国际难民法之殇:欧洲共同庇护制度中的“都柏林主义”
The Violation of International Refugee Law: “Dublin Doctrine” in Common European Asylum System
作者：黄云松;
Author：
收稿日期： 年卷（期）页码：2014,195(06):-131-139
期刊名称：四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版)
Journal Name：Journal of Sichuan University (Social Science Edition）
关键字：都柏林主义;欧洲共同庇护制度;国际难民法;第一入境国;安全第三国
Key words：
基金项目：四川大学高校基本科研项目业务费研究专项项目“国际难民法改革及其对我国难民政策的影响”(skqy201252)
中文摘要
欧洲共同庇护制度(CEAS,以下简称"庇护制度"),是一套涵盖多项措施和立法的综合法律体系,是欧洲理事会为促进成员国在难民保护问题上进行协作的产物。作为庇护制度最重要的组成部分,《都柏林条例》是划分欧洲国家庇护申请审查责任的唯一法律依据,同时也代表了欧洲在难民和庇护问题上的根本立场。从申根体系发展到都柏林体系,再由都柏林体系过渡到与欧盟立法的并轨,经过近三十年的演变历程最终形成了"都柏林主义"——欧洲庇护制度的基本指导思想。从国际难民法的角度探讨"都柏林主义"的渊源、原则及内涵,可以分析出"都柏林主义"与国际难民法发生的抵触及其负面影响。
参考文献
1 David Levitz,“EUs Top Court Stops Refugee Transfers to Greece,”Deutsche Welle,21 December,2011,http:∥www.dw.de/eus-top-court-stops-refugee-transfers-to-greece/a-15619585.
2 Tampere European Council,“Presidency Conclusions,”15 and 16 October,1999,para.13.
1European Union,Treaty Establishing the European Community(Consolidated Version),Rome Treaty,25 March,1957.
2Article 7&Article 17 in“The Schengen Acquis—Agreement Between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union,the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the Gradual Abolition of Checks at Their Common Borders,”Official Journal of the European Union L 239,22 September,2000,pp.13-18.
3European Union,Chapter 7 of Title II in Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 Between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union,the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic,on the Gradual Abolition of Checks at Their Common Borders(Schengen Implementation Agreement),19 June,1990.
4European Union,Article 30 in Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 Between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union,the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic,on the Gradual Abolition of Checks at Their Common Borders(Schengen Implementation Agreement),19 June,1990.
1“Council Regulation(EC)No.343/2003,Establishing the Criteria and Mechanisms for Determining the Member State Responsible for Examining an Asylum Application Lodged in One of the Member States by a Third-country National,”European Union Law,18 February,2003,para.2.
2Article 10.1 in“Council Regulation(EC)No.343/2003,Establishing the Criteria and Mechanisms for Determining the Member State Responsible for Examining an Asylum Application Lodged in One of the Member States by a Third-country National,”European Union Law,18 February,2003.
1Kay Hailbronner,“The Concept of‘Safe Country’and Expedient Asylum Procedures,”Ad Hoc Committee of Experts on the Legal Aspects of Territorial Asylum Refugees and Stateless Persons,4 September,1991,p.2.
2Article 36.2 in“Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on Minimum Standards on Procedures in Member States for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status,”Official Journal of the European Union,12 December,2005,p.29.
3N.S.v.Secretary of State for the Home Department(C 411/10),M.E.and Others v.Refugee Applications Commissioner,Minister for Justice,Equality and Law Reform(C 493/10),European Union:Court of Justice of the European Union,21 December,2011.
1Thomas Hammarberg,“The‘Dublin Regulation’Undermines Refugee Rights,”The Council of Europe Commissioners Human Rights Comment,22 September,2010,para.4.
2“German Court Halts Refugee Deportation,”15 July,2012,http:∥www.dw.de/german-court-halts-refugeedeportation/a-16097797;“UNHCR Calls for Temporary Halt to Dublin Transfers of Asylum-Seekers Back to Bulgaria,”3January,2014,http:∥www.unhcr.org/52c691d59.html.
3European Union,Article 30.1(a),(b),(d)in Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union,the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic,on the Gradual Abolition of Checks at Their Common Borders(Schengen Implementation Agreement),19 June,1990.
4European Parliament,Towards a Common European Asylum System-Assessment and Proposals-Elements to Be Implemented for the Establishment of an Efficient and Coherent System,September 2008,p.6.
5Bill Frelick,Stuck in a Revolving Door:Iraqis and Other Asylum Seekers and Migrants at the Greece/Turkey Entrance to the European Union,New York:Human Rights Watch,26 November,2008,p.19.
6Hemme Battjes,European Asylum Law and International Law,Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006,p.391.
1James C.Hathaway,The Rights of Refugee Under International Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005,p.546.
2UN High Commissioner for Refugees,Revised Note on the Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees,October 2009,pp.1-5.
3Hathaway,The Rights of Refugee Under International Law,p.4.
1Giuseppe Martinico,The Tangled Complexity of the EU Constitutional Process:The Frustrating Knot of Europe,London:Routledge,p.29.
2Case C 286/90 Poulsen and Diva Navigation[1992]ECR I 6019,paragraph 9,and Case C 366/10 Air Transport Association of America and Others[2011]ECR I 0000,paragraph 123.
3“Council Regulation(EC)No 343/2003,Establishing the Criteria and Mechanisms for Determining the Member State Responsible for Examining an Asylum Application Lodged in One of the Member States by a Third-country National,”European Union Law,18 February,2003,paragraph 2&12,http:∥eur-lex.europa.eu/Lex Uri Serv/Lex Uri Serv.do?uri=CELEX:32003R0343:en:NOT.
4Hathaway,The Rights of Refugee Under International Law,pp.154-190.
1Karen da Costa,The Extraterritorial Application of Selected Human Rights Treaties,Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,p.257.
2Guy S.Goodwin-Gill“Article 31 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of RefugeesNon-PenalizationDetention,and Protection,”in Erika Feller,Volker Türk and Frances Nicholson,eds.,Refugee Protection in International Law:UNHCRs Global Consultations on International Protection,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003,p.191.
3Kay Hailbronner,“The Concept of‘Safe Country’and Expedient Asylum Procedures,”p.26.
4R.v.Uxbridge Magistrates Court and Another,Ex parte Adimi,[1999]EWHC Admin 765;[2001]Q.B.667,United Kingdom:High Court(England and Wales),29 July,1999.
1James C.Hathaway,“E.U.Accountability to International Law:The Case of Asylum,”Michigan Journal of International Law,No.1,2011,p.5.
2 M.S.S.v.Belgium and Greece,Application No.30696/09,Council of Europe:European Court of Human Rights,21 January,2011;N.S.v.Secretary of State for the Home Department(C 411/10),M.E.and Others v.Refugee Applications Commissioner,Minister for Justice,Equality and Law Reform(C 493/10),European Union:Court of Justice of the European Union,21 December,2011;Joanne van Selm,The Refugee Convention at Fifty:A View from Forced Migration Studies,Lexington:Lexington Books,2013,p.116.
【关闭】
