The Immigration and Asylum Agenda

Abstract: An area of freedom, security and justice was created by the Treaty of Maastricht of 1991/1993. Immigration and asylum of third‐country nationals was inserted into Title IV EC by the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997/1999. The European Council of Tampere of October 1999 provided a substantive input. The proposals of the European Commission cover almost all aspects of immigration and asylum and, in line with the Tampere conclusions, are oriented at the status of EU citizens. A common European migration and asylum policy has been realised at an astonishing speed, though some core instruments have not yet been adopted. During the negotiations the proposals have been watered down and thus provide only relatively low standards, in particular as regards access to employment, which is an important requisite for the integration of migrants.     

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.     

Past Reflections, Future Insights: African Asylum Law and Policy in Historical Perspective

This article argues that an understanding of the evolution ofasylum is an essential ingredient in the search for ideas andperspectives to the plight facing forced migrants. Using Kenyaas a case study, the paper evaluates the extent to which proceduresused to determine claims for asylum, protection outcomes andentitlements met international human rights and refugee lawstandards. It is contended that limited resources, porous boundariesand the mass movement of asylum seekers have compromised thelevel of protection offered to those who seek surrogate protectionin African states like Kenya. In conclusion, critics in thearea of asylum are challenged to undertake historical studies,as a way towards offering best practise lessons for those involvedin the protection of persons forced to flee their home states.     

Law and Speed: Asylum Appeals and the Techniques and Consequences of Legal Quickening

This article examines how a politics of speed is manifest in a legal context via a detailed ethnography of the French National Court of Asylum (CNDA). It identifies the temporal, spatial, and organizational ordering techniques that characterize asylum appeals in France and discusses the consequences of these techniques for the way in which the appeal process is experienced by legal decision makers and subjects. It reveals adverse impacts of legal quickening on legal quality, in particular through identifying: ‘cracks’ in the performance of legal roles like lawyer and judge that begin to appear when law is executed rapidly and repetitively; dwindling opportunities to demonstrate and experience respect between parties; and the ‘thinning-out’ of legal process, as heuristics rather than deliberation come to dominate legal reasoning. The article contributes to a burgeoning body of socio-legal literature on law and time by establishing the negative impact of excessive legal quickening on role performance, respect, and legal quality.     

The Detention of Asylum Seekers as a Crime of Obedience

This article deals with discretionary decisions made by British immigration officers about whether to detain asylum seekers. It takes as its point of departure the remarkable variety of views and practices reported by front line decision-makers interviewed at British ports (Weber and Gelsthorpe 2000; Weber and Landman 2002). The discussion begins by drawing historical parallels between the pre-Holocaust era and the present day hostility towards asylum seekers, which forms the wider context for official decision-making. It notes the failure of structural analyses to account for individual differences in rule-following and draws on theoretical perspectives developed by American social psychologists Kelman and Hamilton (1989) to explore the individual dynamics of conformity and dissent. In the concluding section, theoretical connections are made between the idea of discretionary detention as a crime of obedience, and contemporary discussion about state crime and governmentality. The underlying message of this article is as much a normative as an analytical one. While recognizing the practical limitations of individual conscience, the discussion ends, as it begins, by celebrating the emancipatory potential of dissent in the face of populist policies that sanction harm against targeted groups.