Recasting the Dublin Regulation : an analysis of the impact of the M.S.S. and N.S./M.E. judgments on the recast of the Dublin Regulation
(2014) MRSK60 20132Human Rights Studies
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Syftet med Dublinförordningen är att se till att asylansökningar behandlas av endast en medlemsstat, för att undvika fenomenen “asylsum shopping” och “refugees in orbit”. Förordningen består av en hierarki av kriterier för att fastställa vilken stat som är ansvarig, men detta har också lett till principen om ömsesidigt förtroende mellan medlemsstaterna, där alla stater förutsätts ha samma nivå av mänskliga rättigheter på grund av sitt EU medlemskap. Dessutom lägger förordningen också en oproportionerligt stor del av ansvaret på de medlemsstater som är inträdesstater till EU. Under 2011 kom två domslut från ECtHR och CJEU domstolarna. Dessa fall illustrerade vilka konsekvenser principen om ömsesidigt förtroende kan få för principen om... (More)
- Syftet med Dublinförordningen är att se till att asylansökningar behandlas av endast en medlemsstat, för att undvika fenomenen “asylsum shopping” och “refugees in orbit”. Förordningen består av en hierarki av kriterier för att fastställa vilken stat som är ansvarig, men detta har också lett till principen om ömsesidigt förtroende mellan medlemsstaterna, där alla stater förutsätts ha samma nivå av mänskliga rättigheter på grund av sitt EU medlemskap. Dessutom lägger förordningen också en oproportionerligt stor del av ansvaret på de medlemsstater som är inträdesstater till EU. Under 2011 kom två domslut från ECtHR och CJEU domstolarna. Dessa fall illustrerade vilka konsekvenser principen om ömsesidigt förtroende kan få för principen om non-refoulement.
I det nya utkastet, hoppades man att Dublin-III förordningen, som trädde i kraft 2013, skulle återspegla betydelsen av dessa fall. Denna uppsats handlar om hur de två domsluten påverkade omarbetningen av förordningen, och vilken effekt det hade på begreppet ömsesidigt förtroende inom EU. Denna uppsats är en begreppsanalys av dessa två domslut, och en jämförelse mellan Dublin-II och Dublin-III förordningarna. Men samtidigt som nya säkerhetsåtgärder sattes på plats, är de grundläggande bristerna med oproportionerlig ansvarsfördelning fortfarande kvar i systemet. Genom att analysera David Millers teori om nationellt ansvar och avhjälpande ansvar, menar jag att ansvaret bör fördelas baserat på staters kapacitet och asylsökandes band till vissa stater. (Less) - Abstract
- The purpose of the Dublin Regulation is to ensure that applications for asylum will be considered by one Member State, avoiding the phenomena of “asylum shopping” and “refugees in orbit”. The Regulation consists of a hierarchy of criteria for determining the responsible state, however, this has also resulted in the principle of Mutual Trust between Member States, where all states are presumed to have the same levels of human rights by virtue of EU membership. Additionally, the Regulation also places a disproportionate amount of responsibility on the Member States that were the first point of entry into the EU. In 2011, two judgments were delivered by the ECtHR and the CJEU. These cases illustrated the consequences Mutual Trust can have on... (More)
- The purpose of the Dublin Regulation is to ensure that applications for asylum will be considered by one Member State, avoiding the phenomena of “asylum shopping” and “refugees in orbit”. The Regulation consists of a hierarchy of criteria for determining the responsible state, however, this has also resulted in the principle of Mutual Trust between Member States, where all states are presumed to have the same levels of human rights by virtue of EU membership. Additionally, the Regulation also places a disproportionate amount of responsibility on the Member States that were the first point of entry into the EU. In 2011, two judgments were delivered by the ECtHR and the CJEU. These cases illustrated the consequences Mutual Trust can have on the principle of non-refoulement.
In the redrafting, it was hoped that the Dublin-III Regulation, which came into force in 2013, would reflect the significance of these cases. This paper looks at how the judgments impacted the recast of the Regulation, and what effect this had on the concept of Mutual Trust within the EU. This paper is a conceptual analysis of the two judgments, and a comparison between the Dublin-II and the Dublin-III. However, while new safeguards were put into place, the fundamental flaws of disproportionate responsibility sharing remain in the system. Through looking at David Miller’s theory on national responsibility and remedial responsibility, I argue that the focus in allocating responsibility should be based on a state’s capacities and on asylum seekers ties to specific states. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4353834
- author
- Petersson, Catherine LU
- supervisor
-
- Olof Beckman LU
- Lina Sturfelt LU
- organization
- course
- MRSK60 20132
- year
- 2014
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Non-refoulement, Mutual Trust, M.S.S., Hierarchy of Criteria, Dublin-III, Dublin-II, The Dublin Regulation, Common European Asylum System, burden of Proof, burden Sharing, N.S./M.E., remedial responsibility, sovereignty clause, early warning mechanism, mänskliga rättigheter, Human rights
- language
- English
- id
- 4353834
- date added to LUP
- 2014-04-16 10:07:28
- date last changed
- 2014-09-04 08:27:41
@misc{4353834,
abstract = {{The purpose of the Dublin Regulation is to ensure that applications for asylum will be considered by one Member State, avoiding the phenomena of “asylum shopping” and “refugees in orbit”. The Regulation consists of a hierarchy of criteria for determining the responsible state, however, this has also resulted in the principle of Mutual Trust between Member States, where all states are presumed to have the same levels of human rights by virtue of EU membership. Additionally, the Regulation also places a disproportionate amount of responsibility on the Member States that were the first point of entry into the EU. In 2011, two judgments were delivered by the ECtHR and the CJEU. These cases illustrated the consequences Mutual Trust can have on the principle of non-refoulement.
In the redrafting, it was hoped that the Dublin-III Regulation, which came into force in 2013, would reflect the significance of these cases. This paper looks at how the judgments impacted the recast of the Regulation, and what effect this had on the concept of Mutual Trust within the EU. This paper is a conceptual analysis of the two judgments, and a comparison between the Dublin-II and the Dublin-III. However, while new safeguards were put into place, the fundamental flaws of disproportionate responsibility sharing remain in the system. Through looking at David Miller’s theory on national responsibility and remedial responsibility, I argue that the focus in allocating responsibility should be based on a state’s capacities and on asylum seekers ties to specific states.}},
author = {{Petersson, Catherine}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Recasting the Dublin Regulation : an analysis of the impact of the M.S.S. and N.S./M.E. judgments on the recast of the Dublin Regulation}},
year = {{2014}},
}