Parliamentary Sovereignty,Judges and the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Bill

It is an aspect of the traditional view of Parliamentary sovereignty that the courts will not rule as invalid an Act of Parliament, or any part of an Act, which has been passed in the correct fashion. This view has been questioned by some, including some senior judges. They argue that certain limits on the legislative competence of Parliament are necessary to protect those fundamental values that are essential in a democracy. Many who argue for limits to the legislative competence of Parliament also suggest that the relationship between the different arms of the government is one based on mutual respect, restraint and co-operation. If Parliament legislates in such a way as to breach this mutuality, and in a way that will cause conflict between Parliament and the courts, then, it is suggested, the courts may reply in kind by holding that legislation, or part of it, invalid. It is argued here that in the recent quarrel between the Government and the courts over the ouster clause contained in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill 2003, the Government was encouraged to undertake to amend the legislation as a result, at least in part, of intimations by senior judges that the clause could be overruled by the courts. This demonstrates, it is argued, that both sides believed this threat to have some force.Lecturer in Law, Department of Law and Criminology, Edge Hill College of Higher Education. Email: mcgarryj@edgehill.ac.uk. I am grateful to Kas Wachala and Maggi Eastwood for their comments on earlier drafts of this article. Any errors remain my own.     

Explaining the Divergence in Asylum Grant Rates among Immigration Judges: An Attitudinal and Cognitive Approach

In seeking to understand the variation in asylum grant rates by immigration judges (IJs), we apply a variation of the attitudinal model that we modify by incorporating a cognitive model of decision making, arguing that some pieces of information before IJs are treated objectively while others are treated subjectively. This model allows us to account for informational cues that influence decisions while assessing the impact of national interests and human rights conditions. We find that IJ policy predispositions play a dominant role, and that liberal IJs respond to applicant characteristics differently than conservatives, but also that the law constrains decision making.     

The Contradictions of Immigration Lawmaking: The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

This paper argues that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is a composite of contradictory measures. On one hand, employer sanctions are meant to curtail the employment of undocumented workers and preserve the U.S. labor market for legal residents and citizens; on the other hand, special foreign worker programs are designed to enhance the supply of immigrant workers. In an effort to make sense of these contradictions, the author places the legislation in historical context and proposes a dialectical model of immigration policymaking.     

论我国移民、非法移民概念的界定

我国现行法律、法规中没有关于移民、非法移民的相关规定,学界的相关研究也大多是研究中国作为移民输出国的移民问题,涉及中国作为移民输入国的移民问题,特别是其中非法移民问题的成果少见。研究我国外来非法移民的相关问题,必须从法律上界定“非法移民”的概念,这就必须首先界定”移民”的概念;同时,还必须进一步理解“非法移民”与“三非人员”、“难民”等相关概念的关系。     

The Social Partners and the Governance Agenda

Since Maastricht, the EC Treaty and the Community institutions have envisaged a substantial role for the social partners in law and policy making in the EU and at national and subnational level, with a view to helping legitimise and democratise governance in the social policy field. This paper begins by examining the evolving role of the social partners. It then considers why such emphasis has been placed on including the social partners in the governance of the EU and the weaknesses and paradoxes underlying the traditional justifications for their involvement. It then argues that such a negative conclusion may be inevitable when judged against standards developed in the context of the nation state. It concludes by considering whether, in the special circumstances of the European Union, a different approach to assessing legitimacy should be used, based on a more procedural version of democracy, which emphasises participation and deliberation.     

Asylum seekers and informed consent--European perspective

For centuries, people of various nationalities from various States have sought asylum for varied reasons. These people seeking asylum can need medical care in the host country. In this article I would like to discuss to what extent informed consent is needed, and to what extent informed consent must be sought. The problem is discussed from the perspective of European international documents, mainly on those of the Council of Europe.     

Human Rights, Refugees, and The Right 'To Enjoy' Asylum

Increasingly hard-line and restrictive asylum policies and practicesof many governments call into question the scope of protectionsoffered by the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.Has the focus on the 1951 Convention been to the detriment andsubordination of other rights and standards of treatment owedto refugees and asylum-seekers under international human rightslaw? Which standard applies in the event that there is a clashor inconsistency between the two bodies of law? In analysingthe interface between international refugee law and internationalhuman rights law, this article looks at the right to familylife and the right to work. Through this examination, contentand meaning is offered to the almost forgotten component ofthe right ‘to enjoy’ asylum in Article 14(1) ofthe Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.