The European Court of Human Rights and non-Citizens' Right to Migrate
Niinimäki, Tuire (2011)
Niinimäki, Tuire
Siirtolaisuusinstituutti
2011
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe202101293177
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe202101293177
Kuvaus
1Introduction
1.1 The European Convention and Court of Human Rights
1.2 Migrant groups and migration law – definitions
1.3 Research questions, sources, and method
2 Hospitality to spare
2.1 Rights of non-citizens under international law and the ECHR
2.2 In need of protection
2.3 Family values dispel criminal behavior
2.4 Integration and social ties
3 The unwelcome
3.1 States’ privilege to control the territory
3.2 Removal of long-term immigrants – a double punishment?
3.3 General hardship not enough to grant entry
3.4 Family cannot be created through immigration
4 Enforcing control over aliens
4.1 Argumentation on border control
4.2 Detention for the sake of migration control – a generally accepted measure
4.3 Restricted conditions and length of detention
5 Conclusion
References
Appendixes.
1.1 The European Convention and Court of Human Rights
1.2 Migrant groups and migration law – definitions
1.3 Research questions, sources, and method
2 Hospitality to spare
2.1 Rights of non-citizens under international law and the ECHR
2.2 In need of protection
2.3 Family values dispel criminal behavior
2.4 Integration and social ties
3 The unwelcome
3.1 States’ privilege to control the territory
3.2 Removal of long-term immigrants – a double punishment?
3.3 General hardship not enough to grant entry
3.4 Family cannot be created through immigration
4 Enforcing control over aliens
4.1 Argumentation on border control
4.2 Detention for the sake of migration control – a generally accepted measure
4.3 Restricted conditions and length of detention
5 Conclusion
References
Appendixes.
Tiivistelmä
This thesis discusses the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the rights of non-citizens to migrate and reside within the territories of the member states of the Council of Europe, and the states' right to detain migrants and asylum seekers in the name of migration control. The cases discussed date primarily from November 1998 to April 2010. However, this thesis draws only partially on juridical research even though the research material consists of a Court's judgments. The study is not juridical, but the main emphasis of analysis is on the argumentation of the Court and its judges more generally, i.e. their views on the rights of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers to cross frontiers, and on the states' rights to detain asylum seekers and immigrants. The problematic is based on the juxtaposition of the rights of individuals and states: how does the Court balance on one hand the individuals' right to seek asylum and enjoy their family life, and on the other hand the states' sovereign right to control their frontiers and territory and protect their nationals from crimes nad threats. The thesis may thus be placed within the wider field of migration studies.