Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles) ISSN (Print) 0953-8186 - ISSN (Online) 1464-3715 Published by Oxford University Press[370 journals]
Authors:Afrazeh A. Abstract: MurrayDavid AB, Real Queer? Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Refugees in the Canadian Refugee Apparatus, Rowman & Littlefield International, Toronto, 2015, ix + 183 pp, ISBN 978-1-7834-8439-3, hbk PubDate: 2016-12-27
Authors:Yiwumi Nge Faison V. Abstract: KöhlerChristine, Opferschutz im Bereich des Menschenhandels: Eine Analyse der völker- und europarechtlichen Vorgaben zum Aufenthalt (Victim Protection in the Field of Human Trafficking: An Analysis of International and European Legal Provisions on Residence), Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 2016, 262 pp, ISBN 978-3-428-14742-7, pbk PubDate: 2016-12-27
Authors:McAdam J; Gilbert G. Abstract: In April 2016, leading scholars in international refugee law met at All Souls College, Oxford, to pay tribute to the work of Professor Guy S Goodwin-Gill – not only as an academic, but also as a practitioner. In addition to his well-known scholarly work, Professor Goodwin-Gill’s career has included roles at UNHCR and as a practising barrister. In the different areas of his work, his meticulous scholarship and comprehensive grasp of international law have shone through. PubDate: 2016-12-27
Abstract: United Nations General Assembly A/71/L.1 (13 September 2016)Seventy-first sessionItems 13 and 118 of the provisional agenda PubDate: 2016-12-27
Authors:Türk V; Garlick M. Abstract: With today’s movements of asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants presenting significant challenges in many countries and regions, reinforced international cooperation and responsibility-sharing is urgently needed among States. This article examines the principles underlying cooperation among States in international law, and in international refugee law in particular. It describes key historical situations in which States have worked together, including with UNHCR’s support and facilitation, to develop and implement cooperative responses to refugee movements, including large-scale arrivals. It argues for a new framework, as proposed by the UN Secretary-General, in the form of a Global Compact on Refugees, to ensure more effective responsibility-sharing in response to significant refugee movements, including a commitment to implement comprehensive responses from the outset of a displacement situation. Elaborating on the key elements that this framework would comprise, the article maintains that recent dynamics create not only strong imperatives, but also potentially important opportunities, to take forward action in this area. PubDate: 2016-12-27
Authors:Goodwin-Gill G. Abstract: The international refugee regime has certainly evolved over the past 65 years, but fundamental challenges remain. On the one hand, an international organization (UNHCR – strictly speaking, a subsidiary organ of the UN General Assembly) with a global mandate to provide protection and seek solutions operates within a widely ratified treaty framework, together with a 98 Member State Executive Committee. On the other hand, notwithstanding the 2003 decision to put UNHCR on a permanent footing (‘until the refugee problem is solved’), the system overall continues very much as if it and the problems of displacement were still temporary. International cooperation is still largely ad hoc and unstructured; funding depends on voluntary contributions; the mechanisms for early warning, conflict prevention, and mediation are insufficient; and viable safe havens as alternatives to displacement are rarely considered, let alone initiated. More significantly, displacement-related challenges are compounded by States’ reluctance to ‘internationalize’ key aspects of the movement of people, with a view to the better and more humane management of migration. This paper proposes some structural changes to bring the international protection mandate into the 21st Century; in particular, the General Assembly should revise UNHCR’s 1950 Statute, not only to reflect its current responsibilities for refugees, internally displaced persons, and the stateless, and to reform the funding base, but also to extend its mandate to migrants without protection. No new treaty or organization is called for and international obligations would remain unchanged. However, working with such an experienced operational partner in the field, States would be free to develop a complementary legal or standards base on migration matters, which, currently, are commonly contested and obstructed by the lack of international cooperation. PubDate: 2016-12-27
Authors:Foster M; Lambert H. Abstract: The protection of stateless persons has long been understood as a challenge for the international community. However, for many of the past 60 years, a prioritized focus on refugees has dominated, or even eclipsed, the plight and protection needs of stateless persons. Guy Goodwin-Gill has long argued for a refocus of international attention and effort on the plight, predicament, and protection needs of stateless persons. In a seminal contribution over two decades ago he observed that, at that time, statelessness was perceived by many as a mere ‘technical problem’, yet, ‘statelessness is indeed a broad human rights issue, even as it retains a distinct technical dimension’. In light of developments since this incisive analysis, this article examines the challenge set by Goodwin-Gill for the international community, namely, to provide greater recognition of and protection for stateless persons. It celebrates the positive developments and identifies areas of ongoing challenge. The focus is on the key initiatives Goodwin-Gill identified as requiring attention, the progress made in relation to each, and, predominantly, on the relevance of developments in human rights law. PubDate: 2016-11-21
Authors:Costello C. Abstract: In 1991, Professor Guy S Goodwin-Gill reflected on the emerging safe country of origin (SCO) practices in an editorial in the International Journal of Refugee Law, entitled ‘Safe Country? Says Who?’. This article reflects on developments regarding SCO practices since his prescient editorial, focusing on both Europe, where they originated, and Canada. The article first explores how SCO practices have developed in European law and practice since their inception, including the role of European courts in assessing their legality. This European experience is then contrasted with Canada’s short-lived experiment with its analogous Designated Country of Origin (DCO) system, which, in 2015, was deemed unconstitutional by the Federal Court of Canada. PubDate: 2016-11-21
Authors:Gilbert G. Abstract: There being no International Refugee Court, one way that the international protection of refugees develops is through domestic courts interpreting the Refugee Convention, and through cases brought before international and regional human rights treaty bodies. UNHCR’s supervisory role, set out in article 35 of the Refugee Convention and paragraphs 1 and 8(a) of the UNHCR Statute, authorizes its engagement in such court cases through amicus curiae briefs. Nevertheless, such engagement presents risks for the organization. If a court ignores or rejects UNHCR’s arguments, does that undermine UNHCR’s authority to speak on that particular issue? Or can the finding simply be dismissed as an aberrant decision by a court in one particular State party to the Refugee Convention? By contrast, the international or regional human rights bodies are addressing a different set of rights, so there is less risk. However, this stance cannot be maintained with respect to the Court of Justice of the European Union when receiving a reference from one of the 28 Member States under the European Union Qualification Directive that incorporates the Refugee Convention. Nevertheless, the development of the international law protecting refugees does not take place just through the courts. UNHCR is, in a very real sense, the treaty body of the Refugee Convention. Its statutory protection mandate for refugees invests its Guidelines, the Executive Committee’s Conclusions, and the annual Notes on International Protection with an authority that all courts and decision makers, as well as governments, should recognize and acknowledge. PubDate: 2016-11-21
Authors:Durieux J. Abstract: International refugee law is ill-equipped to deal with large-scale movements of refugees as a solidarity matter. Through work spanning three decades, Guy S Goodwin-Gill has diagnosed this problem and developed a remedial doctrine around the principle of ‘temporary refuge’. This article offers a critical reflection on this doctrine, arguing that, as long as emphasis is placed on non-refoulement as the primary duty of frontline States, they will contest a regime they perceive as fundamentally unfair. The general duty is not to admit refugees on the territory of a particular State, much less to refrain from returning them to risk, but to rescue them from imminent peril. This ‘rescue’ paradigm, building upon the dominant discourse of ‘disaster’ and ‘emergency’, can bolster the international refugee regime in several ways. The article surveys the international regime of rescue at sea as a framework of reference, and explores the potential of international disaster response law, international humanitarian law, and the ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine for framing a collective duty to rescue refugees. While there is no obvious ‘home’ for such a duty, it is possible to sketch out a procedural/institutional approach to it, revolving around a revamped model of comprehensive plan of action. PubDate: 2016-11-21
Authors:McAdam J. Abstract: The name Guy S Goodwin-Gill is synonymous with international refugee law. Since his first seminal work in 1978 on the subject, he has been an intellectual pioneer in identifying, mapping, and shaping this area of law. To mark his formal retirement, this article surveys Professor Goodwin-Gill’s contribution to international refugee law scholarship and practice over the past four decades. It argues that Professor Goodwin-Gill is the consummate international refugee law scholar precisely because his career has encompassed more than scholarship alone. His years with UNHCR, his engagement with non-governmental organizations, and his advocacy in the courts, parliamentary committees, and beyond have informed his understanding of protection and the role that law can play in ameliorating the conditions in which refugees and asylum seekers find themselves. Professor Goodwin-Gill’s research is underpinned by a deep commitment to human rights and social justice, and steeped in impeccable black letter law techniques of systematic, forensic analysis and attention to detail, which are essential to its authority and credibility. He has challenged established modes of thinking and been able to advocate for change in a principled, defensible manner. His legacy has been to create a field of scholarship and a global community of scholars which is well integrated with the legion of refugee law practitioners around the world. PubDate: 2016-10-26
Authors:Guild E. Abstract: This article considers the ongoing legitimacy of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), 17 years after its creation. Its organizing principle is that anyone seeking international protection will have only one opportunity to have their application assessed, by one of the 28 Member States of the European Union. The CEAS therefore implements a common system of reception, definition, procedures, and responsibility for asylum seekers. Yet, the recognition rates for individual asylum seekers from the same countries of origin vary dramatically in different Member States. This article therefore takes seriously the proposal by Professor Guy S Goodwin-Gill that, for the CEAS to be fair to asylum seekers, there is a need for common institutions, charged with the faithful implementation of States’ international protection obligations to determine claims in the pursuit of fair and consistent outcomes and treatment. PubDate: 2016-10-19
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
[370 journals]
