Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (38)
- Article (22)
- Working Paper (11)
- Book (7)
- Editorship book (1)
Language
- English (79)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (79)
Keywords
- Centre for Fundamental Rights (1)
- Displacement (1)
- IOM (1)
- International Protection (1)
- Refugee (1)
- UNHCR (1)
The chapter examines article 31 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention), the provision which purports to protect refugees from penalization for ‘illegal entry and stay’. The chapter draws on the previous work by the authors for UNHCR, including a review of national caselaw and practice on article 31 from over forty States. It reflects on the crucial role of the provision in safeguarding the right to seek asylum and argues that non-penalization constitutes one of the objects and purposes of the Refugee Convention. As a result, the chapter considers the distinct obligation on States to refrain from any acts frustrating the treaty’s object and purpose. Beyond article 31 of the Refugee Convention, the chapter explores international human rights law as a potentially wider source of protection. It examines whether the criminalization of irregular migration itself may be regarded as a human rights violation, thereby opening up a new avenue for legal research and advocacy. Finally, the chapter argues that aside from treaty obligations under international refugee and human rights law there is an emerging general principle of law relating to non-penalization of refugees and some other migrants.
Sports Law
(2002)
The Courts
(2001)
Developing countries account for a large majority of global refugee reception. 3.5 million out of Syria's 4 million refugees have sought refuge in three countries - Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Is it possible to achieve a fair distribution of protection seekers? This Delmi report examines the division of responsibilities for those in need of protection from a global perspective. It analyses past and present models and discusses its feasibility in practice.
The aim of this paper is to clarify the correct interpretation of Article 31 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the 1951 Refugee Convention). The interpretation proposed is based on the binding international precepts relating to treaty interpretation, as reflected in Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT).
The Asylum Procedures Directive in Legal Context: Equivocal Standards Meet General Principles
(2007)
ECHR and the European Union
(2004)
EU Asylum Law & Policy
(2004)
Irish and European Law
(2004)
Positive Action
(2003)
Sport & Equality
(2004)
Migration laws and controls distribute important social goods: the right to enter and reside in a particular state, and the rights that attach to any such residence. Migration controls determine individuals’ life chances, including sometimes, their very survival. Migration control is a broad concept. Some practices, such as visa administration, control the possibility of travel by regular means, dictating access to mobility opportunities. Other aspects of migration control, such as the conferral of nationality, determine access to permanent residence rights, and the legal ability to pass on membership of a particular state to one’s children. Some forms of migration control are automated and may also be undertaken by private actors, including for profit companies. Others may involve determination or adjudication by individual officials or judges. What unites this broad set of practices is that they comprise important public functions with profound implications for both “outsiders” and “insiders.” As Chandran Kukathas argues, migration controls pose a threat to equality within states, challenging the notion that these practices primarily affect imagined “outsiders.”1 Migration controls impact both “without” and “within” the state. This introductory essay explores discrimination in migration control and discusses how such treatment may be approached from an international legal perspective. We introduce the symposium’s contributors and essays and establish the need for further research on this topic.
This essay examines the interpretation of the core international treaty dedicated to the elimination of racial discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and in particular how the prohibition on race discrimination applies to the treatment of migrants. This essay is timely, as CERD has travelled from the margins of human rights law to the center of the hottest interstate lawfare. At the time of writing, the first ever interstate dispute before any UN treaty body is before the CERD Committee, and CERD has been invoked in several interstate cases before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Unfortunately, this crucible of adjudication has not marked an increase in principled interpretation. This essay critiques the recent admissibility ruling of the ICJ in Qatar v. U.A.E. for its marginalization of the prohibition of race discrimination, in particular the failure meaningfully to consider how nationality discrimination may constitute prohibited race discrimination.