Cathryn Costello is Andrew W Mellon Associate Professor of International Human Rights and Refugee Law, and a fellow of St Antony's College. From 2003 - 2013, she was Francis Reynolds Fellow and Tutor in EU and Public Law at Worcester College, Oxford, during which time she also completed her DPhil studies on EU asylum and immigration law.
She has taught a range of public and EU law courses on the Oxford undergraduate and postgraduate curriculum. She began her academic career in 1998 as Lecturer in European Law at the Law School, Trinity College Dublin, and from 2000-2003, she was also the Director of the Irish Centre for European Law. She has been a Visiting Professor at the University of San Francisco and a visiting research fellow at NYU School of Law and Melbourne Law School.
Cathryn has published widely on many aspects of EU and human rights law, including asylum and refugee law, immigration, EU Citizenship and third country national family members, family reunification and immigration detention. Her monograph The Human Rights of Migrants and Refugees in European Law was published by OUP at the end of 2015.
She also researches the intersections of immigration, asylum and labour law. Her work on this theme includes an edited collection (with Mark Freedland) Migrants at Work: Immigration and Vulnerability in Labour Law (Oxford University Press 2014) and a book chapter, 'Migrants and Forced Labour: A Labour Law Response' in A Bogg, C Costello, A Davies, J Prassl (eds) The Autonomy of Labour Law (Hart Publishing 2014).
Cathryn has undertaken research for UNHCR, the Council of Europe and the European Parliament. She is regularly invited to address diverse audiences, both academic and practical, such as the European Council of Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ). She is also a Senior Research Associate of the Refugee Law Initiative of the University of London. She previously served on the boards of both the Irish Refugee Council and Immigrant Council of Ireland, and contributes to the policy work of ILPA.
Cathryn accepts outstanding doctoral students, seeking to research challenging issues in international refugee law, EU asylum and migration law, and the labour and human rights of migrants and refugees. Prospective doctoral students are advised to contact her directly to discuss research proposals well in advance of formally applying.
- This piece provides a detailed analysis of the Recast Asylum Procedures Directive (Recast APD). Although we are now two decades into harmonization of asylum procedures at the European Union (EU) level, we begin in Part 2 by revisiting the rationale for this process. We contend that the most persuasive rationale for procedural harmonization, in an EU legally committed to refugee protection, is to ensure fair procedures, and to prevent a race to the bottom in procedural standards. Efficiency must serve fairness, not vice versa. The original Asylum Procedures Directive (APD) failed to meet this aim by a long margin. The Recast APD is the product of the new, post-Lisbon legislative environment, so as Part 3 suggests, it comes with high hopes for improvement, particularly given the Parliaments relatively new role as co-legislator on asylum matters. Our analysis reveals that the Recast APD contains many improvements on its predecessor, but overall our assessment is mixed, particularly if we assess it in terms of the objective of setting clear basic minimum standards of fairness. We attempt to explain this ambivalent outcome by suggesting that the Directive reflects two competing stereotypical views of the asylum seeker. On the one hand, there is a strong notion that asylum procedures must work to weed out abusive claims. In contrast, there is also a strong acknowledgement that some asylum seekers are particularly vulnerable or have special needs (as will be seen, different terminologies are used in different contexts). As we argue, these stereotypes create complexity, and crowd out the basic notion of refugee status determination (RSD) as a process for recognising refugees, on the assumption that many (although of course not all) of those who apply will be so recognised.Upon request by the LIBE committee, this study examines the workings of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), in order to assess the need and potential for new approaches to ensure access to protection for people seeking it in the EU, including joint processing and distribution of asylum seekers. Rather than advocating the addition of further complexity and coercion to the CEAS, the study proposes a focus on front-line reception and streamlined refugee status determination, in order to mitigate the asylum challenges facing Member States, and guarantee the rights of asylum seekers and refugees according to the EU acquis and international legal standards.ISBN: 1461-7781ISBN: 1080-0727ISBN: 1841139386ISBN: 0165-0750Comprehensive analysis of the interaction of the Asylum Procedures Directive with the general principles of EC law, and other procedural guarantees embedded in human rights law more generally.Thematic review and evaluation of ECJ caselaw on sex equality from 2000 to 2006, including the general principle of equal treatment / non-discrimination.DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngi038ISBN: 1744-1021DOI: 10.1017/S1574019605003573ISBN: 1744-5515DOI: 10.1163/1571816054396842ISBN: 1571-8166examines the position of the ECHR in EC law, and how the ECtHR reviews EC/ EU measuresISBN: 0 853089264ISBN: 1-84113-095-8