Detente In Europe Research Articles

A quantitative investigation of immigrants integration and detention in Europe

A quantitative investigation of immigrants integration and detention in Europe

Towards an Evidence-Based Approach to Pre-trial Detention in Europe

This editorial seeks to introduce the special issue Towards an Evidence-Based Approach to Pre-trial Detention in Europe. It explains the state of the field surrounding the legal practice of pre-trial detention and why an interdisciplinary approach is warranted. Pre-trial detention is an instrument in criminal procedure that has been reportedly overused in several European systems, but the reasons remain partly unexplored. While legal scholarship continues to focus predominantly on the legal framework, more disciplines are involved in the way this applies in practice. This special issue gathers contributions from political scientists, (forensic) psychologists, criminologists and jurists who approach this phenomenon from different angles and therefore provide a deeper and more evidence-based understanding of how its practice operates. The special issue is structured along four themes highlighting the trends in scholarship regarding pre-trial detention, namely decision-making, risk-prediction, legal culture, and harmonisation. The editorial elucidates the narrative of the special issue and briefly presents the key points of each contribution.

7.K. Workshop: The impact of COVID-19 response measures on health and healthcare for people in detention in Europe

Abstract In the WHO European region alone, approximately 6 million people are incarcerated every year. Prison populations include many individuals belonging to socially deprived and marginalised communities and vulnerable groups such as women, older people, ethnic minorities, and foreigners, among others. Ensuring the right to health is a complex task, and the health status of people in detention (PiD) is often inferior to that of people who are not deprived of their liberty. Since the start of the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic, attention was called on the potential risk of COVID-19 outbreaks occurring inside prisons, and the impact on health and well-being of PiD. Proximity, overcrowding, infrastructural constraints and environmental circumstances pose PiD at higher risk of acquiring infection. The likelihood of COVID-19 introduction in detention facilities is notably high, due to high turnover, movement within prison and between prison and community of staff, PiD and external contacts (e.g. family/personal visits). COVID-19 prevention and control measures in prison settings, although heterogeneous across Europe, included: implementation of internal containment measures, including use of PPE and physical distancing, screening and testing followed by the establishment of internal quarantine zones and mechanisms of medical isolation and transfer of severe cases to hospital or specialised care, coupled with the introduction of non-custodial measures of incarceration and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. While necessary, those measures impacted on the health status of PiD and on the internal prison organisation, including the provision of health services, as the already scarce resources were reduced or redirected towards mitigating the impact of COVID-19. Yet, the incidence of COVID-19 infections in prison has grown in the last months of 2020 in several European countries and there were reports of a general worsening of PiD mental health, including drug use disorders. COVID-19 pandemic calls on us to focus on the principle “prison health is public health” in order to protect the well-being of people in prison and the surrounding community, uphold equity and continuity of care whilst keeping a secure and safe environment. The main objective of this workshop is to describe COVID-19 prevention and control interventions implemented in prison settings across Europe, and analyse their impact on SARS-CoV2 transmission, mental health of PiD in prison, including drug use disorders and provision of health interventions. The workshop will be structured in 5 presentations of 5-10 minutes each. Together, they will provide participants with an overview of prison health during the COVID-19 pandemic era at European level. Presentations will be followed by a moderated questions and answers session, and participants will be invited to take part in varied activities at the beginning, during and at the end of the workshop to foster interaction. Key messages COVID-19 control measures impacted on the internal prison organisation, provision of healthcare services and the health of people in detention, including mental health and drug use disorders. We call for heightened global attention to prison health as part of a comprehensive public health approach addressing health inequalities.

Coronavirus and Immigration Detention in Europe: The Short Summer of Abolitionism?

In managing the coronavirus pandemic, national authorities worldwide have implemented significant re-bordering measures. This has even affected regions that had dismantled bordering practices decades ago, e.g., EU areas that lifted internal borders in 1993. In some national cases, these new arrangements had unexpected consequences in the field of immigration enforcement. A number of European jurisdictions released significant percentages of their immigration detention populations in spring 2020. The Spanish administration even decreed a moratorium on immigration detention and closed down all detention facilities from mid-spring to late summer 2020. The paper scrutinises these unprecedented changes by examining the variety of migration enforcement agendas adopted by European countries and the specific forces contributing to the prominent detention decline witnessed in the first months of the pandemic. Drawing on the Spanish case, the paper reflects on the potential impact of this promising precedent on the gradual consolidation of social and racial justice-based migration policies.

‘French airmen and the challenges of post-war order: francophone literary figures during the second world war’

This paper will examine the political thought of a selection of literary figures who fought in the Free French air forces during the Second World War: Romain Gary, Joseph Kessel and Antoine de St Exupery, all of whom fought under the Free French colours in the Royal Air Force. I intend to show how the literary output of these writers all, in their different ways, reflected the feelings of humiliation felt by the French in exile about the defeat of 1940, and how they suggested ways for France to recover in the post-war era. Their thinking about French domestic politics, their Allies (especially the British) and the future of Europe are all dominant themes. The writings of all of these personalities also reflect a strong belief in a future European detente in which the British and Americans have a lesser role than the one they often envisaged for themselves in the Washington-based ‘post-war planning’ process.

The Purposes of Pre-Trial Detention and the Quest for Alternatives

In this article, we take issue with the echr standards on pre-trial detention. These standards are considered panacea for the reported overuse of pre-trial detention in Europe. They focus on the legitimate purposes of detention as safeguards to ensure the principle of ultima ratio. Yet these purposes are heterogeneous as pre-trial detention protects the pending proceedings but also averts risks pertinent to criminal policy. In our analysis we discuss the shortcomings of the echr standards to fully protect from abusive detention. Moreover, we reveal internal inconsistencies with the presumption of innocence. One major example is the use of pre-trial detention to prevent re-offending, which blurs the boundaries between custody on remand and preventive detention. Additionally, we delve deeper into the obligation to use milder measures as part of the echr standards, which remains superficial and vague. Conclusively, we encourage the reflection and re-examination of the echr standards for pre-trial detention, instead of focusing merely on their better enforcement.

Book Review: Clausewitz on Small War Christopher Daase and James W. Davis (eds) and Rebooting Clausewitz: On War in the 21st Century Christopher Coker

R. Gerald Hughes is Reader in Military History and Director of the Centre for Intelligence and International Security Studies at Aberystwyth University. He is the author of The Postwar Legacy of Appeasement: British Foreign Policy Since 1945 (2014); and Britain, Germany and the Cold War: The Search for a European Detente, 1949-1967 (2007). A reviews editor of Intelligence and National Security, Hughes is the author of a number of book chapters and articles (including, most recently, ‘“Fear has large eyes”: The History of Intelligence in the Soviet Union’ in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies; and ‘Between Man and Nature: The Enduring Wisdom of Sir Halford J. Mackinder’ in the Journal of Strategic Studies). He has also edited, or co-edited, a number of scholarly volumes. These include The Cuban Missile Crisis: A Critical Reappraisal (2016); Intelligence and International Security: New Perspectives and Agendas (2011); Intelligence, Crises and Security: Prospects and Retrospects (2008); and Exploring Intelligence Archives: Enquiries into the Secret State (2008). R. Gerald Hughes is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.

The diary of an undercover agent in Mexico’s war on drugs

R. Gerald Hughes is Reader in Military History and Director of the Centre for Intelligence and International Security Studies at Aberystwyth University. Hughes is the reviews editor of *Intelligence & National Security*, the world’s leading journal on the role of intelligence in international affairs, and the editor of the UK Study Group on Intelligence newsletter. His publications include *Germany and the Cold War: The Search for a European Detente, 1949–1967* (2007), *The Postwar Legacy of Appeasement: British Foreign Policy Since 1945* (2014), and *The Cuban Missile Crisis: A Critical Reappraisal* (2016). R. Gerald Hughes is a member of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR) and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society (FRHistS).

Mental health morbidity among people subject to immigration detention in the UK: a feasibility study.

The UK has one of the largest systems of immigration detention in Europe.. Those detained include asylum-seekers and foreign national prisoners, groups with a higher prevalence of mental health vulnerabilities compared with the general population. In light of little published research on the mental health status of detainees in immigration removal centres (IRCs), the primary aim of this study was to explore whether it was feasible to conduct psychiatric research in such a setting. A secondary aim was to compare the mental health of those seeking asylum with the rest of the detainees. Cross-sectional study with simple random sampling followed by opportunistic sampling. Exclusion criteria included inadequate knowledge of English and European Union nationality. Six validated tools were used to screen for mental health disorders including developmental disorders like Personality Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Intellectual Disability, as well as for needs assessment. These were the MINI v6, SAPAS, AQ-10, ASRS, LDSQ and CANFOR. Demographic data were obtained using a participant demographic sheet. Researchers were trained in the use of the screening battery and inter-rater reliability assessed by joint ratings. A total of 101 subjects were interviewed. Overall response rate was 39%. The most prevalent screened mental disorder was depression (52.5%), followed by personality disorder (34.7%) and post-traumatic stress disorder (20.8%). 21.8% were at moderate to high suicidal risk. 14.9 and 13.9% screened positive for ASD and ADHD, respectively. The greatest unmet needs were in the areas of intimate relationships (76.2%), psychological distress (72.3%) and sexual expression (71.3%). Overall presence of mental disorder was comparable with levels found in prisons. The numbers in each group were too small to carry out any further analysis. It is feasible to undertake a psychiatric morbidity survey in an IRC. Limitations of the study include potential selection bias, use of screening tools, use of single-site study, high refusal rates, the lack of interpreters and lack of women and children in study sample. Future studies should involve the in-reach team to recruit participants and should be run by a steering group consisting of clinicians from the IRC as well as academics.

Territory, Procedures and Rights: Border Procedures in European Asylum Law

Border procedures have so far received little attention in the legal literature dealing with European asylum law. Literature on immigration detention in Europe has also neglected the use of detention in border procedures. This is remarkable because one of the reasons that Member States resort to border procedures can be traced back to the centrality of territorial presence within the modern State for the enjoyment of rights. The triangular relationship between an application for international protection, refusal of entry, and a deprivation of liberty has remained imprecise. This indeterminacy has had important repercussions for the way in which the right to liberty has been protected at the borders of Europe. However, the way in which the Recast Asylum Procedures Directive circumscribes Member States' use of this procedure is unprecedented. This article uses the Dutch implementation of the Asylum Procedures Directive in order to unpack the above-mentioned triangular relationship between an application for international protection, refusal of entry, and a deprivation of liberty. It will show that European Union regulation in this area is distinctive because it entails recognition of the fact that, when it comes to the enforcement of migration control, individual rights are at stake.

Discipline and Punish? Analysis of the Purposes of Immigration Detention in Europe

Pre-removal detention is usually considered an administrative measure aimed at the facilitation of the removal of irregular migrants by preventing them from absconding during removal proceedings. The administrative nature of immigration detention implies that persons subject to this measure do not have access to the fair trial guarantees that criminal detainees are entitled to. However, the assessment of pre-removal detention under European Union and Swiss legislation demonstrates the penal nature of such detention despite its formal administrative classification. The penal nature of immigration detention is most easily revealed by the explicit deterrent — if not punitive — function it is supposed to fulfill in order to force foreigners to cooperate in their own removal procedure. Moreover, this penal nature may also be deducted from the more implicit purpose of immigration detention to punish irregular migrants and asylum seekers for criminal offences. The discrepancy between the administrative label of immigration detention and its punitive nature should be remedied. Arguably, the use of pre-removal detention should be limited to a truly administrative purpose, i.e. for very short periods of time allowing the state to prevent concrete risks of absconding once removal is about to be enforced. Alternatively, if the existing legal framework fails to prevent the use of immigration detention according to disciplinary or punitive functions, immigration detainees should be afforded guarantees comparable to those applied in criminal proceedings.

Discipline and Punish? Analysis of the Purposes of Immigration Detention in Europe

Pre-removal detention is usually considered an administrative measure aimed at the facilitation of the removal of irregular migrants by preventing them from absconding during removal proceedings. The administrative nature of immigration detention implies that persons subject to this measure do not have access to the fair trial guarantees that criminal detainees are entitled to. However, the assessment of pre-removal detention under European Union and Swiss legislation demonstrates the penal nature of such detention despite its formal administrative classification. The penal nature of immigration detention is most easily revealed by the explicit deterrent—if not punitive—function it is supposed to fulfill in order to force foreigners to cooperate in their own removal procedure. Moreover, this penal nature may also be deducted from the more implicit purpose of immigration detention to punish irregular migrants and asylum seekers for criminal offences. The discrepancy between the administrative label of immigration detention and its punitive nature should be remedied. Arguably, the use of pre-removal detention should be limited to a truly administrative purpose, i.e. for very short periods of time allowing the state to prevent concrete risks of absconding once removal is about to be enforced. Alternatively, if the existing legal framework fails to prevent the use of immigration detention according to disciplinary or punitive functions, immigration detainees should be afforded guarantees comparable to those applied in criminal proceedings.

Preventive Detention in Europe and the United States

Preventive detention, both within the criminal justice system and outside it (e.g. commitment, quarantine and wartime confinement), is under-theorized. The European Court of Human Rights has recently issued a spate of opinions that begin to deal seriously with the issue, in a more sophisticated manner than American courts have. This paper describes the European decisions, especially the European Court's decision in M. v. Germany, compares those decisions to American and Australian law on preventive detention, and discusses how principles I have developed in other work can further the analysis.

Reakcja zachodnioniemieckich mediów na wydarzenia Marca i kampanię antysemicką w Polsce

The article analyses the impact of the events of 1968 on West German public opinion and politics. Following the first comments in the press, published on 11th March, the events of that month in Poland were watched attentively in the FRG. West German observers connected with the power struggles in the PUWP, while West German politicians were of the opinion that the best solution in such a situation would be to wait and see, and sustain contacts with Warsaw cautiously.In view of the growing wave of anti-Semitic pronouncements, the PUWP leader, Mr Władysław Gomułka was judged relatively mildly, assuming that he wanted to restrain them but had to yield under pressure. These pronouncements, however, a racted the a ention of the opinion-forming media in the FRG, which reacted with exaggerated comparisons to anti-Semitism in the Third Reich. Polish diplomacy, on the other hand, was effective in using the argument that an ‘anti-Polish campaign’ in the media was harmful to the detente in Europe. This effective tool of diplomacy was unable, however, to prevent the negative consequences of references to the stereotype of Polish anti-Semitism.

Pre-trial/remand detention in Europe: facts and figures and the need for common minimum standards

This article presents some background considerations to a comparative study which reviews the legal basis of pre-trial detention in the member States of the European Union as well as current practice and problems in relation to such detention. The reasons why such a study seems worthwhile—even at a time where other criminal policy topics are being paid greater attention have priority—will be explained. Statistics show that pre-trial detainees form a considerable proportion of all prisoners. But a closer look also reveals that the comparability of data is limited. Apart from empirical aspects, the article also briefly examines existing minimum standards regarding pre-trial detention.

Pre-Trial Detention: The Presumption of Innocence and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights Cannot and Does Not Limit its Increasing Use

These days the use of pre-trial detention in Europe seems to be ever increasing. This is in spite of the fact that the the presumption of innocence tells authorities to be restrictive in pre-detaining suspects. It also seems contrary to the starting point of the European Court of Human Rights. Basing itself on the presumption of innocence the Court holds that a suspect should await his trial in freedom. For obvious reasons, the presumption of innocence and the European case-law are often invoked to either state that today’s pre-trial detention practices are in violation of both presumption and case-law or to say that pre-trial detention practice should take them more into account. In this article I am concerned with the question whether the presumption of innocence and the case-law of the European Court really make an argument against all too enthousiastic use of pre-trial detention. I will answer that question in the negative. For that I will firstly discuss the claimed pre-trial detention increase in paragraph 2. Secondly, in the third paragraph, I will elaborate on the meaning of the presumption of innocence and I will argue that the presumption cannot be invoked to effectively curtail the use of pre-trial detention. Paragraph 4 then discusses the case-law of article 5 of the European Convention European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 17 (2009) 165–180

THE ARMING OF ISRAEL AND ITS IMPACT ON REGIONAL AND WORLD PEACE AND EUROPEAN DETENTE

THE ARMING OF ISRAEL AND ITS IMPACT ON REGIONAL AND WORLD PEACE AND EUROPEAN DETENTE * Tiirkkaya ATAÖV I. Introduction: The problem of ending the arms race in our age requires a radical solution. The spirit of detente has scored several gains on the continent of Europe. But the Middle East and Eastern Medi-terranean, which may also be termed as the south of Europe, are among the best equipped regions of the worId in terms of ar-maments. It is generally believed that ali the Middle Eastern coun-tries taken together have the same number of tanks and combat planes as ali the NATO forces in Europe. It is no wonder, then, that the Middle East has experienced five wars, the situation there being explosive at present. The accumulation of stockpiles of arms in such an explosive area increases the fears of the other side, creating an atmosphere further leading to an unchecked growth of tension. Such spending on arms certainly impedes the develop-ment of the Middle Eastern countries as well.

Detention in Europe and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture

Detention in Europe and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture

Detente in Europe: The Soviet Union and the West since 1953.

Detente in Europe: The Soviet Union and the West since 1953.

European detente: a reappraisal

Journal Article European detente: a reappraisal Get access European detente: a reappraisal. Edited by Richard Davy. London: Sage for Royal Institute of International Affairs. 1992. 277pp. Index. £35.00. isbn0 8039 8688 2. John Roper John Roper 1Institute for Security Studies, Paris Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Affairs, Volume 69, Issue 2, April 1993, Pages 350–351, https://doi.org/10.2307/2621625 Published: 01 April 1993