Immigration and its Imperatives

Conflict and compromise have marked domestic immigration and asylum law in many countries. In examining whether these patterns will be replicated at the level of the EU, this article proposes an alternative method for analysing immigration law and its politics, framing them within the complex interaction of the interpretations by key actors of the imperatives of the State, the EU, and the legal sphere. An account of the functional, normative and polity legitimating imperatives, their specific manifestations in different spheres, and their interaction in the field of immigration and asylum is sketched. This politically-grounded analysis explains more clearly the structure of conflict and compromise that characterises this sphere, illuminates the judicial strategies in this field and enables us to speculate upon the probable future of EU immigration and asylum law.     

EU Accession to the ECHR: Between Autonomy and Adaptation

After the European Union's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights the EU will become subject to legally binding judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and participate in statutory bodies of the Council of Europe (Parliamentary Assembly; Committee of Ministers) when they act under the Convention. Convention rights and their interpretation by the ECtHR will be directly enforceable against the EU institutions and against Member States when acting within the scope of EU law. This will vest the ECHR with additional force in a number of Member States, including Germany and the UK. All Member States will further be subject to additional constraints when acting under the Convention system. The article considers the reasons for, and consequences of the EU's primus inter pares position under the Convention and within the Council of Europe, and the likely practical effect of the EU's accession for its Member States.     

The Rule of Law and EU Expansion

The article seeks to further discussion about the European Union's identification of the rule of law as a fundamental principle and pre-requisite for EU membership by prospective member states, despite the lack of a uniform Community-wide understanding of this concept. In this article, three points will be explored. Firstly, it will briefly examine the rule of law principle within the EU, as a contested concept, despite its pre-eminence as a fundamental principle upon which EU membership is based. Because of its contested nature, there exists across the EU, conceptual variations, leading to the problem of an apparent absence of a uniform conception of the rule of law. Secondly, the article will identify some of the main conflicts between the EU making this rule of law a pre-requisite for membership and the lack of a uniform conception for this fundamental principle. Thirdly, the article explores how these conflicts affect the development of legal cultures of prospective member states and what potential problems these conflicts imply. The article focuses on the European Union's lack of a uniform understanding of the rule of law and how this affects prospective member states from Central and Eastern Europe. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Delaney and the Motor Vehicle Insurance Directives: lessons for the teaching of EU law

A recent series of cases relating to the EU Motor Vehicle Insurance Directives and their application in the UK makes for interesting reading. It is the UK’s negligent transposition, and a lack of knowledge and awareness by lawyers and judges in the cases of the interaction between domestic and EU law, which compounds the negative effects. The issues raised in Delaney v Pickett [2011] and Delaney v Secretary of State [2014] do not just generate concern as to the implications they have for the application of EU law principles, but have resonance with the way in which EU law is taught in many universities. In this article we suggest that reconsidering the method and purpose of EU teaching may better serve the EU-lawyers needed for the future.     

Sustaining freedom,security and justice – from terrorism to immigration

This article focuses on two areas central to sustaining freedom, security and justice: terrorism and immigration. Their inter-relationship and the instruments and measures adopted to prosecute them have significantly advanced judicial co-operation, communitisation of security, and re-assessment of the nature and requirements of EU governance in an EU committed to human rights, liberal democracy and realising sustainable freedom, security and justice. The article outlines the background to EU involvement in judicial co-operation. It then explores EU competence, instruments and measures developed to (i) combat terrorism and international organized crime; and (ii) immigration and asylum. It concludes that the inextricable linkage between the two has serious implications for future EU democratic governance. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Punishment and Rights in European Union Citizenship: Persons or Criminals?

While European Union (EU) citizenship has traditionally been key to limiting criminalisation at national level, over recent years crime has become a criterion to distinguish between the good and the bad citizen, and to allocate rights according to that distinction. This approach has been upheld by the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) in its case‐law, where crimes show the offender's disregard for the societal values of the host Member States, and deny his/her integration therein. This article argues that citizenship serves to legitimate criminal law. The Court outlines two—counterposing—types of human being: the law‐abiding citizen and the criminal. The article shows the legal unsoundness of the Court's approach. It does so by analysing and locating the case‐law over a crime–citizenship spectrum, marked at its opposing ends by Duff's communitarian approach to criminal law, on the one hand, and Jakobs' criminal law of the enemy, on the other.     

Trading rule of law for recovery? The new EU strategy in the post-Covid era

The ambition of this article is twofold. First, it argues that, in order to enhance respect for the rule of law by its Member States, the EU has launched a new strategy albeit essentially based on mechanisms which were not specifically designed to protect the rule of law. Second, the article aims to clarify the notion of rule of law resulting from this strategy and to subsequently analyse its consequences. In doing so, this article will thereby demonstrate that the instruments used by the new strategy promote a notion of the EU rule of law which implies a constant arbitrage between the rule of law and the economic objectives pursued by the EU. The risk may be, however, that it would subjugate fundamental values (as defined in Article 2 TEU) to the logic of European economic integration, thus inverting the hierarchy between protection for the rule of law and economic values.     

Through the Back Door: Applying Theories of Legal Compliance to Illegal Immigration During the Chinese Exclusion Era

This article applies theories of legal compliance to analyze the making of this country's first “illegal immigrants”—Chinese laborers who crossed the U.S.‐Canadian and U.S.‐Mexican borders in defiance of the Chinese exclusion laws (1882–1943). Drawing upon a variety of sources, including unpublished government records, I explore the ways in which Chinese laborers gained surreptitious entry into the United States during this period and ask, what explains their mass noncompliance? I suggest that while an instrumental perspective is useful for understanding these border crossings, it overlooks other important determinants of noncompliance: normative values and opportunity structures. Specifically, the exclusion laws were widely perceived by the Chinese as lacking social and moral legitimacy, and thus not worthy of obedience. In addition, the existence of smuggling networks and liberal immigration policies in Canada and Mexico played a critical role in facilitating noncompliance. The article concludes with a discussion about the benefits and challenges of using this theoretical framework to analyze noncompliance in immigration law.     

The role of soft law in advancing the rights of persons with disabilities in the EU: A ‘hybridity’ approach to EU disability law

This article discusses the role of soft law in advancing the rights of persons with disabilities in the European Union (EU). In doing so, it revisits the emergence of the standalone, yet cross-cutting, field of ‘EU disability law’ through the lens of the ‘hybridity theory’ advanced inter alia by Trubek and Trubek. Being speculative in nature, this article construes EU disability law as a fruitful area for an enquiry into the dynamic relationship between hard and soft law. Until the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, soft law was crucial to attract disability within the sphere of action of the EU and to embed the social model of disability, displaying a value-setting role. In the post-Amsterdam period, soft law and hard law coexisted, being complementary to one another. Both contributed to a common objective, namely that of advancing equality of opportunities for persons with disabilities. After the conclusion of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the dynamic relationship between hard and soft law has become more complex and akin to what Trubek and Trubek define as ‘transformation’.     

Citizenship and Unauthorised Migration: a Dialectical Relationship

The relationship between citizenship and immigration law is often conceived as a conceptual dichotomy in which the former functions as the rhetorical domain of inclusion while immigration law does the dirty work of detention, deportation and snooping into peoples’ lives in order to uphold the inclusive values of the internal domain. States however employ a variety of practices of immigration control that infringe citizens’ rights and produce lasting dilatory effects on citizenship itself. Focusing on two specific case studies – racial profiling in identity checks carried out for immigration purposes and the standards of interpretation developed by the European Court of Human Rights in regard to the right to family life in expulsion cases – this article argues that current practices of immigration control result in a transformation of citizenship along racialised lines, which hollows citizenship's normative core of equality and liberty.     

European Citizenship and EU Immigration: A Demoi‐cratic Bridge between the Third Country Nationals' Right to Belong and the Member States' Power to Exclude

European citizenship entails, for EU nationals, a right to belong across borders. This article questions the implications of this latter right for the status of third country nationals in the EU. It contributes to address a gap between the literature on European citizenship and the literature on the admission and civic integration of third country nationals. The article begins by tracing a disconnect in the rules and narratives on admission and naturalisation of third country nationals in the EU. This is a disconnect between logics of individual rights protection, which European citizenship infiltrates, and logics of state sovereignty and governmental discretion, which otherwise dominate relevant rules and narratives. The article relies on the political science literature on mutual recognition and demoicracy to reinterpret European citizenship's norm of belonging across borders so as to reconcile the disconnect. Ultimately, the theoretical bridge that the article draws between citizenship narratives and immigration narratives offers a novel perspective on the tension between liberal values and integration discourses in Europe. It also sets out a possible frame to begin rethinking rules of engagement and cooperation in the context of the EU common immigration policy.     

The Consequences of Kadi: Where the Divergence of Opinion between EU and International Lawyers Lies?

The divergence of opinion between EU and international lawyers as to the consequences of the Kadi/Al Barakaat judgment is likely to remain for the foreseeable future. While international lawyers focus their analysis on the constitutional role of the UN Charter in international law, EU lawyers seek to assert the autonomy and primacy of the EU treaties. The aim of this article is to analyse where the divergence between the two perspectives can be found. The judgment of the European Court of Justice cannot be interpreted as questioning the authority of the Security Council in discharging its duties for the maintenance of international peace and security. The consequences of the General Court's case‐law as regards the EU autonomous list of terrorists should be borne in mind when faced with the implications of Kadi/Al Barakaat. It is not justified that the level of protection to the individuals or entities affected by targeted sanctions should depend on the legal framework in which the restrictive measures have been adopted (UN or EU), or on the margin of discretion left to the EU Member States by the Security Council.     

Resistance to European Law and Constitutional Identity in Germany: Herbert Kraus and Solange in its Intellectual Context

This article recasts our understanding of the Federal Constitutional Court's Solange decision by tracing its lineage within the domestic context and as part of a new history of EU law. The external dynamic of the decision, a moment of judicial discourse between two of Europe's highest panels, has been the focus of many studies. Much rarer are attempts to embed the decision within its internal context: the struggle within the German legal academy to accept the primacy of EU law. Central to this contextualisation is the reinvigoration of the ‘structural congruence’ theory of Herbert Kraus, which long shaped the German reception of EU law. This article recounts Kraus' theory, tracing the struggle for the German legal consciousness between three positions: constitutionalists, traditionalists, and the congruence advocates. While Hallstein's constitutionalism is most closely associated with Germany's early Europhilia, even he admitted by 1975 that Kraus had won the day.     

Retrieving the ‘subject’ of European integration

In this article, a critical reinterpretation of citizens as subjects of European integration moves the focus of EU law from EU citizens' subjection to their subjectification. This analysis draws on post‐structural social theory in arguing that the law is instrumental to securing the material conditions for transnational political subjectification because it regulates both EU citizens' access to transnational social relations and the perception of difference between them. However, the law also reinforces constraints on the process of transnational subjectification. Systematic obstacles, which must be taken into account, are not limited to economic status, but include other variables like gender or age. It will be argued on this basis that EU law needs to develop a more coherent politics of subjectivity. Towards this goal, the law must carefully attend to what is (and is not) depoliticising in EU citizenship rights.     

International Migration and the European Union, Trends and Consequences

Member States of the European Union (EU) have undoubtedly changed into de facto countries of immigration. Since the upswing in migration in the late 1980s, net migration for the 15 EU Member States together has not been below 500,000. This article first focuses on trends in international migration (such as migration from former colonies, recruitment of temporary workers, and East-West migration) and special groups of immigrants (such as ethnic Germans, asylum seekers, and clandestine migrants). The second part of the article pays attention to immigrant settlement and migration policies, especially focusing on the European Union (trafficking and smuggling of humans, and the integration of migrants on the labour market). Detailed comparison of international migration flows is seriously hindered by a complexity of different national registration systems, and different countries display differences with regard to type and history of migration, country of origin, size of migration flows and immigrant populations.     

The Common Travel Area between Britain and Ireland

Despite its endorsement by the Treaty of Amsterdam, the origins and content of the 'common travel area' between Britain and Ireland remain largely unknown. This article relies upon published and archive material in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the common travel area. It shows that the common travel area has been founded upon administrative agreements (in 1922 and 1952), that it has influenced the special status of Irish nationals in British law and vice versa, and that it has been reflected in the law on entry to each state from the other and in the enforcement by each state of the other's immigration policy. It goes on to argue that the existence of a land border between the two states has been the primary reason for the common travel area. The implications for the common travel area of the recent increase in immigration to Ireland are then examined. Here, it is shown there have been significant changes to Irish immigration law relating to the common travel area since 1997, and it is suggested that these new circumstances may result in further reform of laws and practices in both Britain and Ireland.     

Effet utile and the (re)organisation of national judiciaries: A not so unique institutional response to a uniquely important challenge?

The current repurposing of the principle of effet utile of European Union law can be found in the revolutionary steps taken by the Court of Justice in its application of Article 19 TEU. The implicit goal of this recent body of case-law is to equip national judges with the tools to resist domestic judicial reforms that affect their freedom to adjudicate independently. Considering Simmenthal to Unibet, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses to the latest case-law relating to the organisation of national judiciaries, this article contends that, while the case-law on judicial independence is unprecedented, the Court of Justice has gone to great lengths to ensure that the developments in EU law precipitated by its rulings are grounded in established doctrine. They follow a line of case-law that builds on the principle of primacy of EU law and the obligation to guarantee the effectiveness of EU law in the domestic legal order. Further, the current trajectory is for Article 19 TEU to form the operational basis of review of any judicially minded reforms, whether they be organisational (Article 19 TEU, together with Article 47 CFREU), limit actually or potentially the freedom for dialogue between national courts and the Court of Justice (Article 19 TEU together with Article 267 TFEU and Article 47 CFREU) or where they reduce the protection of the value of the rule of law (Article 19 TEU, Article 2 TEU, Article 49 TEU and Article 47 CFREU), with potential implications for the effective application in EU law of the principle of mutual trust.     

The fundamental right of data protection in the European Union: in search of an uncharted right

The entry into force of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the ensuing introduction of the right to data protection as a new fundamental right in the legal order of the EU has raised some challenges. This article is an attempt to bring clarity on some of these questions. We will therefore try to address the issue of the place of the right to the protection of personal data within the global architecture of the Charter, but also the relationship between this new fundamental right and the already existing instruments. In doing so, we will analyse the most pertinent case law of the Court of Luxembourg, only to find out that it creates more confusion than clarity. The lesson we draw from this overview is that the reasoning of the Court is permeated by a ‘privacy thinking’, which consists not only in overly linking the rights to privacy and data protection, but also in applying the modus operandi of the former to the latter (which are different we contend). The same flawed reasoning seems to be at work in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Therefore, it is crucial that the different modi operandi be acknowledged, and that any upcoming data protection instrument is accurately framed in relation with Article 8 of the Charter.     

The Scope for Joint Implementation in the EU Candidate Countries

Central and Eastern European Candidate countries are involved in negotiations with the EU on the implementation of the Acquis Communautaire in their domestic law. These countries are also preparing themselves for international co-operation in the framework of the Kyoto Protocol. Through this co-operation the Candidate countries will most likely transfer GHG emission reduction credits to other industrialised countries listed in Annex B of the Protocol. This can take place through JI project co-operation and/or International Emissions Trading. This paper argues that the Acquis environmental requirements will in general lead to GHG emission reduction in the Candidate countries, which will reduce the scope for JI in these countries. The extent to which the JI scope will be reduced depends, among others, on the timing of entering the EU and the transitional arrangements between the EU and the Candidates.