By the same authors

From the same journal

Migration, Sexual Orientation, and the European Convention on Human Rights

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Migration, Sexual Orientation, and the European Convention on Human Rights. / Falcetta, Silvia; Johnson, Paul James.

In: Journal of Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law , 20.03.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Falcetta, S & Johnson, PJ 2019, 'Migration, Sexual Orientation, and the European Convention on Human Rights', Journal of Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law .

APA

Falcetta, S., & Johnson, P. J. (2019). Migration, Sexual Orientation, and the European Convention on Human Rights. Journal of Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law .

Vancouver

Falcetta S, Johnson PJ. Migration, Sexual Orientation, and the European Convention on Human Rights. Journal of Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law . 2019 Mar 20.

Author

Falcetta, Silvia ; Johnson, Paul James. / Migration, Sexual Orientation, and the European Convention on Human Rights. In: Journal of Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law . 2019.

Bibtex - Download

@article{5137a6ab8f894023b4231fa7bceb9df1,
title = "Migration, Sexual Orientation, and the European Convention on Human Rights",
abstract = "Issues relating to migration have long been aspects of the discrimination that gay men and lesbians in Europe have experienced and attempted to challenge by using the European Convention on Human Rights. In this article, we critically assess the ways in which the European Court of Human Rights has developed the protection of sexual minorities under the Convention in respect of two aspects of migration: residency and asylum. We consider a number of issues that have been addressed by the Court, such as the extent to which bi-national same-sex couples should have the right to remain together in a Council of Europe member state, and the protection that should be extended to gay and lesbian asylum seekers attempting to resist repatriation to a country where they would not be free to establish a sexual relationship with a same-sex partner. Our analysis of the Court{\textquoteright}s jurisprudence shows the existence of a {\textquoteleft}two track{\textquoteright} system in which the Court adopts a dynamic interpretation of the Convention in respect of residency but a conservative interpretation of the Convention in respect of asylum. We argue that this approach is problematic because, not only is it inconsistent with the Court{\textquoteright}s general principles on asylum, it systematically fails to protect gay men and lesbians from having to live in circumstances where they would have no opportunity to establish a private and family life.",
author = "Silvia Falcetta and Johnson, {Paul James}",
note = "This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded with permission of the publisher/copyright holder. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details Cover publication date: 2018 ",
year = "2019",
month = mar,
day = "20",
language = "English",
journal = "Tottels Journal of Immigration Asylum and Nationality Law",
issn = "1746-7632",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Migration, Sexual Orientation, and the European Convention on Human Rights

AU - Falcetta, Silvia

AU - Johnson, Paul James

N1 - This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded with permission of the publisher/copyright holder. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details Cover publication date: 2018

PY - 2019/3/20

Y1 - 2019/3/20

N2 - Issues relating to migration have long been aspects of the discrimination that gay men and lesbians in Europe have experienced and attempted to challenge by using the European Convention on Human Rights. In this article, we critically assess the ways in which the European Court of Human Rights has developed the protection of sexual minorities under the Convention in respect of two aspects of migration: residency and asylum. We consider a number of issues that have been addressed by the Court, such as the extent to which bi-national same-sex couples should have the right to remain together in a Council of Europe member state, and the protection that should be extended to gay and lesbian asylum seekers attempting to resist repatriation to a country where they would not be free to establish a sexual relationship with a same-sex partner. Our analysis of the Court’s jurisprudence shows the existence of a ‘two track’ system in which the Court adopts a dynamic interpretation of the Convention in respect of residency but a conservative interpretation of the Convention in respect of asylum. We argue that this approach is problematic because, not only is it inconsistent with the Court’s general principles on asylum, it systematically fails to protect gay men and lesbians from having to live in circumstances where they would have no opportunity to establish a private and family life.

AB - Issues relating to migration have long been aspects of the discrimination that gay men and lesbians in Europe have experienced and attempted to challenge by using the European Convention on Human Rights. In this article, we critically assess the ways in which the European Court of Human Rights has developed the protection of sexual minorities under the Convention in respect of two aspects of migration: residency and asylum. We consider a number of issues that have been addressed by the Court, such as the extent to which bi-national same-sex couples should have the right to remain together in a Council of Europe member state, and the protection that should be extended to gay and lesbian asylum seekers attempting to resist repatriation to a country where they would not be free to establish a sexual relationship with a same-sex partner. Our analysis of the Court’s jurisprudence shows the existence of a ‘two track’ system in which the Court adopts a dynamic interpretation of the Convention in respect of residency but a conservative interpretation of the Convention in respect of asylum. We argue that this approach is problematic because, not only is it inconsistent with the Court’s general principles on asylum, it systematically fails to protect gay men and lesbians from having to live in circumstances where they would have no opportunity to establish a private and family life.

M3 - Article

JO - Tottels Journal of Immigration Asylum and Nationality Law

JF - Tottels Journal of Immigration Asylum and Nationality Law

SN - 1746-7632

ER -