Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Dublin IV and EXCOM: Aspirational Blunders and Illusive Solidarity

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of European Journal of Migration and Law

The Dublin IV proposal of 2016 was ostensibly made necessary by the lack of functional and effective burden-sharing between EU Member States. Dublin IV purports to ameliorate this inequality by instituting a series of mechanisms that would ensure that any increase in the rate of migration to the EU territory would be met with collective action. However, an analysis of the Dublin IV provisions reveals that in its operation it would do no such thing. Also in 2016, the Executive Committee of the UNHCR provided conclusions on burden-sharing and youth respectively. Though considered by some national judiciaries and human rights treaty bodies to be of significant value to the development of international refugee law, the conclusions of the Executive Committee on burden-sharing and youth are not reflective of EU State practice. Rather, EU State practice is revealed in the Dublin IV proposal and the inequality that it promotes. This article comparatively analyses the 2016 EXCOM Conclusions and the Dublin IV proposal and makes the case that the conclusion of EXCOM are purely aspirational and lack substantive value, and that Dublin IV illustrates that lack of substantive value through the potential future operation of its provisions.

Affiliations: 1: Lawyer and researcher in the fields of Refugee Law and Human Rights Law ; 2:


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    European Journal of Migration and Law — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation