International Journal of Refugee Law最新文献_第2页

Cross-Border Disaster Displacement and Non-Refoulement under Article 3 of the ECHR: An Analysis of the European Union and Austria 欧洲人权公约》第 3 条下的跨境灾难流离失所和不驱回：对欧洲联盟和奥地利的分析

IF 1.2

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2024-01-06 DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eead036

Margit Ammer, Monika Mayrhofer

{"title":"Cross-Border Disaster Displacement and Non-Refoulement under Article 3 of the ECHR: An Analysis of the European Union and Austria","authors":"Margit Ammer, Monika Mayrhofer","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eead036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead036","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Academic literature and policy papers have suggested that the principle of non-refoulement can address the protection gap that exists for people displaced across international borders in the context of disasters and climate change. This article analyses whether non-refoulement under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and subsidiary protection under article 15(b) of the European Union (EU) Qualification Directive could meet this expectation. It assesses their applicability to the cases of individuals who would face difficult living conditions due to the impacts of disasters upon return to their State of origin. This analysis lays the groundwork for a case study focusing on Austria, which as a Council of Europe and an EU Member State has obligations under the ECHR and the Qualification Directive. The case study discusses whether the principle of non-refoulement under article 3 ECHR and the eligibility criteria of subsidiary protection – as incorporated in Austrian law and as interpreted by Austrian courts – address the protection gap at the national level. To this end, the results of a qualitative analysis of 646 decisions on international protection decided by the Austrian appellate court are presented. The article concludes that the ‘livelihood’ approach used by the Austrian courts opens up the possibility of taking disasters and their impacts into account when conducting a real risk assessment under article 3 ECHR. However, the European Court of Human Rights’ suggestion of applying the ‘medical cases’ approach in cases relating to ‘naturally occurring phenomena’ is not adequate to address the protection gap. Against this backdrop, the article reflects on a possible way forward.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139380153","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

‘There should be equality in opinions’: Political Opinion in Intimate Partner Violence Claims 观点应该平等"：亲密伴侣暴力索赔中的政治观点

IF 1.2

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2023-12-26 DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eead031

Adrienne Anderson

{"title":"‘There should be equality in opinions’: Political Opinion in Intimate Partner Violence Claims","authors":"Adrienne Anderson","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eead031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead031","url":null,"abstract":"There is longstanding acceptance that opposition to discrimination against women and/or non-conformity with prevailing gender norms may constitute a political opinion in refugee law. However, courts have not consistently taken an expansive view of political opinion in gender cases. In particular, notwithstanding the global prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV), there is little jurisprudential and, crucially, academic clarity in relation to the political implications of non-conformity with social mores in the context of IPV. Despite this inhospitable environment, lawyers continue to argue this ground in IPV claims, particularly at jurisprudential crisis points, as occurred recently in the aftermath of a 2018 decision in the United States, overruling previous precedent granting refugee status based on membership in a particular social group. This article provides an overarching examination of the academic discussion on the desirability and practicability of applying the political opinion ground and the case law considering this ground to date. Using the jurisprudence of appeal tribunals in five common law jurisdictions, the article reveals commonalities in both successful and unsuccessful claims in this context. Notably, it identifies that ‘nexus’ to an opinion is a previously underappreciated barrier to applying the political opinion ground in IPV claims. These observations provide a crucial foundation for further reasoned consideration of the political opinion ground in IPV claims which may arise given this ground’s ongoing invocation at first instance and in lower-level administrative decision making.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139054569","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Unpacking the Safe Third Country Concept in the European Union: B/orders, Legal Spaces, and Asylum in the Shadow of Externalization 解读欧盟的安全第三国概念：外部化阴影下的边界、法律空间与庇护

IF 1.2

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2023-12-18 DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eead028

Berfin Nur Osso

{"title":"Unpacking the Safe Third Country Concept in the European Union: B/orders, Legal Spaces, and Asylum in the Shadow of Externalization","authors":"Berfin Nur Osso","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eead028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead028","url":null,"abstract":"Since its origins in the 1980s, the concept of safe third country (STC) has increasingly been used to deter and curb ‘irregular migrant’ arrivals. A burgeoning body of research has considered these measures throughout the world, particularly in the European Union (EU), Canada, Australia, and the United States. While much STC scholarship has been doctrinal in nature and has focused on the protection standards required in a third State, some of the literature has also examined more theoretical questions. Against this background, this article explores the consequences of the STC concept for refugees and their (in)ability to seek and enjoy asylum by drawing on critical border studies literature. The article first conceptualizes this concept with reference to theories of bordering, dissecting the STC concept as a bordering tool which constructs subjects as worthy and unworthy of protection, and decides where the latter are to be protected. It then explores how this concept has been operationalized within the EU’s Common European Asylum System and the implications of this phenomenon for refugees, using the Greek–Turkish context as a case study. The article particularly considers the developments after the EU–Türkiye Statement of 18 March 2016 and a joint ministerial decision of 8 June 2021 by which Greece formally designated Türkiye as a STC. It reveals that while these measures came in response to the so-called irregular arrivals at the Greek–Turkish border, thousands of refugees affected by these measures have been either removed from the Greek territory and returned to Türkiye without protection, or trapped in limbo in Greece because of their removal from the EU asylum system. The article demonstrates that the STC concept, which is increasingly used as a bordering practice, spatially and temporally prevents certain people from being recognized and treated as refugees in accordance with the Refugee Convention.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138743159","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The Securitization of Asylum: A Review of UK Asylum Laws Post-Brexit 庇护的安全化：英国脱欧后的庇护法回顾

IF 1.2

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2023-12-10 DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eead030

Cristina Saenz Perez

引用次数: 0

Rape Myths in the European Court of Human Rights’ Non-Refoulement Case Law on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence 欧洲人权法院关于性暴力和基于性别的暴力的不驱回判例法中的强奸神话

IF 1.2

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2023-12-01 DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eead029

Lore Roels

{"title":"Rape Myths in the European Court of Human Rights’ Non-Refoulement Case Law on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence","authors":"Lore Roels","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eead029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead029","url":null,"abstract":"The criminal justice and the refugee/human rights systems operate within different procedural and substantive frameworks. However, analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ case law reveals a significant parallel between the two, namely judges’ acceptance of ‘rape myths’ in making their decisions. Criminal justice scholarship has defined rape myths as stereotyped and false beliefs about rape (including about victims and perpetrators). This article translates the concept to the refugee/human rights context and extends it to other forms of sexual or gender-based violence (SGBV) as well. It identifies four specific SGBV myths in the court’s non-refoulement case law: non-reporting of SGBV in the country of origin equals non-exhaustion of local remedies or protection (institutional scope: section 4.1); the existence of a private (male) support network suffices to protect an applicant from SGBV (interpersonal scope: section 4.2); resourceful applicants do not need protection against SGBV (personal scope: section 4.3); and any vagueness, incompleteness, or inconsistency in SGBV disclosures indicates a false or exaggerated story (narrative scope: section 4.4). These types of reasoning not only lack evidence-based grounds, but also demonstrate a striking lack of understanding of the nature of SGBV and the protection needs of its survivors/victims. In theory, SGBV has been recognized as a form of ill-treatment deserving protection from refoulement. In practice, however, access to this protection is hindered by a tendency to use SGBV myths in (credibility) assessments of applicants who fear ill-treatment on the basis of SGBV. While the exact meaning of gender-sensitive non-refoulement assessments remains undefined, it cannot entail the practices of SGBV myth acceptance uncovered in this article.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138510104","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Saudi Arabia and the International Refugee Regime 沙特阿拉伯与国际难民制度

IF 1.2

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2023-11-21 DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eead027

Maja Janmyr, Charlotte Lysa

{"title":"Saudi Arabia and the International Refugee Regime","authors":"Maja Janmyr, Charlotte Lysa","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eead027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead027","url":null,"abstract":"As a non-signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, Saudi Arabia is often portrayed as a State that refuses engagement with the global legal norms and supporting institutions focused on the protection of refugees. This article contends that this is not the case, and closely examines Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the international refugee regime by asking what was Saudi Arabia’s role in the drafting of the main refugee protection instruments, and what is its approach – past and present – to acceding to the 1951 Convention? How does Saudi Arabia engage with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) – on the global plane but also through UNHCR’s activities in the country? Drawing on hitherto unresearched material from the UNHCR archives pertaining to the years 1962–94, as well as interviews with key government and UNHCR actors, this article argues that Saudi Arabia engages substantively with the international refugee regime. It discusses how Saudi Arabia participated in the drafting processes of the main refugee protection instruments and shows that accession to the 1951 Convention appears to have been seriously considered at certain junctures. The article also explores Saudi Arabia’s relationship with UNHCR. In addition to focusing on Saudi Arabia’s role in the UNHCR Executive Committee, it looks more closely at UNHCR’s activities in the country, identifying three phases of UNHCR involvement – establishment (1987–97), expansion (1998–2005), and consolidation (2005–). It finds that UNHCR’s approach to Saudi Arabia is characterized by pragmatism rather than by principle, and that Saudi Arabia has been able to influence the way UNHCR implements its mandate in the country, as well as beyond. Importantly, Saudi Arabia is a gatekeeper for UNHCR operations in the Gulf region and in Muslim-majority countries more generally. Similarly, UNHCR is an important vessel for Saudi Arabian humanitarianism.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138510083","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Adjudication of Procedural Safeguards for Vulnerable Asylum Seekers in Greece: Case Law and Systemic Non-Compliance 裁定对希腊弱势寻求庇护者的程序保障:判例法和系统性违规

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2023-10-20 DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eead024

Minos Mouzourakis

引用次数: 0

Statelessness and Nationality Matters in the context of Migration between Northern Africa and Spain 北非和西班牙之间移民背景下的无国籍状态和国籍问题

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2023-10-20 DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eead023

Michel Remi Njiki

引用次数: 0

Risk and the Reasonable Refugee: Exploring a Key Credibility Inference in Canadian Refugee Status Rejections 风险与合理难民:探索加拿大难民身份拒绝的关键可信度推断

IF 1.2

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2023-08-24 DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eead022

Hilary Evans Cameron

{"title":"Risk and the Reasonable Refugee: Exploring a Key Credibility Inference in Canadian Refugee Status Rejections","authors":"Hilary Evans Cameron","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eead022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead022","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This mixed-methods study analyses a sample of 303 rejections of refugee claims by Canadian refugee status adjudicators. It explores the role that inferences about the claimant’s risk response play in supporting the adjudicators’ conclusions that the claimant is lying. In justifying their negative credibility conclusions, the adjudicators in almost two out of three decisions (63%) cited the claimant’s risk response. They often measured the claimant against a general idealized standard: in the face of an alleged danger, the claimant did not act like a ‘person at risk’. This approach brings to refugee law the confusion that characterizes the common law’s most famous fiction. Like the ‘reasonable man’, the ‘person at risk’ blurs the lines between descriptive analyses aimed at understanding how a person would have acted and normative analyses aimed at establishing how a person should have acted. Moreover, in deciding how a ‘person at risk’ would act, the adjudicators did not consider social scientific sources. For many decades, researchers have investigated how human beings respond to potentially deadly threats such as natural hazards, lethal illnesses, attacks, and assaults. The adjudicators’ reasoning, resting on common sense alone, often ran counter to key insights that emerge from this body of research. This study’s findings suggest that refugee systems must guard against the use of normative standards in drawing credibility inferences from a claimant’s risk response, and that they must do more to ensure that social scientific evidence informs these judgments. Evidence about human risk response should be on the record in every refugee hearing.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41749170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

A Requirement of Shame: On the Evolution of the Protection of LGB Refugees 羞耻的要求：论LGB难民保护的演变

IF 1.2

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2023-07-11 DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eead008

Karin Åberg

{"title":"A Requirement of Shame: On the Evolution of the Protection of LGB Refugees","authors":"Karin Åberg","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eead008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The particular difficulties that lesbian, gay, and bisexual refugees face when applying for asylum are in constant flux. As one issue is removed, another takes its place. This article provides a historical overview of these developments and shows how attempts to include lesbian, gay, and bisexual people and their experiences have transformed shame into an implicit legal requirement in certain countries, in particular, Sweden and the Netherlands. While the implementation of the Difference, Stigma, Shame, and Harm (DSSH) model aimed to promote open-ended conversations about the fluidity of sexual orientation, in the contexts examined in this study, it has arguably led to a set of legal requirements that emphasize suffering and internalized homophobia. Further, the article argues that, as developments in refugee law have centred the procedural focus on the credibility of the applicant and have formulated sexual orientation as a fixed identity, this identity has become a decisive requirement in the bureaucracy of border control. In addition, the understanding of this lesbian, gay, or bisexual refugee identity has, in turn, been influenced by colonial perceptions of homophobia and sexuality.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44099298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0