On the Legality Under International Law of the Criminalization or Suppression of the Expression of Solidarity to Refugees

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 102-113
Author(s):  
Obiora Chinedu Okafor

As Professor Jastram has noted, in and of itself, international refugee law is not explicit enough on the issue at hand. It is not clear enough in protecting persons who come in aid of, or show solidarity to, refugees or asylum-seekers. That does not mean, however, that no protections exist for them at all in other, if you like, sub-bodies of international law. This presentation focuses on the nature and character of those already existing international legal protections, as well as on any protection gaps that remain and recommendations on how they can be closed. It should be noted though that although the bulk of the presentation focuses on the relevant international legal protection arguments, this presentation begins with a short examination of the nature of the acts of criminalization and suppression at issue.

Author(s):  
Schloenhardt Andreas

This chapter focuses on the smuggling of migrants in the context of refugee movements, and examines the scope and application of international law pertaining to these phenomena. The principal binding global instrument on this topic is the United Nations Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air which, on the surface, coexists alongside international refugee law in situations where smuggled migrants are seeking asylum. Although the Smuggling of Migrants Protocol expressly recognizes the protection afforded to refugees under international law, its interpretation, operation, and implementation often run into conflict with the Refugee Convention. All too frequently, measures to prevent and combat the smuggling of migrants focus exclusively on law enforcement, criminal justice, and restrictive border measures without recognizing the rights of refugees, asylum seekers, and smuggled migrants, which are the subject of this chapter.


2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atin Prabandari ◽  
Yunizar Adiputera

This article explores how refugees in non-signatory countries in Southeast Asia, particularly Indonesia and Malaysia, have some protection through alternative paths under international refugee law. These two countries provide forms of protection even if they are not States Parties to the Refugee Convention. These two case studies show that the governance of protection for refugee and asylum seekers is provided through alternative paths, even in the absence of international law and statist processes. These alternative paths offer a degree of meaningful protection, even if this is not tantamount to resettlement. Alternative paths of protection are initiated mainly by non-state actors. The states try to manage alternative protective governance to secure their interests by maintaining their sovereignty, on the one hand, and performing humanitarian duties on the other. In this regard, Indonesia and Malaysia have resorted to meta-governance to balance these two concerns.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Sara Palacios-Arapiles

Abstract This article traces the contributions of African states to the development of international refugee law and explores the role African human rights supervisory bodies have played in the interpretation and application of this field of law. While Africa's contributions to international refugee law are often overlooked, this article sets out to identify Africa's involvement in the drafting process of the UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. It also explores the legal framework for refugees in Africa, in particular the OAU Refugee Convention and the Bangkok Principles on Status and Treatment of Refugees, and the extent to which these two instruments have enriched international refugee law. The article argues that some of their provisions may provide evidence of customary rules of international law. Lastly, it examines some of the authoritative pronouncements made by African human rights supervisory bodies, in so far as they adopt a progressive approach to interpreting the rights of refugees and asylum-seekers.


2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc de Leeuw ◽  
Sonja van Wichelen

AbstractIn the last decade, several states have increasingly tried to ‘un-sign’ to their humanitarian obligations by seeking ways to circumvent European or international law. Through an analysis of a recently passed act in Australia on the management of asylum seekers, this paper examines how the practice of ‘un-signing’ can be seen as a symptomatic instance of reconfiguring asylum in late modernity. We focus on the proliferation of ‘legal pragmatics’ in the management of refugees. By ‘legal pragmatics’, we refer to theprocessualways in which the state attempts to hollow out international refugee law and in which courts respond by reinstating it. Normative consequences are thecriminalisationand thejuridificationof refugees. We argue that the proliferation of ‘legal pragmatics’ illuminates not only the ever-expanding reach of neoliberal changes in domestic legislation, but also the limitations of human rights to adequately respond to the neoliberal vicissitudes of humanitarian government.


Author(s):  
Molly Joeck

Abstract This article examines the state of Canadian refugee law since the decision of the Supreme Court in Febles v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) [2014] 3 SCR 431. Drawing upon an analysis of a set of decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board, the administrative tribunal tasked with refugee status determination in Canada, the article seeks to determine whether administrative decision makers are heeding the guidance of Febles when excluding asylum seekers from refugee protection on the basis of serious criminality pursuant to article 1F(b) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. In doing so, it examines the controversy around article 1F(b) since its inception across various jurisdictions and amongst academic commentators, situating Febles within that controversy in order to demonstrate that the Supreme Court’s reluctance to clearly set out the purpose underlying article 1F(b) is in step with a longstanding tendency to understand the provision as serving a gatekeeping function, that prevents criminalized non-citizens from obtaining membership in our society. It argues that by omitting to set out a clear and principled standard by which asylum seekers can be excluded from refugee protection pursuant to article 1F(b), the Supreme Court failed to live up to a thick understanding of the rule of law. It concludes by calling for a reassertion of the rule of law into exclusion decision making, both nationally and internationally, in order to ensure that the legitimacy of the international refugee law regime is maintained.


Author(s):  
Tendayi Achiume E

The experiences of refugees are heavily mediated by race and ethnicity, and international law plays a significant role in this mediation—in some cases offering important protections, and in others entrenching discrimination and exclusion. This Chapter makes four contributions. First, it articulates a structural and intersectional account of race, racial discrimination and xenophobic discrimination as essential starting points for international legal analysis of race and refugees. This analysis includes the overlap and distinctions between racial and xenophobic discrimination, as well as the role of religion, class and gender in shaping racial discrimination against refugees. Secondly, it reviews the doctrine on race and refugees in international refugee law and international human rights law, and maps the attendant academic literature analyzing this law. Thirdly, the Chapter canvasses legal scholarship that has examined the structure, history and development of the international refugee regime in relation to race. Finally, it concludes with reflections on a research agenda on race and refugees.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 379-397
Author(s):  
Christel Querton

The adoption of gender guidelines aiming to ensure consistency in gender-sensitive interpretation of the UN Refugee Convention definition demonstrates a general acceptance that gender is relevant to the question of who is a refugee. However, there is evidence that States have failed to adequately undertake the process of gender-sensitive interpretation and implement these guidelines comprehensively. Accordingly, this article argues that the general rule of treaty interpretation in international law enables the identification of a legal obligation of State Parties to the Refugee Convention to take gender into account when interpreting the refugee definition. The precise scope and nature of the duty of States to take gender into account is identified through a dynamic approach to interpretation by reference to international human rights norms. Overall, this article claims that the conceptualisation of a legal obligation in international law to interpret the refugee definition in a way that takes gender into account is inhibited by the development of a distinct category of ‘gender-related asylum claims’ within gender and refugee law scholarship. Consequently, this article presents a challenge to the borders implicit in the category of ‘gender-related asylum claims’ by revisiting the boundaries of international refugee law.


Author(s):  
Jane McAdam

This chapter examines the scope of existing international law to address ‘climate change-related displacement’, a term used to describe movement where the impacts of climate change affect mobility decisions in some way. It looks into the role of international refugee law, human rights law, and the law on statelessness in protecting people displaced by the impacts of climate change. The extent to which international law and international institutions respond to climate change-related movement and displacement depends upon: whether such movement is perceived as voluntary or forced; the nature of the trigger; whether international borders are crossed; the extent to which there are political incentives to characterize movement as linked to climate change or not; and whether movement is driven or aggravated by human factors, such as discrimination. The chapter also considers the extent to which existing principles on internal displacement provide normative and practical guidance.


2016 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Butler ◽  
Martin Ratcovich

This article addresses the main legal challenges facing the European Union (eu) Naval Force, eunavfor Med (‘Operation Sophia’), established in 2015, to disrupt human smuggling and trafficking activities in the Mediterranean Sea. It examines a number of legal issues that have given rise to scepticism on the viability of this type of operation, ranging from challenges under European Union law regarding mandate and oversight, to complex questions of compliance with international law. Forcible measures may be at variance with the international law of the sea, binding on the eu and its Member States alike. Even if such strictures can be avoided by a broad United Nations mandate and/or the consent of the neighbouring government(s), international refugee law and international human rights law provide limitations on the measures that Operation Sophia will be tasked with. Different avenues will be explored to ensure the Operation’s compliance with these different legal regimes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document