scholarly journals A Comparative Analysis on International Refugee Law and Temporary Protection in the Context of Turkey

2021 ◽  
pp. 385-410
Author(s):  
Dikran M. Zenginkuzucu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
International Standards ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Temporary Protection ◽  
Syrian Civil War ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Difference ◽  
International Refugee Law

The Syrian civil war prompted a large number of people to flee their country and seek asylum in other countries, making Turkey a leading host country with around 3.6 million of asylum seekers. Syrian asylum seekers in Turkey are under temporary protection regime. This article examines Turkish temporary protection regime in comparison with international protection standards and human rights law, especially with the UNHCR Guideline and European Union legislation on temporary protection and European Court on Human Rights judgements. In this respect, this article argues that Turkish legislation has met the fundamental requirements of international protection law and standards, however, still needs to be improved in some crucial areas. In this regard, the international protection law and the difference between the status of refugee and temporary protection is explored. Subsequently, declaration of temporary protection in case of a mass-influx, the rights and freedoms covered under temporary protection, non-refoulement principle and termination of temporary protection regime under Turkish Temporary Protection Regulation are discussed and compared with the international standards. Finally, some conclusions and recommendations for the improvement are deduced from this discussion.

scholarly journals Victims‘ rights: The European court of human rights' practice and legislation in Serbia

Temida ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 145-166
Author(s):  
Milica Kovacevic
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Human Rights Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Specific Standard ◽  
The Right

The paper deals with rights and position of victims in international documents, with special reference to the standards created by the European Court of Human Rights through its practice. This paper aims to provide brief analysis of some of the most important international documents, which set forth basic rights for victims, including: right to participate in the criminal proceedings, right to protection and the right to compensation. The paper intends to analyze these key right (standards, principles) through relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights, given that the wording of the relevant documents does not determine what entails the realization of a specific standard in real life. The main purpose of the article is to examine the compliance of regulations and practices in Serbia with international standards on the status and the rights of victims, from which some recommendations for improvement might arise.

Community Interests in International Migration and Refugee Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tally Kritzman-Amir
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Common ◽  
International Refugee Law ◽  
Broad Interpretation ◽  
Main Components ◽  
Definition Of

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.

CIVIL AND LEGAL LIABILITY OF JUDGES

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaroslav Skoromnyy ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Pension System ◽  
Legal Liability ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Model Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

The article presents the conceptual foundations of bringing judges to civil and legal liability. It was found that the civil and legal liability of judges is one of the types of legal liability of judges. It is determined that the legislation of Ukraine provides for a clearly delineated list of the main cases (grounds) for which the state is liable for damages for damage caused to a legal entity and an individual by illegal actions of a judge as a result of the administration of justice. It has been proved that bringing judges to civil and legal liability, in particular on the basis of the right of recourse, provides for the payment of just compensation in accordance with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. It was established that the bringing of judges to civil and legal liability in Ukraine is regulated by such legislative documents as the Constitution of Ukraine, the Civil Code of Ukraine, the Explanatory Note to the European Charter on the Status of Judges (Model Code), the Law of Ukraine «On the Judicial System and the Status of Judges», the Law of Ukraine «On the procedure for compensation for harm caused to a citizen by illegal actions of bodies carrying out operational-search activities, pre-trial investigation bodies, prosecutors and courts», Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case on the constitutional submission of the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the compliance of the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) of certain provisions of Article 2, paragraph two of clause II «Final and transitional provisions» of the Law of Ukraine «On measures to legislatively ensure the reform of the pension system», Article 138 of the Law of Ukraine «On the judicial system and the status of judges» (the case on changes in the conditions for the payment of pensions and monthly living known salaries of judges lagging behind in these), the Law of Ukraine «On the implementation of decisions and the application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights».

scholarly journals The Right to Dignity of Refugees: A Response to Fleur Johns

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 193-195
Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Mass Migration ◽  
International Refugee Law ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

Fleur Johns' thesis about the increasing role of data in the verification of the condition of the world and how this impacts on international law is stimulating and bears reflection. This is an extremely interesting and innovative approach to the issue of data and its role in state engagement with mass migration. From the perspective of a scholar on international refugee law, a number of issues arise as a result of the analysis. One of the contested aspects of mass migration and refugee protection is the inherent inconsistency between two ways of thinking about human rights—the first is the duty of (some) international organizations to protect human rights in a manner which elides human rights and humanitarian law, and the second is the right of the individual to dignity, the basis of all human rights according to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1949. The first enhances the claims of states to sovereign right to control their borders (mediated through some international organizations), while the second recognizes the international human rights duties of states and international organizations to respect the dignity of people as individuals (including refugees). Fleur is completely correct that human rights abuses are at the core of refugee movements. While there are always many people in a country who will stay and fight human rights abuses even when this results in their sacrifice, others will flee danger trying to get themselves and their families to places of safety; we are not all heroes. Yet, when people flee in more than very small numbers, state authorities have a tendency to begin the language of mass migration. The right to be a refugee becomes buried under the threat of mass migration to the detriment of international obligations. Insofar as mass migration is a matter for management, the right of a refugee is an individual right to international protection which states have bound themselves to offer.

Environmental Displacement in European Asylum Law

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 313-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Finn Myrstad ◽  
Vikram Kolmannskog
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Work Force ◽  
Displaced Persons ◽  
Temporary Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Asylum Law ◽  
The Individual ◽  
International Border ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Environmental Displacement

AbstractEnvironmentally displaced persons can be included in several existing categories of protected persons under international law, but there may be a normative protection gap for many of those who cross an international border. This article looks at protection possibilities within the EU framework and national European legislations. Environmental displacement can arguably trigger temporary protection according to the EU Temporary Protection Directive. There may also be environmentally displaced persons who require longer-term or permanent protection. Drawing on the EU Qualification Directive and case-law from the European Court of Human Rights, one can argue that subsidiary protection should be granted in certain cases of extreme natural disaster or degradation. In less extreme cases, humanitarian asylum could be granted. Human rights principles such as non-refoulement could also be used to extend at least basic protection. In addition, legal labour migration could supply a work force, assist distressed countries and enhance protection of the individual. A strategy to meet the challenge of environmental displacement must also include climate change mitigation and external measures such as adaptation. Most of the displaced persons in the world today and in the near future do not arrive at the EU borders.

Bringing People Down

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 433-466
Author(s):  
John Vorhaus
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Corporal Punishment ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Relational Concept ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
As If

Under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, degrading treatment and punishment is absolutely prohibited. This paper examines the nature of and wrong inherent in treatment and punishment of this kind. Cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) as amounting to degrading treatment and punishment under Article 3 include instances of interrogation, conditions of confinement, corporal punishment, strip searches, and a failure to provide adequate health care. The Court acknowledges the degradation inherent in imprisonment generally, and does not consider this to be in violation of Article 3, but it also identifies a threshold at which degradation is so severe as to render impermissible punishments that cross this threshold. I offer an account of the Court’s conception of impermissible degradation as a symbolic dignitary harm. The victims are treated as inferior, as if they do not possess the status owed to human beings, neither treated with dignity nor given the respect owed to dignity. Degradation is a relational concept: the victim is brought down in the eyes of others following treatment motivated by the intention to degrade, or treatment which has a degrading effect. This, so I will argue, is the best account of the concept of degradation as deployed by the Court when determining punishments as in violation of Article 3.

scholarly journals Khlaifia and Others v. Italy

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-280
Author(s):  
Jill I. Goldenziel
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Detention Centers ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Arab Spring ◽  
Domestic Law

In Khlaifia and Others v. Italy, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber or Court) released a landmark opinion with broad implications for how states must respect the individual rights of migrants. In the judgment, issued on December 15, 2016, the Court held that Italy's treatment of migrants after the Arab Spring violated the requirement of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that migrants receive procedural guarantees that enable them to challenge their detention and expulsion. The Court also held that Italy's treatment of migrants in detention centers did not violate the ECHR's prohibition on cruel and inhuman treatment, in part due to the emergency circumstances involved. The Court further held that Italy's return of migrants to Tunisia did not violate the prohibition on collective expulsion in Article 4 of Protocol 4 of the ECHR. Enforcement of the judgment would require many European states to provide a clear basis in domestic law for the detention of migrants and asylum-seekers. Given the global diffusion of state practices involving migrants, and other states’ desires to restrict migration, this case has broad implications for delineating the obligations of states to migrants and the rights of migrants within receiving countries.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document