Advanced

Negotiating Asylum. The EU acquis, Extraterritorial Protection and the Common Market of Deflection

Noll, Gregor LU (2000)
Abstract (Swedish)
Popular Abstract in Swedish

Hur tillgängligt är EU för asylsökande? Står Unionens rättsregler i strid med folkrätten? Om så är fallet, hur löser vi konflikten dem emellan? Besitter vi alls medel för att lösa grundläggande konflikter om hur långt rätten skall skydda "utomstående"? Denna avhandling söker svar på frågorna genom att kombinera formaljuridik med statsvetenskapliga förklaringsmodeller. Migrations- och asylrätt slits mellan ett universalistiskt och ett partikularistiskt synsätt, vilket genomsyrar lagstiftnings- och tolkningsfrågor. Medan formaljuridiken är tillräckligt kraftfull för att lösa mindre och specifika konflikter (t ex viseringskravens laglighet i enstaka fall), står den handfallen inför rättsfrågor som... (More)
Popular Abstract in Swedish

Hur tillgängligt är EU för asylsökande? Står Unionens rättsregler i strid med folkrätten? Om så är fallet, hur löser vi konflikten dem emellan? Besitter vi alls medel för att lösa grundläggande konflikter om hur långt rätten skall skydda "utomstående"? Denna avhandling söker svar på frågorna genom att kombinera formaljuridik med statsvetenskapliga förklaringsmodeller. Migrations- och asylrätt slits mellan ett universalistiskt och ett partikularistiskt synsätt, vilket genomsyrar lagstiftnings- och tolkningsfrågor. Medan formaljuridiken är tillräckligt kraftfull för att lösa mindre och specifika konflikter (t ex viseringskravens laglighet i enstaka fall), står den handfallen inför rättsfrågor som för med sig stora krav på resurser (t ex om viseringskrav är diskriminerande överhuvud).



Som bakgrund inför analysen presenteras såväl EU:s instrument - den så kallade acquin - och folkrättens normer. Det visar sig att centrala instrument i Unionens migrations- och asylpolitik kan strida mot folkrätten. Viseringskrav kan i enstaka fall medföra brott mot Europakonventionen. Vidare gör en folkrättskonform tolkning av Dublinkonvention och Spanska Protokollet att deras ursprungliga kontrollfunktion går förlorad. Å andra sidan förblir det oklart huruvida viseringsförpliktelser i sig utgör diskriminering, eller om staterna är rättsligt förpliktade att hjälpa varandra ta emot skyddssökande. Denna oklarhet kan inte avhjälpas genom hänvisningar till statssuveränitet eller mänskliga rättigheters universalitet, eftersom folkrätten lämnar frågan om den enas företräde inför den andra obesvarad. Avhandlingens sista del handlar om demokratins paradox - beslut om uteslutning fattas odemokratiskt. Till sist analyseras Europadomstolen som det demokratiskt mest legitimerade forum för att förhandla fram skydd för flyktingar. (Less)
Abstract
How are access to asylum and other forms of extraterritorial protection regulated in the European Union? Is the EU acquis in these areas in conformity with international law? What tools does international law offer to solve conflicts between them? And, finally, is law capable of bridging the foundational oppositions embedded in migration and asylum issues? This work combines the potential of legal formalism with an analytical framework drawing on political theory. It analyses the argumentative strategies used by international lawyers, exploiting the interpretative methodology of international law as well as elaborate discrimination arguments.



Taking the axiomatic tension between universalism and particularism as a point... (More)
How are access to asylum and other forms of extraterritorial protection regulated in the European Union? Is the EU acquis in these areas in conformity with international law? What tools does international law offer to solve conflicts between them? And, finally, is law capable of bridging the foundational oppositions embedded in migration and asylum issues? This work combines the potential of legal formalism with an analytical framework drawing on political theory. It analyses the argumentative strategies used by international lawyers, exploiting the interpretative methodology of international law as well as elaborate discrimination arguments.



Taking the axiomatic tension between universalism and particularism as a point of departure, the author conceptualises the efforts to harmonise migration and asylum law in the European Union as the result of two interdependent negotiation loops: one taking place among Member States, and another between protection seekers and their host state. An extensive survey of the EU acquis and its institutional framework leads to the conclusion that both are heavily fragmented. The EU acquis contains not a single binding instruments securing the interests of protection seekers, while instruments enhancing migration control are fraught with legal and practical idiosyncrasies. Burden-sharing remains the pivotal element in the normative dynamics behind the EU acquis, and the various efforts of Member States to launch solidarity schemes are exposed to a critical analysis.



After confronting the acquis with protective norms of international law, the author concludes that the deflection of protection seekers by means of visa requirements may constitute a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, and that the prescriptions of international law oblige Member States to apply the Dublin Convention and the Spanish Protocol in a manner which ultimately empties the law of its main control functions. He also develops an explicatory model reconstructing the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in the field of extraterritorial protection. In the final part, the argumentative interdependencies between universalism and particularism are explored, and the author explains why the European Court of Human Rights must be regarded as the most legitimized forum for the negotiation of asylum in Europe. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
opponent
  • Prof. Plender, Richard, London
organization
publishing date
type
Thesis
publication status
published
subject
keywords
extraterritorial protection, international law, human rights, European Union, burden-sharing, demos, legal theory, interpretation, international private and public law, discrimination, refugee law, asylum, internationell rätt, European law, EU-rätt, EU law, public international law, folkrätt, internationell privaträtt, private international law
pages
643 pages
publisher
Kluwer
defense location
Carolinasalen, Kungshuset, Lundagård, Lund
defense date
2000-09-23 10:15
external identifiers
  • Other:ISRN LUJUDV/JUFO--00/1001
ISBN
90-411-1431-9
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
ea18a437-0f32-4924-b433-a2cdf8fbe91f (old id 19571)
date added to LUP
2007-05-25 08:29:18
date last changed
2016-09-19 08:45:07
@misc{ea18a437-0f32-4924-b433-a2cdf8fbe91f,
  abstract     = {How are access to asylum and other forms of extraterritorial protection regulated in the European Union? Is the EU acquis in these areas in conformity with international law? What tools does international law offer to solve conflicts between them? And, finally, is law capable of bridging the foundational oppositions embedded in migration and asylum issues? This work combines the potential of legal formalism with an analytical framework drawing on political theory. It analyses the argumentative strategies used by international lawyers, exploiting the interpretative methodology of international law as well as elaborate discrimination arguments.<br/><br>
<br/><br>
Taking the axiomatic tension between universalism and particularism as a point of departure, the author conceptualises the efforts to harmonise migration and asylum law in the European Union as the result of two interdependent negotiation loops: one taking place among Member States, and another between protection seekers and their host state. An extensive survey of the EU acquis and its institutional framework leads to the conclusion that both are heavily fragmented. The EU acquis contains not a single binding instruments securing the interests of protection seekers, while instruments enhancing migration control are fraught with legal and practical idiosyncrasies. Burden-sharing remains the pivotal element in the normative dynamics behind the EU acquis, and the various efforts of Member States to launch solidarity schemes are exposed to a critical analysis.<br/><br>
<br/><br>
After confronting the acquis with protective norms of international law, the author concludes that the deflection of protection seekers by means of visa requirements may constitute a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, and that the prescriptions of international law oblige Member States to apply the Dublin Convention and the Spanish Protocol in a manner which ultimately empties the law of its main control functions. He also develops an explicatory model reconstructing the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in the field of extraterritorial protection. In the final part, the argumentative interdependencies between universalism and particularism are explored, and the author explains why the European Court of Human Rights must be regarded as the most legitimized forum for the negotiation of asylum in Europe.},
  author       = {Noll, Gregor},
  isbn         = {90-411-1431-9},
  keyword      = {extraterritorial protection,international law,human rights,European Union,burden-sharing,demos,legal theory,interpretation,international private and public law,discrimination,refugee law,asylum,internationell rätt,European law,EU-rätt,EU law,public international law,folkrätt,internationell privaträtt,private international law},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {643},
  publisher    = {ARRAY(0xbb681f0)},
  title        = {Negotiating Asylum. The EU acquis, Extraterritorial Protection and the Common Market of Deflection},
  year         = {2000},
}