Elsa Fernando Gonzalo

La trata de seres humanos como violación flagrante de diversos derechos humanos merece un estudio pormenorizado tanto de sus diferentes características objetivas, como de los instrumentos jurídicos adoptados a nivel internacional para combatirla. El derecho internacional de los derechos humanos, así como el derecho emanado de las organizaciones regionales se han hecho eco de este fenómeno. El objetivo de este Cuaderno es identificar los instrumentos, convenios, acuerdos o tratados internacionales por los cuales los Estados se han vinculado históricamente para combatir la trata con el objetivo paralelo de entender qué situaciones pueden dar lugar a este delito, cuales son las diferentes fases del mismo y como los organismos regionales se han dotado de diferentes instrumentos de seguimiento, prevención y protección. Se tendrá en cuenta el ámbito regional europeo, al ser este el mas evolucionado en la materia, con referencias concretas al régimen de la UE y la jurisprudencia del TEDH.

La Declaración de Nueva York en el año 2016 y el posterior Pacto global para la migración segura, ordenada y regular del año 2018 suponen un hito en la regulación o gobernanza de los flujos migratorios. Este fue proclamado como un instrumento no vinculante y, por tanto, del soft law; sin embargo, este tipo de "derecho" no es ajeno al resto del ordenamiento jurídico. Aunque el soft law no genera obligaciones exigibles jurídicamente para los Estados, sí da lugar a varias interacciones interesantes que se abordan en este artículo. Se analiza su potencial interpretativo y de conjunción con otras normas (escasas) de la regulación internacional del fenómeno migratorio. Se incluye también un breve análisis de su mecanismo propio de seguimiento con el objetivo de enmarcar al Pacto dentro de la regulación migratoria internacional y arrojar luz sobre sus potencialidades jurídicas. Siendo que el recurso de soft law un mecanismo cada vez más común en los retos globales, es necesario a...

Achieving faster and effective returns of irregular migrants is one of the priorities on the Pact on Migration and Asylum proposed by the European Commission. The Commission links the effectiveness of return to the enforcement of return decisions, which, although limited as an analytical benchmark, show that only 30% of return decisions are successful. To improve this ratio, the EU has recently resorted to informal readmission agreements or arrangements with third countries. Through these instruments, the process for binding international agreements established in the Treaties is bypassed. This type of non-binding instrument, generally covered under the ‘soft law’ label, generates major problems for the core principles of the EU legal order of institutional balance, judicial control, and transparency. The aim of this article is to analyse how these acts affect the three main principles of the legal system in the search for a more effective readmission policy using two case studies as the arrangements with Afghanistan and Bangladesh. The article concludes that the avoidance of the three principles does not result in a higher rate of returns.

The New York Declaration recalled everyone's right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his or her country. Declaration also reminds that States must readmit their returning nationals and ensure that they are received without undue delay, following confirmation of their nationalities under national legislation. These and other principles were crystallized in the adoption of two non-binding Compacts, the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) and the Global Compactfor Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration (GCM). This paper analyzes the links between these relevant non-binding documents and new trends in the European Union readmission policy.
The main focus of the analysis is Objective 21 GCM which calls for increased cooperation in readmission matters in full compliance with international human rights obligations. The return and readmission of people who do not have the right to remain in European territory are one of the main objectives of the EU immigration policy. To this end, the EU already has its competence, albeit shared with states, to conclude
readmission agreements with third parties that speed up identifying and returning third country nationals. A quite new trend in EU readmission policy is to conclude practical readmission agreements (better-called arrangements or deals) in an informal form. These informal arrangements fall within the category of soft law and affect legal certainty and other structural principles in the EU legal order. With the example of the renewed arrangement with Afghanistan, the possible compatibility between these practices and the GCM would be examined. A conclusion on the future trends ahead within the proposed New Pact on Migration and Asylum is made to understand if the trend  to  use informal instruments is expected to continue.

In the case Hashemi and others v. Azerbaijan, the ECtHR examines if a refusal to issue identity cards to children born on national territory to foreign parents could be considered an arbitrary refusal since they hold birth certificates recognizing them as Azerbaijani nationals. Although the right to acquire a particular nationality is not guaranteed by the Convention, in certain circumstances, arbitrary decisions raise an issue under Article 8 as they have a negative impact on private life. The Court analyzes the case taking into consideration national legislation regarding the acquisition of nationality (based on ius soli), its subsequent amendments, including exceptions to the acquisition, and the necessary procedural guarantees to determine whether or not there is a violation of Article 8.

This blog briefly analyzes the most important aspects of the new proposal by the Comission "New Pact on Migration and Asylum" presented on 23rd September 2020. Although it has been presented with fanfare as a new beginning in migration policy to overcome various blockages in certain processes, the proposals are hardly categorized as completely new and chronicle some of the problems already detected in the EU's immigration and asylum policy.