The International Protection of Refugees and Asylum Seekers: the Role of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights

This book presents a comprehensive assessment of regional responses to the crisis in the asylum/refugee system and critically examines how different regions tackle the problem. The chapters consider the fundamental challenges which undermine an effective asylum process as well as regional difficulties with the various circumstances surrounding asylum seekers. With contributions on Africa, Europe, Latin America, South Asia and the Middle East, and the Pacific, the collection strives to appreciate what informs each region’s approach to the asylum process and asks if there are issues common to every region and if regions can learn from one another. The book seeks an understanding of the existing legal regime for the protection of asylum seekers and how regional institutions such as human rights commissions and regional courts enforce and adjudicate the law.

Refugees and Human Rights: The Future of International Protection in the UK

The global refugee crisis is raising profound questions for the future of international protection. This article, based on a talk given as part of Refugee Week 2015, offers reflections on the current debate. The need to internationalise the conversation is underlined. Although no one state can resolve the problems of the world, it is precisely in the response to the plight of the forcibly displaced that commitments to human rights and refugee protection are tested in practical terms. This article argues that the UK’s approach remains inadequate and problematic.

Right to asylum and border control : implications of european union policies on access to EU territory of people in need of international protection

Depuis plusieurs années, les États membres de l’Union européenne (UE) se soumettent à des politiques restrictives, en matière d’asile, qui les contraignent à respecter leur engagement de protéger les personnes qui fuient la persécution. Plusieurs politiques de dissuasion de l’UE sont controversées. Certaines ont d’abord été élaborées dans différents États, avant que l’UE ne mette en place une politique commune en matière d’asile. Certaines des ces politiques migratoires ont été copiées, et ont un effet négatif sur la transformation des procédures d’asile et du droit des réfugiés dans d’autres pays, tel le Canada. En raison des normes minimales imposées par la législation de l’UE, les États membres adoptent des politiques et instaurent des pratiques, qui sont mises en doute et sont critiquées par l’UNHCR et les ONG, quant au respect des obligations internationales à l'égard des droits de la personne. Parmi les politiques et les pratiques les plus critiquées certaines touchent le secteur du contrôle frontalier. En tentant de remédier à l’abolition des frontières internes, les États membres imposent aux demandeurs d’asile des barrières migratoires quasi impossibles à surmonter. Les forçant ainsi à s’entasser dans des centres de migration, au nord de l’Afrique, à rebrousser chemin ou encore à mourir en haute mer.

New Approaches, Alternative Avenues and Means of Access to Asylum Procedures for Persons Seeking International Protection. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 77/ January 2015

This study examines the workings of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), in order to assess the need and potential for new approaches to ensure access to protection for people seeking it in the EU, including joint processing and distribution of asylum seekers. Rather than advocating the addition of further complexity and coercion to the CEAS, the study proposes a focus on front-line reception and streamlined refugee status determination, in order to mitigate the asylum challenges facing Member States, and vindicate the rights of asylum seekers and refugees according to the EU acquis and international legal standards. Joint processing could contribute to front-line reception and processing capacity, but is no substitute for proper investment in national systems. The Dublin system as currently configured leads inexorably to increasing coercion and detention, and must thus be reconfigured to remove coercion as a principle and ensure consistency with human rights and other fundamental values of the EU.

International protection of works of art and historic monuments.

"English translation ... made from a revised text, published in 1939 and 1940, by the International Museums Office of the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation in the volumes, Art et Archéologie: Recueil de législation comparée et de droit international."

Access to protection for 'Offshore Entry Persons' aka asylum seekers

In 2001, amendments to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) made possible the offshore processing of protection claims. The same amendments also foreshadowed the processing of claims by ‘offshore entry persons’ in Australia according to non-statutory procedures. After disbanding offshore processing the then Rudd Labor Government commenced processing of protection claims by ‘offshore entry persons’ in Australia under the Refugee Status Assessment process (RSA). The RSA process sought to substitute well established legislative criteria for the grant of a protection visa, as interpreted by the courts, with administrative guidelines and decision-making immune from judicial review. This approach was rejected by the High Court in the cases M61 and M69. This article analyses these developments in light of Australia’s international protection obligations, as well as considering the practical obstacles that continue to confront offshore entry persons as they pursue judicial review of adverse refugee status determinations after the High Court’s decision.

La lutte au terrorisme international au Canada: panopticon ou banopticon ?

Depuis quelques années, mais surtout depuis le 11 septembre 2001, les contrôles migratoires sont devenus le locus principal d’affirmation du pouvoir souverain dans les pays occidentaux. La mouvance sécuritaire actuelle semble avoir donné les outils conceptuels nécessaires aux États pour leur permettre d’amalgamer des notions autrefois distinctes, comme la sécurité et l’immigration, et d’en inférer des liens qui paraissent désormais naturels et évidents aux yeux du public. Le Canada s’inscrit aussi dans cette mouvance où l’immigrant et l’étranger sont désormais pensés en relation avec l’illégalité, la criminalité et le sujet de non-droit. En pratique, cela se traduit par la mise en œuvre étatique d’un pouvoir souverain qui se manifeste clairement et ouvertement dans le cadre de contrôles migratoires de plus en plus serrés et contraignants. Ainsi, alimenté par la justification sécuritaire, par l’affect de la peur et par la nécessité de combattre le terrorisme international, le Canada applique ses lois et ses politiques de manière à exercer un contrôle accru sur sa population, plus particulièrement sur les migrants en général, mais encore davantage sur les demandeurs d’asile et les réfugiés soupçonnés de terrorisme. La mise en œuvre de pratiques restrictives à l’endroit des demandeurs d’asile et des réfugiés est facilitée par une conviction très tenace. À la lumière de son comportement, le gouvernement canadien semble convaincu que l’exclusion, l’expulsion, voire le refoulement, à l’extérieur du territoire national des personnes jugées être de potentiels terroristes, permettront de renforcer la sécurité nationale. Cette conviction est elle-même supportée par une autre, à savoir la croyance selon laquelle le pouvoir souverain d’exclure quelqu’un du territoire est absolu et, qu’en situation d’exception, il ne peut être limité d’aucune manière par le droit international. Suivant ceci, la lutte antiterroriste s’exécute presque exclusivement par le rejet des éléments potentiellement dangereux à l’extérieur du pays, au détriment d’autres mesures moins attentatoires des droits et libertés, plus légitimes et plus à même de remplir les objectifs liés à la lutte au terrorisme international. Dans notre étude, par une relecture d’une décision paradigmatique de la Cour suprême du Canada, l’affaire Suresh, nous chercherons à ébranler ces convictions. Notre thèse est à l’effet que la prétention du Canada à vouloir en arriver à un monde plus sécuritaire, en excluant d’une protection internationale contre la torture et en refoulant de potentiels terroristes à l'extérieur de son territoire, constitue une entreprise vouée à l’échec allant potentiellement à l’encontre des objectifs de lutte au terrorisme et qui se réalise présentement dans le déni de ses obligations internationales relatives aux droits de l’Homme et à la lutte contre l’impunité. Généralement, à la lumière d’une analyse de certaines obligations du Canada dans ces domaines, notre étude révélera trois éléments, ceux-ci se trouvant en filigrane de toute notre réflexion. Premièrement, le pouvoir souverain du Canada d’exclure des individus de son territoire n’est pas absolu. Deuxièmement, le droit d’une personne à obtenir protection non plus n’est pas absolu et des mécanismes d’équilibrage existant en droit international permettent de protéger les personnes tout en s’assurant que le Canada ne devienne pas un refuge pour les terroristes potentiels. Troisièmement, le Canada est astreint à d’autres obligations internationales. Celles-ci protègent les personnes exclues d’une protection et forcent le gouvernement à lutter contre l’impunité.

Current Challenges regarding the International Refugee Law, with focus on EU Policies and EU Co-operation with UNHCR. CEPS Paper on Liberty and Security in Europe No. 59, September 2013

From an examination of the instruments of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and related policy measures regarding border surveillance and migration management, two interrelated issues stand out as particularly sensitive: Access to asylum and responsibility for refugee protection. The prevailing view, supported by UNHCR and others, is that responsibility for the care of asylum seekers and the determination of their claims falls on the state within whose jurisdiction the claim is made. However, the possibility to shift that responsibility to another state through inter-state cooperation or unilateral mechanisms undertaken territorially as well as abroad has been a matter of great interest to EU Member States and institutions. Initiatives adopted so far challenge the prevailing view and have the potential to undermine compliance with international refugee and human rights law. This note reviews EU action in the field by reference to the relevant legal standards and best practices developed by UNHCR, focusing on the specific problems of climate refugees and access to international protection, evaluating the inconsistencies between the internal and external dimension of asylum policy. Some recommendations for the European Parliament are formulated at the end, including on action in relation to readmission agreements, Frontex engagement rules in maritime operations, Regional Protection Programmes, and resettlement.

The Second Phase of the Common European Asylum System: A Step Forward in the Protection of Asylum Seekers? IES WORKING PAPER 7/2013

The aim of this paper is to analyse what is the impact of the second phase of the creation of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) in the protection of rights of Asylum Seekers in the European Union. The establishment of a CEAS has been always a part of the development of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Its implementation was planned in two phases: the first one, focused on the harmonisation of internal legislation on minimum common standards; the second, based on the result of an evaluation of the effectiveness of the agreed legal instruments, should improve the effectiveness of the protection granted. The five instruments adopted between 2002 and 2005, three Directives, on Qualification, Reception Conditions and Asylum Procedures, and two Regulations, the so-called “Dublin System”, were subjected to an extensive evaluation and modification, which led to the end of the recasting in 2013. The paper discusses briefly the international obligations concerning the rights of asylum seekers and continues with the presentation of the legal basis of the CEAS and its development, together with the role of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in asylum matters. The research will then focus on the development in the protection of asylum seekers after the recasting of the legislative instruments mentioned above. The paper will note that the European standards result now improved, especially concerning the treatment of vulnerable people, the quality of the application procedure, the effectiveness of the appeal, the treatment of gender issues in decision concerning procedures and reception. However, it will be also highlighted that Member States maintained a wide margin of appreciation in many fields, which can lead to the compression of important guarantees. This margin concerns, for example, the access to free legal assistance, the definition of the material support to be granted to each applicant for international protection, the access to labour market, the application of the presumptions of the “safety” of a third country. The paper will therefore stress that the long negotiations that characterised the second phase of the CEAS undoubtedly led to some progress in the protection of Asylum Seekers in the EU. However, some provisions are still in open contrast with the international obligations concerning rights of asylum seekers, while others require to the Member State consider carefully its obligation in the choice of internal policies concerning asylum matters.

The role of legislative, executive and judicial mechanisms in ensuring a fair and effective asylum process

A good faith reading of core international protection obligations requires that states employ appropriate legislative, administrative and judicial mechanisms to ensure the enjoyment of a fair and effective asylum process. Restrictive asylum policies instead seek to ‘denationalize’ the asylum process by eroding access to national statutory, judicial and executive safeguards that ensure a full and fair hearing of an asylum claim. From a broader perspective, the argument in this thesis recognizes hat international human rights depend on domestic institutions for their effective implementation, and that a rights-based international legal order requires that power is limited, whether that power is expressed as an instance of the sovereign right of states in international law or as the authority of governments under domestic constitutions.

Climate Change and Human Displacement

This paper will focus on the legal issues associated with people displaced as a result of water scarcity. Human displacement can lead to internal displacement (displacement of people within their country) and external displacement (displacement of people into another country). If the displacement takes place as a result of climate change these people may be referred to as climate refugees. The majority of work on climate refugees has focused on those people that will lose their homes as a result of sea –level rise. The number of people that could be displaced as a result of prolonged drought and lack of adequate water supplies is likely to be far more significant in number. There are estimates that around 2.8 billion people will suffer water shortages by 2025 and many of these people are at increased risk of internal or external displacement. Certain groups are more likely to be displaced as a result of prolonged drought or water scarcity. These groups include indigenous and minorities groups living in areas that are more susceptible to climate change and groups living in areas with a history of water shortage and supply issues. People displaced as a result of water scarcity are at increased risks of malnutrition and of dehydration. Furthermore the lack of adequate water supplies in such areas increases the risk and spread of disease among the population. In certain instances internal and external displacement may lead to escalation of conflict and competition for water resources in newly settled territories. This paper will use case studies from Australia (indigenous groups and rural landholders) and East Africa (Ethiopia, Sudan and Kenya) to demonstrate the significance of human displacement arising as a result of water scarcity. Climate adaptation policy frameworks will need to address a number of legal issues, arising as a result of climate displacement from water scarcity. There are a number of unresolved legal issues for both categories of environmental displaced people. The major legal issue for externally environmentally displaced people is lack of international recognition and support for these people. The Climate Change Convention, the Refugee Convention, the Desertification Convention and Human Rights instruments all fail to provide recognition for people externally displaced as a result of environmental conditions. Similarly there is a lack of legal recognition and legal support mechanisms to assist those people internally displaced by environmental conditions. The lack of developed environmental rights in most countries contributes to this problem. Polices and governance frameworks must be put in place which aims to prevent such displacement through programs identifying populations at risk and instigating damage mitigation and relocation programs. In addition there are a number of legal issues which may arise such as; rights of compensation, property and tenure disputes, increases on the water demand and environmental degradation in places of relocation and jurisdictional issues arising in federal countries. This paper will provide an overview of the legal issues at the international and national levels arising as a result of climate displacement from water scarcity.