Read on Twitter
Threading together contributions from the new @Ger_Law_Journal special issue, Border Justice, co-edited with @ProfCCostello. I learned a lot from these!
Thanks to @markard_chair and @MattHGoldmann for their diligent editorial support. Our intro is here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/border-justice-migration-and-accountability-for-human-rights-violations/F43189E2B5EA3801157277E8C80F8623
Thanks to @markard_chair and @MattHGoldmann for their diligent editorial support. Our intro is here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/border-justice-migration-and-accountability-for-human-rights-violations/F43189E2B5EA3801157277E8C80F8623
@tgammeltoft and @NDFTan propose a “topographical approach”—a methodology to examine human rights cases, both actual and potential. They seek to integrate multiple legal disciplines through one spatial lens: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/topographical-approach-to-accountability-for-human-rights-violations-in-migration-control/E01EE8A476231ABBE00EFEB0095F4E3A
@ProfCCostello, @calibasak and Cunningham demonstrate, importantly: the “progressiveness” of interpretations different tribunals give to non-refoulement does not necessarily have an inverse correlation with their respective levels of “bindingness” https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/hard-protection-through-soft-courts-nonrefoulement-before-the-united-nations-treaty-bodies/ECC8BF6783058183A59A5D06DF74E036
Moreno-Lax develops a powerful theory of functional jurisdiction in offshore contexts, based also on her work as a litigator at the ECtHR w/ @GLAN_LAW https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/architecture-of-functional-jurisdiction-unpacking-contactless-controlon-public-powers-ss-and-others-v-italy-and-the-operational-model/AA2DADF2F1DCDD19E8F9E6E316D7C110
And following her, Papastavridis illuminates the relationships between human rights law and the law of the sea in such cases: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/european-convention-of-human-rights-and-migration-at-sea-reading-the-jurisdictional-threshold-of-the-convention-under-the-law-of-the-sea-paradigm/4EAFB6C224386882CD80C441F708E9B8
Stoyanova maps out the fraught relationship between the enforcement of anti-smuggling laws and obligations under the right to life https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/european-convention-of-human-rights-and-migration-at-sea-reading-the-jurisdictional-threshold-of-the-convention-under-the-law-of-the-sea-paradigm/4EAFB6C224386882CD80C441F708E9B8
@CarlaFerstman focuses on due diligence obligations applying to states that provide aid to others in the context of border enforcement policies, Particularly the EU and the UK in their support of Libya https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/european-convention-of-human-rights-and-migration-at-sea-reading-the-jurisdictional-threshold-of-the-convention-under-the-law-of-the-sea-paradigm/4EAFB6C224386882CD80C441F708E9B8
Also applying a due diligence framework, @DariaDavitti focuses on private military contractors and their involvement in border enforcement activities. She defines their work as imposing high human rights risks https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/A4088521496623A75C3B77E2E2CE3020/S207183222000019Xa.pdf/beyond_the_governance_gap_accountability_in_privatized_migration_control.pdf
@Lilian_TS provides a study of the relatively little known European Asylum Support Office (EASO). You’ll find an ingenious example of a bureaucratic structure seemingly designed to systematically evade accountability: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/holding-the-european-asylum-support-office-accountable-for-its-role-in-asylum-decisionmaking-mission-impossible/5E1F99B55B38293295AD7469E8051AAA
Complementing that point, @MelanieFink1’s analysis of #frontex liability for damages at #cjeu further illuminates this accountability gap in EU institutions: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/action-for-damages-as-a-fundamental-rights-remedy-holding-frontex-liable/8350DBBC6DC5F504D414F26E61B0FB8C
From there we move to another article on torts; @Gabriellellell shows how even the most “generous”settlements in lawsuits against violations in Australia’s offshore facilities failed to advance necessary aspects of hunan rights accountability https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/challenges-to-australias-offshore-detention-regime-and-the-limits-of-strategic-tort-litigation/E76D7E0F03251A5465314297262EC301
@YannisKalpouzos discusses international criminal law. His is a deconstructive take, if you will: not less than advancing migrant rights, the relevant campaigns serve to illuminate the shortcomings of the discipline itself: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/international-criminal-law-and-the-violence-against-migrants/EA6FCCD5641D1249C3B6ACA642BBF341
We close with my own article, which explains the centrality of rescue activism for the claims of migrants at sea, and tries to extrapolate some general insights on human rights. I lightly engage Hohfeld, as well as Arendt’s thinking on civil disobedience: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/right-to-perform-rescue-at-sea-jurisprudence-and-drowning/3A9213ACE54457D8AC3D125BBA820EFD
The issue was finalized, of course, before #Covid_19 went global. I expect that the pandemic will change much of the discussion on border justice, and plan to write a about that. But there will also be important continuums—the pandemic being the great accelerator that it is. FIN
