scholarly journals Un-signing Geneva: legal pragmatics in the management of asylum

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.

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.


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.


Author(s):  
Lester Eve

This chapter explores how national constitutional frameworks add a critical dimension to refugee protection. Given the variability in the protective value of national constitutions for refugees, it considers how States draw strength from their constitutions in response to refugee movements and why they do so in particular ways. The chapter seeks to elucidate some of the complexities in the relationship between constitutional law and international refugee and human rights law, considering the relevance of constitutional text and context, State perspectives on the place of international law, and the extent to which constitutional law has shaped, and continues to shape, international law. The chapter offers a taxonomy as a methodological framework for differentiating these complexities, which suggests that the relationship between constitutional law and international refugee law might be understood in one of three ways: as symbiotic, ambivalent, or antagonistic. It then applies this framework to three case studies. It suggests that this approach may help us to think more strategically about how to harness the protective possibilities of constitutional law as well as wrestle more productively with constitutional law’s limitations.


Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 10
Author(s):  
Joel John Badali

The global migrant crisis triggered an unprecedented number of asylum seekers in the Balkan region. In this case study, the state of migrants with disabilities—a community notoriously overlooked during global conflict—is explored through field interviews of settlement service providers in Serbia. A human rights framework is espoused in first examining contemporary refugee law discourse and the corresponding gaps in current resettlement practice of migrants with disabilities. The study’s findings illuminate the need for a drastic shift in settlement services for those migrants most vulnerable to persecution in de facto destination countries. The discussion takes aim at “humanitarian silo” funding models and argues for international cooperation and transparency in accommodating migrants with disabilities internationally.


2013 ◽  
pp. 187-196
Author(s):  
Hugh S. Tuckfield

Asylum is an issue equally central to refugee law and human rights. Generally, they are protected under the 1951 Refugee Convention, but asylum cases are largely state regulated affair, subject to state legislations, policies and guidelines, which certainly do not preclude the applicability of international obligations directing the conduct of state towards the asylum seekers, which emanate from the recognized international human rights principles such as right to seek asylum and right against refoulement and right not to be arbitrarily detained. Contracting parties to international conventions such as the 1951 Refugee Convention, ICCPR, ISESCR, CAT, CRC, CEDAW and CERD among others acquire the responsibility to respect, protect and fulfill the obligations adducible in treatment of asylum seekers. In this regard, Australia was one of the earliest state parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention and is also a party to the relevant human rights treaties. However, it is determined to adhere to its conventional understanding of sovereignty and nationalism, at the cost of comprising the minimum protection of the rights of those who seek asylum in it.


Author(s):  
Ledi Bianku

This chapter addresses the approach the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) takes in asylum cases from the perspective of international refugee law doctrines. First, the chapter discusses the traditional approach in dealing with asylum cases in Strasbourg, i.e. starting the analysis from the basic promise of the rights of states to control the entry, residence, and expulsion of aliens. The Court considers that this approach is based on well-established international law and the chapter summarises the international law voices that inspire this approach, which has been taken by the Court for almost thirty years. The second part of the chapter analyses the Grand Chamber judgment in the case of J.K. v Sweden and the attempt by the Court, through this judgment, to elaborate general principles applicable in asylum cases in Strasbourg. The analysis of the hierarchy of these ten general principles by the Court in the J.K. judgment stems from the question of whether the Court is modifying its traditional approach in dealing with asylum cases and moving towards a new approach which is inspired by another line of thinking in international law. It also seems that with this new approach the Court gives precedence in its analysis of asylum cases to the absolute character of rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the ECHR. This would make the Court’s analysis of asylum cases more coherent with other cases when Article 3 rights are at stake.


Author(s):  
Tally Kritzman-Amir

This chapter takes a closer look at some of the main components of international refugee law and some of the recent European practices in order to see how they resonate the notion of community obligation and convey a commitment to the common protection of human rights, in a way that deviates from a purely consent-based conception of the norms. It addresses four main points: (1) a broad interpretation of the definition of refugee in the convention relating to the status of refugees as an expression of a notion of community obligation; (2) non-refoulement as an expression of a notion of community obligation; (3) the duty to refrain from rejecting asylum-seekers at the border as an expression of a notion of community obligation; and (4) responsibility sharing as an expression of a community obligation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document