waldron J, ‘Torture and Positive Law: Jurisprudence for the White House’ (2005) 105 Columbia Law Review 1681
Waldron J, ‘Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment: The Words Themselves’ (2008) NYU School of Law Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series No 08-36
Waldron J,Torture, Terror and Trade-offs: Philosophy for the White House(OUP 2010)
Walker N, ‘The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism’ (2002) 65 MLR 317
Walker N, ‘In Search of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: A Constitutional Odyssey’ in N Walker (ed),Europe’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice(OUP 2004)
Walker N (ed),Europe’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice(OUP 2004)
Walter A,Reverse Discrimination and Family Reunification(Wolf Legal Publishers 2008)
Walzer M,Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality(Basic Books 1983)
Webb P,International Judicial Integration and Fragmentation(OUP 2013)
Weiler JHH, ‘Thou Shalt Not Oppress a Stranger: On the Judicial Protection of the Human Rights of Non-EC Nationals—A Critique’ (1992) 3 EJIL 65
Weiler JHH, ‘Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Boundaries: On the Conflict of Standards and Values in the Protection of Human Rights in the European Legal Space’ inThe Constitution of Europe(Cambridge University Press 1999)
Weiler JHH,The Constitution of Europe: Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor? And Other Essays on European Integration(Cambridge University Press 1999)
Weiler JHH, ‘Does the European Union Truly Need a Charter of Rights?’ (2000) 6 ELJ 95
Weiler JHH, ‘Epilogue: The Judicial Après Nice’ in JHH Weiler and G de Búrca (eds),The European Court of Justice(OUP 2001)
Weiler JHH and de Búrca G (eds),The European Court of Justice(OUP 2001)
Weiler JHH and Wind M (eds),European Constitutionalism beyond the State(Cambridge University Press 2003)
Wellman C and Cole P (eds),Debating the Ethics of Immigration: Is There a Right to Exclude?(OUP 2011)
[bookmark: p349](p.349)
Welsh M and Schuster L, ‘Detention of Asylum Seekers in the US, UK, France, Germany and Italy: A Critical View of the Globalizing Culture of Control’ (2005) 5 Criminology & Criminal Justice 331
Wiesbrock A, ‘Court of Justice of the European Union: The Right to Family Reunification of Third-Country Nationals under EU Law’ (2010) 6 European Constitutional Law Review 462
Wiesbrock A, ‘Union Citizenship and the Redefinition of the “Internal Situations” Rule: The Implications ofZambrano’(2011) 12 German Law Journal 2077
Wilde R, ‘The “Legal space” or “espace juridique” of the European Convention on Human Rights: Is It Relevant to Extraterritorial State Action?’ (2005) 2 EHRLRev 115
Wilsher D, ‘Immigration Detention and the Common European Asylum Policy’ in A Baldaccini, E Guild, H Toner (eds),Whose Freedom, Security and Justice? EU Immigration and Asylum Law after 1999(Hart Publishing 2007)
Wouters K,International Legal Standards for the Protection from Refoulement(Intersentia 2009)
Wouters K and Den Heijer M, ‘TheMarine ICase: A Comment’ (2010) 22 IJRL 1
Yorke J, ‘The Right to Life and Abolition of the Death Penalty in the Council of Europe’ (2009) 34 ELRev 205
Zetter R, ‘More Labels, Fewer Refugees: Remaking the Refugee Label in an Era of Globalization’ (2007) 20(2) Journal of Refugee Studies 172
Zwaan K (ed),The Qualification Directive: Central Themes, Problem Issues, and Implementation in Selected Member States(Wolf Legal Publishers 2007)
[bookmark: p350](p.350)
I.Introduction: The Scope of This Book
This book examines some of the ways that human rights law responds to challenges to migration control and migration status, in particular where migrants and refugees seek to establish rights to enter, stay, live with their families, and remain at liberty in Europe. Migration controls and migration status determine the legal predicament in which migrants and refugees find themselves. To best understand the limits and potential of European human rights law, I focus on those areas where migrants and refugees (latu sensu) invoke human rights norms as regards their rights to enter, stay, and be at liberty in Europe. As such, this is not a general human rights treatise—I do not examine how and whether migrants and refugees enjoy the full range of human rights to which they are entitled simply in virtue of being human, such as the right to freedom of expression or to freedom of association, to education, or to fair and just working conditions. Rather, this book examines some of the main areas where migration control and status encounter human rights challenges. The focus of the book is, in other words, on access to territory and authorization of presence and residence, as well as on some related questions of security of residence, as revealed when migrants contest their expulsion from Europe or seek to live with their close family members. The ‘human rights’ of the title are principally legally enforceable rights, particularly as protected under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and in European Union (EU) law, which has its own Charter of Fundamental Rights (EUCFR). However, it also assumes that human rights protections should not be ‘incarcerated’ in the juridical frame, to borrow Sen’s memorable phrase.1Human rights law has its limits, jurisdictional and practical ones. In some parts of this work, I identify how human rights law fails to meet the promise of human rights ethics. It is assumed that the latter is broader than the former.
‘Migration control’ refers to the enforcement apparatus surrounding migration and asylum, which extends far beyond the territorial borders of the European States. Migration control also pervasively takes place within the State,[bookmark: p2](p.2)routinely reaching into family life, workplaces, and educational establishments. ‘Migration status’ refers to the fact that immigration and asylum law create particular statuses (or none), packages of rights, and obligations of enduring significance. Migration status dictates not only the nature, extent, and duration of rights of entry and residence but also often determines rights in other contexts, in the political realm, in family life, in the workplace, and in economic life generally.2
The title of this work refers to ‘migrants and refugees’. ‘Migrants and refugees’ are in the main those who do not hold the nationality of an EU Member State, although the legal position of EU Citizens is referred to for contrast. I examine the key measures concerning both the rights of third-country nationals (TCNs) to enter and stay in the EUandthe EU’s construction of migration status, in particular irregular status.3The personal scope is accordingly broad, encompassing those who seek admission for various purposes, be it protection, opportunity, to join family, or a combination of these. I refer to these compendiously as ‘admission-seekers’. The figure of the admission seeker is deliberately ambiguous. It assumes that those who seek to enter and live in the EU have many purposes and aims. Some are refugees entitled to international protection, others may have strong moral (and legal) claims as family members of those present in the EU. Although a relatively small proportion of those seeking admission to the EU each year are asylum seekers and refugees,4they attract great legal and political attention. This book reflects that phenomenon, with Chapters 5 and 6 focusing on asylum seekers and refugees. Yet, there is also the related phenomenon of the ‘disappearing’5or ‘vanishing’ refugee,6where migration controls obscure refugeehood. A premise of this book is that the EU blocks access to protection for many refugees (as Chapter6examines), and also fails to recognize many of them.7The figure of the ‘rejected[bookmark: p3](p.3)asylum seeker with unmet protection needs’, or the ‘unrecognised refugee’ caught up in the EU’s migration control apparatus, emerges in various guises in this book. Also, with refugees in mind, I note that many who ought to be recognized as refugees have no legal route to the EU.
No doubt there are some privileged migrants and even some refugees who glide into the EU with ease. They meet all applicable legal prerequisites, overcome bureaucratic hurdles, and settle in the EU. Over time, they gain a permanent right to reside, and if they naturalize, EU Citizenship. For them, the migration controls of ‘Destination Europe’ entail no obvious human rights violations—they are afforded a right to reside in the country of choice at the outset, and across the EU in time. However, for many others, migration controls are increasingly intense, blunt, and even arbitrary. Their migration status is often precarious. The cases examined throughout this book emerge from diverse contexts, where people enter the EU irregularly to live with their family members, or to seek international protection. They also concern long-term residents, whose migration status may fail to recognize their deep connections with their host countries, or impede their freedom to live with their families. Precarious migration status is all too common, resulting in many migrants being increasingly constructed as deportable, and in turn detainable. In this context, migrants have recourse to human rights law to seek to remedy or at least mitigate their legal predicament.
While international law creates a privileged status for refugees, they too are subject to migration controls, and are often granted only a precarious status, if any. Refugees, asylum seekers, and rejected claimants with unmet protection needs thus also turn to human rights law, when their protection claims are wrongly rejected or when they face detention or other human rights restrictions in the name of migration control. Access to protection is the most acute human rights issue facing those fleeing persecution and serious harm: without access to territory and fair, reliable determination procedures, the privileged status envisaged for refugees is a mirage.
Accordingly, the ‘European Law’ of the title encompasses the human rights law of the ECHR and that of the EU. Indeed, the focus of the work is on the interactions, tensions, and frictions across those two systems, in particular as manifest in the overlapping jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).8The central contention of this book is that while the ECtHR provides important protections for the human rights of migrants, when issues of admissions are at stake, that court is too deferential to the States’ migration control prerogatives. EU law offers transformative potential. It is to understanding the role of the EU in this field that this opening chapter now turns.[bookmark: p4](p.4)
[bookmark: acprof-9780199644742-chapter-1.xhtml-div1-2]II.TelosandChora:The Contested Project of European Union
The ‘Destination Europe’ of the chapter title refers not only to the end-point of migrants’ journeys, their chosenchora, but also the EU’s own destination, its telos. The EU is a contested project. It has thrived on its cryptictelosof ‘ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’. Despite episodic talk of finalité politique, ambiguity and becoming-ness are likely to remain a defining feature of European integration. Indeed, we seem to be at a point in EU development where ‘ever closer’ may need to be understood as ‘ever looser’ with differentiation embraced as a feature of unity, not a threat thereto. Nonetheless, in deciding on the location and nature of its external boundaries, the EU is engaging in a crucial process of self-definition.
This book examines a key aspect of that process of self-definition, namely how the EU sets up the legal structures, institutions, and rules governing who may live in thechorathat is the EU, the container defined by presence and interaction, a condominium for those who live together, characterized by their disparate nationalities, defined by unity in diversity. While the EU project has transformed some migration between Member States into liberalized ‘mobility’, its engagement with formal law-making on immigration and asylum of those from outside the EU (so-called ‘third-country nationals’ or ‘TCNs’9) dates to the Treaty of Amsterdam10and is usually regarded as following an exclusionary logic, in contrast to the internal liberalization. This book takes issue with the sharp insider-outsider dichotomy that account suggests, and instead identifies complex stratifications of status and rights in this field.
Making a human rights claim may be a last recourse for many. However, as human rights protections are institutionalized at the supranational level in the EU and under the ECHR, human rights law sets up a process to adjudicate whether migration status and migration control violate human rights. The migrant, by definition a non-citizen, is nowadays a rights-bearer. Staking a human rights claim may be a last recourse, but given the institutional and in particular judicial protection of rights in the EU, that claim is not as futile as was imagined by Arendt.11And yet, the human rights of migrants remain precarious and contested when they seek to use human rights protections to secure rights of entry and residence.[bookmark: p5](p.5)
The EU both bolsters and limits the Member States in their admission control dictates and itself shapes and determines the matter of admissions. The chapter structure reflects the peculiar shared competence of the EU and its Member States over migration and asylum. The EU does not subsume the Member States’ migration control prerogatives entirely: in some respects, it bolsters their control prerogatives and capacity to refuse entry and residence by deeming migration (and migrants) ‘illegal’. Thus the substantive analysis begins in Chapter3, which examines how migration status emerges. It sets out the EU’s border control instruments, and the Returns Directive (RD)12and Employer Sanctions Directive (ESD).13Concerning EU rights to enter and reside, Chapter4focuses on the Family Reunification Directive (FRD),14while Chapters 5 and 6 examine aspects of the three key asylum Directives and their recasts: the original and recast Qualification Directive (QD);15the original and recast Asylum Procedures Directive (PD);16the original and recast Reception Conditions Directive (RCD),17as well as the Dublin II Regulation18and its recast version, the Dublin III Regulation,19and related instruments.20The examined EU measures, the FRD, the recast QD and PD in[bookmark: p6](p.6)particular, deal with those border crossings where human rights norms have already established some constraints on State discretion.21Chapter7looks at immigration detention. Accordingly, the chosen focus is on the interaction between established human rights norms, in particular the ECHR and international refugee law, principally the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (the ‘Refugee Convention’ or ‘CSR’).22
These fields of EU law map onto established European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law. The book thus re-examines some well-trodden issues, where migrants have invoked ECHR protections in seeking rights to enter and to establish rights to stay. My focus is on the migration-related case law, or even more accurately case law where migration status has a bearing on the human right claimed. Cases include those seeking admission at Europe’s frontiers, or more commonly rejected asylum seekers and other migrants seeking protection against removal, for instance on grounds that deportation would expose them to violations of Article 3 ECHR, claims to enter or remain based on family ties and other connections framed under Article 8 ECHR, and immigration detention under Article 5 ECHR. The unifying theme, accordingly, is how the EU has incorporated and transformed human rights norms concerning admission-seekers.
There are thus two, if not three, dynamic bodies of law under scrutiny here: The case law of the ECtHR on migrant rights, which contains notable unstable features, which are highlighted and, where appropriate, critiqued throughout. Then, there is EU law on migration and asylum, which has been subject to legislative revision and progressive judicial interpretations. Thirdly, we have international refugee law, in particular the CSR, which lacks a central enforcement authority, but is characterized by dynamic interpretation and cross-fertilization across jurisdictions, viewed by many as an exemplar of transnational judicial dialogue.23Unsurprisingly then, given that the focus is on the interactions across these three domains—EU–ECHR–international refugee law—this work must take some liberties with each domain in seeking to capture each regime’s internal dynamic. Of course, it cannot attempt an exhaustive, all-embracing description of each domain, so much is bracketed out for the purposes of exposition.
The importance of the EU’s engagement in this human rights sensitive field is of general significance to contemporary debates on the role of human rights in Europe. The place of human rights in the EU remains contested, with some[bookmark: p7](p.7)suggesting that the EU should re-orientate itself as a human rights organization.24With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009, the EU’s constitutional commitment to fundamental rights was made more explicit: The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the ‘Charter’ or ‘EUCFR’) became binding, the EU committed to accede to the ECHR, and reaffirmed that fundamental rights were general principles of EU law.25
In 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that the Draft EU Accession Agreement to the ECHR was incompatible with EU law.26All the EU institutions and 28 Member States intervening argued that the agreement was compatible. The mode of accession aimed to take into account the shared human rights obligations of the EU and its Member States under the ECHR, as exemplified in the co-respondent mechanism.27To understand that ruling, we must go back to Opinion 2/94,28in which the CJEU ruled that the European Community (as it then was) could not accede to the ECHR for lack of specific competence. That Opinion was open to criticism for privileging the Court’s hegemony in matters of EU law over establishing external accountability in human rights matters.29A Treaty amendment was required to enable accession, so in 2009 the Treaty of Lisbon included a duty to accede to the ECHR in Article 6(2) TEU.30
The hard work of accession required adaptations on the ECHR side, too, and the EU had to negotiate an accession treaty with the Council of Europe and its 47 members, a process which took several years. The resulting Accession Agreement sought to create mechanisms to adapt ECHR membership to the particularities of the EU constitutional set-up.31Opinion 2/13 is complex and already has attracted much criticism,32with one commentator arguing that the EU should accede to the[bookmark: p8](p.8)ECHR notwithstanding the Opinion.33That move would be a legal and political rupture, so it looks more likely that accession is stalled. In the meantime, the two courts will continue to interact. If anything, now that accession has been stalled, greater frictions may emerge.
The scope of EU human rights obligations remains contested, with resistance from governments evident in their keenness to avoid the development of a general EU human rights jurisdiction to scrutinize all national acts.34The examination throughout this work emphasizes that ‘human rights’ cannot be regarded as a matter of settled law, which the EU must simply respect or import from other systems. Rather, human rights claims beg questions about access and allocation of rights, which demand a distinctive EU answer. The EU must not only respect international standards, but also inform their progressive development in a way that fits its own distinctive legal and constitutional context. After Opinion 2/2013, the challenge may well be to ensure that its own way does not become one of isolation, but remains constructively engaged with other human rights instruments. The reasoning of the CJEU has wider implications for its conception of the EU legal order, and so is explored further in Chapter2.
[bookmark: acprof-9780199644742-chapter-1.xhtml-div1-3]III.Human Rights and Migration Control
[bookmark: acprof-9780199644742-chapter-1.xhtml-div2-1]Chapter2sets out the approach to human rights pluralism espoused, one in which mutual engagement and interaction across different human rights regimes is encouraged. But crucially, divergence is also embraced, in particular where there are good reasons for higher standards of protection within the EU system.35That chapter identifies several reasons why the EU can and should establish human rights standards within this zone of upward flexibility, escaping some of the limitative features of the ECtHR, which are rooted in that institution’s particular institutional context. I identify the constitutional, institutional, and legislative aspects of the EU which warrant distinctive human rights protections for migrants. In key areas, this book examines how the EU’s approach to migrants’ rights should (and in some instances does already) depart from the ECHR pan-European minimum, namely on family migration, the scope of protection for refugees, the allocation of responsibility for asylum claims, and detention standards.[bookmark: p9](p.9)
In spite of its universal premises and aspirations, international human rights law, of which the ECHR is an exemplar, acknowledges and accommodates States’ migration control imperatives. In contrast, when we turn to the EU domain, the State is no longer the same plenipotentiary actor. Its competences in the migration field are transformed by being shared both horizontally with other States and vertically with the EU authorities.
For the purposes of this book, I assume that strong judicial protection of human rights is appropriate. Under many accounts of human rights adjudication, in those instances when there is reasonable disagreement about rights-protection, democratically-accountable institutions ought to be afforded leeway in determining the scope of rights. However, in examining migrants’ rights at the European level, this concern plays out differently. To put it strongly, when the human rights of the unenfranchised migrant are at issue, the democratic credentials of elected bodies are lacking. While some aspects of migration control and migration status may be justified, by definition, the bodies setting these standards are not representative of those affected interests. Accordingly, majoritarian concerns about judicial review and human rights dissipate. On this point we may helpfully recall the statement of Advocate-General (AG) Maduro inPanayotova:
Judicial protection of fundamental rights is particularly important with regard to the treatment accorded to [TCNs], since the latter constitute ‘discrete and insular minorities’. These are often particularly vulnerable groups that are deprived of other means, in particular political means to influence legislation and the political process, for the protection of their rights. Aliens, by the very nature of the political community, cannot benefit from all the rights granted to the citizens of that political community, but it is precisely for the same reason that they deserve added judicial protection where rights granted to them are affected by decisions of the same political community.36
No doubt that normative claim may be contested, but settling that debate is not the purpose of this work. For the purposes of this book, a robust judicial role in protecting migrant and refugee rights is assumed to be right and proper, as I hope will be borne out by the substantive analysis in the ensuing chapters. Moreover, as is explored further in Chapter2, that judicial role varies according to the constitutional and institutional context of the judicial body concerned, so divergent interpretations of human rights are not only inevitable, but also desirable. In particular, my work is informed by the inclusive, rights-protective dynamic observed in other fields of EU law.
In the next section, I provide a sketch (perhaps a caricature) of the ‘statist assumption’ under IHRL. My assertion is that this explains at least some of why human rights law fails to protect migrants’ and refugees’ rights appropriately. Then I turn to the ‘transformative potential’ of the EU context.[bookmark: p10](p.10)
[bookmark: acprof-9780199644742-chapter-1.xhtml-div2-2]1.IHRL and the statist assumption
Human rights are understood as universal, in that they inhere in all persons simply by virtue of their being human.37That promise sits uneasily with statist border control, which presupposes rights enjoyed within bounded States, with States having a sovereign right to control admissions. The figure of the refugee stands out as the exception that constitutes this rule: while international law does not afford refugees a right to protection in any particular State, or even a right to enter any particular State to seek protection in most circumstances, the norm ofnon-refoulementis understood to apply at the border (and under certain circumstances further afield),38in a manner that limits whether States may turn away those seeking protection. The exception to statist border controls for refugees has hugely important symbolic dimensions, and it serves to justify the institutionalization of exclusion that would otherwise be ethically and politically indefensible.
When it comes to entry and residence rights, the notion of the State’s ‘sovereign’ right to exclude sometimes seems to obviate any need for justification of its actions. Here, we encounter a version of old-style sovereignty, which elides sovereignty and unfettered State discretion. I refer throughout to the ‘statist entry control assumption’ or simply the ‘statist assumption’ to connote this notion that States have a sovereign right to exclude aliens without justification. Undoubtedly, this notion warrants challenge on ethical grounds,39and cries out for historical corrective.40The statist assumption seems out of place in an age of human rights, and increasing transnational economic and social interpenetration. Yet, in the migration context, it remains stubbornly ingrained.41
This statist assumption is reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),42and percolates through other instruments. The UDHR speaks of a ‘right to nationality’ but not in the country of one’s residence or choosing. It affirms the right ‘to freedom of movement and residence’ but only ‘within the borders of each state’43and everyone’s ‘right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country’,44but not to enter another. Other binding[bookmark: p11](p.11)instruments follow this pattern.45As Benhabib puts it, ‘a series of internal contradictions between universal human rights and territorial sovereignty are built into the logic of the most comprehensive international law documents in our world’.46Of course, these contradictions create instabilities and sites of contestation, with diverse outcomes when migrants and refugees seek to draw down universal protections into particular contexts.
Scholars examining these tensions between human rights and migration control and status have tended to fall within three broad categories. Soysal exemplifies the universal. She argued that the development of IHRL marked a transition from nationality to humanity as the primary reference for the enjoyment of rights, diminishing the distinction between citizens and aliens.47Her 1994 thesis seems to have a naïve ‘end of history’ ring to it twenty years on. On the other extreme, we find scholars who emphasize the persistent significance of migration control and alienage within IHRL.48IHRL, rather than opening up space to resolve tensions between admissions control and sometimes tending to freeze this conflict, reify it, supporting the statist assumption. In this vein, it has been suggested that the international legal character of IHRL instruments ties them to the State system.49Accordingly, norms which manifest State sovereignty ‘alter and shape human rights provisions’.50International refugee law similarly may be characterized at either pole, either as the sole exception to the statist assumption, rendering it barely palatable, or as a yawning chasm which reflects the illusory nature of States’ border control myths.
This work locates itself on the more ambivalent middle terrain, drawing on the work of Benhabib. She identifies the apparently ‘irresolvable contradiction’ between universal human rights and democratic self-determination within bounded polities.51Yet, while she accepts that this contradiction cannot be overcome, she argues that it can be mediated and mitigated through ‘democratic iterations’, including ‘jurisgenerative politics’.52These are the deliberative processes in which universalist rights claims are contested and contextualized.53Courts are amongst the ‘strong public bodies’ engaged in these processes.[bookmark: p12](p.12)
[bookmark: acprof-9780199644742-chapter-1.xhtml-div2-3]2.From ECHR to the EU: Interfaces and interactions
Admission-seekers’ claims place courts in a position where they must at least recognize the migrant as a rights-bearer, a legal subject. In so doing, courts may legitimately act as agents of inclusion, or potentially exclusion. Accordingly, as is explored throughout the book, the ECtHR- the human rights institution at the heart of this work- has unsettled statist border control assumptions, albeit in tentative fashion. My starting intuition was that relocating matters of asylum and immigration into the EU realm was replete with further transformative potential, in particular in shifting admissions to shared EU-Member State competence with the aim of creating an ‘Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ (AFSJ). That intuition has proved correct as regards some migrants. The CJEU has asserted that, where EU law sets out exhaustive and clear admissions criteria, national authorities must accord a right to enter, not merely unsettling, but effectively inverting the statist assumption.54However, in other contexts, the EU amplifies Member States’ discretionary control over migration, and even amplifies ‘illegality’ across the EU, as Chapter3explores.
Accordingly, in this dynamic domain, the central question addressed is how the EU has incorporated and transformed human rights norms concerning admission-seekers, focusing in particular on those of the ECHR and international refugee law. A process of mutual influence is revealed. While the main concern is to identify when and why it is appropriate for EU standards to exceed the Strasbourg minimum, EU law may in turn influence Strasbourg developments. The EU emerges in this process from its previous role as passive human rights ‘standard receiver’ to a more active ‘standard setter’.55In large part then, this book is unabashedly doctrinal. It examines in detail the EU legislative measures, Luxembourg case law, and Strasbourg jurisprudence. Yet, the underlying supposition is constructivist, prompted by Benhabib’s view of ‘jurisgenerative politics’.
Following other EU constructivist literature, I share the view that:
Agents [including courts] have the capacity to capitalize on the normative surplus of meaning and the progressive possibilities already present in accepted logics and existing conceptual resources nested within institutions in order to develop new conceptions, to construct and extend norms and to act in complex environments. On this basis, institutional change is not iterative, that is reproducing the same ideas, norms, patterns[bookmark: p13](p.13)and practices. It is instead more fluid, contingent, unpredictable, and more importantly, transformative.56
The EU’s own distinctive human rights standards are now embodied in the Charter and the general principles of EU law.57Both sources draw on the ECHR, and indeed there are references to the CSR in the Charter and in EU primary and secondary law. The Charter sets up an interface whereby the rights therein which correspond to ECHR rights should be interpreted in a similar way, unless EU law provides additional protection.58The wording of this interface in Article 52(3) EUCFR is worth setting out in full. It states that: ‘In so far as this Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the [ECHR] the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention.’ The crucial addendum is that: ‘This provision shall not prevent Union law providing more extensive protection.’ The Charter also protects the right to asylum ‘with due respect for the rules of [CSR] and in accordance with the [EU Treaties].59
In this context, interpretative harmony between the EU, ECHR, and Refugee Convention might seem like the most legally appropriate option. However, this book argues, to the contrary, that the distinctive features of the EU warrant a different approach to human rights claims by migrants. It does so by seeking to understand the extant limits of the ECtHR case law (which of course may be overcome in time), and the distinctive constitutional context of the EU. Chapter2develops that argument. The next part seeks to explore the constitutional and institutional context of the EU, and its transformative potential.
[bookmark: acprof-9780199644742-chapter-1.xhtml-div1-4]IV.The EU’s Transformative Potential: Beyond Statism to Shared Competence
[bookmark: acprof-9780199644742-chapter-1.xhtml-div2-4]1.The common market and ‘free movement’
In order to appreciate the significance of the EU’s role in relation to admissions, a brief excursus into the development of its competence on migration and asylum is necessary. The 1957 Treaty of Rome aimed to create that advanced form of economic integration, a common market, in which not only products (goods and services) but also the factors of production (labour and[bookmark: p14](p.14)capital) would be liberalized. The original economic rationales underlying the common market could have, and arguably should have, embraced migration of at least those TCNs settled within the territory of the Member States. If the rationale for internal free movement was efficient allocation of products and the factors of production, excluding some residents from that market defies the efficiency rationale. However, early on it became clear that such an interpretation was not acceptable to most Member States, and the first admission and further movement of TCNs was viewed as originally escaping the Community context.60
There are two defining features of internal free movement of persons as it evolved, which means it differs greatly from migration under the statist assumption. Firstly, as Chapter3explores in greater detail, EU law creates secure migration status, with rights of entry and residence that take precedence over national law. Although EU Citizens may have to comply with certain conditions of residence, and may be amenable to deportationin extremis, the right to entry and residence has a particular weightiness that constrains domestic discretion. Crucially, the rights to entry and residence subsist irrespective of domestic authorization.61
Secondly, internal free movement is not only for those who fall into narrowly defined migration categories (seasonal worker, high-skilled migrant, family migrant and so on). Although originally conceived of as being for defined economic purposes (work, service provision, establishment), these were not narrowly drawn categories. Now, they have been largely subsumed into the overarching category of EU Citizenship.62The effect is that rather than temporally and functionally defined status, which depends on meeting strict legal requirements, internal free movement can genuinely be characterized as mobility, with ‘rights allowing people to send their children abroad to study, shop internationally with consumer protection, buy houses in sunnier climes, retire and collect pensions, get emergency medical treatment, marry and have normal family life and social benefits with a foreign European spouse, and countless other shorter and longer term cross-border mobilities’.63It could be argued that this process is the creation of a Europeanersatznationality, but that is precisely the outcome I seek to avoid. Rather, as Chapter2elaborates, these developments are not reflective of insider privilege, but arise from immanent features of the EU legal order, in particular its approach to individual rights.[bookmark: p15](p.15)
[bookmark: acprof-9780199644742-chapter-1.xhtml-div2-5]2.The control ethos of Schengen
Internal free movement evolved largely in the judicial arena, and was largely politically uncontroversial in an EU of 9, 12, and even 15 Member States. A core group of States, keen to facilitate cross border movement, set up the Schengen arrangements in order to abolish internal border controls. Engagement with immigration and asylum policies regarding TCNs was treated as a necessary response to internal free movement. This ‘compensatory measures rationale’ provided the institutional rationalization for much of the activity in the admissions field under the Schengen arrangements,64and continues to be a feature of EU policy discourse on asylum and migration today. In a typical policy statement, the Commission set out the linkages thus:
The lifting of controls at internal borders in the Schengen area [of then twenty-five countries] has enabled people to travel from the Iberian Peninsula to the Baltic States and from Greece to Finland without having to go through any border checks. This potentially benefits over 400 million EU Citizens, and implies that Member States trust in each other’s ability to guard effectively the external borders on behalf of the EU and to issue visas for the whole Schengen area.65
In this context, positing the ‘need’ for EU external control policies as a result of the creation of internal free movement (which is still predominantly for EU Citizens) is like saying a Free Trade Area must have a Common External Tariff (a leap the trade lawyers would presumably question). As long as internal free movement rights are only for EU Citizens, there is no logical requirement for common immigration or asylum policies. As Bigo argues, ‘[t]he debate on compensatory measures and the security deficit created by the opening of the internal borders [is] one of the strongest myths of EU self-presentation’.66Its mythic nature is revealed by scrutinizing the unexplained linkages. In particular, stating that the lack of internal border controls requires an external immigration and asylum policy cannot explain the restrictiveness of admissions policies. If internal free movement extends to all within the territory, it is still agnostic as to the restrictiveness or othe