Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.680499
Title: The judicial interpretation of sovereignty in the asylum code in Ireland : vindicating human rights and/or securing national boundaries
Author: Bradley, Conleth
Awarding Body: Queen's University Belfast
Current Institution: Queen's University Belfast
Date of Award: 2015
Availability of Full Text:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Please contact the current institution’s library for further details.
Abstract:
The central finding of this thesis adopts a positivist and 'orthodox' perspective (in contrast to what has been described as the 'heresy' of, for example, the Critical Legal Studies movement) in suggesting that the view each judge has of his or her interpretive function is dispositive of a differential judicial approach to the application of the principle of sovereignty in the asylum and immigration code in Ireland and that this perspective is further informed by a series of identifiable factors which, to date, have been the subject of a largely normative assessment from either a human rights approach or the protection of the state in effective immigration control and the securing of national boundaries. The variables or factors which inform this varied judicial approach can be grouped as firstly, the competing rights (including, in particular, constitutional rights) which arise in various aspects of the asylum and immigration process including, for example, detention, direct provision, family re-unification and the position of Irish citizen children and secondly, the (arguably differential) application of the law of the European Union (in referring matters of European law to the Court of Justice of the European Union for advisory opinions) and the application of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights by Irish Superior Courts. The chronological overview adopted covers the period from 2000 to 2014 (2000-2004; 2005-2009; 2010-2014) and the decisions reviewed comprise the judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court as the process for challenging decisions in an asylum, immigration and citizenship context is' a statutory judicial review procedure which can only be brought in the Superior Courts, i.e. initiated in the High Court and appealed to the Court of Appeal (from October 2014) and the Supreme Court
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.680499  DOI: Not available
Share: