@phdthesis{Wriedt, author = {Wriedt, Vera}, title = {Bordering Belonging: Colonialism, Nationality and Expulsions in the European and African Human Rights Systems}, doi = {10.48462/opus4-6023}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-60236}, school = {Hertie School}, pages = {xxii, 272}, abstract = {This thesis investigates how the European and African regional human rights systems reproduce or counteract border coloniality in their drafting of norms and subsequent caselaw on matters of nationality and expulsions. Rather than taking the European human rights system as a yardstick to emulate, the analysis critiques its restrictive moves, whilst highlighting transformative contestations of exclusion in the African human rights system. In the European system, the colonial clause built into the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights was further refined in its 1963 Protocol 4 to distinguish between metropolitan and non-metropolitan territories with regard to entry and expulsion. These differentiations reverberate in caselaw that denies the right to nationality and legitimises collective expulsions based on tropes of danger and culpability, whereas judgments upholding the rights of people on the move across borders appear as outliers. In the African system, the anti-colonialism shaping the drafting of the 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights was followed by innovative interpretations reading the right to nationality into the right to recognition of legal status, as well as holistic protection against collective expulsions linked to related rights, but the jurisprudence is limited. Despite epistemic shifts away from the denigration of former colonial subjects crossing borders and moves towards the expansive interpretation of some rights, both systems operate within the limits of codified human rights law, in which many structural elements of border coloniality engrained in statist migration law remain unchallenged and perhaps unchallengeable. By providing the first juxtaposition of these issues in the European and African human rights systems, the thesis contributes to comparative international human rights law, critiques of the coloniality of international law, and border regime studies.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Wriedt, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Wriedt, Vera}, title = {Expanding Exceptions? AA and others v North Macedonia, Systematic Pushbacks and the Fiction of Legal Pathways}, series = {Strasbourg Observers}, journal = {Strasbourg Observers}, abstract = {The closure of the Greek-Macedonian border on 8 March 2016 entailed systematic pushbacks. The largest operation occurred on 14-15 March 2016, when more than 1500 refugees were summarily returned from North Macedonia to Greece. The complaint of AA and others v North Macedonia addressed this large-scale pushback operation. However, instead of condemning these pushbacks, the European Court of Human Rights expanded the exception from the prohibition of collective expulsions created in the case of ND and NT v Spain and found the applicants culpable of circumventing legal pathways, ignoring that these were clearly not available in practice. Thereby, the Court reproduces exclusionary reasoning that has shaped the European Convention on Human Rights since its inception.}, 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} }