Challenging the legality of externalisation in Oceania, Europe and South America: an impossible task?
(2021) In Forced Migration Review p.23-23- Abstract
- The lack of success of legal challenges made against externalisation policies of various kinds is taken up in this article written by three authors focusing on three very different contexts: Oceania, Europe and South America. This comparative analysis highlights that externalisation practices are hard to challenge across the globe in the courts but for a variety of reasons. In Oceania, there is a lack of
regional human rights agreements which means that decisions in Papua New Guinea or Nauru may be undermined by decisions made by courts in Australia,
the country responsible for the externalisation policies in question. In Europe, an unwillingness by EU institutions to take responsibility for the Turkey-EU deal (which enables EU... (More) - The lack of success of legal challenges made against externalisation policies of various kinds is taken up in this article written by three authors focusing on three very different contexts: Oceania, Europe and South America. This comparative analysis highlights that externalisation practices are hard to challenge across the globe in the courts but for a variety of reasons. In Oceania, there is a lack of
regional human rights agreements which means that decisions in Papua New Guinea or Nauru may be undermined by decisions made by courts in Australia,
the country responsible for the externalisation policies in question. In Europe, an unwillingness by EU institutions to take responsibility for the Turkey-EU deal (which enables EU Member States to reject asylum claims on the basis that they could have sought protection in a safe ‘non-EU country’ en route to the EU) has meant that it is hard to identify whom to hold to account. In South America, Venezuelan asylum seekers are likewise being rejected if they do not have an acceptable explanation for why they have not applied for protection in one of the countries en route to Peru, such as Colombia or Ecuador. However, the ad hoc and informal way these policies are being implemented means they are hard to
challenge on a legal basis. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/8ef85261-f003-46bd-a45f-d294ee21cb19
- author
- Karageorgiou, Eleni LU ; Ogg, Kate and Freier, Luisa Feline
- organization
- publishing date
- 2021-11
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Public international law, EU-Turkey statement, Due process, Asylum, Externalisation, Folkrätt
- in
- Forced Migration Review
- issue
- 68
- pages
- 26 pages
- publisher
- The Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford
- ISSN
- 1460-9819
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 8ef85261-f003-46bd-a45f-d294ee21cb19
- alternative location
- https://www.fmreview.org/sites/fmr/files/FMRdownloads/en/externalisation/magazine.pdf
- date added to LUP
- 2022-01-19 18:04:07
- date last changed
- 2023-03-23 10:35:52
@misc{8ef85261-f003-46bd-a45f-d294ee21cb19,
abstract = {{The lack of success of legal challenges made against externalisation policies of various kinds is taken up in this article written by three authors focusing on three very different contexts: Oceania, Europe and South America. This comparative analysis highlights that externalisation practices are hard to challenge across the globe in the courts but for a variety of reasons. In Oceania, there is a lack of<br/>regional human rights agreements which means that decisions in Papua New Guinea or Nauru may be undermined by decisions made by courts in Australia,<br/>the country responsible for the externalisation policies in question. In Europe, an unwillingness by EU institutions to take responsibility for the Turkey-EU deal (which enables EU Member States to reject asylum claims on the basis that they could have sought protection in a safe ‘non-EU country’ en route to the EU) has meant that it is hard to identify whom to hold to account. In South America, Venezuelan asylum seekers are likewise being rejected if they do not have an acceptable explanation for why they have not applied for protection in one of the countries en route to Peru, such as Colombia or Ecuador. However, the ad hoc and informal way these policies are being implemented means they are hard to<br/>challenge on a legal basis.}},
author = {{Karageorgiou, Eleni and Ogg, Kate and Freier, Luisa Feline}},
issn = {{1460-9819}},
keywords = {{Public international law; EU-Turkey statement; Due process; Asylum; Externalisation; Folkrätt}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{68}},
pages = {{23--23}},
publisher = {{The Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford}},
series = {{Forced Migration Review}},
title = {{Challenging the legality of externalisation in Oceania, Europe and South America: an impossible task?}},
url = {{https://www.fmreview.org/sites/fmr/files/FMRdownloads/en/externalisation/magazine.pdf}},
year = {{2021}},
}