LEGISLATIVE MEANS TO COMBAT INSTRUMENTALISED MIGRATION? – CASE FINLAND

Tuomas Hassinen

doi:10.17770/bsm.v5i10.8313

Authors

Tuomas Hassinen First Lieutenant (The Finnish Border Guard, Border and Coast Guard Academy), M.Sc.(Admin.), B.Sc.(Mil.), a master’s student in military sciences (National Defence University of Finland), LL.D. candidate (University of Eastern Finland) (FI)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17770/bsm.v5i10.8313

Keywords:

hybrid operations, instrumentalised migration, international obligations, law, legislation, national security

Abstract

The aim of the study is to analyse, how to properly respond to instrumentalised migration by means of legislation – can the state invoke national security to respond to the phenomenon? Is it possible to deviate from international agreements by referring to “fundamental change of circumstances” (e.g. Article 62 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties)? The article analyses, as an example, how Finland – a state governed by the Rule of Law – has tried to respond to hybrid operations, such as instrumentalised migration, through legislative means. These include, for example, changes to the Border Guard Act, the Emergency Powers Act and lastly, the Act to combat instrumentalised migration (constitutional enactment), which is in conflict with international obligations (the right to apply for asylum). The article represents legal research, combined with military sciences (military and operational law). First, the article problematizes briefly the question of the relationship between international law, EU law and national law, considering the topic. After this, Finland's national legislative measures to respond to hybrid operations will be presented. Lastly, conclusions shall be summarized. The research indicates that states are even more ready to appeal to their national interests, ignoring their international obligations. This poses a challenge to the sustainability of the international treaty system, requiring a new interpretation of the treaty texts – or changes to the treaties.

References

Act on Temporary Measures to Combat Instrumentalised Migration 2024. Retrieved from https://finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2024/20240482

Aliens Act 2004. Retrieved from https://finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2004/20040301

Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99 (ECtHR, 25 January 2001).

Border Guard Act 2005. Retrieved from https://finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2005/20050578

Brannigan and McBride v. United Kingdom, nos. 14553/89 and 14554/89 (ECtHR, 25 May 1993).

Bucur and Toma v. Romania, no. 40238/02 (ECtHR, 8 January 2013).

C-140/20, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2022: Commissioner of An Garda Síochána. The Court of Justice of the European Union.

C-162/22, Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September 2023: Lietuvos Respublikos generalinė prokuratūra. The Court of Justice of the European Union.

C-3/95, Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 1996: Reisebüro Broede v. Gerd Sandker. The Court of Justice of the European Union.

C-384/93, Judgment of the Court of 10 May 1995: Alpine Investments BV v. Minister van Financiën. The Court of Justice of the European Union.

C-423/98, Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2000: Alfredo Albore. The Court of Justice of the European Union.

C-601/15, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 February 2016: J. N. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie. The Court of Justice of the European Union.

C-715/17, C-718/17 and C-719/17, Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 April 2020: European Commission v. Republic of Poland and Others. The Court of Justice of the European Union.

C-742/19, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021: B. K. v. Republika Slovenija (Ministrstvo za obrambo). The Court of Justice of the European Union.

Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2008]. Official Journal C, 2012, no. 326, 26.10.2012.

Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2008]. Official Journal C, 2012, no. 326, 26.10.2012.

Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast). Official Journal L, 2013, no. 180, 29.6.2013.

Emergency Powers Act 2011. Retrieved from https://finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2011/20111552

Esbester v. United Kingdom, no. 18601/91 (ECtHR, 2 April 1993).

European Convention on Human Rights (1950).

Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court [1998] ICJ Rep 432.

Giles, M. (2000). Sun Tzu on the Art of War: The Oldest Military Treatise in the World. Allandale Online Publishing. Retrieved from https://sites.ualberta.ca/~enoch/Readings/The_Art_Of_War.pdf

Handyside v. United Kingdom, no. 5493/72 (ECtHR, 7 December 1976).

HE 54/2024 vp, Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle laiksi väliaikaisista toimenpiteistä välineellistetyn maahantulon torjumiseksi (The government's proposal to the parliament as a law on temporary measures to combat instrumentalised migration).

HE 94/2022 vp, Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle laiksi rajavartiolain muuttamisesta (The government's proposal to the parliament to amend the Border Guard Act).

Honko, K. (2017). Kansallinen turvallisuus, ihmisoikeusvelvoitteista poikkeaminen sekä velvoitteiden rajoittaminen Euroopan muuttuvassa turvallisuusympäristössä. Suomalaisen lakimiesyhdistyksen vuosikirja, 50 (2017), 5–84.

Ireland v. United Kingdom, no. 5310/71 (ECtHR, 18 January 1978).

Janowiec and Others v. Russia, nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, Grand Chamber (ECtHR, 21 October 2013).

Kennedy v. United Kingdom, no. 26839/05 (ECtHR, 18 May 2010).

Klass and Others v. Germany, no. 5029/71 (ECtHR, 6 September 1978).

Kohl, U. (2019). Territoriality and Globalization. The Oxford Handbook of Jurisdiction in International Law (pp. 300–329). Oxford University Press.

Konstantin Markin v. Russia, no. 30078/06 (ECtHR, 22 March 2012).

Koskenniemi, M. (2007). From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument. Cambridge University Press.

Leander v. Sweden, no. 9248/81 (ECtHR, 26 March 1987).

Mikkola, O. (2024). SEUT 346 artiklan soveltamisala puolustushankinnoissa. Retrieved from https://www.edilex.fi/opinnaytetyot/32356.pdf

Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00 (ECtHR, 9 October 2008).

Morriss, P. S. (2020). National Security and Human Rights in International Law. Groningen Journal of International Law, 8(1), 123–149. Retrieved from https://ugp.rug.nl/GROJIL/article/view/37080/34595

Nuclear Tests (Australia v France), Judgment on Admissibility [1974] ICJ Rep 253.

Petty, A. R. (2022). Migrants as a Weapons System. Journal of National Security Law and Policy, 13(1), 113–140. Retrieved from https://jnslp.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Migrants_as_a_Weapons_System_2.pdf

PeVL 26/2024 vp, Perustuslakivaliokunnan lausunto hallituksen esitykseksi laiksi väliaikaisista toimenpiteistä välineellistetyn maahantulon torjumiseksi (Statement of the Constitutional Law Committee on the government's proposal for a law on temporary measures to combat instrumentalized immigration).

State of Defence Act 1991. Retrieved from https://finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1991/19911083

T-26/01, Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, extended composition) of 30 September 2003: Fiocchi Munizioni SpA v. Commission. The Court of Justice of the European Union.

United Nations. (1951). Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

United Nations. (1969). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Widlund, J. (2020). Kansallinen turvallisuus: vapauden ehto vai rajoitus? Oikeus, 2 (2020), 134–153. Retrieved from https://www.edilex.fi/oikeus/211