MIGJUST addresses the unacknowledged, fundamental conflict between the European Court of Human Rights, which in its migration case law adopts a sovereignty approach normalising sedentarism, and the Inter-American and African human rights Commission and Court which adopt a human rights approach normalising mobility. This fragmentation of international law also plays out in UN human rights Committees.

This fragmentation is not acknowledged in academic work, in which the European approach is assumed to represent the most advanced version of international law. This fragmentation is problematic because it undermines the international character of international law. Legal doctrine overlaps with political theory on migration justice, which focuses on Europe and North America, and does not acknowledge distinct positions developed in Latin American, African and Islamic political theory.

MIGJUST ends the hypothesised bias not merely by including Inter-American, African and UN case law and acknowledging their distinct positions; but by in addition linking European, Inter-American, African and UN case law to political theory.

MIGJUST will thus produce
-        a restatement of international human rights law doctrine in the field of migration which includes Inter-American, African and UN case law as well as European case law;
-        an analysis of the conflicting fundamental positions;
-        an analysis of how the conflict relates to divergent ideas on migration justice in European, North American, Latino, African and Islamic political theory;
-        legal doctrinal alternatives, inspired by non-ideal political and legal theory.

In doing so, MIGJUST makes
-        a fundamental academic contribution by ending the assumed European bias;
-        a fundamental contribution to legal practice by unlocking Inter-American, African and UN case law;
-        a fundamental contribution to international cooperation between states, IOs and INGOs by making their varying normative positions understandable to each other.