@article{CostelloBriddick, author = {Costello, Cathryn and Briddick, Catherine}, title = {Introduction to the Symposium on Undoing Discriminatory Borders}, series = {AJIL Unbound}, volume = {115}, journal = {AJIL Unbound}, doi = {10.1017/aju.2021.49}, pages = {328 -- 332}, abstract = {Migration laws and controls distribute important social goods: the right to enter and reside in a particular state, and the rights that attach to any such residence. Migration controls determine individuals' life chances, including sometimes, their very survival. Migration control is a broad concept. Some practices, such as visa administration, control the possibility of travel by regular means, dictating access to mobility opportunities. Other aspects of migration control, such as the conferral of nationality, determine access to permanent residence rights, and the legal ability to pass on membership of a particular state to one's children. Some forms of migration control are automated and may also be undertaken by private actors, including for profit companies. Others may involve determination or adjudication by individual officials or judges. What unites this broad set of practices is that they comprise important public functions with profound implications for both "outsiders" and "insiders." As Chandran Kukathas argues, migration controls pose a threat to equality within states, challenging the notion that these practices primarily affect imagined "outsiders."1 Migration controls impact both "without" and "within" the state. This introductory essay explores discrimination in migration control and discusses how such treatment may be approached from an international legal perspective. We introduce the symposium's contributors and essays and establish the need for further research on this topic.}, language = {en} } @article{CostelloFoster, author = {Costello, Cathryn and Foster, Michelle}, title = {Race Discrimination Effaced at the International Court of Justice}, series = {AJIL Unbound}, volume = {115}, journal = {AJIL Unbound}, doi = {10.1017/aju.2021.51}, pages = {339 -- 344}, abstract = {This essay examines the interpretation of the core international treaty dedicated to the elimination of racial discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and in particular how the prohibition on race discrimination applies to the treatment of migrants. This essay is timely, as CERD has travelled from the margins of human rights law to the center of the hottest interstate lawfare. At the time of writing, the first ever interstate dispute before any UN treaty body is before the CERD Committee, and CERD has been invoked in several interstate cases before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Unfortunately, this crucible of adjudication has not marked an increase in principled interpretation. This essay critiques the recent admissibility ruling of the ICJ in Qatar v. U.A.E. for its marginalization of the prohibition of race discrimination, in particular the failure meaningfully to consider how nationality discrimination may constitute prohibited race discrimination.}, language = {en} } @article{CostelloFoster, author = {Costello, Cathryn and Foster, Michelle}, title = {(Some) refugees welcome: When is differentiating between refugees unlawful discrimination?}, series = {International Journal of Discrimination and the Law}, volume = {22}, journal = {International Journal of Discrimination and the Law}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1177/13582291221116476}, pages = {244 -- 280}, abstract = {Europe's extraordinary response to those fleeing the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has prompted many criticisms of Europe's treatment of other refugees, and indeed people of colour and members of ethnic minorities fleeing Ukraine.  While stark, this differentiated response in not unusual:  The global refugee regime treats different refugees differently, as a matter of course.     Refugees often encounter racialized migration controls, and systems which privilege some refugees over others.   The article seeks to clarify when these practices violate the international legal prohibitions on discrimination on grounds of race and nationality.    To do so, it focuses on race discrimination in general international human rights law, clarifying the interaction between general human rights principles and instruments, and the specialist instrument in the field, the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.    We identify how differences in treatment on grounds of nationality may engage the prohibition on race discrimination both directly (in particular when nationality equates to national origin) or indirectly. Concerning nationality discrimination, the article focuses in particular on the added value of Article 3 of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, which obliges states to 'apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.'  We examine Article 3 both within the overall scheme of the Refugee Convention and as a source to guide interpretation of international human rights norms.}, language = {en} } @article{CalıCostelloCunningham, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak and Costello, Cathryn and Cunningham, Stewart}, title = {Hard Protection through Soft Courts? Non-Refoulement before the United Nations Treaty Bodies}, series = {German Law Journal}, journal = {German Law Journal}, number = {21}, issn = {2071-8322}, doi = {doi:10.1017/glj.2020.28}, pages = {355 -- 384}, abstract = {This Article comparatively analyses how the prohibition of refoulement is interpreted by United Nations Treaty Bodies (UNTBs) in their individual decision-making, where we suggest they act as "soft courts." It asks whether UNTBs break ranks with or follow the interpretations of non-refoulement of the European Court of Human Rights. This investigation is warranted because non-refoulement is the single most salient issue that has attracted individual views from UNTBs since 1990. Moreover, our European focus is warranted as nearly half of the cases concern states that are also parties to the European Convention on Human Rights. Based on a multi-dimensional analysis of non-refoulement across an original dataset of over 500 UNTB non-refoulement cases, decided between 1990-2020, as well as pertinent UNTB General Comments, the Article finds that whilst UNTBs, at times, do adopt a more progressive position than their "harder" regional counterpart, there are also instances where they closely follow the interpretations of the European Court of Human Rights and, on occasion, adopt a more restrictive position. This analysis complicates the view that soft courts are likely to be more progressive interpreters than hard courts. It further shows that variations in the interpretation of non-refoulement in a crowded field of international interpreters present risks for evasion of accountability, whereby domestic authorities in Europe may favor the more convenient interpretation, particularly in environments hostile to non-refoulement.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Costello, author = {Costello, Cathryn}, title = {Strategic Litigation to Vindicate the Rights of Refugees and Migrants: Pyrrhic Perils and Painstaking Progress}, series = {Legal Cases That Changed Ireland}, booktitle = {Legal Cases That Changed Ireland}, editor = {Bacik, Ivana and Rogan, Mary}, publisher = {Clarus Press}, address = {Dublin}, isbn = {9781905536856}, publisher = {Hertie School}, language = {en} } @incollection{Costello, author = {Costello, Cathryn}, title = {The Search of the Outer Edges of Non-refoulement in Europe}, series = {Human Rights and the Refugee Definition: Comparative Legal Practice and Theory}, booktitle = {Human Rights and the Refugee Definition: Comparative Legal Practice and Theory}, editor = {Burson, Bruce and Cantor, David James}, publisher = {Brill | Nijhoff}, address = {Leiden, Netherlands}, isbn = {978-90-04-28858-4}, doi = {/10.1163/9789004288591}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {180 -- 209}, abstract = {The purpose of this chapter is to examine the relationship between the prohibition on refoulement under human rights law (in particular under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)) and protections under international refugee law. It illustrates that the two systems, human rights and refugee law, develop their protections in different modes. I illustrate this divergent development as a riposte to the claim that non-refoulement under human rights law effectively broadens the protection against refoulement in refugee law. Of course, in some ways, that claim is correct, but in other respects human rights non-refoulement is highly limited, particular as regards which rights violations will lead to protection against return. Currently, it tends to focus on Article 3 ECHR, the right not to be subjected to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. The chapter critiques the outer edges of human rights non-refoulement, in particular the ECtHR's 'flagrant breach' caselaw.}, language = {en} } @incollection{CostelloHancox, author = {Costello, Cathryn and Hancox, Emily}, title = {The Recast Asylum Procedures Directive: Caught between the Sterotypes of the Abusive Asylum-Seeker and the Vulnerable Refugee}, series = {Reforming the Common European Asylum System: The New European Refugee Law}, booktitle = {Reforming the Common European Asylum System: The New European Refugee Law}, editor = {Chetail, Vincent and Philippe, De Bruycker and Maiani, Francesco}, publisher = {Brill Nijhoff}, address = {Leiden, Netherlands}, isbn = {9789004308664}, doi = {10.1163/9789004308664}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {375 -- 445}, abstract = {This piece provides a detailed analysis of the Recast Asylum Procedures Directive (Recast APD). Although we are now two decades into harmonization of asylum procedures at the European Union (EU) level, we begin in Part 2 by revisiting the rationale for this process. We contend that the most persuasive rationale for procedural harmonization, in an EU legally committed to refugee protection, is to ensure fair procedures, and to prevent a race to the bottom in procedural standards. Efficiency must serve fairness, not vice versa. The original Asylum Procedures Directive (APD) failed to meet this aim by a long margin. The Recast APD is the product of the new, post-Lisbon legislative environment, so as Part 3 suggests, it comes with high hopes for improvement, particularly given the Parliament's relatively new role as co-legislator on asylum matters. Our analysis reveals that the Recast APD contains many improvements on its predecessor, but overall our assessment is mixed, particularly if we assess it in terms of the objective of setting clear basic minimum standards of fairness. We attempt to explain this ambivalent outcome by suggesting that the Directive reflects two competing stereotypical views of the asylum seeker. On the one hand, there is a strong notion that asylum procedures must work to weed out 'abusive' claims. In contrast, there is also a strong acknowledgement that some asylum seekers are particularly vulnerable or have special needs (as will be seen, different terminologies are used in different contexts). As we argue, these stereotypes create complexity, and crowd out the basic notion of refugee status determination (RSD) as a process for recognising refugees, on the assumption that many (although of course not all) of those who apply will be so recognised.}, language = {en} } @incollection{FreedlandCostello, author = {Freedland, Mark and Costello, Cathryn}, title = {Migrants at Work and the Division of Labour Law}, series = {Migrants at Work: Immigration and Vulnerability in Labour Law}, booktitle = {Migrants at Work: Immigration and Vulnerability in Labour Law}, editor = {Costello, Cathryn and Freedland, Mark}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {9780198714101}, doi = {10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198714101.003.0001}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {1 -- 28}, abstract = {This is the opening chapter of the edited collection Costello \& Freedland (eds) Migrants at Work: Immigration and Vulnerability in Labour Law (OUP, 2014). Drawing on the wide-ranging contributions to that collection, it identifies the intersection between migration law and labour law, and explores the analytical and normative significance of that intersection. The fact of immigration, and more particularly the various kinds of status which migration law accords to immigrants, are a source of divisiveness in labour law. Existing divisions within labour law, both between labour law's objectives and its subjects, are exacerbated, and new divisions created. We do not posit the figure of the migrant as vulnerable, but rather identify how migration law creates vulnerability by distorting the employment relationship. In particular, migration law often increases the dependency between worker and employer, and exacerbates the precariousness of the relationship. We identify the unresolved normative tension between the objectives of expanding employers' access to migrant workers; protecting the employment prospects and conditions of local worker; and acknowledging the importance of migration for the life chances and even, in some instances, survival of migrants. Various regulatory strategies to overcome these tensions and heal these divisions are explored, across migration, human rights and labour law.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Costello, author = {Costello, Cathryn}, title = {Migrants and Forced Labour: A Labour Law Response}, series = {The Autonomy of Labour Law}, booktitle = {The Autonomy of Labour Law}, publisher = {Hart Publishing}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {9781782254645}, publisher = {Hertie School}, abstract = {In this chapter I illustrate, that immigration law, the immigration process and labour market structures may interact to create vulnerability to forced labour, drawing on empirical studies in the UK. Section II begins with some reflection on labour law's autonomy. Section III seeks to clarify 'forced labour'. I examine in turn the binary between 'free' and 'unfree' labour in political economy, and the notion of a continuum from free labour to the ultimate form of unfreedom, slavery. While both the binary and continuum approaches are illuminating, neither approach entirely befits the legal task of identifying the human rights violation that is forced labour. The distinct legal labels of 'slavery', 'servitude' and 'forced labour' are legal concepts embodying distinctive institutional forms of work relation. This part also explores how prohibitions on trafficking, in contrast, introduce a distinctive, potentially distortive focus on migration control and criminalization into this field. In light of the preceding discussion, Section IV examines how the migration process and immigration law create fertile conditions for forced labour. Some features of immigration law, such as precarious and irregular migration status are liable to increase dependency in work relations, which can induce domination. However, this part also considers how those with secure migration status, namely EU citizens in the UK, are also vulnerable to forced labour. In light of this analysis, Section V then critiques the current legal responses to forced labour. These responses should be of concern to labour lawyers, as they obscure general labour rights concerns, and the regulatory conditions that are fertile for forced labour. The UK exemplifies the tendency to obscure labour law concerns, with a Bill on 'modern slavery' going through Parliament at the time of writing, proposing life sentences for those convicted of human trafficking, slavery, forced labour and domestic servitude. The criminal approach focuses on the outcome (the forced labour itself), rather than understanding the laws, practices and regulatory gaps that set up the vulnerability to forced labour. Accordingly, I contrast this criminal law approach with the labour law approach, taking into account the 2014 Protocol to the ILO Convention on Forced Labour. A third approach focuses on human rights law. As currently interpreted, the human rights approach is parasitic on the criminal law approach. I argue that a more progressive (ie orthodox labour law) interpretation of human rights law on forced labour is appropriate and necessary. A labour law approach should ideally entail three main elements, which are briefly sketched here. First, it should insulate labour rights from migration status. Secondly, it should regulate labour intermediaries. Thirdly, it should develop better collective and institutional protections for labour rights. Evidently this is not labour law as we find it in the UK today. However, the evidence of extreme labour exploitation and forced labour demands an urgent revisitation of the norms and institutions of labour law.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Costello, author = {Costello, Cathryn}, title = {Child Citizens \& De Facto Deportation: Tender Years, Fragile Ties \& Security of Residence}, series = {Of Courts and Constitutions: Liber Amicorum in Honour of Nial Fennelly}, booktitle = {Of Courts and Constitutions: Liber Amicorum in Honour of Nial Fennelly}, editor = {Bradley, Kieran and Travers, Noel and Whelan, Anthony}, publisher = {Hart Publishing}, address = {London}, isbn = {9781782256014}, doi = {10.5040/9781849468404.ch-025}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {411 -- 432}, abstract = {Citizens may not be deported. That proposition is today axiomatic - the age of banishment is no more. Non-deportability is not just a hallmark of citizenship, but constitutive thereof. Not being deportable means to enjoy security of residence in the polity, to belong legally. Taking that as given, when may the foreign parents of citizens of 'tender years' be deported? This question has been subject of much constitutional controversy in Ireland and at supranational level. Under some approaches, to remove the parents of a young citizen-child is acknowledged as 'de facto deportation' of the children, as it means that the child's right of residence is ineffective or at best only to be exercised under conditions that are themselves a denial of rights. Yet, that approach is permitted under many Constitutions. The present contribution examines this issue, illustrating the wax and wane of domestic constitutional, EU and ECHR protections. Its purpose is not an exhaustive survey of the case law, but rather to identify the different approaches within and across the different systems.}, language = {en} } @incollection{CostelloMorenoLax, author = {Costello, Cathryn and Moreno-Lax, Violeta}, title = {The Extraterritorial Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: From Territoriality to Facticity, the Effectiveness Model}, series = {Commentary on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights}, booktitle = {Commentary on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights}, editor = {Peers, Steve and Hervey, Tamara and Kenner, Jeff and Ward, Angela}, publisher = {Hart Publishing}, address = {London}, doi = {10.5771/9783845259055_1700}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {1700 -- 1727}, language = {en} } @incollection{Costello, author = {Costello, Cathryn}, title = {Article 33: Family \& Professional Life}, series = {The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - A Commentary}, booktitle = {The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - A Commentary}, editor = {Peers, Steve and Tamara, Hervey and Kenner, Jeff and Ward, Angela}, publisher = {Hart Publishing}, address = {London}, isbn = {9783845259055}, doi = {10.5771/9783845259055_934}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {934 -- 969}, language = {en} } @article{Costello, author = {Costello, Cathryn}, title = {Ireland's Nice Referenda}, series = {European Constitutional Law Review}, volume = {1}, journal = {European Constitutional Law Review}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1017/S1574019605003573}, pages = {357 -- 382}, abstract = {Part One: Referenda required to amend Irish Constitution. Referenda on accession to EEC, the Single European Act, Maastricht and Amsterdam. Development by courts of rules for fairness of referendum campaigns. Referendum Acts and Referendum Commission. Part Two: First Nice Referendum dominated by euro-anxiety, Irish neutrality and enlargement. Second referendum on same subject not unusual and acceptable according to domestic criteria. Concessions and clarifications. Effect on the Convention on the Future of Europe. Part Three: implications for the Constitutional Treaty.}, language = {en} } @article{Costello, author = {Costello, Cathryn}, title = {The Asylum Procedures Directive and the Proliferation of Safe Country Practices: Deterrence, Deflection and the Dismantling of International Protection}, series = {European Journal of Migration Law}, volume = {7}, journal = {European Journal of Migration Law}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1163/1571816054396842}, pages = {35 -- 69}, language = {en} } @article{CostelloDrake, author = {Costello, Cathryn and Drake, Sara}, title = {State liability in damages in the Irish and UK Courts}, series = {European Public Law}, volume = {9}, journal = {European Public Law}, pages = {366 -- 389}, language = {en} } @article{Costello, author = {Costello, Cathryn}, title = {The Preliminary Reference Procedure and the 2000 Intergovernmental Conference}, series = {Dublin University Law Journal}, volume = {21}, journal = {Dublin University Law Journal}, pages = {40 -- 66}, language = {en} } @article{Costello, author = {Costello, Cathryn}, title = {Market Access All Areas - The Treatment of Non-discriminatory Barriers to the Free Movement of Workers}, series = {Legal Issues on Economic Integration}, volume = {27}, journal = {Legal Issues on Economic Integration}, number = {3}, pages = {267 -- 277}, language = {en} } @incollection{Costello, author = {Costello, Cathryn}, title = {Victim or Perpetrator? The Criminalised Migrant and the Idea of 'Harm' in the Labour Market Context}, series = {Criminality at Work}, booktitle = {Criminality at Work}, editor = {Blogg, Alan and Collins, Jennifer and Freedland, Mark and Herring, Jennifer}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {9780198836995}, doi = {10.1093/oso/9780198836995.003.0016}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {309 -- 326}, abstract = {This chapter provides powerful arguments against the criminalization of irregular migration. It does so by testing the extensive criminalization of irregular migrants against standard liberal principles of criminalization. The chapter argues that it is very difficult to identify any direct wrongs or harms to others that arise in virtue of 'irregular' migration. Furthermore, a malum prohibitum offence cannot be justified. Against these weak arguments in favour of criminalization, this chapter identifies compelling reasons against criminalization. Criminalization leads to further criminalization, which ultimately undermines both migrants' and local workers' fundamental rights. It also blocks discussion of one particularly worker-protective regulatory response to irregular migration, namely regularization. In truth, the criminalization of migrants represents a context where there has been a decisive rupture with liberal principles of criminalization.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Costello, author = {Costello, Cathryn}, title = {On Refugeehood and Citizenship}, series = {Oxford Handbook of Citizenship}, booktitle = {Oxford Handbook of Citizenship}, editor = {Shachar, Ayelet and Baub{\"o}ck, Rainer and Bloemraad, Irene and Vink, Maarten}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {9780198805854}, doi = {10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198805854.013.31}, publisher = {Hertie School}, abstract = {This chapter explores the relationship between citizenship and refugeehood. In particular, it examines the extent to which loss of meaningful citizenship defines the predicament of the refugee. It then examines the status of refugee and refugee rights. Thirdly, it considers how refugeehood comes to an end, in particular the role of citizenship (new or restored) in ending refugeehood. Citizenship is formally viewed as bringing refugeehood to an end, whether that emerges as return to the home country or naturalisation in a new state. However, in practice, a new citizenship for many refugees remains out of reach, and the status of refugee often becomes an intergenerational carrier of civic and social exclusion. The reflects the realities of refugee containment, in contrast to the vision of shared responsibility that underpins the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and the refugee regime.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Costello, author = {Costello, Cathryn}, title = {EU Migration and Asylum Law: A Labour Law Perspective}, series = {Research Handbook on EU Labour Law}, booktitle = {Research Handbook on EU Labour Law}, publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing}, address = {Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA}, doi = {10.4337/9781783471126.00020}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {299 -- 335}, abstract = {The purpose of this chapter is survey EU migration and asylum law from a labour law perspective. A labour law perspective is concerned with the work relationship, and focuses not only on the worker, but also the employing organisation and any intermediary involved in labour supply. Examining EU migration and asylum law using this multifaceted prism of labour law reveals that EU migration and asylum law has a profound impact on labour law. That impact may be understood has having three different dimensions. (1) It affects the supply and demand for migrant workers. In this sense, migration law can be a form of labour market regulation. (2) migration and asylum law create different migration statuses that in turn determine, at least in part, labour rights. The move to re-introduce status over contract as a determinant of workers' rights divides the subjects of labour law. (3) Migration status and the fact of migration may be risk factors for labour exploitation. In order to examine these three facets, the particular role of the EU in this field must be explained. Part 1 provides a sketch of the role of states and markets in the regulation of migration. It sets the scene to understand the profound but limited role of the EU in this context. Part 2 examines the status of EU Citizenship, and the forms of liberalised free movement in the EU's internal market, that principally benefit those who hold the nationality of an EU Member State. I also consider two important derivative statuses for so-called third country nationals (TCNs), who gain EU rights as family members of EU Citizens and so-called 'posted workers'. Part 3 concerns those TCNs who require permission to live and work in the EU, and provides an overview of some of the different statuses created by EU law, and their labour rights content. Part 4 explores the notion of 'irregular status', and the EU Employer Sanctions Directive and the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in T{\"u}mer contrasted. In the final part, Part 6, I briefly highlight some features of migration status that are risk factors for labour exploitation. A recent EU Fundamental Rights Agency Report details the links between migration and extreme labour exploitation. Current responses focus unhelpfully on trafficking, or on forced labour, and look in particular to criminal law for solutions. This chapter recalls some responses from within labour law. It is suggested that further research is required into the question of which regulatory approaches and combinations thereof work best to protect migrant workers from exploitation.}, language = {en} } @incollection{CostelloMouzourakis, author = {Costello, Cathryn and Mouzourakis, Minos}, title = {The Common European Asylum System - Where did it all go wrong?}, series = {The European Union as an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice}, booktitle = {The European Union as an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice}, editor = {Fletcher, Maria and Herlin-Karnell, Ester and Matera, Claudio}, publisher = {Routledge}, address = {Abingdon, Oxford}, isbn = {9780367193454}, doi = {10.4324/9781315738284}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {263 -- 300}, language = {en} } @incollection{CostelloFreedland, author = {Costello, Cathryn and Freedland, Mark}, title = {Seasonal Workers and Intra-Corporate Transferees in EU Law: Capital's Handmaidens?}, series = {Temporary Labour Migration in the Global Era: The Regulatory Challenges}, booktitle = {Temporary Labour Migration in the Global Era: The Regulatory Challenges}, editor = {Howe, Joanna and Owens, Rosemary}, publisher = {Hart Publishing}, address = {Oxford and Portland, Oregon}, isbn = {9781509906291}, doi = {10.5040/9781509906307.ch-002}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {43 -- 64}, abstract = {This chapter compares and contrasts two recent European enactments on particular forms of temporary labour migration: seasonal work and intra-corporate transfers (ICTs). Both the Seasonal Workers Directive (SWD)1 and the ICT Directive (ICTD)2 were adopted in 2014. They are typical of the EU's piecemeal approach to labour migration, which creates a multiplicity of distinct statuses.3 We frame the comparison in light of our previous work examining the impact of migration law on labour law (section II). By way of general contribution to this collection's themes, we also offer some observations on the challenges of regulating temporary labour migration under current conditions of globalisation (section III), and seek to explain some of the specificities of the EU's role in regulating immigration (section IV)}, language = {en} } @incollection{CostelloTsourdi, author = {Costello, Cathryn and Tsourdi, Lilian}, title = {The Evolution of EU Law on Refugees and Asylum}, series = {The Evolution of EU Law}, booktitle = {The Evolution of EU Law}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, publisher = {Hertie School}, abstract = {In this contribution, we explore evolution and stasis in EU asylum law and policy. We identify two tensions at the heart of the CEAS, between the commitment to protection and deflection of protection obligations, and between internal mobility within the EU and the immobilization of asylum seekers and refugees. We note the role of these foundational tensions in generating and exacerbating the 'refugee crisis' of 2015/16. This chapter is premised on a widely-shared understanding of the role of EU asylum policy in that crisis, namely that by illegalizing the travel of asylum seekers and refugees in search of protection, it contributes to the dangerous mass flight, which in turn generates humanitarian and political crises. We then analyse four key dimensions of EU asylum policy in light of these tensions: access to asylum, responsibility-allocation, legislative harmonisation, and institutionalised practical co-operation. Across these four fields, we identify the limits of EU law, and its general stasis, in spite of changes in Treaty telos, law-making processes, and EU enlargement. We briefly consider the role of the CJEU, still very much in the shadow of the ECtHR in asylum, in spite of its numerous rulings on the CEAS. Overall, we demonstrate its fairly minimalist approach in this area, avoidance of controversial cases by dubious use of inadmissibility findings, and failure to catalyse policy changes. Against this backdrop of legislative, political and judicial caution and inertia, we identify two key trends: a move towards greater institutional cooperation, including through the creation of a dedicated agency, the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), and a general flight from law in this policy field. We conclude by considering the likely impact of these trends on EU asylum law.}, language = {en} } @incollection{MouzourakisCostello, author = {Mouzourakis, Minos and Costello, Cathryn}, title = {Effective judicial protection of migrants and refugees? The role of Europes supranational courts in protecting and generating rights}, series = {Research Handbook on EU Migration and Asylum Law}, booktitle = {Research Handbook on EU Migration and Asylum Law}, editor = {Tsourdi, Evangelia and De Bruycker, Philippe}, publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing}, address = {Cheltenham, UK}, isbn = {9781786439628}, doi = {10.4337/9781786439635.00010}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {79 -- 97}, abstract = {This chapter examines the caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on access to protection, the Dublin system and presumptions of 'safety', and detention, in order to provide critical insights into the concept of effective judicial protection in Europe since the so-called 'refugee crisis' of 2015. The two courts have not provided effective protection in a transformative sense, in that they have not adopted progressive rulings to overcome the crisis-inducing elements of European asylum and migration law. Instead, they have deferred to governmental accounts of 'crisis' and accepted dubious factual and legal arguments. Against this backdrop, we note that the need for effective judicial protection in even a minimal sense, to hold the line on the most basic of rights in this field - protection against refoulement and arbitrary detention - is more acute than ever, and may also be in decline.}, language = {en} } @techreport{SherwoodCostelloMcDonnell, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Sherwood, Angela and Costello, Cathryn and McDonnell, Emilie}, title = {The Displacement Regime Complex: Reform for Protection}, edition = {No. 09}, doi = {10.48462/opus4-5320}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-53209}, pages = {32}, abstract = {This working paper aims to examine the 'displacement regime complex', displacement referring to both internally and externally displaced persons, taking into account the competing roles of UNHCR and IOM in both spheres of activity. The title of the paper 'Reform for protection', aims to outline institutional reforms that aim to increase protection for the displaced, informed by binding universal human rights standards, and institutional principles relating to accountability and participation of most affected populations.}, language = {en} } @incollection{SherwoodLemayCostello, author = {Sherwood, Angela and Lemay, Isabelle and Costello, Cathryn}, title = {IOM's Immigration Detention Practices and Policies: Human Rights, Positive Obligations and Humanitarian Duties}, series = {IOM Unbound?: Obligations and Accountability of the International Organization for Migration in an Era of Expansion}, booktitle = {IOM Unbound?: Obligations and Accountability of the International Organization for Migration in an Era of Expansion}, editor = {Bradley, Megan and Costello, Cathryn and Sherwood, Angela}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, isbn = {9781009184175}, doi = {10.1017/9781009184175.016}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {360 -- 396}, abstract = {This chapter analyses IOM's practices and policies on immigration detention from the 1990s to date, spanning a period of significant change in its approaches to detention. The chapter first distills pertinent international human rights law (IHRL) on migration-related detention, and then examines IOM's normative statements concerning detention. It shows that while IOM generally emphasises international legal standards, it also tends to stress states' 'prerogative' to detain, frame alternatives to detention (ATDs) as a desirable option rather than a legal obligation, and weave an operational role for itself, notably through assisted voluntary returns (AVRs). The chapter then interrogates IOM's involvement in detention through four case studies. These reveal not only IOM's changing role regarding detention, but its enduring part in a global system whereby powerful states and regions seek to contain protection seekers 'elsewhere.' The chapter concludes that, without constitutional and institutional change to ensure it meets its positive human rights obligations, and deeper critical reflection on its humanitarian duties, IOM's practice risks expanding and legitimating detention.}, language = {en} } @article{RomanelloWalawenderHsuetal., author = {Romanello, Marina and Walawender, Maria and Hsu, Shih-Che and Moskeland, Annalyse and Palmeiro-Silva, Yasna and Scamman, Daniel and Ali, Zakari and Ameli, Nadia and Angelova, Denitsa and Ayeb-Karlsson, Sonja and Basart, Sara and Beagley, Jessica and Beggs, Paul J and Blanco-Villafuerte, Luciana and Cai, Wenjia and Callaghan, Max and Campbell-Lendrum, Diarmid and Chambers, Jonathan D and Chicmana-Zapata, Victoria and Chu, Lingzhi and Cross, Troy J and van Daalen, Kim R and Dalin, Carole and Dasandi, Niheer and Dasgupta, Shouro and Davies, Michael and Dubrow, Robert and Eckelman, Matthew J and Ford, James D and Freyberg, Chris and Gasparyan, Olga and Gordon-Strachan, Georgiana and Grubb, Michael and Gunther, Samuel H and Hamilton, Ian and Hang, Yun and H{\"a}nninen, Risto and Hartinger, Stella and He, Kehan and Heidecke, Julian and Hess, Jeremy J and Jamart, Louis and Jankin, Slava and Jatkar, Harshavardhan and Jay, Ollie and Kelman, Ilan and Kennard, Harry and Kiesewetter, Gregor and Kinney, Patrick and Kniveton, Dominic and Kouznetsov, Rostislav and Lampard, Pete and Lee, Jason K W and Lemke, Bruno and Li, Bo and Liu, Yang and Liu, Zhao and Llabr{\´e}s-Brustenga, Alba and Lott, Melissa and Lowe, Rachel and Martinez-Urtaza, Jaime and Maslin, Mark and McAllister, Lucy and McMichael, Celia and Mi, Zhifu and Milner, James and Minor, Kelton and Minx, Jan and Mohajeri, Nahid and Momen, Natalie C and Moradi-Lakeh, Maziar and Morrisey, Karyn and Munzert, Simon and Murray, Kris A and Obradovich, Nick and O'Hare, Megan B and Oliveira, Camile and Oreszczyn, Tadj and Otto, Matthias and Owfi, Fereidoon and Pearman, Olivia L and Pega, Frank and Perishing, Andrew J and Pinho-Gomes, Ana-Catarina and Ponmattam, Jamie and Rabbaniha, Mahnaz and Rickman, Jamie and Robinson, Elizabeth and Rockl{\"o}v, Joacim and Rojas-Rueda, David and Salas, Renee N and Semenza, Jan C and Sherman, Jodi D and Shumake-Guillemot, Joy and Singh, Pratik and Sj{\"o}din, Henrik and Slater, Jessica and Sofiev, Mikhail and Sorensen, Cecilia and Springmann, Marco and Stalhandske, Z{\´e}lie and Stowell, Jennifer D and Tabatabaei, Meisam and Taylor, Jonathon and Tong, Daniel and Tonne, Cathryn and Treskova, Marina and Trinanes, Joaquin A and Uppstu, Andreas and Wagner, Fabian and Warnecke, Laura and Whitcombe, Hannah and Xian, Peng and Zavaleta-Cortijo, Carol and Zhang, Chi and Zhang, Ran and Zhang, Shihui and Zhang, Ying and Zhu, Qiao and Gong, Peng and Montgomery, Hugh and Costello, Anthony}, title = {The 2024 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: facing record-breaking threats from delayed action}, series = {The Lancet}, volume = {404}, journal = {The Lancet}, number = {10465}, publisher = {Elsevier BV}, issn = {0140-6736}, doi = {10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01822-1}, pages = {1847 -- 1896}, language = {en} } @techreport{BriddickCostello, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Briddick, Catherine and Costello, Cathryn}, title = {Supreme Judgecraft: Non-Refoulement and the end of the UK-Rwanda 'deal'?}, series = {Verfassungsblog}, journal = {Verfassungsblog}, number = {2023/11/20}, doi = {10.59704/6ac71ea278f0af98}, language = {en} } @article{RomanelloNapoliGreenetal., author = {Romanello, Marina and Napoli, Claudia di and Green, Carole and Kennard, Harry and Lampard, Pete and Scamman, Daniel and Walawender, Maria and Ali, Zakari and Ameli, Nadia and Ayeb-Karlsson, Sonja and Beggs, Paul J and Belesova, Kristine and Berrang Ford, Lea and Bowen, Kathryn and Cai, Wenjia and Callaghan, Max and Campbell-Lendrum, Diarmid and Chambers, Jonathan and Cross, Troy J and van Daalen, Kim R and Dalin, Carole and Dasandi, Niheer and Dasgupta, Shouro and Davies, Michael and Dominguez-Salas, Paula and Dubrow, Robert and Ebi, Kristie L and Eckelman, Matthew and Ekins, Paul and Freyberg, Chris and Gasparyan, Olga and Gordon-Strachan, Georgiana and Graham, Hilary and Gunther, Samuel H and Hamilton, Ian and Hang, Yun and H{\"a}nninen, Risto and Hartinger, Stella and He, Kehan and Heidecke, Julian and Hess, Jeremy J and Hsu, Shih-Che and Jamart, Louis and Jankin, Slava and Jay, Ollie and Kelman, Ilan and Kiesewetter, Gregor and Kinney, Patrick and Kniveton, Dominic and Kouznetsov, Rostislav and Larosa, Francesca and Lee, Jason K W and Lemke, Bruno and Liu, Yang and Liu, Zhao and Lott, Melissa and Lotto Batista, Mart{\´i}n and Lowe, Rachel and Odhiambo Sewe, Maquins and Martinez-Urtaza, Jaime and Maslin, Mark and McAllister, Lucy and McMichael, Celia and Mi, Zhifu and Milner, James and Minor, Kelton and Minx, Jan C and Mohajeri, Nahid and Momen, Natalie C and Moradi-Lakeh, Maziar and Morrissey, Karyn and Munzert, Simon and Murray, Kris A and Neville, Tara and Nilsson, Maria and Obradovich, Nick and O'Hare, Megan B and Oliveira, Camile and Oreszczyn, Tadj and Otto, Matthias and Owfi, Fereidoon and Pearman, Olivia and Pega, Frank and Pershing, Andrew and Rabbaniha, Mahnaz and Rickman, Jamie and Robinson, Elizabeth J Z and Rockl{\"o}v, Joacim and Salas, Renee N and Semenza, Jan C and Sherman, Jodi D and Shumake-Guillemot, Joy and Silbert, Grant and Sofiev, Mikhail and Springmann, Marco and Stowell, Jennifer D and Tabatabaei, Meisam and Taylor, Jonathon and Thompson, Ross and Tonne, Cathryn and Treskova, Marina and Trinanes, Joaquin A and Wagner, Fabian and Warnecke, Laura and Whitcombe, Hannah and Winning, Matthew and Wyns, Arthur and Yglesias-Gonz{\´a}lez, Marisol and Zhang, Shihui and Zhang, Ying and Zhu, Qiao and Gong, Peng and Montgomery, Hugh and Costello, Anthony}, title = {The 2023 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: the imperative for a health-centred response in a world facing irreversible harms}, series = {The Lancet}, volume = {402}, journal = {The Lancet}, number = {10419}, doi = {10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01859-7}, pages = {2346 -- 2394}, language = {en} } @article{RomanelloWalawenderHsuetal., author = {Romanello, Marina and Walawender, Maria and Hsu, Shih-Che and Moskeland, Annalyse and Palmeiro-Silva, Yasna and Scamman, Daniel and Smallcombe, James W and Abdullah, Sabah and Ades, Melanie and Al-Maruf, Abdullah and Ameli, Nadia and Angelova, Denitsa and Ayeb-Karlsson, Sonja and Ballester, Joan and Basaga{\~n}a, Xavier and Bechara, Hannah and Beggs, Paul J and Cai, Wenjia and Campbell-Lendrum, Diarmid and Charnley, Gina E C and Courtenay, Orin and Cross, Troy J and Dalin, Carole and Dasandi, Niheer and Dasgupta, Shouro and Davies, Michael and Eckelman, Matthew and Freyberg, Chris and Garcia Corral, Paulina and Gasparyan, Olga and Giguere, Joseph and Gordon-Strachan, Georgiana and Gumy, Sophie and Gunther, Samuel H and Hamilton, Ian and Hang, Yun and H{\"a}nninen, Risto and Hartinger, Stella and He, Kehan and Heidecke, Julian and Hess, Jeremy J and Jankin, Slava and Jay, Ollie and Pantera, Dafni Kalatzi and Kelman, Ilan and Kennard, Harry and Kiesewetter, Gregor and Kinney, Patrick and Kniveton, Dominic and Koubi, Vally and Kouznetsov, Rostislav and Lampard, Pete and Lee, Jason K W and Lemke, Bruno and Li, Bo and Linke, Andrew and Liu, Yang and Liu, Zhao and Lowe, Rachel and Ma, Siqi and Mabhaudhi, Tafadzwanashe and Maia, Carla and Markandya, Anil and Martin, Greta and Martinez-Urtaza, Jaime and Maslin, Mark and McAllister, Lucy and McMichael, Celia and Mi, Zhifu and Milner, James and Minor, Kelton and Minx, Jan and Mohajeri, Nahid and Momen, Natalie C and Moradi-Lakeh, Maziar and Morrisey, Karyn and Munzert, Simon and Murray, Kris A and Obradovich, Nick and Orgen, Papa and Otto, Matthias and Owfi, Fereidoon and Pearman, Olivia L and Pega, Frank and Pershing, Andrew J and Pinho-Gomes, Ana-Catarina and Ponmattam, Jamie and Rabbaniha, Mahnaz and Repke, Tim and Roa, Jorge and Robinson, Elizabeth and Rockl{\"o}v, Joacim and Rojas-Rueda, David and Ruiz-Cabrejos, Jorge and Rusticucci, Matilde and Salas, Renee N and San Jos{\´e} Plana, Adri{\`a} and Semenza, Jan C and Sherman, Jodi D and Shumake-Guillemot, Joy and Singh, Pratik and Sj{\"o}din, Henrik and Smith, Matthew R and Sofiev, Mikhail and Sorensen, Cecilia and Springmann, Marco and Stowell, Jennifer D and Tabatabaei, Meisam and Tartarini, Federico and Taylor, Jonathon and Tonne, Cathryn and Treskova, Marina and Trinanes, Joaquin A and Uppstu, Andreas and Valdes-Ortega, Nicolas and Wagner, Fabian and Watts, Nick and Whitcombe, Hannah and Wood, Richard and Yang, Pu and Zhang, Ying and Zhang, Shaohui and Zhang, Chi and Zhang, Shihui and Zhu, Qiao and Gong, Peng and Montgomery, Hugh and Costello, Anthony}, title = {The 2025 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: climate change action offers a lifeline}, series = {The Lancet}, volume = {406}, journal = {The Lancet}, number = {10521}, publisher = {Elsevier BV}, doi = {10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01919-1}, pages = {2804 -- 2857}, language = {en} } @incollection{CostelloWriedt, author = {Costello, Cathryn and Wriedt, Vera}, title = {Regional Human Rights Courts}, series = {Elgar Concise Encyclopedia of Migration and Asylum Law}, booktitle = {Elgar Concise Encyclopedia of Migration and Asylum Law}, editor = {Chetail, Vincent}, publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing}, doi = {10.4337/9781802204155.00085}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {461 -- 467}, language = {en} }