Dissertation: Congratulations Martin Westlund!
Today Martin Westlund defended his doctoral thesis at the Department of Law, titled: The Role of the Judicial Branch in EU Migration Law.
The thesis shows how the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) often adopts a cautious approach in migration cases. By avoiding open conflict with the political institutions, the Court contributes to stable institutional relations, but at the same time risks weakening the balance of power and thereby making accountability and rights protection more difficult.
Focus on the balance of power and protection of rights
The thesis examines the role of the CJEU in EU migration law and how it affects the separation of powers between the Union’s institutions.
– I wanted to explore how the Court acts when migration policy becomes an arena of tension between human rights and political interests. The questions I asked were: How can the principle of separation of powers be used as a benchmark for analysing institutional relations within the EU? How does the CJEU position itself in relation to other actors at both EU and national level? And what are the consequences of the Court’s actions for the protection of human rights and democracy? says Martin Westlund.
When politics puts the EU’s democratic system to the test
The starting point is that EU democracy is strengthened when institutions monitor one another and bring different perspectives into the law-making process. In migration law, however, this system is often tested. Political actors sometimes seek to bypass the ordinary decision-making procedures to act quickly or restrict migration, for example by shifting parts of migration control to non-EU countries. In such cases, both transparency and judicial oversight are reduced.
Martin analysed individual cases as well as conducted a quantitative study of the Court’s case law from 2010 to 2020. The results show that the CJEU frequently adopts a cautious stance. It avoids open confrontation with political institutions and often interprets the law in ways that align with their positions. This contributes to stable institutional relations within the EU, but also means that the Court to some extent accepts a system in which the executive branch – that is, governments and the European Commission – enjoys considerable discretion.
– What surprised me most was how consistently cautious this approach is, even in situations where rule-of-law principles or the protection of rights are at stake. I had expected to find more instances of the Court challenging political institutions. At the same time, the Court appears committed to maintaining cooperation within the EU and to avoiding further political conflict.
Balancing cooperation and accountability
The dissertation thus shows that separation of powers in the EU is not only about drawing clear institutional boundaries, but also about how the institutions choose to cooperate or challenge one another. In migration law, this balance is particularly delicate, as political decisions often have direct consequences for people’s lives and rights.
– My hope is that the findings will contribute to a deeper understanding of how courts influence the democratic checks and balances within the EU.
Martin grew up in Årsunda, near Sandviken, and studied law at Uppsala University. After graduation, he worked at the Swedish Migration Agency in Västerås before beginning his PhD in EU law at the University of Gothenburg. After the defence, Martin plan to continue researching and teaching law.