From Italian pushbacks to Libyan pullbacks: Is Hirsi 2.0 in the making in Strasbourg?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

This article discusses the application that was recently lodged with the European Court of Human Rights alleging that Italy is responsible for its involvement in pullbacks by the Libyan coast guard. It places the case in the wider context of migration control policies and the Hirsi case in particular. The article examines different pullback scenarios which feature in the application lodged with the Court, and discusses different ways in which the Court can address the issues raised. The analysis focuses particularly on the question whether the Court is likely to find that Italy exercises jurisdiction and whether Italy could incur derived responsibility for its involvement in the pullbacks. The article concludes by suggesting that holding Italy responsible would require the Court to move beyond established precedent in its case-law. Although this is a move which can be difficult to make given the political tide in Europe, it would not be the first time that the Court takes its case-law, and thereby human rights protection, a step further.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)396-426
Number of pages31
JournalEuropean Journal of Migration and Law
Volume20
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2018

Fingerprint

Italy
case law
human rights
migration policy
jurisdiction
scenario
responsibility

Keywords

  • European Court of Human Rights
  • pullbacks
  • migration control
  • Hirsi
  • Italy
  • Libya
  • responsibility

Cite this

@article{bfa784e379a14f1da7101e12884b6cd1,
title = "From Italian pushbacks to Libyan pullbacks: Is Hirsi 2.0 in the making in Strasbourg?",
abstract = "This article discusses the application that was recently lodged with the European Court of Human Rights alleging that Italy is responsible for its involvement in pullbacks by the Libyan coast guard. It places the case in the wider context of migration control policies and the Hirsi case in particular. The article examines different pullback scenarios which feature in the application lodged with the Court, and discusses different ways in which the Court can address the issues raised. The analysis focuses particularly on the question whether the Court is likely to find that Italy exercises jurisdiction and whether Italy could incur derived responsibility for its involvement in the pullbacks. The article concludes by suggesting that holding Italy responsible would require the Court to move beyond established precedent in its case-law. Although this is a move which can be difficult to make given the political tide in Europe, it would not be the first time that the Court takes its case-law, and thereby human rights protection, a step further.",
keywords = "European Court of Human Rights, pullbacks, migration control, Hirsi, Italy, Libya, responsibility",
author = "Annick Pijnenburg",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1163/15718166-12340036",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "396--426",
journal = "European Journal of Migration and Law",
issn = "1388-364X",
publisher = "Martinus Nijhoff Publishers",
number = "4",

}

From Italian pushbacks to Libyan pullbacks : Is Hirsi 2.0 in the making in Strasbourg? / Pijnenburg, Annick.

In: European Journal of Migration and Law, Vol. 20, No. 4, 11.2018, p. 396-426.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - From Italian pushbacks to Libyan pullbacks

T2 - Is Hirsi 2.0 in the making in Strasbourg?

AU - Pijnenburg, Annick

PY - 2018/11

Y1 - 2018/11

N2 - This article discusses the application that was recently lodged with the European Court of Human Rights alleging that Italy is responsible for its involvement in pullbacks by the Libyan coast guard. It places the case in the wider context of migration control policies and the Hirsi case in particular. The article examines different pullback scenarios which feature in the application lodged with the Court, and discusses different ways in which the Court can address the issues raised. The analysis focuses particularly on the question whether the Court is likely to find that Italy exercises jurisdiction and whether Italy could incur derived responsibility for its involvement in the pullbacks. The article concludes by suggesting that holding Italy responsible would require the Court to move beyond established precedent in its case-law. Although this is a move which can be difficult to make given the political tide in Europe, it would not be the first time that the Court takes its case-law, and thereby human rights protection, a step further.

AB - This article discusses the application that was recently lodged with the European Court of Human Rights alleging that Italy is responsible for its involvement in pullbacks by the Libyan coast guard. It places the case in the wider context of migration control policies and the Hirsi case in particular. The article examines different pullback scenarios which feature in the application lodged with the Court, and discusses different ways in which the Court can address the issues raised. The analysis focuses particularly on the question whether the Court is likely to find that Italy exercises jurisdiction and whether Italy could incur derived responsibility for its involvement in the pullbacks. The article concludes by suggesting that holding Italy responsible would require the Court to move beyond established precedent in its case-law. Although this is a move which can be difficult to make given the political tide in Europe, it would not be the first time that the Court takes its case-law, and thereby human rights protection, a step further.

KW - European Court of Human Rights

KW - pullbacks

KW - migration control

KW - Hirsi

KW - Italy

KW - Libya

KW - responsibility

U2 - 10.1163/15718166-12340036

DO - 10.1163/15718166-12340036

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 396

EP - 426

JO - European Journal of Migration and Law

JF - European Journal of Migration and Law

SN - 1388-364X

IS - 4

ER -