Clashing normative meanings: The rule of law and the fundamental rights of migrants in the European Union

Dr Ruji Auethavornpipat1

1La Trobe University, Australia

Biography:

Ruji Auethavornpipat is a Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at La Trobe University. His research examines the contestation of global migrant protection norms at sites of implementation, especially in Southeast Asia and Europe.

Abstract:

Civil society organizations in the European Union (EU) have deployed migrant protection norms to contest the rule of law interpretation in Europe. However, the fundamental rights of migrants are at the margin of the rule of law debates and the rule of law interpretation remains mostly static. While the norm contestation scholarship has produced groundbreaking knowledge in explicating how proactive contestation can lead to norm change, it largely omits instances where change does not occur. I explain the stickiness of norms by capturing the contestation dynamics between human right advocates and EU officials. I show that the contestation is unable to establish a mutually agreed meaning of norms due to the EU’s retention of the dominant interpretation of the rule of law. This in effect discards an alternative meaning of the rule of law that incorporates normative concerns for migrant protection. These findings suggest that by entrenching the existing interpretation, the EU not only undermines the protection of fundamental rights in Europe but also puts its commitment to the rule of law, one of the core norms underpinning its existence, in serious jeopardy.