The Borders of the Law: Legal Fictions, Elusive Borders, Migrants’ Rights

Author:

Molinari CaterinaORCID

Abstract

Bordering processes take place through different means and are carried out by different actors. Laws and regulatory activities have a prominent place among border-drawing instruments: Their capacity to mobilise actors, allocate funds, and determine procedures and remedies make them a formidable and multifaceted bordering tool. It is therefore not surprising to notice that EU institutions have heavily relied on regulatory tools when the need to resort to new bordering processes emerged in the aftermath of the so-called migration crisis. This article delves into a particular (re-)bordering process emerging from the legislative proposals attached to the Commission’s 2020 New Pact on Migration and Asylum: the attempt to uncouple the duty to fully respect and protect fundamental rights from the reality of migrants’ presence on national territory. This objective is pursued by the proposed legislative package through non-entry fictions, capable of untangling the legal notion of “border” from its physical reality for the purpose of immigration law (only). The analysis of the relevant provisions provides the reader with a number of insights into the transformation of EU borders. First, borders (as defined by the law) are subject to a peculiar legal regime. Secondly, the legal notion of borders is increasingly independent of its physical/geographical correspondence. Thirdly, legal border lines are not linked to any place on the ground, but rather follow irregular migrants as they move, confining them to areas of less law, no matter their location.

Publisher

Cogitatio

Subject

Public Administration,Sociology and Political Science

Reference49 articles.

1. Al Skeini v. UK, Application no. 55721/07 (2011).

2. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press.

3. Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others, Application no. 52207/99 (2001).

4. Basaran, T. (2014). Saving lives at sea: Security, law and adverse effects. European Journal of Migration and Law, 16(3), 365–387.

5. Bosniak, L. (2002). A basic territorial distinction. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 16(2), 407–412.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3