Galina Cornelisse – författare

This volume examines the implementation of the Return Directive from the perspective of judicial dialogue. While the role of judges has been widely addressed in European asylum law and EU law more generally, their role in EU return policy has hitherto remained under explored. This volume addresses the interaction and dialogue between domestic judiciaries and European courts in the implementation of European return policy. The book brings together leading authors from various backgrounds, including legal scholars, judges and practitioners. This allows the collection to offer theoretical and practical perspectives on important questions regarding the regulation of irregular migration in Europe, such as: what constitutes inadequate implementation of the Directive and under which conditions can judicial dialogue solve it? How can judges ensure that the right balance is struck between effective return procedures and fundamental rights? Why do we see different patterns of judicial dialogue in the Member States when it comes to particular questions of return policy, for example regarding the use of detention? These questions are more timely than ever given the shifting public discourse on immigration and the growing political backlash against immigration courts. This book will be essential reading for all scholars and practitioners in the fields of immigration law and policy, EU law and public law.

This volume examines the implementation of the Return Directive from the perspective of judicial dialogue. While the role of judges has been widely addressed in European asylum law and EU law more generally, their role in EU return policy has hitherto remained under explored. This volume addresses the interaction and dialogue between domestic judiciaries and European courts in the implementation of European return policy. The book brings together leading authors from various backgrounds, including legal scholars, judges and practitioners. This allows the collection to offer theoretical and practical perspectives on important questions regarding the regulation of irregular migration in Europe, such as: what constitutes inadequate implementation of the Directive and under which conditions can judicial dialogue solve it? How can judges ensure that the right balance is struck between effective return procedures and fundamental rights? Why do we see different patterns of judicial dialogue in the Member States when it comes to particular questions of return policy, for example regarding the use of detention? These questions are more timely than ever given the shifting public discourse on immigration and the growing political backlash against immigration courts. This book will be essential reading for all scholars and practitioners in the fields of immigration law and policy, EU law and public law.

This volume examines the implementation of the Return Directive from the perspective of judicial dialogue. While the role of judges has been widely addressed in European asylum law and EU law more generally, their role in EU return policy has hitherto remained under explored. This volume addresses the interaction and dialogue between domestic judiciaries and European courts in the implementation of European return policy. The book brings together leading authors from various backgrounds, including legal scholars, judges and practitioners. This allows the collection to offer theoretical and practical perspectives on important questions regarding the regulation of irregular migration in Europe, such as: what constitutes inadequate implementation of the Directive and under which conditions can judicial dialogue solve it? How can judges ensure that the right balance is struck between effective return procedures and fundamental rights? Why do we see different patterns of judicial dialogue in the Member States when it comes to particular questions of return policy, for example regarding the use of detention? These questions are more timely than ever given the shifting public discourse on immigration and the growing political backlash against immigration courts. This book will be essential reading for all scholars and practitioners in the fields of immigration law and policy, EU law and public law.

This volume examines the implementation of the Return Directive from the perspective of judicial dialogue. While the role of judges has been widely addressed in European asylum law and EU law more generally, their role in EU return policy has hitherto remained under explored. This volume addresses the interaction and dialogue between domestic judiciaries and European courts in the implementation of European return policy. The book brings together leading authors from various backgrounds, including legal scholars, judges and practitioners. This allows the collection to offer theoretical and practical perspectives on important questions regarding the regulation of irregular migration in Europe, such as: what constitutes inadequate implementation of the Directive and under which conditions can judicial dialogue solve it? How can judges ensure that the right balance is struck between effective return procedures and fundamental rights? Why do we see different patterns of judicial dialogue in the Member States when it comes to particular questions of return policy, for example regarding the use of detention? These questions are more timely than ever given the shifting public discourse on immigration and the growing political backlash against immigration courts. This book will be essential reading for all scholars and practitioners in the fields of immigration law and policy, EU law and public law.

Practices of immigration detention are largely resistant to conventional forms of legal correction because contemporary liberal democracies justify these practices with an appeal to their territorial sovereignty, a concept that thwarts the very communicability of individual interests in modern constitutionalism. However, this book argues that human rights in the specific context of immigration detention can function as “destabilisation rights”, subjecting to full legal scrutiny those claims that the national state presents as predominantly based on its territorial sovereignty. The resulting destabilisation of territorial sovereignty in both domestic and international constitutionalism will have ramifications for a number of instruments of migration control, the perceived necessity and legitimacy of which is almost exclusively based on the self-referential notion of territorial sovereignty.