Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles) ISSN (Print) 0953-8186 - ISSN (Online) 1464-3715 Published by Oxford University Press[409 journals]
Authors:Dauvergne C; Lindy H. Pages: 1 - 29 Abstract: AbstractThis article reviews 16 years of Canadian case law applying the Refugee Convention’s exclusion provisions to women. Despite a quarter of a century of strong scholarly and policy-making work asserting the need for attention to gender in refugee law, this dataset shows that, in questions of exclusion, gendered analysis is almost entirely absent. By contrast, in seeking explanations for the factual basis of exclusion in these cases, gender is almost always an explanatory factor. This stark observation leads us to conclude that significant additional work – both scholarly and policy-focused – is required. The article also considers whether a more robust application of existing Supreme Court jurisprudence can address the problems we have identified and reaches a mixed conclusion. Overall, the article points out an important gap in current understandings of gender in refugee law, and maps a way forward for future work in the area. PubDate: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eez015 Issue No:Vol. 31, No. 1 (2019)
Authors:Wolman A. Pages: 30 - 54 Abstract: AbstractThis article examines the evolution over time of attempts to establish an international law principle that States have a legal responsibility, at least under certain circumstances, to combat irregular emigration, defined as the exit of individuals who would be arriving at their destination in a manner that is not compliant with the destination country’s immigration laws. Through examination of contemporaneous statements and the travaux préparatoires relating to six separate negotiations, light is shed on the attempts to develop such a norm since the beginning of the 20th century, along with the evolving set of legal and ethical justifications that were used in these processes. The different practical and principled objections employed by States and civil society actors to oppose the development of such a legal norm are also examined. The article concludes that this historical perspective challenges current perceptions that home State controls are of recent origin, and that in fact international migration law is inherently progressive. PubDate: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eez012 Issue No:Vol. 31, No. 1 (2019)
Authors:Braaten C; Braaten D. Pages: 55 - 82 Abstract: AbstractThis article analyses United States (US) federal court jurisprudence to determine the legal rights of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) in various stages of immigration enforcement proceedings. After briefly discussing statistics on UAC in the US, it explains the legal context of US laws governing unaccompanied minors. Through examining 40 cases decided by the 12 US Circuit Courts of Appeals and various federal district courts, the article specifies how these courts interpreted and expanded on the procedural legal rights of UAC upon apprehension by immigration officials, during placement or detention decisions of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), prior to voluntary departure, during asylum proceedings, when rearrested after release, and while released pending immigration proceedings. According to the US federal courts, the government must grant unaccompanied minors procedural due process if it denies their release to the custody of an available and willing legal custodian. Case law examining the rights of UAC prior to voluntary departure emphasizes the need to grant them the opportunity to consult with a responsible adult, including a lawyer from a free legal services list that should be provided to them. Federal courts have also tackled various procedural issues concerning asylum claims filed by UAC. These include the right of third parties to custody of the unaccompanied minor, the minority age at the time of the asylum application, and the right of UAC to request consent for a state juvenile court’s jurisdiction prior to applying for Special Immigrant Juvenile status. In removal proceedings against UAC, federal courts have elaborated on the scope and meaning of the right to counsel and the right to a bond rehearing upon their rearrest because of allegations of gang membership. Finally, federal courts have also examined issues concerning the rights of UAC while detained in ORR facilities and while in US territory. These include the right of an unaccompanied alien child to terminate a pregnancy while in ORR custody and the right not to be subjected to physical and sexual abuse while placed in a detention facility. PubDate: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eez017 Issue No:Vol. 31, No. 1 (2019)
Authors:Dechent S; Tania S, Mapulanga-Hulston J. Pages: 83 - 131 Abstract: AbstractThis article examines if Australia’s policy and law regarding asylum seeker and refugee children in Nauru are consistent with its international legal obligations under the terms of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Under article 3 of the CRC, Australia is required to consider the best interests of each child within its jurisdiction. It is also bound by the CRC prohibition on arbitrary detention and obligations derived from Convention rights relating to health, education, and family matters. To assess Australia’s law and policy, the article draws on the findings of recent inquiries and reports that examine how detention and conditions at the processing centre and in the community in Nauru have impacted on the mental and physical well-being of children. The article highlights gaps in the implementation of Convention rights and draws together the findings and recommendations made in recent reports to assist in the development of suitable solutions. It concludes that Australia’s treatment of asylum seeker and refugee children violates key obligations under the CRC and that, accordingly, Australia should remove these children from Nauru and settle them in Australia. PubDate: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eez021 Issue No:Vol. 31, No. 1 (2019)
Authors:Harding C. Pages: 161 - 162 Abstract: ThymDaniel (ed), Questioning EU Citizenship: Judges and the Limits of Free Movement and Solidarity in the EU, Modern Studies in European Law (Hart Publishing, Oxford2017) viii + 330 pp, ISBN 978-1-509-91468-5 (hbk) PubDate: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eez014 Issue No:Vol. 31, No. 1 (2019)
Authors:Le Coz N. Pages: 164 - 169 Abstract: StoyanovaVladislava, Human Trafficking and Slavery Reconsidered: Conceptual Limits and States’ Positive Obligations in European Law (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge2017) xxxiv + 478 pp, ISBN 978-1-107-16228-0 (hbk) PubDate: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eez019 Issue No:Vol. 31, No. 1 (2019)
Authors:Boll A. Pages: 169 - 173 Abstract: FrippEric, Nationality and Statelessness in the International Law of Refugee Status (Hart Publishing, Oxford, and Portland, OR,2016) l + 362 pp, ISBN 978-1-78225-921-3 (hbk) PubDate: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eez016 Issue No:Vol. 31, No. 1 (2019)
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
[409 journals]
