Make a Submission
Vol. 36 (2016)
General Articles

Family Reunification Regulations and Women: The Perspective of International Law

PDF
  • Wojciech Burek
Wojciech Burek
Jagiellonian University in Kraków

Published 2016-12-31

Keywords

  • Directive 2003/86/EC,
  • family reunification,
  • gender discrimination,
  • international law,
  • women’s rights

Copyright (c) 2021 ILS PAS

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite

Family Reunification Regulations and Women: The Perspective of International Law. (2016). Polish Yearbook of International Law, 36, 83-108. https://doi.org/10.7420/pyil2016e

Abstract

The concept of family reunification is well established in contemporary migration laws, at both the national and international levels. Focusing on international and EU law, in this article I argue that while existing provisions on family reunification are formulated in neutral language, from the gender point of view the enforcement of these substantively neutral rules may, in certain situations, result in discrimination, or at least bring about negative consequences, with respect to women in cases both when they are the sponsors of migration or the bearers of consequences of male migration. Following presentation of the international legal framework on family reunification and the relevant international jurisprudence, I deal with some rather common aspects relating to the personal scope of family reunification regulations, covering only the issues of who can, and who cannot, join their family member(s)/sponsor(s) in a foreign country (i.e. the unmarried minor rule, excluded forms of marriages – polygamous and forced marriages - and age limits). Some procedural aspects of family reunification are then dealt with (waiting periods, delays in proceedings, and end of a relationship as a cause for termination of residence rights.). These issues are examined with respect to concerns that they may cause indirect, or even direct, gender discrimination in some cases, while in others they may affect women more negatively than men.

PDF

References

  1. American Convention on Human Rights “Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica” (adopted 22 November 1969, entered into force 18 July 1978) OAS Treaty Series No. 36 (ACHR).
  2. Apap J., Carrera S., Towards a Proactive Immigration Policy for the EU?. CEPS Working Documents No. 198, December 2003, http://aei.pitt.edu/1815/1/WD198.pdf [accessed: 30.05.2017].
  3. Audit B., Recent Revisions of French Civil Code, Louisiana Law Review 1978, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 747-804.
  4. Bailey M. et al., Expanding Recognition of Foreign Polygamous Marriages: Policy Implications for Canada, Queen’s University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-12, 2006, pp. 9-16, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1023896 [accessed: 30.05.2017].
  5. Bernard-Maugiron N., Dupret B. (eds.), Ordre public et droit musulman de la famille en Europe et en Afrique du Nord, Bruylant, Bruxelles 2012.
  6. Bhabha J., Shutter S., Women’s Movement. Women under Immigration, Nationality and Refugee Law, Trentham Books, Stoke-on-Trent 1994.
  7. Bonjour S., Hart B. de, A proper wife, a proper marriage: Constructions of ‘us’ and ‘them’ in Dutch family migration policy, „European Journal of Women’s Studies” 2013, vol. 20, no. 1.
  8. BVerwG 1 C 8.09: 2010, http://www.bverwg.de/entscheidungen/entscheidung.php?ent=300310U1C8.09.0 [accessed: 30.05.2017].
  9. Canadian Council for Refugees, DNA Tests: A Barrier to Speedy Family Reunification, October 2011, https://ccrweb.ca/files/dnatests.pdf [accessed: 30.05.2017].
  10. Cholewinski R., Family Reunification and Conditions Placed on Family Members: Dismantling a Fundamental Right, „European Journal of Migration Law” 2002, vol. 4, no. 4.
  11. Chou M., EU Mobility Partnerships and Gender: Origin and Implications [in:] R.A. Sollund (ed.), Transnational Migration, Gender and Rights, Emerald, Bingley 2012.
  12. CJEU, C-540/03 Parliament v. Council (2006).
  13. Clark B., Richards C., The Prevention and Prohibition of Forced Marriages. A Comparative Approach, „International and Comparative Law Quarterly” 2008, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 501-528.
  14. Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Yemen, CRC/C/YEM/CO/4.
  15. Convention concerning Migrations in Abusive Conditions and the Promotion of Equality of Opportunity and Treatment of Migrant Workers (adopted 24 June 1975, entered into force 9 December 1978) 1120 UNTS 323.
  16. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended) (adopted 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953) (ECHR).
  17. Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age of Marriage, and Registration of Marriages (adopted 7 November 1962, entered into force 9 December 1964), 521 UNTS 231.
  18. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 34/180 of 18 December 1979 entry into force 3 September 1981, in accordance with article 27(1), 1249 UNTS 13 (CEDAW).
  19. Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, OJ [2003] L 251/12.
  20. Court of Justice of the European Union, C-338/13 Marjan Noorzia (2014).
  21. Cumper P., Multiculturalism, Human Rights and the Accommodation of Sharia Law, „Human Rights Law Review” 2014, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 31-57.
  22. Denial and Delay: The Impact of the Immigration Law’s Terrorism Bars on Asylum Seekers and Refugees in the United States, Human Rights First Report, November 2009, http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RPP-DenialandDelay-FULL-111009-web.pdfpp [accessed: 30.05.2017].
  23. Detrick S., A Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague 1999.
  24. ECtHR, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. The United Kingdom, App. Nos. 9214/80, 9473/81, 9474/81, 28 May 1985.
  25. ECtHR, Khan v. The United Kingdom, App. No. 23860/94, 29 November 1995, Admissibility decision.
  26. ECtHR, R. B. v. The United Kingdom, App. No. 19628/92, 29 June 1992, Admissibility decision.
  27. ECtHR, Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and the others v. Turkey, App. Nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98, 41344/98, 31 July 2001.
  28. ECtHR, Z.H. and R.H. v. Switzerland, App. No. 60119/12, 8 December 2015.
  29. Edel F., The Prohibition of Discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg 2010.
  30. Edelenbos C., The Human Rights Committee’s Jurisprudence under Article 26 of the ICCPR: The Hidden Revolution [in:] G. Alfredsson, J. Grimheden, B. G. Ramcharan, A. De Zayas (eds.), International Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms: Essays in Honour of Jakob Th. Möller, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague-Boston-London 2001.
  31. El Alami D.S., Hinchcliffe D., Islamic Marriage and Divorce Laws of the Arab World, Kluwer Law International, London-The Hague-Boston 1996.
  32. Ellis E., Watson P., EU Anti-discrimination law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2012.
  33. European Convention on Legal Status of Migrant Workers (adopted 24 November 1977, entered into force 1 May 1983), CETS No. 93.
  34. European Migration Group, Misuse of the Right to Family Reunification, June 2012, http://bit.ly/2svpAzJ [accessed: 30.05.2017].
  35. Fournier P., Muslim Marriage in Western Courts. Lost in Transplantation, Ashgate, Farnham and Burlington 2010.
  36. Grange M., d’Auchamp M., Role of Civil Society in Campaigning for and Using the ICRMW [in:] P. de Guchteneire, A. Pécoud, R. Cholewinski (eds.), Migration and Human Rights. The United Nations Convention on Migrant Worker’s Rights, Cambridge University Press-UNESCO Publishing, Cambridge 2009.
  37. Groenendijk K., Are Third-Country Nationals Protected by the Union Law Prohibition of Discrimination on the Ground of Nationality? [in:] K. Barwig, R. Dobbelstein (eds.), Den Fremden akzeptieren: Festschrift für Gisbert Brinkmann, Nomos, Baden-Baden 2012.
  38. Groenendijk K., Family Reunification as a Right under Community Law, „European Journal of Migration Law” 2006, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 215-230.
  39. Haandrikman K., Binational Marriages in Sweden: Is there an EU Effect?, „Population, Space and Place” 2004, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 177-199.
  40. Haile A., The Scandal of Refugee Family Reunification, „Boston College Law Review” 2015, vol. 56, no. 1.
  41. Hajbandeh R., ‘France, Love it or Leave it’: New French Law Restricts Family Reunification, „Wisconsin International Law Journal” 2009, vol. 27, no. 2.
  42. Hart B. de, Superdads: Migrant Fathers’ Right to Family Life before the European Court of Human Rights, „Men and Masculinities” 2015, vol. 18, no. 4.
  43. Heinemann T., Naue U., Tapaninen A.-M., Verifying the Family? A Comparison of DNA Analysis for Family Reunification in Three European Countries (Austria, Finland and Germany), „European Journal of Migration and Law” 2013, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 183-202.
  44. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, Canada Gazette 18 June 2014, vol. 148, no. 13, http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2014/2014-06-18/html/sor-dors133-eng.php [accessed: 30.05.2017].
  45. International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, Adopted by General Assembly resolution 45/158 of 18 December 1990, entered into force 1 July 2003, 2220 UNTS 3 (ICRMW).
  46. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49, 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR).
  47. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976), 993 UNTS 3 (ICESCR).
  48. Lawson R., Family Reunification Directive – Court of Justice of the European Communities, „European Constitutional Law Review” 2007, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 234-342.
  49. Loenen T., Family Law Issues in a Multicultural Setting: Abolishing or Reaffirming Sex as a Legally Relevant Category? A Human Rights Approach, „Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights” 2002, vol. 20, no. 4.
  50. Maghniyyah M.J., Divorce according to Five Schools of Islamic Law, Islamic Culture and Relations Organization, Tehran 1997.
  51. MIG 2012:4. Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen, http://lifos.migrationsverket.se/dokument?documentAttachmentId=39376 [accessed: 30.05.2017].
  52. Morris E., Family Reunification and Integration Policy in the EU: Where Are the Women?, „Journal of International Migration and Integration” 2015, vol. 16, no. 3.
  53. Mustasaari S., The Married Child Belongs to No One. The Legal Recognition of Forced Marriages and Child Marriages in the Reuniting of Families, „Child and Family Law Quarterly” 2016, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 261-282.
  54. Nowak M., U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. CCPR Commentary, N.P. Engel Publisher, Kehl 2005.
  55. Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976), 999 UNTS 171 (OP-ICCPR).
  56. Parrenas R.S., Migrant Filipina Domestic Workers and the International Division of Reproductive Labor, „Gender and Society” 2000, vol. 14, no. 4.
  57. Report of the Tripartite Meeting of Experts on Future ILO Activities in the Field of Migration, Geneva, 21-25 April 1997, Annex I, para 6.1, http://www.actrav.itcilo.org/actrav-english/telearn/global/ilo/seura/ilomigrp.htm [accessed: 30.05.2017].
  58. Rohe M., Recognition and Institutionalization of Islam in Germany [in:] M.-C. Foblets, J.-F. Gaudreault-DesBiens, A. Dundes Renteln (eds.), Cultural Diversity and the Law. State Responses from Around the World, Bruylant, Bruxelles 2010.
  59. Rohe M., The Application of Islamic Family Law in German Courts and its Compatibility with German Public Policy [in:] J. Basedow, N. Yassari (eds.), Iranian Family and Succession Laws and their Application in German Courts, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2004.
  60. Rutten S., Recognition of Divorce by Repudiation (talaq) in France, Germany and the Netherlands, „Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law” 2004, vol. 11, no. 3.
  61. Schneider J., Demystifying the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families: Why Are States so Reluctant to Ratify? [in:] D. Henschel, S. Graf Kielmansegg, U. Kischel, C. Koenig, R. A. Lorz (eds.), Mensch und Recht. Festschrift für Eibe Riedel zum 70. Geburtstag, Duncker&Humblot, Berlin 2013.
  62. Sherlock C., Gender, Family Unity and Migration: Discourses and Dilemmas [in:] H. Stalford, S. Currie, S. Velluti (eds.), Gender and Migration in 21st Century Europe, Ashgate, Farnham- Burlington 2010.
  63. Siehr K., Divorce of Muslim Marriages in Secular Courts [in:] J.-P. Ancel et al. (eds.), Vers de nouveaux équilibres entre ordres juridiques: Liber amicorum Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon, Dalloz, Paris 2008.
  64. Stalford H., Currie S., Velluti S. (eds.), Gender and Migration in 21st Century Europe, Ashgate, Farnham- Burlington 2010.
  65. Strik T., Hart B. de, Nissen E., Family Reunification: a Barrier or Facilitator of Integration? A Comparative Study, Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen 2013.
  66. Sweet E.L., Lee S.S., Ortiz Escalante S., A Slow Assassination of Your Soul: Race, Citizenship and Gender Identities of New Economic Places [in:] R.A. Sollund (ed.), Transnational Migration, Gender and Rights, Emerald, Bingley 2012.
  67. The Danish Immigration Service, Statistical Overview Migration and Asylum 2015, Copenhagen 2016.
  68. The World’s Women 2010. Trends and Statistics, Report of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York 2010.
  69. Triebl K., Klindworth Ch., Family Reunification: A Barrier or Facilitator of Integration? German Country Report, Johann Daniel Lawaetz-Stiftung, Hamburg 2012.
  70. Truong T., Gasper D., Handmaker J., Bergh S.I. (eds.), Migration, Gender and Social Justice. Perspective on Human Insecurity, Springer, Heidelberg-New York-Dordrecht-London 2014.
  71. UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), CEDAW General Recommendation No. 21: Equality in Marriage and Family Relations, 1994, https://www.refworld.org/docid/48abd52c0.html [accessed: 10.08.2021].
  72. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948), UNGA Res 217 A(III) (UDHR).
  73. Vierdag W., The Concept of Discrimination in International Law. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague 1973.
  74. Zayas A. de, Möller J.Th., Opsahl T., Application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under the Optional Protocol by the Human Rights Committee, „German Yearbook of International Law” 1985, vol. 28.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.