The Soering threshold

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

According to ECHR case-law, the Convention prohibits expulsion if violations of Articles 2 and 3 are risked upon return. Feared violations of other rights such as the freedom of religion do normally not prohibit expulsion. This article explores how the Court delimits violations that prohibit expulsion from those that do not, and which reasons the Court has put forward for justifying this distinction. It focuses on the consistency in the Court's reasoning. It is submitted that balancing human rights to inter alia the economic well-being of the Contacting states determines the outcome of expulsion cases, although this balancing is in many cases invisible, and that this balancing test rests upon the relevance of the alien status of those who invoke the prohibition on expulsion, although this relevance has not been substantiated in the case-law. © 2009 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)205-219
Number of pages15
JournalEuropean Journal of Migration and Law
Volume2009
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Fingerprint

expulsion
case law
religious freedom
ECHR
human rights
well-being
economics

Cite this

@article{21d3596f9a724d2484a96d7dec1dbccb,
title = "The Soering threshold",
abstract = "According to ECHR case-law, the Convention prohibits expulsion if violations of Articles 2 and 3 are risked upon return. Feared violations of other rights such as the freedom of religion do normally not prohibit expulsion. This article explores how the Court delimits violations that prohibit expulsion from those that do not, and which reasons the Court has put forward for justifying this distinction. It focuses on the consistency in the Court's reasoning. It is submitted that balancing human rights to inter alia the economic well-being of the Contacting states determines the outcome of expulsion cases, although this balancing is in many cases invisible, and that this balancing test rests upon the relevance of the alien status of those who invoke the prohibition on expulsion, although this relevance has not been substantiated in the case-law. {\circledC} 2009 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.",
author = "H. Battjes",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1163/138836409X12469435402693",
language = "English",
volume = "2009",
pages = "205--219",
journal = "European Journal of Migration and Law",
issn = "1388-364X",
publisher = "Martinus Nijhoff Publishers",

}

The Soering threshold. / Battjes, H.

In: European Journal of Migration and Law, Vol. 2009, 2009, p. 205-219.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Soering threshold

AU - Battjes, H.

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - According to ECHR case-law, the Convention prohibits expulsion if violations of Articles 2 and 3 are risked upon return. Feared violations of other rights such as the freedom of religion do normally not prohibit expulsion. This article explores how the Court delimits violations that prohibit expulsion from those that do not, and which reasons the Court has put forward for justifying this distinction. It focuses on the consistency in the Court's reasoning. It is submitted that balancing human rights to inter alia the economic well-being of the Contacting states determines the outcome of expulsion cases, although this balancing is in many cases invisible, and that this balancing test rests upon the relevance of the alien status of those who invoke the prohibition on expulsion, although this relevance has not been substantiated in the case-law. © 2009 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

AB - According to ECHR case-law, the Convention prohibits expulsion if violations of Articles 2 and 3 are risked upon return. Feared violations of other rights such as the freedom of religion do normally not prohibit expulsion. This article explores how the Court delimits violations that prohibit expulsion from those that do not, and which reasons the Court has put forward for justifying this distinction. It focuses on the consistency in the Court's reasoning. It is submitted that balancing human rights to inter alia the economic well-being of the Contacting states determines the outcome of expulsion cases, although this balancing is in many cases invisible, and that this balancing test rests upon the relevance of the alien status of those who invoke the prohibition on expulsion, although this relevance has not been substantiated in the case-law. © 2009 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

U2 - 10.1163/138836409X12469435402693

DO - 10.1163/138836409X12469435402693

M3 - Article

VL - 2009

SP - 205

EP - 219

JO - European Journal of Migration and Law

JF - European Journal of Migration and Law

SN - 1388-364X

ER -