Shepherd v. Germany

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (3) ◽  
pp. 623-630
Author(s):  
Klaus Ferdinand Gärditz

In Shepherd v. Germany, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) issued a preliminary ruling requested by a German administrative court in an asylum case brought by a United States Army service member. Applying the relevant asylum law of the European Union (EU), the ECJ held that, under certain circumstances, a conscientious objector who has deserted from his military unit may claim international refugee protection. It also clarified the conditions under which the basically legitimate prosecution of military deserters must be qualified as illegitimate persecution under international refugee law.

2016 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Butler ◽  
Martin Ratcovich

This article addresses the main legal challenges facing the European Union (eu) Naval Force, eunavfor Med (‘Operation Sophia’), established in 2015, to disrupt human smuggling and trafficking activities in the Mediterranean Sea. It examines a number of legal issues that have given rise to scepticism on the viability of this type of operation, ranging from challenges under European Union law regarding mandate and oversight, to complex questions of compliance with international law. Forcible measures may be at variance with the international law of the sea, binding on the eu and its Member States alike. Even if such strictures can be avoided by a broad United Nations mandate and/or the consent of the neighbouring government(s), international refugee law and international human rights law provide limitations on the measures that Operation Sophia will be tasked with. Different avenues will be explored to ensure the Operation’s compliance with these different legal regimes.


Author(s):  
Abdullah Omar Yassen, Et. al.

Purpose: Recent UNHCR figures show that a record 70.8 million refugees are forcibly displaced. Millions of refugees are trapped in protracted refugee situations, and have been so on average for 25 years; this compares with 17 years in 2003, and nine in 1991. The research addresses whether the existing international refugee law regime is capable of addressing this crisis, or whether the issue is that member states do not comply with the refugee regime Results: This research highlights the failure of European Union to respond to the refugee problems. The figures show that there are more refugees trapped in protracted situations than before and also that their plight takes longer to be resolved. Therefore, from the perspective of persons born in danger zones, one is more likely to be a refugee in 2019 than in 2014, yet less likely to find a durable solution. Methodology: The study adopted a doctrinal methodology by exploring legislation and directives to identify whether these laws can address refugee issues. Novelty/originality of this study: Forced migration has received negative media coverage and politicians, especially right-wing parties, have used migrants as a scapegoat. This paper identifies some of the myths of migration to demonstrate that, if given the opportunity, migrants can contribute positively to economic growth and integrate with local communities


Refuge ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 28-37
Author(s):  
Lúcio Sousa ◽  
Paulo M. Costa

This article examines the development of the legislation on asylum law and refugee policies in Portugal. The assessment begins in 1975, the year when democracy was re-established in the country, following the 1974 Carnation Revolution, and ends in 2015, the year the European asylum crisis started. We want to discuss whether, during this period, the policies established indicate an open regime, with an integrationist perspective, or whether they proclaim a closed regime with an exclusivist position; in other words, whether the asylum system promoted an active policy of receiving and integrating refugees, or whether the policies pursued intended to limit the access of refugees to the borders of the state. In order to understand these developments, we analyze asylum application figures and asylum laws, trying to understand the main circumstantial contexts that influence them, namely Portugal’s integration in the European Union.


2021 ◽  
pp. 146511652110068
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie Jeannet ◽  
Tobias Heidland ◽  
Martin Ruhs

The protection of asylum seekers and refugees has become one of the most politically divisive issues in the European Union, yet there has been a lack of research on public preferences for asylum and refugee policies. This article analyzes which policies Europeans prefer and why. We advance a theoretical framework that explains how asylum and refugee policies that use limits and conditions enable individuals to resolve conflicting humanitarian and perceived national interest logics. Using an original conjoint experiment in eight countries, we demonstrate that Europeans prefer policies that provide refugee protection but also impose control through limits or conditions. In contrast to the divisive political debates between European Union member states, we find consistent public preferences across European countries.


Author(s):  
Silvia Concha Horrillo

ABSTRACTIn matters regarding asylum and refuge, Spain maintains very low levels of applications and concessions compared to nearby States despite incorporating a reason, in my understanding a particularly transcendental reason for many people´s lives, such as protection for gender reasons. However, the social critical mass does not see these numbers, in general terms, as inappropriate and in turn, they allow the State to meet commitments on this issue. So, I am considering the possibility that Spain is using pity and risk policies to manipulate the notions of dignity and justice that society holds on this issue, to be able to meet targets required at all levels and soothe our conscience for what is done in terms of migration. Therefore, regarding what corresponds to refugees in terms of justice and despite it being clear that the asylum law does not always use stereotypes, nor are applications denied because of them, on many occasions people´s voices have been silenced when they apply for international protection so as not to be framed within the policy of a refugee established by Spain, the European Union and more widely the Western imaginary.RESUMENEn materia de asilo y refugio, España mantiene unos niveles muy bajos de solicitudes y concesiones en comparación con los Estados vecinos, a pesar de la incorporación de una razón particularmente trascendental a mi entender para la vida de muchas personas, como es la protección por razones de género. Sin embargo, la masa social crítica no percibe estas cifras, en términos generales, como inapropiadas y, a su vez, permiten al Estado a cumplir con los compromisos en esta materia. Por lo tanto, consideramos la posibilidad de que España está aplicando políticas de riesgo y de lástima para manipular las nociones de dignidad y justicia que la sociedad tiene sobre este tema, para poder alcanzar las metas requeridas en todos los niveles y calmar nuestra conciencia de lo que se hace respecto a la migración. Por lo tanto, respecto a lo que corresponde a los refugiados en términos de justicia, y a pesar de ser evidente que la ley de asilo no siempre utiliza estereotipos, ni niega las solicitudes por causa de ellos, en muchas ocasiones las voces de la gente han sido silenciadas cuando solicitan protección internacional que no se enmarca dentro de la política de refugiados establecida por España, la Unión Europea y, más ampliamente, el imaginario occidental.


Author(s):  
Molly Joeck

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.


Author(s):  
Ziegler Reuven

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.


Author(s):  
van Waas Laura

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document