International Journal of Refugee Law最新文献_第9页

Short Shrift to International Non-Refoulement Obligations? Australia’s Approach to Criminal Deportation 忽视国际不驱回义务?澳大利亚对刑事驱逐出境的做法

IF 1.2

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2021-04-29 DOI: 10.1093/IJRL/EEAB008

C. Bostock, J. Cabarrús

{"title":"Short Shrift to International Non-Refoulement Obligations? Australia’s Approach to Criminal Deportation","authors":"C. Bostock, J. Cabarrús","doi":"10.1093/IJRL/EEAB008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/IJRL/EEAB008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Australia’s Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provides for visas that honour Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations; it also provides for visas to be refused or cancelled on criminal grounds, resulting in removal from Australia. In 2014, Australia introduced mandatory visa cancellation for certain criminal non-citizens sentenced to 12 months or more in prison. Coinciding with these changes was the codification of aspects of refugee and human rights law, the severing of references to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and the introduction of section 197C in the Migration Act, which provides that non-refoulement obligations are irrelevant when considering the power to remove non-citizens. This article focuses on the interaction between these changes in the law, analysing the application of the complex legal provisions which govern the legal position of those seeking protection or owed international non-refoulement obligations.\u0000 This analysis identifies a number of unintended consequences that appear to have resulted from these changes. These include risks that Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations may not be adequately considered or safeguarded, resulting in serious consequences for the individual concerned, including the possibility of indefinite detention or refoulement. They also include implications for the rule of law, and uncertainty, delay, and cost in aspects of the system for decision making and review.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43285669","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

Asylum Decisions as Performances: Intertextuality in Internal Credibility Assessment 庇护决定作为表演:内部可信度评估的互文性

IF 1.2

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2021-04-22 DOI: 10.1093/IJRL/EEAB001

Erna Bodström

{"title":"Asylum Decisions as Performances: Intertextuality in Internal Credibility Assessment","authors":"Erna Bodström","doi":"10.1093/IJRL/EEAB001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/IJRL/EEAB001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article shows how the Finnish Immigration Service approaches internal credibility assessment in asylum decisions. The internal credibility assessment is one of the most important parts of the asylum process, since it aims to assess the truthfulness of the asylum applicant’s account, customarily through evaluation of the level of detail, coherence, and sense of personal telling. If the account is not accepted as truthful, the applicant may not be granted asylum. In general, the internal credibility assessment is based on the asylum interview documented in the asylum record. The current study analyses 44 asylum decisions and the corresponding interview records to see how the internal credibility assessment is intertextually constructed in the decisions. The article shows that referring to detail seems to be used as a shorthand in the decisions to reject the applicant’s account, since it is used both in cases where the questions of the interviewer have been general, and in cases where the issue seems rather to be one of consistency in either the interview or the decision. The article further shows how the decisions portray the assumptions of the decision maker as more neutral, objective, and credible than those of the asylum applicant. Overall, the article argues that the asylum decisions become performances in which the form and internal argumentation may become more important than the intertextual coherence of the asylum case.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/IJRL/EEAB001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41483991","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: 5

The End of Human Rights Dynamism? Judgments of the ECtHR on ‘Hot Returns’ and Humanitarian Visas as a Focal Point of Contemporary European Asylum Law and Policy 人权运动的终结？欧洲人权法院对“热门遣返”和人道主义签证的判决——当代欧洲庇护法律和政策的焦点

IF 1.2

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2021-04-10 DOI: 10.1093/IJRL/EEAB004

D. Thym

{"title":"The End of Human Rights Dynamism? Judgments of the ECtHR on ‘Hot Returns’ and Humanitarian Visas as a Focal Point of Contemporary European Asylum Law and Policy","authors":"D. Thym","doi":"10.1093/IJRL/EEAB004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/IJRL/EEAB004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Two controversial rulings of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) deserve global attention, since they declined to scrutinize on human rights grounds the prevalent move towards enhanced border controls and externalization practices that define European asylum law and policy at this juncture. In ND and NT, judges deemed the Spanish policy of ‘hot returns’, without access to basic procedural guarantees, of those climbing border fences to be compatible with human rights. A few weeks later, the Grand Chamber thwarted enduring hopes for judicial innovation in MN when it reasserted a ‘primarily territorial’ understanding of State jurisdiction and declared inadmissible the claim of a Syrian family from the war-torn town of Aleppo to a humanitarian visa. While the decision on humanitarian visas means that ‘non-arrival’ policies cannot usually be challenged, critical inspection of the ND and NT judgment displays a confounding combination of restrictive arguments and dynamic elements beneath the surface of a seemingly clear-cut outcome. This lack of judicial precision, which was bound to cause heated debate about the practical implications of the judgment, reflects the basic tension between the prohibition of refoulement and the absence of a right to asylum in classic accounts of international refugee law. It will be argued that the judicial vindication of the Spanish ‘hot returns’ policy does not call into question non-refoulement obligations; it aims at identifying graded procedural standards for different categories of refugees and migrants. By contrast, the novel insistence on the abstract availability of legal channels of entry presents itself as a humanitarian fig leaf for the acceptance of strict control practices. At an intermediate level of abstraction, the two rulings mark a watershed moment, indicating the provisional endpoint of an impressive period of interpretative dynamism on the part of the ECtHR, which has played a critical role in the progressive evolution of international refugee and human rights law over the past three decades. Experts in asylum law who have become accustomed to supranational courts advancing the position of individuals will benefit from the insights of constitutional theory and the social sciences to rationalize why the former vigour has given way to a period of hesitation and potential standstill, at least in Europe. This analysis employs the perspective of strategic litigation to discuss contextual factors hindering the continued dynamism of human rights jurisprudence in Europe at this juncture.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48848067","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: 3

Legal Considerations Regarding Claims for International Protection Made in the context of the Adverse Effects of Climate Change and Disasters 在气候变化和灾害不利影响的背景下提出国际保护请求的法律考虑

IF 1.2

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2021-03-01 DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eeab026

引用次数: 9

Key Legal Considerations on Access to Territory for Persons in Need of International Protection in the context of the COVID-19 Response 应对COVID-19背景下需要国际保护的人进入领土的关键法律考虑

IF 1.2

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2021-03-01 DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eeab027

引用次数: 7

OUP accepted manuscript OUP接受稿件

IF 1.2

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eeab034

引用次数: 0

OUP accepted manuscript OUP接受稿件

IF 1.2

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eeab022

引用次数: 0

OUP accepted manuscript OUP接受稿件

IF 1.2

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eeab042

引用次数: 0

OUP accepted manuscript OUP接受稿件

IF 1.2

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eeab041

引用次数: 0

OUP accepted manuscript OUP接受稿件

IF 1.2

International Journal of Refugee Law Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eeab028

引用次数: 1