Implementing and Rethinking the European Union's Asylum Legislation: The Asylum Procedures Directive

Schittenhelm, Karin

doi:10.1111/imig.12533

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent empirical study into the implementation of the Asylum Procedures Directive, for instance, found that it 'is compatible with different, sometimes even contrasting properties of domestic asylum policies', and that 'the risk of failing common standards and the principles of international refugee law is… not only a matter of implementation, but is already inherent in the Directive's design'. 88 The shortcomings identified were the great deal of flexibility afforded to MS in interpreting and implementing the Directive and the ambiguity of its language, including inherent contradictions of its underlying objectives (e.g. claiming to strengthen procedural rights of asylum-seekers but introducing compulsory accelerated asylum procedures with limited procedural guarantees).…”

Section: Critical Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Opening Pandora’s box: The right to silence in police interrogations and the Directive 2016/343/EU

Pivaty

Beazley

Vocht

et al. 2021

New Journal of European Criminal Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the provisions of the Directive 2016/343 related to the right to remain silent with special emphasis on pre-trial proceedings and police interrogations. It focuses on the inherent contradictions and unclarities of the respective provisions, particularly when interpreted in light of the respective ECtHR case law. The article also identifies areas, relevant to regulation of suspect interrogations and the right to silence, which are not addressed in the Directive or the ECtHR jurisprudence. It concludes by critically assessing the likely effectiveness of the Directive provisions in ensuring the right to silence in criminal proceedings.

show abstract

Section: Critical Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Opening Pandora’s box: The right to silence in police interrogations and the Directive 2016/343/EU

Pivaty

Beazley

Vocht

et al. 2021

New Journal of European Criminal Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Collaboration with civil society actors is very important for EU institutions (Ruzza, 2015); and several well-established organizations are present and active on LGBTI+ and migration issues. The role of these actors in compensating for the restrictive vision carried by other EU actors has been studied in the case of the CEAS (Schittenhelm, 2019).…”

Section: Failure To Build Common Advocacy At An Eu Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a Gender-Sensitive Securitization of the Common European Asylum System

Bellec

2021

Front. Hum. Dyn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

EU Member States may legally designate a country as a Safe Country of Origin when human rights and democratic standards are generally respected. For nationals of these countries, asylum claims are treated in an accelerated way, the underlying objective of the “safe country” designation being to facilitate the rapid return of unsuccessful claimants to their country of origin. The concept of “safe country” was initially blind to gender-based violence. Yet, in the reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which began in 2016, the European Commission proposed two changes: first, that a common list of “safe countries” should be applied in all Member States, and second, that this concept should be interpreted in a “gender-sensitive” manner. In consequence, the generalization of a policy that has been documented as largely detrimental to asylum seekers has been accompanied by the development of special guarantees for LGBTI+ asylum seekers. In light of this, there is a need to examine the impact of “safe country” practices on LGBTI+ claimants and to investigate the extent to which the securitization of European borders is compatible with LGBTI+ inclusion. Based on a qualitative document analysis of EU “safe country” policies and on interviews with organizations supporting LGBTI+ asylum seekers, this article shows that despite the implementation of gender-sensitive safeguards, LGBTI+ asylum seekers are particularly affected by “safe country” practices. These practices permeate European asylum systems beyond the application of official lists, depriving many LGBTI+ asylum seekers of their right to have their protection claims fairly assessed.

show abstract

“…However, with the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 the EU gained the ability to create binding rules concerning asylum, laying the groundwork for subsequent harmonization of EU asylum policy (Hatton, 2005). Although asylum is defined under UN statute and the Tampere agreement and Dublin Regulations provide additional EU-specific procedures and oversight to the asylum process, EU efforts to harmonize asylum policy have not produced equal outcomes (Hatton, 2005; Schittenhelm, 2019; Trauner, 2016).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The far-right and asylum outcomes: Assessing the impact of far-right politics on asylum decisions in Europe

Winn

2020

European Union Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite decades of efforts to harmonize asylum procedures, large unexplained differences in asylum outcomes persist across European Union member states. Unfortunately, relatively little empirical literature has examined the causes of disparities in asylum recognition rates. In this paper, I suggest that domestic politics impact how asylum claims are adjudicated. I analyze origin-specific asylum recognition rates in 27 European Union member states from 2000-2018. The findings show that right-wing parties in government are associated with lower asylum recognition rates. This effect is strongest for far-right parties. When far-right parties gain legislative seats and cabinet positions, there is a substantive reduction in recognized asylum claims.

show abstract

Implementing and Rethinking the European Union's Asylum Legislation: The Asylum Procedures Directive

Cited by 10 publications

References 37 publications

Opening Pandora’s box: The right to silence in police interrogations and the Directive 2016/343/EU

Opening Pandora’s box: The right to silence in police interrogations and the Directive 2016/343/EU

Toward a Gender-Sensitive Securitization of the Common European Asylum System

The far-right and asylum outcomes: Assessing the impact of far-right politics on asylum decisions in Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About