© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI: 10.1163/138836409X12469435402855 European Journal of Migration and Law 11 (2009) 271–293 brill.nl/emil Structural Instability: Strasbourg Case Law on Children’s Family Reunion omas Spijkerboer* Professor of Migration Law, VU University Amsterdam, e Netherlands Abstract In this article, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on children’s family reunion is exam- ined. e argument is that the Court’s case law is necessarily inconsistent. is is so in part as a conse- quence of the structure of international legal argument, and partly as a consequence of the seeming normative conflict about the legitimacy of migration control. On both points, the Court is torn between two equally legitimate and equally untenable extremes, which forces the Court to take a centrist position and to acknowledge both the legitimacy and the untenable nature of the extremes. e main part of the article analyses how this takes shape in the legal technicalities in the judgements under review. Keywords family reunion; family life; Article 8 ECHR; critical legal theory Introduction is article concerns Strasbourg judgments about children who seek admission to a European country in order to be reunited with parents. As many have noted, case law of the European Court of Human Rights on this point is inconsistent. Instead of suggesting ways to make case law more consistent, I will try to eluci- date why the Court’s case law is inconsistent. e argument is that the Court is confronted with two tensions: communitarian versus cosmopolitan views on the regulation of migration, and ascending versus descending perspectives on interna- tional law. Each extreme represents a legitimate position which can be criticised from the other side. is makes the Court’s case law structurally unstable. e main part of this article will outline how, at the level of legal technicalities, the Court copes with the structural instability of its case law. If this analysis is correct, this has implications beyond merely Strasbourg case law. e European Court of Human Rights is not just any court. It is a prominent court, staffed by prominent judges and its judgments are of high impact and quality. e idea behind this * ) I thank the participants of the seminar held at VU University Amsterdam on April 17, 2009, and Karin de Vries in particular, for their critical comments on an earlier version of this text. I thank Frances Gilligan for her editorial assistance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 EMIL 11,3_f6_271-294.indd 271 EMIL 11,3_f6_271-294.indd 271 7/9/2009 3:36:22 PM 7/9/2009 3:36:22 PM