Expanding refugee ineligibility: Canada’s response to secondary refugee movements

Legislative Changes ◽

The Uk

Abstract In 2019, Canada introduced legislative changes that made asylum seekers ineligible for protection if they have made a previous refugee claim in a country that Canada shares an information-sharing agreement with. Such agreements are currently in place with the US, Australia, the UK, and New Zealand. This article offers a critical assessment of the new ineligibility ground, arguing that the policy is designed to deter secondary refugee movements, particularly those across the Canada–US border which have considerably intensified since 2017. Based on the ‘first safe country’ rule, the new ineligibility ground enables Canada to exclude some asylum seekers from refugee protection without offering any alternative effective protection in Canada. This article demonstrates that the policy is inconsistent with Canada’s obligations under international refugee law.

Canadian Exclusion Jurisprudence post-Febles

International Journal of Refugee Law ◽

10.1093/ijrl/eeab034 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Molly Joeck

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Rule Of Law ◽

Asylum Seekers ◽

Refugee Status ◽

The Rule Of Law ◽

Refugee Protection ◽

Refugee Law ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Status ◽

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.

Ghana and the Paradoxical Situation of Its Asylum-Seekers: Selected Grounds for Alleged Persecution in a Supposed Democratic Country

African Journal of International and Comparative Law ◽

10.3366/ajicl.2018.0227 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 26 (2) ◽

pp. 181-204

Author(s):

Cristiano d'Orsi

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

New Zealand ◽

Asylum Seekers ◽

Paradoxical Situation ◽

The Us ◽

Protection Of Human Rights ◽

The Uk ◽

Democratic Country

This study investigates the paradoxical situation of the relatively high number of Ghanaian nationals applying for asylum in various countries, whereas Ghana is widely recognised as having a positive record on the protection of human rights. This study analyses the requests for asylum submitted by 30 Ghanaian nationals (10 women and 20 men: generally men outnumber women in asylum applications) to seven countries (Australia, Canada, France, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK and the US) over the last 25 years.

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

Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting ◽

10.1017/amp.2021.15 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 114 ◽

pp. 102-113

Author(s):

Obiora Chinedu Okafor

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Asylum Seekers ◽

Legal Protection ◽

Refugee Law ◽

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.

Do Imports Increase Unemployment? Empirical Estimates That Are Not Model Dependent

Frontiers of Economics in China ◽

10.54605/fec20210302 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (3) ◽

pp. 447-469

Author(s):

Jonathan E. Leightner ◽

Keyword(s):

Czech Republic ◽

New Zealand ◽

Theoretical Model ◽

The Netherlands ◽

South Korea ◽

Trade Liberalization ◽

Empirical Results ◽

Empirical Estimates ◽

The Us ◽

The Uk

Some Ricardian models would predict a fall in unemployment with trade liberalization. In contrast, the Heckscher-Ohlin model (Stolper Samuelson Theorem) would predict trade liberalization would cause a fall in wages for labor scarce countries, resulting in greater unemployment if there are wage rigidities. The choice of which theoretical model is used affects the empirical results obtained. This paper produces estimates of the change in unemployment due to a change in imports that are not model dependent. The estimates produced are total derivatives that capture all the ways that imports and unemployment are correlated. I find that unemployment increases with increased imports for Austria, Greece, Japan, Portugal, South Korea, Slovenia, and Sweden, but that unemployment decreases with increased imports for Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, the UK, and the US.

Part II Sources, Ch.12 International Humanitarian Law and Refugee Protection

10.1093/law/9780198848639.003.0013 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Ziegler Reuven

Keyword(s):

Frame Of Reference ◽

International Humanitarian Law ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

Refugee Protection ◽

Refugee Law ◽

Scope Of Application ◽

The chapter considers the interrelations between international humanitarian law and international refugee law. It seeks to illustrate that, in displacement contexts, interactions between international humanitarian law and (global and regional) refugee protection regimes, which continue to apply during conflict, are rather challenging given that, whereas international humanitarian law shares international refugee law’s concern for vulnerable individuals, its frame of reference (unlike that of international refugee law) is minimization of harm. Given that the regimes have evolved at different times and with their own specific sources, institutions, and ethos, the chapter appraises how ‘regime interaction’ would (or should) work. It then assesses the scope of application of international humanitarian law norms, looking at the significance of international humanitarian law classification, including who classifies conflicts. The chapter concludes by exploring international humanitarian law displacement-related norms and the extent to which international refugee law interpretations affect them.

Part I International Refugee Law— Reflections on the Scholarly Field, Ch.8 The Intersection of International Refugee Law and International Statelessness Law

10.1093/law/9780198848639.003.0009 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

van Waas Laura

Keyword(s):

First Century ◽

Forced Displacement ◽

Refugee Protection ◽

Refugee Law ◽

Durable Solutions ◽

Twenty First Century ◽

The Relationship ◽

Insight Into ◽

Stateless Person

This chapter focuses on the intersection of international refugee law and international statelessness law. While refugee law, policy, doctrine, and research evolved, it was not until after the turn of the twenty-first century that international statelessness law started to draw much attention and to begin to emerge as a field of its own. As global interest in statelessness grows, the interaction between statelessness and forced displacement has also come back under the spotlight. Thus, the chapter provides an insight into the relationship between statelessness and forced displacement. It starts by unpacking how statelessness can manifest itself as a cause or consequence of displacement, as well as how statelessness can be a complicating factor for refugee protection and durable solutions. The chapter then offers a brief overview of key norms relating to the protection of stateless persons and the prevention and resolution of statelessness, setting out the contours of international statelessness law. It also looks at the implications of the statelessness–displacement nexus by exploring the conceptual and practical questions that arise when a refugee is also stateless, and when a stateless person is also a refugee.

Part VI Refugee Rights and Realities, Ch.56 The Digital Transformation of Refugee Governance

10.1093/law/9780198848639.003.0057 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Sandvik Kristin Bergtora

Keyword(s):

New Technology ◽

Digital Transformation ◽

Legal Rights ◽

Refugee Status ◽

Solution Processed ◽

Protection Policy ◽

Refugee Protection ◽

Refugee Law ◽

Data Subject

This chapter evaluates four selected issues arising from the digital transformation of refugee protection, in order to explore how this transformation shapes and challenges refugee law. It focuses on the following domains: UNHCR’s 2015 Data Protection Policy, a concept (legal identity), a platform (databases), and legal-bureaucratic processes (refugee status determination and resettlement procedures). Digital transformation generates new risks, in part because it is premised on a duty of refugee visibility. The chapter argues that international refugee law, conceptually and in practice, appears to be moving towards an idea of ‘algorithmic protection’. First, digitization and the integration of new technology create risks and harms that can compromise existing legal rights and procedural guarantees but also threaten the integrity of refugee protection in new ways. Secondly, algorithmic protection is a useful concept because the digital transformation of refugee protection means that the duty of visibility and acquiescence to become a data subject has become a requirement for being registered as a refugee, receiving aid (eg biometric banking), and having one’s claim for a durable solution processed.

Part I International Refugee Law— Reflections on the Scholarly Field, Ch.7 Refugees as Migrants

10.1093/law/9780198848639.003.0008 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Atak Idil ◽

Crépeau François

Keyword(s):

Forced Migration ◽

Institutional Framework ◽

Freedom Of Movement ◽

Refugee Protection ◽

Refugee Law ◽

Clear Line

This chapter details the long-standing debate on whether refugees should be portrayed as migrants. Several organizations, refugee advocates, and scholars argue for a clear line between ‘migrants’ and ‘refugees’, as a means of protecting the refugee regime. They point to the inherently distinct motivations driving refugee movements compared to other types of migration, as well as to the specific normative and institutional framework for refugee protection. The chapter argues that conceptualizing refugees as migrants does not undermine the specific normative and institutional framework for refugee protection. Rather, it further promotes refugees’ access to asylum and safety. The chapter then examines the literature on the refugee/migrant distinction, highlighting the increasingly overlapping and interconnected motivations and contexts driving forced migration. It looks at the mounting barriers refugees face to reach safety and explores the avenues to safeguarding and promoting access to asylum and refugee rights. The chapter also articulates the role that freedom of movement should play in protecting the rights of all migrants, including refugees.

Part IV Access to Protection and International Responsibility-Sharing, Ch.29 Smuggling of Migrants and Refugees

10.1093/law/9780198848639.003.0030 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Schloenhardt Andreas

Keyword(s):

Criminal Justice ◽

Law Enforcement ◽

United Nations ◽

International Law ◽

Asylum Seekers ◽

Refugee Law ◽

The Subject ◽

International Responsibility ◽

The United Nations ◽

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.

Alternative paths to refugee and asylum seeker protection in Malaysia and Indonesia

Asian and Pacific Migration Journal ◽

10.1177/0117196819850946 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 28 (2) ◽

pp. 132-154 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Atin Prabandari ◽

Yunizar Adiputera

Keyword(s):

Southeast Asia ◽

International Law ◽

Case Studies ◽

Asylum Seeker ◽

Asylum Seekers ◽

The Other ◽

Refugee Convention ◽

Refugee Law ◽

The One

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.