著者

大道寺 隆也

出版者

日本EU学会

雑誌

日本EU学会年報 (ISSN:18843123)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2017, no.37, pp.134-153, 2017-05-25 (Released:2019-05-25)

---

This paper analyses the formation process of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), with particular focus on the interaction between international organizations (IOs), namely, inter-organizational relations. It attempts to answer why and how the fundamental rights protection under the Dublin system has been improved. Section 1 exhibits the background of the research. The Dublin system, which allocates the responsibility to examine an application for international protection lodged in an EU member state, has been criticized for the insufficient protection of asylum-seekers’ fundamental rights in particular member states. Although this problem emerged through interrelations vis-à-vis external actors other than EU institutions nor member states, such interaction has been largely ignored. As a corollary, the existing explanations for the formation of the CEAS have not paid due attention to the intersection of multiple actors as well as the outcome thereof. Against this background, Section 2 briefly reviews the existing literature with regard to the CEAS formation. It begins by criticizing the traditional debate between the member-state-governments-centric approach and the supranational-organizations-centric one. They are, so to speak, inward-looking thus cannot duly consider the interaction with external actors nor the information inflow from outside. Then the paper examines the external governance approach, thereby theoretically justifies focusing on inter-organizational relations. Particularly, this paper highlights the mode that can be called contestation between IOs, such as reference, criticism and indirect review. Drawing on that framework, Section 3 traces how the legislation process of Dublin III regulation was influenced by criticism and indirect review by other IOs, specifically the Council of Europe (CoE) and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). These organizations criticize some member states, specifically Greece, for the inadequate reception conditions, based on the information they gain on the ground. Although these criticisms themselves are not legally-binding, they gradually gained legal relevance by being referred to by the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the Court of Justice of the EU. Consequently, the recast regulation substantively reflected the criticisms raised by other IOs. After describing the development, this paper mentions twofold theoretical implications. First, it restates the contributions to the literature reviewed above. Second, it suggests connecting the viewpoint of inter-organizational relations with the literature on global constitutionalism and global democracy. In the end, Section 4 summarizes the overall argument, and shows some remaining agenda.

著者

大道寺 隆也

出版者

早稲田大学大学院政治学研究科

雑誌

早稲田政治公法研究 (ISSN:02862492)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.110, pp.1-15, 2015-12-20

著者

大道寺 隆也

出版者

一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会

雑誌

国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2015, no.182, pp.182_98-182_110, 2015-11-05 (Released:2016-08-04)

参考文献数

69

---

This article examines why and how the United Nations (UN) Security Council (SC) introduced due process into targeted sanctions. The focus is on the relations between different international organizations, namely “inter-organizational relations”. Particular attention is paid to the relations between European regional organizations (ROs), such as the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe (CoE), and the UN. The UN SC introduced some procedures for delisting individuals or entities from the terrorists list in reaction to the political and legal resistance by the ROs against the possibility of the infringement of fundamental rights of those who are listed.Recently, international organizations have increasingly contact with each other. This trend began to be reflected in academic literature, but studies in inter-organizational relations are still embryonic. In order to contribute to this field, this article analyzes the case study on targeted sanctions, for, inter-organizational relations between the UN and the ROs are vertical ones, both politically and legally (Section 1). Nevertheless, existing literature has largely ignored, or at least underestimated, this vertical aspect. Thus,this article elaborates and presupposes vertical relations between the UN and the ROs and counters some existing researches on inter-organizational relations. Based upon the review of existing literature, the article suggests using the concept of resistance in the analysis of targeted sanctions, and hypothesizes that the political and legal resistance by the ROs urged the SC to introduce due process (Section 2). In order to prove this, the case study on targeted sanctions focuses on: (1) how did the ROs resist the SC? (2) how did the SC identify and accept the resistance? (Section 3)As for the first question, although the ROs have cooperated on the implementation of targeted sanctions, there are some instances of resistance against the SC. For instance, the Court of Justice of the EU and the European Court of Human Rights criticized the problems on the protection of human rights and raised the possibility of annulling the laws implementing targeted sanctions. As well, the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE passed the resolutions on the problem. As for the second question, this article reveals that the SC became aware of the resistance through its subsidiary organs and member states. As a result, the procedures for delisting such as the “focal point” or the “Office of the Ombudsperson”were established and the wording of the resolutions was modified in favor of human rights protection.This study implies that the ROs may influence the decision-making of the UN that is legally superior to the ROs, and contribute to correcting the global injustice although they are only “regional” organizations.