Reviewing the reviews: the Global Compacts' added value in access to asylum procedures and immigration detention

The Global Compact for Migration and the Global Compact on Refugees are based on binding international law instruments whose provisions they complement with “best practice” standards related to the treatment of refugees and other migrants. Although the Compacts are non-binding, they provide for review mechanisms to promote compliance with Compact standards. Such oversight is important to achieve progress in implementing the Compacts' commitments. Yet, the current top-down and State-led review process does not offer an efficient platform for identifying cases of non-adherence to Compact standards. This article uses a case study approach to highlight instances of non-compliance with Compact standards in Canada, South Africa, and the European Union. We use a functionalist method of comparison to analyze State practice in these three regions in relation to (i) use of immigration detention and (ii) access to the asylum procedure, with access to healthcare as a cross-cutting issue. The article discusses how the Compacts' review mechanisms could be improved and their added value in terms of their impact on domestic migration policies. It argues that both Compact review and implementation can be improved through increased civil society participation

Building expert witness reports: Barbara's legacy

The importance of rigour and detail in preparing expert witness reports cannot be overstated

A Practitioners' Handbook on the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and EU and Member States' Commitments under the UN Global Compact on Refugees and the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

European Union (EU) asylum law can only be understood, and must be interpreted in the context of, existing international commitments on refugees, migrants and human rights. These commitments are manifold and distributed among a range of international legal instruments, jurisprudence and policy guidance. In 2018, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly (UNGA) adopted two instruments, which, although non-binding themselves, unite binding international law and best practice standards related to migrants on the one hand and refugees on the other: the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) and the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR). The Compacts articulate and contextualise the full range of human rights that refugees and migrants are entitled to. In so doing, they provide a framework for states, and the EU, to better realise these rights and fundamental principles through the implementation and interpretation of primary and secondary laws. This Handbook is concerned with the interaction between EU asylum law and the Global Compacts (GCs). It is based on work conducted for the PROTECT Project, which studies the legal potential and impacts of the GCR and the GCM on the functioning of the international refugee protection system. The Handbook identifies the gaps and synergies between the two GCs and the EU legal framework, primarily the instruments that form the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Its identification of CEAS provisions that fulfil the Compacts’ requirements or diverge therefrom will enable our readers to better understand the relationship between the two regimes. First, the identification of Compact-compliant CEAS provisions can provide the ‘anchor’ required for the Compacts to be used and cited for their interpretive value by courts in understanding the content of existing obligations. Practitioners can draw upon this Handbook to highlight how the Compacts can augment the protective scope of corresponding CEAS provisions, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Second, identifying gaps or inconsistencies between the Compacts and CEAS provisions highlights areas that require further action, such as law or policy change

Externalisation, Access to Territorial Asylum, and International Law

The paper starts by offering a distinctive conceptualisation of ‘externalisation’ as a process that can impinge on access to asylum in the territory of States (section 2). It then seeks to identify the overarching international law principles that govern the kinds of conduct that externalisation in this field tends to involve (section 3). An analysis of the international law parameters of externalisation is then presented, firstly for externalised border controls – with extraterritorial pushbacks of refugees and others taken here as a prime example (section 4), and secondly for externalised asylum systems – focusing on third country processing of asylum claims, as the greatest source of concern in this regard (section 5). We end by exploring issues of accountability that arise in both contexts (section 6)