(In)formal Migrant Settlements and Right to Respect for a Home

C.H. Slingenberg, L. Bonneau

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Across European cities, migrants without access to state facilities, resort to living in
‘makeshift camps’ or squats. These settlements are usually evacuated and demolished
by state authorities. Instead of discussing the state’s positive obligation to provide decent
housing, this article focusses solely on the state’s negative obligations under the
right to respect for a home as laid down in Article 8 of the European Convention of
Human Rights (ECHR). Drawing upon the cases of Calais and Amsterdam, this article
scrutinizes domestic case law about evictions from (in)formal migrant settlements
and compares that to case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). We
argue that the ECtHR case law provides a relevant framework that should be used to
evaluate the legitimacy of evictions and destructions of (in)formal migrants’ settlements.
Despite the fact that applying this framework would not entail a complete ban
on evictions, it would provide some welcome (procedural and substantive) protection
for migrants.
LanguageEnglish
Pages335-369
Number of pages35
JournalEuropean Journal of Migration and law
Volume19
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2017

Fingerprint

respect
migrant
case law
human rights
obligation
European Convention
state authority
ban
legitimacy
housing

Cite this

@article{72d4c37dd6e847b091db10f79c9d0848,
title = "(In)formal Migrant Settlements and Right to Respect for a Home",
abstract = "Across European cities, migrants without access to state facilities, resort to living in‘makeshift camps’ or squats. These settlements are usually evacuated and demolishedby state authorities. Instead of discussing the state’s positive obligation to provide decenthousing, this article focusses solely on the state’s negative obligations under theright to respect for a home as laid down in Article 8 of the European Convention ofHuman Rights (ECHR). Drawing upon the cases of Calais and Amsterdam, this articlescrutinizes domestic case law about evictions from (in)formal migrant settlementsand compares that to case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Weargue that the ECtHR case law provides a relevant framework that should be used toevaluate the legitimacy of evictions and destructions of (in)formal migrants’ settlements.Despite the fact that applying this framework would not entail a complete banon evictions, it would provide some welcome (procedural and substantive) protectionfor migrants.",
author = "C.H. Slingenberg and L. Bonneau",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1163/15718166-12340013",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "335--369",
journal = "European Journal of Migration and law",
issn = "1388-364X",
publisher = "Martinus Nijhoff Publishers",
number = "4",

}

(In)formal Migrant Settlements and Right to Respect for a Home. / Slingenberg, C.H.; Bonneau, L.

In: European Journal of Migration and law, Vol. 19, No. 4, 12.2017, p. 335-369.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - (In)formal Migrant Settlements and Right to Respect for a Home

AU - Slingenberg,C.H.

AU - Bonneau,L.

PY - 2017/12

Y1 - 2017/12

N2 - Across European cities, migrants without access to state facilities, resort to living in‘makeshift camps’ or squats. These settlements are usually evacuated and demolishedby state authorities. Instead of discussing the state’s positive obligation to provide decenthousing, this article focusses solely on the state’s negative obligations under theright to respect for a home as laid down in Article 8 of the European Convention ofHuman Rights (ECHR). Drawing upon the cases of Calais and Amsterdam, this articlescrutinizes domestic case law about evictions from (in)formal migrant settlementsand compares that to case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Weargue that the ECtHR case law provides a relevant framework that should be used toevaluate the legitimacy of evictions and destructions of (in)formal migrants’ settlements.Despite the fact that applying this framework would not entail a complete banon evictions, it would provide some welcome (procedural and substantive) protectionfor migrants.

AB - Across European cities, migrants without access to state facilities, resort to living in‘makeshift camps’ or squats. These settlements are usually evacuated and demolishedby state authorities. Instead of discussing the state’s positive obligation to provide decenthousing, this article focusses solely on the state’s negative obligations under theright to respect for a home as laid down in Article 8 of the European Convention ofHuman Rights (ECHR). Drawing upon the cases of Calais and Amsterdam, this articlescrutinizes domestic case law about evictions from (in)formal migrant settlementsand compares that to case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Weargue that the ECtHR case law provides a relevant framework that should be used toevaluate the legitimacy of evictions and destructions of (in)formal migrants’ settlements.Despite the fact that applying this framework would not entail a complete banon evictions, it would provide some welcome (procedural and substantive) protectionfor migrants.

U2 - 10.1163/15718166-12340013

DO - 10.1163/15718166-12340013

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 335

EP - 369

JO - European Journal of Migration and law

T2 - European Journal of Migration and law

JF - European Journal of Migration and law

SN - 1388-364X

IS - 4

ER -