Titlebook: Immigration Detention in the European Union; In the Shadow of the Izabella Majcher,Michael Flynn,Mariette Grange Book 2020 Springer Nature

團(tuán)結(jié)

1381-3579 t to harmonise immigration laws. A critical focus of the book are the evolving domestic norms related to grounds for detention, length of detention, non-custodial "alternatives to detention," the treatment of c978-3-030-33871-8978-3-030-33869-5Series ISSN 1381-3579 Series E-ISSN 2542-8977

mercenary

,Baltic Countries: The Russian “Crisis”, parts of Europe; and (5) the evolution of EU directives and regulations. An important consideration when assessing the growing restrictiveness of migration policies in all three Baltic countries is that these developments have occurred despite the fact that they are all located far from the “crisis

aggrieve

,The Balkans: Building Walls against “Transit” Migration,rtedly common in many areas. Hungary arguably stands out for its harsh response to migration and refugee challenges, which were considerable: between 2013 and 2015, the annual number of apprehensions in the country skyrocketed, from less than 10,000 to nearly half a million. Hungary’s draconian resp

ARCHE

無(wú)可爭(zhēng)辯

Ireland and the United Kingdom: Absence of Safeguards?,00 people in detention annually, the UK number often surpasses 30,000. Although the UK makes extensive use of prisons for immigration purposes, Ireland stands alone in the EU as the only country—as of 2019—to exclusively use prisons because it had yet to establish a dedicated long-term immigration d

發(fā)電機(jī)

Nordic Countries: An Uneven Response,ies, similar to controversial Australian practices. All three countries, however, share some important characteristics: They all make limited use of penal or criminal justice institutions for immigration detention purposes, though with important differences between each country. None of the countrie

Externalize

Budget

Western Europe: New Restrictions, More Detainees, the years leading up to 2015, followed by important increases both during and after the “crisis.” Their detention practices have been repeatedly scrutinised by the very UN human rights bodies they were instrumental in establishing. The treaty bodies have made numerous recommendations in recent year

Adj異類的

正論