The International Protection of Refugees and Asylum Seekers: the Role of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights

2016 ◽  
pp. 171-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Harvey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Refugees And Asylum Seekers

Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Post-return Monitoring – A Missing Link in the International Protection of Refugees?

2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 363-386
Author(s):  
Jari Pirjola
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Missing Link ◽  
Return Policies ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Irregular Migrants ◽  
Refugees And Asylum Seekers

Abstract Post-return monitoring of rejected asylum-seekers is the missing link in the protection chain for rejected asylum-seekers. In the European Union, for example, the rights of rejected asylum-seekers are well guaranteed and monitored in the pre-return and return phases. Systematic monitoring of forced returns stops when the deportee arrives at the airport of his or her country of origin. The sending countries do not know what happens to rejected asylum-seekers and irregular migrants upon return. International human rights organisations have started to pay attention to this gap in the international protection system. Ignorance by States in this regard deprives them of important insights from the viewpoint of human rights protection and return policies. This article explores what comprises post-return monitoring, what kinds of post-return monitoring projects have been carried out so far and how post-return monitoring could be implemented in the future. The article also discusses the role of post-return monitoring in the refugee determination procedure. It is argued that post-return monitoring could both strengthen the protection of refugees and asylum-seekers and assist States in creating effective, transparent, and morally responsible return policies.

scholarly journals Human rights implications of the NonRefoulement & Development

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Imrul Sheikh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Human ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Refugees And Asylum Seekers

States are obliged for protection of refugees under international law on account of their membership of United Nations and signature or accession to International Refugee Instruments as well as International Human Rights Instruments. The legal basis for this international protection may either be customary international law or conventional international law. The basic customary international laws applicable to them are those pertinent fundamental human rights found in the International Bill of Human Rights. Hence, it is submitted that all states should protect the fundamental human rights of refugees under customary international law. Principle of non-refoulement is one of them. The refugee regime has generated a serious body of law that elaborates basic human rights norms and has important implications in and beyond the refugee context. There are a number of universal, regional and domestic human rights instruments and mechanisms which can be employed to enhance the protection of refugees and asylum seekers. This research aims at finding out the role of principle of non-refoulement in protecting refugees and asylum seekers under international human rights law.

scholarly journals MARITIME INTERCEPTION ON FOREIGN VESSELS CARRYING REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS: A VIOLATION OF UNCLOS AND NON-REFOULEMENT PRINCIPLE?

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 114-131
Author(s):  
Mizalfia Nursabrina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
International Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Illegal Acts ◽  
The Right ◽  
Refugees And Asylum Seekers

AbstractEach state has the right to protect their national security in every possible way, and illegal acts such as aliens entering their territory without permit is no exception. They implement regulations and policies to prevent people smuggling, including but not limited to maritime interception towards vessels under suspicion of carrying refugees and asylum seekers. Yet, in the implementation, human rights violations tend to happen towards the passengers. This study aims to analyze the legality of maritime interception on foreign vessels carrying refugee and asylum seekers, and whether the said conduct raised issues of state responsibility. This study was conducted by analyzing relevant international law instruments and principles such as non-refoulement and state responsibility. The analysis comes to the conclusion that states have certain jurisdiction to conduct interception operations at sea with the means of protecting their national security. Should the act of interception be proven to inflict threats of danger towards the lives of the intercepted refugees and asylum seekers, states should be held responsible for the damage bared to the refugees and asylum seekers. In conducting maritime interceptions, states should ensure the refugee identity of the intercepted vessel’s passengers and should seek that they are entitled to international protection. Keywords: Maritime Interception, Principle of Non-Refoulement, State Responsibility   AbstrakSetiap negara mempunyai hak untuk melindungi keamanan nasionalnya dengan berbagai macam cara, dan tindakan ilegal seperti warga negara asing memasuki wilayah suatu negara tanpa izin bukan merupakan pengecualian. Negara-negara telah menetapkan seperangkat peraturan dan kebijakan untuk mencegah penyelundupan manusia, termasuk namun tidak terbatas pada pencegatan kapal di wilayah laut yang dicurigai mengangkut para pengungsi dan pencari suaka. Namun, dalam pelaksanaannya tindakan pencegatan seringkali menimbulkan pelanggaran hak asasi manusia kepada para penumpang kapal. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis legalitas pencegatan kapal yang mengangkut pengungsi dan pencari suaka. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan dengan menganalisa hukum internasional yang berkaitan. Penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa negara mempunyai yurisdiksi tertentu untuk melaksanakan pencegatan di laut dengan tujuan untuk mempertahankan keamanan nasional. Selain itu, negara harus bertanggung jawab atas kerugian yang dialami oleh para pengungsi dan pencari suaka selaku penumpang kapal yang dicegat apabila pencegatan tersebut menimbulkan ancaman bagi hidup mereka. Dalam melaksanakan pencegatan di wilayah laut, negara-negara harus memastikan identitas para penumpang kapal yang dicegat, dan memberikan perlindungan internasional bagi mereka yang berstatus sebagai pengungsi dan pencari suaka. Kata Kunci: Pencegatan Wilayah Laut, Prinsip Non-Refoulement, Tanggung Jawab Negara

The “Internal” Dimension of the Safe Country Concept: the Interpretation of the Safe Third Country Concept in the Dublin System by International and Internal Courts

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-113
Author(s):  
Sílvia Morgades-Gil
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Shared Responsibility ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
International Instruments ◽  
Refugees And Asylum Seekers ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The non-refoulement principle has been interpreted extensively as regards what kind of threats prevent removal to another country through the interpretation of the international instruments for the protection of human rights. Nevertheless, authors and institutions acknowledge that this principle does not prohibit the removal to a safe country and thus that a number of States participate in a system of shared responsibility, in which refugees and asylum seekers are transferred from one country to another in order to try to obtain (the Dublin EU system) or to benefit from international protection (resettlement). The academic literature has extensively addressed the meaning of the concept of the safe third country. This contribution is aimed at analyzing the application of this concept within a system where all States are supposed to be safe for all asylum seekers, and the principle of mutual trust and equivalence of protection applies. The paper reviews the safe country concept in the context of the Dublin system and examines when and why International, European and internal courts and other institutions have considered that one of the States participating in the system was not safe ad intra. Some final thoughts consider the impact that the analysis may have on the principle of mutual trust that is at the heart of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

The Right to Avoid Procreation and the Regulation of Pregnancy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janne Rothmar Herrmann
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Perspective ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Moral Obligations ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
European Consensus ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Right

This chapter discusses the right to avoid procreation and the regulation of pregnancy from a European perspective. The legal basis for a right to avoid procreation can be said to fall within the scope of several provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), an instrument that is binding for all European countries. Here, Article 12 of the ECHR gives men and women of marriageable age the right to marry and found a family in accordance with the national laws governing this right. However, Article 12 protects some elements of the right not to procreate, but for couples only. The lack of common European consensus in this area highlights how matters relating to the right to decide on the number and spacing of children touch on aspects that differ from country to country even in what could appear to be a homogenous region. In fact, the cultural, moral, and historical milieus that surround these rights differ considerably with diverse national perceptions of the role of the family, gender equality, religious and moral obligations, and so on.

Impact of Covid-19 on the mental health needs of asylum seekers in Australia

2021 ◽  
pp. 103985622110054
Author(s):  
Sarah Mares ◽  
Kym Jenkins ◽  
Susan Lutton ◽  
Louise Newman AM
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Isolation ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Health Needs ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Mental Health Needs

Objective: This paper highlights the significant mental health vulnerabilities of people who have sought asylum in Australia and their additional adversities as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. Conclusions: Australia’s policies in relation to asylum seekers result in multiple human rights violations and add significantly to mental health vulnerabilities. Despite a majority being identified as refugees, people spend years in personal and administrative limbo and are denied resettlement in Australia. Social isolation and other restrictions associated with Covid-19 and recent reductions in welfare and housing support compound their difficulties. The clinical challenges in working with people impacted by these circumstances and the role of psychiatrists and the RANZCP in advocacy are identified.

Strengthening the Protection of Stateless Persons from Arbitrary Detention in Immigration Control Proceedings

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 273-286
Author(s):  
Matthew Seet
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Immigration Control ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Stateless Person

There is a growing movement (globally and in Europe) addressing statelessness, and the July 2014 decision of Kim v Russia illustrates the role of the Strasbourg Court as a guardian of one of the most important fundamental rights of the ‘legally invisible’ in Europe. The court held that Russia’s two-year detention of a stateless person with a view to expulsion violated his right to liberty and security under Article 5(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights. This comment argues that Kim v Russia represents an important step forward by the Strasbourg Court in safeguarding the stateless person’s right to liberty and security of person under echr doctrine, by highlighting and addressing the special vulnerability of stateless persons to prolonged, indefinite and cyclical detention in immigration control proceedings, although the court should have gone further and indicated general measures explicitly recommending for Russia to introduce statelessness determination procedures.

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.

scholarly journals The paradoxical thinking ‘sweet spot’: The role of recipients’ latitude of rejection in the effectiveness of paradoxical thinking messages targeting anti-refugee attitudes in Israel

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 266-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boaz Hameiri ◽  
Orly Idan ◽  
Eden Nabet ◽  
Daniel Bar-Tal ◽  
Eran Halperin
Keyword(s):  
Attitude Change ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Social Judgment ◽  
Sweet Spot ◽  
Identity Threat ◽  
Social Judgment Theory ◽  
African Refugees ◽  
Paradoxical Thinking ◽  
Refugees And Asylum Seekers

The current research examined whether for a message that is based on the paradoxical thinking principles—i.e., providing extreme, exaggerated, or even absurd views, that are congruent with the held views of the message recipients—to be effective, it needs to hit a ‘sweet spot’ and lead to a contrast effect. That is, it moderates the view of the message's recipients. In the framework of attitudes toward African refugees and asylum seekers in Israel by Israeli Jews, we found that compared to more moderate messages, an extreme, but not too extreme, message was effective in leading to unfreezing for high morally convicted recipients. The very extreme message similarly led to high levels of surprise and identity threat as the extreme message that was found to be effective. However, it was so extreme and absurd that it was rejected automatically. This was manifested in high levels of disagreement compared to all other messages, rendering it less effective compared to the extreme, paradoxical thinking, message. We discuss these findings’ practical and theoretical implications for the paradoxical thinking conceptual framework as an attitude change intervention, and for social judgment theory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document