Violeta Moreno-Lax
- Published in print:
- 2017
- Published Online:
- October 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780198701002
- eISBN:
- 9780191770517
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780198701002.003.0005
- Subject:
- Law, Human Rights and Immigration
Member States started adopting carrier liability regulations from the mid-1980s, seemingly as a direct response to increasing numbers of asylum requests, with immigration liaison officer (ILO) ...
More
Member States started adopting carrier liability regulations from the mid-1980s, seemingly as a direct response to increasing numbers of asylum requests, with immigration liaison officer (ILO) schemes proliferating afterwards. Techniques of ‘remote control’ have now been communautarised, providing an additional layer of control. Both carriers and ILOs have privileged access to migrants bound to the EU already at the pre-entry phase. Making them responsible for the anticipated enforcement of visas has the potential to block lines of regular (and safe) access to those in need of international protection. This chapter is concerned with these developments. It analyses carrier sanctions and ILOs legislation, comparing the EU regime with its international counterparts. The review encompasses the pre- and post-Schengen periods as well as recent innovations concerning the automated treatment and transfer of advance passenger information (API) and the creation of ‘Frontex liaison officers’. The impact of carrier sanctions and ILO activities on refugee flows is scrutinized at the end, pointing at a structural incompatibility of advance border enforcement, through a model of ‘imperfect delegation’/’hidden coercion’, with basic guarantees against denial of entry.Less
Member States started adopting carrier liability regulations from the mid-1980s, seemingly as a direct response to increasing numbers of asylum requests, with immigration liaison officer (ILO) schemes proliferating afterwards. Techniques of ‘remote control’ have now been communautarised, providing an additional layer of control. Both carriers and ILOs have privileged access to migrants bound to the EU already at the pre-entry phase. Making them responsible for the anticipated enforcement of visas has the potential to block lines of regular (and safe) access to those in need of international protection. This chapter is concerned with these developments. It analyses carrier sanctions and ILOs legislation, comparing the EU regime with its international counterparts. The review encompasses the pre- and post-Schengen periods as well as recent innovations concerning the automated treatment and transfer of advance passenger information (API) and the creation of ‘Frontex liaison officers’. The impact of carrier sanctions and ILO activities on refugee flows is scrutinized at the end, pointing at a structural incompatibility of advance border enforcement, through a model of ‘imperfect delegation’/’hidden coercion’, with basic guarantees against denial of entry.
David Scott FitzGerald
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- March 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780190874155
- eISBN:
- 9780190874186
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780190874155.003.0008
- Subject:
- Sociology, Migration Studies (including Refugee Studies), Comparative and Historical Sociology
The European Union since the 1990s has been engaged in a unique project of reducing mobility controls between members while strengthening the external borders and then shifting control outward. The ...
More
The European Union since the 1990s has been engaged in a unique project of reducing mobility controls between members while strengthening the external borders and then shifting control outward. The individual pieces of the remote control strategies themselves are common, with the exception of the Frontex external border control coordinating agency, which does not have parallels in the North American or Australian cases. Europeanization has cross-cutting effects on remote control. The ubiquity of policies rooted in law, regulations, or formal agreements with other states—around readmission, visas, carrier sanctions, safe third countries, and safe countries of origin—is a result of Europeanization. However, Europeanization also includes built-in constraints derived from its supranational courts and institutions.Less
The European Union since the 1990s has been engaged in a unique project of reducing mobility controls between members while strengthening the external borders and then shifting control outward. The individual pieces of the remote control strategies themselves are common, with the exception of the Frontex external border control coordinating agency, which does not have parallels in the North American or Australian cases. Europeanization has cross-cutting effects on remote control. The ubiquity of policies rooted in law, regulations, or formal agreements with other states—around readmission, visas, carrier sanctions, safe third countries, and safe countries of origin—is a result of Europeanization. However, Europeanization also includes built-in constraints derived from its supranational courts and institutions.
David Scott FitzGerald
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- March 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780190874155
- eISBN:
- 9780190874186
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780190874155.003.0004
- Subject:
- Sociology, Migration Studies (including Refugee Studies), Comparative and Historical Sociology
The aerial dome is the single most effective block in the architecture of remote control. The contemporary dome over U.S., Canadian, and Mexican airspace was derived from controls over transoceanic ...
More
The aerial dome is the single most effective block in the architecture of remote control. The contemporary dome over U.S., Canadian, and Mexican airspace was derived from controls over transoceanic shipping passengers dating back to the nineteenth century. Its deeply rooted history makes the system seem natural. The use and framing of mobility controls as a way to protect national security also has a history more than a century old. Terrorist attacks further generated a strong security rationale for strict passenger controls that states then use to keep out all manner of unwanted foreigners. Many controls are exercised in spaces that are difficult for watchdogs to access. The people harmed by the system because they are blocked from reaching sanctuary are uncounted and unseen. As a result of these characteristics, there are few institutional constraints on the system of visas, carrier sanctions, liaison officers, pre-clearance operations, and international anti-smuggling operations that together constitute the dome.Less
The aerial dome is the single most effective block in the architecture of remote control. The contemporary dome over U.S., Canadian, and Mexican airspace was derived from controls over transoceanic shipping passengers dating back to the nineteenth century. Its deeply rooted history makes the system seem natural. The use and framing of mobility controls as a way to protect national security also has a history more than a century old. Terrorist attacks further generated a strong security rationale for strict passenger controls that states then use to keep out all manner of unwanted foreigners. Many controls are exercised in spaces that are difficult for watchdogs to access. The people harmed by the system because they are blocked from reaching sanctuary are uncounted and unseen. As a result of these characteristics, there are few institutional constraints on the system of visas, carrier sanctions, liaison officers, pre-clearance operations, and international anti-smuggling operations that together constitute the dome.
Violeta Moreno-Lax
- Published in print:
- 2017
- Published Online:
- October 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780198701002
- eISBN:
- 9780191770517
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780198701002.001.0001
- Subject:
- Law, Human Rights and Immigration
This monograph examines the interface between extraterritorial border surveillance, migration management, and asylum seeking under EU law. The final goal is to determine the compatibility of ...
More
This monograph examines the interface between extraterritorial border surveillance, migration management, and asylum seeking under EU law. The final goal is to determine the compatibility of pre-entry controls, carried out in the form of Schengen visas, carrier sanctions (with or without assistance from ILOs), and maritime interdiction, with the fundamental rights acquis of the EU, in particular the right to protection against refoulement, the right to asylum, and the rights to good administration and effective judicial protection enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The conflictual assertion contained in Tampere and successor programmes that the Union shall remain ‘open’ to those seeking access to it in search of protection, but, at the same time, ‘counteract illegal immigration and cross-border crime’ provides the background to this research. The result has been an ambiguous regulation of access to EU territory for asylum purposes. Two sets of rules have developed simultaneously, which are difficult to reconcile: one set assimilates protection seekers to the generic category of ‘third-country nationals’ subject to Schengen admission criteria, with another set containing references to ‘special provisions’ applicable to exiles, leading to a situation where up to 90% of refugee arrivals occur through irregular (unsafe) channels, as smuggled or trafficked migrants. In these circumstances, elucidating the exact reach of EU international protection obligations and the articulation between EU border/pre-border norms and EU fundamental rights becomes essential. The monograph thus strives to determine the content of the specific responsibilities of the Member States in this context and establish their implications for the ‘integrated border management’ system the Union is committed to realise.Less
This monograph examines the interface between extraterritorial border surveillance, migration management, and asylum seeking under EU law. The final goal is to determine the compatibility of pre-entry controls, carried out in the form of Schengen visas, carrier sanctions (with or without assistance from ILOs), and maritime interdiction, with the fundamental rights acquis of the EU, in particular the right to protection against refoulement, the right to asylum, and the rights to good administration and effective judicial protection enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The conflictual assertion contained in Tampere and successor programmes that the Union shall remain ‘open’ to those seeking access to it in search of protection, but, at the same time, ‘counteract illegal immigration and cross-border crime’ provides the background to this research. The result has been an ambiguous regulation of access to EU territory for asylum purposes. Two sets of rules have developed simultaneously, which are difficult to reconcile: one set assimilates protection seekers to the generic category of ‘third-country nationals’ subject to Schengen admission criteria, with another set containing references to ‘special provisions’ applicable to exiles, leading to a situation where up to 90% of refugee arrivals occur through irregular (unsafe) channels, as smuggled or trafficked migrants. In these circumstances, elucidating the exact reach of EU international protection obligations and the articulation between EU border/pre-border norms and EU fundamental rights becomes essential. The monograph thus strives to determine the content of the specific responsibilities of the Member States in this context and establish their implications for the ‘integrated border management’ system the Union is committed to realise.
Cathryn Costello
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- March 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780199644742
- eISBN:
- 9780191741128
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199644742.003.0006
- Subject:
- Law, EU Law, Human Rights and Immigration
This chapter explores issues of access to protection. Refugee protection depends, in practice, on access to a place of refuge. Border controls have been extended and intensified, so that safe access ...
More
This chapter explores issues of access to protection. Refugee protection depends, in practice, on access to a place of refuge. Border controls have been extended and intensified, so that safe access to asylum for refugees is often unavailable. This chapter explores how measures which hinder access to asylum have been challenged under human rights law, including how the EU’s Dublin System allocating responsibility for asylum claims between Member States has been constrained by human rights norms. The ECtHR has developed its concept of jurisdiction in a manner apt to subject some extraterritorial border measures to legal scrutiny, and has also placed a break on transfers of asylum seekers under the Dublin System. The chapter explores various points of friction between EU law and the ECHR, including in the CJEU’s Dublin case law.Less
This chapter explores issues of access to protection. Refugee protection depends, in practice, on access to a place of refuge. Border controls have been extended and intensified, so that safe access to asylum for refugees is often unavailable. This chapter explores how measures which hinder access to asylum have been challenged under human rights law, including how the EU’s Dublin System allocating responsibility for asylum claims between Member States has been constrained by human rights norms. The ECtHR has developed its concept of jurisdiction in a manner apt to subject some extraterritorial border measures to legal scrutiny, and has also placed a break on transfers of asylum seekers under the Dublin System. The chapter explores various points of friction between EU law and the ECHR, including in the CJEU’s Dublin case law.
