Gender-Related Refugee Claims: Expanding the Scope of the Canadian Guidelines

In 1993 the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada adoptedguidelines entitled ‘Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-RelatedPersecution’. The Guidelines represent a cutting edgeapproach and have helped to guarantee a refugee determinationprocess for women refugees that is more sensitive to gender-relatedclaims of asylum. However, the author demonstrates that theconcept of gender-based persecution, as it is presently defined,makes it difficult for members of the Board to systematicallyevaluate all types of gender-related persecution, to which certainmen and women are subjected. The author examines asylum claimsbased on sexual orientation and identity, as well as those basedon persecution specifically inflicted upon men, and argues thatthe gender-specific analytical framework adopted by the Immigrationand Refugee Board is relevant to these cases. The author concludesthat change is needed in the form of a more clearly definedsocial constructionist interpretation of gender. Clearly, defining‘gender’ as a socially constructed concept wouldreveal the gender-specific factors that interfere with the rightsof certain men and would make more visible the links betweengender and other causes of persecution, like sexual orientation.     

International Law and Detention of US Asylum Seekers: Contrasting Matter of D-J- with the United Nations Refugee Convention

US refugee law reflects an ever-increasing conception that theapplication of international standards would constitute an unacceptablerisk to national security. CSR Article 31(2)’s requirementthat refugees ‘shall not’ be detained unless ‘necessary’appears among the chief casualties of such suspicions. US jurisprudenceremains strikingly devoid of reference to Article 31, and 2003’sMatter of D-J- is a prime example. D-J- was an administrativedecision in which the US Attorney General held that nationalsecurity required all US asylum seekers who successfully arrivevia boat must be subject to mandatory detention throughout thecourse of removal proceedings. Despite US accession to the Protocol,Article 31(2) was not mentioned. This article explores what might have happened to D-J- if theRefugee Convention had indeed been applied to his case. Utilizingthe international methodology for treaty interpretation, itapplies Article 31(2) to various aspects of the Attorney General'sdecision. Part 2 argues that under the Supreme Court's CharmingBetsy rule, statutory discretion to detain must be interpretedconsistently with US international obligations. Part 3 concludesthat Article 31(2) of the Refugee Convention grants asylum seekersa right to release whenever their detention is not ‘necessary’.Part 4 proposes a three-part ‘pyramid’ approachto explain the elemental phases of the decision to detain anasylum seeker and examines necessity at each stage. Finally,Part 5 discusses Article 31(2)’s implications regardingevidence and proportion. The premise throughout is that, hadit been applied, the Refugee Convention could have protectedthe interests of both D-J- and ‘national security’.     

'States Should Not Impose Penalties on Arriving Asylum-Seekers'

[17/03/2008] A minimum of solidarity with those oppressed isto receive them when they are forced to flee. The ‘rightto seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution’is indeed a key provision in the Universal Declaration of HumanRights. Sadly, this right is not fully observed in parts ofEurope today. Instead, refugees are met with suspicion and toooften even placed in detention. It has to be repeated that some of those who seek to enter Europehave well-founded fear of persecution. They are under threatbecause of their ethnicity, religion, nationality, politicalopinion or membership of a particular social group. Some ofthem have already suffered serious ill-treatment in their countryof origin. They are refugees     

Between Immigration and Policing: Cross Recognition

Abstract: This article looks at the development of the UK's policies towards asylum‐seekers who are to be returned to some country other than the one where they fear persecution (its ‘safe third country’ policy). The Dublin Convention of 1990 addressed some of the problems which this policy created, but left others unresolved. Domestic legislation has progressively reduced the opportunities for challenging safe third‐country removals, especially to an EU state. The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law has generated new possibilities for challenging safe third‐country decisions where removal might damage physical or mental health. Articles 3 and 8 have been invoked in particular. The Dublin machinery established ‘rules’ to decide which member state was responsible for considering the asylum claim and the procedure to be followed. The article examines why the UK courts have said that these provisions are not justiciable in the English courts. Finally the article considers whether the experience with Dublin provides any useful guidance as to the approach that will be taken to European arrest warrants and extradition requests.     

Shadows in Paradise - Exploring Non-Refoulement as an Open Concept

The principle of non-refoulement contains a paradox. While stateshave committed to respecting the principle by joining the 1951Refugee Convention and key human rights conventions, its contentis not established in international law. In other words, stateshave committed to a principle the content of which is indeterminate.Since no common definition exists, in practice, national andinternational bodies have extensive powers of discretion togive content to the terms ‘persecution’, ‘torture’,‘degrading’ or ‘cruel’ treatment. Thepurpose of this article is to explore non-refoulement as anopen and ambiguous concept. Acknowledgement of the indeterminacyis important, as open concepts never remain such in practicebut are always issued with content or interpreted. This approachcalls for a further question: how do interpretations come aboutand what kind of factors influence them? The conclusion of thearticle is that different national and international actorspromote their own ‘correct’ interpretations of thiskeystone of refugee protection.     

Neither Here Nor There: Temporary Admission to the UK

This article considers the lacunae in international and Europeanlaw for the protection of those who do not, or do not yet, havetheir refugee status recognised, or whose claim for asylum hasbeen refused. It examines the position of such people in theUK, where they are ‘temporarily admitted’ underprovisions of the general immigration legislation. This meansthat although their physical presence is recognised and notunlawful, they are legally considered not to have entered thecountry. Whilst historically this was a favourable positionthat might itself often lead to naturalisation, the legal positionof those on temporary admission has changed rapidly and drasticallyover the past decade as rights to work and to social securityhave been withdrawn and a programme of mass detention instigated.These developments have in turn led to attempts by those ontemporary admission to use international and European law toattain or reinstate rights and to resist removal. This articleexamines the changes to UK law and policy since the first primarylegislation dealing with asylum in 1993, in the light of internationaland European law, and suggests that they will lead a new categoryof undocumented sans-papiers in the UK.     

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.     

Asylum Claims and Drug Offences: the Seriousness Threshold of Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the UN Drug Conventions

Asylum claims lodged by individuals who were involved in drugactivities prior to their entry into the country of asylum raisecomplex questions as to whether they have committed a seriousnon-political crime under Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Conventionand thus shall be excluded from refugee protection. The 1988 UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugsand Psychotropic Substances (Trafficking Convention) —which is the relevant international framework for drugs in thefield of international criminal law — indiscriminatelyconsiders all forms of supply related drug offences as ‘seriouscriminal offences’, irrespective of individual criminalresponsibility. This conflicts with the complex nature of thedrug industry particularly in countries affected by armed conflictand proportionality considerations inherent to Article 1F(b). Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treatiesprovide a possibility to reconcile the ambiguous wording ofthe Trafficking convention with Article 1F(b) by means of interpretation.Offences for personal consumption as the least serious drugoffences do not reach the seriousness threshold of Article 1F(b).Trafficking offences in turn attain the seriousness thresholdonly if aggravating circumstances prevail over mitigating circumstances,and if there are no grounds for rejecting individual responsibilityor defenses to criminal liability. International, large-scaleactivities carried out by transnational organized criminal groupsare factors that make drug offences most serious.     

The Decline and Decay of European Refugee Policy

This article challenges the view, implicit in much current researchon EU migration and asylum policy, that supranationalizationis a self-evident antidote to the exclusionary and securitizedmigration policy that has been enacted through inter-governmentalcooperation. It does so by treating supranationalization asan open question in need of empirical scrutiny. To develop thisthesis, it undertakes not only a critique of the current developmentstowards supranational policies, but also of the inter-governmentalpolicy-making system, pursuing a broad brush historical assessmentup to and beyond Amsterdam, with the aim of bringing fresh andfurther insights into the future development of EU asylum policy.It concludes that the current aims are less to do with the establishmentof a common European asylum system and more to do with reducingimmigration pressure and compensating for the perceived lossesof internal security in the wake of full freedom of movementinside the Union. Communitarization will not necessarily occursimply because the European Union is intent upon institutingever stricter immigration controls. Communitarization is doggedby the legacy of intensive trans-governmentalism. In particular,the British, Danish and Irish governments have only been preparedto support communitarization so long as they could have separateprotocols that legitimized their non-participation. The UK andIreland have opted into all proposals on asylum, illegal migrationand civil law but have opted out of practically all proposalsconcerning visas, borders, and legal migration. The securitarianframe still predominates and trans-governmentalism refuses todie. In January 2005, following the agreement on The Hague programme,there was change in decision-making rules from unanimous votingto Qualified Majority Vote (QMV) in the European Council andco-decision with the European Parliament. Yet, there is no guaranteethis will bring about more liberal asylum rules, as is clearfrom the ‘Schengen Borders Code’ which was agreedin June 2005. This is because European migration policy hasalways been fraught with internal contradictions, which haveyet to be resolved. Accordingly, the emergence of a rights-respectingmodel of asylum law based on the Geneva Convention 1951 remainsa distant dream.     

The Use and Misuse of 'National Security' Rationale in Crafting U.S. Refugee and Immigration Policies

Since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, U.S. immigrationand refugee policy has developed based on narrow and evolvingtheories of ‘national security’. Immigration reformlegislation, federal regulations, and administrative policychanges have been justified in terms of the nation's safety.On 1 March 2003, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service(INS) was folded into the massive new U.S. Department of HomelandSecurity (DHS), formally making immigration a homeland defenseconcern. Counterterror and immigration experts increasingly agree onwhat constitute effective and appropriate immigration policyreforms in light of the terrorist threat. Unfortunately, manyof the post-September 11 policy changes do little to advancepublic safety and violate the rights of refugees and asylumseekers. These include reductions in refugee admissions, thecriminal prosecution of asylum seekers, the blanket detentionof Haitians, and a safe third-country asylum agreement betweenthe United States and Canada. Other measures offend basic rightsand may undermine counterterror efforts. These include ‘preventive’arrests, closed deportation proceedings, and ‘call-in’registration programs. This article reviews post-September 11 U.S. policy developmentsbased on their impact on migrant rights and their efficacy ascounterterror measures. It argues for a more nuanced and rigoroussense of ‘national security’ in crafting refugeeand immigration policy.     

The Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) represents a sui generisinternational tribunal on various levels. It is the first timea treaty-based Tribunal has been established through a resolutionof the Security Council adopted under Chapter VII. A furtherunique feature is its sole dependence on domestic substantivecrimes. The attempt to include crimes against humanity in theStatute did not succeed, despite the fact that the elementsof a crime against humanity seem to be discernable in the conductthat falls within the jurisdiction of the STL. References tointernational and regional terrorism instruments, such as theArab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism, were alsoabandoned. The Tribunal will rely on Lebanese criminal provisionsregarding terrorism, illicit associations, crimes and offencesagainst life and personal integrity. Lebanese law provides anold but concrete definition of terrorism. This raises the questionof whether the Lebanese definition, with its strengths and weaknesses,could assist in the evolution of a well-structured definitionof international terrorism. The possibility of ‘internationalizing’the Lebanese definition will depend on two factors: the judges’approach in adopting the Tribunal's rules of evidence and procedure,and then more importantly their creativity in developing thejurisprudence of the Tribunal.     

The Legal Status of Afghan Refugees in Pakistan, a Story of Eight Agreements and Two Suppressed Premises

Over 25 per cent of present day refugees enjoy asylum in Pakistan,most of them having been there for more than a quarter of acentury. Pakistan is not, however, a party to either the 1951Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or the 1967 Protocolrelating to the Status of Refugees. The legal status of theAfghan refugees it hosts is therefore not a foregone conclusion,even though they were considered to be refugees on a prima faciebasis during the first two decades of their exile in Pakistan.This article identifies the legal status of the Afghan refugeeson the basis of a series of agreements Pakistan concluded withUNHCR and also occasionally with Afghanistan. By virtue of thelast of the series of agreements, Afghan refugees can returnto Afghanistan under a UNHCR-assisted voluntary repatriationprogramme until December 2009. In view of the fact that allAfghans have been granted leave to stay in Pakistan until thesame date, many are expected to stay in Pakistan rather thanreturn with the assistance of UNHCR. Unlike the preceding agreements,the last one does not address the fate of those who will stillbe in Pakistan upon completion of the voluntary repatriationprogramme. It seems therefore imperative to identify the legalstatus and corresponding entitlements of the Afghan refugees.It is argued that the prima facie recognition of refugee statuscan be sustained on the basis of the agreements referred to.In addition it is argued that the current ‘profiling’exercise of UNHCR, even while presumably beneficial for themost vulnerable refugees, is irreconcilable with the statusand entitlements of the Afghan refugees, and the same holdstrue with respect to the usual practice of ‘screening’those refugees who have opted not to return under a voluntaryrepatriation programme. An alternative that would be reconcilableis a collective cessation of refugee status if and when thesituation in the country of origin so warrants, provided individualrefugees may contest this.     

The Creativity of the European Court of Human Rights

This article discusses the creative role adopted by the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights in the face of situations not envisagedby the drafters of the European Convention in the late 1940s,resulting from the inevitable evolution of societies and theirchanging ethical standards. Although the Vienna Convention onthe Law of Treaties 1969 is a constant source of inspirationto the Court for the interpretation of the Convention, the articlepoints to two new techniques of interpretation adopted by theCourt, namely the ‘living instrument’ doctrine andthe ‘practical and effective’ doctrine. An attemptis made to highlight the advantages and the weaknesses of bothof these innovative interpretational approaches. Additionally,an assessment is made of how the Court has responded to present-daydemands and maintained a balance between judicial creativityand respect for the role of member States as the key policy-makersin determining the scope of rights guaranteed by the Convention.     

Law's Legitimacy and 'Democracy-Plus'

Is it the case that the law, in order to be fully legitimate,must not only be adopted in a procedurally correct way but mustalso comply with certain substantive values? In the first partof the article I prepare the ground for the discussion of legitimacyof democratic laws by considering the relationship between law’slegitimacy, its justification and the obligation to obey thelaw. If legitimacy of law is seen as based on the law beingjustified (as in Raz’s ‘service conception’),our duty to obey it does not follow automatically: it must bebased on some additional arguments. Raz’s conception oflegitimate authority does not presuppose, as many critics claim,any unduly deferential attitude towards authorities. Disconnectionof the law’s legitimacy from the absolute duty to obeyit leads to the second part of the article which consists ina critical scrutiny of the claim that the democratically adoptedlaw is legitimate only insofar as it expresses the right moralvalues. This claim is shown to be, under one interpretation(‘motivational’), nearly meaningless or, under anotherinterpretation (‘constitutional’), too strong tosurvive the pressure from moral pluralism. While we cannot hopefor a design of ‘pure procedural democracy’ (byanalogy to Rawlsian ‘pure procedural justice’),democratic procedures express the values which animate the adoptionof a democratic system in the first place.     

The Oppressed, the Suspect, and the Citizen: Subjectivity in Competing Accounts of Political Violence

By juxtaposing religious, legal, and victims'accounts of political violence, this essay identifies and critiques assumptions about agency, the individual, and the smte that derive from liberal theory and that underlie U.S. asylum taw. In the United States, asylum is available to aliens whose gooernments fail to protect them from persecution on the basis of their race, religion, political opinion, nationality, or social group membership. Salvadoran and Guatemalan immigrants have challenged this definition of persecution with their two-decade-long struggle for asylum in the United States. During the 1980s, U.S. religious advocates and solidarity workers took legal action on behalf of what they characterized as victims of oppression in Central America. The asylum claims narrated by the beneficiaries of these legal efforts suggest that repessiwe pactices rendered entire populations politically suspect. To prevail in immigration court, however, victims had to prove that they were individually targeted because of being somehow "different" from the population at large. In other words, to obtain asylum, persecution victims had to explain how and why their actions had placed them at risk, even though persecution obscured the reasons that particular individuals were targeted and thus rendered all politically suspect.     

Separated Children: A Comparison of the Treatment of Separated Child Refugees Entering Australia and Canada

Separated children are in a uniquely vulnerable situation. Notonly are they in fear of persecution but they have been separatedfrom their families. They are seeking multifaceted protections.Such children need a country to protect them from further persecution,a caregiver to nurture them and fulfil the family role and asociety that will foster their social and intellectual growth.This article analyses the treatment of separated child refugeesin the context of international human rights law as it relatesto children and from the viewpoint of domestic immigration law.The article bases this analysis on a comparison of the treatmentof separated child refugees in Australia and Canada. The fundamentalprinciple of the International Convention on the Rights of theChild is that member states should act in the child's best interests.This principle has two important aspects, firstly, that detentionof children should only be used as a last resort and, secondly,that child refugees should enjoy the right to seek asylum. Thearticle examines the domestic law of both Australia and Canadawith a view to determining how these two aspects are appliedto unaccompanied children.     

The Universal Terrorist: The International Community Grappling with a Definition

Steps have been taken on the international level towards determininga widely acceptable definition of terrorism as a basis for internationalconventions. One basic distinction in this context is betweenstate-sponsored ‘official’ terrorism and individualterrorism directed against those in power. With respect to ‘individual’terrorism, a widely accepted definition refers to acts or threatsof violence committed with the intention to intimidate a populationin furtherance of some non-economic goal. The old problem ofdistinguishing terrorists from legitimate freedom fighters hasbeen alleviated but not yet totally resolved. Another issueconcerns the question of whether to exempt actions of and/ordirected against armed forces from the definition of terrorism.Overbreadth rather than vagueness is a problem of many currentdefinitions of terrorism: since they include as ‘baseoffences’ less serious violations of individual or communalinterests and even the mere intention or threat to commit them,they fail to reserve the stigma of terrorism to those offencesthat truly threaten the social fabric.     

Diego Garcia: British-American Legal Black Hole in the Indian Ocean?

Environmental risks from US military construction on the atollof Diego Garcia (British Indian Ocean Territory) since 1971include damage caused by large-scale ‘coral mining’,the introduction of invasive alien plant species, continuoustransits of nuclear material and unreported major fuel spills;these risks are now compounded by those of sea-level rise andocean acidification due to global climate change. The US andUK governments have evaded accountability by way of a persistent‘black hole’ strategy, contending that some nationallaws and international treaties for the protection of humanrights and the environment do not apply to the island—aposition confirmed by a controversial appellate judgment ofthe House of Lords in October 2008, essentially relying on ‘prerogative’colonial law. This article draws attention to the fallacy ofthe black-hole syndrome, and to its potentially fatal consequencesfor the British claim to a 200-mile environment protection zonein the Chagos Archipelago.     

Assessing Testimonial Evidence in Asylum Proceedings: Guiding Standards from the International Criminal Tribunals

Although credibility determinations rest at the core of refugeeprotection, international refugee law has failed to developa body of evidentiary principles that is tailored to the uniquedimensions of the testimony of those seeking asylum. This articleexamines recent developments in assessing oral testimony ininternational criminal law. International criminal law judges,like national asylum adjudicators, must transcend geographic,linguistic, cultural, educational and psychological barriersin order to assess the credibility of testimony. As a result,these new international courts have developed a body of principlesof international evidence law for assessing the testimony ofalleged victims of, and witnesses to, human rights abuses. Currentsocial science research on the asylum procedures in severaljurisdictions reveals that asylum decision makers often failto adapt the determination process to account for the realitiesof refugees presenting their cases in legal fora, directingproceedings with a ‘presumptive skepticism’ of claims.It is argued that the nuanced and rigourous model for the assessmentof the testimonial evidence of alleged victims and witnessesof human rights abuses in war crimes trials introduces effectiveinternational norms for the assessment of credibility in asylumproceedings.     

Examining Sexual Violence in the Military Within the Context of Eritrean Asylum Claims Presented in Norway

Discussion of rape by soldiers as a form of persecution haslargely been directed towards the context of war or actual conflict.Nevertheless, there is a need for attention to be directed towardsthe phenomenon of rape within the military in the post-conflictperiod. This article discusses asylum claims presented in Norwayby Eritrean female soldiers claiming risk of persecution inthe form of sexual violence, rape, or torture within the military.First, presentation is made of the history of Eritrean women'sparticipation in the war of independence and the ensuing politicaland legislative gains won at the end of the war against Ethiopia.Review of Eritrea's report and responses to the Committee onthe Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) reveala state of backlash against women in the post-conflict period.Second, examination of how rape within the military and desertionmay fall under the criteria of the definition of a refugee accordingthe 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees is pursued. Comparisonis drawn to instances of rape of women soldiers in the US andIsrael, as well as sexual violence by United Nations Missionin Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) peacekeepers, revealing commonchallenges affecting prevention and protection strategies. Third,a comparative review is conducted of evidentiary standards inorder to highlight the importance of maintaining a flexibleapproach responsive to the special circumstances of sexual violence.The Norwegian practice indicated a tendency to provide protectionfor compassionate grounds or humanitarian protection, ratherthan asylum. This resulted in non-recognition of the legitimacyof claims based on gender related persecution as requiring legalprotection under the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees.