MIGRATIONS AND ASYLUM: ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVES. The Global Compact on Refugees and the EU New Pact on Migration and Asylum: Informal law and European jurisprudence concerning access to protection

Author:
Silvia Morgades Gil

Abstract:
Since 2016, the international and European regime on forced migrations has undergone a process of normative renewal with the New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants, the Global Compact on Refugees, and the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. The first part of this paper examines whether and how these processes offer a glimpse of progress in relation to access to asylum and the equitable sharing of state responsibilities and solidarity in protection. The second part examines the case law of the ECtHR and the CJEU in relation to different situations related to access to protection, comparing the approaches and outcomes of both courts. The paper concludes with some final reflections on: 1) the nuanced outcomes of the two processes of renewing the normative regime of forced migration through informal international law norms and European institutional law proposals, and 2) the more positive balance of the ECJ recent case law in relation

to that of the ECtHR, from the perspective of access to protection for asylum seekers in Europe.

Index:
1. INTRODUCCIÓN.—2. LOS PACTOS: EL NUEVO DERECHO INFORMAL INTERNACIONAL Y EUROPEO SOBRE MIGRACIONES FORZOSAS Y ASILO.—2.1. La Declaración de Nueva York y el Pacto Mundial sobre los Refugiados.—2.2. El Nuevo Pacto europeo sobre Migración y Asilo.—3. LA INTERPRETACIÓN JUDICIAL COMO MOTOR DE LA EVOLUCIÓN DEL RÉGIMEN EUROPEO DE PROTECCIÓN INTERNACIONAL.— 3.1. Acceso a la protección internacional y medidas de detención: FMS-FNZ, SA-SA junior (TJUE) versus Ilias y Ahmed c. Hungría (TEDH).—3.2. Retorno automático tras entrada irregular y principio de non-refoulement: Comisión Europea c. Hungría (TJUE) versus N. D. y N. T. c. España (TEDH).—3.3. El pre-acceso a la protección o el ámbito de aplicación del Derecho de la Unión y del Convenio Europeo: X. y X. c. Bélgica (TJUE) y M. N. y otros c. Bélgica (TEDH).—4. REFLEXIONES FINALES

Keywords:
asylum; CJEU; ECtHR; informal international law; refugees; TEDH;

Issue:
REDI Vol. 74 1 2022

Section:
Studies

Pages:
25-45

DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.17103/redi.74.1.2022.1a.01

Read the article in:

Read the article online

Buy the magazine