Gutachterliche Stellungnahme zur Reform des Europpischen Asylsystems ffr das deutsche Bundesministerium des Innern: Mindestanforderungen des EU-Primmrrechts und des Fllchtlingsvvlkerrechts an sekunddrrechtliche Regelungen, sie vorsehen, Asylantrrge mit Blick auf Schutz- und Unterkunftsmmglichkeiten in dritten Staaten (Transitstaaten, sonstige Staaten) oder einzelnen Teilgebieten solcher Staaten ohne Sachprrfung abzulehnen (Expert Opinion on the Reform of the Common European Asylum System for the German Federal Ministry of the Interior: Minimum Requirements Under EU Primary Law And International Refugee Law for Rules in Secondary Legislation on the Rejection of Applications for Asylum As Inadmissible With a View to Protection And Housing Options in Third Countries (Transit and Other Countries) or in Parts of Any Such Countries)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Thym
Keyword(s):  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Minimum Requirements ◽  
The Common ◽  
International Refugee Law ◽  
Housing Options

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.

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.

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.

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 102-113
Author(s):  
Obiora Chinedu Okafor
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
International 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document