Self-Restrained Adjudicator Meets (not so) Self-Restrained Lawmaker: Danish Human Rights Protection Tested on the ‘Forced Marriage Presupposition Rule’

ABSTRACT

The article examines the functioning and fragilities of the Danish system of assuring human rights compliance of legislation. The aim is to examine previous theoretical allegations about inadequacies of this system. In the context of the adoption and subsequent judicial review of the ‘forced marriage presupposition rule’ in family reunifications, the article marks the concrete steps at which the legislature and the judiciary adhered to a tendentious and evasive interpretation of human rights and was unwilling to consider or rebut the impact of new evidence or individual circumstances. Analysing four courts’ cases reviewing the presupposition rule, the article shows how the primacy of the legislature in assessing human rights combined with the judicial self-restraint apparently places the claimant in an argumentative inequality in the judicial proceedings. This and other findings mark the micro-level symptoms evidencing a compromised character of human rights protection in Danish migration law observable in the context of this case study.

KEYWORDS:

• Human rights
• Denmark
• self-restraint
• migration law
• forced marriage
• legal thinking

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank to Marlene Wind, Poul Kjær and Maj Grasten for their valuable feedback and comments in the process of making of this article. Any errors are my own.

Notes

1 Marlene Wind and A Follesdal, ‘Nordic Reluctance Towards Judicial Review Under Siege’ (2009) 27 Nordic Journal of Human Rights 131; Jens Elo Rytter and Marlene Wind, ‘In Need of Juristocracy? The Silence of Denmark in the Development of European Legal Norms’ (2011) 9 International Journal of Constitutional Law 470; Graham Butler, ‘The European Rule of Law Standard, the Nordic States, and EU Law’ in Antonina Akardijeva, Joakim Engelberkt and Andreas Moberg Negrelius (eds), Rule of Law in the EU 30 Years After the Fall of the Berlin Wall (Hart 2021).

2 Silvia Adamo, ‘Protecting International Civil Rights in a National Context: Danish Law and Its Discontents’ (2016) 85 Nordic Journal of International Law 119, 120.

3 Ibid., 137: ‘[…] courts could more vigorously and autonomously engage with international norms in order to extend the implementation of civil rights protection in the domestic legal context’; Jonas Christoffersen and Mikael Rask Madsen, ‘The End of Virtue – Denmark and the Internationalisation of Human Rights Special Issue: The Internationalisation of Danish Law’ (2011) 80 Nordic Journal of International Law 257, 273: ‘[Denmark] is Slightly Confused in Its Engagements in the Area of Human Rights’.

4 Pernille Boye Koch, ‘Lovgivers rolle som fortolker af internationale retskilder: På hvilken måde gælder menneskerettighederne i Danmark?’ (2019) 132 Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap 3, 3.

5 Adamo (n 2) 120; Wind and Follesdal (n 1) 131; Christoffersen and Madsen (n 3) 273. Similarly: Gammeltoft-Hansen and Thomas Rask Madsen, ‘Regime Entanglement in the Emergence of Interstitial Legal Fields: Denmark and the Uneasy Marriage of Human Rights and Migration Law’ [2021] iCourts Working Paper Series 16; Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen and Sarah Scott Ford, ‘An Introduction to Danish Immigration Law’ [2021] Courts Working Paper Series 27.

6 Martin Bak Jørgensen, ‘Danish Regulations on Marriage Migration: Policy Understandings of Transnational Marriages’ in Katharine Charsley (ed) (Routledge 2012) 69.

7 Lov nr 1204 af 27. december 2003 om ændring af udlændingeloven

8 Bjørn Dilou Jacobsen and others, Udlændingeret (4. udg.): Indrejse – Visum – Asyl – Familiesammenføring (4th edn, Djøf Forlag 2017) 502.

9 Emily Cochran Bech, Karin Borevi and Per Mouritsen, ‘A “Civic Turn” in Scandinavian Family Migration Policies? Comparing Denmark, Norway and Sweden’ (2017) 5 Comparative Migration Studies 7; Helga Eggebø, ‘A Real Marriage? Applying for Marriage Migration to Norway’ (2013) 39 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 773; Maarit Jantera-Jareborg, ‘Populism and Comparative Law as Tools Not to Recognise Foreign Marriages’ (2019) 6 Journal of International and Comparative Law; Sanna Mustasaari, ‘The Married Child Belongs to No One? Legal Recognition of Forced Marriages and Child Marriages in the Reuniting of Families’ (2014) 26 Child and Family Law Quarterly; Saara Pellander, ‘Gatekeepers of the Family: Regulating Family Migration to Finland’ (Helsingin yliopisto 2016) Helsingin yliopisto (Dissertation thesis).

10 For example, ECtHR: Biao v Denmark [2014] European Court of Human Rights Application no. 38590/10; MA v Denmark European Court of Human Rights Application no. 6697/18. Court of Justice of European Union: A v Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet Court of Justice of the European Union C-89/18. In areas other than immigration, Denmark has received fewer ECHR violations than the other Nordic states, see: Tuomas Ojanen, ‘Human Rights in Nordic Constitutions’ in Helle Krunke and Björg Thorarensen (eds), The Nordic Constitutions: A Comparative and Contextual Study (Hart 2018) 138.

11 UN Human Rights Committee, ‘Views Adopted by the Committee under Article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol, Concerning Communication No. 2631/2015’ (2019) CCPR/C/126/D/2531/2015. Other internationally reviewed conditions include minimum age of 24, economic sufficiency, waiting times, etc. See: Alvaro Gil-Roble, ‘Commissioner for Human Rights, on His Visit to Denmark’ (2004) CommDH(2004)12.

12 Randy Barnett, ‘The Internal and External Analysis of Concepts: Hegel and Legal Theory: A Response’ (1989) 11 Cardozo Law Review 525.

13 Martti Koskenniemi, ‘Human Rights, Politics and Love’ in Martti Koskenniemi (ed), Politics of International Law (Hart Publishing 2011) 153.

14 Duncan Kennedy, ‘The Critique of Rights in Critical Legal Studies’ in Wendy Brown and Janet Halley (eds), Left Legalism/Left Critique (Duke University Press 2002) 197–201. More generally see also: Duncan Kennedy, Critique of Adjudication (Harvard University Press, 1997).

15 Duncan Kennedy, ‘Strategizing Strategic Behaviour in Legal Interpretation’ [1996] Utah Law Review 785, 787.

16 Helle Krunke, Engineering Constitutional Change: A Comparative Perspective on Europe, Canada and the USA (Taylor and Francis 2012) 84; Adamo (n 2) 142.

17 Jens Elo Rytter, Grundrettigheder: domstolenes fortolkning og kontrol med lovgivningsmagten (Forlaget Thomson 2000) 110; Ole Terkelsen, Folkeret og Dansk Ret (Karnov Group 2017) 33; Astrid Kjeldgaard-Pedersen (ed), Nordic Approaches to International Law (Brill Nijhoff 2017) 85; Alf Ross, Lærebog i Folkeret (5. udgave, Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busck 1980) 73. For a concurring historical approach, see: Ole Espersen, Indgåelse og opfyldelse af traktater (Juristforbundet 1970) 165.

18 Koch (n 4) 2.

19 Justitsministeriet, ‘Betænkning Nr. 1546: Betænkning Om Inkorporering Mv. Inden for Menneskeretsområdet’ (2014) 34; Notat tom Danmarks internationale forpligtelser på udlændinge- og statsborgerretsområdet 2012 (JJC/KRE/RIN) 12.

20 Justitsministeriet (n 19) 35; Rytter, Grundrettigheder (n 17) 110; Terkelsen (n 17) 35–38.

21 Adamo (n 2) 128; Marlene Wind, ‘The Hesitant European? The Constitutional Foundation of Denmark’s EU Membership and Its Material Reality Stefan Griller, Lina Papadapoulou, Roman Puff’ in Stefan Griller, Lina Papadapoulou and Roman Puff (eds), Member States’ Constitutions and EU Integration (Hart 2020) 10.

22 Christoffersen and Rask Madsen (n 3) 265.

23 Lov nr. 285 af 29 April 1992.

24 Adamo (n 2) 131.

25 Folketingstidende 1991–92, Tillæg A, pp. 5468–69. Translations of statements in the judicial proceedings cited are author’s own.

26 ‘Betænkning Nr. 1220: Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention og Dansk Ret’ (1991) Almindelige bemærkninger, 1.4.

27 Adamo (n 2) 133.

28 Christoffersen and Madsen (n 3) 266.

29 Jonas Christoffersen, Det offentliges kompensationsansvar for krænkelser af internationale menneskerettigheder (II) (Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen 2016) 232–33.

30 Bárður Larsen, ‘Kan Dømmekraften Underlægges Regler? – Kritiske Reflektioner Omkring Forarbejderne Til Den Danske Lov Om Inkorporering Af Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention’ [2015] Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap 405, 415; Jonas Christoffersen, ‘Immigrationsret og Magtfordeling’ in Mads Bryde Andersen and Jonas Christoffersen (eds), Forhandlingerne ved det 38. nordiske Juristmøde i København 21.–23. august 2008 (Den danske Styrelse 2008) 111.

31 Christoffersen (n 30) 112; Wind (n 21) 10–12.

32 Wind (n 21) 10; Krunke (n 16) 84.

33 Christoffersen (n 30) 112; Ojanen (n 10) 157.

34 Krunke (n 16) 83–84.

35 For perspectives on the Danish tradition of judicial review, see for example: Ditlev Tamm, ‘Domstolene Som Statsmagt – Set Med En Retshistorikers Øjne’ [1997] Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen 87 et seq.; Jens Peter Christensen, ‘Internationale Konventioners Betydning for Højesterets Grundlovsfortolkning’ [2013] Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen 16, 18–19.

36 Larsen (n 30) 415. For comparison of Nordic systems of human rights review see e.g.: Martin Scheinin (ed), Welfare State and Constitutionalism: Nordic Perspectives (Nordic Council of Ministers 2001); Helle Krunke and Björg Thorarensen (eds), The Nordic Constitutions: A Comparative and Contextual Study (Hart Publishing 2018).

37 Eivind Smith, ‘Judicial Review of Legislation’ in Helle Krunke and Björg Thorarensen (eds), The Nordic Constitutions: A Comparative and Contextual Study (Hart 2018) 110.

38 Ran Hirschl, ‘The Nordic Counternarrative: Democracy, Human Development, and Judicial Review’ (2011) 9 International Journal of Constitutional Law 449.

39 Koch (n 4) 2.

40 Ojanen (n 10) 141–43.

41 Koch (n 4) 2. Similarly Adamo (n 2) 123.

42 Ola Wiklund, ‘The Reception Process in Sweden and Norway’ in Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet (eds), A Europe of Rights (Oxford University Press 2008) 172.

43 Marlene Wind, ‘Do Scandinavians Care about International Law? A Study of Scandinavian Judges’ Citation Practice to International Law and Courts’ (2016) 85 Nordic Journal of International Law 281, 283.

44 Sten Schaumburg-Müller, ‘Parliamentary Precedence in Denmark. A Jurisprudential Assessment’ (2009) 27 Nordisk Tidsskrift for Menneskerettigheter 170, 282–83.

45 Tuomas Ojanen, Human Rights in Nordic Constitutions and the Impact of International Obligations, in Helle Krunke, Björg Thorarensen (eds), The Nordic Constitutions: A Comparative and Contextual Study (Hart 2018) 135–37.

46 Ojanen (n 10) 137–38.

47 On ‘Nordic Exceptionalism’ and the way the common experience of Nordic states from the forefront of international human rights advocacy prevents critical self-reflection domestically in the Nordics, see for example Suvi Keskinen and others (eds), Complying With Colonialism: Gender, Race and Ethnicity in the Nordic Region (1st edn, Routledge 2016) 78 et seq; Kristín Loftsdóttir and Lars Jensen, Whiteness and Postcolonialism in the Nordic Region: Exceptionalism, Migrant Others and National Identities (Routledge 2016) 2 et seq.

48 Minister of Justice, Lene Espersen cited in: Jonas Christoffersen, ‘Den Danske Debat om Den Internationale Menneskeret’ (2006) 24 Nordisk tidsskrift for menneskerettigheter 98.

49 Krunke (n 16) 82; Adamo (n 2) 142–43.

50 Butler (n 1) 10.

51 Christoffersen (n 49) 114.

52 Christoffersen and Madsen (n 3) 273.

53 Ibid; Gammeltoft-Hansen and Scott Ford (n 5) 27.

54 Christoffersen (n 30) 112; Adamo (n 2) 132.

55 Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet, Lov nr. 365 af 6. juni 2002 om ændring af udlændingeloven og ægteskabsloven [LOV nr 365 af 06/06/2002]. Amended with the presumption of marriage against one’s will in the case of near relatives with Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet, Lov nr 1204 af 27. december 2003 om ændring af udlændingeloven [Lov nr 1204 af 27. december 2003].

56 ‘Bemærkninger Til Lovforslag Nr. L 6/2003-04’ § 6.; L 6/2003-04, Bilag 12, spm. 7–23, spm. 19.

57 Ibid., § 1, Afsnit 2.

58 Ibid., § 3 (6/16).

59 Ministry for Gender Equality, ‘Action Plan to Stop Men’s Domestic Violence against Women and Children 2005–2008’ April 2005 28; Garbi Schmidt and others, Ændrende Familiesammenføringsregler – Hvad Har de Nye Regler Betydet for Pardannelsesmønstret Bland Etniske Minoriteter? (SFI – The Danish National Centre for Social Research 2009) 70.

60 Schmidt and others (n 60) 86; Annika Liversage and Mikkel Rytter, ‘A Cousin Marriage Equals a Forced Marriage: Transnational Marriages between Closely Related Spouses in Denmark’ in Cousin Marriages: Between Tradition, Genetic Risk and Cultural Change (Berghahn Books 2015) 141–47.

61 Katharine Charsley, ‘Risk and Ritual: The Protection of British Pakistani Women in Transnational Marriage’ (2006) 32 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 1169, 1170–71; Mikkel Rytter, ‘Between Preferences: Marriage and Mobility among Danish Pakistani Youth’ (2012) 18 Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 572, 576–77.

62 ‘Bemærkninger Til Lovforslag Nr. L 6/2003-04’ (n 57) § 3 (p. 5).

63 Ibid., § 1; Garbi Schmidt, ‘Troubled by Law: The Subjectivizing Effects of Danish Marriage Reunification Laws’ (2013) 52 International Migration 129.

64 L 6/2003-04, Bilag 12, spm. 7–23, spm. 19.

65 Inger Marie Conradsen and Annette Kronborg, ‘Changing Matrimonial Law in the Image of Immigration Law: Gender, Mobility and Belonging in Contemporary Europe’ in Luisa Passerini and others (eds), Women Migrants from East to West (Berghahn Books 2007) 229.

66 Garbi Schmidt, ‘Law and Identity: Transnational Arranged Marriages and the Boundaries of Danishness’ (2011) 37 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 257, 259.

67 Office of the Commissioner of Human Rights, Third party intervention by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights in case of M.A. v. Denmark (application no. 6697/18), 21 January 2019, § 22.

68 Christoffersen and Madsen (n 3) 273. (Content in brackets added.)

69 The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) 1953 Art. 8(1).

70 ‘Bemærkninger Til Lovforslag Nr. L 6/2003-04’ (n 57) § 4.

71 Ibid.

72 Ibid.

73 Ibid.

74 ECHR, Art. 14.

75 ‘Bemærkninger Til Lovforslag Nr. L 6/2003-04’ (n 57) § 4.

76 Ibid.

77 Ibid.

78 Ibid.

79 Ibid.

80 Ibid., Bemærkninger til lovforslagets enkelte bestemmelser, Til nr. 2.

81 Familiesammenføringskontoret Ministeriet for Flygtninge, Indvandrere of Integration, ‘Notat om Praksis Efter Bestemmelsen i Udlændingelovens § 9, Stk. 8’ (2009) 6.

82 ‘Bemærkninger Til Lovforslag Nr. L 6/2003-04’ (n 57) Bemærkninger til lovforslagets enkelte bestemmelser, Til nr. 2.

83 Notat tom Danmarks internationale forpligtelser på udlændinge- og statsborgerretsområdet 9–14.

84 Council of Europe, ‘Guide on Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention’ (2020) 11.

85 ‘Bemærkninger Til Lovforslag Nr. L 6/2003-04’ (n 57) § 3.

86 Udvalget for Udlændinge- og Integrationspolitik, ‘Betækning over Lovforslag L 6/2003 Af Udvalget for Udlændinge- Og Integrationspolitik’ (2003) 4; ‘Bemærkninger Til Lovforslag Nr. L 6/2003-04’ (n 57) §2, 3.

87 Council of Europe, ‘Handbook on European Non-Discrimination Law’ (2018) 72.

88 Regional Office for the Baltic and Nordic Countries UNHCR, ‘Comments on Proposed Amendments to the Aliens’ Act No. 608 of 17 July 2002’ ROBNC/0156/03 1.

89 Ibid., 2.

90 Liversage and Rytter (n 61) 137.

91 UNHCR (n 89) 2.

92 Ibid.

93 Ministeriet for Flygtninge, Indvandrere of Integration, ‘Notat Om de Indkomne Høringsvar Vedrørende Lovforslag Nr. L 6 Af 8. Oktober 2001’ J. nr. 2003/4000–40 20–21.

94 Ibid., 20; Women’s Council in Denmark/Kvinderådet, ‘Comments on the Seventh Periodic Report by the Government of Denmark on CEDAW’ (2008) 9.

95 Ministeriet for Flygtninge, Indvandrere of Integration, (n 94) 22.

96 Ibid.

97 Ibid., 23.

98 Christoffersen and Madsen (n 3) 273.

99 The author was granted access to a sample of Immigration Appeals Board decision-making practice including cases of presupposition of forced marriages.

100 U20183073; U20173237V.

101 U.2018.3073 (n 101) 3074–76.

102 Ibid., 3080.

103 The term ‘respondent’ stands to denote ‘in a court case, the person who a petition (= a formal letter to the court asking for a particular action) is made against’ see: Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary and Thesaurus.

104 U.2018.3073 (n 101) 3081.

105 Ibid.

106 Ibid., 3082.

107 Ibid., 3083.

108 Ibid., 3087.

109 Ibid.

110 Ibid., 3090.

111 U.2017.3237V (n 100).

112 Ibid., 3241.

113 Ibid.

114 Ibid.

115 Ibid., 3243.

116 U20071115H 1122.

117 Ibid., 1118.

118 Ibid., 1119.

119 Ibid., 1120.

120 U2011875V 878.

121 Ibid., 879.

122 Ibid.

123 U.2007.1115H (n 117) 1120.

124 U.2017.3237V (n 101) 3239; U.2018.3073 (n 101) 3090.

125 U.2017.3237V (n 101) 3239.

126 U.2018.3073 (n 101) 3081–82; U.2017.3237V (n 101) 3239; U.2007.1115H (n 117) 1120.

127 U.2018.3073 (n 101) 3087; U.2017.3237V (n 101) 3242.

128 U.2018.3073 (n 101) 3087; U.2017.3237V (n 101) 3243.

129 Interviews with parliamentary public rights defenders (‘embedsmænd’) suggest that political proposals are rejected on the basis of human rights only in ‘unrealistic and far-reaching’ cases: Christoffersen (n 30) 113. For further reading on the role of ministries in the Danish law-making process, see for example: Jens Elo Rytter, ‘Ministres Oplysningspligt over for Folketinget’ (2015) 4 Juristen 148; Pernille Boye Koch, ‘Ministerens Sandheds- Og Oplysningspligt – Status Og Nyere Fortolkningsbidrag’ [2020] Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen 125.

130 See the suggested law proposal amendments (ændringsforslag) under Betænkning 9/12 03 Till.B 365.

131 U.2011.875V (n 121) 879.

132 U.2017.3237V (n 101) 3238.

133 Ministeriet for Flygtninge, Indvandrere of Integration, (n 94) 22.

134 U.2018.3073 (n 101) 3082.

135 Krunke (n 16) 84; Adamo (n 2) 142.

136 ‘Bemærkninger Til Lovforslag Nr. L 6/2003-04’ (n 57) § 4.

137 Ibid.

138 U.2007.1115H (n 117) 1120.