From Freedom to Detention: A Systematic Analysis of Swedish Asylum Legislation

Author:

Duić DunjaORCID,Jambrešić MarinaORCID

Abstract

As one of the fundamental human rights that belong to every human being, freedom of movement is prescribed at the international, EU and national level. Every person has the right to move freely and must not be unlawfully deprived of freedom. The right to freedom of movement is the rule and restricting it the exception. Nevertheless, there occasionally do exist justified reasons for restricting certain rights, including the right to freedom of movement. Asylum seekers (ASs), much like all other persons, have the right to freedom of movement, though not always without restrictions. The migration and refugee crisis that began in 2015 brought many a challenge for the EU, a major one being the striking of balance between protecting human rights and protecting the national security of the Member States (MSs). Until the onset of the 2015 migration and refugee crisis, Sweden was a country open to migrants and refugees and highly protective of their rights. Soon after, as a self-protection and – preservation measure, Sweden began increasingly frequently restricting the freedom of movement of and imposing detention on ASs. But did Sweden’s newly adopted approach remain in line with international and European legal norms? To determine this, this article offers a systematic analysis of the compliance of Swedish legislation with international and EU standards in regard to restrictions on the freedom of movement of ASs, including minors, with special reference to the imposing of detention.

Publisher

Masaryk University Press

Subject

Law

Reference20 articles.

1. DAMKER, M. Positive attityd till invandring trots mobilisering av invandringsmotstand. In: I framtidens skugga. Göteborg, 2012, pp. 95-105.

2. DI FILIPPO, M. The human right to liberty in the context of migration governance: some critical remarks on the recent practice in the light of the applicable legal framework. In: Deprivation of Liberty and Armed Conflicts: Exploring Realities and Remedies. Milano: Franco Angeli, 2019. ISBN 978-88-917-8255-7.

3. FLYNN, M. Who must be detained? Proportionality as a tool for critiquing immigration detention policy. Refugee Survey Quarterly. Oxford: Oxford Academic, 2012, Vol. 31, no. 3. ISSN 1020-4067.

4. GOODWIN-GILL, G. S. Article 31 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Non-Penalization, Detention, and Protection. In: Refugee Protection in International Law, UNHCR Global Consultations on International Protection. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511493973.011

5. GOODWIN-GILL, G. S. L'article 31 de la Convention de 1951 relative au statut des réfugiés: l'absence de sanctions pénales, la détention et la protection. In: La protection des réfugiés en droit international. Brussels: Larcier 2008, pp. 223-300.

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