In Exclusion from Protection as a Refugee, Yao Li analyses Article 1F of the 1951 Refugee Convention. She argues that the exclusion clause is a quasi-punitive provision and must therefore be interpreted with due regard to (International) Criminal Law. Having developed an interpretation approach to consider external legal notions, Li provides a solution for all the relevant issues in the context of Article 1F, based on a “harmonizing interpretation”. The study therefore not only comprehensively examines the exclusion clause at the intersection of International Refugee Law and International Criminal Law, but also contributes to anti-fragmentation efforts in International Law.
How to assess and deal with the claims of millions of displaced people to find refuge and asylum in safe and prosperous countries is one of the most pressing issues of modern political philosophy. In this timely volume, fresh insights are offered into the political and moral implications of refugee crises and the treatment of asylum seekers. The contributions illustrate the widening of the debate over what is owed to refugees, and why it is assumed that national state actors and the international community owe special consideration and protection. Among the specific issues discussed are refugees' rights and duties, refugee selection, whether repatriation can be encouraged or required, and the ethics of sanctuary policies.
Human Rights Series, 3 (Library of Human Rights, 3) After the Second World War human rights law became entrenched in legal discourse as witnessed by a proliferation of human rights treaties. While the right of asylum was recognized as an fundamental right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it has never been an absolute right but always restricted in various ways, the most important ones being that asylum should not be conferred on criminals and that refugees with a criminal background could be removed from the country of refuge. This book examines the extensive jurisprudence at the international and domestic level, which has attempted to balance the right of asylum for an individual versus the right of the state of refuge to restrict this right in situations of criminality. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: History Chapter 3: Exclusion Chapter 4: Refoulement Chapter 5: Alternatives to Refoulement Chapter 6: Conclusion Appendix: Geographical Listing of Court/Tribunal Decisions regarding Nefarious Organizations Jurisprudence Literature and Official Documents Index ABOUT THE AUTHOR Joseph Rikhof has received a BCL from the University of Nijmegen in The Netherlands; a LL.B degree from McGill University in Canada; a Diploma in Air and Space Law, also from McGill University and a PhD from the Irish Center for Human Rights. He teaches the course International Criminal Law at the University of Ottawa. He is Senior Counsel, Manager of the Law with the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Section of the Department of Justice, Canada. He was a visiting professional with the International Criminal Court in 2005 while also serving as Special Counsel and Policy Advisor to the Modern War Crimes Section of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration between 1998 and 2002. His area of expertise lies with the law related to organized crime, terrorism, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, especially in the context of immigration and refugee law. He has written over 30 articles as well his PhD thesis exploring these research interests and has lectured on the same topics in North and South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Australia and New Zealand.
Terrorism and Asylum, edited by James C. Simeon, thoroughly analyses terrorism’s use in forced displacement, to limit access to asylum, and to exclude persons from refugee protection, while offering practical alternative solutions for advancing human rights and dignity for everyone.
Protection challenges around the globe require innovative legal, policy and practical responses. Drawing primarily from a new generation of researchers in the field of refugee law, this volume explores the ‘boundaries’ of refugee law. On the one hand, it ascertains the scope of the legal provisions by highlighting new trends in State practice and analysing the jurisprudence of international human rights bodies, as well as national and international Courts. On the other hand, it marks the boundaries of refugee law as ‘legal frontiers’ whilst exploring new approaches and new frameworks that are necessary in order to address the emerging protection challenges.
Under what circumstances can a state refuse refugee status to a person whose risk of persecution exists in only part of her country of origin? This book is the first monograph to examine the treaty basis and criteria for the ‘internal protection alternative’ (IPA), an exception to refugee status increasingly invoked by state parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. Through a critical analysis of the relationship between refugee law and related fields, Schultz finds that the legal scope for IPA practice is narrower than is commonly claimed. Since persons subject to an IPA analysis have a well-founded fear of persecution within their countries of origin, any limit on their right to refugee status must involve a careful balancing of the impact of continued displacement against the state's interest in preserving its restricted protection resources. She argues that the doctrine of implied limits in human rights law can provide analytic structure to the IPA concept and reduce the risk of overly broad application.
This Handbook draws together leading and emerging scholars to provide a comprehensive critical analysis of international refugee law. This book provides an account as well as a critique of the status quo, setting the agenda for future research in the field.
Migration is a complex and multifaceted issue, and the current legal framework suffers from considerable ambiguity and lack of cohesive focus. This Handbook offers a comprehensive take on the intersection of law and migration studies and provides strat
Academic Paper from the year 2018 in the subject Law - European and International Law, Intellectual Properties, University of Malta, course: M.A. European Politics, Economics and Law, language: English, abstract: The present work takes a closer look at the rare case of exclusion in asylum law. This article will analyse into detail which crimes and acts are taken in consideration. First, it will give an introduction of the legal framework of exclusion. In the second part it will analyse in depth the steps of the exclusion assessment, referring to experts such as EASO and the UNHCR. The article will conclude with a summary of the findings. Exclusion is a rare circumstance in the asylum procedure. The criteria to establish inclusion exactly like exclusion are set out in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, from now on 1951 Refugee Convention. An asylum seeker who applied for international protection will go through an assessment done by an authority establishing whether he or she is entitled for international protection. If the person is entitled to protection according to the refugee definition stated in the 1951 Refugee Convention the person will be included. Being included means that the person needs protection because he or she has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, a refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Being included is also a prerogative for exclusion, a person cannot be excluded if he or she is first not included. The principle of exclusion is that the person who applied for asylum does not deserve protection. The aim of the 1951 Refugee Convention is to protect potential victims, not to protest criminals, therefore it does not have to be misused. The reason for not deserving protection can be mainly three. The first case is when the person is already beneficiary of protection, because he or she receives assistance from organs or agencies of the United Nations. The second scenario is when the person is recognised by the competent authorities of the country in which he or she has taken residence as having the same rights and obligations of the citizen in possession of the nationality of that country. The third and maybe most controversial scenario is when the person claiming asylum is responsible of a crime or an act so serious that the person is not considered to deserve protection.
