Whose Freedom, Security and Justice?: Eu Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy(Essays in European Law)

This book brings together contributions from some of the leading authorities in the field of EU immigration and asylum law to reflect upon developments since the Amsterdam Treaty and, particularly, the Tampere European Council in 1999. At Tampere, Heads of State and Government met to set guidelines for the implementation of the powers and competences introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty and make the development of the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice a reality. Since 1999, a substantial body of law and policy has developed, but the process has been lengthy and the results open to critique. This book presents a series of analyses of and reflections on the major legal instruments and policy themes, with the underlying question, to what extent the ideals held out of 'freedom, security and justice accessible to all', are in fact reflected in these legislative and policy developments. Has freedom from terrorism and the spectre of illegal or irregular migration, and increasingly strict border securitisation and surveillance overshadowed the freedom of the migrant to seek entry or residence for legitimate touristic, work, study, or family reasons, a secure refuge from persecution, and effective access to justice? In 2004, the Heads of State and Government presented a programme for the next stage of development in these areas, the Hague Programme, and the Directives and Regulations that have been agreed are now being transposed and applied in Member States legal systems. What are the main challenges in the years ahead as the Hague Programme and the existing legislative acquis are implemented?

Table of Contents:
From Amsterdam and Tampere to The Hague: An Overview of Five Years of EC Immigration and Asylum Law ANNELIESE BALDACCINI AND HELEN TONER Part I Constitutional Issues in EU Migration Law 1 Citizens Without a Constitution, Borders Without a State: EU Free Movement of Persons ELSPETH GUILD 2 Effective Remedies in Immigration and Asylum Law Procedures: A Matter of General Principles of EU Law EVELIEN BROUWER 3 The Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice Over EC Immigration and Asylum Law: Time For a Change? STEVE PEERS 4 Impact Assessments: A Useful Tool for 'Better Lawmaking' in EU Migration Policy? HELEN TONER Part II Access to Asylum and Refugee Protection 5 The Asylum Procedures Directive in Legal Context: Equivocal Standards Meet General Principles CATHRYN COSTELLO 6 Directive 2003/9 on Reception Conditions of Asylum Seekers: Ensuring 'Mere Subsistence' or a 'Dignified Standard of Living'? JOHN HANDOLL 7 Refugee Status and Subsidiary Protection under EC Law: The Qualification Directive and the Right to Be Granted Asylum MARÍA-TERESA GIL-BAZO 8 From Dublin Convention to Dublin Regulation: A Progressive Move? ANDREW NICOL 9 The External Dimension of the EU's Asylum and Immigration Policies: Old Concerns and New Approaches ANNELIESE BALDACCINI Part III Borders and the Enforcement of Migration Control 10 The Criminalisation of Migration in EU Law and Policy RYSZARD CHOLEWINSKI 11 Building a Community Return Policy With Third Countries: An Equal Partnership? CATHERINE PHUONG 12 Border Security in the European Union: Towards Centralised Controls and Maximum Surveillance VALSAMIS MITSILEGAS 13 Immigration Detention and the Common European Asylum Policy DAN WILSHERE Part IV Managing Legal Migration 14 The Long-Term Residents Directive, Denizenship and Integration KEES GROENENDIJK 15 The Family Reunification Directive: A Tool Preserving Member State Interest or Conducive to Family Unity? HELEN OOSTEROM-STAPLES 16 The European Union and Labour Migration: Regulating Admission or Treatment? BERNARD RYAN 17 Citizenship and the Expanding European Union: The Rights of New EU Nationals NICOLAS ROLLASON

About the Author :
Anneliese Baldaccini is a Committee Specialist for the House of Lords European Union Committee. Elspeth Guild is Professor of European Immigration Law at the University of Nijmegen, Netherlands, and also a partner at the London law firm Kingsley Napley. Helen Toner is an Associate Professor in the School of Law, University of Warwick.

Review :
The range of contributors, their expert knowledge and the ability of many of the contributors to go beyond a discussion of the text of legal instruments, to understand their impact on migrants and asylum is why this is an interesting book. For any reader seeking a detailed understanding of the recent evolution of EU law in this area, the book represents a useful contribution. The first (huge) merit of this collection of extremely high-level essays is that it takes on the entire issue and gives a general overview to shed light across the board…The other major interest of the book is that all the authors make a no-holds-barred critical analysis, with many criticising the authoritarian and discretionary nature of EU policies. How can the authors analyse the post-Tampere developments toward the harmonisation of ' freedom, security and justice ' for all asylum seekers when the meaning of post-Tampere dignity through 'freedom', 'security' and 'justice' remains elusive?...The dilemma is ably grappled and readers looking for insightful, if somewhat pessimistic, reflections on this issue will welcome this collection. This collection of essays is certainly one of the outstanding contributions to the rapidly developing EU law on migration and asylum law and policy. … this book is a serious and encyclopedic text. It explains and critiques how we got to where we are now in relation to EU free movement, immigration and asylum law. The format, a collection of essays, allows different views and perspectives to be expressed. Despite the passage of time since its publication, this book remains relevant and is important reading for persons interested in European immigration and asylum law and policy as academics, law makers, policy makers or campaigners. It also contains much practical information (such as case law and possible arguments) of interested and use to practicing lawyers and the judiciary.