Cities and their local governments have come to play a central role in the governance of migration. Following their initial involvement in the reception, accommodation and integration of newcomers at the domestic level, they nowadays also seek to shape the outlook of migration law, including at the international level. As a result, migration studies have likewise taken a ‘local turn’ to provide a more accurate account of the new reality of ‘multi-level governance’. This entry offers an overview of important legal aspects related to this recent advent of cities in the migration. For this purpose, it focuses on the origins and manifestations of their growing involvement and the challenges that these create for international and domestic legal systems as well as scholars of migration and law.

Marie-Bénédicte Dembour’s When Humans Become Migrants: Study of the European Court of Human Rights with an Inter-American Counterpoint (2015) examines the origins, evolution, and effects of the migration case law of the European Court of Human Rights and contends that it systematically defers to state interests to the detriment of migrant applicants. This chapter discusses the book’s relevance as a true junction in the critical study of migrant rights in Europe and a demonstration of the analytical power of in-depth, anthropologically inspired, and qualitative evaluations of rulings by international human rights courts. Special attention is paid to the historical and anthropologically informed appraisal of the ECtHR’s case law, Dembour’s concept of the ‘Strasbourg reversal’, and her use of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights as a rights-affirming counterpoint to the European Court. The chapter also situates When Humans Become Migrants in the broader contexts of the crisis paradigm that continues to dominate Europe’s approach to migration, Hannah Arendt’s fundamental critique of the lack of a right to have rights, and scholarship on the proliferation and variable and contingent authority of international courts.

This chapter analyzes the ‘strategies of divergence’ adopted by the City of Berlin following the widespread mobilization in Germany calling for high sea rescues. With its legal status as a city-state, Berlin is generally seen as having played a supportive role when proclaiming itself a ‘safe harbor’. By contrast, this chapter makes three observations to draw attention to the more complex reality shaping strategies of divergence from restrictive national policies. First, local authorities may pursue multiple strategies simultaneously, with the example of Berlin highlighting their interconnection and the extent to which competencies determine a given course of action. Second, the approach taken by municipal actors is shaped fundamentally by its interaction with civil society. Rather than only narrowing discretionary spaces, such movements may widen them by offering local authorities the ability to position themselves strategically. Finally, the coexistence of distinct socio-legal constellations confronting a city necessarily complicates normative assessments of the ‘local turn’ in migration policy. Particularly in the case of legally resourceful localities like Berlin, municipal approaches may seem ambiguous and contradictory, while being pragmatic and strategic from the perspective of the local authorities. This raises questions regarding the reasons behind, and viability of local strategies of divergence.

Serving as an introduction to the volume, this chapter begins by setting out some of the recent dynamics in migration governance, including devolution, recentralization and the increasingly proactive stance taken by local authorities in this domain. This, in turn, brought about a “local turn” in migration scholarship. Although generally transdisciplinary and integrative of various methodologies including quantitative, historical, and ethnographic studies, scholarship on the “local turn” has failed to consider legal perspectives where it rescales analyses of migrant reception and inclusion away from the state. This chapter interrogates the relegation of the law to mere context or epiphenomenon and discusses the analytical implications of this curious demotion of a central dimension of governance. In the second instance, this contribution introduces the three themes of this volume as potential launchpads for the further theorization of migration governance based on analyses of legal debates, processes and principles. For this purpose, it offers a brief account of the already existing relevant literature that can inform empirical, conceptual and normative engagements with law as migration governance. The overview of the three themes is, in each case, complemented by a short description of the contribution that the various chapters make to their discussion.

The settlement of disputes is commonly seen as one of the principal function of modern international law. This chapter offers a structured overview of the analytical issues relating to the involvement of cities in international dispute settlement, which has itself taken a functionalist turn in recent decades. It is observed, first, that local authorities cannot bring claims against their own government. The focus then shifts to the possibilities, rare and largely unused, for them to become ‘directly’ involved in dispute settlement in certain domains. The subsequent section examines the role of local authorities in proceedings under EU and domestic law in cases raising questions of international law. Finally, the chapter addresses more commonly known yet likewise under-researched instances of ‘indirect’ participation of local authorities. The conclusion discusses what cities’ engagement with international dispute settlement tells us about international law as a field of practice and academic discipline more generally.

Cities, towns, and their local authorities are increasingly regarded as central actors in the realization of human rights norms. This chapter discusses the role that they (can) play in implementing and possibly shaping human rights norms that address challenges arising from poverty. It also considers to what extent human rights, as law and discourse, provide necessary or even useful frameworks for local governments active in this domain. The chapter begins by recounting the responsibilities that local authorities hold in terms of international human rights law. It subsequently presents some of the most prominent examples of international actors harnessing the capacities of local authorities to reduce poverty. Finally, it discusses a number of examples of relevant autonomous efforts by local governments. Seeking to provide a nuanced account of these developments, it does so by contrasting approaches that vary in their reliance on international human rights law and discourse.

Increasingly, local authorities around the world invoke international law to tackle global challenges autonomously while distancing themselves from national laws and policies, sometimes stimulated by international authorities. This chapter addresses the relevance of national constitutional arrangements for the way in which the resulting conflicts are, or are not, resolved. More specifically, how do domestic courts respond to ‘accelerating cities’ invoking international law as they oppose policies of the national government? Discussing cases from Germany, Turkey, France, the Netherlands and Spain, we offer an initial exploration of how such cases have the potential to challenge the constitutional order in federal and unitary states alike. At the same time, ‘accelerating cities’ are confronted with ‘constitutional brakes’—barriers in national constitutional and administrative rules. Our analysis suggests that national courts may permit harmless symbolic acts, but step down, or even create a ‘backlash’ in the case of more consequential actions. Given the potential in local engagement with international law, and the rise of the phenomenon, it is urgent to set up systematic and detailed investigations and comparisons of the dynamics of local government law in different countries and how they are shaped by an invocation of international law in general, and human rights law in particular.

The human rights situation of migrants and asylum seekers represents one of the most difficult and pressing issues before the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU. Growing migration flows and the ascendance of a right-wing political climate have created a volatile situation in which governments enact legally questionable policies, which in turn are increasingly being challenged before the two European courts. Looking at recent cases, this chapter explores how governments maximize their ‘sovereign manoeuvrability’ when confronted with European-level litigation. Based on original research including interviews with persons involved in the relevant cases, it describes four different strategies of ‘managing’ and containing the impact of such rulings: legal argumentation about the scope of the relevant instruments, policy implications and procedural requirements; ‘anticipatory measures’ aiming to strike out cases or to contain public reactions to adverse rulings; ‘peer mobilisation’ exerting collective pressure on the courts; and post-judgment positioning vis-à-vis the judgment or the court in question. The chapter highlights the ambiguity of even seemingly far-reaching rulings, as the changing practices of international law require more differentiated evaluations even of the influence of strong and assertive international judicial bodies such as the two European courts.

A striking development in human rights implementation over the past decades has been the rise of human rights cities. This contribution defines a human rights city as an urban entity or local government that explicitly bases its policies, or some of them, on human rights as laid down in international treaties, and thus distinguishes itself from other local authorities. It theorizes the background to this process and offers a typology of human rights cities. Some initiatives, for instance, are more top-down and others more bottom-up, and some cities emphasize a specific subset of rights, whilst others base their policies on human rights in general. The typology is followed by a brief discussion of the actual legal obligations that cities have in the field of human rights implementation. The main reasons for cities to engage with human rights are, however, more social and political than purely legal. This sociopolitical background is illustrated in referring to the city of Utrecht, in the Netherlands. Finally, the contribution offers some general conclusions on the potential and pitfalls of reference to international human rights in formulating urban policies.