Comprehensive Approaches in the Global Compact for Migration and the EU Border Policies: A Critical Appraisal
2. The Sovereign and the Migrant: Retrospectives on the Fragmentation of IML
3. Clustering the GCM’s Guiding Principles: Bridging the Gap or Widening the Hiatus?
3.1. Cluster 1: International Cooperation
3.1.1. Shared Responsibility within the “Migration Cycle”: A Possible Reading of Objectives 23, 2, and 5, in Combination with Objectives 11 and 21
3.1.2. On Possible Inferences: Does the GCM Advance a Duty of Intergovernmental Cooperation on Return/Readmission?
3.1.3. On Ambivalent Models and Tricky Assumptions: What Does “Data-Driven Governance” Mean for “Good Governance”?
3.2. Cluster 2: Migrant and Refugee Rights
3.2.1. Entry Rights and Non-Refoulement: Or Why the GCM Does Not Call a Spade a Spade
3.2.2. Exit Rights and Push Factors: On the Ambivalent Purpose of the Right “Not to Migrate”
3.2.3. Aliens’ Treatment upon Entry: On the Rights to Legal Identity and Non-Discrimination
4. On Implementing the GCM through Comprehensive Approaches: Lessons Learned from the EU Border Policies
4.1. Comprehensiveness under the EIBM
4.2. De-Compartmentalisation under Schengen Cooperation and EU Migration and Asylum Law
4.3. Compartmentalisation of Regular Migration and EU Citizen-TCN Denizen Divide
Conflicts of Interest
- Aleinikoff, Thomas Alexander. 2007. International Legal Norms on Migration: Substance without Architecture. In International Migration Law: Developing Paradigms and Key Challenges. Edited by Ryszard Cholewinski, Richard Perruchoud and Euan MacDonald. The Hague: TMC Asser, pp. 467–79. [Google Scholar]
- Arbel, Efrat. 2016. Bordering the Constitution, Constituting the Border. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 53: 824–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Betts, Alexander. 2010. The Refugee Regime Complex. Refugee Survey Quarterly 29: 12–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Betts, Alexander, ed. 2011. Global Migration Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Betts, Alexander, and Lena Kainz. 2017. The History of Global Migration Governance. RSC Working Paper Series No. 122. Oxford: Refugee Studies Centre. [Google Scholar]
- Biermann, Frank, Philipp Pattberg, Harro van Asselt, and Fariborz Zelli. 2009. The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis. Global Environmental Politics 9: 14–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broude, Tomer, and Yuval Shany, eds. 2011. Multi-Sourced Equivalent Norms in International Law. Oxford: Hart. [Google Scholar]
- Brouillette, Martine. 2019. Entretien avec François Crépeau. Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales 35: 197–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brouwer, Evelien. 2008. Digital Borders and Real Rights: Effective Remedies for Third-Country Nationals in the Schengen Information System. The Hague, Boston and London: Nijhoff. [Google Scholar]
- Brouwer, Evelien. 2020. Large-Scale Databases and Interoperability in Migration and Border Policies: The Non-Discriminatory Approach of Data Protection. European Public Law 26: 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrera, Sergio. 2007. The EU Border Management Strategy FRONTEX and the Challenges of Irregular Immigration in the Canary Islands. CEPS Working Documents No. 261. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS). [Google Scholar]
- Carrera, Sergio, and Roberto Cortinovis. 2019. The EU’s Role in Implementing the UN Global Compact on Refugees Contained Mobility vs. International Protection. CEPS Papers in Liberty and Security in Europe. Brussels: CEPS. [Google Scholar]
- Carrera, Sergio, and Valsamis Mitsilegas. 2017. Constitutionalising the Security Union: Effectiveness, Rule of Law and Rights in Countering Terrorism and Crime. Brussels: CEPS. [Google Scholar]
- Carrera, Sergio, Karel Lannoo, Marco Stefan, and Lina Vosyliute. 2018. Some EU governments leaving the UN Global Compact on Migration: A Contradiction in Terms? CEPS Policy Insight No. 2018/15. Brussels: CEPS. [Google Scholar]
- Carrera, Sergio, Leonhard den Hertog, Marion Panizzon, and Dora Kostakopoulou. 2019a. EU External Migration Policies in an Era of Global Mobilities: Intersecting Policy Universes. Leiden: Brill/Nijhoff. [Google Scholar]
- Carrera, Sergio, Juan Santos Vara, and Tinete Strik, eds. 2019b. Constitutionalising the External Dimensions of EU Migration Policies in Times of Crisis: Legality, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Reconsidered. Cheltenham: Elgar. [Google Scholar]
- Carrera, Sergio, Lina Vosyliute, Zvezda Vankova, Nadzeya Laurentsyeva, Meena Fernandes, James Dennison, and Julia Guérin. 2019c. The Cost of Non-Europe in the Area of Legal Migration. CEPS Papers in Liberty and Security in Europe. Brussels: CEPS. [Google Scholar]
- Cassarino, Jean-Pierre. 2022. An Unsettling Déjà-vu: The May 2021 Ceuta Events. European Papers 7: 79–85. [Google Scholar]
- Cassarino, Jean-Pierre, and Luisa Marin. 2022. The Pact on Migration and Asylum: Turning the European Territory into a Non-Territory? European Journal of Migration and Law 24: 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chetail, Vincent. 2014. The Transnational Movement of Persons Under General International Law–Mapping the Customary Law Foundations of International Migration Law. In Research Handbook on International Law and Migration. Edited by Vincent Chetail and Céline Bauloz. Cheltenham: Elgar, pp. 1–72. [Google Scholar]
- Chetail, Vincent. 2017. The Architecture of International Migration Law: A Deconstructivist Design of Complexity and Contradiction. AJIL Unbound 111: 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Chetail, Vincent. 2019. International Migration Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Cole, Philip. 2006. Towards a Symmetrical World: Migration and International Law. Ethics and Economics 4: 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Costello, Cathryn. 2018. Refugees and (Other) Migrants: Will the Global Compacts Ensure Safe Flight and Onward Mobility for Refugees? International Journal of Refugee Law 30: 643–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crépeau, François. 1995. Droit d’asile: De L’hospitalité aux Contrôles Migratoires. Brussels: Bruylant. [Google Scholar]
- Crépeau, François. 2017. Proceedings of the Seminar of 27 January 2017. In Non-Refoulement as a Principle of International Law and the Role of the Judiciary in Its Implementation. Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights, pp. 11–15. [Google Scholar]
- Crépeau, François. 2018. Towards a Mobile and Diverse World: ‘Facilitating Mobility’ as a Central Objective of the Global Compact on Migration. International Journal of Refugee Law 30: 650–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Curtin, Deirdre. 2017. Security of the Interstice and Interoperable Data Sharing: A First Cut. In Constitutionalising the Security Union: Effectiveness, Rule of Law and Rights in Countering Terrorism and Crime. Edited by Sergio Carrera and Valsamis Mitsilegas. Brussels: CEPS, pp. 65–72. [Google Scholar]
- Dauvergne, Catherine. 2004. Sovereignty, Migration and the Rule of Law in Global Times. The Modern Law Review 67: 588–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Bruycker, Philippe. 2020. The New Pact on Migration and Asylum: What It Is Not and What It Could Have Been. EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy. Available online: https://eumigrationlawblog.eu/the-new-pact-on-migration-and-asylum-what-it-is-not-and-what-it-could-have-been (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- De Bruycker, Philippe, Marie De Somer, and Jean Louis De Brouwer. 2019. From Tampere 20 to Tampere 2.0: Towards a New European Consensus on Migration. Brussels: European Policy Centre. [Google Scholar]
- De Somer, Marie. 2020. Schengen: Quo Vadis? European Journal of Migration and Law 22: 178–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dupuy, Pierre-Marie. 2007. A Doctrinal Debate in the Globalisation Era: On the “Fragmentation” of International Law. European Journal of Legal Studies 1: 25–41. [Google Scholar]
- Elias, Olufemi, and Chin Lim. 1997. General Principles of Law, ‘Soft Law’ and the Identification of International Law. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 28: 3–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farahat, Anuscheh, and Jürgen Bast. 2022. A Global View on the Global Compact for Migration–Introduction. Verfassung in Recht und Übersee 55: 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fassin, Didier, and Christopher Kutz, eds. 2018. The Will to Punish. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Fink, Melanie. 2020. Why It Is so Hard to Hold Frontex Accountable: On Blame-Shifting and an Outdated Remedies System. EJIL:Talk! Available online: https://www.ejiltalk.org/why-it-is-so-hard-to-hold-frontex-accountable-on-blame-shifting-and-an-outdated-remedies-system (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Fischer-Lescano, Andrea, and Gunther Teubner. 2004. Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law. Michigan Journal of International Law 25: 999–1046. [Google Scholar]
- Gammeltoft-Hansen, Thomas, and James C. Hathaway. 2015. Non-Refoulement in a World of Cooperative Deterrence. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 53: 235–84. [Google Scholar]
- Gammeltoft-Hansen, Thomas, and Nikolas F. Tan. 2017. The End of the Deterrence Paradigm? Future Directions for Global Refugee Policy. Journal on Migration and Human Security 5: 28–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Gammeltoft-Hansen, Thomas, Elspeth Guild, Violeta Moreno-Lax, Marion Panizzon, and Isobel Roele. 2017. What Is a Compact? Migrants’ Rights and State Responsibilities Regarding the Design of the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. SSRN. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3051027 (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Geiger, Martin, and Antoine Pécoud. 2010. The Politics of International Migration Management. London: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
- Giuffré, Mariagulia, and Violeta Moreno-Lax. 2019. The Rise of Consensual Containment: From Contactless Control to Contactless Responsibility for Migratory Flows. In Research Handbook on International Refugee Law. Edited by Singh Satvinder Juss. Cheltenham: Elgar, pp. 82–108. [Google Scholar]
- Goldner Lang, Iris, and Boldizsár Nagy. 2021. External Border Control Techniques in the EU as a Challenge to the Principle of Non-Refoulement. European Constitutional Law Review 17: 442–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. 2001. Article 31 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees: Non-Penalization, Detention and Protection. UNHCR. Available online: https://www.unhcr.org/protection/globalconsult/3bcfdf164/article-31-1951-convention-relating-status-refugees-non-penalization-detention.html (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Goodwin-Gill, Guy S., and Jane McAdam. 2021. The Refugee in International Law, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Grahl-Madsen, Atle. 1980. Territorial Asylum. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. [Google Scholar]
- Grundler, Maja, and Elspeth Guild. 2022. The Legal Effects of a Non-Binding Instrument: The Marrakech ComPact, EU Development Funds, and Policy on Irregular Migration. Protect Project. Available online: https://protectproject.w.uib.no/the-legal-effects-of-a-non-binding-instrument-the-marrakech-compact-eu-development-funds-and-policy-on-irregular-migration (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Guild, Elspeth. 2013. The Right to Leave a Country. Issue Paper by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. Council of Europe. Available online: https://rm.coe.int/the-right-to-leave-a-country-issue-paper-published-by-the-council-of-e/16806da510 (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Guild, Elspeth. 2017. To Protect or to Forget? The Human Right to Leave a Country. EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy. Available online: https://eumigrationlawblog.eu/to-protect-or-to-forget-the-human-right-to-leave-a-country (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Guild, Elspeth. 2018. The UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration: What Place for Human Rights? International Journal of Refugee Law 30: 661–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guild, Elspeth. 2021a. Schengen Borders and Multiple National States of Emergency: From Refugees to Terrorism to COVID-19. European Journal of Migration and Law 23: 385–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guild, Elspeth. 2021b. The Frontex Push-Back Controversy: What Oversight for Frontex? (Part II). EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy. Available online: https://eumigrationlawblog.eu/the-frontex-push-back-controversy-what-oversight-for-frontex-part-ii/ (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Guild, Elspeth, and Stefanie Grant. 2017. Migration Governance in the UN: What Is the Global Compact and What Does It Mean? Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 252/2017. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2895636 (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Guild, Elspeth, and Katharine T. Weatherhead. 2018. Tensions as the EU negotiates the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy. Available online: https://eumigrationlawblog.eu/tensions-as-the-eu-negotiates-the-global-compact-for-safe-orderly-and-regular-migration (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Hailbronner, Kay. 1996. Comments on: The Right to Leave, the Right to Return and the Question of a Right to Remain. In The Problem of Refugees in the Light of Contemporary International Law Issues. Edited by Vera Gowlland-Debbas. The Hague, Boston and London: Nijhoff, pp. 93–108. [Google Scholar]
- Hanke, Philip, and Daniela Vitiello. 2019. New Technologies in Migration Control. A Legal Appraisal from an International and European Perspective. In Use and Misuse of New Technologies. Contemporary Challenges in International and European Law. Edited by Elena Carpanelli and Nicole Lazzerini. Cham: Springer, pp. 3–35. [Google Scholar]
- Hannum, Hurst. 2021. The Right to Leave and Return in International Law and Practice. Leiden: Brill/Nijhoff. [Google Scholar]
- Higgins, Rosalyn. 1973. The Right in International Law of an Individual to Enter, Stay in and Leave a Country. International Affairs 49: 341–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hilpold, Peter. 2021. Opening Up a New Chapter of Law-Making in International Law: The Global Compacts on Migration and for Refugees of 2018. European Law Journal 26: 226–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobbing, Peter. 2005. Integrated Border Management at the EU Level. CEPS Working Documents No. 227. Brussels: CEPS. [Google Scholar]
- Hurwitz, Agnès. 2009. The Collective Responsibility of States to Protect Refugees. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Jowett, Benjamin, ed. 2010. Dialogues of Plato: Translated into English, with Analyses and Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 4. [Google Scholar]
- Kälin, Walter. 2018. The Global Compact on Migration: A Ray of Hope for Disaster-Displaced Persons. International Journal of Refugee Law 30: 664–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karageorgiou, Eleni, and Gregor Noll. 2022. What Is Wrong with Solidarity in EU Asylum and Migration Law? Jus Cogens 4: 131–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kilpatrick, Jane. 2022. Frontex: More Power, No Responsibility? Mega-Agency Lacks Real Accountability Structure. Statewatch.org. Available online: https://www.statewatch.org/analyses/2022/frontex-more-power-no-responsibility-mega-agency-lacks-real-accountability-structure (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Kleinlein, Thomas. 2019. The Procedural Approach of the European Court of Human Rights: Between Subsidiarity and Dynamic Evolution. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 68: 91–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koskenniemi, Martti. 2007. The Fate of Public International Law: Between Technique and Politics. Modern Law Review 70: 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koslowski, Rey. 2011. Global Mobility Regimes. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
- Koslowski, Rey. 2019. International Travel Security and the Global Compacts on Refugees and Migration. International Migration 57: 158–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kunz, Rahel, Sandra Lavenex, and Marion Panizzon. 2011. Multilayered Migration Governance: The Promise of Partnership, 1st ed. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Kuskonmaz, Elif, and Elspeth Guild. 2022. Deniability? Frontex and Border Violence in the EU. RLI Blog on Refugee Law and Forced Migration. Available online: https://rli.blogs.sas.ac.uk/2022/01/19/deniability-frontex-and-border-violence-in-the-eu (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Labayle, Henri. 2017. Solidarity Is Not a Value: Provisional Relocation of Asylum-Seekers Confirmed by the Court of Justice (6 September 2017, Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-647/15 Slovakia and Hungary v Council). EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy. Available online: https://eumigrationlawblog.eu/solidarity-is-not-a-value-provisional-relocation-of-asylum-seekers-confirmed-by-the-court-of-justice-6-september-2017-joined-cases-c-64315-and-c-64715-slovakia-and-hungary-v-council (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Lavenex, Sandra. 2016. Multilevelling EU External Governance: The Role of International Organizations in the Diffusion of EU Migration Policies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 42: 554–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lillich, Richard B. 1984. The Human Rights of Aliens in Contemporary International Law. Manchester: Manchester University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Maiani, Francesco. 2017. The Reform of the Dublin System and the Dystopia of ‘Sharing People’. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 24: 622–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maiani, Francesco. 2020. A “Fresh Start” or One More Clunker? Dublin and Solidarity in the New Pact. EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy. Available online: https://eumigrationlawblog.eu/a-fresh-start-or-one-more-clunker-dublin-and-solidarity-in-the-new-pact (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Martín Díaz, Emma, and Juan Pablo Aris Escarcena. 2019. The European Union and the Background of the Global Compacts. International Migration 57: 273–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Mau, Steffen, Fabian Gülzau, Lena Laube, and Natascha Zaun. 2015. The Global Mobility Divide: How Visa Policies Have Evolved over Time. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 41: 1192–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Minderhoud, Paul, Sandra Mantu, and Karin Zwaan. 2019. Caught in Between Borders: Citizens, Migrants and Humans, Liber Amicorum in Honour of Prof. Dr. Elspeth Guild. Tilburg: Wolf Legal. [Google Scholar]
- Mitsilegas, Valsamis. 2019. Extraterritorial Immigration Control, Preventive Justice and the Rule of Law in Turbulent Times: Lessons from the Anti-Smuggling Crusade. In Constitutionalising the External Dimension of EU Migration Policies in Times of Crisis: Legality, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Reconsidered. Edited by Juan Santos Vara, Sergio Carrera and Tineke Strik. Cheltenham: Elgar, pp. 290–307. [Google Scholar]
- Mitsilegas, Valsamis, Violeta Moreno-Lax, and Niovi Vavoula, eds. 2020. Securitising Asylum Flows. Deflection, Criminalisation and Challenges for Human Rights. Leiden: Brill/Nijhoff. [Google Scholar]
- Molnár, Tamás. 2015. (Ab)normality of International Migration Law: Normative and Structural Asymmetries and Contradictions. SSRN. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2807416 (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Molnár, Tamás. 2020. The EU Shaping the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration: The Glass Half Full or Half Empty? International Journal of Law in Context 16: 321–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molnár, Tamás, and Chloé Brière. 2022. The New Review Mechanism of the UN Smuggling of Migrant Protocol: Challenges in Measuring the EU’s and its Member States’ Compliance. In The EU and Its Member States’ Joint Participation in International Agreements. Edited by Nicolas Levrat, Yuliya Kaspiarovich, Christine Kaddous and Ramses A. Wessel. Oxford and New York: Hart/Bloomsbury. [Google Scholar]
- Moreno-Lax, Violeta. 2017a. Accessing Asylum in Europe: Extraterritorial Border Controls and Refugee Rights under EU Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Moreno-Lax, Violeta. 2017b. Solidarity’s Reach: Meaning, Dimensions and Implications for EU (External) Asylum Policy. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 24: 740–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno-Lax, Violeta. 2018. The EU Humanitarian Border and the Securitization of Human Rights: The ‘Rescue-Through-Interdiction/Rescue-Without-Protection’ Paradigm. Journal of Common Market Studies 56: 119–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno-Lax, Violeta. 2020. The Architecture of Functional Jurisdiction: Unpacking Contactless Control—On Public Powers, S.S. and Others v. Italy, and the “Operational Model”. German Law Journal 21: 385–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Moreno-Lax, Violeta, and Cathryn Costello. 2014. The Extraterritorial Application of the Charter: From Territoriality to Facticity, the Effectiveness Model. In Commentary on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Edited by Steve Peers, Tamara Hervey, Jeff Kenner and Angela Ward. Oxford: Hart, pp. 1657–83. [Google Scholar]
- Morvillo, Marta, and Pola Cebulak. 2022. Who Can End the Border Controls within Schengen? Implementing the CJEU’s Judgment in “NW v Steiermark”. ADiM Blog. Available online: http://www.adimblog.com/2022/05/31/who-can-end-the-border-controls-within-schengen-implementing-the-cjeus-judgment-in-nw-v-steiermark (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Noll, Gregor. 1999. Rejected Asylum Seekers: The Problem of Return. International Migration 37: 267–88. [Google Scholar]
- Noll, Gregor. 2007. Why Refugees Still Matter: A Response to James Hathaway. Melbourne Journal of International Law 8: 536–47. [Google Scholar]
- Opeskin, Brian. 2009. The Influence of International Law on the International Movement of Persons. UNDP Human Development Research Paper 2009/18. New York: UNDP. [Google Scholar]
- Opeskin, Brian, Richard Perruchoud, and Jillyanne Redpath-Cross, eds. 2012. Foundations of International Migration Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Panizzon, Marion. 2017. Trade and Migration in External Dimension of Migration Policy: Relief, Root Cause Reduction or Rights Protection? In Pathways towards Legal Migration into the EU. Edited by Sergio Carrera, Andrew Geddes, Elspeth Guild and Marco Stefan. Brussels: CEPS, pp. 128–41. [Google Scholar]
- Panizzon, Marion. 2022. Delivering on the Promise? Partnering for Implementing Global Political Commitments in the Global Compact for Migration and the Agenda 2030. ASILE. Available online: https://www.asileproject.eu/delivering-on-the-promise-partnering-for-implementing-global-political-commitments-in-the-global-compact-for-migration-and-the-agenda-2030 (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Panizzon, Marion, and Daniela Vitiello. 2019. Governance and the UN Global Compact on Migration: Just Another Soft Law Cooperation Framework or a New Legal Regime Governing International Migration? EJIL:Talk! Available online: https://www.ejiltalk.org/governance-and-the-un-global-compact-on-migration-just-another-soft-law-cooperation-framework-or-a-new-legal-regime-governing-international-migration (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Pécoud, Antoine. 2021. Narrating an Ideal Migration World? An Analysis of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. Third World Quarterly 42: 16–33. [Google Scholar]
- Peters, Anne. 2016. Fragmentation and Constitutionalization. In The Oxford Handbook of The Theory of International Law. Edited by Anne Oxford and Florian Hoffmann. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1011–31. [Google Scholar]
- Peters, Anne. 2017. The Refinement of International Law: From Fragmentation to Regime Interaction and Politicization. International Journal of Constitutional Law 15: 671–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Peters, Anne. 2018. The Global Compact for Migration: To Sign or Not To Sign? EJIL:Talk! Available online: https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-global-compact-for-migration-to-sign-or-not-to-sign (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Pezzani, Lorenzo. 2019. Liquid Violence: Investigations of Boundaries at Sea by Forensic Oceanography. The Architectural Review. Available online: https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/liquid-violence-investigations-of-boundaries-at-sea-by-forensic-oceanography (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Purcell, Joy M. 2007. A Right to Leave but Nowhere to Go: Reconciling an Emigrant’s Right to Leave with the Sovereign’s Right to Exclude. University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 39: 177–205. [Google Scholar]
- Robin-Olivier, Sophie. 2022. Du marché intérieur au droit de l’immigration: Le long et aride chemin du principe de non-discrimination à raison de la nationalité. In Mélanges en L’honneur de Laurence Idot. Edited by Christophe Lemaire and Francesco Martucci. Paris, New York and London: Concurrence et Europe, vol. 2, pp. 455–68. [Google Scholar]
- Rother, Stefan. 2013a. A Tale of Two Tactics. In Disciplining the Transnational Mobility of People. Edited by Martin Geiger and Antoine Pécoud. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 41–62. [Google Scholar]
- Rother, Stefan. 2013b. Global Migration Governance without Migrants? The Nation-State Bias in the Emerging Policies and Literature on Global Migration Governance. Migration Studies 2: 363–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salomon, Margot E. 2007. Global Responsibility for Human Rights: World Poverty and the Development of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Schabas, William A. 2007. Non-refoulement. Paper presented at the Technical Workshop on Human Rights and International Cooperation in Counter-Terrorism, Triesenberg, Liechtenstein, November 15–17. [Google Scholar]
- Schlegel, Stefan. 2020. Elemente einer institutionenökonomischen Analyse des Migrationsrechts. In Philosophie des Migrationsrechts. Edited by Frederik von Harbou and Jekaterina Markow. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 113–32. [Google Scholar]
- Scholten, Peter, and Rinus Penninx. 2016. The Multilevel Governance of Migration and Integration. In Integration Processes and Policies in Europe. Edited by Blanca Garcés-Mascareñas and Rinus Penninx. Cham: Springer, pp. 91–108. [Google Scholar]
- Seeberg, Peter, and Federica Zardo. 2020. From Mobility Partnerships to Migration Compacts: Security Implications of EU-Jordan Relations and the Informalization of Migration Governance. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 48: 1345–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spijkerboer, Thomas Pieter. 2018. Bifurcation of Mobility, Bifurcation of Law. Externalization of Migration Policy before the EU Court of Justice. Journal of Refugee Studies 31: 216–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sur, Serge. 1997. The State between Fragmentation and Globalization. European Journal of International Law 8: 421–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Tassinari, Francesca. 2022. A Revolutionary Schengen Information System? From the First to the Second-Second Generation of the SIS. ADiM Blog. Available online: https://www.adimblog.com/2022/06/30/a-revolutionary-schengen-information-system-from-the-first-to-the-second-second-generation-of-the-sis (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Thym, Daniel, and Evangelia (Lilian) Tsourdi. 2017. Searching for Solidarity in the EU Asylum and Border Policies: Constitutional and Operational Dimensions. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 24: 605–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trachtman, Joel P. 2009. The International Law of Economic Migration: Toward the Fourth Freedom. Kalamazoo: Upjohn Press. [Google Scholar]
- Tsourdi, Evangelia (Lilian). 2021. Asylum in the EU: One of the Many Faces of Rule of Law Backsliding? European Constitutional Law Review 17: 471–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulfstein, Geir. 2022. Qatar v. United Arab Emirates. American Journal of International Law 116: 397–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Val Garijo, Fernando. 2020. Drones, Border Surveillance and the Protection of Human Rights in the European Union. Public Security and Public Order 25: 136–50. [Google Scholar]
- Vankova, Zvezda. 2022. Work-Based Pathways to Refugee Protection under EU Law: Pie in the Sky? European Journal of Migration and Law 24: 86–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vavoula, Niovi. 2020. Interoperability of EU Information Systems: The Deathblow to the Rights to Privacy and Personal Data Protection of Third-Country Nationals? European Public Law 26: 131–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vitiello, Daniela. 2019. Agencification as a Key Component of the EU Externalisation Toolkit. Observations on a Silent Escape from the Rule of Law. In EU External Migration Policies in an Era of Global Mobilities: Intersecting Policy Universes. Edited by Sergio Carrera, Leonhard den Hertog, Marion Panizzon and Dora Kostakopoulou. Leiden: Brill/Nijhoff, pp. 125–52. [Google Scholar]
- Vitiello, Daniela. 2022a. In Search of the Legal Boundaries of an Open Society. The Case of Immigrant Integration in the EU. Freedom, Security & Justice: European Legal Studies 2: 151–87. [Google Scholar]
- Vitiello, Daniela. 2022b. The Nansen Passport and the EU Temporary Protection Directive: Reflections on Solidarity, Mobility Rights and the Future of Asylum in Europe. European Papers 7: 15–30. [Google Scholar]
- Wagner, Joël. 2021. The European Union’s model of Integrated Border Management: Preventing Transnational Threats, Cross-border Crime and Irregular Migration in the Context of the EU’s Security Policies and Strategies. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 59: 424–48. [Google Scholar]
- Walker, Neil. 2013. Sovereignty Frames and Sovereignty Claims. Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper No. 2013/14. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2240941 (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Young, Margaret, ed. 2012. Regime Interaction in International Law: Facing Fragmentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Young, Margaret. 2018. Global Pact for the Environment: Defragging International Law? EJIL:Talk! Available online: https://www.ejiltalk.org/global-pact-for-the-environment-defragging-international-law (accessed on 2 July 2022).
See, eloquently, ECtHR [GC], decision of 5 May 2020, No. 3599/18, M.N. and Others v. Belgium, para. 89.
The Proposal for a Council Decision authorising the Commission to approve, on behalf of the Union, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration in the field of immigration, COM(2018)168, was withdrawn by the European Commission in 2019.
See also OHCHR-IOM, Migration, Human Rights and Governance: Handbook for Parliamentarians, No. 24/2015, pp. 19–20.
ICJ, judgment of 4 February 2021 (preliminary objections), Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), para. 83.
World Migration Report 2022, International Organisation for Migration (IOM), Geneva, p. 2.
The IMRF Progress Declaration (UN Doc. A/AC.293/2022/L.1), endorsed by the UN General Assembly on 7 June 2022 (under item 15 A/76/L.58), reiterates their central role.
This is confirmed by the Second Report on the Implementation of the GCM, UN Doc. A/76/642, which has been rightly criticised for its vagueness, making it difficult to secure good faith implementation (Grundler and Guild 2022).
On establishing “good governance of migration” as an explicit goal of the UN, see UN Doc. A/71/728, para. 41.
On the need to keep and reinforce existing legal categories, refer to the GCM co-facilitators’ position of 5 March 2018, available here.
As Peters (2018) points out, the GCM may have different functions: first, bolstering the progressive development of IML, by supporting the formation of an opinio iuris on the recognition of safe pathways (“pre-law”-function); second, codifying customary international norms and being a hermeneutic parameter for integrating lacunae (“para-law”-function); and third, enhancing the effective implementation of hard law by providing operational and interpretative guidance (“law-plus”-function).
All of the statements are available on the website of the Intergovernmental Conference on the GCM. See, among others, the Statement by the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, dispelling the myth that “The Compact will allow the United Nations to impose migration policies on Member States, infringing on their sovereignty”.
See, e.g., ECtHR [GC], judgment of 23 June 2008, No. 1638/03, Maslov v. Austria.
CERD Committee, decision of 27 August 2019 on the Admissibility of the Inter-State Communication Submitted by Qatar Against the UAE, para. 63, UN Doc. CERD/C/99/4.
Objective 21 contains a clear reference to the obligation not to expel an alien to a State where his or her life would be threatened, set forth in Art. 23 of the Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens. In addition, by adopting a broad notion of “irreparable harm”, the GCM goes beyond the scope of Art. 33 of the Geneva Convention and upholds the development of the concept in IHRL and EU law. This is confirmed by a note of the OHCHR, stressing the importance of the principle within the framework of readmission (Objective 21), IBM (Objective 11), and search and rescue (SAR) activities (Objective 8).
Such a potential development was envisaged (inter alia) by Moreno Lax at the Thematic Discussion IV of the GCR.
The importance of opening these pathways to allow States to “regain control over their borders” has been stressed by the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of Migrants, Felipe González Morales, in the Report on a 2035 Agenda for Facilitating Human Mobility, UN Doc. A/HRC/35/25, para. 17.
Statement of Archbishop Bernardito Auza, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the UN, The Holy See in the Preparatory Processes of the Global Compact For Safe, Orderly And Regular Migration, 19 October 2018.
ECHR, judgment of 28 May 1985, No. 9214/80 and two others, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, para. 67.
See supra at 13.
On the legal challenges linked to this cross-sectoral approach, see, e.g., EDPS, Reflection paper of 17 November 2017 on the interoperability of information systems in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice, p. 9.
See, e.g., European Council Conclusions of 21–22 October 2021, EUCO 17/21, para. 19.
CJEU, judgment of 26 July 2017, C-646/16, Jafari, para. 88.
This cooperation led to chain refoulement on the Balkan route, also condemned by the ECtHR, judgment of 18 November 2021, Nos 15670/18 and 43115/18, M.H. and Others v. Croatia.
See, e.g., European Parliament Resolution of 10 February 2021, Implementation of Article 43 of the Asylum Procedures Directive, P9_TA(2021)0042.
For which see CJEU [GC], judgment of 19 March 2019, C-444/17, Arib.
For which, see CJEU [GC], judgment of 26 April 2022, C-368/20 and C-369/20, Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark.
Justice and Home Affairs Council, 9–10 June 2022, Press Release 534/22.
Refer, e.g., to CJEU, judgment of 13 December 2018, C-412/17 and C-474/17, Touring Tours, underlining that national legislation on carrier sanctions, requiring transport operators to check passengers’ passports and residence permits in intra-EU services, has an equivalent effect on external border checks and is, therefore, contrary to the SBC. See also CJEU [GC], judgment of 22 June 2010, C-188/10 and C-189/10, Melki and Abdeli.
On the recourse to this form of protection for Ukrainian refugees, see Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382.
Council of the EU, Asylum and migration: the Council approves negotiating mandates on the Eurodac and screening regulations and 21 states adopt a declaration on solidarity, Press Release 580/22.
The CJEU has reacted to this trend in a number of recent judgments, among which refer to the judgment of 30 June 2022, C-72/22 PPU, Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba. On the self-restraint of the ECtHR, see, e.g., the judgment of 5 April 2022, Nos 55798/16 and four others, A.A. et al. v. North Macedonia, paras. 114–15.
See Art. 9 of Directive 2013/32/EU.
For which, see CJEU, judgment of 4 June 2009, C-22/08 and C-23/08, Vatsouras and Koupatantze, para. 52.
CJEU [GC], judgment of 2 September 2021, C-930/19, Belgian State.
On the nature of this limitation and its strict application to citizens of EU Member States, which excludes a possible extension to TCNs by analogy, see CJEU, judgment of 9 June 2022, C-673/20, Préfet du Gers et Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques.
CJEU [GC], judgment of 2 September 2021, Belgian State (Right of residence in the event of domestic violence), case C-930/19.
European Parliament Resolution of 12 April 2016, The Situation in the Mediterranean and the Need for a Holistic EU Approach to Migration, P8_TA(2016)0102.
Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development 2018: Towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris.
The immigrant/refugee dichotomy is a distinctive feature of the new global governance of large movements of migrants and refugees. As eloquently affirmed by the Ambassador Mr. João Vale de Almeida, Head of the EU Delegation to the UN, at the opening session for the GCM’s Zero Draft: “since the aim of the Global Compact is to enhance international cooperation on safe, orderly and regular migration and reduce irregular migration—and the negative implications it has for countries of origin, transit, and destination as well as for migrants themselves—the text should better distinguish between regular and irregular migrants. It should avoid any language that might be interpreted as justification or even an incentive for irregular migration”.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Vitiello, D. Comprehensive Approaches in the Global Compact for Migration and the EU Border Policies: A Critical Appraisal. Laws 2022, 11, 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws11050078
Vitiello D. Comprehensive Approaches in the Global Compact for Migration and the EU Border Policies: A Critical Appraisal. Laws. 2022; 11(5):78. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws11050078Chicago/Turabian Style
Vitiello, Daniela. 2022. "Comprehensive Approaches in the Global Compact for Migration and the EU Border Policies: A Critical Appraisal" Laws 11, no. 5: 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws11050078