Strengthening the Protection of Stateless Persons from Arbitrary Detention in Immigration Control Proceedings

Kim v. Russia

In: European Journal of Migration and Law
View More View Less
  • 1 Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, 469G Bukit Timah Road, Eu Tong Sen Building, Singapore 259776

Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

€29.95$34.95

There is a growing movement (globally and in Europe) addressing statelessness, and the July 2014 decision of Kim v Russia illustrates the role of the Strasbourg Court as a guardian of one of the most important fundamental rights of the ‘legally invisible’ in Europe. The court held that Russia’s two-year detention of a stateless person with a view to expulsion violated his right to liberty and security under Article 5(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights. This comment argues that Kim v Russia represents an important step forward by the Strasbourg Court in safeguarding the stateless person’s right to liberty and security of person under echr doctrine, by highlighting and addressing the special vulnerability of stateless persons to prolonged, indefinite and cyclical detention in immigration control proceedings, although the court should have gone further and indicated general measures explicitly recommending for Russia to introduce statelessness determination procedures.

  • 5

    H. Arendt (1951), The Origins of Totalitarianism, New York, ny: Schocken Books, p. 294.

  • 11

    United Nations Human Rights Committee (2014), General Comment 35 – Article 9: Liberty and Security of Person, ccpr/c/gc/35, para. 3.

  • 49

    C. Ferschtman (2013), ‘Detention of a Stateless Refugee’, European Network on Statelessness, 12 September, available online at http://www.statelessness.eu/blog/detention-stateless-refugee.

  • 55

    Weissbrodt and Collins, supra note 52, p. 267.

  • 57

    Weissbrodt and Collins, supra note 52, pp. 267–268. This risk is best demonstrated by the Australian case of Al-Kateb v. Godwin [2004] hca 37, where a stateless Palestinian man was detained in December for unlawful entry under Australia’s Migration Act 1958 and, with no country willing to receive him, remained in detention until April 2003; regrettably, the High Court of Australia held in 2004 that such indefinite detention of stateless persons was lawful so long as the removal remained a ‘practical possibility’. Ibid., para. 14.

  • 65

    Equal Rights Trust (2012), Unravelling Anomaly: Detention, Discrimination and the Protection Needs of Stateless Persons, p. 235, available online at http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/UNRAVELLING%20ANOMALY%20small%20file.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 68

    Equal Rights Trust (2012), supra note 65, p. 235.

  • 91

    Perks and Clifford, supra note 67, p. 42.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 123 54 18
Full Text Views 218 14 1
PDF Views & Downloads 33 14 4