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

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.

International Refugee Law in Crisis: Islands, Incarceration and Neo-Refoulement during COVID-19

Attempts by states to deter refugee movement have evolved to a point that routine and systematic breach of non-refoulement and associated human rights frequently constitutes a central pillar in their asylum architectures. The expansion of state policies and practices under which people seeking asylum are prevented from reaching safe places and lodging asylum claims has accelerated during the Covid-19 pandemic. Drawing on examples from Australia and Europe, this article uses neo-refoulement—a concept introduced by geographers Jennifer Hyndman and Alison Mountz—to signal not only the rise in pushbacks at land and sea borders, but also practices that occur well within the boundaries of sovereign territory. These include the use of island incarceration, fast-track border procedures, and denial of legal presence on sovereign territory, even where physical presence is achieved. Such measures have often been introduced under the pretext of responding to situations of ‘mass influx’. And yet, far from providing an adequate response to a so-called ‘refugee crisis’, they serve only to facilitate a greater humanitarian crisis.

An examination of refugee protection attitudes in Southeast Asia

<p>This thesis examines how Southeast Asian countries such as Thailand and Malaysia sought to articulate attitudes towards refugee protection during the Indochinese and Rohingya refugee crises. While countries in Southeast Asia are known to be reluctant to discuss and participate in refugee protection, preferring to follow the norm of non-interference encapsulated in the ‘ASEAN Way’ in recent years, over time, attitudes towards refugee protection have varied significantly. The thesis explores the internal and external pressures that have impacted on changing perceptions of refugee protection in Southeast Asia. To explore changes in refugee protection attitudes, I conduct a comparative case study between the Indochinese and Rohingya refugee crises, analysing the responses and the rationale justifying the level of refugee protection in Thailand and Malaysia. These two countries have employed a variety of arguments such as ethnicity, religion and economic costs of treaty accession to inform their practices of refugee protection. In addition, regional/international dynamics and the labelling of refugees have also affected the level of refugee protection as well. Overall, their selective engagement with international refugee law; ethnic considerations; regional influences and the securitisation of refugee crises contribute most to arguments as to why refugee protection attitudes in Southeast Asia have remained poor. My findings indicate that due to the overlapping nature of these factors, any examination of refugee protection attitudes cannot be answered adequately by a single explanation, be it the practice of non-interference or a non-ratification of the 1951 Refugee Convention. These attitudes are mostly influenced by internal pressures, with national and regional factors interacting in tandem to produce higher levels of insecurity for the refugees studied in this thesis. Ultimately, this thesis will demonstrate that while refugee protection attitudes in the two refugee crises were influenced by shifting notions of national security, race and regional dynamics, not much has changed in terms of the consequences for refugees.</p>

An examination of refugee protection attitudes in Southeast Asia

<p>This thesis examines how Southeast Asian countries such as Thailand and Malaysia sought to articulate attitudes towards refugee protection during the Indochinese and Rohingya refugee crises. While countries in Southeast Asia are known to be reluctant to discuss and participate in refugee protection, preferring to follow the norm of non-interference encapsulated in the ‘ASEAN Way’ in recent years, over time, attitudes towards refugee protection have varied significantly. The thesis explores the internal and external pressures that have impacted on changing perceptions of refugee protection in Southeast Asia. To explore changes in refugee protection attitudes, I conduct a comparative case study between the Indochinese and Rohingya refugee crises, analysing the responses and the rationale justifying the level of refugee protection in Thailand and Malaysia. These two countries have employed a variety of arguments such as ethnicity, religion and economic costs of treaty accession to inform their practices of refugee protection. In addition, regional/international dynamics and the labelling of refugees have also affected the level of refugee protection as well. Overall, their selective engagement with international refugee law; ethnic considerations; regional influences and the securitisation of refugee crises contribute most to arguments as to why refugee protection attitudes in Southeast Asia have remained poor. My findings indicate that due to the overlapping nature of these factors, any examination of refugee protection attitudes cannot be answered adequately by a single explanation, be it the practice of non-interference or a non-ratification of the 1951 Refugee Convention. These attitudes are mostly influenced by internal pressures, with national and regional factors interacting in tandem to produce higher levels of insecurity for the refugees studied in this thesis. Ultimately, this thesis will demonstrate that while refugee protection attitudes in the two refugee crises were influenced by shifting notions of national security, race and regional dynamics, not much has changed in terms of the consequences for refugees.</p>

Canadian Exclusion Jurisprudence post-Febles

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.

Legal and Anthropological Approaches to International Refugee Law

This chapter offers an overview of the contribution of anthropology to the study of international refugee law. It starts with a review of the positivist legal approach, which has long dominated the field of international refugee law, with its focus on rules and states, and argues that this approach is unable to fully explain how refugee law is created and how it develops. Two recent strands—the transnational approach and the participatory approach—have criticized the limitations of the positivist approach and emphasized the role of transnational activities and actors in the process of lawmaking. However, these strands remain rooted in a liberal theory of international law, and they do not capture the complexities of the relevant human experiences. The chapter argues that an anthropological approach shifts the focus from states, borders, and citizenship towards the individual by combining and embedding human interpretations, behaviours, cultural contexts, and personal interactions with the law. Moreover, anthropological methods can enrich the understanding of the implementation of refugee law by empirically assessing legal issues. Beyond that, the chapter suggests areas that could benefit from future academic research at the interface of anthropology and refugee law.

The Refugee in International Law

The status of the refugee in international law, and of everyone entitled to protection, has always been precarious, not least in times of heightened and heated debate. People have always moved in search of safety, and they always will. This completely revised and updated edition casts new light on the refugee definition, the meaning of persecution, the role of gender and sexual orientation, the types of harm, and the protection due to refugees. The book reviews the fundamental principle of non-refoulement as a restraint on the conduct of States, even as States themselves seek new ways to prevent refugees and asylum seekers arriving. The book analyses related principles of protection—non-discrimination, due process, rescue at sea, and solutions—in light of what States, UNHCR, and treaty-monitoring bodies actually do, rather than merely deductively. It closely examines relevant treaty standards, and the role of UNHCR in providing protection, contributing to the development of international refugee law, and promoting solutions. New chapters bring into focus evolving protection demands in relation to nationality, statelessness, and displacement in the context of disasters and climate change. The book factors in the challenges posed by the movement of people across land and sea in search of refuge, and their interception, reception, and later treatment. The overall aim remains the same as in previous editions: to provide a sound basis for protection in international law, taking full account of State and community interests and recognizing the need to bridge gaps in the regime which now has 100 years of law and practice behind it.

Fences, Fiction, and the Magic Mountain

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 Peril and Potential of Ambiguity: How National Laws and Policies Can Strengthen and Protect the Rights of Rohingya Refugees

Against a backdrop of toughening governmental stances towards refugees, migrants, and stateless persons in the Asia-Pacific region, there is a renewed urgency to consider possibilities for the expansion of protection and access to rights and services to those who normally face exclusion. Drawing on national case law, policy developments and other practices in six major host countries in the region, this article highlights instances in which, despite not being party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, states have extended rights to non-citizens and thereby signalled acceptance of key refugee rights norms. In examining these precedents, the article demonstrates the possibility of expanding protection outside of the international refugee law framework, and intends to provide inspiration for the progressive realisation of rights for displaced Rohingya communities across the region, as well as for other non-citizen communities facing similar challenges.