@misc{Calı, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak}, title = {International Law for International Relations}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {9780199558421}, pages = {XXX, 431 S.}, language = {en} } @misc{CalıMeckledGarcia, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak and Meckled-Garc{\´i}a, Saladin}, title = {The Legalisation of Human Rights}, publisher = {Routledge}, address = {London}, isbn = {978-0415361231}, pages = {X, 208}, language = {en} } @article{CalıGhaneaJones, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak and Ghanea, Nazila and Jones, Benjamin}, title = {Big Promises, Small Gains: Domestic Effects of Human Rights Treaty Ratification in the Member States of the Gulf Cooperation Council}, series = {Human Rights Quarterly}, volume = {38}, journal = {Human Rights Quarterly}, number = {1}, issn = {1085-794X}, doi = {10.1353/hrq.2016.0017}, pages = {21 -- 57}, abstract = {In recent years, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states have been in-creasingly willing to ratify United Nations human rights instruments. This article examines the underlying rationales for these ratifications and the limited range and drivers of subsequent domestic reforms post ratification. Drawing on both a quantitative analysis of engagement with the UN treaty bodies and Charter-based mechanisms in over 120 UN reports and qualitative interviews with over sixty-five government officials, members of civil society, National Human Rights Institutions, lawyers, and judges from all six states, this article argues that in the GCC states, UN human rights treaty ratification results from a desire to increase standing in the international community. Treaty ratification has limited effects driven by international socialization and cautious leadership preferences.}, language = {en} } @article{Calı, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak}, title = {Comparing the support of the EU and the US to international human rights law qua international human rights law: Worlds too far apart?}, series = {International Journal of Constitutional Law}, volume = {13}, journal = {International Journal of Constitutional Law}, number = {4}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, issn = {1474-2659}, doi = {10.1093/icon/mov058}, pages = {901 -- 922}, abstract = {Support for international human rights law (IHRL) is one area where most international lawyers would have a hunch that the European Union fares better than the United States overall. In this article I focus on Pollack's dependent variable, "support" for international law, and its four dimensions: leadership, commitment, compliance, and internalization and investigate this hunch. I find that the conventional contrast between the US and the EU with regard to their support for IHRL is valid, with respect to political support for IHRL, but less so for judicial support. I argue that the marked differences between the EU and the US in the field of political support for IHRL are best explained by the thickness of the institutional human rights regime with respect to EU member states In the case of judicial support, the CJEU shares with the US Supreme Court the reflex of protecting its own constitutional autonomy, despite the comparatively better legal resources at its disposal to support IHRL.}, language = {en} } @article{CalıKoch, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak and Koch, Anne}, title = {Foxes Guarding the Foxes? The Peer Review of Human Rights Judgments by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe}, series = {Human Rights Law Review}, volume = {14}, journal = {Human Rights Law Review}, number = {2}, publisher = {Oxford Academic}, issn = {1744-1021}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngu007}, pages = {301 -- 325}, abstract = {This article investigates the reliability of the peer review of human rights judgments by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It argues that, even if composed of politically motivated actors, the Committee is not to be dismissed too cursorily as a deficient and unreliable system of compliance monitoring. Evidence shows that formal and informal institutional constraints, in particular the presence of a strong Secretariat, constrain the propensity to bargain amongst Council of Europe diplomats acting as peers when monitoring the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Our finding runs contrary to the proposition that Europe constitutes a special case of cultural convergence around respect for international human rights law. The article further argues that hybrid models of compliance monitoring which combine political as well as judicial and technocratic elements may be more effective in facilitating human rights compliance than direct international court orders or expert recommendations.}, language = {en} } @article{CalıKochBruch, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak and Koch, Anne and Bruch, Nicola}, title = {The social legitimacy of Human Rights Courts: a grounded interpretivist analysis of the European Court of Human Rights}, series = {Human Rights Quarterly}, volume = {35}, journal = {Human Rights Quarterly}, number = {3}, publisher = {The Johns Hopkins University Press}, issn = {1085-794X}, doi = {10.1353/hrq.2013.0057}, pages = {955 -- 984}, abstract = {This article offers an empirically grounded interpretivist theory of the social legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights based on domestic judicial and political elite accounts of the legitimacy of the Court in Turkey, Bulgaria, United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany. The central argument of the article is that the social legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights is based on a constant comparison between the values and goals of domestic institutions and the values and goals of the European Court of Human Rights. More specifically, the social legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights is grounded in the logic of a fair compromise: What actors think they lose by according legitimacy to the European Court of Human Rights must be balanced by what they perceive to gain in return. Three factors organise how actors in different domestic settings struck a fair compromise in their domestic contexts: a) perception of domestic human rights conditions, b) commitment to cosmopolitan ideals of human rights and international law and c) commitment to domestic institutions.}, language = {en} } @article{Calı, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak}, title = {The Logics of Supranational Human Rights Litigation, Official Acknowledgment, and Human Rights Reform: The Southeast Turkey Cases before the European Court of Human Rights, 1996-2006}, series = {Law and Social Inquiry}, volume = {35}, journal = {Law and Social Inquiry}, number = {2}, issn = {1747-4469}, doi = {10.1111/j.1747-4469.2010.01187.x}, pages = {311 -- 337}, abstract = {This article examines the domestic impact of supranational human rights litigation on acknowledgment of state violence in the context of macroprocesses of global governance. The article's argument is that the impact of supranational human rights litigation on the process of acknowledgment must be seen through counternarratives on state violence. The article undertakes a detailed textual analysis of the truth claims and denial strategies that emerged from the European Court of Human Rights proceedings on state violence during Turkey's struggle against the armed group the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). It assesses these in the context of the human rights reforms that were created following pressure from European-level governance processes. The article argues that attention must be paid to agency in acknowledgment and truth-telling processes, and points to the limits of technical-bureaucratic forms of human rights reform interventions in the context of state violence.}, language = {en} } @article{Calı, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak}, title = {On Interpretivism and International Law}, series = {European Journal of International Law}, volume = {20}, journal = {European Journal of International Law}, number = {3}, issn = {1464-3596}, doi = {10.1093/ejil/chp038}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-22561}, pages = {805 -- 822}, abstract = {This article argues for the relevance of interpretivism within theoretical and normative debates about international law. To do this, the article carries out two tasks. First, it draws out the central features of interpretivism that make it a theoretically distinct contribution to understanding the nature and theory of law. Secondly, it identifies four important objections, two external and two internal, to the relevance of interpretivism to international law. External objections stem from positivism and anti-essentialism about international law. Internal objections, on the other hand, stem from the view that international law does not suit the application of interpretivism. I show that it is possible to counter all four and conclude by pointing to the nature of future work that needs to be undertaken to develop a substantive interpretivist account of international law.}, language = {en} } @article{Calı, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak}, title = {The Purposes of the European Human Rights System: One or Many?}, series = {European Human Rights Law Review}, volume = {3}, journal = {European Human Rights Law Review}, issn = {1361-1526}, pages = {299 -- 306}, language = {en} } @book{Calı, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak}, title = {The Authority of International Law}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, doi = {10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685097.001.0001}, pages = {224}, abstract = {This book tackles an old, but ever relevant question: does international law enjoy legal authority over domestic orders? If so, what is the form and extent of the authority of international law? The book answers the first question in the positive. International law enjoys authority over domestic political and judicial organs. Such authority, however, has sui generis characteristics. It may not be conclusive authority. It may also not demand blind obedience. What international law demands at the very least is minimalist deference. The book answers the second question by holding that each and every international law does not make identical claims to authority. What form and extent of authority international law enjoys depends on whether a particular international law imposes a strong, a weak, or a rebuttable duty. The duty of a domestic judge and politician is to reflectively ask and engage with what kind of a duty she is engaged in when bringing the international law's authority back home. The book has a decidedly practice-based and doctrinal approach to the questions it sets for itself. It demonstrates that realists, rationalists, and more recently democratic theorists have long attacked international lawyers. It is time to respond by offering a defence of the authority of international law and how it functions.}, language = {en} } @techreport{CostelloGroenendijkHalleskovStorgaard, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Costello, Cathryn and Groenendijk, Kees and Halleskov Storgaard, Louise}, title = {Realising the Right to Family Reunification of Refugees in Europe}, abstract = {This issue paper examines family reunification for refugees as a pressing human rights issue. Without it, refugees are denied their right to respect for family life, have vastly diminished integration prospects and endure great additional unnecessary suffering, as do their family members. The Commissioner for Human Rights calls on all Council of Europe member states to uphold their human rights obligations and ensure the practical effectiveness of the right to family reunification for refugees and other international protection beneficiaries. To do so, states should (re-)examine their laws, policies and practices relating to family reunification for refugees. This issue paper contains 36 recommendations to that end.}, language = {en} } @techreport{GuildCostelloMorenoLax, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Guild, Elspeth and Costello, Cathryn and Moreno-Lax, Violeta}, title = {Implementation of the 2015 Council Decisions establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece}, abstract = {This study, commissioned by the European Parliament's Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, examines the EU's mechanism of relocation of asylum seekers from Greece and Italy to other Member States. It examines the scheme in the context of the Dublin System, the hotspot approach, and the EU-Turkey Statement, recommending that asylum seekers' interests, and rights be duly taken into account, as it is only through their full engagement that relocation will be successful. Relocation can become a system that provides flexibility for Member States and local host communities, as well as accommodating the agency and dignity of asylumseekers. This requires greater cooperation from receiving States, and a clearer role for a single EU legal and institutional framework to organise preference matching and rationalise efforts and resources overall.}, language = {en} } @techreport{GuildCostelloGarlicketal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Guild, Elspeth and Costello, Cathryn and Garlick, Madeline and Moreno-Lax, Violeta}, title = {Enhancing the Common European Asylum System and Alternatives to Dublin}, abstract = {Upon request by the LIBE committee, this study examines the reasons why the Dublin system of allocation of responsibility for asylum seekers does not work effectively from the viewpoint of Member States or asylum-seekers. It argues that as long as it is based on the use of coercion against asylum seekers, it cannot serve as an effective tool to address existing imbalances in the allocation of responsibilities among Member States. The EU is faced with two substantial challenges: first, how to prevent unsafe journeys and risks to the lives of people seeking international protection in the EU; and secondly, how to organise the distribution of related responsibilities and costs among the Member States. This study addresses these issues with recommendations aimed at resolving current practical, legal and policy problems.}, language = {en} } @techreport{GuildCostelloGarlicketal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Guild, Elspeth and Costello, Cathryn and Garlick, Madeline and Moreno-Lax, Violeta and Mouzourakis, Minos}, title = {New Approaches, Alternative Avenues and Means of Access to Asylum Procedures for Persons Seeking International Protection}, abstract = {Upon request by the LIBE committee, this study examines the workings of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), in order to assess the need and potential for new approaches to ensure access to protection for people seeking it in the EU, including joint processing and distribution of asylum seekers. Rather than advocating the addition of further complexity and coercion to the CEAS, the study proposes a focus on front-line reception and streamlined refugee status determination, in order to mitigate the asylum challenges facing Member States, and guarantee the rights of asylum seekers and refugees according to the EU acquis and international legal standards.}, language = {en} } @techreport{KaytazCostello, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Kaytaz, Esra and Costello, Cathryn}, title = {Building Empirical Research into Alternatives to Detention: Perceptions of Asylum-Seekers and Refugees in Toronto and Geneva}, abstract = {Recent research in Toronto and Geneva indicates that asylum seekers and refugees are predisposed to be cooperative with the refugee status determination (RSD) system and other immigration procedures, and that the design of alternatives to detention can create, foster and support this cooperative predisposition - or can undermine or even demolish it.}, language = {en} } @techreport{LazarusCostelloGhaneaetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Lazarus, Liora and Costello, Cathryn and Ghanea, Nazila and Zeigler, Katja}, title = {Report on the evolution of Fundamental Rights Charters and Caselaw: A comparison of the EU, Council of Europe and UN Systems}, pages = {254}, abstract = {This report examines the human rights protection systems of the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the European Union. It explores the substantive rights, protection mechanisms, modes of engagement within, and the interactions between each system. The report also outlines the protection of minority rights, and the political processes through which human rights and institutions evolve and interact. A series of recommendations are made on how to advance the EU human rights system.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Costello, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Costello, Cathryn}, title = {Report on Improving the Quality and Consistency of Asylum Decisions in the Council of Europe Member States}, abstract = {There are important shortcomings in terms of quality and consistency of the asylum decisions taken in the Council of Europe member states. As evidence of this, in 2007 acceptance rates varied considerably between 1\% and 39\% in countries receiving significant numbers of asylum seekers. The situation was even more dramatic when looking at certain specific groups of asylum seekers. For example, again in 2007, the acceptance rates for Iraqis seeking protection in Europe varied between 0 and 81\%. The very low recognition rates in certain countries, or for certain groups of asylum seekers, may be due to difficulties in accessing the asylum process, poor procedural safeguards in the asylum proceedings, restrictive and divergent interpretation of eligibility criteria, lack of objective and reliable country of origin information, poor evidential assessment, in particular the culture of disbelief in asylum adjudication, political pressure, lack of training of the relevant authorities and their personnel, or a combination of these factors. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe should be invited to prepare guidelines to address the difficulties outlined above. These guidelines should encourage Council of Europe member states to develop higher standards of protection, based on their own domestic standards of human rights or humanitarian impulse, reflecting the nature of the European Convention on Human Rights as a pan-European minimum standard. Furthermore the Committee of Ministers should consider a mechanism for monitoring the quality and consistency of asylum decisions, and to facilitate this task, consider guidelines on harmonisation of asylum data across Council of Europe member states, taking into account work already carried out at by the European Union. The Committee of Ministers should also review the asylum curriculum in member states and develop training programmes, tools and data-bases of jurisprudence of asylum decisions across Europe. Finally, there is a pressing need for the Committee of Ministers to establish a new inter-governmentalCommittee with a permanent mandate to examine asylum and refugee issues to replace the work formerly carried out by the Ad hoc Committee of experts on the legal aspects of territorial asylum, refugees and stateless persons (CAHAR).}, language = {en} } @book{BacikCostelloDrew, author = {Bacik, Ivana and Costello, Cathryn and Drew, Eileen}, title = {Gender InJustice: Towards the Feminisation of the Legal Professions?}, isbn = {0953497917}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {431}, language = {en} } @incollection{Costello, author = {Costello, Cathryn}, title = {European Community Judicial Review in the Irish Courts - Scope, Standards and Separation of Powers}, series = {Irish perspectives on EC law}, booktitle = {Irish perspectives on EC law}, editor = {Lucey, Mary Catherine and Keville, Cathrina}, publisher = {Round Hall Ltd}, address = {Dublin}, isbn = {978-1-85800-280-4}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {17 -- 50}, language = {en} } @book{Costello, author = {Costello, Cathryn}, title = {The Oxford Handbook of International Refugee Law}, editor = {Costello, Cathryn and Foster, Michelle and McAdam, Jane}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {9780198848639}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {1344}, abstract = {The Oxford Handbook of International Refugee Law is a comprehensive, critical work, which analyses the state of research across the refugee law regime as a whole. Drawing together leading and emerging scholars, the Handbook provides both doctrinal and theoretical analyses of international refugee law and practice. It critiques existing law from a variety of normative positions, with several chapters identifying foundational flaws that open up space for radical rethinking. Many authors work directly in the field, and their contributions demonstrate how scholarship and practice can mutually inform each other. Contributions assess a wide range of international legal instruments relevant to refugee protection, including from international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international migration law, the law of the sea, and international and transnational criminal law. Geographically, contributors examine regional and domestic laws and practices from around the world, with 10 chapters focused on specific regions. This Handbook provides an account, as well as a critique, of the status quo, and in so doing it sets the agenda for future academic research in international refugee law.}, language = {en} }