Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T03:09:33.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Human Rights and Migration Management: Of Complexity, Balance, and Nuance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

David A. Martin
David A. Martin*
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
An Emerging International Law of Migration
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 106 , 2012 , pp. 69 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S 651 (1892); see also Musgrove v. Chun Teeong Toy, 1891 Ac 272.

2 Soering v. United Kingdom, 11 EHRR 439 (161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)) (1989).

3 This transformation, along with its underappreciated impacts on other human rights values, is thoughtfully explored in Padmanabhan, Vijay M., To Transfer or Not to Transfer: Identifying and Protecting Relevant Human Rights Interests in Nonrefoulement, 80 Fordham L. Rev. 73 (2011)Google Scholar.

4 See, e.g., Chahal v. United Kingdom, 23 EHRR 413 (1996-V Eur. Ct. H.R. 1831) (1996).

5 A. and Others v. United Kingdom, App. No. 3455/05 (ECtHr Feb. 19, 2009).

6 I recognize that later measures such as the European Union’s Qualifications Directive, Council Directive 2004/83, 2004 O.J. (L 304) 12 (EC), could be seen as agreement to these obligations by political actors, but those steps came much later and only after the entrenchment of the judicial doctrine.

7 See Hailbronner, Kay, Nonrefoulement and “Humanitarian” Refugees: Customary International Law or Wishful Legal Thinking? , in The New Asylum Seekers: Refugee Law in the 1980s, at 123 (Martin, David A. ed., 1988 CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

8 See, e.g., Jabari v. Turkey, App. No. 40035/98, para. 50 (ECtHr July 11, 2000) (independent and rigorous scrutiny is required, with the possibility of suspending removal); see also Conka v. Belgium, App. No. 51564/99, paras. 82-83 (ECtHR Feb 5, 2002) (finding inadequate the Belgian “extremely urgent procedure” for review of expulsion orders, because suspensive effect is discretionary and a stay could be wrongly refused). On the use of interim measures directed by the European Court to stay expulsion until the Strasbourg procedures have been completed, see Nuala Mole & Catherine Meredith, Asylum and the European Convention on Human Rights 217-26 (2d ed. 2010).

9 Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy, App. No. 27765/09 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Feb. 23, 2012).

10 See, e.g., Dutton, Yvonne M., Pirates and Impunity: Is the Threat of Asylum Claims a Reason to Allow Pirates to Escape Justice?, 34 Fordham Int’l L.J. 236, 240-42 (2011)Google Scholar.