A Typology of different types of Centres in Europe

IP/C/LIBE/FWC/2005-22

Immigration and Integration

DG Internal Policies of the Union, Directorate C – Citizens’ rights and Constitutional Affairs.

BRIEFING PAPER III:ORDER FORM No IP/C/LIBE/OF/2005-167.

REPORT FOR THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: DIRECTORATE GENERAL INTERNAL POLICIES OF THE UNION

A TYPOLOGY OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF CENTRES IN EUROPE

By Elspeth Guild

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

INTRODUCTION 1

1. WHICH LAWS GOVERN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CENTRES? 1

2. WHO IS PLACED IN THESE CENTRES? 4

3. WHAT TYPES OF CENTRES ARE MISSING? 6

4. RECOMMENDATIONS 6

ANNEX 1. DETENTION CENTRES IN THE MEMBER STATES 7

BIBLIOGRAPHY 10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

There has been an increase in the use of detention of foreigners in EU Member States over the past four years. [1] The sources and political discussion regarding this change of policy has given rise to substantial concern in civil society. Researchers, policy makers and non-governmental organisations have expressed concern at the stigmatisation of foreigners which accompanies and is expressed in their detention. The European Parliament itself has already commissioned and received a detailed report on the return of foreigners from EU Member States (Hailbronner: 2005) which includes substantial information on this issue.

In this paper we seek to examine three issues around the detention of foreigners in the EU: the law that governs camps; who is found in the camps; and what types of camps are missing. The starting place of this examination is the law of the European Union – what are the parameters within which national law applies and how does national law comply with those parameters.

REPORT FOR THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: DIRECTORATE GENERAL INTERNAL POLICIES OF THE UNION

A TYPOLOGY OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF CENTRES IN EUROPE

Elspeth Guild

INTRODUCTION

The detention of foreigners is closely associated with two policy concerns of Member States: first the treatment of asylum-seekers whose applications have been rejected either after a full consideration of their applications or on formal grounds (such as the Dublin II regulation); secondly, the treatment of foreigners irregularly on the territory of the Member States. The two concerns are related in that in many jurisdictions, asylum-seekers whose applications have been rejected are classified as foreigners irregularly on the territory of the Member States. Indeed, this category may well include a majority of such persons, though this is not clear and there do not appear to be any official comparable statistics on the matter among the Member States. Further, persons who are irregularly on the territory of the Member States are presented, in the policy making of a number of Member States, as persons likely to ‘abuse’ the asylum system by making ‘late’ claims for asylum on their detection by the national authorities. This essay will not consider the asylum laws of the Member States nor the EU measures that are being adopted in pursuit of the common European asylum system. We will focus here on detention of foreigners, the places and the law surrounding detention.

One complicating feature of detention of foreigners is the intersection of administrative and criminal law. As an increasing number of Member States have adopted laws which criminalise undocumented entry and presence on the territory, foreigners who are found in such positions are detained, charged, convicted and sentenced to further detention on the basis of criminal law. Administrative detention, that is detention without the sanction of criminal law, remains important and is the focus of this essay. An analysis of the criminal law of the Member States on the detention of persons following and in compliance with sentencing has been dealt with to some extent in the European Commission’s Consultation Paper: Procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings. Another field of concern of the EU which has direct consequences in the field of detention are the measures to combat trafficking in persons. Under this rubric further criminal offences have been created which result in the detention of foreigners. The emphasis on combating trafficking has also had the consequence of encouraging the allocation of resources to tracking foreigners irregularly present on the territory, the simplest category of trafficked persons to address.

WHICH LAWS GOVERN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CENTRES?

The EC Treaty does not contain any provisions on the detention of foreigners. The draft Constitutional Treaty does not propose the addition of any new provisions as regards detention of foreigners. The Treaty on European Union provides in Article 29 for the development of common action in the fields of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and the prevention of trafficking in persons. Thus at the present time EU law does not directly address the question of detention of foreigners. However, EC law does regulate the administrative detention of foreigners who are nationals of the Member States and thus citizens of the Union. As regards such a foreigner, a French national in the Netherlands who, in so far as he was exercising rights under the Treaty and thus came within the material scope of EC law was doing so either as a citizen of the Union or a service recipient under Article 49 EC, the European Court of Justice held «detention and deportation based solely on the failure of the person concerned to comply with legal formalities concerning the monitoring of aliens impair the very substance of the right of residence directly conferred by Community law and are manifestly disproportionate to the seriousness of the infringement.» [2]

The only EC secondary legislation which addresses the issue of detention so far is the Reception Conditions Directive applying to asylum seekers. [3] Article 7 entitled residence and freedom of movement, sets as the principle that asylum seekers may move freely within the territory of the Member States or within an area assigned to them. Further «when it proves necessary, for example for legal reasons or reasons of public order, Member States may confine an applicant to a particular place in accordance with national law.»

Thus the starting place as regards an analysis of the law applicable to all the Member States governing the implementation of detention centres is in other international instruments applicable to all Member States and which must be respected by them as part of EU law. This leads directly to the European Convention on Human Rights. Regarding the intersection of EU law and the ECHR, there has been much written which does not need to be repeated here. Suffice it to note that Article 6(2) TEU provides that «The Union [including the European Community] shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms … and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States…»

The power to detain foreigners under the ECHR is specified in Article 5(1) «No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: … (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorized entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.» Unless these conditions are met, the individual’s detention will be unlawful under the ECHR. [4] The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held as regards this aspect «Considering whether the applicant’s detention was "lawful" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1, the Court noted that [the applicable national law] provided for the detention of an alien on condition that the execution of an administrative order for expulsion taken by the Minister of Public Order was pending, and that the alien was considered to be a danger to public order or might abscond. However, the applicant’s expulsion was a judicial and not an administrative decision and the applicant was not considered a danger to public order or likely to abscond.» [5] The Member State, Greece, was held in violation of Article 5(1).

Regarding the implementation of places of detention (i.e. camps) the key law which applies to all the Member States is Article 3 ECHR, the duty of states to protection the individual from torture inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, [6] in conjunction with Article 5, the right of the individual to challenge the lawfulness of the detention. Regarding Article 3 and the detention of foreigners, the ECtHR held in respect of a foreigner detained on account of his irregular presence in Greece: «In the light of the above, the Court considered that the conditions of detention of the applicant in the Alexandras Police Headquarters and the Drapetsona detention centre, in particular the serious overcrowding and absence of sleeping facilities, combined with the inordinate length of his detention, amounted to degrading treatment contrary to Article 3.» [7]

Thus the law which applies to all Member States regarding the implementation of detention in camps consists of two distinct parts: first: detention is prima facie contrary to the principle of liberty of the person and must be justified on the basis of Article 5(1) ECHR; secondly, the conditions of detention must not constitute torture, inhuman or degrading treatment as prohibited by Article 3 ECHR and interpreted by the ECtHR.

Turning then to the national level, the legal provisions on the places of detention of foreigners may be found in a variety of different acts and measures. There are three key determining criteria as to where these provisions are found:

First, is the detention carried out on the basis of criminal law and within the criminal law structures or administrative law? Where the legal framework regarding the operation of the place of detention depends on the criminal law of the Member State it provides a strong legal framework regarding the conditions of detention as these will apply also to nationals of the state. Where detention is carried out on the basis of administrative law, foreigners are detained separately from nationals of the state and the regime may be operated by a variety of different actors, such as private companies (the UK) or the military (Malta). [8] The legal regimes of places of detention (civil: criminal/administrative, military) are not mutually exclusive and often apply concurrently to different types of detention within one state.

Secondly, under the national legislation, are the places of detention open or closed? They are considered to be open when the individuals who are required to reside there are able to leave at will or within reasonable confines. These camps are more frequently referred to as reception centres and are among those foreseen in the reception conditions directive. Less concern has been expressed about this type of centre than in respect of those which are closed. The legal framework for this type of camp is most often found around asylum laws and provisions. [9] Closed detention is where the individual required to reside there is not permitted to leave the confines of the camp at will. This type of camp is clearly covered by Article 5 ECHR as it is prima facie a restraint on liberty of the person. It is for the state to justify the restraint on the basis of the permissible grounds of detention.

Thirdly, what are the control mechanisms in respect of places of detention? The regulation of the lawfulness of detention takes place primarily in three ways – through challenge by the individual detained (including here NGOs which may act on behalf of or in place of the detained individual) (e.g. UK), through continuous monitoring by an appointed judge (e.g. Germany) or through an established monitoring mechanism with responsibility for visiting and reporting on the conditions of detention. Applications for habeas corpus or bail are the main ways of challenging detention and in relation to which the legality of detention is established. Monitoring of detention centres by specialised agencies, parliamentary representatives and NGOs is also a critical control mechanism regarding the nature and operation of camps. The mechanisms of control constitute one of the important ways of determining the situation of foreigners in the camp and structuring the legality of the camp. Key oversight of the conditions of detention of foreigners is provided by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture.

WHO IS PLACED IN THESE CENTRES?

National statistics on the detention of foreigners are notoriously difficult to obtain and where available are rarely comparable. Breakdown of figures, where available, is rarely on the basis of nationality. Thus it is not possible to provide details regarding the nationalities of persons who are detained in the Member States. It is helpful then to commence with an analysis of who may not be placed in administrative detention. Citizens of the state may not be placed in administrative detention of this kind as they can be neither irregular when seeking to enter their country of nationality nor subject to expulsion (Article 3 Protocol 4 ECHR). [10] Thus they are not (or should not be) found in camps for the detention of foreigners.

As already noted, detention is an exception to the right of liberty of the person contained in Article 5 ECHR therefore it will only be lawful if it complies with Article 5(1)(f) – the lawful detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorized entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.

Accordingly, citizens of the Union should not be held in these camps so long as they are exercising Treaty rights when entering or residing on the territory of an EU state other than that of their nationality. As they have a right to enter and reside under Article 18 EC, their detention will rarely be lawful when taking in combination EU law and the ECHR. The exception foreseen by the EC Treaty is where their exclusion or expulsion can be justified by the Member State on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health as defined in secondary legislation and interpreted by the European Court of Justice. Under the provisions of the EU agreements with Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, nationals of those countries are assimilated to the position of citizens of the Union as regards entry, residence and expulsion. Although these citizens are third country nationals for the purposes of EC law, in general, they are not generally found in administrative detention camps. Turkish workers lawfully residing in the Member States are also protected against expulsion by virtue of Articled 14 Decision 1/80 EC Turkey Association Agreement. It is third country nationals who are not protected by ‘strong’ agreements with the EU who are likely to be found in administrative detention.

Foreigners with valid residence and work permits cannot lawfully be placed in detention unless a decision to expel them has been taken. Persons in this situation will have lawfully entered the state and can only be detained where a lawful decision to expel has been taken. Such decisions may be taken on a number of grounds in national law. However, from 23 January 2006, [11] Directive 2003/109 on long-term resident third-country nationals will regulate the possibilities of expulsion of third country nationals who enjoy protection under the Directive (primarily those who have resided lawfully for five years or more in a Member State). Article 12 of the Directive provides that an expulsion decision can only be taken where the person constitutes an actual and sufficiently serious threat to public policy or security.

Thus taking into account the above information, it is primarily third country nationals other than those protected by Directive 2003/109 or ‘strong’ agreements with the EU who are eligible for detention. In this group, taking into account the restrictions set out in Article 5(1) ECHR, two groups are liable to detention:

Third-country nationals seeking unauthorised entry into the territory of a Member State;

Third-country nationals against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.

Within these two categories, persons in four different types of situations may be placed in detention. These are as follows:

Detention and Arrival

Among the most substantial concerns to a number of NGOs is the detention of foreigners on arrival in the state. The adoption of legislation under which foreigners are treated as not yet having arrived at the state where their applications for entry are still under consideration or have been rejected at the border is in many cases accompanied by legislation which permits the detention of such persons (see zones d’attente in France in particular). [12] Notwithstanding the rejection by the European Court of Human Rights [13] of state claims that such individuals are not yet in the territory, such detention is still widely applied.

Detention and Asylum

Many Member States provide for the detention of foreigners within the asylum system. A common example is the Austrian system where under the law which entered into force on 1 May 2004 (Asylum Act 2003) initial reception centres have been established. These centres hold persons who have sought asylum. The purpose of their detention is in order to determine whether their asylum application is admissible. A decision on admissibility is normally foreseen in a very short period of time (e.g. 72 hours in Austria). If it is rejected, then an expulsion decision is taken which may also result in continuing detention to effect the expulsion.

Detention and Irregular Stay

The fact of irregular residence is not normally sufficient to justify detention without further elements (see for instance Belgium). Thus persons who are irregularly residing are not necessarily subject to detention unless, as in the case of Belgium, this is ‘strictly necessary’ for carrying out the removal, steps to enforce the removal are taken within seven days of arrest and effective removal is possible.

Detention and Expulsion

Where a foreigner has been ordered to leave the territory there is often a discretionary power to the authorities to detain the individual. For instance in Finland one interim measure available to the authorities where a foreigner is subject to an expulsion decision is to place him or her in detention though this decision can only be taken on reasonable grounds such as that the individual will prevent or considerably hinder the process of removal (Aliens Act s. 121). Similarly in Hungary detention for the purpose of expulsion is permitted but must end immediately if expulsion cannot be implemented (Article 46(8) Aliens Act 1999).

The main issues of contention between individuals and states regarding detention in the different circumstances are: at the border: does the individual really have an opportunity to seek asylum if fleeing persecution? On applying for asylum: is this detention justifiable on the basis of Article 5(1)(f) ECHR – for purposes of administrative convenience? On irregular stay: is the individual’s stay really irregular or justified on some ground (such as the right to private and family life Article 8 ECHR)? On expulsion: is the state actually able to carry out the expulsion in a reasonable time and is the detention actually justified on the basis of public policy?

WHAT TYPES OF CENTRES ARE MISSING?

In the above outline of camps and foreigners, we have not considered the detention of foreigners in prisons under the criminal law. As mentioned at the outset, there is a move in many Member States to create criminal offences of irregular entry and residence on the territory. The result is that on conviction of such offences, foreigners are detained within the criminal justice systems of the Member States. An analysis of this development goes beyond the scope of this essay but is nonetheless worthy of consideration. There is a transformation of the status of the foreigner from one regulated by administrative law to one where the criminal law is dominant. The longer term consequences of this change are uncertain.

The common feature of places of detention in this analysis is their coercive nature. What is missing from the discussion is the creation of housing for foreigners in need which does not include the element of coercion: the deprivation of liberty of the person. The necessary association of detention of foreigners with expulsion, a result of the human rights obligations of the Member States, has clouded the discussion of reception of foreigners. So long as the focus is on exclusion and expulsion of foreigners it is difficult to see that any new or less constraining forms of detention camps are likely to emerge.

RECOMMENDATIONS

There are two overwhelming concerns regarding camps and the detention of foreigners in the Member States:

The conditions of detention: Do these conditions comply with Article 3 ECHR? The European Committee against Torture has outlined again and again its concerns regarding the conditions of detention of foreigners in many Member States. Where these conditions fail to meet minimum standards they constitute inhuman and degrading treatment. In some circumstances they may even constitute torture. The European Parliament may wish to enter into discussion with the Committee to investigate how better to ensure that the relevant standards of the European Convention against Torture and the ECHR are properly implemented in the Member States.

The grounds for detention: the principle of liberty of the individual must not be compromised. There are clearly deep concerns in Europe that the reasons for detention of foreigners are not sufficiently serious to justify such a fundamental interference with the principle of liberty. The European Parliament may wish to promote the adoption of legislation setting clear and high standards of liberty of the person taking into account the ECtHR jurisprudence on Article 5(1)(f) ECHR.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Journal articles/articles de revue :

AGIER, M. « Between War and City. Towards an Urban Anthropology of Refugee Camps. » Ethnography 3, no. 2 (2002) : 317-66.

ALAUX, J.-P. « L’asile dans le pot commun de l’immigration. » Plein Droit, no. 59-60 (2004).

BELGUENDOUZ, A. « Le maroc, vaste zone d’attente ? » Plein Droit, no. 57 (2003).

BELGUENDOUZ, Abdelkrim. « Expansion et sous-traitance des logiques d’enfermement de l’union européenne. L’exemple du Maroc. » Cultures&Confits, no. 57 (2005) : 155-219.

BERNARDOT, M. « Des camps en France, 1944-1963. » Plein Droit, no. 58 (2003).

BERNARDOT, M. « Entre répression policière et prise en charge sanitaire et sociale : le cas du centre d’assignation de Larzac (1957-1963). » Bulletin de l’IHTP, no. 80 (2004).

BERNARDOT, M. « Le pays aux mille et un camps. Approche socio-historique des espaces d’internement en France au XXème siècle. » Cahiers du Cériem, no. 10 (2002) : 57-76.

BIETLOT, Mathieu. « Le camp ; révélateur d’une politique inquiétante de l’étranger. » Cultures&Confits, no. 57 (2005) : 221-50.

BOE, C., and J. Martinez. « Prison, rétention : la politique d’enfermement des étrangers. » Ecorev - Revue critique d’écologie politique (2004).

CARRERE, V. « Sangatte : trois ans de leurre, une fin en trompe-l’oeil. » Vacarme, no. 22 (2002) : 52-56.

CLOCHARD, O. « Quel bilan du camp de sangatte ? » Le Sociographe, no. 13 (2004) : 31-43.

CLOCHARD, O., Y. Gastaut, and R. Schor. « Les camps d’étrangers depuis 1938 : continuité et adaptations - du « modèle » français à la construction de l’espace Schengen. » La Revue Européenne des Migrations Européennes 20, no. 2 (2004) : 57-87.

DIETRICH, H. « Europe : camps de réfugiés aux nouvelles frontières extérieures. » Archipel, no. 117 (2004).

FISHER, Nicolas. « Clandestins au secret. Contrôle et circulation de l’information dans les centres de rétention administrative français. » Cultures&Confits, no. 57 (2005) : 91-118.

INTRAND, Caroline, and Pierre Perrouty, Arnaud. « La diversité des camps d’étrangers en europe : présentation de la carte des camps de Migreurop. » Cultures&Confits, no. 57 (2005) : 71-90.

LAACHER, S. « Retour sur Sangatte. » Après-Demain, no. 463 (2004).

MAYER, N. « La détention d’étrangers en centres fermés : acceptable ? Utile ? » Travailler Le Social, no. 31-32 (2002).

NOVAK, F. « La vie dans un camp de transit tchèque. » Panoramiques (1994) : 81-87.

RODIER, C. « Les camps d’étrangers, nouvel outil de la politique migratoire de l’europe. » Mouvements, no. 30 (2003).

RODIER, Claire. « Dans des camps hors d’Europe : exilons les réfugiés. » Vacarme, no. 24 (2003).

RODIER, Claire, and Catherine Teule. « Enfermement des étrangers : l’Europe sous la menace du syndrome Maltais. » Cultures&Confits, no. 57 (2005) : 119-53.

SAINT-SAENS, I. « Des camps en europe aux camps de l’Europe. » Multitudes, no. 19 (2004).

SAROLEA, S. « Contrôler la détention des etrangers en séjour irrégulier : Comment et pourquoi ? » Revue du droit des étrangers, no. 93 (1997) : 200-08.

SPIRE, A. « Rétention : une indignation oubliée. » Plein Droit, no. 50 (2001) : 20-22.

VALLUY, Jérôme. « L’Europe des camps, la mise à l’écart des étrangers. » Cultures&Confits, no. 57 (2005) : 5-11.

Special Issues of Journals :

Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, Dossier « Délits d’immigration », n°129, sept. 1999.

Cultures & Conflits, « Circuler, enfermer, éloigner. Zones d’attentes et centres de rétention aux frontières des démocraties occidentales », n°23, 1996

Cultures & Conflits, « La mise à l’écart des étrangers - La logique du Visa Schengen », n°49, 2003.

Multitudes, Dossier : « Migrations en Europe : les frontières de la liberté », n°19, hiver 2004.

Plein Droit - La revue du GISTI, Dossier : « L’enfermement des étrangers », n°50, juillet 2001.

Plein Droit - La revue du GISTI, Dossier : « Des camps pour étrangers », n°58, décembre 2003.

Plein Droit- La revue du GISTI, Dossier : « Expulser », n°62, octobre 2004.

Politique africaine, Dossier : « Réfugiés, exodes et politique », n° 85, mars 2002.

Reports

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, UK/EU/UNHCR : Unlawful and Unworkable - Amnesty International’s views on proposals for extraterritorial processing of asylum claims, AI Index : IOR 61/004/2003, 18.06.2003, p. 2.

ANAFE, Violences policières en zone d’attente, mars 2003.

ANAFE, Frontières du droit, frontières des droits - l’introuvable statut de la « Zone internationale », Paris, L’Harmattan, 1993.

ANAFE, Zone d’attente : 10 ans après, les difficultés persistent, mars 2003.

ANAFE, La roulette russe de l’asile à la frontière -Zone d’attente : qui détourne la procédure ? Rapport sur la procédure d’admission sur le territoire au titre de l’asile, novembre 2003.

ANAFE, La zone des enfants perdus - Mineurs isolés en zone d’attente de Roissy - Analyse de l’Anafé du 1er janvier 2004 au 30 septembre 2004.

ANAFE, La frontière et le droit : la zone d’attente de Roissy sous le regard de l’Anafé - Bilan de six mois d’observation associative (avril-octobre 2004).

AUTONOOM CENTRUM,Ill treatment in a dutch deportation prison, mai 2004.

AUTONOOM CENTRUM, Across the borders ?

BAIL FOR IMMIGRATION DETAINEES, A family too many, the detention of asylum seeking families in the UK, mars 2003.

BAIL FOR IMMIGRATION DETAINEES, A crying shame : pregnant asylum seekers and their babies in detention, septembre 2002.

BAIL FOR IMMIGRATION DETAINEES, and the REFUGEE WOMEN’S RESOURCE PROJECT (RWRP), They Took Me Away’ : Women’s Experiences of Immigration Detention in the UK, Asylum Aid, Londres, août 2004.

BARBED WIRE BRITAIN, Network to End Refugee and Migrant Detention, Voices from Detention : Testimonies from Immigration Detainees in Their Own Words, Oxford, 2002.

CAMPAIGN TO CLOSE CAMPSFIELD, Barbed Wire Europe : A Conference Against Immigration Detention, 5-17 September 2000 : Report, Oxford, 2001

CIMADE, Les clandestins de Dieu, éd. Labor et Fides, 1985.

CIMADE, Gourougou, Bel Younes, Oujda : la situation alarmante des migrants subsahariens en transit au Maroc et les conséquences des politiques de l’Union Européenne, Rapport réalisé par Anne Sophie Wender, avec la collaboration de Marie-José Laflamme-Marsan et d’Hicham Rachidi (AFVIC-Plateforme Migrants), Service des Solidarités Internationales, Cimade, Octobre 2004.

CIMADE, Centres de rétention administrative. Rapport 2002, Paris, 2003.

CIMADE, Centres de rétention administrative. Rapport 2003, Paris, 2004.

CIMADE, Une déshumanisation croissante des pratiques. Un an après la loi Sarkozy, une perte progressive du souci de protection des personnes, décembre 2004.

CIMADE, « J.I.M. 2004 - Les migrants sont-ils condamnés à l’enfermement ? Une journée pour réfléchir et agir contre l’enfermement des migrants et pour une nouvelle protection internationale », Supplément à Causes Communes,n°43, décembre 2004 - janvier 2005.

COMITE DE SOUTIEN AU COLLECTIF CONTRE LES EXPULSIONS (éd.), Sans Etat d’âme - Lettres ouvertes sur Centres fermés, Mons, éd. du Cerisier, 2003.

FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME (FIDH), Enfermer les étrangers, dissuader les réfugiés : le contrôle des flux migratoires à Malte, Rapport - Mission internationale d’enquête, 2004, n°403.

FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME (FIDH), Les centres fermés en Belgique : l’arrière cour de la démocratie, 1990.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Home Affairs Committe, Asylum removals, Fourth Report of Session 2002-03,vol. I : Report and Proceedings of the Committee, Londres, The Stationery Office Limited, 8 mai 2003.

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, L’autre visage des Canaries : violations des droits des migrants et des demandeurs d’asile, février 2002.

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, Abus des Etats espagnols et marocains contre des enfants migrants : violence et expulsion arbitraire sur les enfants non accompagnés, mai 2002.

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR MIGRATION POLICY DEVELOPMENT, « Study on return - A swiss perspective », octobre 2002.

JESUIT REFUGEE SERVICE - MALTA, Detention of asylum seekers : a human rights perspective, juillet 2003.

JESUIT REFUGEE SERVICE, Detention in Europe, octobre 2004.

COMMISSION EUROPEENNE, DG XII, LAACHER Smaïn (avec la collaboration d’Eliane DUPUY), L’Etat et l’immigration clandestine. Entre la question du travail et celles desillégalismes, rapport français, juillet 1998

MEDECINS DU MONDE, La zone d’attente de Roissy, une zone de non-droit, mars 2003.

ONU, CES / COMMISSION DES DROITS DE L’HOMME, Droits civils et politiques : questions de la torture et de la détention - Rapport du Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire, Visite en Australie, Rapport du Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire, E/CN.4/2003/8/Add.2, 24 octobre 2002.

Books

ADAM I., BEN MOHAMMED N., KAGNE B., MARTINIELLO M., REA A., Histoires sans-papiers, Bruxelles, Vista, 2002.

AGAMBEN G., « Qu’est-ce qu’un camp ? », in Moyens sans fins. Notes sur la politique, trad. de l’italien par Danièle Valin et al., Paris, Payot/Rivages, 2002.

AGIER M., Aux bords du monde, les réfugiés, Paris, Flammarion, 2002.

BERGER N., La politique européenne d’asile et d’immigration : enjeux et perspectives, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 2000.

BIGO D. (dir.), L’Europe des polices et de la sécurité intérieure, Bruxelles, Complexes, 1992.

BIGO D., Polices en réseaux, l’expérience européenne, Presses de Science Po, Paris, 1996.

BOSWELL C., European migration policies in flux : changing patterns of inclusion and exclusion, Oxford, Blackwell, 2003.

BRIBOSIA E., REA A., Les nouvelles migrations : un enjeu européen, Bruxelles-Paris, Complexe, 2002.

BROSSAT A., L’épreuve du désastre, le XXème siècle des camps, Paris, Bibliothèque Albin Michel Idées, 1996.

CALOZ-TSCHOPP M.-C. (dir.), Asile, Violence, Exclusion en Europe, Groupe de Genève « Violence et droit d’asile en Europe » et Cahiers de la Section des Sciences de l’Education de l’Université de Genève, 1994.

CALOZ-TSCHOPP M.-C., FONTOLLIET M. (dir.), Europe. Montrez patte blanche. Les nouvelles frontières du ‘laboratoire Schengen’, , Genève, Cetin, 1994.

CALOZ-TSCHOPP M.-C., Les étrangers aux frontières de l’Europe et le spectre des camps, Paris, La Dispute, juin 2004.

CAMBREZY L., Réfugiés et exilés - Crise des sociétés, crise des territoires, Paris, Ed. des Archives Contemporaines, 2001.

CARBOCCI M., NISSE et VANPAESCHEN L. (Collectif contre les expulsions), Les barbelés de la honte, Bruxelles, éd. Luc Pire, 1998.

CASTLES S., MILLER M.J., The age of migration : international population movements in the moderne world, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1998 (2ème éd.).

CREPEAU F., Droit d’asile : de l’hospitalité aux contrôles migratoires, Bruxelles, Bruyland, 1995.

CRUZ A., Nouveaux contrôleurs d’immigration : transporteurs menacés de sanctions, Paris, L’Harmattan, 1995.

DAL LAGO A., Non Persone. L’esclusione dei migranti in una società globale, Feltrinelli, Milano, 1999.

D’AMATO G., La politique de l’asile et de l’immigration dans la tourmente entre exécution étatique et mouvements sociaux, Forum suisse des migrations, Neuchâtel, 2000.

D’HAËM R., La reconduite à la frontière des étrangers en situation irrégulière, Paris, P.U.F., « Que sais-je ? », n°3157, 1997.

DHOTEL G., Les réfugiés du bâtiment A : réfugiés, le droit d’asile menacé, Paris, Syros Jeunesse, 1998.

DIOP A., Dans la peau d’un sans-papier, Paris, Seuil, 1997.

DORZEE H., TEFNIN J.-F., Les mots et les murs. Questions sur les centres fermés pour étrangers, Bruxelles, éd. Luc Pire, 1999.

DREYFUS-ARMAND G., TEMIME E., Les Camps sur la plage, un exil espagnol, Autrement, coll. Français d’ailleurs, peuple d’ici, 1995.

DUPREZ, La gestion de l’immigration irrégulière. Analyse sociologique des identités professionnelles des policiers et des douaniers, Lille, IFRESI, IHESI, 1993.

FASSIN D., MORICE A., QUIMINAL C. (dir.), Les lois de l’inhospitalité : les politiques de l’immigration à l’épreuve des sans-papiers, Paris, La Découverte, 1997.

FILHOL E., La mémoire et l’oubli, l’internement des Tsiganes en France (1940-46), Paris, L’Harmattan, 2004.

GRYNBERG A., Les camps de la honte, les internés juifs dans les camps français (1939-44), Paris, La Découverte, 1991.

GUICHAOUA A. (dir.), Exilés, réfugiés, déplacés en Afrique centrale et orientale, Paris, Karthala, 2004.

GUILD E., MINDERHOUD P., In search of Europe’s borders, La Haye, Kluwer Law International, 2003.

GUILLON M., LEGOUX L. et MA MUNG E. (dir.), L’Asile politique entre deux chaises : droits de l’homme et gestion des flux migratoires, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2003.

GUIRAUDON V., JOPPKE C., Controlling a new migration world, Routledge, Londres et New York, 2001.

HAYTER T., Open borders : the case against immigration controls, Sterling, Va., Pluto Press, 2001.

KOSER K., LUTZ H. (dir.), The New Migration in Europe : Social Constructions and Social Realities, New-York, St Martin’s Press.

KOTEK J., RIGOULOT P., Le siècle des camps, Paris, JC Lattès, 2000.

LAACHER S., Après Sangatte. Nouvelles immigrations. Nouveaux enjeux, La Dispute, 2002.

LOCHAK D., Etrangers : de quels droits ?, Paris, P.U.F, 1985.

LOISEL N., La libre circulation des idées et des mobilisations contre ‘la mise à l’écart et l’enfermement des étrangers’ : Le paradoxe de l’Europe de Schengen, IEP Rennes, Mémoire de fin d’études, Dir. O. Baisnée, 2004.

MERMAZ L., Les Geôles de la République, Paris, Stock, 2001.

NASCIMBENE B., (dir.), Expulsion and detention of aliens in the EU countries, Milan, Gruiffre, 2001.

NOIRIEL G., Réfugiés et sans-papiers, La république face au droit d’asile XIXème - XXème siècle, Paris, Hachette / Pluriel, 1999.

NOIRIEL G., Etat, nation et immigration, Paris, Belin, 2001.

OLLIVIER A.-L., Enquête en zone d’attente. Que se passe-t-il à Roissy pour les étrangers sans visa ?, Paris, L’Esprit frappeur, 2003.

PESCHANSKI D., La France des camps. L’internement 1938-1946, Paris, Gallimard, 2002.

PESCHANSKI D., « Autour de Sangatte », in SALMON J., Sangatte, le hangar, Bruxelles, éd. Trans Photographic, 2002, pp. 6-8.

PERREGAUX C., BÜHRER M., Transits : l’Europe des réfugiés (Photographies Michel Bührer) Paris, Syros, 1993.

PERRIN-MARTIN J.-P., Europe barbelée, (Actes du colloque de Lille, 15-16 mars 1997), Paris, L’Harmattan, 1998.

PERRIN-MARTIN J.-P., La rétention - Documents et témoignages, Paris, L’Harmattan, 1996.

PERROUTY P.-A. (dir.), La mise à l’écart des étrangers - Centres fermés et expulsions, Bruxelles, Editions Labor, 2004.

PORQUET J.-L., Les clandestins - Enquête en France, en Chine et au Mali, Paris, Flammarion 1997.

RAZAC O., Histoire politique du barbelé, Paris, La Fabrique, 2000.

REA A. (dir.), Racisme et immigration, Bruxelles, Editions Complexe, 1998.

ROCARD M., Rapport sur les camps de regroupement et autres textes sur la guerre d’Algérie, Paris, Mille et une nuits, mai 2003.

RODIER C., TEULE C., « Enfermer les étrangers, dissuader les réfugiés : le contrôle des flux migratoires à Malte ».Rapport pour la Fédération Internationale des Droits de l’Homme (FIDH), mars 2004.

SAINATI G., BONELLI L., (dir.), La machine à punir, Paris, L’esprit Frappeur, 2000.

SCHAUL D., « Un camp d’internement : Rieucros en Lozère », in JOUTARD P., POUJOL J., CABANEL P., Cévennes, terre de refuge 1940-44, Presses du Languedoc, 1987.

SOLOMOS J., WRENCH J. (dir.), Racism and Migration in Western Europe, Oxford, Berg Publishers, 1993.

VAN DER MEERSCHEN B., VAN RAEMDONCK D., Belgique, terre d’écueils. Respect pour le droit d’asile !, Bruxelles, Ed. Labor/Espace de Libertés, 2002.

VANPAESCHEN L., Eux parmi nous, Bruxelles, éd. Luc Pire, 1998.

WACQUANT L., Punir les pauvres. Le nouveau gouvernement de l’insécurité sociale, Agone, 2004.

TRISTAN A., Clandestine, Paris, Stock, 1993.

A Typology of different types of Centres in Europe