Conclusion: Inside Out: How the EU Encouraged the Growth of Immigration Detention Beyond Its Borders as It Consolidated Detention Regimes Internally

  • Izabella Majcher
  • Michael Flynn
  • Mariette Grange
Part of the European Studies of Population book series (ESPO, volume 22)


As the previous chapters in this book have demonstrated, immigration detention systems have become deeply entrenched in legislation, institutional structures, and everyday practice across the EU. This is the result of a process which, although deeply impacted by the refugee “crisis,” began years earlier with the adoption and ongoing evolution of key EU directives and regulations. At the same time, the EU and its members have encouraged the use of detention measures in neighboring regions, including North Africa and the Near East, as well as in non-EU European countries. This concluding chapter thus focuses on two overlapping issues: the lessons learned from the comparative analysis of EU immigration detention systems and the inevitable linkages between the consolidation of detention and migration control regimes in Europe and the growth of detention practices on the other side of the EU’s borders.


Externalization Immigration detention EU neighbourhood policy Readmission agreements Deporation and removal 


  1. Afeef, K. F. (2006). The Politics of Extraterritorial Processing. Oxford Refugee Studies Center Working Paper No. 36.Google Scholar
  2. Amnesty International. (2017). Libya: European governments complicit in horrific abuse of refugees and migrants.
  3. Amnesty International. (2018). Libya: Shameful EU policies fuel surge in detention of migrants and refugees.
  4. CJEU. (2009). Kadzoev, C-357/09 PPU.Google Scholar
  5. CJEU. (2014). Bero and Bouzalmate, C-473/13 and C-514/13.Google Scholar
  6. CJEU. (2017). Al Chodor, C-528/15.Google Scholar
  7. Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe (CHR). (2009). Report by Thomas Hammarberg commissioner for human rights of the Council of Europe Following his visit to Turkey on 28 June – 3 July 2009: Issue reviewed: Human rights of asylum seekers and refugees.Google Scholar
  8. Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW) and Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC). (2017). Joint General Comment No. 4 on State Obligations Regarding the Human Rights of Children in the Context of International Migration in Countries of Origin, Transit, Destination and Return, CMW/C/GC/4-CRC/C/GC/23.
  9. Cornelisse, G., & Bouwman J. (2014). Completed questionnaire for the project contention. National Report: Netherlands, CONTENTION.Google Scholar
  10. Council of the European Union. (2019). Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the council on common standards and procedures in member states for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (recast) − partial general approach, 9620/19.Google Scholar
  11. Cuttitta, P. (2008). Readmission and forcibly return in the relations between Italy and north African Mediterranean countries. Paper presented at the ninth Mediterranean research meeting, Florence & Montecatini Terme, 12–15 march 2008, organised by the Mediterranean programme of the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute.Google Scholar
  12. De Guerry, O., Stocchiero, A., CONCORD EUFT Task Force. (2018). Partnership or conditionality? Monitoring the migration compacts and EU Trust fund for Africa. Coordinamento Italiano NGO Internazionali (CINI) and European NGO Confederation for Relief and Development (CONCORD).Google Scholar
  13. Delegation of the European Commission to Ukraine (DECU). (2011a). EU improves situation with irregular migrants in Ukraine.Google Scholar
  14. Delegation of the European Commission to Ukraine (DECU). (2011b). EU Funds Work with Irregular Migrants in Ukraine. EU Co-operation News No. 83.Google Scholar
  15. ECRE. (2017). Return: No safety in numbers. Policy Note 9.Google Scholar
  16. ECRE. (2018). ECRE comments on the commission proposal for a recast return directive COM(2018) 634.Google Scholar
  17. EU Observer (2016, October 18). EU Hails First Result in Africa Migration Deals. EU Observer.
  18. EuroMed Rights. (2019). EU-Egypt migration cooperation: At the expense of human rights.
  19. European Commission. (2007). Twinning: Support to Turkey’s capacity in combating illegal migration and establishment of removal Centers for illegal migrants, twinning project no. TR 07 02 16.Google Scholar
  20. European Commission. (2016). Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast), COM(2018) 465.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission. (2017). EU Cooperation with Niger: European Commission—Fact Sheet.
  22. European Commission. (2018). Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the council on common standards and procedures in member states for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (recast), COM(2018)634.Google Scholar
  23. European Commission. (2019). The EU emergency trust fund for Africa.
  24. European Parliament. (2018). DRAFT REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the council on common standards and procedures in member states for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (recast).Google Scholar
  25. Flynn, M. (2014). There and Back again: On the diffusion of immigration detention. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 2, 165–197.
  26. Global Detention Project. (2010). Detention at the borders of Europe: Report on the joint global detention project – International detention coalition workshop in Geneva.
  27. Global Detention Project. (2011) Immigration detention in Tunisia.
  28. Global Detention Project. (2012). Immigration detention in Ukraine.
  29. Global Detention Project. (2019). EU forum on the rights of the child, 2–3 April 2019, press release.
  30. Jakulevičienė, L. (2015). Completed legal questionnaire: Lithuania. Odysseus, MADE REAL.Google Scholar
  31. La Cimade. (2018). Décryptage Du Projet de Loi Asile et immigration.Google Scholar
  32. Lavenex, S., & Uçarer, E. (2004). The external dimension of Europeanization: The case of immigration control. Cooperation and Conflict, 39(4), 417–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leerkes, A., & Broeders, D. (2013). Deportable and not so deportable: Formal and informal functions of administrative immigration detention. In B. Anderson, M. J. Gibney, & E. Paoletti (Eds.), The social, political and historical contours of deportation. New York: Immigrants and Minorities, Politics and Policy, Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Levy, C. (2010). Refugees, Europe, camps/state of exception: ‘Into the zone,’ the European Union and extraterritorial processing of migrants, refugees, and asylum-seekers (theories and practice). Refugee Survey Quarterly, 29(1), 92–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Majcher, I. (2013). ‘Crimmigration’ in the European Union through the lens of immigration detention. Global Detention Project Working Paper No. 6. Google Scholar
  36. Majcher, I. (2019). The recast of the EU returns directive: Human rights lost again?RLI Blog.
  37. Majcher, I., & Flynn M. (2018). Harm reduction in immigration detention: A comparative study of detention centres in France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland. Global Detention Project, Commissioned by the Norwegian Red Cross.Google Scholar
  38. Moreno-Lax, V. (2017). Accessing asylum in Europe: Extraterritorial border controls and refugee rights under EU law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MSF (Medecins sans Frontieres). (2019). Libya: Alarming rates of malnutrition among detained migrants and refugees.
  40. Noll, G. (2003). Visions of the exceptional: Legal and theoretical issues raised by transit processing centres and protection zones. Lund University, Faculty of Law, Working Paper. Google Scholar
  41. Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (2018, October 1–8). End of Mission Statement of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Felipe González Morales, on his Visit to Niger.
  42. Tinti, P. (2017, January 17). The E.U.’s Hollow Success Over Migrant Smuggling in Niger. Refugees Deeply.
  43. Tunaboylu, S., & Alpes, J. (2017). The EU-Turkey deal: What happens to people who return to Turkey? Forced Migration Review, 54, 84–87.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Izabella Majcher
    • 1
  • Michael Flynn
    • 1
  • Mariette Grange
    • 1
  1. 1.Global Detention ProjectGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations