Search

Copyright of Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo is the property of Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of German Journal of Forced Migration & Refugee Studies / Zeitschrift für Flüchtlingsforschung (Z'Flucht) is the property of Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Since the creation of international refugee law under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the subsequent 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, state parties are obliged to protect displaced persons if they fit within the treaties' definition of a refugee. Among other criteria, there are certain protected groups that individuals must be members of to be considered a refugee, one of which is membership in a particular social group. There is no strict definition of what membership in a particular social group is under international law, so state parties are left to interpret this language within their domestic legal systems. Two state parties to these treaties that are of concern in their interpretation of this aspect of the definition of a refugee under international law are Canada and the United States. Particularly of concern in this context is their interpretations of whether women victims of domestic violence fall within that protected ground. Both Canada and the United States have sometimes recognized the asylum claims of women victims of domestic violence as valid based on their respective interpretive definitions of particular social group. However, both systems interpret whether a group of individuals fit within the definition of a particular social group on a case-by-case basis. This breeds inconsistency and oftentimes impossibly high legal thresholds for the protection of women domestic violence victims as refugees, a particularly vulnerable sect of displaced persons. As such, to uphold international human rights standards and to promote consistency in the adjudication of these types of asylum claims in each respective state, Canada and the United States must act swiftly to codify gender-based asylum claims as a protected ground under their domestic refugee laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores the creation of the National Screening Mechanism (NSM) to classify forcibly displaced persons in Thailand, a non-signatory state to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. It argues that the drafting of the NSM as Thailand's first refugee law resulted from policy entrepreneurship by officials in the Department of International Organizations (DIO), who promoted innovations in urban refugee management. The global refugee events of 2016 provided windows of opportunity for DIO officials to structure the need for creating the NSM and convince ruling generals to commit to new policy directions. However, bureaucrats in other agencies, who endorsed the status quo, leveraged their power to amend the initial conceptualization of the NSM and made it less progressive. Policy entrepreneurship offers another perspective for exploring changes in non-signatory states' refugee policies that can also be applied more broadly to the context of signatory countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Sakarya University Journal of Law Faculty (SHD) is the property of Sakarya University Journal of Law Faculty (SHD) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Jurídica (0103-3506) is the property of Revista Juridica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In the landmark Teitiota decision, the United Nations Human Rights Committee held that the return of an asylum seeker to his home State may trigger the non‐refoulement principle under the right to life in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, due to harms associated to climate change and environmental degradation. Whereas the 1951 Refugee Convention remains silent on the topic, the Committee seemingly broadened the scope of the non‐refoulement principle applicable to asylum seekers to include those fleeing the effects of climate change. While hailed by many, the implications of the case should not be exaggerated. Instead, upon closer inspection, the cracks and flaws in the reasoning of the Committee become evident. The reconcilability of this decision with the obligation to ensure that rights protected by the Covenant do not become theoretical and illusory is obscure at best. This analysis adopts a two‐pronged comparative approach. First, it investigates the scope of non‐refoulement across regional human rights instruments and notable domestic cases, with a focus on how the general conditions of the country of return factor into its application. This comparative case law approach provides clarity on whether the Committee adopted a cautious or rather progressive approach in this climate change‐induced displacement case. Second, this contribution investigates the procedural burden and standard of proof in non‐refoulement cases across regional human rights bodies. As the raison d'être of this principle is to anticipate hypothetical situations of harm upon return, it is crucial to determine whether consensus or divergence exists concerning the burden and standard of proof and how this may apply to climate change‐induced displacement cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thailand is a coastal State, and the plight of Rohingya boat refugees from Myanmar is an ongoing issue there. However, Thailand has no refugee laws and the State is also a non-State party to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Refugee issues are being treated under ad hoc decisions in Thailand; therefore, refugees have no legal status there, they are treated as illegal immigrants. Moreover, being a coastal State, Thailand rigorously controls its seas. However, Thailand signed on to core international human rights instruments which ensure protection from torture, including their guarantee of civil and political rights to all individuals within its territory. As a State-party to international maritime laws, Thailand also has obligations to assist any person at sea. Against this background, this article examines the challenges of refugee protection in Thailand, where special focus is given to the Rohingya boat refugees within an examination of its maritime laws. In conclusion, it suggests a solution for refugee protection in Thailand under the existing regime. While particular literature on the Rohingya boat refugees in Thailand is very limited, it is expected that the article will fill the gap in existing literature regarding the boat refugee issue in Thailand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Brazilian Journal of Law & International Relations / Relações Internacionais no Mundo is the property of Relacoes Internacionais no Mundo and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

An interview with Gilad Ben-Nun, author of article "How Jewish is International Law?" is presented. Topics discussed include comparison of international law with Talmudic law with drafting materials of the 1951 Refugee Convention; specific parallels between Jewish-Talmudic law and international law as deeper insights into comparisons with other religious laws and history of international law can be told as a history of secularization.

In the case of persons 'not having a nationality', article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees provides that a claim to protection as a refugee must be made good by reference to the 'country of his former habitual residence' on the basis of being 'unable or unwilling to return to it' for a relevant reason. This article focuses on the rubric for qualification as a refugee for those 'not having a nationality'. It addresses questions of interpretation, including the meaning of the phrases 'not having a nationality' and 'country of his former habitual residence'; whether an individual may have multiple countries of former habitual residence; and, if so, how such cases are to be addressed, consistent with the Convention's text and its underlying protective purpose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

UNHCR issues these Guidelines pursuant to its mandate, as contained in, inter alia, the Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees , paragraph 8(a), in conjunction with Article 35 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and Article II of its 1967 Protocol. These Guidelines set out legal standards relevant for refugees to access decent work. They are intended to provide guidance to governments in developing and implementing legislation, policies and programmes regarding asylum and/or labour; and to decision-makers, including administrative and judicial bodies, in making decisions affecting refugees' opportunities to access decent work. They also aim to assist other international and national entities, such as employers' and workers' organizations, trade unions, civil society and private sector organizations, and enterprises; and national human rights institutions; as well as UNHCR and other UN entities dealing with decent work for refugees. These Guidelines have been prepared in consultation with the International Labour Organization (ILO). The Guidelines are available online at: < https://www.refworld.org/docid/60e5cfd74.html >. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Guidelines on International Protection No 7: The Application of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees to Victims of Trafficking and Persons at Risk of Being Trafficked recognize that, although not all trafficked persons fall within the scope of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, some could satisfy all elements of the refugee definition. Such a possibility is not least implicit in the 2000 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, as well as in the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. In order to obtain asylum, trafficked persons and their legal representatives tend to rely on the trafficked person being recognized as a member of a particular social group (PSG), and on establishing a well-founded fear of persecution on such a ground. While women trafficked for sexual exploitation have been recognized as members of a PSG in several jurisdictions, although not always in a consistent manner, the recognition of trafficked men as members of a PSG has proven to be more challenging. It is argued that the difficulties faced by adult men are attributable to the gender stereotyping operationalized by asylum decision-making bodies, which have consistently failed to recognize the gender dimension of trafficking with respect to men and boys, focusing almost entirely on women and girls as gendered subjects. In addition, the difficulties are also attributable to the nature of the exploitation to which most trafficked men are subjected, as forced labour and forced criminality are considered 'lesser' harms than sexual exploitation, and because violations of socio-economic rights as a ground for asylum are not yet fully recognized. This contribution explores the theoretical underpinnings of these two elements and their impact on the assessment of asylum claims brought by trafficked adult men, using the United Kingdom as a case study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is political about political refugeehood? Theorists have assumed that refugees are special because their specific predicament as those who are persecuted sets them aside from other "necessitous strangers." Persecution is a special form of wrongful harm that marks the repudiation of a person's political membership and that cannot—contrary to certain other harms—be remedied where they are. It makes asylum necessary as a specific remedial institution. In this article, I argue that this is correct. Yet, the connection between political membership, its repudiation, and persecution is far from clear. Drawing on normative political thought and research on autocracies, repression, and migration studies, I show that it is political oppression that marks the repudiation of political membership and leads to various forms of repression that can equally not be remedied at home. A truly political account moves away from persecution and endorses political oppression as the normative pillar of refugeehood and asylum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explains the conditions under which countries allow refugees the right to work in accordance with Articles 17–19 of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. It explores variation in both the de jure and de facto rights to work through a mixed-methods approach. Qualitatively, it builds upon research in the East African region, in which there is significant variation in state practice relating to refugees' socio-economic rights. Quantitatively, it draws upon an original dataset to examine the policies of low- and middle-income countries that host more than 1,000 refugees. Coding for the right to work was supplied by and triangulated across three different refugee organizations with relevant expertise. We argue that the de jure and de facto rights to work are shaped by distinctive actors and mechanisms. De jure rights are determined by pay-offs at the 'national' level; de facto rights by pay-offs at the 'local' level. While being a signatory of international norms is the most important variable for de jure commitment, the degree of decentralization is the most important variable underlying de facto rights. These findings suggest that promoting refugee norm compliance relies upon creating incentives at both national and local levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Note argues that U.S. interdiction of asylum seekers at sea and the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program undermine the object and purpose of international refugee law. The U.S. Government uses both practices to evade its international obligation of non-refoulement, or nonreturn. Such practices unjustly restrict access to asylum in the U.S. These policies can be characterized as tools of “neo-refoulement.” Neo-refoulement is a strategy used to foreclose the possibility of asylum. It allows States parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention to evade their international obligation to refrain from returning people to places where they may be at risk of harm. Section I provides a brief history of the origins and spirit of refugee law. Section II discusses the Baker cases, which laid the groundwork for enforcing U.S. interdiction and return practices. Section III discusses Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., a Supreme Court case that sanctioned those practices. Section IV discusses how the MPP continues the U.S. Government’s pattern of neo-refoulement. Section V briefly discusses the MPP’s procedural history at the time of writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global policy commitments to refugee protection are shaped by ever‐growing pressures, from displacements triggered by conflicts, extremism and climate crisis to domestic fear‐based politics. Before the COVID‐19 pandemic, many governments were increasingly embracing exclusionary policies, defying the rights of asylum‐seekers and refugees stalled in protracted camp settlements. While such policies contrast starkly with core principles espoused in the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Global Compact on Refugees, restrictions on refugees intensified further during the pandemic. This article discusses struggles shaped by these trajectories, drawing on policy analysis and experiences articulated in Tongogara Refugee Camp in Zimbabwe, where displaced people have recently endured impacts of climate disasters along with greater constraints on mobility and the hardening of international borders. We highlight divergences between colonial policy orientations and African philosophies such as Ubuntu that prioritize communal values and humanity towards others. Analysing concerns around encampment and barriers both to resettlement and local integration, we stress that the talents, contributions and fundamental rights of refugees should not be ignored by policy makers, who also need to be attentive to the social and ecological challenges experienced in refugee spaces. Exploring constraints of the various 'durable solutions', we draw attention to how uncertainties facing displaced people need to be critically approached as multi‐scalar policy matters, beckoning attention to insufficiently met commitments linked with the Global Compact on Refugees, ways of mobilizing resistance to contemporary colonial bordering and support for refugee‐led initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on the concept of a "complex humanitarian crisis," this paper describes how outflows of migrants from Central America were transformed into such a crisis by intransigent immigration and border policies enacted in both Mexico and the United States. We describe the origins of the migration in U.S. Cold War interventions that created many thousands of displaced people fleeing violence and economic degradation in the region, leading to a sustained process of undocumented migration to the United States. Owing to rising levels of gang violence and weather events associated with climate change, the number of people seeking to escape threats in Central America has multiplied and unauthorized migration through Mexico toward the United States has increased. However, the securitization of migration in both Mexico and the United States has blocked these migrants from exercising their right to petition for asylum, creating a growing backlog of migrants who are subject to human rights violations and predations both by criminals and government authorities, leading migrants to label Mexican routes northward as a "corridor of death." We draw on data from annual reports of Mexico's Red de Documentación de las Organizaciones Defensoras de Migrantes (Network for the Documentation of Migrant Defense Organizations) to construct a statistical profile of transit migrants and the threats they face as reported by humanitarian actors in Mexico. These reports allow us to better understand the practical realities of the "complex humanitarian crisis" facing undocumented migrants, both as unauthorized border crossers and as transit migrants moving between the southern frontiers of Mexico and the United States. Policy Recommendations Policy makers need to address: Governments must recognize that the humanitarian crisis facing migrants is not confined to border regions but unfolds at places of both origin and destination as well as within extended geographies of transit in-between. The current refugee protection regime and asylum system are ill-matched to the needs and vulnerabilities of today's migrants. In an era of rapid climate change, rising state failures, and escalating violence, people are not moving so much to advance economically as to escape a growing array of threats not covered by the 1951 Refugee Convention, which needs to be updated. Developed nations must honor rather than elide their obligations under international law to accept asylum applicants and fairly adjudicate their cases, Since a large fraction of the Central Americans arriving at the southern US border have relatives in the United States, creating a pathway to legal status for unauthorized US residents would relieve a lot of the pressure on the asylum system by enabling authorities to release applicants to the support and care of legally resident relatives rather than placing them in an overburdened detention system. Governments need to scale back the securitization and criminalization of migration, which have made human mobility an increasingly precarious and risk-filled activity that contributes to rather than forestalls the proliferation of crime and violence. Human rights and humanitarian agencies need to revisit their missions to derive new ways of working conjointly and in parallel with each other and with governments to better understand and meet the needs of migrants in the 21st century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Catalana de Dret Ambiental is the property of Universitat Rovira I Virgili and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on refugee responsibility-sharing scholars, for the most part, are concerned with persons who, due to serious violations of human rights including severe forms of deprivation. It mentions literature's analysis is heavily informed and constrained by the prevailing doctrine of sovereignty in international law. It also mentions International lawyers focus on the consent-based regime of international refugee law of the U.N. Refugee Convention and its Protocol.

The article discusses the policies and practices shaping global mobility in a changing landscape to pursue personal or professional opportunities. Topics include Australia has accepted permanent migrants a year through its skilled and family migration programs; and Countries have obligations under international law to protect refugees, as well as people fleeing other serious human rights violations, such as torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Cryopreservation presents the possibility of circumventing irreversible death through the body's extreme cooling. Once cooled, this 'cryon' is then stored at sub-zero temperatures until medical knowledge enables curative revival. However, the possibility of the post-cryopreserved supporting themselves, both economically and socially, is dubious; they will likely need state assistance. What a future society owes the post-cryopreserved, and why, remains unclear. One potential solution is to consider revivals as comparable to refugees, with the latter fleeing spatially and the former fleeing temporally. But, the appropriateness of the 'cryonic refugee' remains unconsidered. This paper uses the 1951 Refugee Convention to clarify refugeehood's four necessary characteristics before exploring whether these qualities apply to the temporally displaced. It concludes that while similarities exist, the comparison fails due to the limitations placed on the form of persecution that one flees and why repatriation is impossible. Thus, any assistive obligation must come from an alternative source. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the Emergency Refuge Measure granted by Japan's Ministry of Justice to the thousands of residents of Myanmar who fled their country since the February 2021 coup d' état. Topics discussed include the insufficiency of the protection of refugee rights being given under the Emergency Refuge Measure, and Japan's violations of the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees despite amendments to its domestic refugee law.

This article addresses the legal reconfigurations of refuge and its consequences for people displaced by war and state violence. Within Western countries signatory to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, refugee protection has traditionally served as a solution to conflict-induced displacement by offering a path to permanent residence and citizenship. Yet, in the wake of recent global "refugee crises," several countries have introduced new refugee protection statuses that only allow refugees to stay temporarily. In this article, I focus on one such intervention in Denmark introduced in the fall of 2014, which targets Syrian refugees. Through a feminist geo-legal analysis of this statute and surrounding policy documents, I illustrate how the Danish state has mobilized subtle legal interventions to transform the meaning and character of refugee protection. By differentially classifying groups of refugees according to new calculations of threat and risk, I show how these maneuverings work to deny refugees basic rights and make them subject to intimidation, surveillance, and deportation. I argue that this new statute functions as a legal mechanism of sociospatial b/ordering that produces a series of displacements and limits refugees' access to effective protection under the 1951 Convention. In doing so, I advance critical discussions on temporary protection status, displacement, and refuge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses Malaysia's experience managing Vietnamese refugees from 1975 to the 1990s. Since 1975, Malaysia has assisted more than 250,000 Vietnamese refugees on global humanitarian grounds. However, Malaysia had to change several policies, including closing its doors, urging third countries and chairing the second Indochina refugee conference as the number of Vietnamese refugees coming to Malaysia continued to increase. At the same time, the Terengganu state government has reclaimed Bidong Island as a temporary settlement for Vietnamese refugees in Malaysia. This had caused a dilemma to Malaysia between its commitments to international humanitarian assistance and to safeguard its national interests. Historical research methods are used by referring to primary sources, especially the report of the Parliament of Malaysia. An interview with Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was also conducted. Based on historical analysis, it appears that Malaysia had consistently committed to assisting Vietnamese refugees in Malaysia even though Malaysia had never ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Refugee Protocol 1967. Nonetheless, Malaysia's efforts have been widely criticized as inhumane at the international level for threatening to shoot as well as pushing Vietnamese refugees back to sea. But Malaysia never gave up and continued to treat Vietnamese refugees appropriately before being deported to their home country or transferred to third countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol are the only binding international instruments under which the parties of the instruments agree to protect refugees. However, there are gaps in the existing protection mechanisms for refugees at sea. Moreover, the South East Asian States are non-parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention; the States argue that they have no treaty obligation to accept Rohingya boat refugees. In this context, this article revisits the traditional view of 'soft laws', suggesting a fresh look at 'soft laws' regarding boat refugees. This article argues that even though the States are non-parties to international refugee law, the South East Asian States are members of the UN General Assembly, IMO, and ExCom. These international bodies have adopted numerous resolutions, guidelines and conclusions on refugee protection at sea; therefore, the States have international obligations to boat refugees according to Article 38(1)(C) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice 1945, the general principle of international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on the UNHCR discusses the range of options for international legal protection in the context of cross-border displacement triggered by the impacts of climate change. It mentions that the legal considerations highlight that beyond situations where the 1951 Convention applies, people affected by climate change and disasters living in Africa or the Americas may also be refugees under the broader refugee definition in the 1969 OAU Convention.

This article explores why Egypt, unlike the majority of Arab states in the Middle East, decided to accede to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 Convention) in 1981. Drawing on both primary and secondary source information, this article investigates the process of relevant negotiations between the Egyptian state and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The article's historical analysis finds that Egypt's major foreign policy reforms in the late 1970s became a key trigger for the country's growing rapport with the UNHCR and the regime of the 1951 Convention. Yet, it is also argued that the UNHCR and pro-Western foreign ministry officials of Egypt played a pivotal role in leading to the successful outcome. Expanding on the state's foreign policy rationale, this article provides useful insights into the conditions under which a previously reluctant state, like Egypt, could eventually become a party to the 1951 Convention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When and how does a state become a part of the international refugee regime, and how does a state's role within the regime change over time? Using South Korea as a case study, this article highlights the significance of Cold War politics as a main cause of the expansion of the international refugee regime. South Korea was first entered into the international refugee regime during the US-led Korean War. And it was due to the neocolonial relationship between South Korea and the US that South Korea participated in the Vietnam War, and consequently, South Korea received its first internationally recognized refugees. Pressure from the US largely explains the burden-sharing role that South Korea played during the Indochinese refugee crisis. However, repositioning itself as a subempire in Asia and seeking enhanced international stature, South Korea signed the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, finally becoming an official member of the international refugee regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United Nations Security Council's ("UNSC") counterterrorism resolutions are overbroad, and have resulted in European Union ("EU") laws and policies that mislabel innocent individuals, particularly refugees, as "terrorists." The 1951 Refugee Convention requires that countries provide refugees--those fleeing persecution--with protection, allowing for only a few narrow exceptions. However, a wave of post-9/11 UNSC counterterrorism resolutions have led to the enactment of a host of new laws and policies by the EU and EU member states that have resulted in the widespread denial of protection to many refugees seeking asylum in Europe. This is due to the fact that these resolutions may label individuals who have had any contact with terrorist organizations as terrorists--including, in some cases, where an individual was held captive by a terrorist group. As many laws make it illegal for countries to grant asylum to terrorists, the implementation of the UNSC's counterterrorism resolutions in EU law has resulted in the widespread denial of protection to many refugees seeking asylum in Europe. From a legal perspective, these laws and policies are a de facto violation of the Refugee Convention, as well as broader international human rights law and EU law, which require that, save for very rare and prescribed circumstances, those fleeing persecution must be granted protection. From a policy perspective, while European governments' goals of barring terrorists from entering their borders may be in line with their security objectives, these policies must be reevaluated, as the harm that they cause refugees is far greater than the possible security benefits they confer. This is particularly true for Middle Eastern refugees, many of whom are often fleeing the violence of UN-labeled terrorist groups in the region, and many of whom are the most likely to be negatively impacted by these counterterrorism policies. It is imperative that the UNSC and the EU shift counterterrorism policies to comply with international law and protect Middle Eastern refugees fleeing persecution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Law of Ukraine / Pravo Ukraini is the property of Editorial Board of Journal "Law of Ukraine" and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In the article, the author examines the potential origins of the immigration policy of deterrence that was adopted by the administration of former U.S. President Donald J. Trump. Also cited are how Trump's policies like the family separations policy, can be considered as human rights violations, and how family separations are linked to depression, toxic stress, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Undefined in both the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Refugee Act of 1980, the phrase "particular social group," one of the five protected grounds for asylum, has been subject to various interpretations which have rendered US asylum law unpredictable, inconsistent, and incompatible with international refugee law. On June 16, 2021 Attorney General Merrick Garland vacated Matter of A-B-I, a Trump-era asylum decision which significantly narrowed the definition Of particular social group, and also restricted relief for many individuals seeking refuge from life-threatening persecution. Though a step in the right direction toward more equitable and consistent asylum law in the United States, the vacatur of this decision returned US particular social group jurisprudence to pre-AB- precedent, leaving longstanding problems unaddressed. This Note argues that the United States must abandon pre-A-B- precedent to ensure lasting change. Rather than reinvent the wheel, this Note examines asylum procedures in Canada and Australia, both Of which are common law nations that receive an amount Of asylum applications that is comparable to the United States and, unlike the United States, possess UNHCR-endorsed definitions Of particular social group. Ultimately, this Note argues that the Australian approach may provide a realistic and work able means to address US problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cooperation as the Cornerstone of the Resolution of Stowaway Cases Stowaway incidents may have various legal and practical ramifications for States, most notably the flag State and the port State as either the State of embarkation or disembarkation. The recent surge in maritime migration in hotspots around the world has given rise to renewed academic and policy discourse on the law governing migrant smuggling, search and rescue, disembarkation responsibility, and other related principles at the intersection of public international law and commercial shipping activities. At the outset, stowaways generally hide in precarious spots on board the vessel including the rudder trunk, shaft spaces, and chain lockers.[63] The dangers of travelling in these conditions are axiomatic, exposing the stowaway to possible injury, asphyxiation or loss of life.[64] Even if stowaways are retrieved from such dangerous hiding places unharmed, their continued presence aboard may present other safety and security risks. However, sentencing appears to be weaker and fines low under the laws of high-risk States for stowaway embarkation, which has prompted some port security officials to call for harsher punishments.[50] Stowaway activity is a common security risk associated with port areas and ships, necessitating precautionary measures required under Standard 4.3.1.1. [Extracted from the article]

The article reports on international judicial decisions on gender-based violence against women as a form of persecution for the purposes of the recognition of refugee status. Topics include qualification of gender-based violence as a form of persecution for the purpose of the recognition of international protection; and views on broader situation of gender-based persecution against women in Nigeria.

Among academics, imputation of monolingualism have a prejudicial history of focusing on individuals, and so we've inherited a discourse that foregrounds monolingual persons as accidental culprits, bad actors, policy adversaries, and deficit languagers - rather than thinking first about a structural "logic of monolingualism", to borrow Kate Manne's syntax, and how monolingualism situationally undermines some people and not others, how it distresses, muffles, muzzles, and disbelieves people, renders them uncredible, unable or unworthy to be listened to, unprepared or unfit "at this time" for study, for employment, testimony, research, leadership, trust, power, residence, entry, publishability, or political office, etc. Not learning a language, a language that is expected in a country where one currently resides, is of course in no way tantamount to monolingualism per se, though I not i successfully conveying this willingness to learn a state language (an arduous, complex perlocution indeed!) routinely raises the charge of monolingualism against one on the part of state actors. It is also no uniform structure: Brazilian monolingualism, which is a strongly expressed ideology too, is quite different in its effects, designs, and ethnicizing/racializing logics than is US American monolingualism or Turkish monolingualism. [Extracted from the article]

Seven decades after the adoption of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, how strong are the norms that the Convention was expected to institutionalize? We answer this question through the prism of the Rohingya refugee situation in Bangladesh. Using field research data and news analysis, we find that both the state of Bangladesh and the Rohingya refugees are caught up in a challenging situation. Even though Bangladesh has largely cooperated with the UN, upheld the principle of non-refoulement, and provided services to the refugees, the Rohingya continue to live displaced lives. Our article illuminates both the successes and the ongoing challenges that the global refugee regime faces. The Bangladesh-Rohingya case shows us that refugee norms have been widely accepted, but unevenly applied. Collective responsibility-sharing, which is a necessary pillar of an effective global refugee regime, is lacking. We conclude that international refugee regime is marked by responsibility-shifting, rather than responsibility-sharing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]