Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles) ISSN (Print) 0953-8186 - ISSN (Online) 1464-3715 Published by Oxford University Press[412 journals]
Authors:Dastyari A; Ghezelbash D. Pages: 1 - 27 Abstract: Austria and Italy have recently proposed that processing the protection claims of asylum seekers attempting to cross the Mediterranean should take place aboard government vessels at sea. Shipboard processing of asylum claims is not a novel idea. The policy has been used for many years by the governments of the United States and Australia. This article examines the relevant international law, as well as State practice and domestic jurisprudence in the United States and Australia, to explore whether shipboard processing complies with international refugee and human rights law. It concludes that, while it may be theoretically possible for shipboard processing to comply with international law, there are significant practical impediments to carrying out shipboard processing in a manner that is compliant with the international obligations of States. Current practices in the United States and Australia fall short of what is required. Nor is there any indication that the Austrian/Italian proposal would contain the required safeguards. It is argued that this is by design. The appeal of shipboard processing for governments is that it allows them to dispense with the safeguards that asylum seekers would be entitled to if processed on land. Best practice is for all persons interdicted or rescued at sea to be transferred to a location on land where they have access to effective status determination procedures and are protected from refoulement and unlawful detention. PubDate: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eez046 Issue No:Vol. 32, No. 1 (2020)
Authors:Zambelli P. Pages: 28 - 53 Abstract: Whether to grant asylum to claimants who are victimized by non-State actors is one of the thorniest questions in refugee law, particularly in Canada. Numerous questions have arisen around how to measure State protection in such circumstances. The result is a convoluted array of legal determinants – a situation that may be placing some claimants at risk. This article attempts to forge a more accessible framework of analysis for non-State actor claims. The suggested framework restores the absence of ‘State protection’ to its traditional role within the refugee definition of the 1951 Refugee Convention – as one prong of a test for persecution, not a stand-alone criterion for refugeehood. Accordingly, it is suggested that decision makers approach non-State actor claims as simply an assessment of whether the situation is one of ‘persecution’, a term that has been defined by leading scholars. By applying these definitions of persecution to typical refugee claim scenarios, it is demonstrated that a persecution-centred heuristic in non-State actor claims provides a clearer and more principled framework of analysis – one that gravitates towards stable and measurable criteria for assessing State protection. PubDate: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eeaa001 Issue No:Vol. 32, No. 1 (2020)
Authors:de Boer T; Zieck M. Pages: 54 - 85 Abstract: The world is experiencing its largest refugee crisis since the Second World War, and more than ever before, the lack of an equitable burden-sharing mechanism is making itself felt: the world’s poorest States are hosting most of the refugees. The durable solution of resettlement of refugees is, in theory, the principal means of securing responsibility sharing within the framework of international refugee law. In practice, this cannot be realized since fewer than 1 per cent of the world’s refugees can be resettled annually due to the small number of available resettlement places. However, initiatives are being developed to increase the number of States that offer resettlement places to refugees and hence the number of available resettlement places.Europe, too, traditionally lagging well behind in terms of the number of resettlement places it offers, is endeavouring to contribute more places. It must nonetheless be noted that Europe’s increasing support for resettlement is paired with a policy of extraterritorialization of asylum claims and minimization of ‘spontaneous’ refugee arrivals. If Europe indeed aims to replace the regular asylum system with controlled refugee resettlement, this will raise issues of access to asylum. While the current Common European Asylum System contains a plethora of procedural and substantive rights for asylum seekers, resettlement – due to its essentially discretionary nature – appears to take place in a legal void, that is, it appears to suffer from arbitrariness in the selection of refugees and a lack of procedural rights and legal remedies for the refugees involved in the resettlement process.The question is whether this is also the case with the European Union (EU) resettlement proposals and, if so, whether this can be sustained from a legal point of view. This article reviews these proposals, along with the current practice of refugee selection by EU Member States, and analyses them from a refugee rights perspective. It examines whether EU initiatives affect the discretionary nature of resettlement, and specifically analyses whether the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union apply to the resettlement procedures of EU Member States and, if so, what rights could be invoked by the refugees involved under those instruments. PubDate: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eeaa005 Issue No:Vol. 32, No. 1 (2020)
Authors:Taylor S; Neumann K. Pages: 86 - 112 Abstract: Focusing on the period from the adoption of the 1967 Declaration on Territorial Asylum to the 1977 Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Territorial Asylum in Geneva, this article examines attempts to arrive at an international treaty on territorial asylum. Charting the trajectory of the drafting process, it shows how the ambition of international lawyers and UNHCR to go beyond article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1967 Declaration was eventually thwarted. Australia played a significant role at the 1977 conference and particular attention is paid to the development of its position. The article argues that the discussions over the proposed convention on territorial asylum were symptomatic of States’ unwillingness to countenance a right to asylum, and their concomitant willingness to extend the principle of non-refoulement. PubDate: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eeaa006 Issue No:Vol. 32, No. 1 (2020)
Authors:Storey H. Pages: 174 - 180 Abstract: FosterMichelle and LambertHélène, International Refugee Law and the Protection of Stateless Persons (Oxford University Press2019) xxv + 162 pp, ISBN 9780198796015 (hbk) PubDate: Thu, 21 May 2020 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eeaa004 Issue No:Vol. 32, No. 1 (2020)
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
[412 journals]
