Research Article


DOI :10.26650/ppil.2020.40.2.0025   IUP :10.26650/ppil.2020.40.2.0025    Full Text (PDF)

Alternatives to Immigration Detention in Comparative Law and International Law

Meltem İneli Ciğer

The term ‘alternatives to detention’ refers to the range of measures that fall short of full deprivation of liberty or administrative detention. The Turkish Law on Foreigners and International Protection (Law No 7196) was amended on 6 December 2019. With this amendment, alternatives to immigration detention were introduced to the Turkish asylum laws. Introduction of these alternatives constitutes an important development especially considering its implications for the right to liberty and security of migrants in Turkey. Despite this importance, there are very few academic sources written in Turkish on this matter. The aim of this article is to contribute to the existing literature by examining alternatives to immigration detention in international law and comparative law. In doing so, the first part of the article will examine the international law framework and identify elements of alternatives to immigration detention that are in line with fundamental rights through an analysis of the relevant literature and the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence. Whereas, the second part of the article will analyse how the alternatives to immigration detention are regulated and implemented in the United Kingdom, Canada and Austria. In light of this analysis, the conclusion will make a number of recommendations on the regulation and implementation of the alternatives to immigration detention in Turkey. 

DOI :10.26650/ppil.2020.40.2.0025   IUP :10.26650/ppil.2020.40.2.0025    Full Text (PDF)

Uluslararası Hukuk ve Karşılaştırmalı Hukukta İdari Gözetime Alternatif Tedbirler

Meltem İneli Ciğer

İdari gözetime alternatif tedbirleri, idari gözetime göre yabancıların temel hak ve özgürlüklerini daha az kısıtlayan tedbirler ve yükümlülükler olarak tanımlamak mümkündür. 6458 Sayılı Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu’nda 6 Aralık 2019 tarihinde yapılan değişiklik ile mevzuatımıza idari gözetime alternatif tedbirler getirilmiştir. İdari gözetime alternatif tedbirlerin kanunumuzda düzenlenmesi ülkemizdeki göçmenlerin özgürlük ve güvenlik hakkı bakımından oldukça önemli bir gelişme teşkil etse de Türk hukuk doktrininde bu konuda yapılan çalışmaların sayısı oldukça sınırlıdır. Makalenin amacı uluslararası hukuk ve karşılaştırmalı hukukta idari gözetime alternatif tedbirleri incelemek suretiyle doktrine katkıda bulunmaktır. Makalenin ilk kısmında Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi de dahil olmak üzere ilgili uluslararası hukuk belgeleri ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararları incelenmek suretiyle idari gözetime alternatif tedbirlere ilişkin uluslararası hukuk çerçevesi ve insan hakları temelli idari gözetim alternatiflerinin unsurları ortaya konulacaktır. Makalenin ikinci kısmında ise idari gözetime alternatif tedbirlerin Birleşik Krallık, Kanada ve Avusturya hukukunda ne şekilde düzenlendiği ve uygulamada hangi hususlara dikkat edildiği incelenecektir. Bu incelemeler ışığında makalenin sonuç kısmında ise ülkemizde idari gözetime alternatif tedbirlerin düzenlenmesi ve uygulanması ile ilgili bazı tespit ve önerilere yer verilecektir.


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


The right to liberty and security is secured under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 5 of the ECHR provides “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: …. (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.” One of the exceptions, contained in sub-paragraph (f) of Article 5(1), permits states to control the liberty of aliens in an immigration context; nevertheless, the ECHR requires that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness. 

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has found in a number of cases, especially those concerning vulnerable individuals, that the Contracting Parties have violated the European Convention on Human Rights by arbitarily detaining persons in cases where less coercive measures could have been used. Established case law of the Court suggests that immigration detention should be a measure of last resort especially in the case of vulnerable individuals and immigration detention should follow after an actual verification that no other measure involving a lesser restriction of their freedom could be put in place. These measures involving a lesser restriction of migrants’ freedom and security include alternatives to immigration detention. According to the International Detention Coalition (IDC), alternatives to immigration detention can be defined as “Any law, policy or practice by which persons are not detained for reasons relating to their migration status.” (IDC 2015) Alternatives to immigration detention may include the following measures: obligation to surrender passports or travel documents, residence restrictions, release on bail and provision of sureties by third parties, regular reporting to the authorities, placement in open facilities with caseworker support, electronic monitoring. (FRA 2015)

On 6 December 2019, the Turkish Law on Foreigners and International Protection (Law No 7196) was amended with the adoption of Law no 7196. With the amendment of article 57 of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection and the newly added article 57/A, alternatives to immigration detention were introduced to the Turkish laws. Introduction of the alternatives to immigration detention constitutes an important development especially considering its possible effect on the right to liberty and security of asylum seekers and migrants in Turkey, especially those detained in Removal Centres. Turkey, at the time of writing, has 28 Removal Centres that have the capacity to hold 20,000 persons in total. Despite this important point there are very few academic sources written in Turkish on alternatives to immigration detention. The article examines how international law and the United Kingdom, Canadian and Austrian laws confront alternatives to immigration detention. By examining alternatives to immigration detention in international law and comparative law, the article aims to fill the gap in Turkish legal literature concerning alternatives to immigration detention.

The article consists of two main parts. The first part of the article will examine the international law framework concerning alternatives to immigration detention and identify elements of a policy on alternatives to immigration detention that is in line with the fundamental human rights through an analysis of international instruments and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Whereas, the second part will analyse how the alternatives to immigration detention are regulated and implemented in the United Kingdom, Canada and Austria. In light of this analysis, the conclusion will offer a number of recommendations on the regulation and implementation of the alternatives to immigration detention in Turkey. 


PDF View

References

  • 6458 Sayılı Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu, R.G. Sayı: 28615, R.G. Tarih: 11/4/2013. google scholar
  • 7196 sayılı Bazı Kanunlarda ve 375 Sayılı Kanun Hükmünde Kararnamede Değişiklik yapılmasına Dair Kanun, R.G. Sayı: 30988, R.G. Tarih: 24/12/2019. google scholar
  • Bloomfield A, ‘Alternatives to detention at a crossroads: Humanisation or criminalisation?’ (2016) 35(1) Refugee Survey Quarterly 29-46. google scholar
  • Canada, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27) <https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/FullText.html> 30 April 2020. google scholar
  • Çiçekli B, Yabancılar ve Mülteciler Hukuku (6th edn, Seçkin 2016). google scholar
  • D. Kuşçu, Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu Hükümleri Uyarınca Yabancıların Sınır Dışı Edilmeleri (Onikilevha 2017). google scholar
  • Dost S, ‘Uluslararası Hukukta Bağlayıcı Olmayan Hukuk’ (2019) 14 Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 35-74. google scholar
  • Edwards A, ‘Measures of first resort: alternatives to immigration detention in comparative perspective’ (2011) 7 The Equal Rights Review 117-142. google scholar
  • Ekşi N, 6458 Sayılı Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu’nda İdari Gözetim (Beta Yayınevi 2014). google scholar
  • Forced Migration Review No. 44- Detention, alternatives to detention, and deportation, Refugee Studies Centre, September 2013. google scholar
  • Göçmen İ, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Işığında Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye Göç Hukuku (1. Baskı, Seçkin Yayınevi 2015). google scholar
  • Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (SOR/2002-227) <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-50.html#docCont> 30 April 2020. google scholar
  • Majher I, ‘Immigration Detention under the Global Compacts in the Light of Refugee and Human Rights Law Standards’ (2019) 57(6) International Migration 91-114. google scholar
  • Österreich, FPG- Fremdenpolizeigesetz 2005 <https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/fpg/paragraf/77 > 30 April 2020. google scholar
  • Österreich, FPG-DV- Fremdenpolizeigesetz-Durchführungsverordnung < https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/fpg-dv/paragraf/13> 30 April 2020. google scholar
  • Özkan I., Göç ve Sığınma Hukuku (3. Baskı, Seçkin Yayınevi 2018). google scholar
  • Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December 2008 [on the report of the Third Committee (A/63/430/Add.2)] 63/184. Protection of migrants A/RES/63/184. google scholar
  • Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 20 December 2012, [on the report of the Third Committee (A/67/457/Add.2 and Corr.1)] 3 April 2013. google scholar
  • Sampson R, and Mitchell G, ‘Global trends in immigration detention and alternatives to detention: Practical, political and symbolic rationales’ (2013) 1(3) Journal on Migration and Human Security 97-121. google scholar
  • Sur M, Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları (13th edn, Beta 2019). google scholar
  • Teksoy B, ‘İdari Gözetim Altına Alınan Yabancıların Elektronik ve İletişim Cihazlarının İncelenmesine İlişkin Hükmün Değerlendirilmesi’ (2020) 75(2) Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi 517-556. google scholar
  • United Kingdom Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Act 2011 < http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/23/contents/enacted> 30 April 2020. google scholar
  • United Kingdom: Immigration Act 2016, House of Commons Library, 12 May 2016, <https://www.refworld.org/cases,UKHCL,58a6fca84.html> 30 April 2020. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

İneli Ciğer, M. (2020). Alternatives to Immigration Detention in Comparative Law and International Law. Public and Private International Law Bulletin, 40(2), 799-829. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2020.40.2.0025


AMA

İneli Ciğer M. Alternatives to Immigration Detention in Comparative Law and International Law. Public and Private International Law Bulletin. 2020;40(2):799-829. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2020.40.2.0025


ABNT

İneli Ciğer, M. Alternatives to Immigration Detention in Comparative Law and International Law. Public and Private International Law Bulletin, [Publisher Location], v. 40, n. 2, p. 799-829, 2020.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

İneli Ciğer, Meltem,. 2020. “Alternatives to Immigration Detention in Comparative Law and International Law.” Public and Private International Law Bulletin 40, no. 2: 799-829. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2020.40.2.0025


Chicago: Humanities Style

İneli Ciğer, Meltem,. Alternatives to Immigration Detention in Comparative Law and International Law.” Public and Private International Law Bulletin 40, no. 2 (Mar. 2024): 799-829. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2020.40.2.0025


Harvard: Australian Style

İneli Ciğer, M 2020, 'Alternatives to Immigration Detention in Comparative Law and International Law', Public and Private International Law Bulletin, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 799-829, viewed 29 Mar. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2020.40.2.0025


Harvard: Author-Date Style

İneli Ciğer, M. (2020) ‘Alternatives to Immigration Detention in Comparative Law and International Law’, Public and Private International Law Bulletin, 40(2), pp. 799-829. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2020.40.2.0025 (29 Mar. 2024).


MLA

İneli Ciğer, Meltem,. Alternatives to Immigration Detention in Comparative Law and International Law.” Public and Private International Law Bulletin, vol. 40, no. 2, 2020, pp. 799-829. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2020.40.2.0025


Vancouver

İneli Ciğer M. Alternatives to Immigration Detention in Comparative Law and International Law. Public and Private International Law Bulletin [Internet]. 29 Mar. 2024 [cited 29 Mar. 2024];40(2):799-829. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2020.40.2.0025 doi: 10.26650/ppil.2020.40.2.0025


ISNAD

İneli Ciğer, Meltem. Alternatives to Immigration Detention in Comparative Law and International Law”. Public and Private International Law Bulletin 40/2 (Mar. 2024): 799-829. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2020.40.2.0025



TIMELINE


Submitted30.04.2020
Accepted18.08.2020
Published Online27.10.2020

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.