边境墙、推回和禁止集体驱逐:N.D.和N.T.诉西班牙案

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY
Alessio Sardo
{"title":"边境墙、推回和禁止集体驱逐:N.D.和N.T.诉西班牙案","authors":"Alessio Sardo","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis essay explores the impact of N.D. and N.T. v. Spain on the ECHR system. The case deals with the immediate return of aliens at Melilla’s border fence. Based on conceptual analysis, the author submits to critical scrutiny the arguments developed by the ECtHR. The Court’s reasoning is framed within the riveting interdisciplinary debate on external border control. The Grand Chamber’s final decision reduces the scope of the protection offered by Article 4 Protocol 4, for it introduces a highly indeterminate exception to the prohibition of summary returns at the border. The author suggests that this solution might favor non-entrée strategies and promote the current trend of externalizing the asylum procedures. Introducing broad exceptions to the prohibition of collective expulsion, especially if coupled with strong presumptions in favor of States, increases the effectiveness of border walls qua accountability waivers.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Border Walls, Pushbacks, and the Prohibition of Collective Expulsions: The Case of N.D. and N.T. v. Spain\",\"authors\":\"Alessio Sardo\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718166-12340104\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThis essay explores the impact of N.D. and N.T. v. Spain on the ECHR system. The case deals with the immediate return of aliens at Melilla’s border fence. Based on conceptual analysis, the author submits to critical scrutiny the arguments developed by the ECtHR. The Court’s reasoning is framed within the riveting interdisciplinary debate on external border control. The Grand Chamber’s final decision reduces the scope of the protection offered by Article 4 Protocol 4, for it introduces a highly indeterminate exception to the prohibition of summary returns at the border. The author suggests that this solution might favor non-entrée strategies and promote the current trend of externalizing the asylum procedures. Introducing broad exceptions to the prohibition of collective expulsion, especially if coupled with strong presumptions in favor of States, increases the effectiveness of border walls qua accountability waivers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51819,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Migration and Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Migration and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340104\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Migration and Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340104","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文探讨了N.D.和N.T.诉西班牙案对欧洲人权法院制度的影响。案件涉及立即返回的外国人在梅利利亚的边境围栏。在概念分析的基础上,提交人对欧洲人权法院提出的论点进行了批判性审查。法院的推理是在关于外部边界控制的引人入胜的跨学科辩论中形成的。大分庭的最后决定缩小了第4号议定书第4条所提供的保护的范围,因为它对禁止在边界进行即决遣返提出了一个高度不确定的例外。作者认为,这一解决办法可能有利于不受限制的战略,并促进目前将庇护程序外化的趋势。对禁止集体驱逐实行广泛的例外,特别是如果加上对国家有利的强烈假设,就会提高边界墙作为问责豁免的效力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Border Walls, Pushbacks, and the Prohibition of Collective Expulsions: The Case of N.D. and N.T. v. Spain
This essay explores the impact of N.D. and N.T. v. Spain on the ECHR system. The case deals with the immediate return of aliens at Melilla’s border fence. Based on conceptual analysis, the author submits to critical scrutiny the arguments developed by the ECtHR. The Court’s reasoning is framed within the riveting interdisciplinary debate on external border control. The Grand Chamber’s final decision reduces the scope of the protection offered by Article 4 Protocol 4, for it introduces a highly indeterminate exception to the prohibition of summary returns at the border. The author suggests that this solution might favor non-entrée strategies and promote the current trend of externalizing the asylum procedures. Introducing broad exceptions to the prohibition of collective expulsion, especially if coupled with strong presumptions in favor of States, increases the effectiveness of border walls qua accountability waivers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Migration and Law is a quarterly journal on migration law and policy with specific emphasis on the European Union, the Council of Europe and migration activities within the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This journal differs from other migration journals by focusing on both the law and policy within the field of migration, as opposed to examining immigration and migration policies from a wholly sociological perspective. The Journal is the initiative of the Centre for Migration Law of the University of Nijmegen, in co-operation with the Brussels-based Migration Policy Group.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信