| 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. |
|
|
