谁是难民?1969年非统组织和1951年联合国难民公约在南非后种族隔离时期的国内实施和司法解释的25年

Q3 Social Sciences
T. Maluwa, A. Katz
{"title":"谁是难民?1969年非统组织和1951年联合国难民公约在南非后种族隔离时期的国内实施和司法解释的25年","authors":"T. Maluwa, A. Katz","doi":"10.2979/indjglolegstu.27.2.0129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:As a party to the UN Refugee Convention and the OAU Refugee Convention, South Africa is obligated to apply international refugee law when addressing the protection needs of asylum seekers in the country. The Refugees Act, 1998 encapsulates the cardinal principles of the two conventions. This essay discusses how government officials and judges have interpreted and applied these principles in asylum application cases. These cases demonstrate that officials are either not always fully conversant with the legal obligations, incumbent upon the government, arising from both international law and domestic law or purposefully ignore them. For the most part, officials tend to treat asylum seekers presumptively as economic migrants rather than bona fide refugees entitled to proper scrutiny under the criteria set out in the refugee conventions. This approach has resulted in gaps between legal protection and practical protection of refugees in South Africa and has on several occasions been criticized and rejected by courts, including the Constitutional Court of South Africa.","PeriodicalId":39188,"journal":{"name":"Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies","volume":"27 1","pages":"129 - 205"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who is a Refugee?: Twenty-Five years of Domestic Implementation and Judicial Interpretation of the 1969 OAU and 1951 UN Refugee Conventions in Post-Apartheid South Africa\",\"authors\":\"T. Maluwa, A. Katz\",\"doi\":\"10.2979/indjglolegstu.27.2.0129\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:As a party to the UN Refugee Convention and the OAU Refugee Convention, South Africa is obligated to apply international refugee law when addressing the protection needs of asylum seekers in the country. The Refugees Act, 1998 encapsulates the cardinal principles of the two conventions. This essay discusses how government officials and judges have interpreted and applied these principles in asylum application cases. These cases demonstrate that officials are either not always fully conversant with the legal obligations, incumbent upon the government, arising from both international law and domestic law or purposefully ignore them. For the most part, officials tend to treat asylum seekers presumptively as economic migrants rather than bona fide refugees entitled to proper scrutiny under the criteria set out in the refugee conventions. This approach has resulted in gaps between legal protection and practical protection of refugees in South Africa and has on several occasions been criticized and rejected by courts, including the Constitutional Court of South Africa.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39188,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"129 - 205\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2979/indjglolegstu.27.2.0129\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2979/indjglolegstu.27.2.0129","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要:南非作为《联合国难民公约》和《非统组织难民公约》的缔约国,在处理本国寻求庇护者的保护需求时,有义务适用国际难民法。1998年的《难民法》概括了这两项公约的基本原则。本文讨论了政府官员和法官如何在庇护申请案件中解释和应用这些原则。这些案例表明,官员们不是总是完全了解国际法和国内法所规定的政府应尽的法律义务,就是故意忽视这些义务。在大多数情况下,官员倾向于将寻求庇护者推定为经济移民,而不是根据难民公约规定的标准有权接受适当审查的真正难民。这种做法造成了对南非难民的法律保护和实际保护之间的差距,并多次受到包括南非宪法法院在内的法院的批评和拒绝。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Who is a Refugee?: Twenty-Five years of Domestic Implementation and Judicial Interpretation of the 1969 OAU and 1951 UN Refugee Conventions in Post-Apartheid South Africa
Abstract:As a party to the UN Refugee Convention and the OAU Refugee Convention, South Africa is obligated to apply international refugee law when addressing the protection needs of asylum seekers in the country. The Refugees Act, 1998 encapsulates the cardinal principles of the two conventions. This essay discusses how government officials and judges have interpreted and applied these principles in asylum application cases. These cases demonstrate that officials are either not always fully conversant with the legal obligations, incumbent upon the government, arising from both international law and domestic law or purposefully ignore them. For the most part, officials tend to treat asylum seekers presumptively as economic migrants rather than bona fide refugees entitled to proper scrutiny under the criteria set out in the refugee conventions. This approach has resulted in gaps between legal protection and practical protection of refugees in South Africa and has on several occasions been criticized and rejected by courts, including the Constitutional Court of South Africa.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信