Immigration Detention: International Law Framework and National Regulation (a Comparative Study)
Abstract
Detention of foreign citizens waiting their expulsion from the country is an effective measure to ensure the execution of expulsion. This one is available in the legislation of different countries. It limits most important personality rights and freedoms and there is discussed on its implementation as among the authorities and academics. In particular there is discussed about call of this measure, its ground, procedure, maximum time limits. In article was used the comparative and law method and legislative, judicial practice and doctrine of Russia, Germany, USA, UK, Italy were analyzed. It also the legal positions of European Court of Human Rights and Russian Constitution Court was compared. In result there were discovered the similar problems which were appeared in different countries used immigration detention and the particular ways for their solved in this countries. The restraint of foreign citizens waiting their expulsion from the country should be call to as immigration detention. When this measure is use should take into account the specific of each case and some based constitution principles. Only extremely dangerous foreign citizens should detention. Also immigration detention is intended to restrict the freedom of persons who are trying to avoid from expulsion and remain in the country. The aim of immigration detention is very important for immigration authorities. Thus they must follow to it and do not exchange it. It needs to immigration authorities avoid too formal method for take decision of immigration detention. In this case the nature of immigration detention is sum of administrative procedures instead of researching the real essence. Here the principle of individualizing administrative measures will be suffered. Foreigners should be able to get their freedom if they cannot be expulsion from the country. Therefore the alternative measures must be included in legislation of Russia. They will be able to replace immigration detention in cases where the restriction of freedom is impossible.
References
Cole D. (2002) In Aid of Removal: Due Process Limits on Immigration Detention. Emory Law Journal, vol. 51, pp. 1003-1040.
Confucius (2001) Analects. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura, 588 p. (in Russian)
Davydov K.V. (2015) Law on administrative procedures and discretional administrative acts: theory and practice. Vestnik VGU. Pravo, no 2, pp. 113-128 (in Russian)
Eropkin M.I. (2010) Selected works. Moscow: Moscow: Eksmo, pp. 74-83 (in Russian)
Hernández C. (2014) Immigration detention as Punishment. UCLA Law Review, issue 5, pp. 1345-1414.
Kaplunov A.I. (ed.) (2017) Administrative procedural law. Saint Petersburg: R-Kopi Press, pp. 287-291 (in Russian)
Kaplunov A.I. (2005) On the coercive measures of administrative warning. Administrativnoe pravo. Aktualnye problemy. Moscow: Yuniti, pp. 234-245 (in Russian)
Kaplunov A.I. (2004) On the administrative warning as a state coercion. Izvestiya vysshykh uchebnykh zavedeniy. Provovedenie, no 3, pp. 118-126 (in Russian)
Kulisher L.M. (1911) Rule of law and administrative coersion. Yuridicheskie zapiski Demidovskogo yuridicheskogo litseya, no 1, pp. 1-49 (in Russian)
Leerkes A., Kox M. (2017) Pressured into a Preference to Leave? A Study in the “Specific” Deterrent Effects and Perceived Legitimacy of Immigration Detention. Law & Society Review, no 4, pp. 895-929.
Legomsky S (1999) The Detention of Aliens: Theories, Rules, and Discretion. University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, no 3, pp. 531-549.
Lundby S. (2015) On the European system of immigration detention. Oxford Monitor of Forced Migration, no 1, pp. 7-15.
Mainwaring G. (2012) Constructing a Crisis: the Role of Immigration Detention in Malta. Population, Space and Place, issue 6, pp. 687-700.
Makartsev A.A. (2009) Quantitative factor as a justification factor in judicial decisions concerning election disputes. Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipalnoe parvo, no 24, pp. 23-26 (in Russian)
Mangiaracina A. (2016) The Long Route Towards a Widespread European Culture of Alternatives to Immigration Detention. European Journal of Migration and Law, issue 2, pp. 177-200.
Popov L.L., Shergin A. P. (1975) Administration. Citizen. Liability. Leningrad: Nauka, 251 p. (in Russian)
Savino M. (2016) The Refugee Crisis as a Challenge for Public Law: The Italian Case. German Law Journal, no 5, pp. 981-1004.
Sinha A. (2017) Arbitrary Detention? The Immigration Detention Bed Quota. Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, no 2, pp. 77-121.
Spena A. (2016) Resisting Immigration Detention. European Journal of Migration and Law, issue 2, pp. 201-221.
Starilov Yu. N. (2017) Proper understanding and respect to legality and its rule. Vestnik VGU, Pravo, no 3, pp. 18-40 (in Russian)
Tikhomirov Yu.A. (2007) Administration by law. Moscow: Formula prava, 485 p. (in Russian)
Trifonov A. (1886) Coercive measures under Prussian and Russian laws. Saint Petersburg: Balashev, 99 p. (in Russian)
Copyright (c) 2020 Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.












