In a crisis, ordinary rules must often give way to a more expedient approach. Such emergency competences tend to favour executive decision-making over legislative procedures. In a European Union (EU) shaken by successive crises, this situation risks leading to permanent competence creep. While considerable attention has been devoted to the impact of crisis on legal and political decision-making within the Union, the position of the Court of Justice (CJEU) – and its impact on the distribution of powers within the EU – has been less researched. This Article fills the gap by exploring how the Court reviews the exercise of power in times of crisis by executive actors at the Union and Member State levels. Using migration law as a case study, it qualitatively and quantitatively examines how the CJEU has responded to crisis both in its scrutiny of measures of containment, and through its adjudication of migration cases in general before and after the acute phase of the 2015 refugee crisis. The Article shows that the crisis has led the CJEU to take a more lenient approach towards the executive powers at both the Union and the Member State level. It argues that this effectively amounts to a withdrawal from the judicial control function and enables an expansion of executive power that is likely to have effects lasting beyond any given emergency.

Contemporary asylum laws challenge the narratives of migrants and legal professional teams. Struggles arise in requirements to tell the right story defined by legal norms while storytelling in everyday life relies on sociocultural norms. Professionals working with socially and legally vulnerable populations, as in education and asylum cases, can bridge that gap if we understand narrating as a relational process with credibility and coherence developing over time in terms of the clients’ experience and institutional expectations. This paper presents dynamic storytelling methodology to guide such a process, applied successfully with a Roma community seeking inclusion in public education and used to interpret two unsuccessful asylum cases. Drawing on those examples, we conclude by proposing a socio-legal framework for collaborative lawyering in research on clinical legal training. The goal is a narrative process based on legal actors’ awareness that truth acquisition is a human sense-making process framed by human rights norms.

This paper examines how deportation became a solution to rough sleeping in pre-Brexit England. It identifies relationships between the social regulation of vulnerable and marginalised adults, contemporary governance arrangements and bordering practices characteristic of Britain's ‘hostile environment’. Drawing on media reports and grey organisational literature, the focus of discussion is events across 2015–2018 in which three London-based charities were criticised for working with the Home Office to deport homeless migrants under its European Economic Area Administrative Removal policy. The overall tenor of criticism was that collaboration with the government compromised the organisations’ independence and charitable missions and aims. This diminished their capacity to both advocate for vulnerable adults and effectively challenge oppressive state practices. The paper observes how state and nonprofit relations structure institutional and socio-legal responses to marginalised and ‘othered’ adults through commissioning and contracting mechanisms. It demonstrates that the social and legal control of homeless migrants may be differently constituted by institutions delivering services in relation to citizenship, vulnerability and marginalisation. This analysis incorporates a broader appraisal of institutional motivations, values and beliefs in social welfare delivery, including the historic role of charitable agencies in the criminalisation of social welfare users. Taken together, the paper offers an interdisciplinary critique of the relationships between border control, neoliberal governance and the sociocultural and historic construction of homeless migrants.

This paper reviews scholarship regarding migrants’ legal consciousness. After discussing the personal, geographic and methodological scope of the reviewed studies, the conceptualisation of legal consciousness is examined in light of evolutions in general legal consciousness studies. Thereafter, factors emerging as shaping migrants’ legal consciousness are analytically clustered at four levels: individual characteristics, relational factors, cultural dynamics, and public policies and discourse. Future research on legal consciousness could shift its gaze towards understudied migrant groups as well as places. We suggest being more explicit regarding the conceptualisation of dimensions of what is ‘legal’ and of ‘consciousness’, and adopting a pluralist approach to law. The analytical grouping of the factors impacting migrants’ legal consciousness may serve as a useful reference point for future research and facilitate a more comprehensive appraisal of the various dynamics shaping migrants’ legal consciousness.

The relationship between state and absent citizens is becoming more important since the globalization of the 1990s. Countries usually try to increase the number of their citizens through two methods. The first is by increasing the number of nationals living abroad using a dual-nationality system. The second is by expanding national power through dual culturalism. These methods increase the international capacity of the home state through the expansion of the de facto state territory from the perspective of network-power theory. Latin American countries have been relatively passive in this diaspora-engagement policy, but recently they have begun to show an active attitude by revising their migration policy—amendments to the Constitution and migration law, dual nationality, dual culturalism, voting rights abroad, and upgrading the status of diaspora agencies, etc. However, it is still unclear how the multinational and multi-ethnic Latin American countries conceptualize diaspora. This paper analyzes the diaspora-engagement policy of Latin American countries from the standpoint of network-power theory and tries to find out what its theoretical framework is. This paper concludes that the theorization work on diaspora should continue to track and analyze these policy changes, since it is difficult to understand what the diaspora concept is and what policy objectives the state is pursuing under the current diaspora-engagement policy.

This Article aims at highlighting theoretical and practical issues around the application of the general principle of proportionality in EU immigration. It focuses on the application procedure foreseen by the Single Permit Directive by proposing an argument that combines proportionality and procedural guarantees. This Article has two main objectives: First, it explains why and how the general principle of proportionality is applicable to first admission applications. In this context, the Single Permit Directive—adopted as an important piece of the emerging EU legal regime on immigration—will represent a common theme for our reflections and a timely example on the practical implications of the argument presented in this Article. Second, it explores an important dimension of the legal-philosophical relevance of proportionality as applied to immigration. This specific Article might be apprehended from the point of view of a larger debate on the meaning of discretion in immigration law. It connects to the field of immigration ethics, a field in which legal scholars should become more active. As will be shown, ethical and legal considerations on immigration should work closely together, thereby improving current regulations and their implementation.

This article argues that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) uses external references as a tool to enhance ‘constitutional justice’. This technique is illustrated by the Court's contribution to an important shift in migration law beginning in the late 1980s and resulting in an enhanced scheme for protection against expulsion in Europe. This shift reflects the changing role of the ECtHR from a court primarily concerned with providing ‘individual justice’ to a court aiming at enabling ‘constitutional justice’. The aim of the article is to contextualize the aforementioned shift with a historical view and to understand it in methodological terms. It argues that the Court supports its dynamic interpretation of the right to privacy in Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights in crucial judgments by reference to often non-binding instruments issued by the Council of Europe and to other human rights treaties. In this regard, the case of protection against expulsion illustrates a particular feature of the Court's turn to ‘constitutional justice’, namely the increased application of the principle of systemic integration. This allowed the Court to develop a meaningful and comprehensive protection scheme in the first place. However, the article reveals that once the substantial standard developed by the ECtHR has been formally implemented in domestic law, domestic decisions are reviewed with significantly less scrutiny. This limitation may again be explained by the ‘constitutional turn’ which results in a pragmatic tendency to proceduralization in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR.