Human Rights, Refugees, and The Right 'To Enjoy' Asylum

Increasingly hard-line and restrictive asylum policies and practicesof many governments call into question the scope of protectionsoffered by the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.Has the focus on the 1951 Convention been to the detriment andsubordination of other rights and standards of treatment owedto refugees and asylum-seekers under international human rightslaw? Which standard applies in the event that there is a clashor inconsistency between the two bodies of law? In analysingthe interface between international refugee law and internationalhuman rights law, this article looks at the right to familylife and the right to work. Through this examination, contentand meaning is offered to the almost forgotten component ofthe right ‘to enjoy’ asylum in Article 14(1) ofthe Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.     

Seeking Asylum at Embassies: A Right to Entry under International Law?

Is the processing of asylum claims at embassies and the grantof ‘humanitarian visas’ within the framework ofProtected Entry Procedures a mere expression of the politicalbenevolence on behalf of potential host states vis-à-visprotection seekers, or do both reflect legal obligations owedto the individual applicant? If so, does international law providefor a right to entry in such cases? In this article, the existenceof a legally binding right to seek asylum encompassing an entrycomponent shall be explored first together with the questionwhether any such right may have any implications on the practiceof Protected Entry Procedures. Second, the relevance of explicitprohibitions of refoulement shall be explored together withimplied protection norms of human rights law (to be found inthe ICCPR, the ECHR and the CRC). The article concludes thatthe UDHR, the EU Charter, the CSR51, the CAT and the ICCPR donot offer any right of entry in the framework of Protected EntryProcedures. However, the ECHR and the CRC do contain an impliedright to access under certain specified conditions.     

The European Parliament and the Future of Comitology after Lisbon

The history of comitology—the system of implementation committees that control the Commission in the execution of delegated powers—has been characterised by institutional tensions. The crux of these tensions has often been the role of the European Parliament and its quest to be granted powers equal to those of the Council. This process came to a head with the 2006 Comitology reform and the introduction of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny (RPS). After just over three years of experience with the RPS procedure, the Treaty of Lisbon has made it redundant through the creation of Delegated Acts (Article 290 TFEU). This article aims to evaluate the practical implications that Delegated Acts will entail for the Parliament, principally by using the experience with the RPS to better understand the challenges ahead. This analysis will be of interest to those following the study of comitology, formal and informal inter‐institutional relations and also to practitioners who will have to work with Delegated Acts in the future.     

Surveying the Foundations: Article 80 TFEU and the Common European Asylum System

The Treaty of Lisbon introduced Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which states that the European Union’s asylum policy will be based on the principles of solidarity and the fair-sharing of responsibility. However, no guidance is given as to the nature and content of these principles. This contribution seeks to explore the relationship between these two concepts and to assess the extent and nature of their presence within the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). This contribution begins with an outline of the CEAS and presents its newly-codified foundation, Article 80 TFEU. This reveals that the CEAS may be considered a solidarity mechanism, but that the essential uncertainty as to the meaning of Article 80 is problematic when attempting to gauge the success of the CEAS as an expression of solidarity. The second part considers methods for allocating responsibilities for refugee status determination and protection between states, demonstrating that fair-sharing is both more widely accepted as the basis for solidarity and less problematic than the most common alternative—allocation according to states’ voluntary assumptions of responsibility. The final part explores expressions of fair-sharing within the CEAS and considers its limited success and numerous flaws.     

论欧洲共同体之反倾销法

本文以欧洲共同体 (EEC)之反倾销政策为主要内容 ,通过对其所形成背景、立法变更、新旧反倾销规则比较和其对欧洲共同体倾销差额计算方式之影响的研究 ,针对当前欧洲共同体反倾销政策实践的检讨 ,并以欧洲共同体反倾销法与美国反倾销法两者进行比较 ,希望藉此有助于对欧洲共同体之反倾销制度有更深入的分析与了解。     

The Economic Constitution of the European Community: From 'Rome' to 'Maastricht'

Abstract: The present paper analyses, from an economic point of view, the changes in the economic constitution of the European Community since its foundation in 1958. In order to identify the various changes, we start by developing an economic frame of reference. Our proposition is that the constitution of the European Community (EC) came closest to this frame of reference: an economic constitution for a market system. In the subsequent parts, we try to show that the process of European integration was largely based on the introduction of non-market elements. Our final argument will be that as far as the economic constitution is concerned, the Treaty on European Union (TEU) is dominated by traits which are Characteristic of modern welfare states.