This article will attempt to demonstrate the interrelationship between two ‘crises’ that the European Union is facing: the so-called ‘migration’ or ‘refugee crisis’ and the crisis of the principle of the rule of law. In particular, the two crises find their point of connection in the responses to migratory flows put in place by the EU and some of its Member States. The increasing migratory pressure on European external borders has induced some governments to adopt a restrictive and security-driven approach, carried out, on the one hand, by reinforcing border controls and surveillance, and, on the other, by seeking the cooperation of non-EU countries in order to curb migratory flows, contain departures, and tackle the movements of migrants towards Europe. These ‘securitisation’ and ‘externalisation’ strategies are in contrast with the principle of the rule of law under two perspectives: on the one hand, they violate some of its essential components, such as transparency, legal and procedural certainty, democratic participation, and control; on the other, they breach the same principle insofar as they lead to severe human rights violations. As for the first aspect, migration and border control policies have been put in place by frontline States through a growing proliferation of atypical, informal, and non-transparent measures of migration governance, which, sounding ‘legal’ without actually being so, allow legislative, procedural and democratic frames to be avoided. Examples in this sense may be identified in the so-called EU-Turkey Statement or in the informal, over-simplified cooperation arrangements concluded by some EU frontline Member States with African countries, as in the case of Italy and Niger. As for the second aspect, the impact on the rule of (human rights) law of the response of some EU Member States to the migration crisis may be measured through the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and, more specifically, by considering the decisions concerning the most severe violations of migrants’ rights, including those of the prohibitions of refoulement and of collective expulsion, as well as cases of illegal detention and deprivation of liberty. Keywords: rule of law, refugee crisis, refoulement, collective expulsion, detention, European Court of Human Rights, European Union.

中文翻译：

---

移徙与（人权）法治：镜子里的两个“危机”

本文将试图证明欧盟面临的两个“危机”之间的相互关系：所谓的“移民”或“难民危机”与法治原则的危机。尤其是，这两次危机在欧盟及其一些成员国对移民潮的反应中找到了联系点。对欧洲外部边界越来越大的移民压力促使一些国家的政府采取限制性和安全驱动的方法，一方面通过加强边界控制和监视，另一方面通过寻求非欧洲国家的合作来实施。欧盟国家为了遏制移民潮，遏制离境和解决移民向欧洲的迁移问题。这些“证券化”和“外部化”策略在两个方面与法治原则形成鲜明对照：一方面，它们违反了其某些基本组成部分，例如透明度，法律和程序确定性，民主参与以及控制; 另一方面，在导致严重侵犯人权方面，它们违反了同一原则。关于第一个方面，一线国家通过非典型，非正式和不透明的移民治理措施日益泛滥，制定了移民和边境管制政策，这听起来像是“合法的”，但实际上并没有立法的意义。 ，程序和民主框架应避免。这种意义上的示例可以在所谓的“欧盟土耳其声明”中或非正式论坛中找到，一些欧盟一线成员国与非洲国家达成的合作安排过于简化，例如意大利和尼日尔。至于第二方面，一些欧盟成员国对移民危机的反应对（人权）法治的影响可以通过欧洲人权法院的判例法来衡量，更具体地说，可以通过考虑关于最严重侵犯移民权利的决定，包括关于禁止驱回和集体驱逐的决定，以及非法拘留和剥夺自由的案件。关键词：法治，难民危机，驱回，集体驱逐，拘留，欧洲人权法院，欧洲联盟。至于第二方面，一些欧盟成员国对移民危机的反应对（人权）法治的影响可以通过欧洲人权法院的判例法来衡量，更具体地说，可以通过考虑关于最严重侵犯移民权利的决定，包括关于禁止驱回和集体驱逐的决定，以及非法拘留和剥夺自由的案件。关键词：法治，难民危机，驱回，集体驱逐，拘留，欧洲人权法院，欧洲联盟。至于第二方面，一些欧盟成员国对移民危机的反应对（人权）法治的影响可以通过欧洲人权法院的判例法来衡量，更具体地说，可以通过考虑关于最严重侵犯移民权利的决定，包括关于禁止驱回和集体驱逐的决定，以及非法拘留和剥夺自由的案件。关键词：法治，难民危机，驱回，集体驱逐，拘留，欧洲人权法院，欧洲联盟。通过审议有关最严重侵犯移民权利的决定，包括关于禁止驱回和集体驱逐以及非法拘留和剥夺自由的决定。关键词：法治，难民危机，驱回，集体驱逐，拘留，欧洲人权法院，欧洲联盟。通过审议有关最严重侵犯移民权利的决定，包括关于禁止驱回和集体驱逐以及非法拘留和剥夺自由的决定。关键词：法治，难民危机，驱回，集体驱逐，拘留，欧洲人权法院，欧洲联盟。