The Informalisation of the EU’s External Action in the Field of Migration and Asylum
The contributions in this symposium aim to examine the legal and policy implications of the increased informalisation of the EU’s external action in the field of migration and asylum. This trend poses significant constitutional challenges for the EU legal order, individuals it affects, and the global regime for refugee protection.
Voluntary, safe and dignified return is one of the durable solutions to forced displacement and, thus, hosting states have the responsibility to provide international protection to refugees until the conditions for voluntary repatriation are met. Premature or forced return that is falling short of international standards would mean a violation of the principle of non-refoulement. Current global governance of forced displacement impeding seeking asylum, delaying resettlement, and facilitating return ends up violating the very founding principles of the international refugee regime while exposing refugees and asylum-seekers to violence and higher risks.
Continue reading >>
Cooperation on migration management has been recently characterised by a process of “informalisation”, most prominently in relation to readmission, which saw the proliferation of informal agreements of a dubious legal nature – particularly from a rule of law perspective. This expansion has been two-fold. First, the use of informal agreements has expanded from the national level to the EU level. Second, the informalisation of cooperation with third countries has extended to include not only migration and border management, but also asylum management. This post aims to analyse both expansive shifts, highlighting their impact on international responsibility sharing mechanisms and the protection of asylum seekers’ fundamental rights.
Continue reading >>
An empirical study of all asylum-related preliminary rulings reveals a disquieting trend: the Court has adopted an administrative, passivist role within the area. Its distinguishing features include an overzealous concern for the technicalities of the legislative instruments before it and sparse to no references to human rights instruments or values in the operative parts of the judgments. In light of the symbolic power carried by the Court’s language, this trend risks sending the wrong signal to national judicial instances; namely, that concerns for the system can legitimately trump concerns for the individuals caught in it.
Continue reading >>
Reports have documented allegations about those in need of international protection being physically prevented from entering into Greece, being subjected to severe forms of mistreatment and deprivation of their liberty, property as well as being collectively expelled from the country without having the opportunity to apply for asylum. Thus, it could be argued there are violations of the right to seek and enjoy asylum, right to life, prohibition of torture, right to liberty and security and right to an effective remedy. Yet this blog will only focus on the most relevant rights/issues.
Continue reading >>
In practice, Member States and the EU increasingly rely on informal instruments for cooperation with third countries, especially in the area of migration control, with important implications for the rule of law. The choice for informality becomes particularly problematic when it affects the legal situation of irregular migrants, including refugees because it makes it very difficult for them to challenge these instruments in front of EU courts. This blog post explores the effects of EU’s recourse to informality on the judicial protection of the rights of irregular migrants by using the EU-Turkey Statement as an example. The Statement, also known as the EU-Turkey ‘deal’, raises serious doubts as to whether the EU legal order indeed provides for the promised ‘complete’ system of legal remedies.
Continue reading >>
The examples in this post demonstrate that the EU is an autonomous international actor independent from its Member States, but it is tied up internally by its institutional procedures and restrained by its attributed powers. This governance system requires complex and time-consuming negotiations within the Union and with its international partners, which might end up in Court (Singapore, CETA Opinions) or delay ratification (Istanbul Convention). The EU’s painful practice concerning treaty-making (with complicated rules, extensive case law and long negotiations of often comprehensive mixed agreements) is clearly not fit for purpose in times of crisis.
Continue reading >>
The questions raised by the use of soft deals - and soft law more generally - in the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (‘AFSJ’) are numerous and complex. This post focusses on the justification behind the use of soft deals in the field of readmission, in order to develop two reflections: First, in a legal system founded on the rule of law, recourse to soft deals to elude constitutional constraints is questionable tout court. And secondly, if certain constitutional constraints can arguably be side-lined through the use of soft deals, in the name of flexibility and speed, others must necessarily remain operative and frame the conduct of EU institutions. In the author’s view, at least those Treaty principles that govern EU institutional action independently on the legally binding nature of its outcome remain relevant. Among these, a prominent role in framing the use of soft deals can be attributed to the principle of institutional balance, enshrined in Art. 13(2) TEU.
Continue reading >>
This online symposium is being held just before the ACES-Asser conference on ‘Migration deals and their damaging effects’, which will take place online on 8-9 October. The conference and the contributions in this symposium aim to examine the legal and policy implications of the increased informalisation of the EU’s external action in the field of migration and asylum. The use of informal instruments in EU external relations is nothing new. At the same time, the increasing recourse to such instruments in the past few years has been a growing cause of concern over their potential detrimental effects on the rights of migrants and refugees, the EU’s institutional balance, the rule of law, as well as the global regime for protection of refugees.
Continue reading >>
