UNHCR issues these Guidelines pursuant to its mandate, as contained in, inter alia, the Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, paragraph 8(a), in conjunction with Article 35 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and Article II of its 1967 Protocol. These Guidelines set out legal standards relevant for refugees to access decent work. They are intended to provide guidance to governments in developing and implementing legislation, policies and programmes regarding asylum and/or labour; and to decision-makers, including administrative and judicial bodies, in making decisions affecting refugees’ opportunities to access decent work. They also aim to assist other international and national entities, such as employers’ and workers’ organizations, trade unions, civil society and private sector organizations, and enterprises; and national human rights institutions; as well as UNHCR and other UN entities dealing with decent work for refugees. These Guidelines have been prepared in consultation with the International Labour Organization (ILO). The Guidelines are available online at: .
{"title":"UNHCR Guidelines on International Legal Standards relating to Decent Work for Refugees","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeac047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeac047","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 UNHCR issues these Guidelines pursuant to its mandate, as contained in, inter alia, the Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, paragraph 8(a), in conjunction with Article 35 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and Article II of its 1967 Protocol.\u0000 These Guidelines set out legal standards relevant for refugees to access decent work. They are intended to provide guidance to governments in developing and implementing legislation, policies and programmes regarding asylum and/or labour; and to decision-makers, including administrative and judicial bodies, in making decisions affecting refugees’ opportunities to access decent work. They also aim to assist other international and national entities, such as employers’ and workers’ organizations, trade unions, civil society and private sector organizations, and enterprises; and national human rights institutions; as well as UNHCR and other UN entities dealing with decent work for refugees.\u0000 These Guidelines have been prepared in consultation with the International Labour Organization (ILO).\u0000 The Guidelines are available online at: <https://www.refworld.org/docid/60e5cfd74.html>.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41465165","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":"Conclusion on International Protection and Durable Solutions in the Context of a Public Health Emergency","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeac045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeac045","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44105580","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 reassesses the impact of the concept of vulnerability as it emerges from the MSS v Belgium and Greece case of the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequent developments relating to the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. This examination is performed in light of the human rights principle of equality. The choice of the principle of equality is justified by frequent claims that vulnerability allows more substantive equality outcomes. Examining the concrete functions and consequences of the recourse to vulnerability in relation to refugees and asylum seekers in post-MSS judgments, the article argues that, in the European setting at least, vulnerability produces a set of negative consequences. More specifically, the article demonstrates that the deployment of the language of vulnerability results in the positioning of refugees and asylum seekers as passive recipients of benevolence rather than as active rights claimants, the introduction of additional layers of subjectively constructed stratification, and the erasure of the specificity of refugees’ and asylum seekers’ experience. It is contended that these negative consequences of deploying the concept of vulnerability can be mitigated if recourse to vulnerability is accompanied by a highly skilled technical discussion of the principles of substantive equality as they are known in international human rights law, including such aspects of substantive equality as structural discrimination and intersectionality.
{"title":"Reassessing the Relationship between Equality and Vulnerability in relation to Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the ECtHR: The MSS Case 10 Years On","authors":"Ekaterina Yahyaoui Krivenko","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeac027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeac027","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article reassesses the impact of the concept of vulnerability as it emerges from the MSS v Belgium and Greece case of the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequent developments relating to the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. This examination is performed in light of the human rights principle of equality. The choice of the principle of equality is justified by frequent claims that vulnerability allows more substantive equality outcomes. Examining the concrete functions and consequences of the recourse to vulnerability in relation to refugees and asylum seekers in post-MSS judgments, the article argues that, in the European setting at least, vulnerability produces a set of negative consequences. More specifically, the article demonstrates that the deployment of the language of vulnerability results in the positioning of refugees and asylum seekers as passive recipients of benevolence rather than as active rights claimants, the introduction of additional layers of subjectively constructed stratification, and the erasure of the specificity of refugees’ and asylum seekers’ experience. It is contended that these negative consequences of deploying the concept of vulnerability can be mitigated if recourse to vulnerability is accompanied by a highly skilled technical discussion of the principles of substantive equality as they are known in international human rights law, including such aspects of substantive equality as structural discrimination and intersectionality.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43284359","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}
In refugee matters concerning sexual orientation, ‘discretion’ reasoning is as commonplace as it is unlawful. In its 2013 ruling in X, Y, and Z, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) declared that it was unreasonable to expect that asylum seekers should conceal their sexual orientation by being ‘discreet’ in order to avoid persecution, and that such a requirement in domestic refugee status determination procedures would be incompatible with European Union (EU) law. However, this did not put an end to the matter. Discretion reasoning still forms part of the process to determine refugee status in many EU countries. This article examines the persistence of discretion reasoning, using Austria as an example. It argues that, whilst the CJEU definitively banned such reasoning, the court failed to give any indication as to how decision makers should proceed from this point. X, Y, and Z has thus created a legal vacuum, and there is a risk that normative sociocultural concepts like heteronormativity will be applied in such cases. Indeed, despite the CJEU ruling, it is still common in many societies to expect that LGBTIQ people be discreet. As such, decision makers may find themselves imposing a discretion requirement, even if unconsciously. The main aim of the article is to assess the resulting persistence of discretion reasoning through the lens of heteronormativity, and to provide practical suggestions for assessing refugee status in a way that ensures discretion is no longer required.
{"title":"Addressing Heteronormativity: The Not-So-Lost Requirement of Discretion in (Austrian) Asylum Law","authors":"Petra Sussner","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeac018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeac018","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In refugee matters concerning sexual orientation, ‘discretion’ reasoning is as commonplace as it is unlawful. In its 2013 ruling in X, Y, and Z, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) declared that it was unreasonable to expect that asylum seekers should conceal their sexual orientation by being ‘discreet’ in order to avoid persecution, and that such a requirement in domestic refugee status determination procedures would be incompatible with European Union (EU) law. However, this did not put an end to the matter. Discretion reasoning still forms part of the process to determine refugee status in many EU countries. This article examines the persistence of discretion reasoning, using Austria as an example. It argues that, whilst the CJEU definitively banned such reasoning, the court failed to give any indication as to how decision makers should proceed from this point. X, Y, and Z has thus created a legal vacuum, and there is a risk that normative sociocultural concepts like heteronormativity will be applied in such cases. Indeed, despite the CJEU ruling, it is still common in many societies to expect that LGBTIQ people be discreet. As such, decision makers may find themselves imposing a discretion requirement, even if unconsciously. The main aim of the article is to assess the resulting persistence of discretion reasoning through the lens of heteronormativity, and to provide practical suggestions for assessing refugee status in a way that ensures discretion is no longer required.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42132265","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}
In January 2020, against the backdrop of the Mediterranean refugee crisis, Greece announced its intention to install a floating barrier in the maritime passage between Turkey and Lesvos as a measure to deter the flow of asylum seekers arriving by sea. This article analyses the implications and assesses the legality of installing a floating barrier in light of the law of the sea, human rights law, and refugee law.
{"title":"Building Walls at Sea: An Assessment of the Legality of the Greek Floating Barrier","authors":"D. F. Georgoula","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeac021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeac021","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In January 2020, against the backdrop of the Mediterranean refugee crisis, Greece announced its intention to install a floating barrier in the maritime passage between Turkey and Lesvos as a measure to deter the flow of asylum seekers arriving by sea. This article analyses the implications and assesses the legality of installing a floating barrier in light of the law of the sea, human rights law, and refugee law.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49218580","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}
Unaccompanied children seeking international protection often find themselves with forms of discretionary, time-limited, or otherwise uncertain legal status in countries outside their own. This may be due to the available options for legal status or to long delays in determination of protection claims, among other factors. While the legal and policy reasons for this vary, of particular concern is the imposition of such uncertainty to discourage children from persisting with protection claims, to deter others from arriving, to delay status resolution until adulthood, or to facilitate removal. Children possessing a legal status that is insecure or uncertain may be described as being in ‘legal limbo’. This article explores this issue and examines the often deleterious consequences of limbo for unaccompanied children. Through an analysis and comparison of Australia and the United Kingdom, it explains ‘legal limbo’ as a function of States’ desire to deter, control, and punish irregular migration. This article argues that an approach based on rights, as opposed to migration control, must guide the availability of secure legal status to unaccompanied children. To this end, it articulates the basis of an obligation to provide these children such status, drawing on their rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and on the commentary of treaty bodies. The article concludes by calling for better pathways to permanent stay for unaccompanied children.
{"title":"Unaccompanied Children in Limbo: The Causes and Consequences of Uncertain Legal Status","authors":"Joseph Lelliott","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeac024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeac024","url":null,"abstract":"Unaccompanied children seeking international protection often find themselves with forms of discretionary, time-limited, or otherwise uncertain legal status in countries outside their own. This may be due to the available options for legal status or to long delays in determination of protection claims, among other factors. While the legal and policy reasons for this vary, of particular concern is the imposition of such uncertainty to discourage children from persisting with protection claims, to deter others from arriving, to delay status resolution until adulthood, or to facilitate removal. Children possessing a legal status that is insecure or uncertain may be described as being in ‘legal limbo’. This article explores this issue and examines the often deleterious consequences of limbo for unaccompanied children. Through an analysis and comparison of Australia and the United Kingdom, it explains ‘legal limbo’ as a function of States’ desire to deter, control, and punish irregular migration. This article argues that an approach based on rights, as opposed to migration control, must guide the availability of secure legal status to unaccompanied children. To this end, it articulates the basis of an obligation to provide these children such status, drawing on their rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and on the commentary of treaty bodies. The article concludes by calling for better pathways to permanent stay for unaccompanied children.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":"19 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138510103","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}
D. Cantor, N. Tan, M. Gkliati, Elizabeth Mavropoulou, K. Allinson, Sreetapa Chakrabarty, Maja Grundler, Lynn Hillary, Emilie McDonnell, Riona Moodley, Stephen E. Phillips, Annick Pijnenburg, Adel-Naim Reyhani, Sophia Soares, Natasha Yacoub
{"title":"Externalisation, Access to Territorial Asylum, and International Law","authors":"D. Cantor, N. Tan, M. Gkliati, Elizabeth Mavropoulou, K. Allinson, Sreetapa Chakrabarty, Maja Grundler, Lynn Hillary, Emilie McDonnell, Riona Moodley, Stephen E. Phillips, Annick Pijnenburg, Adel-Naim Reyhani, Sophia Soares, Natasha Yacoub","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeac023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeac023","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43704637","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":"Refugee Law Initiative Declaration on Externalisation and Asylum","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeac022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeac022","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45638172","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":"Clamouring for Legal Protection: What the Great Books Teach Us About People Fleeing from Persecution","authors":"S. Behrman","doi":"10.1093/ijrl/eeac031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeac031","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41862758","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：