Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles) ISSN (Print) 0953-8186 - ISSN (Online) 1464-3715 Published by Oxford University Press[396 journals]
Authors:Inder C. Pages: 523 - 554 Abstract: Recent increases in large-scale refugee movements, particularly as a result of the Syria crisis, have led to renewed policy and academic interest in the long-contested principle of burden sharing in the refugee regime. Recital 4 of the preamble of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 Convention) expresses this principle as follows: Considering that the grant of asylum may place unduly heavy burdens on certain countries, and that a satisfactory solution of a problem of which the United Nations has recognized the international scope and nature cannot therefore be achieved without international co-operation …Through an analysis of the travaux préparatoires of the 1951 Convention relating to recital 4, this article seeks to shed light on the origins of the inclusion of burden sharing in the contemporary refugee protection regime. It is argued that the travaux préparatoires reveal considerable divergence among the drafters regarding both the placement of the burden-sharing principle in the preamble (form) as well as its scope and legal effects (substance), and suggest that the ultimate decision to retain recital 4 was a political compromise. In considering the intentions of the drafters with respect to recital 4, particular focus is placed on three potential ‘legal effects’ that arise to a greater or lesser extent from the discussions: (1) recital 4 as having a force majeure effect; (2) recital 4 as creating positive obligations to assist receiving States; and (3) the implications of recital 4 for interpretation of other provisions of the 1951 Convention. The article shows that the position taken by some of the drafters, notably with respect to the ability of States receiving large numbers of refugees to implement certain 1951 Convention obligations in the absence of international support, was questionable from the perspective of international treaty law. However, the discussions also foreshadowed doctrinal and practical issues in the application of the 1951 Convention regime that remain ongoing today, and provide important context for the considerable ambivalence that subsists with respect to the scope and nature of the burden-sharing principle in modern refugee law. PubDate: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eex047 Issue No:Vol. 29, No. 4 (2018)
Authors:Ineli-Ciger M. Pages: 555 - 579 Abstract: Since 2011, Turkey has pursued an open door policy accompanied by a national temporary protection regime to protect more than three million Syrians fleeing civil war. Turkey is a party to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees but maintains a geographical limitation to the Convention. Turkey is also a party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Convention against Torture. Following a failed coup attempt, Turkey declared a State of Emergency in July 2016 which continues today. After this declaration, Turkey submitted a formal notice of derogation from the ECHR as foreseen under article 15, and notified the United Nations Secretary-General that it may take measures involving derogation from obligations under the ICCPR. Since its declaration of a State of Emergency, Turkey has also made a number of changes to its asylum law. In view of these recent developments, this article focuses on the protection of Syrians in Turkey in law and in practice and the consistency of this protection regime with Turkey’s international legal obligations. The article has three main parts. The first examines the access of Syrians to the Turkish territories, education, the labour market, refugee status determination procedures, and durable solutions. The second identifies Turkey’s international legal obligations towards Syrians. Building on this, the third part examines recent amendments in Turkish asylum law following Turkey’s declaration of a State of Emergency and whether Turkish law and practice concerning Syrian refugees is consistent with Turkey’s international legal obligations. By examining these issues, the article provides an overview of Turkish law and practice concerning Syrian refugees and explores whether it is consistent with Turkey’s obligations under international law. PubDate: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eex042 Issue No:Vol. 29, No. 4 (2018)
Authors:Stoyanova V. Pages: 580 - 616 Abstract: Since N v United Kingdom, an exceptionally high threshold has been applied to migrants who fight expulsion in order to continue to receive medical assistance in the returning State. In Paposhvili v Belgium, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights recognized the ensuing protection gap and modified the standards. These modifications imply a small opportunity for seriously ill migrants from the slight change to the threshold of the ‘very exceptional’ standard: from risk of imminent death to risk of ‘a serious, rapid and irreversible decline’ in health upon removal. The court clarified the factors to be considered in evaluating the likely decline in the migrant’s health in the case of expulsion. These factors, together with the requirement to seek ‘individual and sufficient assurances’ that care will be provided by the receiving State as a precondition for removal, channel the evaluation of the risk towards a more careful consideration of the individual circumstances of the migrant. Despite these promising developments, the underlying reasoning in the non-refoulement of medical cases, under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, remains riddled with inconsistencies and questionable premises. These relate to the court framing the obligation not to refoule as a negative obligation, a framework that the court explicitly adopted for the first time in Paposhvili. However, this is difficult to reconcile with the ‘very exceptional’ standard and its underlying distinction between ‘natural’ sources of harm and intentionally inflicted harm. That Paposhvili reflects a move in favour of procedural protection and a sidelining of substantive protection is also a major concern. PubDate: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eex044 Issue No:Vol. 29, No. 4 (2018)
Authors:Vogelaar F. Pages: 617 - 640 Abstract: This article focuses on the use of Country of Origin Information (COI) by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in the Eligibility Guidelines, which assess the protection needs of specific groups of asylum seekers. The article assesses the standards set by UNHCR regarding the use of COI and whether, and how, UNHCR applies these standards in the Guidelines. The analysis is based on a study of the Eligibility Guidelines assessing the protection needs of asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Somalia, and Sri Lanka. Analysis of these Guidelines shows that UNHCR does not adhere to its own standards for the cross-checking of information and that this process lacks transparency. UNHCR statements are not consistently based on a variety of sources, and it appears that UNHCR does not consistently verify the COI it relies on. UNHCR’s assessment of the reliability of sources, and the way it balances supporting and contradictory information, also lacks transparency. Moreover, the extent to which UNHCR field offices contribute to the Guidelines is not clear. Due to this lack of transparency, the reliability of UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines cannot always be presumed to be beyond doubt. As a result, each set of Guidelines should be assessed on its own merits and accorded appropriate weight in the process of balancing all available evidence during the assessment of a need for international protection. PubDate: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eey003 Issue No:Vol. 29, No. 4 (2018)
Authors:Dunlop E. Pages: 662 - 667 Abstract: On 15 August 2017, the United Nations General Assembly received its first report from the new Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (Special Rapporteur), Agnes Callamard.11 The report focuses squarely on the unlawful deaths of refugees and migrants, identifying a ‘human rights and humanitarian crisis’ characterized by ‘mass casualties globally, a regime of impunity for its perpetrators and an overall tolerance for its fatalities’.22 This is the first time that the Special Rapporteur has devoted a thematic report to the deaths of refugees and migrants, although the group’s particular vulnerability was highlighted by Ms Callamard’s predecessor, Christof Heyns.33 PubDate: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eex048 Issue No:Vol. 29, No. 4 (2018)
Pages: 668 - 695 Abstract: SummaryThe present report focuses on the mass casualties of refugees and migrants in the course of their flight. It addresses killings by both State and non-State actors, and denounces a quasi-generalized regime of impunity, worsened by an absence of accurate data on the dead and missing. The Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary killings calls urgently on States to address this human rights crisis by prioritizing the protection of the right to life in their migration and refugee policies.The report presents evidence that suggests multiple failures on the part of States to respect and protect refugees’ and migrants’ right to life, such as unlawful killings, including through the excessive use of force and as a result of deterrence policies and practices which increase the risk of death. Other violations to the right to life result from policies of extraterritoriality amounting to aiding and assisting in the arbitrary deprivation of life, and from the failure to prevent preventable and foreseeable deaths, as well as the limited number of investigations into these unlawful deaths. The report also presents best practices in search and rescue operations and for the dignified treatment of the dead, but points out that States do not implement them as they should, and fail to resource them adequately.The scale of casualties among refugees and migrants demands urgent attention at national, regional and international levels. The report presents recommendations for this purpose. The equal protection of all lives, regardless of migration status, is a central underpinning of the entire international human rights system: it must be upheld in the context of the movement of people and must form the foundation of all governmental and intergovernmental policies. PubDate: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eey002 Issue No:Vol. 29, No. 4 (2018)
Authors:Shearer I. Pages: 716 - 720 Abstract: MannItamar, Humanity at Sea: Maritime Migration and the Foundations of International Law (Cambridge University Press, New York 2016) xii + 244 pp, ISBN 978-1-107-14876-5 (hbk) PubDate: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eex045 Issue No:Vol. 29, No. 4 (2018)
Authors:White P. Pages: 720 - 723 Abstract: MathewPenelope and HarleyTristan, Refugees, Regionalism and Responsibility, Elgar Studies in Human Rights (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA2016) ix + 301 pp, ISBN 978-1-78254-728-0 (hbk), ISBN 978-1-78254-729-7 (e-book) PubDate: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eex040 Issue No:Vol. 29, No. 4 (2018)
Authors:Lambert H. Pages: 726 - 728 Abstract: International Association of Refugee Law Judges, European Chapter (under contract to EASO), An Introduction to the Common European Asylum System for Courts and Tribunals: A Judicial Analysis (EASO, Malta2016) 141 pp, ISBN 978-92-9243-862-3 (paper) PubDate: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eex041 Issue No:Vol. 29, No. 4 (2018)
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
[396 journals]
