| 1. |
- Kjaerum, Morten
(författare)
-
Temporary Protection in Europe in the 1990s
- 1994
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Refugee Law. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0953-8186 .- 1464-3715. ; 6:3, s. 444-456
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 2. |
- Kjaerum, Morten
(författare)
-
The Concept of Country of First Asylum
- 1992
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Refugee Law. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0953-8186 .- 1464-3715. ; 4:4, s. 514-530
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 3. |
- Noll, Gregor
(författare)
-
Junk Science? Four Arguments Against the Radiological Age Assessment of Unaccompanied Minors Seeking Asylum
- 2016
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Refugee Law. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1464-3715 .- 0953-8186. ; 28:2, s. 234-250
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Should radiological age assessment be considered as a means of alleviating thedoubts of a decision maker in the asylum procedure? The present article addressesthis question through a number of steps. First, it questions whether the use of radiologicalimaging methods in the age assessment of unaccompanied adolescents seekingasylum complies with the internal norms of the forensic science community. Itdoes not. Secondly, the article considers whether the use of these methods is scientificallyauthoritative according to the current state of the art in forensic medicineand traumatology. It is not. Thirdly, the article asks whether their use sufficientlysafeguards against a particular kind of communicative error between decision makersand experts. It does not. The article shows that properly understood advice from amedical expert who takes into account the scientific issues enumerated in this articlecan never dispel doubt about an applicant’s age. According to article 25(5) of theEuropean Union (EU) recast Asylum Procedures Directive, this prevailing doubt willautomatically trigger the assumption that the applicant is a child, which is the article’sfourth and final argument.
|
|
| 4. |
- Reyhani, Adel-Naim, et al.
(författare)
-
The Limits of Static Interests : Appreciating Asylum Seekers' Contributions to a Country's Economy in Article 8 ECHR Adjudication on Expulsion
- 2021
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Refugee Law. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0953-8186 .- 1464-3715. ; 33:1, s. 3-27
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article critiques the European Court of Human Rights' approach towards assessing asylum seekers' right to respect for private and family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of their expulsion. In balancing the right of the individual against the public interest, it is argued that the court's case law follows a static perspective. The rigidly defined assumption that the public interest lies in enforcing migration control and that the societal contributions of asylum seekers cannot influence the strength of the public interest is prevalent in jurisprudence yet underexplored in scholarship. The article uses the case of asylum seekers who contribute to a country's economy to demonstrate that the court currently fails to appreciate the interdependence between these interests. It then suggests a path by which the court's approach might be adjusted towards more nuance, ultimately allowing the contributions of asylum seekers to European communities to be appropriately reflected in legal determinations.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Stoyanova, Vladislava
(författare)
-
How Exceptional Must ‘Very Exceptional’ Be? Non-Refoulement, Socio-Economic Deprivation and Paposhvili V. Belgium
- 2018
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Refugee Law. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0953-8186 .- 1464-3715. ; 29:4, s. 580-616
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Since N. v. the United Kingdom, an exceptionally high threshold has been applied to migrants who try to avoid expulsion in order to continue to receive medical assistance in the returning state. With Paposhvili v. Belgium, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR recognized the ensuing protection gap and modified the standards. These modifications imply a small opening of the ‘very exceptional’ standard to the effect that risk of imminent death is no longer the threshold, but rather ‘a serious, rapid and irreversible decline’ in the migrant’s health upon removal. The Court clarified the factors to be considered for evaluating the development of the migrant’s health condition in case of expulsion. These factors, together with the requirement for seeking ‘individual and sufficient assurances’ that care will be provided from the receiving state as a precondition for removal, channel the evaluation of the risk towards a more careful consideration of the individual circumstances of the specific migrant. Despite these promising developments, the underlying reasoning in the non-refoulement medical cases under Article 3 of the ECHR remains riddled with inconsistencies and questionable premises. These relate to the framing by the Court of the obligation not to refoule as a negative obligation, a frame which the Court explicitly adopted for the first time. This frame is, however, difficult to reconcile with the ‘very exceptional’ standard as underpinned by the distinction between ‘natural’ sources of harm and intentionally-inflicted harm. It is also disturbing that Paposhvili v. Belgium reflects a move in favor of procedural protection and a sidelining of substantive protection at the European level.
|
|
| 7. |
- Stoyanova, Vladislava
(författare)
-
The Right to Leave any Country and the Interplay between Jurisdiction and Proportionality in Human Rights Law
- 2020
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Refugee Law. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0953-8186 .- 1464-3715. ; 32:3, s. 403-439
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article shows the importance in human rights law of the right to leave any country, particularly in the light of increasing efforts by European countries of destination to prevent departures, and to contain movement by enrolling countries of origin and transit to act as gatekeepers. The article highlights the autonomous nature of the right and clarifies the challenges in triggering its application. The opposability of the right to countries of destination is explored, which requires clarifying the difficulties in meeting the jurisdictional threshold in human rights law, and the complications in operationalizing the proportionality test under this qualified right. The article explains the interplay between these difficulties. It argues that the jurisdictional threshold expresses a political and legal relationship between the duty-bearer (the state) and the right-holders (the individuals). This relationship enables the operationalization of the substantive analysis as to whether measures limiting rights are in accordance with the law and are proportionate.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Folkelius, Kristina, et al.
(författare)
-
Affirmative Exclusion? Sex, Gender, Persecution and the Reformed Swedish Aliens Act
- 1998
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Refugee Law. - 0953-8186. ; 10:4, s. 607-636
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The revised version of the Swedish Aliens Act contains a specific category providing protection for persons who fear persecution on account of their sex. Benefits afforded under this category, however, fall short of those under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In order to evaluate this novelty, the following article explores the conceptual differences between sex and gender as well as the ensuing consequences for a discussion of legal protection. Closer analysis reveals that the newly introduced category suffers from a linguistic ambiguity as well as a systematic fallacy. Cases involving sex-related methods of persecution could be regularly brought in under the 1951 Convention or prominent human rights instruments. As the 1951 Convention, on the one hand, and ECHR50 and CAT84, on the other, are mirrored in two Swedish protection categories, an additional provision simply serves no constructive purpose and must be regarded as superfluous. Finally, the authors explore whether the Swedish solution takes due account of legal norms proscribing discrimination. They conclude that equal enjoyment of asylum and protection is impaired by the inferior protection offered under the newly introduced category, when compared to other, more favourable categories. As the effects of the new category fall under the definition in article 1 CEDW79, its introduction in 1997 is to be interpreted as a breach of Sweden's obligations under article 2(a) CEDW79, namely, with respect to its duty to ensure through law the practical realisation of the principle of equality of men and women. It follows that Sweden is required to change the Aliens Act in an appropriate manner under article 2(f) CEDW79, providing for the modification or abolition of discriminatory legislation.
|
|
| 10. |
- Giuffré, Mariagiulia
(författare)
-
State responsibility beyond borders: what legal basis for Italy's push-backs to Libya?
- 2012
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Refugee Law. - 0953-8186. ; 24:4, s. 692-734
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article takes Italy’s widely-debated 2009 push-backs to Libya campaign as a point of reference to address whether bilateral agreements for technical and police cooperation provide the legal foundation for the forced return of intercepted refugees to countries of embarkation. Through a detailed analysis of both the facts and the texts of the published and unpublished bilateral accords, it concludes that, although push-backs do not have a clear legal basis, the agreements between Italy and Libya constitute a fundamental component of the multifaceted legal and political framework underpinning Italy’s practice of interdiction and return. Moreover, by entrusting a non-EU third country with the authority and legal competence for the maritime operations, bilateral agreements for migration control may distance the responsibility (for international wrongful acts) of the outsourcing state. Migrants and refugees are autonomously intercepted by the third country in international waters, or in its coastal waters, before their arrival at the EU’s gateways. By venturing into the labyrinth of state responsibility in general international law, this article considers Italy’s possible liability for ‘aiding and assisting’ Libya, in a variety of ways, in the unlawful containment of irregular migration by sea and the resulting refoulement of intercepted refugees.
|
|
