Refugee law requires States to protect those who may face persecution in their country of origin. This protection, however, is not extended to those who, because of their acts, are considered to be undeserving of it. Similarly, the 1951 Refugee Convention allows the return to persecution of those who are considered a danger to the host country’s community. International human rights law, however, forbids States from returning anyone, regardless of their actions, to a place where they may face irreparable harm, such as arbitrary deprivation of life or torture (the non-refoulement obligation). Thus, forced migrants with a criminal background may find themselves in a situation in which they cannot benefit from refugee status but also cannot be returned to their country of origin. The uncertainties associated with this situation can be challenging for both migrants and States. Against this background, the current contribution explores how three States – Australia, Belgium, and Canada – regulate the situation of criminal migrants in need of international protection. More specifically, it identifies who these countries exclude from protection status, how they assess non-refoulement claims, and the measures they use to regulate the situation of these migrants. Lastly, this article evaluates whether currently applicable domestic measures comply with States’ human rights obligations. As there seems to be a lack of sustainable solutions for these migrants in the countries analysed, a reformed international protection procedure is proposed. This reformed procedure would allow the possibility of granting these migrants temporary status, subject to conditions, which, after a certain number of years, could lead to permanent residence.
{"title":"International Protection for Criminals: To Grant or Not to Grant? Lessons from Australia, Belgium, and Canada","authors":"Júlia Zomignani Barboza","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeae026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeae026","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Refugee law requires States to protect those who may face persecution in their country of origin. This protection, however, is not extended to those who, because of their acts, are considered to be undeserving of it. Similarly, the 1951 Refugee Convention allows the return to persecution of those who are considered a danger to the host country’s community. International human rights law, however, forbids States from returning anyone, regardless of their actions, to a place where they may face irreparable harm, such as arbitrary deprivation of life or torture (the non-refoulement obligation). Thus, forced migrants with a criminal background may find themselves in a situation in which they cannot benefit from refugee status but also cannot be returned to their country of origin. The uncertainties associated with this situation can be challenging for both migrants and States. Against this background, the current contribution explores how three States – Australia, Belgium, and Canada – regulate the situation of criminal migrants in need of international protection. More specifically, it identifies who these countries exclude from protection status, how they assess non-refoulement claims, and the measures they use to regulate the situation of these migrants. Lastly, this article evaluates whether currently applicable domestic measures comply with States’ human rights obligations. As there seems to be a lack of sustainable solutions for these migrants in the countries analysed, a reformed international protection procedure is proposed. This reformed procedure would allow the possibility of granting these migrants temporary status, subject to conditions, which, after a certain number of years, could lead to permanent residence.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141924528","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}
The South Asian region remains an epicentre of forced migration. Women comprise about half the region’s refugee population, and many are traumatized by sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) experienced in their countries of origin and during flight. The 1951 Refugee Convention is not well ratified in the region and few States have developed domestic asylum laws, relying instead on ad hoc policies, core rule of law principles, and constitutional provisions to facilitate refugees’ access to essential legal protections. Many refugees in South Asia do not have a clear legal status, which can exacerbate rights violations, including SGBV. Over the years, through judicial activism, courts have developed a layered refugee law jurisprudence relying on criminal justice principles, executive orders, corresponding laws, and key international human rights treaties. These efforts have been complemented by the evolution of several formal and informal systems at the grassroots level, such as community-based dispute resolution mechanisms and State-run legal aid services, which have allowed refugee women and girls to access justice systems and seek redress. This article examines the legal strategies adopted by courts in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India to uphold the rights of refugee women and girls and to protect survivors of SGBV, in particular.
{"title":"Constitutionalizing Protection for Refugee Women and Girls in South Asia","authors":"Roshni Shanker","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeae019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeae019","url":null,"abstract":"The South Asian region remains an epicentre of forced migration. Women comprise about half the region’s refugee population, and many are traumatized by sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) experienced in their countries of origin and during flight. The 1951 Refugee Convention is not well ratified in the region and few States have developed domestic asylum laws, relying instead on ad hoc policies, core rule of law principles, and constitutional provisions to facilitate refugees’ access to essential legal protections. Many refugees in South Asia do not have a clear legal status, which can exacerbate rights violations, including SGBV. Over the years, through judicial activism, courts have developed a layered refugee law jurisprudence relying on criminal justice principles, executive orders, corresponding laws, and key international human rights treaties. These efforts have been complemented by the evolution of several formal and informal systems at the grassroots level, such as community-based dispute resolution mechanisms and State-run legal aid services, which have allowed refugee women and girls to access justice systems and seek redress. This article examines the legal strategies adopted by courts in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India to uphold the rights of refugee women and girls and to protect survivors of SGBV, in particular.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141610355","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}
Financial crimes were recently recognized by the Conseil d’État, France’s supreme administrative court, as ‘serious non-political crimes’ for the purposes of exclusion under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention. Such an extension of the scope of article 1F(b) raises questions regarding the seriousness threshold of article 1F(b) and its link to bodily harm. A first approach would be to establish the indirect relationship between financial crimes and bodily harm. Another approach would be to discard the concept of bodily harm as being pivotal in understanding the scope of the exclusion clauses. This second solution would have crucial implications for the theoretical underpinnings of the exclusion clauses of article 1F of the Refugee Convention, namely on the concept of unworthiness. In this regard, the recognition of financial crimes as rendering an asylum seeker unworthy of protection highlights the link between exclusion and moral and societal concerns.
{"title":"Financial Crimes as ‘Serious Non-Political Crimes’: Consequences for the Concepts of Seriousness and Unworthiness in Exclusion Law","authors":"Juliette Guiot","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeae014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeae014","url":null,"abstract":"Financial crimes were recently recognized by the Conseil d’État, France’s supreme administrative court, as ‘serious non-political crimes’ for the purposes of exclusion under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention. Such an extension of the scope of article 1F(b) raises questions regarding the seriousness threshold of article 1F(b) and its link to bodily harm. A first approach would be to establish the indirect relationship between financial crimes and bodily harm. Another approach would be to discard the concept of bodily harm as being pivotal in understanding the scope of the exclusion clauses. This second solution would have crucial implications for the theoretical underpinnings of the exclusion clauses of article 1F of the Refugee Convention, namely on the concept of unworthiness. In this regard, the recognition of financial crimes as rendering an asylum seeker unworthy of protection highlights the link between exclusion and moral and societal concerns.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140934247","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}
Refugee externalization arrangements are increasingly common in refugee-receiving global North States. Such arrangements have broad-ranging and significant human rights implications, especially (but not only) for refugee women and LGBTQI refugees who may be at increased risk of gender- or sexuality-based harm. This is particularly the case where refugees are placed in situations of risk or harm as a result of a ‘sending’ State’s extraterritorial regime, or where domestic laws in receiving States outlaw certain practices such as pregnancy termination or same-sex sexual activity. There has been limited scholarly analysis of the gendered impacts of externalization policies, and States rarely take into account the gendered implications of externalization when implementing these policies. This article examines the possibilities and limits of international human rights law to protect refugees at risk of gender- and sexuality-based harms through a focus on States’ positive due diligence obligations. While there is limited jurisprudence on the scope of such obligations in the context of refugee externalization, the article emphasizes that due diligence human rights obligations require sending States to adopt effective measures to protect people from unlawful discrimination and from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Due diligence obligations also offer a vital accountability mechanism for violations in extraterritorial settings through their potential preventative, remedial, and visibility functions. Using the case study of Australia’s extraterritorial asylum regime in the Pacific, the article argues that such obligations encompass identifying and addressing foreseeable risks of gender- and sexuality-based harm, both prior to forcibly transferring refugees abroad and on an ongoing basis. Further, it argues that the gender- and sexuality-based human rights impacts of Australia’s externalization regime have immediate and urgent relevance as other States consider or implement similar policies.
{"title":"The Gender- and Sexuality-Based Harms of Refugee Externalization: A Role for Human Rights Due Diligence","authors":"Anna Talbot, Anthea Vogl, Sara Dehm","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeae010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeae010","url":null,"abstract":"Refugee externalization arrangements are increasingly common in refugee-receiving global North States. Such arrangements have broad-ranging and significant human rights implications, especially (but not only) for refugee women and LGBTQI refugees who may be at increased risk of gender- or sexuality-based harm. This is particularly the case where refugees are placed in situations of risk or harm as a result of a ‘sending’ State’s extraterritorial regime, or where domestic laws in receiving States outlaw certain practices such as pregnancy termination or same-sex sexual activity. There has been limited scholarly analysis of the gendered impacts of externalization policies, and States rarely take into account the gendered implications of externalization when implementing these policies. This article examines the possibilities and limits of international human rights law to protect refugees at risk of gender- and sexuality-based harms through a focus on States’ positive due diligence obligations. While there is limited jurisprudence on the scope of such obligations in the context of refugee externalization, the article emphasizes that due diligence human rights obligations require sending States to adopt effective measures to protect people from unlawful discrimination and from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Due diligence obligations also offer a vital accountability mechanism for violations in extraterritorial settings through their potential preventative, remedial, and visibility functions. Using the case study of Australia’s extraterritorial asylum regime in the Pacific, the article argues that such obligations encompass identifying and addressing foreseeable risks of gender- and sexuality-based harm, both prior to forcibly transferring refugees abroad and on an ongoing basis. Further, it argues that the gender- and sexuality-based human rights impacts of Australia’s externalization regime have immediate and urgent relevance as other States consider or implement similar policies.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140811614","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}
The protection of women and girls fleeing gender-based harms has been controversial in the United States (US), with advances followed by setbacks. The US interpretation of particular social group and its nexus analysis, both of which diverge from guidance by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), is the most significant barrier to protection. It has become almost impossible for women and girls to rely upon the particular social group ground because of current requirements that social groups not only be defined by immutable or fundamental characteristics, but also be socially distinct and have particularity. Establishing nexus is also a significant obstacle, with the US requirement of proof of the persecutor’s intent. In the first month of his administration, President Biden issued an executive order on migration, which raised hopes that these obstacles to protection would be removed. The order committed to protecting survivors of domestic violence and to issuing regulations that would make the US interpretation of particular social group consistent with international standards. The target date for the regulations was November 2021, but they have yet to issue. This article examines how the evolution of the US interpretation of particular social group and nexus has diverged from UNHCR recommendations. It shows how protection has been denied in gender cases involving the most egregious of harms. The article concludes by providing recommendations for realignment with international standards, which set a benchmark for evaluating the promised Biden administration regulations on the issue.
{"title":"Aligning United States Law with International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims","authors":"Karen Musalo","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeae009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeae009","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The protection of women and girls fleeing gender-based harms has been controversial in the United States (US), with advances followed by setbacks. The US interpretation of particular social group and its nexus analysis, both of which diverge from guidance by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), is the most significant barrier to protection. It has become almost impossible for women and girls to rely upon the particular social group ground because of current requirements that social groups not only be defined by immutable or fundamental characteristics, but also be socially distinct and have particularity. Establishing nexus is also a significant obstacle, with the US requirement of proof of the persecutor’s intent. In the first month of his administration, President Biden issued an executive order on migration, which raised hopes that these obstacles to protection would be removed. The order committed to protecting survivors of domestic violence and to issuing regulations that would make the US interpretation of particular social group consistent with international standards. The target date for the regulations was November 2021, but they have yet to issue. This article examines how the evolution of the US interpretation of particular social group and nexus has diverged from UNHCR recommendations. It shows how protection has been denied in gender cases involving the most egregious of harms. The article concludes by providing recommendations for realignment with international standards, which set a benchmark for evaluating the promised Biden administration regulations on the issue.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140671819","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}
{"title":"Kaldor Centre Principles on Climate Mobility","authors":"Jane McAdam, Tamara Wood","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeae003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeae003","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140679311","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}
This article analyses the jurisprudence on domestic violence in international refugee and human rights law. It identifies and offers an original response to shortcomings in both bodies of law. Drawing on the work of Michelle Madden Dempsey, its focus is on domestic violence in its ‘strong’ sense: violence that sustains or perpetuates patriarchy. Decisions on women’s claims for international protection from domestic violence have generated strands of case law which contradict each other, as well as the Refugee Convention’s object and purpose. Decision makers have delineated overly restrictive social groups and ignored, identified, or imputed a range of political opinions. A disproportionate focus on ‘private’ motives has also obscured the nexus between persecution and the Convention ground(s). Similarly, issues left unresolved by the European Court of Human Rights have resulted in the European Convention on Human Rights’ prohibition of discrimination being applied inconsistently, and recently, not at all, in cases involving domestic violence. These deficiencies are traced to a lack of conceptual and legal clarity as to the nature of domestic violence. A response is offered that understands such violence as political and discriminatory. The article concludes by arguing that victims of domestic violence, properly understood, have experienced unlawful discrimination and are members of the ‘simple’ particular social group of ‘women’. It also answers calls within the literature for gender-sensitive approaches to the political opinion ground, offering an analysis that recognizes women’s resistance to violence, including in cases where commitments to gender equality are not expressed. Overall, the article contributes an improved understanding of domestic violence that could be relied on to ground principled decision making on discrimination, persecution, and the Convention grounds.
{"title":"Resisting Domestic Violence","authors":"Catherine Briddick","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eead032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead032","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the jurisprudence on domestic violence in international refugee and human rights law. It identifies and offers an original response to shortcomings in both bodies of law. Drawing on the work of Michelle Madden Dempsey, its focus is on domestic violence in its ‘strong’ sense: violence that sustains or perpetuates patriarchy. Decisions on women’s claims for international protection from domestic violence have generated strands of case law which contradict each other, as well as the Refugee Convention’s object and purpose. Decision makers have delineated overly restrictive social groups and ignored, identified, or imputed a range of political opinions. A disproportionate focus on ‘private’ motives has also obscured the nexus between persecution and the Convention ground(s). Similarly, issues left unresolved by the European Court of Human Rights have resulted in the European Convention on Human Rights’ prohibition of discrimination being applied inconsistently, and recently, not at all, in cases involving domestic violence. These deficiencies are traced to a lack of conceptual and legal clarity as to the nature of domestic violence. A response is offered that understands such violence as political and discriminatory. The article concludes by arguing that victims of domestic violence, properly understood, have experienced unlawful discrimination and are members of the ‘simple’ particular social group of ‘women’. It also answers calls within the literature for gender-sensitive approaches to the political opinion ground, offering an analysis that recognizes women’s resistance to violence, including in cases where commitments to gender equality are not expressed. Overall, the article contributes an improved understanding of domestic violence that could be relied on to ground principled decision making on discrimination, persecution, and the Convention grounds.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140597566","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}
The cornerstone of international refugee law is the principle of non-refoulement, which protects refugees, asylum seekers, and other persons with protection needs from being returned against their will to a place where they risk facing persecution or other fundamental rights violations. A person who is protected against refoulement may, however, return voluntarily. Determining when such returns are truly voluntary is an issue increasingly at the heart of discussions about the lawfulness of returns, including recently in the Lake Chad Basin, East Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Europe, and Australia. Today, there does not appear to be a generally agreed legal standard to determine when a return is truly voluntary. Likewise, international law does not define a clear line at which State action to ‘incentivize’ or ‘induce’ returns amounts to refoulement or an unlawful expulsion. However, recent publications by international law expert bodies and ensuing debate among States have provided some indications as to where international law stands on the issue and the direction in which it might develop. Thus, this article first examines the interplay between voluntary returns and the principle of non-refoulement. Secondly, it analyses recent positions taken by the International Law Commission and the United Nations Committee against Torture concerning legal limits on the measures that States may take to incentivize or induce returns. Thirdly, the article considers certain measures taken by States to incentivize or induce the ‘voluntary’ return of a person and indicates when such measures may amount to acts of coercion or force in violation of international law.
{"title":"Pushed to Breaking Point? The Prohibition of ‘Constructive’ or ‘Disguised’ Refoulement under International Law","authors":"Tilman Rodenhäuser","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeae006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeae006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The cornerstone of international refugee law is the principle of non-refoulement, which protects refugees, asylum seekers, and other persons with protection needs from being returned against their will to a place where they risk facing persecution or other fundamental rights violations. A person who is protected against refoulement may, however, return voluntarily. Determining when such returns are truly voluntary is an issue increasingly at the heart of discussions about the lawfulness of returns, including recently in the Lake Chad Basin, East Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Europe, and Australia.\u0000 Today, there does not appear to be a generally agreed legal standard to determine when a return is truly voluntary. Likewise, international law does not define a clear line at which State action to ‘incentivize’ or ‘induce’ returns amounts to refoulement or an unlawful expulsion. However, recent publications by international law expert bodies and ensuing debate among States have provided some indications as to where international law stands on the issue and the direction in which it might develop. Thus, this article first examines the interplay between voluntary returns and the principle of non-refoulement. Secondly, it analyses recent positions taken by the International Law Commission and the United Nations Committee against Torture concerning legal limits on the measures that States may take to incentivize or induce returns. Thirdly, the article considers certain measures taken by States to incentivize or induce the ‘voluntary’ return of a person and indicates when such measures may amount to acts of coercion or force in violation of international law.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140227033","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}
The European Union (EU) has historically been a proactive player in advancing equality between women and men, and fighting gender-based discrimination. The past two decades have also seen the EU becoming a major actor in asylum law, with several EU secondary law instruments and a large amount of case law in EU Member States relating to the application of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Yet, these two areas of EU legislation – gender equality and asylum – have yet to become consistently connected. Similarly, judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union addressing gender-related elements of asylum cases are scarce. Could the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention) help bridge the gap? The Istanbul Convention identifies gender-based violence as an extreme form of discrimination and contains a whole chapter dedicated to women in the context of migration. This article sheds light on the yet-to-be-realized potential of the Istanbul Convention to amplify the protective power of the Refugee Convention in the EU. While at present neither the Common European Asylum System, nor its new iteration in the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, fully meets the standards of the Istanbul Convention, it may be expected that the EU’s accession to the treaty will further encourage a gender-sensitive approach in EU asylum law. The Istanbul Convention may well be a game changer for the protection of female asylum seekers, and possibly also for asylum seekers with other gender identities.
{"title":"Gender in European Union Asylum Law: The Istanbul Convention as a Game Changer?","authors":"Catherine Warin","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeae004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeae004","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union (EU) has historically been a proactive player in advancing equality between women and men, and fighting gender-based discrimination. The past two decades have also seen the EU becoming a major actor in asylum law, with several EU secondary law instruments and a large amount of case law in EU Member States relating to the application of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Yet, these two areas of EU legislation – gender equality and asylum – have yet to become consistently connected. Similarly, judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union addressing gender-related elements of asylum cases are scarce. Could the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention) help bridge the gap? The Istanbul Convention identifies gender-based violence as an extreme form of discrimination and contains a whole chapter dedicated to women in the context of migration. This article sheds light on the yet-to-be-realized potential of the Istanbul Convention to amplify the protective power of the Refugee Convention in the EU. While at present neither the Common European Asylum System, nor its new iteration in the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, fully meets the standards of the Istanbul Convention, it may be expected that the EU’s accession to the treaty will further encourage a gender-sensitive approach in EU asylum law. The Istanbul Convention may well be a game changer for the protection of female asylum seekers, and possibly also for asylum seekers with other gender identities.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140152492","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}
Jürgen Bast, Pauline Endres de Oliveira, Janna Wessels
This article argues that the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) is not only a breakthrough for a rights-based approach in international migration governance but also an asset to the international protection system. By way of example, three key issues of the European Union’s (EU) Common European Asylum System are discussed: access to protection, reception conditions, and detention. These examples illustrate that faithfully implementing the Migration Compact would require the EU and its Member States to make significant changes in their asylum policy. The parallel emergence of the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) may suggest otherwise – namely, that the GCM is not relevant for refugees and other protection-seeking migrants. However, the legal construction that best serves the object and purpose of both documents is the assumption that the two Compacts have an overlapping scope of application. The GCM addresses specific protection needs of protection-seeking migrants who are not covered by the 1951 Refugee Convention, and it serves as an umbrella, strengthening the core human rights of migrants regardless of their status, including protection-seeking migrants. Hence, the GCM improves the international protection system as a whole and should be acknowledged as such.
{"title":"Enhancing the Rights of Protection-Seeking Migrants through the Global Compact for Migration: The Case of EU Asylum Policy","authors":"Jürgen Bast, Pauline Endres de Oliveira, Janna Wessels","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eead007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead007","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) is not only a breakthrough for a rights-based approach in international migration governance but also an asset to the international protection system. By way of example, three key issues of the European Union’s (EU) Common European Asylum System are discussed: access to protection, reception conditions, and detention. These examples illustrate that faithfully implementing the Migration Compact would require the EU and its Member States to make significant changes in their asylum policy. The parallel emergence of the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) may suggest otherwise – namely, that the GCM is not relevant for refugees and other protection-seeking migrants. However, the legal construction that best serves the object and purpose of both documents is the assumption that the two Compacts have an overlapping scope of application. The GCM addresses specific protection needs of protection-seeking migrants who are not covered by the 1951 Refugee Convention, and it serves as an umbrella, strengthening the core human rights of migrants regardless of their status, including protection-seeking migrants. Hence, the GCM improves the international protection system as a whole and should be acknowledged as such.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140099204","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}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：