Publikace
The General Report presented below constitutes a summary of information and conclusions contained in the national reports on Czechia, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, and is the final output of Grant no. 22320067, entitled Shelter law-making. Legal response to massive migration caused by Russian aggression against Ukraine, co-financed by the Visegrad Fund. The national reports constitute the basis for the General Report; therefore, references to all sources and data are to be found there. The main goal of the project was to analyse the legal actions taken and instruments created by the four Visegrad countries (V4) in response to the large-scale and unprecedented influx of people after 24 February 2022, the outbreak of the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. Above all, we identified the need to compare the actions taken in individual countries in order to distinguish the recurring solutions, identify those that have failed and select those that proved to be the most effective (good practices). In our opinion, the findings of the project will provide a solid basis for more effective legal actions related to the current migration crisis and possible crises in future. The conclusions and recommendations are in the final parts (VI and VII) of the General Report.
Read the General Report (all V4 countries)
Read the National Report (CZ)
Since 2015, Western and Central European member states along the Balkan route have repeatedly responded to the increased number of arriving migrants by reintroducing internal border controls. They did so deliberately and at the cost of sacrificing one of the major achievements of the European integration process: the principle of free movement and the area without internal frontiers. The presented Article focuses on legal assessment of these responses. Using the example of the Czech reintroduction of border controls on the land border with Slovakia in 2022/23 and 2023/24, we demonstrate how legal responses of member states may intertwine with domestic politics and how states take a somewhat hesitant approach to law in the face of migratory pressure. The Czech example also illustrates how states, despite their international and EU obligations, adopt specific measures without properly considering adequate and more proportionate alternatives.
The practice of teaching international law is conducted in a wide range of contexts across the world by a host of different actors – including scholars, practitioners, civil society groups, governments, and international organisations.
This collection brings together a diversity of scholars and practitioners to share their experiences and critically reflect on current practices of teaching international law across different contexts, traditions, and perspectives to develop existing conversations and spark fresh ones concerning teaching practices within the field of international law. Reflecting on the responsibilities of teachers of international law to engage with and confront histories, contemporary crises, and everyday events in their teaching, the collection explores efforts to decenter the teacher and the law in the classroom, opportunities for dialogical and critical approaches to teaching, and the possibilities of co-producing non-conventional pedagogies that question the mainstream underpinnings of international law teaching. Focusing on the tools and techniques used to teach international law to date, the collection examines the teaching of international law in different contexts. Traversing a range of domestic and regional contexts around the world, the book offers insights into both the culture of teaching in particular domestic settings, aswell as the structural challenges and obstacles that arise in terms of who, what, and how international law is taught in practice.
Offering a unique window into the personal experiences of a diversity of scholars and practitioners from around the world, this collection aims to nurture conversations about the responsibilities, approaches, opportunities, and challenges of teaching international law.
V roce 2022 bylo v českých detenčních zařízeních pro migranty zadrženo téměř 300 dětí. Předchozí výzkumy ukázaly, že detence migrantů může představovat porušení různých systémů ochrany základních práv a svobod. První otázka si kladla za cíl zjistit, jaké jsou aktuální standardy ESLP ohledně ohledně zajištění nezletilých cizinců, druhá pak zjišťovala, jak je tento standard zohledněn v zákoně o pobytu cizinců. Nakonec článek posuzoval výklad těchto podmínek vnitrostátními soudy prizmatem zásady efektivní ochrany lidských práv obsažené v EÚLP. Zajištění dětí je z hlediska práva na svobodu krajní možností, kterou umožňuje kombinace velmi výjimečných faktorů. Ze zákazu mučení je pak možné odvodit konkrétní podmínky ve vztahu k detenčnímu zařízení: organizačně-režimová opatření, materiálně-technický stav zařízení a věk dítěte přímo ovlivní možnou délku detence, přičemž klíčovým faktorem je plynutí času. Za největší problém současné právní úpravy považuje autor skutečnost, že zákon o pobytu cizinců se vůbec nezabývá konceptem zranitelnosti. Normativní analýza dvou vybraných případů Ústavního soudu a Nejvyššího správního soudu nastínila nesrovnalosti s judikaturou ESLP. Ústavní soud zejména podcenil význam organizačních a režimových opatření a přítomnost prvků vězeňského typu, zatímco Nejvyšší správní soud nesprávně reflektoval potřebu alternativ k detenci a vnímání detence jako krajní možnosti.
In an unexpected turn of events, Council Directive 2001/55/EC and the status of temporary protection became an inevitable choice of the EU when dealing with the largest displacement of individuals since World War II. What was once believed to be a forgotten reminiscence of the past within the Common European Asylum System stands now at the heart of the EU’s response to the mass influx caused by the Russian aggression in Ukraine. And while arguably bringing a fresh change to EU asylum law, the current success of temporary protection is still only of a temporary nature given the Commission’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum and the proposed repeal of the Directive. The article aims to tackle the use of temporary protection at the EU level in 2022 and 2023 and explore the question of its relevance in EU law more than two decades after the adoption of the currently employed legal framework of temporary protection within the Common European Asylum System.
An unexpected encounter between Ukraine and the Czech Republic is also taking place in the area of residency status of people coming from Ukraine to the Czech Republic in the hundreds of thousands from February 2022. Czech law was prepared for this situation. At a regional level within the European Union, there is the Common European Asylum System, a set of secondary legislation that includes an instrument enabling EU countries to respond to the arrival of large numbers of people: The Temporary Protection Directive. It has never been used before, but only now, in response to this situation. In our article, we assess the appropriateness of its use and the possibilities it offers in terms of a durable solution. We focus on the national, European and international levels.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has forced millions of people to flee the erupting armed conflict. Some of them were displaced within Ukrainian territory, others crossed the border and sought refuge in neighbouring countries and others further abroad. This article explores the limits of international refugee law in addressing this situation, which are of two kinds. First, people fleeing armed conflict are not considered refugees under the Refugee Convention if they are ‘merely’ fleeing armed conflict. Furthermore, the large number of persons arriving is also a limit. These limitations of international refugee law are filled by regional protection statuses (including temporary protection in European Union law) and the procedural ways in which protection can be granted. This article focuses on whether the current legislation in EU law is a sufficient response to the situation created by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
This highly topical book demonstrates the theoretical and practical importance of the study of migration law. It outlines approaches that may be taken in the design, delivery and monitoring of this study in law schools and universities to ensure an optimum level of learning.