Fences, Fiction, and the Magic Mountain

2021 ◽  
pp. 363-384
Author(s):  
Dana Schmalz
Keyword(s):  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Common ◽  
International Refugee Law ◽  
The One ◽  
Procedural Rights

How to allocate responsibility for refugee protection between states forms a salient question in international refugee law. Explicit principles are lacking, yet there is a growing consensus that the issue of responsibility-sharing relates to the system’s most salient deficiencies. Within Europe, the sharing of responsibility for refugees is equally contested. Explicit legal rules exist within the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) of the EU on the one hand, and the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) on the other. The chapter explores the schemes of responsibility-sharing that underlie these two frameworks, the scheme of layered responsibility under the ECHR, and the scheme of alternative responsibility under the Dublin legislation of the CEAS. It discusses the respective implications for the regulation of borders and safeguarding of rights. It points to the role of individual procedural rights arguing that lessons can be learned from the European case which can also apply to the international level.

The Right to Healthcare in the Common European Asylum System

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-156
Author(s):  
Marco Inglese
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Undocumented Migrants ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Common ◽  
Interpretative Approach ◽  
The Right

Abstract This article seeks to ascertain the role of healthcare in the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The article is structured as follows. First, it outlines the international conceptualisation of healthcare in the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the European Social Charter (ESC) before delving into the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Second, focusing on the European Union (EU), it analyses the role of Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) in order to verify its impact on the development of the CEAS. Third, and in conclusion, it will argue that the identification of the role of healthcare in the CEAS should be understood in light of the Charter’s scope of application. This interpretative approach will be beneficial for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants, as well as for the Member States (MSs).

scholarly journals From Persecution to Management of Populations: Governmentality and the Common European Asylum System

Politik ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild
Keyword(s):  
Geneva Convention ◽  
The Other ◽  
Underlying Structure ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Common ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

Refugee protection has long been an issue of great moral and legal importance among the countries in Eu- rope. European states sent representatives to participate in the drafting of the UN Convention relating to the status of refugees 1951 together with its 1967 protocol – the international commitment to refugee protection and were among the first signatories. They have also been strong supporters of the UN Agency established as guardians of the Geneva Convention – the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and participate as members of the UNHCR’s Executive Committee. However, these same states, when adopting legislation on refugee protection in European Union law appear Janus faced. On the one hand, statements of commitment to refugee protection are plentiful, on the other, mechanisms adopted aim to exclude the refugee even from being heard. In this article I will examine this contradiction using the concept of governmentality as developed by Michel Foucault. Deploying the three techniques of governmentality which Foucault developed most – sovereignty, discipline and biopolitics, I seek to dissect the asylum protection system the EU is developing and make visible the underlying structure of authority and power. 

EU Non-Refoulement: (The Irrelevance of) Territoriality and Pre-Border Controls

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Violeta Moreno-Lax
Keyword(s):  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
Functional Understanding ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
International Refugee Law ◽  
Border Controls ◽  
The Eu

This chapter identifies the content and scope of application of the EU prohibition of refoulement. Following the ‘cumulative standards’ approach, the analysis incorporates developments in international human rights law (IHRL) and international refugee law (IRL). Taking account of the prominent role of the ECHR and the Refugee Convention (CSR51) as sources of Article 19 CFR, these are the two main instruments taken in consideration. The scope of application of Articles 33 CSR51 and 3 ECHR will be identified in turns. Autonomous requirements of EU law will be determined by reference to the asylum acquis as interpreted by the CJEU. The main focus will be on the establishment of the territorial reach of EU non-refoulement. The idea that it may be territorially confined will be rejected. Drawing on the ‘Fransson paradigm’, a ‘functional’ understanding of the ‘implementation of EU law’ standard under Article 51 CFR will be put forward, as the decisive factor to determine applicability of Charter provisions. The implications of non-refoulement for the different measures of extraterritorial control considered in Part I will be delineated at the end.

Canadian Exclusion Jurisprudence post-Febles

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 ◽  
International Refugee Law

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.

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

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ziegler Reuven
Keyword(s):  
Frame Of Reference ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
International Refugee Law

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

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
van Waas Laura
Keyword(s):  
First Century ◽  
Forced Displacement ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
Durable Solutions ◽  
Twenty First Century ◽  
International Refugee Law ◽  
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

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandvik Kristin Bergtora
Keyword(s):  
New Technology ◽  
Digital Transformation ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
Solution Processed ◽  
Protection Policy ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
International 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.2 Race, Refugees, and International Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tendayi Achiume E
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
Race And Ethnicity ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
International Refugee Law ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Role Of Religion

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document