International Refugee Law: Where it Comes From, and Where It's Going…

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guy S. Goodwin-Gill
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Irregular Migration ◽  
Policy Goal ◽  
Asylum Policy ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
International Refugee Law

AbstractDespite nearly 100 years of international organization and practice, international refugee law is confronted today with the critical challenges of globalization, securitization and an increasingly mobile world. Large-scale movements have exposed serious cracks in the European project; the EU's stated policy goal seems simply to keep refugees away. Elsewhere, numerous refugee situations are “protracted,” while persistent underdevelopment continues to drive the movement of people between States, in a context in which States appear unable to manage “irregular” migration. If a generous asylum policy is in practice, contingent on well-controlled external borders, can the basic rules of protection survive? Or are asylum and the principle of non-return to persecution (non-refoulement) at risk in a new international legal order? These are the issues addressed below.

6. International organizations

2019 ◽  
pp. 131-160
Author(s):  
Gleider Hernández
Keyword(s):  
International Cooperation ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Regional Security ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Economic Organizations ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
Transboundary Resources ◽  
Domestic Law

This chapter looks at international organizations, their differences to States, and their position within the international legal order. Today, international organizations exist in virtually all fields of transnational and global collective concern. In the broadest sense, they facilitate international cooperation in all areas from the harmonization of tariffs to the management of delicate ecosystems, and range in their scope from small bilateral commissions regulating transboundary resources to regional security and economic organizations, all the way to the universalist aspirations of the UN. The chapter then considers the question of establishing the legal personality of international organizations under international law, which must be distinguished from the question of whether an international organization may also hold legal personality under the domestic law of a State.

scholarly journals International Refugee Law: Misconceiving Reconceptions

Refuge ◽  
1998 ◽  
pp. 38-45
Author(s):  
Jim Rice
Keyword(s):  
Great Lakes ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
Asylum Seeker ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Central Africa ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Great Lakes Region ◽  
Mass Migration ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
International Refugee Law

This paper addresses the implications and adequacy of the "Hathaway model" for grounding refugee immigration policy. The Hathaway model envisions and may be suitable for cases of mass migration such as the recent tragedy in the Great Lakes region of Central Africa or the response to the "ethnic cleansing," which took place in the former Yugoslavia, large-scale crisis situations calling for immediate solutions. The author argues that for other more individualized types of refugee situations, there is a need to distinguish between the categories of "asylum seeker" and "refugee" when implementing policy in order to make a better effort to screen and adequately protect those individuals who make asylum claims.

Part V The Scope of Refugee Protection, Ch.37 Temporary Protection and Temporary Refuge

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Durieux Jean-François
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Refugee Convention ◽  
Protection Mechanism ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
Temporary Protection ◽  
International Solidarity ◽  
To Come ◽  
International Refugee Law ◽  
Legal Frameworks

Unlike ‘complementary protection’, the concepts of ‘temporary refuge’ and ‘temporary protection’ represent challenges to the Refugee Convention, exposing a real or perceived flaw in the way the Convention articulates immediate protection with longer-term solutions. This flaw tends to come to light mainly within the context of large-scale influxes of refugees, situations in which another ‘broken link’ all too often surfaces, namely between the principle of non-refoulement and the principle of international solidarity. Despite significant differences dictated by the time at which, and the space within which, they appeared in the law and practice of States, temporary refuge and temporary protection regimes share the ambition of regulating the continuum from admission and immediate relief to international (or regional) mobilization towards durable solutions. While temporary refuge was first conceptualized in the Asia-Pacific region, temporary protection reached a higher degree of formalization on the European continent, to the point of becoming a term of art in European Union law. It was originally conceived as a return-oriented protection mechanism, largely outside the Refugee Convention regime, before being recognized as a procedure of exceptional character and a prelude to the full operation of Convention standards. Regrettably, the only binding instrument covering all aspects of temporary protection—a 2001 EU directive—has never been implemented and may soon be repealed. While scholarly and policy debates over temporary refuge and/or temporary protection have creatively explored the outer limits of international refugee law, they have thus far failed to dispel ambiguities regarding the scope of ‘regimes of exception’ in refugee law and their relationship to the Refugee Convention-based regime. The time may have come to unpack the varied issues which temporary refuge and temporary protection have come to represent, in order to address them within known legal frameworks.

International Legal Order

2018 ◽  
pp. 542-563
Author(s):  
Heike Krieger
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Strong Impact ◽  
Fragile States ◽  
Legal Limits ◽  
Government Functions ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
State Consent ◽  
External Actors

The phenomenon of governance in areas of limited statehood has had a particularly strong impact on the development of international law after 1990. If—on a large scale—states lack the capacity to control the means of violence and to implement and enforce central decisions it is most likely that this bears serious consequences for the international legal order. The chapter inquires into these consequences and analyses the changing discourses about statehood. As a response to the phenomenon of limited statehood, the international community had to address the challenge how and to what extent external actors could step in in order to perform government functions. This triggered debates about the legal basis and about the legal limits for such activities. While the period after 1990 was characterized by approaches which relativized the sovereignty of fragile states, more recent developments point to a re-emphasis of state consent

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document