TY - RPRT A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Groenendijk, Kees A1 - Halleskov Storgaard, Louise T1 - Realising the Right to Family Reunification of Refugees in Europe N2 - 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. Y1 - 2017 UR - http://www.refworld.org/docid/5a0d5eae4.html ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Guild, Elspeth A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Moreno-Lax, Violeta T1 - Implementation of the 2015 Council Decisions establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece N2 - 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. Y1 - 2017 UR - http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/583132/IPOL_STU(2017)583132_EN.pdf ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Guild, Elspeth A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Garlick, Madeline A1 - Moreno-Lax, Violeta T1 - Enhancing the Common European Asylum System and Alternatives to Dublin N2 - 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. Y1 - 2015 UR - http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/519234/IPOL_STU%282015%29519234_EN.pdf ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Guild, Elspeth A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Garlick, Madeline A1 - Moreno-Lax, Violeta A1 - Mouzourakis, Minos T1 - New Approaches, Alternative Avenues and Means of Access to Asylum Procedures for Persons Seeking International Protection N2 - 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. Y1 - 2014 UR - http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2014)509989 ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Kaytaz, Esra A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - Building Empirical Research into Alternatives to Detention: Perceptions of Asylum-Seekers and Refugees in Toronto and Geneva N2 - 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. Y1 - 2013 UR - http://www.fmreview.org/detention/costello-kaytaz ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Lazarus, Liora A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Ghanea, Nazila A1 - Zeigler, Katja T1 - Report on the evolution of Fundamental Rights Charters and Caselaw: A comparison of the EU, Council of Europe and UN Systems N2 - 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. Y1 - 2011 UR - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/432755/IPOL-AFCO_ET(2011)432755_EN.pdf ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - Report on Improving the Quality and Consistency of Asylum Decisions in the Council of Europe Member States N2 - 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). Y1 - 2009 UR - https://www.refworld.org/docid/4b2a47f62.html ER - TY - BOOK A1 - Bacik, Ivana A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Drew, Eileen T1 - Gender InJustice: Towards the Feminisation of the Legal Professions? Y1 - 2003 SN - 0953497917 ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Lucey, Mary Catherine ED - Keville, Cathrina T1 - European Community Judicial Review in the Irish Courts - Scope, Standards and Separation of Powers T2 - Irish perspectives on EC law Y1 - 2003 SN - 978-1-85800-280-4 SP - 17 EP - 50 PB - Round Hall Ltd CY - Dublin ER - TY - BOOK A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Costello, Cathryn ED - Foster, Michelle ED - McAdam, Jane T1 - The Oxford Handbook of International Refugee Law N2 - 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. Y1 - 2021 SN - 9780198848639 PB - Oxford University Press CY - Oxford ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Ioffe, Yulia ED - Costello, Cathryn ED - Foster, Michelle ED - McAdam, Jane T1 - Non-Penalization and Non-Criminalization T2 - The Oxford Handbook of International Refugee Law N2 - The chapter examines article 31 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention), the provision which purports to protect refugees from penalization for ‘illegal entry and stay’. The chapter draws on the previous work by the authors for UNHCR, including a review of national caselaw and practice on article 31 from over forty States. It reflects on the crucial role of the provision in safeguarding the right to seek asylum and argues that non-penalization constitutes one of the objects and purposes of the Refugee Convention. As a result, the chapter considers the distinct obligation on States to refrain from any acts frustrating the treaty’s object and purpose. Beyond article 31 of the Refugee Convention, the chapter explores international human rights law as a potentially wider source of protection. It examines whether the criminalization of irregular migration itself may be regarded as a human rights violation, thereby opening up a new avenue for legal research and advocacy. Finally, the chapter argues that aside from treaty obligations under international refugee and human rights law there is an emerging general principle of law relating to non-penalization of refugees and some other migrants. Y1 - 2021 UR - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3782672 SN - 9780198848639 PB - Oxford University Press CY - Oxford ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - O'Cinneide, Colm ED - Costello, Cathryn ED - Foster, Michelle ED - McAdam, Jane T1 - The Right to Work of Asylum Seekers and Refugees T2 - The Oxford Handbook of International Refugee Law Y1 - 2021 SN - 9780198848639 PB - Oxford University Press CY - Oxford ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Cox, Neville ED - Byrne, Raymond ED - Binchy, William T1 - Sports Law T2 - Annual Review of Irish Law Y1 - 2002 SN - 9781858003153 SP - 539 EP - 553 PB - Thomson Round Hall CY - Dublin ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - The Legal Status and Legal Effects of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights T2 - Fundamental Social Rights: Current Legal Protection and the Challenge of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Y1 - 2001 SP - 127 EP - 149 PB - ICEL ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Keatinge, Patrick ED - Dooge, Jim T1 - The Courts T2 - What the Treaty of Nice Means Y1 - 2001 SN - 9781874109563 SP - 61 EP - 71 PB - Institute of International and European Affairs CY - Dublin ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Cosgrove-Sacks, Carol T1 - The EU and the World Trade Organization T2 - The European Union and the Developing Countries Y1 - 1999 SN - 9780230509184 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230509184 SP - 336 EP - 346 PB - Palgrave Macmillan CY - London ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Betts, Alexander A1 - Zaun, Natascha T1 - A Fair Share: Refugees and Responsibility-Sharing, Report and Policy Brief N2 - Developing countries account for a large majority of global refugee reception. 3.5 million out of Syria's 4 million refugees have sought refuge in three countries - Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Is it possible to achieve a fair distribution of protection seekers? This Delmi report examines the division of responsibilities for those in need of protection from a global perspective. It analyses past and present models and discusses its feasibility in practice. Y1 - 2018 UR - https://www.delmi.se/en/publications/report-and-policy-brief-2017-10-a-fair-share-refugees-and-responsibility-sharing/ ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Ioffe, Yulia A1 - Büchsel, Teresa T1 - Article 31 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees N2 - The aim of this paper is to clarify the correct interpretation of Article 31 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the 1951 Refugee Convention). The interpretation proposed is based on the binding international precepts relating to treaty interpretation, as reflected in Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). Y1 - 2017 UR - http://www.refworld.org/docid/59ad55c24.html ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Barrett, Gavin T1 - EC Immigration & Asylum Policymaking: Integrating a Role for the Oireachtas T2 - National Parliaments and the European Union: The Constitutional Challenge for the Oireachtas and Other Member State Legislatures Y1 - 2008 SN - 9781905536023 SP - 205 EP - 242 PB - Clarus Press ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Baldaccini, Anneliese ED - Guild, Elspeth ED - Toner, Helen T1 - The Asylum Procedures Directive in Legal Context: Equivocal Standards Meet General Principles T2 - Whose Freedom, Security and Justice? EU immigration and asylum law after 1999 Y1 - 2007 SN - 9781841136844 SP - 151 EP - 193 PB - Hart Publishing ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Hofmann, Herwig C.H. ED - Türk, Alexander H. T1 - Administrative Governance and the Europeanisation of Asylum and Immigration Policy T2 - EU Administrative Governance Y1 - 2006 SN - 9781845422851 SP - 287 EP - 340 PB - Edward Elgar Publishing ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - Accidents of Place and Parentage: Birthright Citizenship and Border Crossings T2 - The Citizenship Referendum: Implications for the Constitution and Human Rights Y1 - 2004 SP - 5 EP - 33 PB - School of Law, Trinity College Dublin ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Brown, Eimear ED - Kilkelly, Ursula T1 - ECHR and the European Union T2 - ECHR and Irish Law Y1 - 2004 SN - 9781846611247 SP - 35 EP - 78 PB - Jordan Publishing ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Fraser, Ursula ED - Harvey, Colin T1 - EU Asylum Law & Policy T2 - Sanctuary in Ireland, Perspectives on Asylum Law and Policy Y1 - 2004 SN - 9781904541042 SP - 18 EP - 51 PB - Institute of Public Administration ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Hourihane, Jim T1 - Irish and European Law T2 - Ireland and the European Union: The First Thirty Years 1973-2003 Y1 - 2004 SN - 9781843510352 SP - 26 EP - 40 PB - Lilliput Press Dublin ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Costello, Cathryn ED - Barry, Eilis T1 - Positive Action T2 - Equality in Diversity: The New Equality Directives Y1 - 2003 SN - 9781897606360 SP - 117 EP - 213 PB - Irish Centre for European Law and The Equality Authority CY - Dublin ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Cox, Neville ED - Schuster, Alex ED - Costello, Cathryn T1 - Sport & Equality T2 - Sports and the Law Y1 - 2004 SN - 9781904480228 SP - 457 EP - 495 PB - First Law CY - Dublin ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Hervey, Tamara ED - Kenner, Jeff T1 - Gender Equalities and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights T2 - Economic and Social Rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Y1 - 2003 SN - 9781841130958 SP - 111 EP - 138 PB - Hart Publishing ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Briddick, Catherine T1 - Introduction to the Symposium on Undoing Discriminatory Borders JF - AJIL Unbound N2 - 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. Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2021.49 VL - 115 SP - 328 EP - 332 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Foster, Michelle T1 - Race Discrimination Effaced at the International Court of Justice JF - AJIL Unbound N2 - 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. Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2021.51 VL - 115 SP - 339 EP - 344 ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Tsourdi, Lilian T1 - The Evolution of EU Law on Refugees and Asylum T2 - The Evolution of EU Law N2 - 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. Y1 - 2021 UR - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3735345 PB - Oxford University Press CY - Oxford ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - Reflections on an Anniversary: EU Citizenship at 20 T2 - COMPAS Migration Anthology N2 - I am writing this 20 years to the day after the Maastricht Treaty entered into force on 1 November 1993. ‘Economic and monetary union’ and ‘political union’ (coordinating foreign policy and ‘justice and home affairs’) were the main events. The Treaty also grandly announced: ‘Citizenship of the Union is hereby established’. The status was for those ‘holding the nationality of a Member State’. The rights attached were largely pre-existing and politically underwhelming. Without great fanfare, the weightiest of political concepts was uploaded into the EU Treaty, apparently an afterthought. Y1 - 2014 SN - 9781907271045 PB - COMPAS ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - de la Feria, Rita ED - Vogenauer, Stefan T1 - Citizenship of the Union: Above Abuse? T2 - Prohibition of Abuse of Law: A New General Principle of EU Law Y1 - 2011 SN - 9781841139388 SP - 321 EP - 354 PB - Hart Publishing ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Brown, Eimear ED - Kilkelly, Ursula T1 - The EU and the ECHR before European and Irish Courts T2 - ECHR and Irish Law N2 - Following the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 into Irish Law, legal developments in areas such as criminal, family and immigration law have raised serious questions of compatibility with the ECHR. Developments in the European Court of Human Rights have highlighted the increasing potential for using the ECHR to positive effect in Irish law. This second edition of ECHR and Irish Law examines the impact of the ECHR on Irish law and considers the actual and potential contribution of the ECHR Act to domestic law in a range of areas. The work begins with research on the impact of the Act and an examination of the relationship between the ECHR, Irish law and EU law. Y1 - 2008 SN - 9781846611247 SP - 21 EP - 73 PB - Jordan Publishing ET - Second Edition ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Zwaan, Karin T1 - Implementation of the Procedures Directive (2005/85) in the United Kingdom T2 - The Procedures Directive: Central Themes, Problem Issues, and Implementation in Selected Member States N2 - On 1 December 2007, the deadline for the implementation of the Directive 2005/85/EC on Minimum Standards on Procedures in Member States for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status expired. The lectures on which this book is based were originally given during a seminar on the Procedures Directive that took place in Nijmegen, at the Centre for Migration Law, Radboud University, on Wednesday 12 December 2007. In light of the very substantial level of interest, we have decided to publish a book on the results of the seminar so that people who were not able to attend may benefit from the wealth of knowledge and information which was shared. This book offers insight in all the different aspects of the Procedures Directive. Y1 - 2008 SN - 9789058503602 SP - 111 EP - 132 PB - Wolf Legal Publishers ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Bradley, Kieran ED - Travers, Noel ED - Whelan, Anthony T1 - Child Citizens & De Facto Deportation: Tender Years, Fragile Ties & Security of Residence T2 - Of Courts and Constitutions: Liber Amicorum in Honour of Nial Fennelly N2 - 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. Y1 - 2014 SN - 9781782256014 U6 - https://doi.org/10.5040/9781849468404.ch-025 SP - 411 EP - 432 PB - Hart Publishing CY - London ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Moreno-Lax, Violeta ED - Peers, Steve ED - Hervey, Tamara ED - Kenner, Jeff ED - Ward, Angela T1 - The Extraterritorial Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: From Territoriality to Facticity, the Effectiveness Model T2 - Commentary on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Y1 - 2014 U6 - https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845259055_1700 SP - 1700 EP - 1727 PB - Hart Publishing CY - London ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Peers, Steve ED - Tamara, Hervey ED - Kenner, Jeff ED - Ward, Angela T1 - Article 33: Family & Professional Life T2 - The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - A Commentary Y1 - 2014 SN - 9783845259055 U6 - https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845259055_934 SP - 934 EP - 969 PB - Hart Publishing CY - London ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Bacik, Ivana ED - Rogan, Mary T1 - Strategic Litigation to Vindicate the Rights of Refugees and Migrants: Pyrrhic Perils and Painstaking Progress T2 - Legal Cases That Changed Ireland Y1 - 2016 SN - 9781905536856 PB - Clarus Press CY - Dublin ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Burson, Bruce ED - Cantor, David James T1 - The Search of the Outer Edges of Non-refoulement in Europe T2 - Human Rights and the Refugee Definition: Comparative Legal Practice and Theory N2 - 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. Y1 - 2016 SN - 978-90-04-28858-4 U6 - https://doi.org//10.1163/9789004288591 SP - 180 EP - 209 PB - Brill | Nijhoff CY - Leiden, Netherlands ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Hancox, Emily ED - Chetail, Vincent ED - Philippe, De Bruycker ED - Maiani, Francesco T1 - The Recast Asylum Procedures Directive: Caught between the Sterotypes of the Abusive Asylum-Seeker and the Vulnerable Refugee T2 - Reforming the Common European Asylum System: The New European Refugee Law N2 - 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. Y1 - 2016 SN - 9789004308664 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004308664 SP - 375 EP - 445 PB - Brill Nijhoff CY - Leiden, Netherlands ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Freedland, Mark A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Costello, Cathryn ED - Freedland, Mark T1 - Migrants at Work and the Division of Labour Law T2 - Migrants at Work: Immigration and Vulnerability in Labour Law N2 - 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. Y1 - 2014 SN - 9780198714101 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198714101.003.0001 SP - 1 EP - 28 PB - Oxford University Press CY - Oxford ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - Migrants and Forced Labour: A Labour Law Response T2 - The Autonomy of Labour Law N2 - 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. Y1 - 2015 SN - 9781782254645 PB - Hart Publishing CY - Oxford ER - TY - BOOK A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - The Human Rights of Migrants and Refugees in European Law N2 - This book examines key aspects of European Union (EU) law on immigration and asylum, where EU standards overlap with human rights protections and international refugee law. It focuses on questions of migration status and security of residence, family migration, refugee protection, and immigration detention. The uniting theme is the interaction between established human rights norms, in particular the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and EU law. It thus provides a scholarly analysis of EU and ECHR migration and refugee law, including the post-Amsterdam legislative measures and their recasts, and the Court of Justice’s key post-Amsterdam rulings and corresponding Strasbourg case law. In so doing, it provides important insights into the roles of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as generators of migrant rights, aiding understanding of their positions and interactions with each other. Integrating doctrinal, empirical, and theoretical material on social membership, global justice, and the construction of ‘illegality’ in migration law into the EU context, it provides a panoramic account of the EU’s role in determining who may reside in the EU, and under what terms. Y1 - 2015 SN - 9780199644742 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199644742.001.0001 PB - Oxford University Press CY - Oxford ER - TY - BOOK A1 - Bogg, Alan A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Davies, A.C.L. A1 - Mellon, Andrew W. T1 - Research Handbook on EU Labour Law N2 - Research Handbook on EU Labour Law features contributions from leading scholars in the field. Part I addresses cross-cutting themes, such as the relationship between EU law and national law, the role of human rights in EU labour law, and the impact of austerity measures. In Part II, the contributors focus on topics in individual and collective labour law at EU level, including working time and job security. Finally, Part III offers a comprehensive overview of the EU’s interventions in equality law. Y1 - 2016 SN - 9781783471119 PB - Edward Elgar Publishing CY - Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA ER - TY - BOOK A1 - Bogg, Alan A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Davies, A.C.L. A1 - Adams-Prassl, Jeremias T1 - The Autonomy of Labour Law N2 - To what extent is labour law an autonomous field of study? This book is based upon the papers written by a group of leading international scholars on this theme, delivered at a conference to mark Professor Mark Freedland’s retirement from his teaching fellowship in Oxford. The chapters explore the boundaries and connections between labour law and other legal disciplines such as company law, competition law, contract law and public law; labour law and legal methodologies such as reflexive governance and comparative law; and labour law and other disciplines such as ethics, economics and political philosophy. In so doing, it represents a cross-section of the most sophisticated current work at the cutting edge of labour law theory. Y1 - 2015 SN - 9781782254645 U6 - https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474200899 PB - Hart Publishing CY - Oxford ER - TY - BOOK A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Costello, Cathryn ED - Barry, Eilis T1 - Equality in Diversity: The New EC Equality Directives Y1 - 2003 UR - https://eige.europa.eu/library/resource/eige.000417606 SN - 9781897606360 PB - Irish Centre for European Law CY - Dublin ER - TY - BOOK A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Costello, Cathryn T1 - Fundamental Social Rights: Current Legal Protection and the Challenge of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Y1 - 2001 SN - 9781897606315 PB - Irish Centre for European Law CY - Dublin ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Mann, Itamar T1 - Border Justice: Migration and Accountability for Human Rights Violations JF - German Law Journal N2 - This introductory Article sets out the premise of the Special Issue, the entrenched and pervasive nature of human rights violations in the context of migration control and the apparent lack of accountability for such violations. It sets out features of contemporary migration control practices and their legal governance that contribute to this phenomenon, namely the exceptional treatment of migration in international law; the limited scope of international refugee law; and the pervasive use of externalized, delegated migration controls, in particular by the EU and its Member States. The roots of the current condition are traced back to the containment practices that emerged at the end of the Cold War, with the 2015 “crisis” framed both as an illustration of the failures of containment, and a source of further stasis. Following an overview of the contributions that make up the Special Issue, this Article identifies five emergent themes, and suggests further lines of inquiry. These are: the promise and limits of strategic human rights limitations; the role of both international criminal law, and domestic (and regional) tort law in securing accountability; the turn to positive obligations to challenge entrenched features of containment; and the role of direct action in support of and solidarity with those challenging migration controls most directly, refugees and migrants themselves. Rather than offering panaceas, the Article concludes with the identification of further new challenges, notably the role of new technologies in further dissipating lines of accountability for decisions to exclude. Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2020.27 VL - 21 IS - 1 SP - 311 EP - 334 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - Overcoming Refugee Containment and Crisis JF - German Law Journal N2 - Imagine a system in which you had to break the law and risk your life in order to enjoy its key right, a right to live lawfully in a political and legal community. That is the open secret at the heart of the so-called “Common European Asylum System” (“CEAS”). The EU and its Member States systematically erect barriers for those who would enter to claim asylum, forming part of the system of the containment of refugees in the Global South. Refugee containment is not only a European practice, but many of the policies and practices that are central to refugee containment are of fairly recent European origin. This Article identifies the costs of this refugee containment, not only for refugees and asylum-seekers, but also for Europe itself, its politics, and its adherence to the rule of law in particular. Containment contributed to the events styled as the 2015 refugee crisis in Europe, yet the crisis has generated a more intensified set of containment practices, also likely to backfire. This Article first sets out the costs of containment, and second suggests how Europe might overcome the containment-induced crisis and work to dismantle at least some aspects of containment. Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2019.89 VL - 21 IS - 1 SP - 17 EP - 22 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - Refugees and (Other) Migrants: Will the Global Compacts Ensure Safe Flight and Onward Mobility for Refugees? JF - International Journal of Refugee Law N2 - Conclusion: Hannah Arendt’s 1943 essay, ‘We Refugees’, begins: ‘In the first place, we don’t like to be called “refugees”. We ourselves call each other “newcomers” or “immigrants”’. The essay demonstrates that for the refugees, of whom she was one, the label ‘immigrant’ was preferable. It reflected a desire to get on and integrate, rather than neediness. That impulse to avoid the ‘refugee’ label may still be common today, particularly from those keen to avoid rights restriction or stigmatization. However, the ‘refugee’ label today is also instrumentalized to downplay the protection needs of others – those who may not be recognized as refugees (even though they ought to be), and those who are not refugees in any sense, but nonetheless require international protection. The New York Declaration and the bifurcated Global Compacts risk endorsing an unduly narrow conception of refugeehood, and failing to root out the refugee containment that taints the global refugee regime. However, I also offer a more constructive reading, emphasizing the overarching concept of international protection, and obligations to avoid harm in migration governance. Y1 - 2018 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eey060 VL - 30 IS - 4 SP - 643 EP - 649 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - Safe Country? Says Who? JF - International Journal of Refugee Law N2 - In 1991, Professor Guy S Goodwin-Gill reflected on the emerging safe country of origin (SCO) practices in an editorial in the International Journal of Refugee Law, entitled ‘Safe Country? Says Who?’. This article reflects on developments regarding SCO practices since his prescient editorial, focusing on both Europe, where they originated, and Canada. The article first explores how SCO practices have developed in European law and practice since their inception, including the role of European courts in assessing their legality. This European experience is then contrasted with Canada’s short-lived experiment with its analogous Designated Country of Origin (DCO) system, which, in 2015, was deemed unconstitutional by the Federal Court of Canada. Y1 - 2016 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eew042 VL - 28 IS - 4 SP - 601 EP - 622 ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Foster, Michelle T1 - Non-refoulement as custom and jus cogens? Putting the prohibition to the test T2 - Netherlands Yearbook of International Law N2 - The norm of non-refoulement is at the heart of the international protection of refugees yet there remains a lack of consensus as to its status. In this contribution, we examine the question whether it has attained the status of a jus cogens norm. Adopting the methodology of ‘custom plus’ we first examine whether non-refoulement has attained the status of custom, concluding that widespread state practice and opinio juris underpin the view that it is clearly a norm of customary international law. Moreover, much of this evidence also leads to the conclusion that it is ripe for recognition as a norm of jus cogens, due to its universal, non-derogatory character. In other words, it is a norm accepted and recognised by the international community of states as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted. The chapter then examines the consequences for its recognition as jus cogens, exploring some of the many ways in which jus cogens status may have meaningful implications for the norm of non-refoulement. Y1 - 2015 UR - https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-6265-114-2_10 VL - 46 SP - 273 EP - 327 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Mouzourakis, Minos T1 - EU law and the detainability of asylum-seekers JF - Refugee Survey Quarterly N2 - This article examines detention of asylum-seekers, more specifically how European Union (EU) law simultaneously constructs the asylum-seeker as a detainable subject, whilst also limiting states’ powers of detention. The power to detain is limited by international refugee and human rights law, but EU law sets more stringent standards. While international refugee law regards the asylum-seeker as a presumptive refugee, EU law seems to take a different view. Nowadays, the legal and physical rite of passage from irregular migrant to asylum-seeker to refugee defines the predicament of refugees who seek protection in the EU. Asylum-seekers are vulnerable to detention as irregular entrants, when they are in transit in search of effective protection, and if they become deportable under the Dublin System. Coercive forms of detention are, too glibly in our view, assumed to be permitted to ensure they cooperate with identification and registration processes. The chapter aims to problematise this detainability of asylum-seekers, examining in particular how their increasing deportability and transferability may increase their detainability. Drawing on empirical examples from the treatment of refugees arriving in the EU in 2015, it suggests that the EU limits on detention need further implementation and institutionalisation. Y1 - 2016 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdv020 VL - 35 IS - 1 SP - 47 EP - 73 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - Immigration Detention: The Grounds Beneath our Feet JF - Current Legal Problems N2 - Detention as part of migration control is sometimes portrayed as a ‘necessary adjunct’ of the state’s power to control immigration. This characterization is a masking device, obscuring the grounds of detention (or the lack thereof) from proper scrutiny. It has convincingly been argued that human rights law fails to scrutinize the necessity of immigration detention. Many scholars have pointed out the anomalous approach to assessing the legal justifications for immigration detention, compared with other forms of deprivation of liberty, which are more powerfully constrained by human rights law. Yet, cogent as this critique is, it sometimes fails to interrogate the related questions concerning the legal grounds of detention. A ground is a particular form of legal reason, which both explains and justifies the official action in question. By examining the question of grounds, this article aims to elucidate the manner in which immigration law itself produces reasons to detain, and by doing so creates detainable subjects, migrants. Basic liberty-protective principles and practices developed in other areas of law are notably absent. This state of affairs is not inevitable, and legal alternatives are within reach. Y1 - 2015 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cuv015 VL - 68 IS - 1 SP - 143 EP - 177 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - The Ruling of the Court of Justice in NS/ME on the fundamental rights of asylum seekers under the Dublin Regulation: Finally, an end to blind trust across the EU? JF - Asiel- en Migrantenrecht Y1 - 2012 SP - 83 EP - 92 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - Courting Access to Asylum in Europe: Recent Supranational Jurisprudence Explored JF - Human Rights Law Review N2 - This article explores access to refugee protection, which in practice means access to a place of refuge, in light of various barriers to protection erected by European States. First, European States increasingly extend their border controls beyond their territorial borders and co-operate in order to prevent those seeking protection from reaching their territory. Yet, legal obligations, in particular the principle of non-refoulement, may continue to apply to these activities, as the concept of ‘jurisdiction’ in human rights law develops. Second, they engage a further, diametrically opposed move, where they purport to act as a single zone of protection, and allocate responsibility for asylum claimants in a manner that also hinders access to protection. The aim of this article is to explore the recent responses of Europe’s two supranational courts, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or ‘Strasbourg’) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or ‘Luxembourg’), in confronting these attempts to limit and manage access to protection in the EU. Its focus is the ECtHR ruling in Hirsi Jamaa v Italy (condemning Italy’s pushback of migrants intercepted on boats in the Mediterranean to Libya), as well as that in MSS v Belgium and Greece (concerning the Dublin system for allocation of responsibility for processing asylum claims) and the subsequent CJEU ruling in NS/ME. Y1 - 2012 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngs011 VL - 287 SP - 287 EP - 339 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - Human Rights and the Elusive Universal Subject: Immigration Detention under International Human Rights and EU Law JF - Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies N2 - The right to liberty is ubiquitous in human rights instruments, in essence protecting all individuals from arbitrary arrest and detention. Yet, in practice, immigration detention is increasingly routine, even automatic, across Europe. Asylum seekers in particular have been targeted for detention. While international human rights law limits detention, its protections against immigration detention are weaker than in other contexts, as the state's immigration control prerogatives are given sway. In spite of the overlapping authority of international and regional human rights bodies, the caselaw in this field is diverse. Focusing on the U.N. Human Rights Committee, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Court of Justice of the European Union, this Article explores how greater interaction between these bodies could produce more rights-protective standards. Y1 - 2012 U6 - https://doi.org/10.2979/indjglolegstu.19.1.257 VL - 19 IS - 1 SP - 257 EP - 303 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - Metock: Free Movement and “Normal Family Life” in the Union JF - Common Market Law Review N2 - This article examines the ECJ’s ruling, following an exceptional accelerated procedure, in Case C–127/08 Metock, of 25 July 2008. The article praises the Court’s boldness in abandoning the “prior lawful residence” requirement for residence rights of third–country national (TCN) family members of migrant EU Citizens, explicitly overruling Akrich on this issue. Its reasoning is bold, yet economical, grounded in the 2004 Citizenship Directive and right to free movement of EU citizens. However, the article is critical of the failure to publish the Opinion of AG Maduro and the sparse reasoning in the case. The ECJ’s fundamental rights reticence is particularly striking, in particular as its conception of the residence rights inherent in “normal family life” diverges from the analogous protections under Article 8 ECHR. Although Metock was an easy transborder case concerning migrant EU citizens resident in another EU Member State, the article also argues that the denial of the EC dimension to the family reunification claims of static EU citizens against their home Member States is increasingly untenable. Y1 - 2009 UR - https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/46.2/COLA2009024 VL - 46 IS - 2 SP - 587 EP - 622 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Davies, Gareth T1 - The Case Law of the Court of Justice in the Field of Sex Equality Since 2000 JF - Common Market Law Review N2 - This article examines developments in EC sex equality law from 1 April 2000 to 4 October 2006, continuing this journal’s tradition of periodic reviews of developments in this field. We focus on the case law of the European Court of Justice, along with one judgment of the EFTA court, taking into account the changing legislative and constitutional context. In the period under review, this context has changed in several ways. Y1 - 2006 UR - https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/43.6/COLA2006125 VL - 43 IS - 6 SP - 1567 EP - 1616 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - The Bosphorus Ruling of the European Court of Human Rights: Fundamental Rights and Blurred Boundaries in Europe JF - Human Rights Law Review N2 - The recent case of Bosphorus Airlines v Ireland provided the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) with an opportunity to refine further its relationship with the EU. In particular, the ECtHR was called upon to clarify when States could be held responsible for actions taken under the banner of the EU. This article examines the status quo prior to the Bosphorus judgment, and then scrutinises the judgment itself, focusing particularly on the use and scope of the doctrine of ‘equivalent protection’ to determine State responsibility. The doctrine as outlined in Bosphorus is applied to some likely scenarios involving EU action and its relative merits and disadvantages are discussed. The article also briefly addresses the further global implications of the judgment, namely for the legal accountability of the UN Security Council and the ongoing issue of responsibility of international organisations under international law. Y1 - 2006 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngi038 VL - 6 IS - 1 SP - 87 EP - 130 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - Ireland’s Nice Referenda JF - European Constitutional Law Review N2 - 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. Y1 - 2005 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019605003573 VL - 1 IS - 3 SP - 357 EP - 382 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - The Asylum Procedures Directive and the Proliferation of Safe Country Practices: Deterrence, Deflection and the Dismantling of International Protection JF - European Journal of Migration Law Y1 - 2005 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1163/1571816054396842 VL - 7 IS - 1 SP - 35 EP - 69 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Drake, Sara T1 - State liability in damages in the Irish and UK Courts JF - European Public Law Y1 - 2003 VL - 9 SP - 366 EP - 389 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - The Preliminary Reference Procedure and the 2000 Intergovernmental Conference JF - Dublin University Law Journal Y1 - 1999 VL - 21 SP - 40 EP - 66 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - Market Access All Areas – The Treatment of Non-discriminatory Barriers to the Free Movement of Workers JF - Legal Issues on Economic Integration Y1 - 2000 VL - 27 IS - 3 SP - 267 EP - 277 ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Blogg, Alan ED - Collins, Jennifer ED - Freedland, Mark ED - Herring, Jennifer T1 - Victim or Perpetrator? The Criminalised Migrant and the Idea of ‘Harm’ in the Labour Market Context T2 - Criminality at Work N2 - 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. Y1 - 2020 SN - 9780198836995 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198836995.003.0016 SP - 309 EP - 326 PB - Oxford University Press CY - Oxford ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Shachar, Ayelet ED - Bauböck, Rainer ED - Bloemraad, Irene ED - Vink, Maarten T1 - On Refugeehood and Citizenship T2 - Oxford Handbook of Citizenship N2 - 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. Y1 - 2017 SN - 9780198805854 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198805854.013.31 PB - Oxford University Press CY - Oxford ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - EU Migration and Asylum Law: A Labour Law Perspective T2 - Research Handbook on EU Labour Law N2 - 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 Tümer 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. Y1 - 2016 U6 - https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783471126.00020 SP - 299 EP - 335 PB - Edward Elgar Publishing CY - Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Mouzourakis, Minos ED - Fletcher, Maria ED - Herlin-Karnell, Ester ED - Matera, Claudio T1 - The Common European Asylum System – Where did it all go wrong? T2 - The European Union as an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice Y1 - 2016 SN - 9780367193454 U6 - https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315738284 SP - 263 EP - 300 PB - Routledge CY - Abingdon, Oxford ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Freedland, Mark ED - Howe, Joanna ED - Owens, Rosemary T1 - Seasonal Workers and Intra-Corporate Transferees in EU Law: Capital’s Handmaidens? T2 - Temporary Labour Migration in the Global Era: The Regulatory Challenges N2 - 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) Y1 - 2016 SN - 9781509906291 U6 - https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509906307.ch-002 SP - 43 EP - 64 PB - Hart Publishing CY - Oxford and Portland, Oregon ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Foster, Michelle T1 - (Some) refugees welcome: When is differentiating between refugees unlawful discrimination? JF - International Journal of Discrimination and the Law N2 - 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. Y1 - 2022 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291221116476 VL - 22 IS - 3 SP - 244 EP - 280 ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Mouzourakis, Minos A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Tsourdi, Evangelia ED - De Bruycker, Philippe T1 - Effective judicial protection of migrants and refugees? The role of Europes supranational courts in protecting and generating rights T2 - Research Handbook on EU Migration and Asylum Law N2 - 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. Y1 - 2022 UR - https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781786439635/book-part-9781786439635-10.xml SN - 9781786439628 U6 - https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786439635.00010 SP - 79 EP - 97 PB - Edward Elgar Publishing CY - Cheltenham, UK ER - TY - GEN A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Freedland, Mark T1 - Migrants at Work: Immigration and Vulnerability in Labour Law N2 - This collection has its origins in the recognition that there is a highly significant and under-considered intersection and interaction between migration law and labour law. It is the culmination of a collaborative project on ‘Migrants at Work’ funded by the John Fell Fund, the Society of Legal Scholars and the Research Centre at St John’s College, Oxford. The collection aims to shed light on the interactions between immigration, migration law, and labour law, in particular how migration status has a bearing on labour relations and the world of work. Contributors to the volume identify the many ways that migration law, as currently designed, divides the objectives of labour law, privileging employers’ interests in the supply of labour over worker-protective concerns. In addition, migration law creates a particular form of status, which affects labour relations, thereby dividing the subjects of labour law. While several contributions focus on the UK, other countries examined include Australia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Germany, Sweden, and the US. References are also made to discrete practices in Brazil, France, Greece, New Zealand, Mexico, Poland, and South Africa. The collection identifies how migration law as currently configured jeopardizessome of the values and institutions of labour law. Y1 - 2014 SN - 9780198714101 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198714101.001.0001 PB - Oxford University Press CY - Oxford ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Sherwood, Angela A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - McDonnell, Emilie T1 - The Displacement Regime Complex: Reform for Protection N2 - 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. KW - IOM KW - Displacement KW - International Protection KW - UNHCR KW - Refugee Y1 - 2023 UR - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-53209 UR - https://www.refmig.org/working-papers ET - No. 09 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Romanello, Marina A1 - Napoli, Claudia di A1 - Green, Carole A1 - Kennard, Harry A1 - Lampard, Pete A1 - Scamman, Daniel A1 - Walawender, Maria A1 - Ali, Zakari A1 - Ameli, Nadia A1 - Ayeb-Karlsson, Sonja A1 - Beggs, Paul J A1 - Belesova, Kristine A1 - Berrang Ford, Lea A1 - Bowen, Kathryn A1 - Cai, Wenjia A1 - Callaghan, Max A1 - Campbell-Lendrum, Diarmid A1 - Chambers, Jonathan A1 - Cross, Troy J A1 - van Daalen, Kim R A1 - Dalin, Carole A1 - Dasandi, Niheer A1 - Dasgupta, Shouro A1 - Davies, Michael A1 - Dominguez-Salas, Paula A1 - Dubrow, Robert A1 - Ebi, Kristie L A1 - Eckelman, Matthew A1 - Ekins, Paul A1 - Freyberg, Chris A1 - Gasparyan, Olga A1 - Gordon-Strachan, Georgiana A1 - Graham, Hilary A1 - Gunther, Samuel H A1 - Hamilton, Ian A1 - Hang, Yun A1 - Hänninen, Risto A1 - Hartinger, Stella A1 - He, Kehan A1 - Heidecke, Julian A1 - Hess, Jeremy J A1 - Hsu, Shih-Che A1 - Jamart, Louis A1 - Jankin, Slava A1 - Jay, Ollie A1 - Kelman, Ilan A1 - Kiesewetter, Gregor A1 - Kinney, Patrick A1 - Kniveton, Dominic A1 - Kouznetsov, Rostislav A1 - Larosa, Francesca A1 - Lee, Jason K W A1 - Lemke, Bruno A1 - Liu, Yang A1 - Liu, Zhao A1 - Lott, Melissa A1 - Lotto Batista, Martín A1 - Lowe, Rachel A1 - Odhiambo Sewe, Maquins A1 - Martinez-Urtaza, Jaime A1 - Maslin, Mark A1 - McAllister, Lucy A1 - McMichael, Celia A1 - Mi, Zhifu A1 - Milner, James A1 - Minor, Kelton A1 - Minx, Jan C A1 - Mohajeri, Nahid A1 - Momen, Natalie C A1 - Moradi-Lakeh, Maziar A1 - Morrissey, Karyn A1 - Munzert, Simon A1 - Murray, Kris A A1 - Neville, Tara A1 - Nilsson, Maria A1 - Obradovich, Nick A1 - O'Hare, Megan B A1 - Oliveira, Camile A1 - Oreszczyn, Tadj A1 - Otto, Matthias A1 - Owfi, Fereidoon A1 - Pearman, Olivia A1 - Pega, Frank A1 - Pershing, Andrew A1 - Rabbaniha, Mahnaz A1 - Rickman, Jamie A1 - Robinson, Elizabeth J Z A1 - Rocklöv, Joacim A1 - Salas, Renee N A1 - Semenza, Jan C A1 - Sherman, Jodi D A1 - Shumake-Guillemot, Joy A1 - Silbert, Grant A1 - Sofiev, Mikhail A1 - Springmann, Marco A1 - Stowell, Jennifer D A1 - Tabatabaei, Meisam A1 - Taylor, Jonathon A1 - Thompson, Ross A1 - Tonne, Cathryn A1 - Treskova, Marina A1 - Trinanes, Joaquin A A1 - Wagner, Fabian A1 - Warnecke, Laura A1 - Whitcombe, Hannah A1 - Winning, Matthew A1 - Wyns, Arthur A1 - Yglesias-González, Marisol A1 - Zhang, Shihui A1 - Zhang, Ying A1 - Zhu, Qiao A1 - Gong, Peng A1 - Montgomery, Hugh A1 - Costello, Anthony T1 - 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 JF - The Lancet Y1 - 2023 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01859-7 VL - 402 IS - 10419 SP - 2346 EP - 2394 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Çalı, Başak A1 - Costello, Cathryn A1 - Cunningham, Stewart T1 - Hard Protection through Soft Courts? Non-Refoulement before the United Nations Treaty Bodies JF - German Law Journal N2 - 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. Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/glj.2020.28 SN - 2071-8322 IS - 21 SP - 355 EP - 384 ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Sherwood, Angela A1 - Lemay, Isabelle A1 - Costello, Cathryn ED - Bradley, Megan ED - Costello, Cathryn ED - Sherwood, Angela T1 - IOM’s Immigration Detention Practices and Policies: Human Rights, Positive Obligations and Humanitarian Duties T2 - IOM Unbound?: Obligations and Accountability of the International Organization for Migration in an Era of Expansion N2 - 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. Y1 - 2023 SN - 9781009184175 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009184175.016 SP - 360 EP - 396 PB - Cambridge University Press ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Briddick, Catherine A1 - Costello, Cathryn T1 - Supreme Judgecraft: Non-Refoulement and the end of the UK-Rwanda ‘deal’? T2 - Verfassungsblog KW - Centre for Fundamental Rights Y1 - 2023 U6 - https://doi.org/10.59704/6ac71ea278f0af98 IS - 2023/11/20 ER -