Do you want to stay informed about this journal? Click the buttons to subscribe to our alerts.
Towards a Contextual Conception of Social Integration in eu Immigration Law. Comments on P & S and K & A
In: European Journal of Migration and LawIntegration policy instruments disclose how European societies define themselves in response to migration. Pre-departure civic integration tests are emblematic of a new focus on social cohesion and have been a bone of contention in political and academic circles. That is why the ecj’s long-awaited verdicts on Dutch integration requirements for spouses and long-term residents are a milestone in the construction of an EU immigration policy. This contribution critically analyses the rationale and implications of the P & S and K & A rulings at different levels starting with doctrinal ambiguities on the part of judges when interpreting secondary legislation. On this basis, it relates the outcome of both cases to the broader constitutional context in terms of human rights, the doctrine of individual statutory rights and non-discrimination guarantees – together with a contextual outlook on factors influencing the reorientation of integration policies.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
30
J.-C. Bonichot (2013), ‘Le style des arrȇts de la Cour de Justice de l’Unioneuropéenne’, Justice& Cassation, p. 253 (own translation of: ‘assez longs, rédigés sur un mode discursif’); besides the French judge the ecj’s second chamber comprises president Silva de Lapuerta from Spain, judge Arabadjiev from Bulgaria, judge Da Cruz Vilaça from Portugal and judge Lycourgos from Cyprus.
-
35
See K. Hailbronner and D. Thym (2016), ‘Constitutional Framework’, in: Hailbronner and Thym (note 32), margin nos 10–20; and generally R. van Gestel and H.-W. Micklitz, ‘Why Methods Matter in European Legal Scholarship’, 20 European Law Journal (2014) 292–316.
-
36
See F.C. Mayer (2009), ‘Multilevel Constitutional Jurisdiction’, in: A. von Bogdandy and J. Bast (eds), Principles of European Constitutional Law, 2nd edn, Oxford: Hart, pp. 399, 404–409.
-
49
See Thym (2016) (note 42), margin nos 5–6.
-
68
See also J. Bast (2011), Aufenthaltsrecht und Migrationssteuerung, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 101–111.
-
70
See Hailbronner and Thym (2016) (note 35), margin no. 15.
-
77
See ECtHR, judgment of 27 November 2011, No. 56328/07, Bah v. the United Kingdom, para. 47; Bribosia (note 75), pp. 55–61; and the comparative analysis by S. Saroléa (2006), Droits de l’hommeet migrations, Brussels: Bruylant, pp. 483–598.
-
79
Cf., S. Peers (2004), ‘Family Reunion and Community Law’, in: N. Walker (ed.), Europe’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 143–197, at pp. 145–149; and M.-B. Dembour, ‘Still Silencing the Racism Suffered by Migrants . . .’, 11 European Journal of Migration and Law (2009) 221–234.
-
86
See, by the of example, Milios (2015) (note 46), pp. 132, 138 who does not question or explain the assumptions upon which his critique of the ecj rests.
-
91
See S. Benhabib (2004), The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, chapter 5; and F.I. Michelman, ‘Law’s Republic’, 97 Yale Law Journal (1988) 1493–1537.
-
96
See Carrera (2009) (note 1), pp. 440–448; Acosta (2011) (note 50), pp. 189–195; D. Acosta and J. Martire, ‘Trapped in the Lobby: Europe’s Revolving Doors and the Other as Xenos’, 39 European Law Review (2014) 362–379, at 363–366.
-
97
See C. Joppke (2010), Citizenship and Immigration, Cambridge: Polity Press, chapter 4; and D. Thym, ‘Citizens and Foreigners in eu Law’, 22 European Law Journal (2016) Section 4.3 (forthcoming).
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 305 | 53 | 10 |
| Full Text Views | 250 | 14 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 99 | 35 | 5 |
Towards a Contextual Conception of Social Integration in eu Immigration Law. Comments on P & S and K & A
In: European Journal of Migration and LawIntegration policy instruments disclose how European societies define themselves in response to migration. Pre-departure civic integration tests are emblematic of a new focus on social cohesion and have been a bone of contention in political and academic circles. That is why the ecj’s long-awaited verdicts on Dutch integration requirements for spouses and long-term residents are a milestone in the construction of an EU immigration policy. This contribution critically analyses the rationale and implications of the P & S and K & A rulings at different levels starting with doctrinal ambiguities on the part of judges when interpreting secondary legislation. On this basis, it relates the outcome of both cases to the broader constitutional context in terms of human rights, the doctrine of individual statutory rights and non-discrimination guarantees – together with a contextual outlook on factors influencing the reorientation of integration policies.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 305 | 53 | 10 |
| Full Text Views | 250 | 14 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 99 | 35 | 5 |