THE REFUGEE LAW READER Sixth Edition

[Download the PDF Full Text Version for Free here]

SIXTH EDITION

BUDAPEST – NEW YORK 2011

THE REFUGEE LAW READER

Editor-in-Chief CASES, DOCUMENTS, AND MATERIALS

Maryellen Fullerton

Editorial Board

Rosemary Byrne

Bhupinder Chimni

François Crépeau

Madeline Garlick

Elspeth Guild

Lyra Jakuleviciene

Boldizsár Nagy

Luis Peral

Jens Vedsted-HansenTHE REFUGEE 

LAW READER

CASES, DOCUMENTS, AND MATERIALS

6TH EDITION – BUDAPEST – NEW YORK – 2011

Editor-in-Chief

Maryellen Fullerton

Editorial Board

Rosemary Byrne

Bhupinder Chimni

François Crépeau

Madeline Garlick

Elspeth Guild

Lyra Jakuleviciene

Boldizsár Nagy

Luis Peral

Jens Vedsted-HansenPublished by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Budapest

ISBN: 978-963-89380-5-3

The printing of this booklet was made possible by the generous support of the 

European Refugee Fund.

Design: Judit Kovács, Createch, Budapest

Cover photo: Boldizsár Nagy

November 2011WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 5

This is a printed version of the syllabus for The Refugee Law Reader, an 

on-line 'living' casebook (www.refugeelawreader.org). The Refugee Law 

Reader is a collaborative project among experts in the field that offers a 

fully developed course curriculum and access to over 10,000 pages of 

legal instruments, documents and specialist commentary.

 The Refugee Law Reader has been designed to easily adapt to the 

wide range of teaching and research needs of professionals. This booklet 

aims to facilitate navigation within the web site and to assist in seeing the 

structure of the curriculum as a whole. It also seeks to assist users with 

the selective adaptation of the course structure and access to the extensive 

legal material available in The Reader.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 7

CONTENT

About The Reader and Its Use 13

 About The Reader 13

 Accessing Source Material 16

 Adapting The Reader to Specific Course Needs 17

 Technical Advice 19

 Acknowledgments 20

 Reader Feedback 23

Section I 

Introduction to International Refugee Law: Background and Context 25

 I.1 History of Population Movements: Migrants, Immigrants,

 Internally Displaced Persons and Refugees 26

 I.1.1 The Concepts 26

 I.1.2 The Theories 27

 I.1.3 The Actual Movements 28

 I.2 The Legal and Institutional Framework for Refugee Protection 30

 I.2.1 The Evolution of the International Refugee Regime 30

 I.2.2 The Universal Standard: The 1951 Geneva Convention 

 Refugee Definition and the Statute of the UNHCR 31

 I.2.2.1 Prior Definitions: Group Specific:

 Geographically and Temporarily Limited 31

 I.2.2.2 1951 Geneva Convention: Universal Applicability:

 Optional Geographical and Temporal Limits 31

 I.2.2.3 Expansion by the 1967 Protocol 32

 I.2.3 Contemporary Alternative Refugee Definitions 32

 I.2.3.1 Africa 33

 I.2.3.2 Latin America 33

 I.2.3.3 Europe 33

 I.3 UNHCR and Other Actors Relevant to International Asylum Law 34

 I.3.1 UNHCR 35

 I.3.2 Other Agencies and Their Interaction 368 THE REFUGEE LAW READER

Section II

International Framework for Refugee Protection 39

 II.1 Universal Principles and Concepts of Refugee Protection 40

 II.1.1 Non-refoulement 40

 II.1.2 Asylum 42

 II.1.3 Non-discrimination 43

 II.1.4 Family Unity 44

 II.1.5 Durable Solutions 45

 II.1.6 Burden Sharing and International Cooperation 46

 II.2 The 1951 Geneva Convention 47

 II.2.1 Criteria for Granting Refugee Protection 47

 II.2.1.1 Alienage 48

 II.2.1.1.1 Outside the Country of Nationality 49

 II.2.1.1.2 Owing to Fear Is Unable or Unwilling 

 to Avail Self of Protection of Country 

 of Nationality 49

 II.2.1.1.3 Dual or Multiple Nationality 50

 II.2.1.1.4 Statelessness 50

 II.2.1.2 Well-founded Fear 51

 II.2.1.3 Persecution 52

 II.2.1.3.1 Acts of Persecution 53

 II.2.1.3.2 Agents of Persecution 54

 II.2.1.4 Five Grounds: Race, Religion, Nationality,

 Social Group, Political Opinion 55

 II.2.1.4.1 Multiple Grounds and General Issues 55

 II.2.1.4.2 Race 57

 II.2.1.4.3 Religion 57

 II.2.1.4.4 Nationality 59

 II.2.1.4.5 Particular Social Group 59 

 II.2.1.4.6 Political Opinion 63

 II.2.1.5 Internal Protection Alternative 65

 II.2.1.6 Exclusion from Convention Refugee Status 67

 II.2.1.7 Cessation of Refugee Status 70

 II.2.1.7.1 Cessation Grounds 70

 II.2.1.7.2 Procedures 72WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 9

 II.2.2 Access to Territory 73

 II.2.2.1 Visa Requirements 74

 II.2.2.2 Carrier Sanctions 74

 II.2.2.3 Extraterritorial Immigration Control 74

 II.2.2.4 Interceptions and Rescue at Sea 74

 II.2.3 Access to Procedures 76

 II.2.3.1 Protection Elsewhere (First Country of 

 Asylum and Safe Third Country) 76

 II.2.4 Reception Conditions 78

 II.2.5 Procedures for Determining Refugee Status 79

 II.2.5.1 Basic Procedural Requirements 79

 II.2.5.2 Evidentiary Issues 80

 II.2.5.2.1 Standards of Proof 80

 II.2.5.2.2 Credibility 81

 II.2.5.2.3 Factors Affecting Evidentiary Assessment 82

 II.2.5.2.3.1 Post Traumatic Stress 82

 II.2.5.2.3.2 Interviewing Vulnerable 

 Populations 83

 II.2.5.2.3.2.1 Children 83

 II.2.5.2.3.2.2 Women 84

 II.2.6 Content of Refugee Status 86

 II.2.7 Detention 87

 II.3 Other Forms of International Protection 89

 II.3.1 Temporary Protection 89

 II.3.2 Complementary (Subsidiary) Protection 91

 II.3.3 Universal Human Rights Instruments Relevant to Protection 92

 II.3.3.1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights 93

 II.3.3.2 The UN International Covenant on Civil 

 and Political Rights 93

 II.3.3.3 The UN Convention Against Torture and

 Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

 or Punishment 96 

 II.3.3.4 The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 99

 II.3.3.5 The Geneva Conventions and Protocols:

 Minimum Standards in Times of War 100

 II.4 Internally Displaced Persons 10210 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Section III

African Framework for Refugee Protection 105

 III.1 Overview of African Regional Legal Instruments for 

 Refugee Protection 106

 III.2 The OAU Refugee Convention 108

 III.2.1 Extended Grounds of Persecution: 'External Aggression, 

 Occupation, Foreign Domination or Events Seriously

 Disturbing Public Order' 108

 III.2.2 Family Unity 109

 III.3 Sub-regional Legal Framework for the Protection of Refugees 110

 III.3.1 East Africa 110

 III.3.1.1 Kenya 111

 III.3.1.2 Uganda 112

 III.3.1.3 Tanzania 113

 III.4 Protection Challenges in Africa 114

 III.4.1 Exclusion Clause 115

 III.4.2 The Interface between Refugee Law and Immigration Law 117

 III.4.3 Urban Refugees versus Camp Refugees 117

 III.4.4 Resettlement 118

 III.4.5 The Plight of IDPs 119

 III.4.6 Unaccompanied Minors 121

 III.4.7 Governance and Globalization 122

 III.4.8 The Search for Solutions to the Refugee Problem in Africa 123

 III.4.9 Protection During Mass Repatriation Programmes 124

Section IV

Asian Framework for Refugee Protection 125

 IV.1 Protection Challenges in Asia 126

 IV.2 States Party to the 1951 Refugee Convention 128

 IV.2.1 Cambodia 128

 IV.2.2 China 128

 IV.2.3 Japan 129

 IV.2.4 Philippines 130

 IV.2.5 South Korea 130WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 11

 IV.3 States Not Party to the 1951 Refugee Convention 131

 IV.3.1 Bangladesh 131

 IV.3.2 India 132

 IV.3.3 Nepal 133

 IV.3.4 Pakistan 134

 IV.3.5 Thailand 134

Section V

European Framework for Refugee Protection 137

 V.1 The Council of Europe 139

 V.1.1 Legal and Policy Framework for Refugee Protection 139

 V.1.2 The European Convention on Human Rights and

 Fundamental Freedoms 144

 V.2 The European Union 158

 V.2.1 Towards a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) 159

 V.2.1.1 Evolution of the CEAS 160

 V.2.1.2 Ongoing Development of the CEAS 162

 V.2.2 Criteria for Granting Protection 163

 V.2.2.1 Harmonization of the 1951 Geneva 

 Convention Refugee Definition 163

 V.2.2.2 Subsidiary Protection 166

 V.2.2.3 Temporary Protection 168

 V.2.3 Access to Territory and Access to Procedures 169

 V.2.3.1 The EU's External and Internal Borders 170

 V.2.3.2 Interception and Rescue at Sea 172

 V.2.3.3 Visas 173

 V.2.3.4 Carrier Sanctions 175

 V.2.3.5 Extraterritorial Immigration Control and

 Extraterritorial Processing 176

 V.2.3.6 Biometrics and Databases 179

 V.2.4 Procedures for Granting Protection 179

 V.2.4.1 Responsibility: The Dublin System 180

 V.2.4.2 Minimum Standards for Reception Conditions 183

 V.2.4.3 Minimum Standards for Normal Procedures 184

 V.2.4.4 Minimum Standards for Specific Procedures 18612 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

 V.2.4.4.1 Accelerated and Manifestly 

 Unfounded Procedures 186

 V.2.4.4.2 Safe Country of Origin 187

 V.2.4.4.3 Safe Third Country 189

 V.2.4.5 Other Aspects of Decision-making 191

 V.2.4.5.1 Evidentiary Issues 191

 V.2.4.5.2 Persons with Special Needs 191

 V.2.4.6 Appeals 192

 V.2.5 Removal and Detention 194

 V.2.5.1 Detention 194

 V.2.5.2 Return Policies 195

 V.2.5.3 Readmission Agreements 197

Section VI

Framework for Refugee Protection in the Americas 201

 VI.1 Political Asylum, Diplomatic Asylum and Refugee Status 202

 VI.2 Refugee Protection in the Framework of the Inter-American 

 Human Rights System 203

 VI.2.1 Human Rights Instruments 203

 VI.2.1.1 The Non-refoulement Principle and the 

 Rights of Refugees 203

 VI.2.1.2 Protection against Extradition 208

 VI.2.1.3 Other Norms 208

 VI.2.2 Specific Instruments of Refugee Protection 209

 VI.2.2.1 Regional Definition and Proposals to Improve

 Protection 209

 VI.2.2.2 Durable Solutions in the Regional Framework 210

 VI.3 Application of the 1951 Geneva Convention

 through the Regional Mechanisms and National Legislations 212

 VI.4 Protection of Internally Displaced Persons, with 

 Special Attention to the Case of Colombia 213

 VI.5 The North American Regional Materials 216

Notes on the Editors 217WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 13

ABOUT THE READER AND ITS USE

About The Reader

November 2011

The Refugee Law Reader: Cases, Documents and Materials (6th edn.) is a 

comprehensive on-line model curriculum for the study of the complex 

and rapidly evolving field of international refugee law. We are proud to 

continue with the expanded and universal edition of The Reader, which 

provides sections on international and regional frameworks of refugee law, 

covering Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. Adapted language versions 

with specific regional focus are available in French, Russian and Spanish.

 The Reader is aimed for the use of professors, lawyers, advocates, and 

students across a wide range of national jurisdictions. It provides a flexible 

course structure that can be easily adapted to meet a range of training 

and resource needs. The Reader also offers access to the complete texts of 

up-to-date core legal materials, instruments, and academic commentary. 

In its entirety, The Refugee Law Reader is designed to provide a full 

curriculum for a 48-hour course in International Refugee Law and 

contains over 700 documents and materials. 

 The Refugee Law Reader was initiated and is supported by the 

Hungarian Helsinki Committee and funded by the European Refugee 

Fund and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 

(UNHCR). We also wish to thank the European Cooperation in Science 

and Technology (COST) for its support.14 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Structure and Content

The Reader is divided into six sections: Introduction to International 

Refugee Law, The International Framework for Refugee Protection, The 

African Framework for Refugee Protection, The Asian Framework for 

Refugee Protection, The European Framework for Refugee Protection 

and The Framework for Refugee Protection in the Americas. Each 

section contains the relevant hard and soft law, the most important cases 

decided by national or international courts and tribunals, and a carefully 

selected set of academic commentaries.

 To facilitate teaching and stimulate critical discussion, the Editors 

highlight the main legal and policy debates that address each topic, as 

well as the main points that may be drawn from the assigned reading. 

In many sections of the syllabus, readers may also access Editor's Notes, 

which contain more detailed commentary and suggestions for teaching 

in a given subject area.

 Because of the depth, scope, and flexibility of the Reader, it is now 

being accessed in multiple continents by over 28,000 users. The Reader's 

availability in four languages and its expanded georgraphical coverage 

have made it an effective resource for a regional approach to refugee legal 

education. By overcoming language and territorial barriers, the Reader can 

also effectively serve a larger community of asylum experts worldwide.

 The Reader first deals with the international refugee law regime and 

its foundations: the history of population movements and theories of 

migration, the evolution of the international refugee regime, the1951 

Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the expanding 

mandate of UNHCR and regional developments which have a bearing 

on the universal perception of the rights and duties of forced migrants. 

The concepts and the processes are analysed in light of the formative hard 

and soft law documents and discussed in an up-to-date, high standard WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 15

and detailed academic commentary. Issues underlying the global 

dilemmas of refugee law are tackled, taking into account developments 

in related areas of human rights and humanitarian law, as well as research 

advances in the field of migration.

 In addition to the examination of the classic problematique of 

international refugee law, The Reader also presents the major regional 

frameworks for refugee protection. The African section includes the core 

legal instruments for refugee protection in Africa and focuses on the 

central legal and policy challenges in their implementation. East Africa 

is presented as a sub-regional case study. In the future, additional case 

studies on other regions within Africa will be added. The Asian section 

presents the framework of protection on a continent where most States 

are not signatories to the 1951 Convention. It offers an overview of 

selected national refugee laws and policies on the continent and explores 

some of the broader protection challenges in the region. The European 

section presents the detailed pan-European asylum system constructed 

by the Council of Europe and the European Union. It highlights the 

Common European Asylum System that is creating regional norms and 

standards and is also looked to by policy makers around the world. This 

section's excellent collection of the central instruments and key materials 

is current up until mid-2011. The final section considers the distinctive 

framework of refugee protection that has emerged in the Americas. It 

presents the regional instruments and jurisprudence alongside a thematic 

examination of internal displacement in Latin America that is explored 

in the context of a case study of Colombia.

While we have attempted to design The Reader so that users across 

jurisdictions, and with varying objectives, can select their own focus for 

the material, it is important that central themes of The Reader should not 

be discarded in this à la carte approach to refugee law. Thus, we emphasize 

that users should understand the regional sections as adaptations and 16 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

variations on the themes set forth in the universal materials found in 

Sections I and II.

Accessing Source Material

Most of the core documents and materials contained in The Reader 

are accessible in their full text format to all users. Core readings can 

be downloaded from The Reader website. As there are a large number 

of core readings that are accessible in The Reader, we recommend that 

the readings should only be selectively printed. Professors may wish to 

assign their students segments of the assigned readings, and many of the 

documents, and particularly lengthy legal instruments, can be effectively 

reviewed on-line. In addition, the Editors have included citations to 

extended readings, which are not downloadable, for those who wish to 

study certain topics in more depth. In general, the extended readings are 

less central to an understanding of the topic, but on occasion copyright 

restrictions have required the Editors to categorize an important (new) 

reading as "extended". 

 One of the significant advantages of an on-line Reader is that it is able 

to provide access to instruments, documents and cases in their entirety, 

offering a rich source of material for academic writing. It should be 

noted that for purposes of citation, however, the process of downloading 

articles in PDF format does not always translate the page numbers of the 

original publication. Hence, please consult the full citation that appears 

in the syllabus to ensure accuracy.

 The Reader uses James C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status 

(Toronto: Butterworths, 1991) and G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, 

The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) 

as core texts. The Reader is able to provide open and full access to the WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 17

assigned pages of The Law of Refugee Status. While it is likely that many 

university professors and students will have access to the Goodwin-Gill 

and McAdams 2007 third revised edition of The Refugee in International 

Law in their libraries or university bookshops, the Editors are aware that 

many of our users may not. These users, however, will still benefit from 

full access to the text of the assigned reading from the second edition 

of Goodwin-Gill's The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: Oxford 

University Press, 1996). Hence, the Editors have included parallel 

citations for the 3rd and 2nd editions of The Refugee in International Law 

throughout The Reader to ensure that all can follow the core readings 

in the syllabus regardless of resources. 

 The Editorial Board and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee would 

like to thank Oxford University Press and its authors for their invaluable 

support for making refugee legal education accessible across the globe. We 

would also like to thank Cambridge University Press and other publishers 

of the secondary literature included in The Reader, as well as all of the 

authors whose works we have selected. Because of their generous support 

we are able to provide password-protected access to these documents to 

professors teaching refugee law and legal clinics in regions of the world 

with a yet developing asylum system. More information can be obtained 

by contacting the Hungarian Helsinki Committee at the email listed at 

the bottom of the page.

Adapting The Reader 

to Specific Course Needs

Editorial recommendations for how class time should be allocated 

to cover each of the respective subject areas, and their sub-topics, 

are provided below for a 48-hour course, as well as 24- and 12-hour 18 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

modules. A copy of the complete syllabus can be downloaded and 

adapted for teaching purposes. Each of the sections of the complete 

syllabus, and their respective sub-topics can be directly accessed on the 

site. In the chart below, each of the major topics included in the syllabus 

are presented. The full text of the syllabus and the relevant source 

material for the assigned readings can be accessed in The Reader. For 

more detailed directions, see the section Technical Advice below.

Recommended hours for module teaching

Topic 48-hour 

course

24-hour 

course

12-hour 

course

Section I

Introduction to International Refugee Law: 

Background and Context

842

Section II

International Framework for Refugee Protection

Universal Principles and Concepts of 

 Refugee Protection

521

The 1951 Convention 14 8 4

Other Forms of International Protection 421

Section III–VI* 17 8 4

Regional Frameworks for Refugeee Protection

Section III

African Framework for Refugee Protection

Section IV

Asian Framework for Refugee Protection

Section V

European Framework for Refugee Protection

Section VI

 Framework for Refugee Protection in the Americas

* The allocation of hours across the respective regions will vary according to the focus of the 

 course.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 19

Technical Advice

To begin, you are advised to download the complete Syllabus of The 

Refugee Law Reader or acquire the printed booklet containing the full 

Syllabus. The Syllabus provides you with both a general and a detailed 

overview of The Reader's structure and the documents included therein. 

The PDF format enables you to easily print out the Syllabus and use it 

as a general reference document. You can create your own syllabus or list 

of readings by simply copy-pasting the relevant citations into your own 

word processing system – the PDF format will ensure that the original 

form of the Syllabus remains unmodified.

 To access a specific section of The Refugee Law Reader on-line, click 

on the relevant section titles and subtitles in the left hand menu. The 

accompanying section of the Syllabus will then appear on the screen 

followed by the list of downloadable documents. Most of the documents 

are easily available in PDF format by simply clicking on the small PDF 

icon under the title of the chosen document. 

 The vast majority of The Reader's documents are freely downloadable; 

however, some documents require authorization (a password) and are 

limited to professors teaching refugee law and legal clinics in regions 

of the world with a yet developing asylum system, where up-to-date 

academic literature is not available due to the lack of resources. Requests 

for a password are examined on an individual basis.

 If you wish to identify documents by publisher, author, or title, you 

can do so easily by using the search engine of The Refugee Law Reader. 

For further guidelines on how to search The Reader, please consult the 

relevant text available on the search website.20 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Acknowledgments

Each edition of The Reader expands upon the contributions of prior editors. 

This is particularly the case with members of the editorial board who were 

involved in the creation and development of the previous editions. We 

would like to thank above all Dr. Rosemary Byrne, Associate Professor of 

International Law and the Director of the Centre for Post-Conflict Justice, 

Trinity College, Dublin, who provided wide-ranging expertise and has 

been a source of great inspiration to all of us as the Editor-in-Chief of The 

Reader's first five editions. Her leadership was instrumental in creating the 

universalised on-line refugee law resource that exists today in four languages. 

We would also like to thank the following prior editors:

Dr. Ekuru Aukot, the Director of the Committee of Experts on the 

Review of the Constitution in Kenya; Jean-Claude Forget, retired 

UNHCR official; Darina Mackova, International Human Rights 

Lawyer at ACUNS; Eugen Osmochescu, International Finance 

Corporation, Belgrade; and Steve Peers, Professor of Law at the 

University of Essex.

The Refugee Law Reader has developed through the dynamic participation 

of many experts in the field of asylum, both internationally and within the 

regional network of refugee law clinic. We would like to thank the following 

persons for their valued contributions to the creation of The Reader:

Ágnes Ambrus, Oldrich Andrysek, Deborah Anker, Frank Emmert, 

Lucia Fulmekova, Juris Gromovs, Anamaria Gutiu, Barbara Harrell- 

Bond, Romanita Iordache, Dajena Kumbaro, Sean Loughna, Gregor 

Noll, Imre Papp, Judit Tóth, Blagoy Vidin.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 21

The Hungarian Helsinki Committee would like to thank the following 

persons for their kind cooperation in obtaining the publication permissions:

Frankie Edozien (The African), Diane Jones (Amnesty International), 

John Gordon (Boston College International & Comparative Law 

Review), Gaby van Rietschoten (Brill Academic Publishers/Martinus 

Nijhoff), Ken Battle (Caledon Institute of Social Policy), Mélanie 

McKinnon (Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board), Linda Nicol 

(Cambridge University Press), Roger Errera (Honorary Judge of the 

Council of State, France), Margarita Minkova (Centre for European 

Policy Studies), Information Office of the House of Lords, J. OlokaOnyango (East African Journal of Peace and Human Rights), Ana 

Lopez Fontal (ECRE), Maral Bedrossian (European Policy Centre), 

Beata Kulpaczyńska (Publications Office of the European Union), 

Kelly Pitt (Forced Migration Review), Matthew Putorti (Fordham 

International Law Journal), Linda Davidson and Dr. Rolph K. Jenny 

(Global Commission on International Migration), Hans Zell (Hans 

Zell Publishers), Richard Hart and Rachel Turner (Hart Publishing), 

William Mead (Home Office, UK), Christina Bell (Human Rights 

Watch), Vincent Bernard (ICRC), Judith Russell (Institute for 

Jewish Policy Research), Edmund Jennings (Internal Displacement 

Monitoring Centre), Liesbeth van de Meeberg (International 

Association of Refugee Law Judges), Sharon Waters (Irish Refugee 

Council), Shaun Johnson, (LexisNexis Canada Inc.), Ranabir 

Samaddar (Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group), George Nasinyama 

(Makerere University), Mathura Yadav (Manak Publications), 

P.E. de Morree (Meijers Committee), Rachel Wilson (The Middle 

East Journal), Michelle Mittelstadt (Migration Policy Institute), 

Edwin Abuya (Moi University), Tom Scheirs (Netherlands Quarterly 

of Human Rights), Maureen Fulton (The Ohio State Journal on 

Dispute Resolution), Gilbert Loescher (Oxford University), Ben 22 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Kennedy (Oxford University Press), Chris Payne (Oxford University 

Press), Emma Thomas (Oxford University Press), Julie Sitney 

(Population and Development Review), Megan Prock (Physicians 

for Human Rights), Rüdiger Köppe (Recht in Africa), Negin Dahya 

(Refuge), Moses A. Nsubuga (Refugee Law Project), Dana Adams 

(Russell Sage Foundation), Tony Bunyan (Statewatch), Russel King 

(Sussex Centre for Migration Research), Jacky Challenor and Peter 

Chare(Sweet & Maxwell), Philip van Tongeren (T.M.C. Asser Press), 

Denise Blackett (Victoria University of Wellington Law Review), 

Gert De Nutte (VUBPRESS Brussels University Press), Arzu Celalifer 

Ekinci (Uluslararasi Hukuk ve Politika), Andrej Mahecic (UNHCR 

Bureau for Europe), Barbara Miltner (University of Cambridge), 

Perry Cartwright (University of Chicago Press), James C. Hathaway 

(University of Michigan Law School), Alison Seiler (U.S. Committee 

for Refugees and Immigrants), Simone Fennell (Wolf Legal 

Publishers), Bonnie Doyle (The Yale Journal of International Law).

The following Hungarian Helsinki Committee staff members, affiliates and 

friends contributed to the completion of The Reader:

Nuria Arenas, Judit Bagdany, Reyes Castillo, Gábor Gyulai, Awet 

Haile, Andrew James Horton, Raluca Iagher, Nino Kemoklidze, 

Boyan Konstantinov, Tamás Kovács, Ferenc Kőszeg, Petr Kutílek, 

Marina Lourenco, Alba Marcellán, Mike Matheson, Priyanca Mathur 

Velath, Fiona McKinnon, Márta Pardavi, Syed Qadri, Julie Ranger, 

Erik Reho, Julie Reynolds, Daniel L. Robbins, Barbara Salmon, 

Susannah Scott, Courtney Schusheim, Moira Smith, Rakhmadjon 

Sobirov, Ewoud Swart, Elvíra Szabó, Tímea Szabó, Szabolcs Tóth, Ivy 

Wong.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 23

Reader Feedback

One of the advantages of producing an on-line resource is the editorial 

capacity to update and review materials at more frequent intervals than 

published texts would allow. For this purpose, we encourage you to send 

the Editors any suggestions that you may have for improving The Reader.

 We would also like to include current case law as it develops. If 

you are aware of important jurisprudence that is available in English, 

French, Russian or Spanish, we would be very appreciative if this could 

be brought to our attention.

Please send any correspondence to the editorial board at:

Hungarian Helsinki Committee

H–1054 Budapest, P.O. Box 317, Hungary

Tel./Fax: (+36 1) 321 4327, 321 4323

E-mail: reader@helsinki.huWWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 25

SECTION I 

Introduction to 

International Refugee Law: 

Background and Context

Contemporary refugee law cannot be understood without knowledge of the broader 

global context from which it has emerged, and within which it is developed and 

implemented. The aim of Section I is to provide this essential context as a basis for 

the study of refugee law. This section introduces the major concepts of regular and 

irregular migration, provides a historical look at the phenomenon of migration, and 

surveys the magnitude of migration at the beginning of the twenty-first century. 

It then identifies the universal and regional standards that apply in refugee status 

determinations around the world, thereby illuminating the overall framework for 

refugee protection. It concludes by noting the major actors involved in refugee 

protection, particularly the UNHCR and other international and national entities.

 Section I is truly introductory. It lays the foundation for what will come in other 

sections of The Refugee Law Reader. Accordingly, Section I refers only to fundamental 

principles, leaving the in-depth examination of case law to subsequent sections.26 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

I.1 History of Population Movements: 

 Migrants, Immigrants, Internally Displaced 

 Persons and Refugees

Main Debates

Is there a human right of freedom to move to another country?

Is migration an asset to, or a burden for, sending and receiving states? 

What is the relationship between past movements and present migration policies?

Main Points

Unlimited exit v. limited entry rights

Trade-offs between regular and irregular routes 

Migration as a pervasive feature of the human experience

I.1.1 The Concepts

Main Debate

Should different types of migration – regular, unauthorized, and forced – be 

subject to different forms of control?

Main Points

Sociological, demographic, historical and legal perspectives on migration

Understanding fundamental terms of reference: 

• international migrant

• asylum seeker

• refugee

• undocumented (illegal) migrant

• 'of concern' to UNHCR 

Readings

Core

A. Demuth, 'Some Conceptual Thoughts on Migration Research', in B. Agozino 

(ed.), Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Migration Research (Aldershot: 

Ashgate Publishing, 2000), pp. 21–58.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 27

Extended

V. Bader, 'The Ethics of Immigration', Constellations, vol. 12, no. 3 (2005), pp. 

331–361.

IOM, International Migration Law Glossary on Migration IOM, Geneva, 2004.

I.1.2 The Theories

Main Debates

What are the causes of migration?

Is the model of push-pull factors adequate?

Can migratory processes be managed?

Does migration management simply redirect or reclassify migrants?

Main Points

Absence of a single theory explaining migration

The start and the continuation of a migratory process may have different causes

Migration management:

• varied tools

• short v. long term perspectives

• often unexpected results

Readings

Core

D. Massey, J. Arango, G. Hugo, A. Kouaci, A. Pellegrino, and E. Taylor, 

'Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal', Population and

Development Review, vol. 19, no. 3 (September 1993), pp. 431–466.

R. Skeldon, 'International Migration as a Tool in Development Policy: A Passing 

Phase?', Population and Development Review, vol. 34, no. 3 (March 2008), 

pp. 1–18.

Extended

A. Betts, Forced Migration and Global Politics, (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 

2009), pp. 60–79.

C. B. Brettel and J. F. Hollifield, 'Migration Theory Talking across Disciplines', 

in C. B. Brettel and J. F. Hollifield (eds), Migration Theory Talking across 

Disciplines (New York: Routledge, 2008), pp. 1–29.28 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

J. P. Casey, 'Open Borders: Absurd Chimera or Inevitable Future Policy?', 

International Migration, vol. 48, no. 5 (2010), pp. 14–62.

D. Fisher, S. Martin and A. Schoenhotz, 'Migration and Security in International 

Law', in T. Aleinikoff and V. Chetail (eds), Migration and International Legal 

Norms (The Hague: Asser Press, 2003), pp. 87–122.

A. Pécoud and P. de Guchteneire, 'Introduction: The Migration without Borders 

Scenario', in A. Pécoud and P. de Guchteneire (eds), Migration without 

Borders Essays on the Free Movement of People (Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 

New York: Berghahn Books, 2007), pp. 3–30.

A. Portes and J. DeWind, 'A Cross-Atlantic Dialogue: The Progress of Research 

and Theory in the Study of Migration', International Migration Review, vol. 

38, no. 3 (Fall 2004), pp. 828–851.

A. Zolberg, 'Matters of State: Theorizing Immigration Policy', in C. Hirchman, P. 

Kasinitz and J. DeWind (eds), The Handbook of International Migration: The 

American Experience (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1999), pp. 71–93.

Editor's Note

As the reading demonstrates, there is no single theory of migration. Theories of 

international migration attempt to explain migration at different levels (i.e., ranging 

from the individual, family, or community, to the national and global) and focus on 

various aspects of migration (i.e., forces that 'trigger' migration or factors that sustain 

it). Even the most widely held convictions – about the sovereign right and the economic 

incentives to exclude the foreigners – may be challenged.

I.1.3 The Actual Movements

Main Debates

Is the boat really full? Where?

Should former countries of origin 'repay' their historic debts by receiving 

migrants?

Does the European Union need an immigration policy?

Main Points

The proportion of migrants among the population is only slightly increasing in 

recent decades and is close to 3%WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 29

Transformation of many European states from sending to receiving states

Lessons from historical data:

• closing one entry door leads to opening of another

• migration cannot be halted

Readings

Core

A. Segal, An Atlas of International Migration (London: Hans Zell Publishers, 

1993), pp. 3–22.

Migration in an Interconnected World: New Directions for Action (Report of The 

Global Commission on International Migration, October 2005), pp. 5–10.

Extended

S. Castles and M. J. Miller, The Age of Migration: International Population 

Movements in the Modern World (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2009), pp. 96–124, 

148–180, 299–312. 

R. King, 'European International Migration 1945–1990: A Statistical and Geographical Overview', in R. King (ed.), Mass Migration in Europe the Legacy and 

the Future (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1995), pp. 19–39.

S. Schmeidl, 'Comparative Trends in Forced Displacement', in J. Hampton (ed.), 

Internally Displaced People: A Global Survey (London: Earthscan, 1998), pp. 

24–33.

Eurostat, 'Europe in Figures', Eurostat Yearbook (2010), pp. 198–203.

OECD, International Migration Outlook (Paris: OECD, 2010). 

UN, International Migration and Development Report of the Secretary General

A/65/203, 2 August 2010.

UNHCR, '2009 Global Trends: Refugees, Asylum-seekers, Returnees, Internally 

Displaced and Stateless Persons', 15 June 2010.

Editor's Note

An historical overview of migration should place a particular emphasis on post-Second 

World War patterns, highlighting the changes in migration policies that encouraged 

inward migration until the late 1970s.

Explication of trends and patterns in refugee migration should identify the changing 

numbers of refugees, their countries of origin, and the uneven distribution of asylum 

seekers among host countries.30 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

I.2 The Legal and Institutional Framework 

 for Refugee Protection

Main Debates

What impact do international obligations have on national sovereignty and 

migration control? 

What are the legal and moral duties of host states?

Are the expanding refugee definitions and the rise of new actors an improvement 

or not?

Main Points

Three major phases of the evolution of the international refugee legal regime

Policy responses to different types of migration

Universal and regional definitions

I.2.1 The Evolution of the International 

 Refugee Regime

Readings

Core

J. Hathaway, 'A Reconsideration of the Underlying Premise of Refugee Law', 

Harvard International Law Journal, vol. 31, no. 1 (Spring 1990), pp. 129–147.

G. Loescher, 'The Origins of the International Refugee Regime', in Beyond 

Charity: International Co-operation and the Global Refugee Crisis (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 32–55.

A. Suhrke, 'Refugees and Asylum in the Muslim World', in R. Cohen (ed.), The 

Cambridge Survey of World Migration (Cambridge: Cambridge University 

Press, 1999), pp. 457–460.

Extended

L. Holborn, 'The Legal Status of Political Refugees, 1920–1938', American

Journal of International Law, vol. 32, no. 4 (October 1938), pp. 680–703.

M. Marrus, The Unwanted. European Refugees in the Twentieth Century (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 1985).WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 31

Editor's Note

Note the three phases of the modern international refugee regime:

1) The first phase of collective recognition of refugees, which goes up until the Second

World War,

2) The second phase of transition, which occurs during and shortly after the Second

World War,

3) The third phase of individual recognition and other forms of protection, 

which begins with the establishment of UNHCR and entry into force of the 

1951Convention, continuing to the present.

I.2.2 The Universal Standard: The 1951 Geneva 

 Convention Refugee Definition and the 

 Statute of the UNHCR

I.2.2.1 Prior Definitions: Group Specific: 

 Geographically and Temporarily Limited

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 1–4.

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 15–20. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in 

International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 4–6].

I.2.2.2. 1951 Geneva Convention: Universal Applicability: 

 Optional Geographical and Temporal Limits

Treaties

International

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150.32 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Geneva Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to 

the Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 5, 108–109.

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 20–24, 35–37. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The 

Refugee in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 

7–8, 18–19].

N. Robinson, Convention Relating to the Status of of Refugees: Its History, Contents 

and Interpretation (New York: Institute of Jewish Affairs, 1953).

I.2.2.3 Expansion by the 1967 Protocol

Treaties

International

Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 4 October 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267.

Soft Law

Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 

UN General Assembly Resolution, A/RES/428 (V), 14 December 1950.

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 6–11.

Editor's Note

For detailed analysis see Section II.2.1.

I.2.3 Contemporary Alternative Refugee Definitions

Editor's Note

This section traces the recent broadening of the refugee definition and the expansion 

of major actors (governmental and non-governmental) that has occurred from early WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 33

1970s onwards. While the 1951 Geneva Convention provides the core legal definition of 'refugee' and UNHCR remains the dominant actor in international refugee 

protection, readers should consider whether the appearance of new definitions 

undermines the consistency of the regime or leads to a more responsive international 

environment.

I.2.3.1 Africa

Treaties

Regional

Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, 10 

September 1969, 1001 U.N.T.S. 45.

Editor's Note

See also Section III.

I.2.3.2 Latin America

Soft Law

Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, 22 November 1984, OAS/Ser.L./V/II.66, 

doc. 10, rev. 1.

Editor's Note

See also Section VI.

I.2.3.3 Europe

Soft Law

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, 'Recommendation 773 (1976) on 

the Situation of de Facto Refugees', 26 January 1976.

EU Documents

Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving 

temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on 

measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving 34 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

such persons and bearing the consequences thereof. OJ L 212/12, 7 August 

2001.

Council Directive 2004/83 of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the 

qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless persons 

as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and 

content of the protection granted, OJ L 304, 30 September 2004.

Editor's Note

See also Section V.

I.3 UNHCR and Other Actors Relevant 

 to International Asylum Law

Readings

Core

W. Kälin, 'Supervising the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees: Art. 35 

and Beyond', in E. Feller, V. Türk, and F. Nicholson (eds), Refugee Protection 

in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International 

Protection (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 613–666.

Editor's Note

UNHCR has changed its perceived mission several times, first extending protection to 

victims in situations not falling under its original mandate and second by becoming an 

agency involved in complex humanitarian missions in acute conflict zones.

This extended responsibility could not be discharged without an ever growing co- 

operation with other member organizations and programs of the UN family and 

without the expanding engagement of national and international non-governmental 

organizations as implementing partners.

The outreach of the UN-centred refugee regime depends on its precarious relationship 

with the major donor governments.

Since December 2005 UNHCR has become actively involved in the protection of 

internally displaced persons.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 35

I.3.1 UNHCR

Main Debates

Should the role of UNHCR extend beyond protection to include humanitarian 

aid and/or return and reconstruction?

What procedural standards does UNHCR apply in its expansive role in status 

determination?

Has, and can, UNHCR put up effective resistance against restrictive tendencies 

in Europe and elsewhere?

Main Points

UNHCR conducts status determination in over 70 countries with significant 

variations in practice and standards

Necessity of networks for co-operation and engagement

Dependency on major donor governments

Treaties

International

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150. 

Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 4 October 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267.

Soft Law

Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 

UN General Assembly Resolution, A/RES/428 (V), 14 December 1950.

UNHCR Documents

REFWORLD, The UNHCR's CD-ROM Database, www.refworld.org.

UNHCR, 'Agenda for Protection', October 2003.

UNHCR, 'Declaration Reaffirming the Principles of the 1951 Refugee 

Convention', December 2001.

UNHCR, 'Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination Procedure 

under UNHCR's Mandate', September 2005.36 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Readings

Core

B. S. Chimni, 'The Geopolitics of Refugee Studies: A View from the South', 

Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 11, no. 4 (December 1998), pp. 350–357, 

365–368.

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 20–32. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 7–17].

Extended

M. Barutciski, 'A Critical View on UNHCR's Mandate Dilemmas', International

Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 14, nos. 2–3 (April 2002), pp. 365–381.

G. Gilbert, 'Rights, Legitimate Expectations, Needs and Responsibilities: 

UNHCR and the New World Order', International Journal of Refugee Law, 

vol. 10, no. 3 (July 1998), pp. 350–388. 

W. Kälin, 'Supervising the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees: Art. 35 

and Beyond', in E. Feller, V. Türk, and F. Nicholson (eds), Refugee Protection 

in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International 

Protection (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 613–666.

G. Loescher, The UNHCR and World Politics: A Perilous Path (Oxford: Oxford 

University Press, 2001).

M. Smrkolj, 'International Institutions and Individualized Decision-Making: An 

Example of UNHCR's Refuge Status Determination', in A. von Bogdandy, 

R. Wolfrum, J. von Bernstorff, P. Dann and M. Goldmann (eds), The Exercise 

of Public Authority by International Institutions (Heidelberg: Springer, 2009), 

pp. 399–405.

I.3.2 Other Agencies and Their Interaction

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 441–446. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 222–230].WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 37

N. Kelly, 'International Refugee Protection Challenges and Opportunities', 

International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 19, no. 3 (October 2007), pp. 

432–439.

C. Phuong, 'Improving United Nations Response to Crises of Internal 

Displacement', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 13, no. 4 (October 

2001), pp. 491–517.

Extended

W. Kälin, 'Supervising the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees: Art. 35 

and Beyond', in E. Feller, V. Türk, and F. Nicholson (eds), Refugee Protection 

in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International 

Protection (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 613–666.

A. Vibeke Eggli, Mass Refugee Influx and the Limits of Public International Law

(The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002), pp. 118–138.

UN, International Migration and Development, Report of the Secretary-General

A/63/265, 11 August 2008.

Editor's Note

Note also the activities of agencies not fully covered in the readings, among them the 

UN Security Council's resolutions referring to situations producing flight of persons, 

and the involvement of IOM and the ICRC. 

See UNCHR's website on donors and partners of UNHCR.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 39

SECTION II 

International Framework 

for Refugee Protection

Section II of The Refugee Law Reader presents the international framework for 

refugee protection. This section focuses exclusively on universal norms. Although both 

universal and regional laws and practices may be important in any single case, the 

legal norms developed at the regional level differ significantly from one area of the 

globe to another. Therefore, The Refugee Law Reader has elected to address worldwide legal obligations in Section II and to examine regional norms in the separate 

sections concerning Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. 

 The international legal norms concerning refugee protection derive from the wellknown sources of international law: international conventions, international custom, 

and generalized principles found in major legal systems around the world. In addition 

to identifying these bases of international legal protection of refugees, Section II 

highlights soft law as well as subsidiary sources such as judicial decisions and the 

writings of scholars and other experts.

 The organization of Section II proceeds according to the following logic. The 

first portion of Section II surveys the overarching principles and concepts of refugee 

protection. The focus is on customary international legal norms, which apply to all 

states whether or not they are Contracting Parties to any pertinent treaties, on soft 

law, and on certain provisions from international human rights conventions. The 

second, and by far the most extensive, portion of Section II focuses on the 1951 

Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. Today 

there are more than 140 State Parties, making these treaty obligations applicable in 

many parts of the world and a wellspring of jurisprudential development. 

 The third portion of Section II turns to other universal protection that pertains 

to refugees and asylum seekers. In particular, it examines the concepts of temporary 

protection and complementary or humanitarian protection, which many states 

employ in their responses to the displacement of people. It also examines universal 

instruments of human rights and humanitarian protection, which are relevant to 

everyone, including the displaced. Lastly, Section II turns to the topic of internally 

displaced persons. Although they generally do not fall within the legal framework 

of refugee protection, many individuals displaced within their own country fear the 

same persecution as those who have crossed borders. The similarities between their 

situation and that of many refugees make it imperative to address their plight.40 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

II.1 Universal Principles and Concepts 

 of Refugee Protection

Main Debates

How broadly should the legal definition of 'refugee' be drawn? 

How long is a state legally obliged to protect refugees?

To what extent is a state obliged to develop durable solutions as opposed to 

temporary protection?

When must human rights protection trump migration control?

What are the implications of extraterritorial policies that threaten refugee 

protection?

Main Points

International refugee protection as a surrogate to national protection, resulting 

from the failure of the state to protect human rights

Standards of protection and refugee rights

Increasing importance of core international human rights instruments for refugee 

protection

II.1.1 Non-refoulement

Main Debates

Is the principle of non-refoulement applicable in cases of mass influx? 

Is it applicable in international zones?

Has it become jus cogens?

Do certain persons fall outside the protection afforded by the non-refoulement

obligation? 

Main Points

Non-refoulement and different forms of asylum

Non-refoulement under the Geneva Convention v. human rights instruments

The absolute nature of non-refoulement

Access to protectionWWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 41

Treaties

International

Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment 

or Punishment, 10 December 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, Art. 3.

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150, 

Art. 33.

Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 4 October 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267.

Soft Law

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Non-refoulement', Conclusion No. 6 (XXVIII), 1977.

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Note on International Protection', 7 September 1994, paras. 14–15, 

30–41.

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 201–267. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 117–155].

J. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), pp. 

24–27.

E. Lauterpacht and D. Bethlehem, 'The Scope and Content of the Principle 

of Non-refoulement', in E. Feller, V. Türk, and F. Nicholson (eds), 

Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on 

International Protection (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 

78–177.

Extended

P.C.W. Chan, 'The Protection of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons: 

Non-refoulement under Customary International Law?', The International 

Journal of Human Rights, vol. 10, no. 3 (2006), pp. 231–239.

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 268–277. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 155–171, 

195–204].42 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

W. Kälin, 'Article 33, Paragraph 1', in A. Zimmerman (ed.), The 1951 Convention 

Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: A Commentary (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press 2011), pp. 1327–1396.

A. Zimmermann, P Wennholz, Article 33, Paragraph 2', in A. Zimmerman (ed.), 

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: 

A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011), pp. 1307–1423.

II.1.2 Asylum

Main Debates

Are states obliged to provide asylum?

How do extradition and other criminal law measures interact with the principle 

of asylum?

Main Points

Asylum v. other forms of protection

Asylum and the right to entry

Soft Law

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN General Assembly Resolution, 

A/RES/217 A (III), 10 December 1948, Art. 14.

Declaration on Territorial Asylum, UN General Assembly Resolution, 

A/RES/2312 (XXII), 14 December 1967.

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Agenda for Protection', October 2003. 

Readings

Core

A. Edwards, 'Human Rights, Refugees, and the Right "To Enjoy" Asylum', 

International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 17, no. 2 (2005), pp. 293–330.

Extended

G. Noll, 'Seeking Asylum at Embassies: A Right to Entry under International 

Law?', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 17, no. 3 (2005), pp. 542–573.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 43

II.1.3 Non-discrimination

Main Debate 

Does the principle of non-discrimination forbid all differential or preferential 

treatment?

Main Points

Non-discrimination and the enjoyment of refugee rights

Non-discrimination as a norm of customary international law

Treaties

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150, 

Art. 3.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 

18 December 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 513.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 7 March 

1966, 660 U.N.T.S. 195.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, 999 

U.N.T.S. 171, Art. 26.

Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3. 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, 

999 U.N.T.S. 171.

Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 4 October 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267.

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 446–450. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 230–234].

Extended

T. Einarsen, 'Discrimination and Consequences for the Position of Aliens', 

Nordic Journal of International Law, vol. 64, no. 3 (1995), pp. 429–452.

J. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees under International Law (Cambridge: 

Cambridge University, 2005), pp. 123–147.44 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

M. Nowak, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. CCPR Commentary. 

(Kehl, Strasbourg, Arlington: NP Engel, 1993), pp. 43–53, 465–479.

II.1.4 Family Unity

Main Debate

What is the definition of a family?

Main Points

Family unity as a principle

Right of family reunification is not included in the Geneva Convention 

Right to respect for family life under human rights treaties

Treaties

International

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, 999 

U.N.T.S. 171, Arts 17, 23.

Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.

Soft Law

Final Act of the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of 

Refugees and Stateless Persons, 189 U.N.T.S. 37, 1951, Section IV. B on the 

Principle of the Unity of the Family.

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 181–188. 

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Family Reunion', Conclusion No. 9 (XXVIII), 1977. 

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Family Reunification', Conclusion No. 24 (XXXII), 1981.

UN Human Rights Committee, 'General Comment No. 19: The Family' (1990), 

UN Doc.

HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7, 12 May 2004, at 149, paras. 2, 5.

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Agenda for Protection', October 2003. 

UNHCR, 'UNHCR Guidelines on Reunification of Refugee Families', July 1983. WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 45

UNHCR, 'Global Consultations on International Protection, Geneva Expert 

Round Table', 8–9 November 2001. 

Readings

Core

E. Feller, V. Türk, and F. Nicholson (eds), Refugee Protection in International 

Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection (Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 555–603.

K. Jastram and K. Newland, 'Family Unity and Refugee Protection', in E. 

Feller, V. Türk, and F. Nicholson (eds), Refugee Protection in International 

Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection (Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 2003).

Editor's Note

See Section II.3.3.4 (Convention on the Rights of the Child).

II.1.5 Durable Solutions

Main Debates

How can the warehousing of refugees be changed into self-sustainability?

What is the role of UNHCR in situations of premature repatriation?

Main Points

Range of actors and obstacles to durable solutions

Peace building and return

Decline of resettlement

The role of individual preference in durable solutions 

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, Refugee Protection and Durable Solutions in the Context of 

International migration: Report on the High Commissioner's Dialogue on 

Protection Challenges, December 2007 (April 2008).

UNHCR, 'Resettlement Handbook', November 2004, Chapter 2.

UNHCR, 'Agenda for Protection', October 2003, pp. 68–75.46 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Readings

Core

D. Anker, J. Fitzpatrick, and A. Shacknove, 'Crisis and Cure: A Reply to 

Hathaway/Neve and Schuck', Harvard Human Rights Journal, vol. 11 (Spring 

1998), pp. 295–309.

B.S. Chimni, 'From Resettlement to Involuntary Repatriation: Towards a Critical 

History of Durable Solutions to Refugee Problems', Refugee Survey Quarterly, 

vol. 23, no. 3 (2004), pp. 55–73.

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 489–501. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 268–282.]

J. Hathaway and R.A. Neve, 'Making International Refugee Law Relevant Again: 

A Proposal for Collectivized and Solution-Oriented Protection', Harvard 

Human Rights Journal, vol. 10 (Spring 1997), pp. 155–169, 173–187.

Editor's Note

See Section II.2.1.7.1 (cessation of refugee status being one of the durable solutions as 

foreseen by the 1951 Geneva Convention).

II.1.6 Burden Sharing and International 

 Cooperation 

Main Debates

How can the notion of burden sharing be developed into the principle of 

responsibility sharing?

Burden sharing v. burden shifting

Are the financial donations of states a legitimate mechanism for burden shifting?

Main Points

Capacity of receiving states 

Transit states as buffer zones 

Broader implication on host societies 

Implicit burden sharingWWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 47

Readings

Core

D. Anker, J. Fitzpatrick, and A. Shacknove, 'Crisis and Cure: A Reply to 

Hathaway/Neve and Schuck', Harvard Human Rights Journal, vol. 11 (Spring 

1998), pp. 295–310.

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 502–505. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 291–295].

J. Hathaway and R. A. Neve, 'Making International Refugee Law Relevant Again: 

A Proposal for Collectivized and Solution-Oriented Protection', Harvard 

Human Rights Journal, vol. 10 (Spring 1997), pp. 115–151, 187–209.

P. Schuck, 'Refugee Burden-Sharing: A Modest Proposal', Yale Journal of 

International Law, vol. 23 (1997), pp. 243–297.

Extended

C. Bailliet, 'The Tampa Case and its Impact on Burden Sharing at Sea', Human 

Rights Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 3 (2003), pp. 741–774.

E.R. Thielemann and T. Dewan, 'The Myth of Free-Riding: Refugee Protection 

and Implicit Burden-Sharing', West European Politics, vol. 29, no. 2 (2006), 

pp. 351–369. 

A. Vibeke Eggli, Mass Refugee Influx and the Limits of Public International Law 

(The Hague: Martinus Nijhof Publishers, 2002), pp. 40–54, 72–87.

II.2 The 1951 Geneva Convention

Main Debate

To what extent should the Convention be interpreted according to the original 

intent v. evolving understandings?

II.2.1 Criteria for Granting Refugee Protection

Main Debate

Should the refugee definition expand to meet protection needs not foreseen in 

1951?48 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'The International Protection of Refugees: Interpreting Art. 1 of the 

1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees', April 2001.

Editor's Note

Since 1951 there have been expansions of the refugee definition in order to take into 

account the political and social contexts in different regions of the world. More detailed 

expositions of the evolution of the refugee definition can be found in the regional 

sections of The Reader (Section III, Africa; Section IV, Asia; Section V, Europe; and 

Section VI, the Americas). 

II.2.1.1 Alienage

Main Debate

What justifies the difference in protection offered to those persons who cross an 

international border and those who do not?

Main Points

1951 Geneva Convention applies to a subset of forced migrants 

Underlying legal and practical motivations of state parties for requirement that 

refugees cross international borders

UNHCR's increased involvement in assistance to IDPs 

Readings

Core

J. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), pp. 29–33. 

A. Shacknove, 'Who Is a Refugee?', Ethics, vol. 95, no. 2 (January 1985), pp. 

274–284.

Extended

A. Zimmerman, C. Mahler, 'Article 1A, Paragraph 2', in A. Zimmerman (ed.),

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: 

A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011), pp. 441–443.

Editor's Note

In 1951, the conceptual scope of international law was much more limited than it is 

today. Many then viewed international law as limited to duties between states that WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 49

lacked the competence to impose duties on states regarding their own nationals. There 

is also a sort of common sense notion that those who are outside of their own borders 

and fear persecution by authorities within their own state are quite clearly and visibly 

in need of international protection. The requirement that individuals must be outside 

their own state in order to qualify as a refugee accomplished multiple goals:

1) It reduced the number of forced migrants that the international community needed 

to address.

2) It prevented states from shifting responsibility for large parts of their own 

populations to the international community.

3) It prevented states from violating the territorial sovereignty of other states on the 

pretext of responding to a refugee problem.

4) It furnished a prominent example of the limited reach of international legal 

obligations and duties.

See Section II.4 concerning IDPs.

II.2.1.1.1 Outside the Country of Nationality

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 87–91.

II.2.1.1.2 Owing to Fear Is Unable or Unwilling to Avail Self 

 of Protection of Country of Nationality

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 97–100.

Editor's Note

See Section II.2.1.4 concerning the nexus between the unavailability of state protection 

and the existence of a Convention ground. 50 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

II.2.1.1.3 Dual or Multiple Nationality

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 106–107.

II.2.1.1.4 Statelessness

Treaties

Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 360 U.N.T.S. 117, 28 

September 1954.

Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 989 U.N.T.S. 175, 30 August 

1961.

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 101–105.

UNHCR Inter-parliamentary Union, 'Nationality and Statelessness: A Handbook 

for Parliamentarians' (Switzerland: 2005).

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UN General 

Assembly Resolution, A/RES/61/137, 25 January 2007.

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Conclusion on Identification, Prevention and Reduction of 

Statelessness and Protection of Stateless Persons', Conclusion No. 106 (LVII), 

2006.

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 67–70. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 41–43.]

J. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), pp. 

59–63.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 51

II.2.1.2 Well-founded Fear

Main Debate

To what extent must there be a demonstration of objective v. subjective fears in 

order to satisfy the well-founded fear requirement?

Main Point

Shifting standards concerning the likelihood of risk

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 37–47.

Cases

R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Sivakumaran, (1988) 1 All 

ER 193 (HL) (UK judicial decision analysing objective element).

INS v. Cardoza – Fonseca, 480 US 421 (1987) (US judicial decision stating that 

one in ten probability of harm can constitute well-founded fear).

Readings

Core

J. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), pp. 69–97.

'The Michigan Guidelines on Well-Founded Fear', March 2004.

Extended

H. Cameron, 'Risk Theory and "Subjective Fear": The Role of Risk Perception, 

Assessment, and Management in Refugee Status Determinations', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 20, no. 4 (2008), pp. 3567–585.

J. Hathaway and W. Hicks, 'Is There a Subjective Element in the Refugee 

Convention's Requirement of Well-founded Fear?', Michigan Journal of 

International Law, vol. 26, no. 2 (Winter 2005), pp. 505–560.

A. Zimmerman, C. Mahler, 'Article 1A, Paragraph 2', in A. Zimmerman (ed.), 

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: 

A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 335–345.52 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Editor's Note

See also Section II.2.5.2 concerning evidentiary issues.

Many State Parties interpret this term to require showings of both subjective and 

objective fear. Debates surrounding the interpretation of the well-founded fear 

requirement centre upon whether there is a need to demonstrate two elements: 1) the 

asylum seeker's subjective emotion of fear and 2) the objective factors which indicate 

that the asylum seeker's fear is reasonable; or whether the inquiry should be solely the 

objective assessment of the situation, limiting protection only to those who objectively 

risk persecution.

Whether viewed as two elements or one, the major focus is on showing a risk in the 

future. One must consider all the circumstances, the context and the conditions that 

have occurred in the past in order to evaluate the degree of likelihood of the actions 

and threats that might take place in the future. Many commentators and tribunals 

confuse the discussions of subjective and objective elements of fear with concerns about 

credibility and consistency of the asylum seekers' narratives.

See Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment 

or Punishment (adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by UN 

General Assembly Resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 

1987, in accordance with Article 27 (1), Section 4) in Section II.3.3.3.

II.2.1.3 Persecution

Main Debates

Must the persecution be carried out by groups for which the state is accountable 

or does a showing of the inability to protect suffice?

Does the lack of state protection constitute persecution?

To what extent must the threat be individualized (singled out)?

• flight from general civil war

• widespread repressive practices

Main Points

Persecution by non-state actors

• domestic violence

• pressure from the community

• organized groupsWWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 53

The threshold for persecution

• discrimination

• prosecution under laws of general application

Editor's Note

The debate between the accountability theory v. the protection theory centers upon 

whether refugee status is limited to those who fear persecution by groups for whom the 

state is accountable or whether it is available to those who need protection from all 

sources of persecution on account of the five enumerated grounds.

II.2.1.3.1 Acts of Persecution

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 51–60, 65.

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Position on Claims for Refugee Status Based on Fear of Persecution 

Due to Individual's Membership of a Family or Clan Engaged in a Blood 

Feud', 17 March 2006.

Cases

S. v. Chief Executive, Department of Labour, [2007] NZCA 182, Decision of 

8 May 2007, New Zealand Court of Appeal (persecution includes loss 

of life, liberty and disregard of human dignity, such as denial of access to 

employment, to the professions, and to education, or the imposition of 

restrictions on traditional freedoms).

New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority, (1999) [2000] NZLR 545, 

(Refugee Appeal No. 71427/99), paras. 43–53. (NZ administrative decision 

using international law principles to interpret the term 'persecution'). 

Independent Federal Asylum Senate, (IFAS/UBAS) [Austria], Decision of 21 

March 2002, IFAS 220.268/0-X1/33/00 (Austrian administrative appellate 

decision concluding that female genital mutilation constitutes persecution). 54 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 90–94. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 66–70.]

J. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), pp. 

169–179.

Extended

A. Zimmerman, C. Mahler, 'Article 1A, Paragraph 2', in A. Zimmerman (ed.), 

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: 

A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 345–358.

II.2.1.3.2 Agents of Persecution

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, para. 65.

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Victims of Organized 

Gangs', 31 March 2010.

UNHCR, 'Guidance Note on Refugee Claims relating to Female Genital 

Mutilation', May 2009.

UNHCR, 'Refugee Protection and Human Trafficking: Selected legal Reference 

Materials', December 2008.

UNHCR, 'Position Paper on Agents of Persecution', 14 March 1995.

Cases

Adan and Aitseguer, 23 July 1999 [1999] 3 WLR 1274 UK House of Lords 

Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Adan; Regina v. 

Secretary of State for The Home Department ex parte Aitseguer, Judgements of 

19 December 2000), [2001] 2 WLR 143. (UK judicial decision upholding 

asylum for applicants fearing persecution by non-state actors).WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 55

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 98–100. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 70–74.]

J. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), pp. 

124–131.

J. Moore, 'Whither the Accountability Theory: Second-Class Status for Thirdparty Refugees as a Threat to International Refugee Protection', International 

Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 13, nos. 1–2 (January 2001), pp. 32–50.

V. Türk, 'Non-State Agents of Persecution' in V. Chetail and V. Gowlland- 

Debbas (eds), Switzerland and the International Protection of Refugees (The 

Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2002), pp. 95–109.

Extended

A. Zimmerman, C. Mahler, 'Article 1A, Paragraph 2', in A. Zimmerman (ed.),

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: 

A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 358–372.

Editor's Note

Issues regarding the agents of persecution often arise in claims involving particular 

social group, see Section II.2.1.4.5, and have also been addressed in the Common 

European Asylum System, see Section V.2.1.

II.2.1.4 Five Grounds: Race, Religion, Nationality, 

 Social Group, Political Opinion

II.2.1.4.1 Multiple Grounds and General Issues

Main Debate

Which grounds are applicable for conscientious objection and desertion from 

military service?

Main Point

Broad interpretation and overlap of concepts of race, religion and nationality56 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Treaties

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, 999 

U.N.T.S. 171, Arts 2, 12, 18, 19, 26, 27.

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 66–86, 167–174.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN General Assembly Resolution, 

A/RES/217 A (III), 10 December 1948, Arts 2, 18, 19.

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 70–90, 104–116. [G. Goodwin-Gill, 

The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 

pp. 43–49, 54–59.]

J. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), pp. 

141–185.

'The Michigan Guidelines on Nexus to a Convention Ground', March 2001.

Extended

A. Zimmerman, C. Mahler, 'Article 1A, Paragraph 2', in A. Zimmerman (ed.), 

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: 

A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011), pp. 372–375.

Editor's Note

It should be noted that many forms of persecution may be related to overlapping 

grounds under Article 1. Gender-related persecution and persecution based on sexual 

orientation tend to be viewed as an issue of social group, but may also implicate 

religious grounds as well as political opinion. See Section II 2.5.2.3.2.2 for further 

resources concerning gender-related persecution. Persecution related to military 

conscription tends to be viewed as issues of political opinion, but may also implicate 

religious grounds.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 57

II.2.1.4.2 Race 

Treaties

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), 

21 December 1965, 660 U.N.T.S. 195.

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 68–70.

UNESCO, 'Four Statements on the Race Question', COM.69/II.27/A, 1969. 

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 70–71. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in 

International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 43.]

J. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), pp. 

141–143.

Extended

A. Zimmerman, C. Mahler, 'Article 1A, Paragraph 2', in A. Zimmerman (ed.),

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: 

A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011), pp. 375–379.

II.2.1.4.3 Religion 

Main Point

Public religious activity v. private worship

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 71–73, 167–174.58 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination 

Based on Religion and Belief, UN General Assembly Resolution, A/RES/

36/55, 25 November 1981.

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Guidelines on International Protection: "Religion-Based Refugee 

Claims under Art. 1A (2) of the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol 

relating to the Status of Refugees"', April 2004.

Cases

Ahmad and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (CA) (1990) 

Imm AR 61. (UK judicial decision on persecution of Ahmadiyas in Pakistan).

Refugee Review Tribunal, 7 July 1994 RRT Reference N93/01843. (Australian 

decision on persecution of Christians in China).

Dobrican v. INS 77, F 3d 164 (7th Cir 1996). (US judicial decision on religious 

objections to military service by Jehovah's Witness in Romania).

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 71–72, 104–116. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The 

Refugee in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 

44–45, 54–59.]

J. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), pp. 

145–148.

K. Musalo, 'Claims for Protection Based on Religion or Belief', International 

Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 16, no. 2 (2004), pp. 165–226. 

Extended

A. Zimmerman, C. Mahler, 'Article 1A, Paragraph 2', in A. Zimmerman (ed.),

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: 

A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 379–387.

Editor's Note

It should be noted that many forms of persecution may be related to overlapping 

grounds under Article 1. Although persecution related to military conscription tends to WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 59

be viewed as issues of political opinion, it may also implicate religious grounds.

It may also be useful to think about the scope of protected activities under the 1951 

Geneva Convention. With regard to religion, does, or should, it include nontraditional religious beliefs? Anti-religious beliefs? Satanism?

II.2.1.4.4 Nationality

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 74–76.

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 72–73. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 45–46.]

J. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), pp. 

144–145.

Extended

A. Zimmerman, C. Mahler, 'Article 1A, Paragraph 2', in A. Zimmerman (ed.), 

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: 

A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 387–390.

II.2.1.4.5 Particular Social Group

Main Debates

Must the group be defined by its protected characteristics and/or by society's 

perception of it?

Must there be a linkage between protected characteristics and core human rights?

Main Points

Gender-related issues

• domestic violence60 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

• female genital mutilation

• social mores

Sexual orientation

Transsexuality

Family members

Caste or clan

Treaties

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 

(CEDAW), 18 December 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 513.

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 77–79.

Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, UN General 

Assembly Resolution, A/RES/48/104, 20 December 1993.

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Guidelines on International Protection: Gender-related Persecution 

within the Context of Art. 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or Its 1967 

Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees', May 2002.

UNHCR, '"Sexual and Gender-Based Violence against Refugees, Returnees and 

Internally Displaced Persons" – Guidelines for Prevention and Response', 

May 2003.

UNHCR, 'Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Victims of Organized 

Gangs', March 2010.

UNHCR, 'Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Sexual Orientation 

and Gender Identity', November 2008.

UNHCR, 'Handbook for the Protection of Women and Girls', January 2008, 

pp. 137–144.

Cases

Core

Secretary of State for the Home Department v. K; Fornah v. Secretary of State for 

the Home Department, (2006) UKHL 46 (House of Lords). (UK judicial WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 61

decision holding that women in Sierra Leone facing female genital mutilation 

experienced persecution based on their social group).

Moldova v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (2008) UK AIT 00002, 26 

November 2007 (UK Asylum and Immigration Tribunal). (UK administrative 

decision that 'former victims of trafficking' can constitute a social group).

R. v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Shah; Islam v. Secretary of State for the 

Home Department, (1999) 2 AC 629. (UK judicial decision holding Pakistani 

women accused of adultery feared persecution based on their social group).

Matter of Acosta, 20 Immigration & Nationality Decisions 211 (BIA 1985). 

(US administrative decision concerning group sharing common immutable 

characteristic).

Matter of Kasinga, 21 Immigration & Nationality Decisions 357 (BIA 1996). (US 

administrative decision recognizing as social group women who fear female 

genital mutilation).

Aguirre-Cervantes v. INS, 242 F 3d 1169 (9th Cir 2001). (US judicial decision 

granting asylum to a Mexican woman based on physical abuse by father).

Chen Shi Hai (an infant) v. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 

(2002) 162 ALR 577. (Australian High Court holds child born in violation of 

the one-child policy faces persecution based on social group).

Extended

Federal Administrative Court (German), 15 March 1988, 9 C 378.86, vol. 79, 

Collection of Decisions143 (German judicial opinion recognising Iranian 

homosexual faces persecution based on social group).

Attorney General v. Ward, [1993] 2 SCR 689 (Supreme Court). (Canadian 

judicial decision on the notion of social group).

Bah v. Mukasey, Attorney General, 529 F. 3d 99 (2nd Cir. 2008). (US judicial 

decision recognizing that women who experienced female genital mutilation 

as children may still fear future persecution).

Gao v. Gonzales, 440 F. 3d 62 (2nd Cir. 2006). (US judicial decisions holding 

that forced marriages can constitute persecution based on social group).

STCB v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, [2006] 

HCA 61, 14 December 2006 (High Court of Australia). (Australian judicial 

decision holding that blood feud in Albania did not constitute persecution 

based on social group).62 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Ramos v. Holder, 589 F. 3d 426 (7th Cir. 2009). (US judicial decision ruling that 

former gang members can constitute a particular social group that is socially 

visible).

Readings

Core

T. Aleinikof, 'Protected Characteristics and Social Perceptions: An Analysis of the 

Meaning of "Membership of a Particular Social Group" Determination', in 

E. Feller, V. Türk, and F. Nicholson (eds), Refugee Protection in International 

Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection (Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 263–311.

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 73–86. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 46–48.]

J. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), pp. 

157–169.

Extended

K. Daley and N. Kelley, 'Particular Social Group: A Human Rights Based 

Approach in Canadian Jurisprudence', International Journal of Refugee Law, 

vol. 12, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 148–174.

R. Haines, 'Gender-related Persecution', in E. Feller, V. Türk, and F. Nicholson 

(eds), Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations 

on International Protection (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 

pp. 319–350.

N. LaViolette, 'UNHCR Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Sexual 

Orientation and Gender Identity: a Critical Commentary', International 

Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 22, no. 2 (July 2010), pp. 173–208.

N. Laviolette, 'Gender-Related Refugee Claims: Expanding the Scope of the 

Canadian Guidelines', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 19, no. 2 

(July 2007), pp. 169–214.

US DHS, 'Written Clarification Regarding the Definition of "Particular Social 

Group"', 13 July 2010.

A. Zimmerman, C. Mahler, 'Article 1A, Paragraph 2', in A. Zimmerman (ed.),

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: 

A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011), pp. 390–398.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 63

II.2.1.4.6 Political Opinion

Main Debate

Whose political opinion is relevant: the persecutor, the persecuted or both? 

(imputed views)

Main Point

'Political' depends on the context 

• neutrality in civil war

• withholding support from the government

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 80–86, 167–174.

Cases

Core

Bolanos-Hernandez v. INS, 767 F 2d 1277 (9th Cir 1984). (US judicial decision 

holding that neutrality in El Salvador can be a political opinion).

Ciric and Ciric v. Canada, 2FC 65 (1994). (Federal Court of Canada holding 

that refusal to serve in Serbian army in 1991 constituted protected political 

opinion).

Klinko v. Canada, 184 (2000) DLR 4th 14. (Federal Court of Appeal of Canada 

holds that public complaints about widespread corruption can constitute 

political opinion).

Extended

Metropolitan Court (Hungary), 28 February 2000. (judicial decision ordering new 

refugee procedure in order to analyse in depth the Serbian draft evader). 

Metropolitan Court (Hungary), 9 February 1999. (judicial decision providing 

protection but not refugee status to ethnic Hungarian who disobeyed 

Yugoslav conscription order).

Barraza-Rivera v. INS, 913 F2d 1443 (9th Cir 1990). (US judicial decision 

holding that desertion from Salvadoran military in 1984 to avoid assassination 

duty constituted protected political opinion).64 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Readings

Core

Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board, 'Guidelines on Civilian Noncombatants Fearing Persecution in Civil War Situations' (1996).

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 86–90, 104–116. [G. Goodwin-Gill, 

The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 

pp. 48–49, 54–59].

J. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), pp. 

149–157.

Extended

C. Bailliet, 'Assessing Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello within the Refugee Status 

Determination Process: Contemplations on Conscientious Objectors Seeking 

Asylum', Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, vol. 20, no. 3 (2006), pp. 

337–384. 

M. Jones, 'The Refusal to Bear Arms as Grounds for Refugee Protection in 

Canadian Jurisprudence', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 20, no. 1 

(2008), pp. 123–165. 

K. Schnöring, 'Deserters in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia', International 

Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 13, nos. 1–2 (January 2001), pp. 153–173.

A. Zimmerman, C. Mahler, 'Article 1A, Paragraph 2', in A. Zimmerman (ed.), 

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: 

A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 398–404.

Editor's Note

It should be noted that many forms of persecution may be related to overlapping 

grounds under Article 1. Although persecution related to military conscription tends to 

be viewed as issues of political opinion, it may also implicate religious grounds.

It may also be useful to think about the scope of protected activities under the 1951 

Geneva Convention. With regard to political opinion, does, or should, it include racist 

or anti-Semitic political statements?WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 65

II.2.1.5 Internal Protection Alternative

Main Debates

Is it sufficient that there is an absence of persecution or must there be access to 

genuine protection?

Does the existence of an internal protection alternative pre-empt the need for 

international protection?

Main Point

Multiple factors affect practical access to protection elsewhere within country of 

origin

• logistical

• linguistic

• familial

• financial

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, para. 91.

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Guidelines on International Protection: "Internal Flight or Relocation 

Alternative" within the Context of Art. 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or 

1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees', July 2003.

Cases

Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AH, [2007] UKHL 49, 14 November 

2007 (House of Lords) (UK judicial decision ruling that the unduly harsh 

standard should not be equated with inhuman or degrading treatment or 

punishment).

Januzi v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Hamid, Gaafar, and Mohammed 

v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2006] UKHL 5, 15 February 

2006 (House of Lords). (UK judicial decision determining that it was unduly 

harsh to expect applicants from Darfur to relocate elsewhere in Sudan, but 

not unduly harsh for Kosovar Albanian to be relocated elsewhere in Kosovo).66 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

New Zealand Refugee Appeal, No. 71684/99 of 29 October 1999 (decision of 

the Refugee Appeals Authority adopting the IPA principles of Michigan 

Guidelines).

Rasaratnam v. Canada, F.C.J. No. 1256 of 1990 (Canadian Court of Appeal 

decision holding that IPA requires no possibility of persecution in area of 

potential relocation rather than it is not unreasonable to seek refuge there).

Duzdkiker v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, FAC 390 of 2000 

(Australian Federal Court decision applying IPA test of real protection and 

reasonableness of relocation).

Readings

Core

J. Hathaway and M. Foster, 'International Protection/Relocation/Flight Alternative as an Aspect of Refugee Status Determination', in E. Feller, V. Türk, 

and F. Nicholson (eds), Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's 

Global Consultations on International Protection (Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press, 2003), pp. 357–417.

'The Michigan Guidelines on the Internal Protection Alternative', April 1999.

Extended

E. Ferris, 'Internal Displacement and the Right to Seek Asylum', Refugee Survey 

Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3 (2008), pp. 83–92.

N. Kelley, 'Internal Flight/Relocation/Protection Alternative: Is It Reasonable?', 

International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 14, no. 1 (2002), pp. 4–44.

H. Storey, 'The Internal Flight Alternative Test: The Jurisprudence Re-examined', 

International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 10, no. 3 (1998), pp. 499–532.

A. Zimmerman, C. Mahler, 'Article 1A, Paragraph 2', in A. Zimmerman (ed.), 

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: 

A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 445–460.

Editor's Note

Consider the impossibility in many national contexts for people to move from one area 

to establish a life in another region without family or other ties, financial resources, 

or skills and analysis of internal protection alternatives does not end when there is 

an absence of persecution in a certain region, but must proceed to assess the realistic 

likelihood of access to protection.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 67

See also Section V.1.2 concerning the European Practice concerning internal protection 

alternatives.

II.2.1.6 Exclusion from Convention Refugee Status

Main Debates

Must there be a decision on inclusion before exclusion?

How should terrorism be defined?

Does terrorism fall under the notion of a non-political crime, Art. 1F(b), or a 

crime contrary to the purposes of the United Nations, Art. 1F(c)? 

What degree of involvement and/or commitment to the goals of the group 

warrants exclusion?

Should there be a balancing of the gravity of the crime and the gravity of the 

feared persecution?

Main Points

Expanding content of war crimes and crimes against humanity

Diminished culpability

• superior orders

• child soldiers 

Expanding application of the serious non-political crime clause

Treaties

Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals 

of the European Axis, and Charter of the International Military Tribunal, 8 

August 1945, 82 U.N.T.S. 280, Art. 6.

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150. 

Arts 1.D, 1.E, 1.F, and Annex VI.

Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 4 October 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267. 

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', CR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 140–163.68 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Guidelines on International Protection No. 8: Child Asylum Claims 

under Articles 1(A)(2) and 1(F) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol 

relating to the Status of Refugees', December 2009.

UNHCR, 'Note on the Interpretation of Article 1E of the 1951 Convention 

relating to the Status of Refugees', March 2009.

UNHCR, 'Guidelines on International Protection. Application of the Exclusion 

Clauses (Art. 1 F of the 1951 Convention)', September 2003.

UNHCR, 'Note on the Applicability of Art. 1D of the 1951 Convention relating 

to the Status of Refugees ro Palestinian Refugees', October 2002.

Cases

R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2010] UKSC 15, 17 March 

2010 (UK Supreme Court ruling that Sri Lankan asylum seeker would be 

excluded if there are serious reasons for concluding that he knowingly and 

voluntarily contributed in a significant way to LTTE's purpose of committing 

war crimes). 

Tamil X v. Refugee Status Appeals Authority, [2009] NZCA 488, 20 October 2009 

(New Zealand Court of Appeal overturned ruling that Sri Lankan crew member 

on LTTE ship was complicit in crimes against humanity; interprets Article 

1F(a) in consonance with Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court). 

Mugesera v. Canada, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 100, 28 June 2005 (Supreme Court). 

(Canadian judicial decision ruling that 'reasonable grounds to believe' 

standard requires an objective basis with compelling and credible information 

for the belief).

K. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2004] 7 May 2004 (UK 

Immigration and Asylum Tribunal). (characterising acts as 'terrorist' is not 

sufficient for exclusion based on acts contrary to the purposes of the UN).

Refugee Review Tribunal, RRT Reference N96/12101, 25 November 1996 

(Australian administrative decision ruling that asylum seeker from Liberian 

rebel group that committed many atrocities should not be excluded because 

he acted under duress).

Moreno v. Canada, 107 D.L.R. 4th 424 (1993) (Canadian judicial decision 

holding that forcibly conscripted teenage Salvadoran present at torture of 

prisoners cannot be excluded).WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 69

Zacarias Osorio Cruz, Immigration Appeal Board Decision, M88-20043X CLIC 

Notes 118.6 25, March 1988 (Canada) (Mexican army deserter who reported 

political executions was not excluded, despite his participation in killings).

Readings

Core

G. Gilbert, 'Current Issues in the Application of the Exclusion Clauses', in E. 

Feller, V. Türk, and F. Nicholson (eds), Refugee Protection in International 

Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection (Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 425–478.

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 421–446. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 205–229].

J. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), pp. 

91–114.

Extended

European Council on Refugees and Exiles, 'Position on Exclusion from Refugee 

Status', March 2004, International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 16, no. 2 

(2004), pp. 257–285.

M. Gallagher, 'Soldier Bad Boy: Child Soldiers, Culture and Bars to Asylum', 

International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 13, no. 3 (2001), pp. 310–353.

M. Gottwald, 'Asylum Claims and Drug Offences: The Seriousness Threshold of 

Art. 1F(b) and the UN Drug Conventions', International Journal of Refugee 

Law, vol. 18, no. 1 (2006), pp. 81–117. 

J. Hathaway, 'Framing Refugee Protection in the New World Disorder', Cornell 

International Law Journal, vol. 34, no. 2 (2001), pp. 257–320.

S. Kapferer, 'Article 14(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 

Exclusion from International Refugee Protection', Refugee Survey Quarterly, 

vol. 27, no. 3 (2008), pp. 53–75.

J. Rikhof, 'War Criminals Not Welcome: How Common Law Countries 

Approach the Phenomenon of International Crimes in the Immigration and 

Refugee Context', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 21, no. 3 (2009), 

pp. 193–217.

J. Simeon, Exclusion Under Article 1F(a) of the 1951 Convention in Canada', 

International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 21, no. 2 (2009), pp. 193–217.70 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

A. Zimmermann, P Wennholz, 'Article 1 F', in A. Zimmerman (ed.), The 

1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: 

A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 579–610. 

Editor's Note

Some claimants are excluded because they are already receiving protection from other 

UN agencies, such as UNRWA. Those claimants residing in another state with the 

rights and obligations of a national of that state are also excluded. Others are excluded 

because they are deemed unworthy of protection, having committed:

1) serious non-political crimes

2) crimes against peace, war crimes, or crimes against humanity

3) acts contrary to the purposes of the UN.

II.2.1.7 Cessation of Refugee Status

II.2.1.7.1 Cessation Grounds

Main Debates

When are changes sufficiently fundamental, durable and stable to warrant cessation?

Should there be exceptions to cessation?

Main Point

Criteria for determining ceased circumstances

Treaties

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150. 

Art. 1.C.

Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 4 October 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267. 

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 118–139.

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Cessation of Status', Conclusion No. 69 (XLIII), 1992.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 71

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Statement on the "Ceased Circumstances" Clause of the EC 

Qualification Directive', 2008, pp. 5–8.

UNHCR, 'The Cessation Clauses: Guidelines on their Application', 1999. 

UNHCR, 'Note on Cessation Clauses', 30 May 1997.

UNHCR, 'Guidelines on International Protection: Cessation of Refugee Status 

under Art. 1C(5) and (6) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of 

Refugees', February 2003.

UNHCR, 'Summary Conclusions: Cessation of Refugee Status, Expert Roundtable, Lisbon', May 2001.

Cases

Salahadin v.Federal Republic of Germany, 2 March 2010 (ECJ interpretation of 

EC Qualification Directive in light of Art. 1C(5) of the Geneva Convention; 

cessation can only occur when there has been a significant, non-temporary 

change such that the reasons for persecution no longer exist and the legal 

system is effective in detecting and punishing acts of persecution).

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v. Qaah of 2004, 

[2006] HCA 53, 15 November 2006 (Australia). (Australian judicial decision 

holding that government can expel Afghan granted temporary protection visa 

only if government establishes that the safe conditions in the country of origin 

are settled and durable).

Case Regarding Cessation of Refugee Status, VwGH No. 2001/01/0499, 15 May 

2003 (Administrative Appeals Court). (Austrian administrative decision 

ruling that refugee's intent to normalise relations with country of origin is 

decisive in evaluating application for passport).

Readings

Core

J. Fitzpatrick and R. Bonoan, 'Cessation of Refugee Protection', in E. Feller, 

V. Türk, and F. Nicholson (eds), Refugee Protection in International Law: 

UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection (Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 491–544.

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 139–142. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 84–87.]72 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

J. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), pp. 191–

205, 209–211.

D. Milner, 'Exemption from Cessation of Refugee Status in the Second Sentence 

of Art. 1C(5)/(6) of the 1951 Refugee Convention', International Journal of 

Refugee Law, vol. 16, no. 1 (2004), pp. 91–107.

Extended

S. Kneebone, M O'Sullivan, 'Article 1C', in A. Zimmerman (ed.), The 1951 

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: A 

Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 483–535.

M. O'Sullivan, 'Withdrawing Protection Under Article 1C(5) of the 1951 

Convention: Lessons from Australia', International Journal of Refugee Law, 

vol. 20, no. 4 (2008), pp. 586–610.

Editor's Note

Refugee status may cease for among the following reasons:

1) acts voluntarily taken by refugees, such as the voluntary return to live at the site 

where persecution was earlier feared

2) changed circumstances in the home country that eliminate the fear of persecution

3) short-term trips to homelands that may be triggered by family illness or other 

compelling circumstances, yet may indicate that persecution is no longer feared.

See Section V. for further developments concerning cessation in EU law.

II.2.1.7.2 Procedures

Main Debate

Who carries the burden of showing changed circumstances?

Main Points

Necessity of fair process for cessation determinations

Application of cessation clause is not automatic trigger for repatriation

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Note on the Cancellation of Refugee Status', November 2004.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 73

Readings

Core

J. Fitzpatrick and R. Bonoan, 'Cessation of Refugee Protection', in E. Feller, 

V. Türk, and F. Nicholson (eds), Refugee Protection in International Law: 

UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection (Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 514–517, 538–542.

J. Hathaway, 'The Right of States to Repatriate Former Refugees', Ohio State 

Journal on Dispute Resolution, vol. 20 (2005), pp. 175–216.

II.2.2 Access to Territory

Main Debates

Where should state jurisdiction and responsibility start?

Who has responsibility for asylum seekers rescued at sea?

Main Points

Relocating the borders into international zones and third countries

Offshore action of state authorities and outsourcing of state functions

Interaction between international law of the sea and refugee and human rights law

Readings

Core

A. Fischer-Lescano, T. Löhr, and T. Tohidipur, 'Border Controls at Sea: 

Requirements under International Human Rights and Refugee Law', 

International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 21 (2009), pp. 256–296. 

Extended

S. Hamood, 'EU–Libya Cooperation on Migration: A Raw Deal for Refugees and 

Migrants?', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 21 (2008), pp. 19–42. 

G. Noll, 'Article 31', in A. Zimmerman (ed.), The 1951 Convention Relating to 

the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford 

University Press, 2011), pp. 1243–1276.

K. Wouters and M. Den Heijer, 'The Marine I Case: a Comment', International 

Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 22 (2010), pp. 1–19. 74 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

II.2.2.1 Visa Requirements

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 374–375. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 191–193.]

II.2.2.2 Carrier Sanctions

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 377–380. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 191–194.]

II.2.2.3 Extraterritorial Immigration Control

Readings

Core

A. Francis, 'Bringing Protection Home: Healing the Schism Between International 

Obligations and National Safeguards Created by Extraterritorial Processing', 

International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 20, no. 2 (July 2008), pp. 273–313.

G. Noll, 'Seeking Asylum at Embassies: A Right to Entry Under International 

Law?', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 17, no. 3 (2005), pp. 542–573.

II.2.2.4 Interceptions and Rescue at Sea

Treaties

International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 27 April 1979, 1403 

U.N.T.S. 

Soft Law

UNHCR EXCOM 'Protection Safeguards in Interception Measures', Conclusion 

No. 97 (LIV), 2003.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 75

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR and IMO, 'Rescue at Sea: A Guide to Principles and Practice as Applied 

to Migrants and Refugees', 2006. 

UNHCR, Selected Reference Materials: 'Rescue at Sea, Maritime Interception 

and Stowaways', November 2006.

UNHCR, 'Rescue at Sea. A Guide to Principles and Practice as Applied to 

Migrants and Refugees', September 2006.

Readings

Core

R. Barnes, 'Refugee Law at Sea', International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 

vol. 53, no. 1 (January 2004), pp. 47–77. 

A. Fischer-Lescano, T. Löhr, and T. Tohidipur, 'Border Controls at Sea: 

Requirements under International Human Rights and Refugee Law', 

International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 21 (2009), pp. 256–296. 

B. Miltner, 'Irregular Maritime Migration: Refugee Protection Issues in Rescue 

and Interception', Fordham International Law Journal, vol. 30 (2006–2007), 

pp. 75–125. 

M. Pugh, 'Drowning not Waving, Boat People and Humanitarianism at Sea', 

Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 17, no. 1 (2004), pp. 52–69. 

J. van Selm and B. Cooper, 'The New "Boat People": Ensuring Safety and 

Determining Status', Migration Policy Institute Report, (January 2006). 

Extended

C. Bailliet, 'The Tampa Case and its Impact on Burden Sharing at Sea', Human 

Rights Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 3 (August 2003), pp. 741–774. 

S. Hamood, 'EU–Libya Cooperation on Migration: A Raw Deal for Refugees and 

Migrants?', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 21 (2008), pp. 19–42. 

K. Wouters and M. Den Heijer, 'The Marine I Case: a Comment', International 

Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 22 (2010), pp. 1–19. 

Editor's Note

It is important to analyze whether the non-refoulement obligation is applicable on 

the high seas.

See Section II.1.1 on non-refoulement and Section V.2.3 for an overview of Access to 

Territory within the European context.76 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

II.2.3 Access to Procedures

Main Debates

Should asylum seekers have a choice?

Are states free to delegate the task of refugee protection to other states?

Under what conditions, if at all, should a state be entitled to return/send an 

asylum seeker to another state?

Main Points

Content of effective protection

The need to specify the grounds for removal

• to the asylum seeker 

• to the authorities of the destination state

Readings

Core

S. Kneebone, 'The Legal and Ethical Implications of Extraterritorial Processing 

of Asylum-Seekers: The "Safe Third Country' Concept", in J. McAdam 

(ed.), Forced Migration, Human Rights and Security (Portland Oregon: Hart 

Publishing, 2008).

II.2.3.1 Protection Elsewhere 

 (First Country of Asylum and Safe Third Country)

Soft Law

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Refugees Without An Asylum Country', Conclusion No. 

15 (XXX), 1979.

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Problem of Refugees and Asylum Seekers Who Move in 

an Irregular Manner From a Country in Which They Had Already Found 

Protection', Conclusion No. 58 (XL), 1989.

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Global Consultations on International Protection, Background paper 

no. 1: Legal and practical aspects of the return of persons not in need of 

protection', May 2001.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 77

UNHCR, 'Global Consultations on International Protection, Background paper 

no. 2: The application of the "safe third country" notion and its impact on the 

management of flows and on the protection of refugees', May 2001.

UNHCR, 'Global Consultations on International Protection, Background paper 

no. 3: Inter-State agreements for the re-admission of third country nationals, 

including asylum seekers, and for the determination of the State responsible 

for examining the substance of an asylum claim', May 2001.

Cases

Canadian Council for Refugees v. Her Majesty, 2007 F C 1262 (Federal Court), 29 

October 2007 (Canadian judicial opinion striking down Canada's designation 

of the United States as a safe third country). 

Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home department ex parte Adan; Regina v. 

Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Aitseguer, UK House of 

Lords (Judgments of 19 December 2000) (2001) 2 WLR 143–169. (holding 

that Somali and Algerian asylum applicants could not be returned to France 

and Germany on safe third country grounds as both states do not grant 

protection to those in fear of non-state agent persecution).

Al-Rahal v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 184 ALR 698 

(20 August 2001). (deportation of Iraqi to Syria as safe third country without 

actual permission or formal right of entry held not to be a violation of Art. 33).

Readings

Core

S. Kneebone, 'The Legal and Ethical Implications of Extraterritorial Processing 

of Asylum-Seekers: The "Safe Third Country" Concept', in J. McAdam 

(ed.), Forced Migration, Human Rights and Security (Portland Oregon: Hart 

Publishing, 2008).

S. Legomsky, 'Secondary Refugee Movements and the Return of Asylum Seekers 

to Third Countries: The Meaning of Effective Protection', International 

Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 15 (2003), pp. 567–677. 

'The Michigan Guidelines on Protection Elsewhere', January 2007.78 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Extended

A. Zimmerman, C. Mahler, 'Article 1A, Paragraph 2', in A. Zimmerman (ed.), 

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: 

A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 460–461, 1382–

1389. 

Editor's Note

See Section V.2.4.4.2 and V.2.4.4.3 for the development of safe country of origin and 

safe third country practices in Europe. 

II.2.4. Reception Conditions

Main Debates

Who should maintain law and order in refugee camps?

How should armed asylum seekers be demobilized?

Soft Law

The Right to Education of Migrants, Refugees and Asylum Seekers, UN Human 

Rights Council, 16 April 2010.

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Reception of Asylum Seekers, Including Standards of Treatment in 

the Context of Individual Asylum Systems', September 2001.

The right to education of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, UN Human 

Rights Council, 16 April 2010.

Cases

The Minister of Home Affairs v. Wathenuka, 10 November 2003. (South African 

Supreme Court of Appeals judicial decision regarding rights of asylum seekers 

prior to determination of refugee status.)

Readings

Core

L. K. Newman, M. Dudley, and Z. Steel, 'Asylum, Detention, and Mental 

Health in Australia', Refugee Survey Quarterly, vol. 27 (2008), pp. 110–127. WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 79

Extended 

C. Breen, 'The Policy of Direct Provision in Ireland: A Violation of Asylum 

Seekers' Right to an Adequate Standard of Housing', International Journal of 

Refugee Law, vol. 20 (2008), pp. 611–636. 

P. Kissoon, 'From Persecution to Destitution: A Snapshot of Asylum Seekers' 

Housing and Settlement Experiences in Canada and the United Kingdom', 

Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, vol. 8, no. 1 (2010), pp. 4–31. 

K. Vitus and H. Lidén, 'The Status of the Asylum-seeking Child in Norway and 

Denmark: Comparing Discourses, Politics and Practices', Journal of Refugee 

Studies, vol. 23 (2010), pp. 62–81. 

Editor's Note

Detention is dealt with in Section II 2.7.

II.2.5. Procedures for Determining Refugee Status

II.2.5.1. Basic Procedural Requirements

Main Debate

Do accelerated procedures comply with the 1951 Geneva Convention and 

international standards?

Main Points

Minimum standards for refugee status determination 

Prima facie recognition

Impact of absence of legal representation

Impact of barriers of communication for

• asylum seekers and advocates

• asylum seekers and decision makers

Editor's Note

The 1951 Convention does not specify procedural standards. Therefore, it is important 

that an analysis of the minimum standards for refugee status determination identify 

and interpret the sources of law that establish these standards.80 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Soft Law

UNHCR EXCOM, Conclusion No. 8 'Official Records of the General Assembly, 

Thirty-Second Session', Supplement No. 12, A/32/12/Add.1, para. 53(6)(e).

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, para. 189–194.

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR 'Asylum Process (Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures)', in Global 

Consultations on International Protection, 31 May 2001. 

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 528–535. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 324–332.]

S. Legomsky, 'An Asylum Seeker's Bill of Rights in a Non-utopian World', 

Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, vol. 14 (2000), pp. 619–640.

J. Simeon, 'A Comparative Analysis of the Response of the UNHCR and 

Industrialized States to Rapidly Fluctuating Refugee Status and Asylum 

Applications: Lessons and Best Practices for RSD Systems Design and 

Administration', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 22, no. 1 (March 

2010), pp. 72–103. 

II.2.5.2 Evidentiary Issues

Main Point

Burden of persuasion and benefit of doubt

II.2.5.2.1 Standards of Proof

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Note on Burden and Standard of Proof in Refugee Claims', 16 

December 1998.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 81

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, para. 195–205.

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 53–60. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 34–40.]

Cases

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca 480 US 421 (1987). (US judicial decision stating that one 

in ten probability of harm can constitute well-founded fear).

II.2.5.2.2 Credibility

Main Debate

Can an assessment of credibility that is adapted to the symptoms of persecution 

distinguish between fraudulent and genuine asylum claims?

Main Points

Linguistic, psychological, and cultural barriers to credibility assessment

Frequent absence of documentary or corroborative evidence 

Readings

Core

R. Byrne, 'Assessing Testimonial Evidence in Asylum Proceedings: Guiding 

Standards from the International Criminal Tribunals', International Journal 

of Refugee Law, vol. 19, no. 4 (December 2007), pp. 609–638. 

H. Cameron, 'Refugee Status Determinations and the Limits of Memory', 

International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 22, no. 4, (December 2010) pp. 

469–511. 

J. Herlihy, K. Gleeson, and S. Taylor, 'What Assumptions About Human 

Behaviour Underlie Asylum Judgments?', International Journal of Refugee 

Law, vol. 22, no. 3 (October 2010), pp. 351–366. 82 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

J. Sweeney, 'Credibility, Proof and Refugee Law', International Journal of Refugee 

Law, vol. 21, no. 4 (December 2009), pp. 700–726. 

Extended

J. Cohen, 'Questions of Credibility: Omissions, Discrepancies and Errors of 

Recall in the Testimony of Asylum Seekers', International Journal of Refugee 

Law, vol. 13, no. 3 (July 2001), pp. 293–309.

Immigration and Refugee Board (Canada), 'Refugee Protection Division: 

Assessment of Credibility in Claims for Refugee Protection', 31 January 2004.

M. Kagan, 'Is Truth in the Eye of the Beholder? Objective Credibility Assessment 

in Refugee Status Determinations', Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, vol. 

17, no. 3 (2003), pp. 367–394.

W. Kälin, 'Troubled Communication: Cross-cultural Misunderstandings in the 

Asylum Hearing', International Migration Review, vol. 20, no. 2 (1986), pp. 

230–241.

A. Macklin, 'Truth or Consequences: Credibility Determinations in the Refugee 

Context', in The Realities of Refugee Determination on the Eve of a New 

Millennium: The Role of the Judiciary, IARLJ Conference (Ottawa: International 

Association of Refugee Law Judges, 14–16 October 1998).

S. Norman, 'Assessing the Credibility of Refugee Applicants: A Judicial 

Perspective', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 19, no. 2 (2007), pp. 

273–292.

Refugee Review Tribunal (Australia), 'Guidance on the Assessment of Credibility', 

October 2006.

II.2.5.2.3 Factors Affecting Evidentiary Assessment

II.2.5.2.3.1 Post Traumatic Stress

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 206–219.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 83

Readings

Core

J. Herlihy, 'Evidentiary Assessment and Psychological Difficulties', in G. Noll 

(ed.), Proof, Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures

(Leiden: Martinus Nijhof Publishers, 2005), pp. 123–140. 

Physicians for Human Rights, Medical Testimony on Victims of Torture: A 

Physician's Guide to Political Asylum Cases (Boston: Physicians for Human 

Rights, 1991).

Extended

C. Rousseau, F. Crépeau, P. Foxen, and F. Houle, 'The Complexity of 

Determining Refugeehood: A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Decisionmaking Process of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board', Journal of 

Refugee Studies, vol. 15, no. 1 (March 2002), pp. 43–70.

II.2.5.2.3.2 Interviewing Vulnerable Populations

II.2.5.2.3.2.1 Children

Main Debate

How should asylum systems adapt to respect the 'best interests of the child'?

Main Points

Large number of unaccompanied children seeking asylum

State guidelines

Need to take account of youth, immaturity and special needs

Treaties

Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Guidelines on International Protection No. 8: Child Asylum Claims 

under Articles 1(A)(2) and 1(F) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol 

relating to the Status of Refugees', 22 December 2009.

UNHCR, 'Guidelines on Determining the Best Interests of the Child', May 2008.

UNHCR, 'Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in Dealing with Unaccompanied 

Children Seeking Asylum', February 1997.84 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

UNHCR, 'Refugee Children: Guidelines on Protection and Care', 1994. 

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Children at Risk', Conclusion No. 107 (LVIII), 2007.

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Refugee Children and Adolescents', Conclusion No. 84 

(LXVIII), 1997.

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Refugee Children', Conclusion No. 59 (XL), 1989.

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Refugee Children', Conclusion No. 47 (XXXVIII), 1987. 

Readings

Core

O. Keselman, A. Cederborg, M. Lamb, and Ö. Dahlström, 'Mediated 

Communication with Minors in Asylum-seeking Hearings', Journal of Refugee 

Studies, vol. 21 (2008), pp. 103–116.

Extended

Department of Justice (U.S.), 'Guidelines for Children's Asylum Claims', 10 

December 1998.

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 'Child Refugee Claimants: Procedural 

and Evidentiary Issues', 30 September 1996.

S. Maloney, 'Transatlantic Workshop on Unaccompanied/Separated Children: 

Comparative Policies and Practices in North America and Europe', Journal of 

Refugee Studies, vol. 15, no. 1 (March 2002), pp. 102–119.

Refugee Review Tribunal (Australia), 'Guidelines on Children Giving Evidence', 

2002.

A. Zimmerman, C. Mahler, 'Article 1A, Paragraph 2', in A. Zimmerman (ed.), 

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: 

A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011), pp. 404–408.

Editor's Note

The rights and vulnerabilities of children are also addressed in Section II.3.3.4, 

Convention on the Rights of the Child.

II.2.5.2.3.2.2 Women

Treaties

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 

(CEDAW), 18 December 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 513.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 85

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'The Protection of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex 

Asylum Seekers and Refugees', Discussion Paper, 22 September 2010.

UNHCR, 'Guidelines on Prevention and Response to Sexual and Gender Based 

Violence', May 2003.

UNHCR 'Guidelines on the Protection of Refugee Women', July 1991, paras. 

57–62.

UNHCR, 'Gender Sensitive Techniques', 1991.

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Women and Girls at Risk', Conclusion No. 105 (LVI), 2006.

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Refugee Protection and Sexual Violence', Conclusion No. 

73 (XLIV), 1993.

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Refugee Women and International Protection', Conclusion 

No. 64 (XLI), 1990.

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Refugee Women and International Protection', Conclusion 

No. 39 (XXXVI), 1985.

Readings

Core

D. Anker, 'Refugee Law, Gender, and the Human Rights Paradigm', Harvard 

Human Rights Journal, vol. 15 (Spring 2002), pp. 133–154.

R. Haines, 'Gender-Related Persecution', in E. Feller, V. Türk, and F. Nicholson 

(eds), Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations 

on International Protection (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 

pp. 319–350.

Extended

'Asylum and Withholding Definitions', Federal Register, 65 (7 December 2000): 

76588–76598. 

Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Australia), 'Refugee and 

Humanitarian Visa Applicants Guidelines on Gender Issues for Decision 

Makers', July 1996.

Immigration and Refugee Board (Canada), 'Guidelines on Women Refugee 

Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution', March 1993.

UK Immigration Appellate Authority, 'Asylum Gender Guidelines', November 2000.86 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

A. Zimmerman, C. Mahler, 'Article 1A, Paragraph 2', in A. Zimmerman (ed.), 

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: 

A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 409–419.

Editor's Note

See Section II.2.1.4 and Section II.2.1.4.5 for additional resources concerning genderrelated persecution.

II.2.6 Content of Refugee Status

Main Debates

Should refugees enjoy the rights of citizens?

Do international human rights instruments provide sufficient protection for 

refugees in host countries?

Main Points

The correlation between the refugee's attachment to the country and the extent 

of rights

Significance and definition of lawful stay in host country

Refugee specific standards v. universal human rights standards

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 524–527. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 307–315].

J. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees under International Law (Cambridge: 

Cambridge University, 2005), pp. 156–160, 730–739, 786–828, 905–912.

Extended

J. Field, 'Bridging the Gap Between Refugee Rights and Reality: a Proposal 

for Developing International Duties in the Refugee Context', International 

Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 22, no. 4 (2010), pp. 512–557. 

Overseas Development Institute (ODI), 'Realising Protection. The Uncertain 

Benefits of Civilian, Refugee and IDP Status', Humanitarian Policy Group 

Report 28, September 2009. WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 87

Editor's Note

Those with refugee status generally have legal rights as great or greater than many other 

non-citizens who are lawfully present in the host state.

II.2.7 Detention

Main Debates

Is detention contrary to Art. 31 of the 1951 Geneva Convention?

Under what circumstances and for how long may asylum seekers be detained?

Is it lawful to use detention for the purpose of deterrence?

Main Points

Refugees often subject to penalties for illegal entry contrary to the 1951 Geneva 

Convention

Detention of children and other vulnerable populations

Standards for conditions of detention

Treaties

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150. 

Arts 26, 31, 36.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, 999 

U.N.T.S. 171, Art. 9.

Soft Law

U.N. Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary 

Detention, A/HRC/10/21, 16 February 2009.

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 189–194.

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Detention of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers', Conclusion 

No. 44 (XXXVII) – 1986.

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Conclusion on International Protection', Conclusion No. 

85 (XLIX) – 1998.

Human Rights Committee, 'General Comment No. 27, Freedom of Movement 

(Art.12)', U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9 (1999), 2 November 1999.88 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

'Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty', UN General 

Assembly Resolution, A/RES/45/113, 14 December 1990.

Commission on Human Rights United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary 

Detention Deliberation No. 5, 'Situation Regarding Immigrants and Asylum 

Seekers', E/CN.4/2000/4, Annex II, 28 December 1999.

'Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention 

or Imprisonment', UN General Assembly Resolution, A/RES/43/173, 9 

December 1988.

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Selected Documents Relating to Detention', February 2009.

UNHCR, 'Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the 

Detention of Asylum Seekers', February 1999.

UNHCR, 'Detention of Asylum Seekers and Refugees: The Framework, the 

Problem and Recommended Practice', June 1999.

Cases

Zimbabwe Exiles Forum v. Minister of Home Affairs, 27294/2008, [2011] 

ZAGPPHC 29, 17 February 2011, (High Court of South Africa (North 

Guateng, Pretoria)) (unlawful to arrest and detain asylum seekers without 

verifying their status or granting access to the refugee system). 

Refugee Council New Zealand Inc., The Human Rights Foundation of Aotearoa New 

Zealand Inc., and 'D' v. Attorney General, M1881-AS01, 31 May 2002 (High 

Court of New Zealand). (NZ judicial decision limiting detention to rare cases 

where necessary to prevent flight or commission of crime). 

C. v. Australia, HRC, Views of 28 October 2002, no. 900/1999,(lengthy 

detention causing mental illness is violation of Art. 9). 

Torres v. Finland, HRC, Views of 2 April 1990, no. 291/1988 (failure of state to 

provide alien in detention for more than five days a right of access to the court 

proceedings for judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention constitutes 

a violation of Art. 9). 

A. v. Australia, HRC, Views of 30 April 1997, no. 560/1993. (absence of 

individual consideration of reasons for detention of asylum seekers constitutes 

a violation of Art. 9). WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 89

Readings

Core

E. Acer and J. Goodman, 'Reaffirming Rights: Human Rights Protections 

of Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees in Immigration Detention', 

International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 24, no. 4 (2010).

Extended

Amnesty International, 'Migration-Related Detention: A Research Guide on 

Human Rights Standards Relevant to the Detention of Migrants, Asylumseekers and Refugees', November 2007.

J. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees under International Law (Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 413–439.

A. Naumik, 'International Law and Detention of U.S. Asylum Seekers: 

Contrasting Matter of D-J – with the United Nations Refugee Convention', 

International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 19, no. 4 (2007), pp. 661–702.

S. Vohra, 'Detention of Irregular Migrants and Asylum Seekers', in R. Cholewinski 

and R. Perruchoud (eds), International Migration Law: Developing Paradigms 

and Key Challenges (The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2007), pp. 49–69.

II.3 Other Forms of International Protection

II.3.1 Temporary Protection

Main Debates

Is temporary protection on the basis of group assessment of protection need an 

adequate alternative to individualized examination of refugee status? 

Are there legally binding norms for temporary protection or is it a matter of 

discretionary state practice?

What should be the duration of temporary protection?

What level of rights must be accorded to those granted temporary protection? 

Main Points

Temporary protection as an administrative measure until individual examination 

is carried out or group recognition occurs90 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Temporary protection is a precursor, not an alternative, to 1951 Geneva 

Convention protection

Temporary protection does not suspend states' duties under the 1951 Geneva 

Convention and other human rights treaties

Soft Law

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Protection of Asylum-Seekers in Situations of Large-Scale 

Influx', Conclusion No. 22 (XXXII), 1981.

UNHCR EXCOM, 'General Conclusion on International Protection', 

Conclusion No. 74 (XLV), 1994, sections (r)-(u).

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Conclusion on the Provision on International Protection 

Including Through Complementary Forms of Protection', Conclusion No. 

103 ((LVI), 2005, section (l).

UNHCR Documents

UNCHR, 'Note on International Protection', UN doc. A/AC.96/830, 7 

September 1994, paras. 45–51.

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 340–342. [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee 

in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 196–202.]

Extended

M. Albert, 'Governance and Prima Facie Refugee Status Determination: 

Clarifying the Boundaries of Temporary Protection, Group Determination, 

and Mass Influx', Refugee Survey Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 1 (2010), pp. 61–91.

J. Fitzpatrick, 'Temporary Protection of Refugees: Elements of a Formalized 

Regime', American Journal of International Law, vol. 94, no. 2 (April 2000), 

pp. 279–306.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 91

II.3.2 Complementary (Subsidiary) Protection

Main Debates

Is the 1951 Geneva Convention adequate in the context of forced displacement?

How can the protection needs of victims of generalised violence and armed 

conflict be met?

Should there be a 'sliding scale' or other connection between the various kinds of 

protection needs and the ensuing entitlements?

Is complementary protection a humanitarian issue under state discretion or a 

matter of state duty?

Main Points

Limitations of 1951 Geneva Convention give rise to the need for complementary 

forms of protection

Role of international human rights treaties in establishing protection standards 

to be accorded to persons who fall outside of the 1951 Geneva Convention

Distinction between complementary protection and stay for compassionate or 

practical reasons.

Soft Law

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Conclusion on the Provision on International Protection 

Including Through Complementary Forms of Protection', Conclusion No. 

103 ((LVI), 2005. 

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Providing International Protection Including Through Complementary Forms of Protection', 2 June 2005.

UNHCR, 'The International Protection of Refugees: Complementary Forms of 

Protection', April 2001.

Readings

Core

R. Mandal, Protection Mechanisms Outside of the 1951 Convention ('Complementary 

Protection'), UNHCR Legal and Protection Policy Research Series, (Geneva: 

UNHCR, 2005).92 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

R. Plender and N. Mole, 'Beyond the Geneva Convention: Constructing a De 

Facto Right of Asylum from International Human Rights Instruments', in 

F. Nicholson and P. Twomey (eds), Refugee Rights and Realities. Evolving 

International Concepts and Regimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 

1999), pp. 81–105.

Extended

J. McAdam, 'The Refugee Convention as a Rights Blueprint for Persons in Need 

of International Protection', in J. McAdam (ed.), Forced Migration, Human 

Rights and Security (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008), pp. 263–282.

J. McAdam, Complementary Protection in International Refugee Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007).

J. Vedsted-Hansen, 'Assessment of the Proposal for an EC Directive on the Notion 

of Refugee and Subsidiary Protection from the Perspective of International 

Law', in D. Bouteillet-Paquet (ed.), Subsidiary Protection of Refugees in the 

European Union: Complementing the Geneva Convention? (Brussels: Bruylant, 

2002), pp. 57–78.

II.3.3 Universal Human Rights Instruments 

 Relevant to Protection

Main Debates

To what extent can international human rights law fill existing gaps in refugee 

protection?

Are refugees rights bearers under human rights treaties?

How can international human rights treaties provide protection without 

enforcement powers?

Main Points

Complementarity between 1951 Geneva Convention and other human rights 

instruments

International monitoring bodies and their protection-related practicesWWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 93

II.3.3.1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Main Debate

Is the right to seek and enjoy asylum under the Universal Declaration a binding 

norm under customary international law? 

Main Point

The legal and political significance of the Universal Declaration

Soft Law

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN General Assembly Resolution, 

A/RES/217 A (III), 10 December 1948), Arts 13, 14.

Readings

Core

A. Edwards, 'Human Rights, Refugees, and the Right to "Enjoy Asylum"', 

International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 17, no. 2 (2005), pp. 293–330.

M. Kjaerum, 'Art. 14', in G. Alfredson and A. Eide (eds), The Universal Declaration 

of Human Rights. A Common Standard of Achievement (The Hague: Nijhoff, 

1999), pp. 279–296.

Extended

U. Brandl, 'Soft Law as a Source of International and European Refugee Law', in 

J.Y. Carlier and D. Vanheule (eds), Europe and Refugees – A Challenge? (The 

Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1997), pp. 203–226.

II.3.3.2 The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political 

 Rights

Main Debate

Does the scope of the rights under the International Covenant on Civil and 

Political Rights meet the specific protection needs of refugees?

Main Points

Standard setting v. quasi adjudicatory role of the Human Rights Committee

The extraterritorial application of Art. 794 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Non-refoulement under Art. 7 v. non-refoulement under Art. 33 of the Geneva 

Convention

The emerging standards of the Human Rights Committee on detention of asylum 

seekers under Art. 9

Treaties

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, 999 

U.N.T.S. 171, Arts 7, 9, 12, 13.

Soft Law

Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20: Art. 7. (Prohibition of 

torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment)', 3 October 

1992.

Human Rights Committee, 'General Comment No. 21: Art. 10. (Humane 

treatment of persons deprived of their liberty)', 10 April 1992.

Vienna Declaration, UN World Conference on Human Rights, June 1993, para. 

23. Human Rights Committee.

Cases

Yin Fong v. Australia, HRC, Views of 23 October 2009 (no. 1442/2005) 

(detention for more than 4 years, with no consideration of less invasive 

means and no showing of individual circumstances necessitating continued 

detention, constitutes a violation of article 9).

C. v. Australia, HRC, Views of 28 October 2002, no. 900/1999, (lengthy 

detention causing mental illness of applicant and deportation to Iran 

constitutes a violation of Arts 7 and 9).

Torres v. Finland, HRC, Views of 2 April 1990, no. 291/1988 (failure of state to 

provide alien in detention for more than five days a right of access to the court 

proceedings for judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention constitutes 

a violation of Art. 9).

A. v. Australia, HRC, Views of 30 April 1997, no. 560/1993. (absence of 

individualconsideration of reasons for detention of asylum seekers constitutes 

a violation of Art. 9).

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3. 

(Canadian judicial decision ruling that deportation to torture is prohibited WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 95

by CAT and ICCPR and Canada lacked sufficient procedural safeguards for 

deportations when there is a risk of torture).

Readings

Core

J. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), pp. 

105–112.

S. Joseph, J. Schultz, and M. Castan, The International Covenant on Civil and 

Political Rights: Cases, Materials, and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University 

Press, 2004), pp. 230–248. 

M. Nowak, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. CCPR Commentary, 2. 

Edition (Kehl-Strasbourg-Arlington: N.P. Engel, 2005), pp. 185–188. 

S. Persaud, 'Protecting Refugees and Asylum Seekers under the International 

Covenant for Civil and Political Rights', New Issues in Refugee Research Series, 

Research Paper No. 132, UNHCR (November 2006), pp. 1–33. 

R. Plender and N. Mole, 'Beyond the Geneva Convention: Constructing a De 

Facto Right of Asylum from International Human Rights Instruments', in 

F. Nicholson and P. Twomey (eds), Refugee Rights and Realities. Evolving 

International Concepts and Regimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 

1999), pp. 81–105. 

Extended

J. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees under International Law (Cambridge: 

Cambridge University, 2005), pp. 119–147.

C.W. Wouters, International Legal Standards for the Protection from Refoulement

(Antwerp: Intersentia, 2009), pp. 359–423.

Editor's Note

Although there are only a small number of Human Rights Committee (HRC) opinions 

concerning asylum seekers, the HRC, in its Concluding Observations on State Party 

reports frequently addresses the circumstances of asylum seekers and refugees in their 

assessment of State Party compliance with specific articles under the ICCPR. This offers 

another channel for asylum rights advocacy.96 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

II.3.3.3 The UN Convention Against Torture and Other 

 Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Main Debate

What level of scrutiny should the UN Committee Against Torture exercise in 

asylum-related cases?

Main Points

Absolute nature of Art. 3

The role of the UN Committee Against Torture in the protection against expulsion

The Committee's interim measures

Assessment of credibility of torture victims

Extraterritorial applications of Art. 3

Suspected terrorists and inadequacy of diplomatic assurances

Treaties

Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment 

or Punishment, 10 December 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, Arts 1, 3, 10, 16.

Soft Law

UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), General Comment No. 1: Implementation of Art. 3 of the Convention in the Context of Art. 22 (Refoulement and 

Communications)', 21 November 1997. A/53/44, paras. 6, 7.

Cases

Core

M.A. & L.G. v. Sweden, CAT 373/2009, 19 November 2010. (return of longtime PKK member to Turkey where he is wanted under anti-terrorism laws 

would constitute a breach of art. 3).

S.A. v. Denmark, CAT 339/2008, 15 November 2010. (return to Iran in the 

deteriorating situation since the elections of June 2009 would constitute a 

breach of art. 3 with regard to an individual who had suffered torture 7 years 

earlier for monarchist political activities).

M.G. v. Sweden, CAT 349/2008, 11 Nov. 2010. (return of low level, but longtime PKK member to Turkey where she is likely to be imprisoned under antiterrorism laws would constitute a breach of art. 3).WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 97

E.N. v. Sweden, CAT 322/2007, 14 May 2010. (return of woman and her minor 

daughter to Democratic Republic of the Congo where widespread violence 

against women exists would constitute a breach of art. 3).

A.T. v. France, CAT 300/2006, 11 May 2007. (violation of the Convention 

when France charged dual French/Tunisian national of terrorism, revoked his 

French citizenship, and expelled him to Tunisia while his asylum and CAT 

claims were still pending). 

C.A.R.M. v. Canada, CAT 298/2006, 24 May 2007. (discrepancies in testimony 

about threats from Mexican government officials and drug cartel were due to 

misunderstandings, but insufficient evidence of real, foreseeable, personal risk).

E.P. v. Azerbaijan, CAT 281/2005, 1 May 2007. (violation of the Convention 

when Azerbaijan disregarded Committee's request for interim measures 

and expelled applicant who had received refugee status in Germany back to 

Turkey where she had previously been detained and tortured).

E.R.K. & Y.K. v. Sweden, CAT 270 & 271/2005, 30 April 2007. (no violation 

of the Convention when claimants were expelled to Azerbaijan based on 

evidence that many supporting documents were false).

C.T. & K.M. v. Sweden, CAT 279/2005, 22 January 2007. (Rwandan women 

repeatedly raped in detention in Rwanda by state officials have substantial 

grounds to fear torture if returned while ethnic tensions remain high; complete 

accuracy seldom to be expected of victims of torture, and inconsistencies in 

testimony do not undermine credibility if they are not material).

V.L. v. Switzerland, CAT 262/2005, 20 November 2006. (late disclosure in 

asylum proceedings of rape does not impair claimant's credibility).

Agiza v. Sweden, CAT 233/2003, 20 May 2005. (non-refoulement under CAT is 

absolute even in context of national security concerns; insufficient diplomatic 

assurances were obtained by sending country).

Mutombo v. Switzerland, CAT 13/1993, 27 April 1994. (no violation of the 

Convention where applicant has established existence of gross violations of 

human rights in country of return, absent sufficient evidence of the applicant's 

'personal risk').

Tala v. Sweden, CAT 43/1996, 15 November 1996. (contradictions and 

inconsistencies in testimony of asylum seeker attributed to post-traumatic 

stress disorder resulting from torture).98 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Aemei v. Switzerland, CAT 34/1995, 9 May 1997. (activities carried out by 

receiving state may also give rise to risk of being subjected to torture).

Paez v. Sweden, CAT 39/1996, 28 April 1997. (membership of applicant in the 

Peruvian Shining Path organisation is not material to enjoyment of absolute 

Art. 3. right, contrasting with Art. 1F of 1951 Geneva Convention).

Extended

For a comparative analysis of national case law, see Matter of J-E, 23 Immigration 

& Naturalization Decisions 291, (BIA 2002). (detention in Haitian prison is 

not torture when legally sanctioned).

Matter of G-A, 23 Immigration & Naturalization Decisions 366 (BIA 2002). 

(Iranian Christian convicted of drug offense in US cannot be returned to 

Iran).

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3. 

(Canadian judicial decision ruling that deportation to torture is prohibited 

by CAT and ICCPR and Canada lacked sufficient procedural safeguards for 

deportations when there is a risk of torture).

Readings

Core

J. Doerfel, 'The Convention Against Torture and the Protection of Refugees', 

Refugee Survey Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 2 (2005), pp. 83–97.

M. Jones, 'Lies, Damned Lies and Diplomatic Assurances: The Misuse of 

Diplomatic Assurances in Removal Proceedings', European Journal of 

Migration and Law, vol. 8, no. 1 (2006), pp. 9–39.

E. Odhiambo-Abuya, 'Reinforcing Refugee Protection in the Wake of the War 

on Terror', Boston College International & Comparative Law Review, vol. 30 

(2007), pp. 277–329.

Extended

B. Gorlick, 'The Convention and the Committee against Torture: A 

Complementary Protection Regime for Refugees', International Journal of 

Refugee Law, vol. 11, no. 3 (July 1999), pp. 479–495.

O. Okafor and P. Okoronkwo, 'Reconfiguring Non-refoulement? The Suresh

Decision, 'Security Relativism', and the International Human Rights Imperative', 

International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 15, no. 1 (2003), pp. 30–67.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 99

R. Plender and N. Mole, 'Beyond the Geneva Convention: Constructing a De 

Facto Right of Asylum from International Human Rights Instruments', in 

F. Nicholson and P. Twomey (eds), Refugee Rights and Realities. Evolving 

International Concepts and Regimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 

1999), pp. 81–105.

D. Weissbrodt and I. Hortreiter, 'The Principle of Non-refoulement: Art. 3 of 

the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading 

Treatment or Punishment in Comparison with the Non-refoulement 

Provisions of Other International Human Rights Treaties', Buffalo Human 

Rights Law Review, vol. 5, no. 1 (1999), pp. 1–30.

C.W. Wouters, International Legal Standards for the Protection from Refoulement

(Antwerp: Intersentia, 2009), pp. 425–524.

II.3.3.4 The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Main Debate

What are the implications of the best interest principle in the implementation of 

asylum law?

Main Points

Definition of a child 

Vulnerability of children 

Unaccompanied minors

Treaties

Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee 

Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the 

Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 213–219.

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Refugee Children', Conclusion No. 47 (XXXVIII), 1987. 

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Refugee Children', No. 59 (XL), 1989.

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Refugee Children and Adolescents', No. 84 (XLVIII), 1997.100 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Guidelines on International Protection No. 8: Child Asylum Claims 

under Articles 1(A)(2) and 1(F) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol 

relating to the Status of Refugees', 22 December 2009.

UNHCR, 'Guidelines on Determining the Best Interests of the Child', May 

2008.

UNHCR, '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', 7 April 2006.

Readings

Core

F. Martin and J. Curran, 'Separated Children: A Comparison of the Treatment 

of Separated Child Refugees Entering Australia and Canada', International 

Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 19, no. 3 (October 2007), pp. 440–470.

Extended

K. Touzenis, Unaccompanied Minors: Rights and Protections (Rome: Xledizioni, 

2006).

II.3.3.5 The Geneva Conventions and Protocols: 

 Minimum Standards in Times of War

Main Debates

Does suffering the violation of humanitarian law entitle one to refugee status? 

What are the obligations of the international community to ensure protection of 

refugees in camps from military attacks?

Main Points

Actors for protection 

Nexus between international refugee law and international humanitarian law

Treaties

Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection to Civilian Persons in 

Time of War, 12 August 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, Arts 27, 35, 44, 45, 46, 70 

(special protection for women)WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 101

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150, 

Art. 9. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 4 October 1967, 606 

U.N.T.S. 267. 

Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, 8 June 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3. 

Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, 8 June 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 

609.

Convention on Culster Munitions, 30 May 2008 

Soft Law 

UN Security Council, 'Report of the Secretary-General on the Protection of 

Civilians in Armed Conflict', 11 November 2010.

UNHCR EXCOM, 'Conclusion on the civilian and humanitarian character of 

asylum', Conclusion No. 94 (LIII), 2002.

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Note on the Protection of Refugees in Armed Conflict Situations', 4 

October 1982.

UNHCR, 'Note on Military and Armed Attacks on Refugee Camps and 

Settlements', 10 August 1987.

Readings

Core

H. Lambert and T. Farrell, 'The Changing Character of Armed Conflict and the 

Implications for Refugee Protection Jurisprudence', International Journal of 

Refugee Law, vol. 22, no. 2 (2010), pp. 237–273.

S. Jaquemet, 'The Cross-Fertilization of International Humanitarian Law and 

International Refugee Law', International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 843 

(September 2001), pp. 651–674.

A.C. Trindade, 'Approximations and Convergencies Revisited: Ten Years of 

Interaction Between International Human Rights Law, International Refugee 

Law, and International Humanitarian Law', in G. Cohen-Jonathan and 

J.-F. Flauss (eds), Le Rayonnement International de la Jurisprudence de la Cour 

Européenne des Droits de l'Homme (Bruxelles: Bruyant, 2005), pp. 101–138. 

Extended

Human Rights Watch, 'Meeting the Challenge: Protecting Civilians through the 

Convention on Cluster Munitions', 22 November 2010.102 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

J.P. Lavoyer, 'Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons: International 

Humanitarian Law and the Role of the ICRC', International Review of the Red 

Cross, vol. 305 (April 1995), pp. 162–180.

S. Ojeda, 'Kampala Convention on Internally Displaced Persons: Some 

International Humanitarian Law Aspects', Refugee Survey Quarterly, vol. 29, 

no. 3 (2010), pp. 58–66.

II.4 Internally Displaced Persons

Main Debates

Is the extension of UNHCR's mandate sufficient or is there a need for a specialized 

agency?

Should there be a separate treaty for the protection of internally displaced persons?

Main Points

Emergence of IDPs as a category of individuals in need of protection in the 1990s

International border as a defining criterion 

Challenge of implementing human rights treaties to offer sufficient protection for 

the internally displaced

Treaty

African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally 

Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention), adopted 23 May 2009 

(not yet entered into force).

Soft Law

The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, UN doc. E/CN.4/1998/53/

Add.2 (11 February 1998).

London Declaration of International Law Principles on Internally Displaced Persons, 

2000, International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 12, no. 4 (2000), p. 672.

Readings

Core

A. Adebe, 'The African Union Convention on Internally Displaced Persons: 

its Codification Background, Scope, and Enforcement Challenges', Refugee 

Survey Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 3 (2010), pp. 28–57.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 103

R. Cohen, 'Strengthening Protection of IDPs: The UN's Role', Georgetown 

Journal of International Affairs (Winter/Spring 2006), pp. 101–109.

W. Kälin, 'The Role of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement', Forced 

Migration Review, (October 2005), pp. 8–9.

Extended

H. Entwisle, 'Tracing Cascades: The Normative Development of the U.N. 

Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement', Georgetown Immigration Law 

Journal, vol. 19 (2004–2005), pp. 369–390.

N. Geissler, 'The International Protection of Internally Displaced Persons', 

International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 11, no. 3 (1999), pp. 451–478.

K. Luopajarvi, 'Is there an Obligation on States to Accept International 

Humanitarian Assistance to Internally Displaced Persons under International 

Law?', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 15, no. 3 (2003), pp. 

678–714. 

S. Ojeda, 'Kampala Convention on Internally Displaced Persons: Some 

International Humanitarian Law Aspects', Refugee Survey Quarterly, vol. 29, 

no. 3 (2010), pp. 58–66. 

P. Orchard, 'Perils of Humanitarianism: Refugee and IDP Protection in 

Situations of Regime-induced Displacement', Refugee Survey Quarterly, vol. 

29, no. 1 (2010), pp. 38–60. 

Editor's Note

Discussions of internally displaced persons in Africa and in the Americas appear in 

Section III.4.5 and Section VI.4. respectively. WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 105

SECTION III 

African Framework 

for Refugee Protection 

This section of The Refugee Law Reader examines the legal norms of refugee protection 

that have developed in Africa, a continent that has produced millions of refugees 

and forced migrants that move within and beyond the African continent. The section 

contains two main subdivisions: the first focuses on the legal framework for refugee 

protection in Africa, and the second focuses on serious contemporary challenges to 

the protection of refugees in Africa.

 This section begins with the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects 

of Refugee Problems in Africa, the principal regional instrument relating to refugees. 

One of the fundamental innovations of the OAU Convention is its expansion of the 

refugee definition, and the materials highlight several elements that have had farreaching effect. The section next turns to the sub-regional legal frameworks and 

concentrates on the Eastern Africa region. The references are both international 

(within the region) and national and in particular, the materials address the relevant 

legislation in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania. Future editions of The Refugee Law Reader 

will expand this sub-regional focus to include other parts of Africa. It is important to 

note that the growth and elaboration of regional and sub-regional legal frameworks 

co-exist with underdeveloped national legal structures in many countries that host 

sizeable refugee populations. Indeed, the absence of domestic legislation concerning 

refugees, which leads governments to characterize their refugee programs as a matter 

of state discretion rather than state obligation, remains a grave problem. 

 The second major subdivision of this section highlights the multiple challenges to 

refugee protection in Africa. It explores the interaction between the exclusion clause 

and the international criminal justice regime, a high profile issue at present. It also 

examines many facets of the relationship between refugees and the territories to which 

they flee. For example, it addresses the interface between refugee law and immigration 

law, the different situations of urban refugees and those who live in camps, the 

relations between refugees and their host populations, and the impact of resettlement 

and the problems that arise when it is not an available durable solution. This portion 

of the section also devotes attention to two especially vulnerable populations, 

unaccompanied minors and those who are internally displaced. In its concluding 

entries, this section highlights the connection between governance and globalization 

and the continuing search for solutions to the refugee problems in Africa.106 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

III.1. Overview of African Regional Legal 

 Instruments for Refugee Protection

Main Debates

What are the regional legal bases for refugee protection in Africa?

How enforceable are these rules and standards proclaimed in the regional refugee 

law and human rights instruments at national courts?

Is refugee protection legal or political? 

Main Points

Refugee rights and duties in the light of the African refugee law and human rights 

frameworks

States' ratification of the relevant instruments v. their compliance 

National legislation of refugee law v. policy-based administration of refugees

Complementarity between the regional and international refugee protection 

frameworks 

Treaties

OAU, Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, 

10 September 1969, 1001 U.N.T.S. 45.

OAU, African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, 21 I.L.M. 58, 27 June 1981.

African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, OAU Doc. CAB/

LEG/24.9/49 (1990), 11 July 1990.

Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights, 1 

July 2008.

Soft Law

Constitutive Act of the African Union, 11 July 2000

The African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, 30 January 2007.

Protocol on Amendments to the Constitutive Act of the African Union, 11 July 

2003.

Addis Ababa Document on Refugees and Forced Population Displacements in 

Africa, Adopted by the OAU/UNHCR on 10 September 1994.

Khartoum Declaration on Africa's Refugee Crisis, Adopted by the OAU 

Seventeenth Extraordinary Session of the Commission of Fifteen on Refugees, WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 107

meeting in Khartoum, Sudan, 22–24 September 1990, OAU Doc BR/

COM/ XV/55.90. The Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the 

Organization of African Unity, 12 June 1983.

Resolution on the Second International Conference on Assistance to Refugees in 

Africa (ICARA II) AHG/Res. 114 (XIX) The Assembly of Heads of State and 

Government of the Organization of African Unity, 12 June 1983.

UNHCR EXCOM of the UNHCR Executive Committee on Protection of 

Asylum Seekers in Situations of Large-Scale Influx, Conclusion No. 22 

(XXXII), 1981. 

The Scope of International Protection in Mass Influx. Executive Committee 

of the High Commissioner's Programme, Sub-committee of the Whole on 

International Protection, 26thmtg. U.N. Doc. EX/1995/SCP/CRP.3 (2 June 

1995). 

Note on International Protection, International Protection in Mass Influx, 

Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Programme, 46th Sess., 

UN Doc. A/AC.96/850 (1 September 1995). 

Protection of Refugees in Mass Influx Situations: Overall Protection Framework, 

Global.

Consultations on International protection, 1stmtg. U.N. Doc. EC/GC/01/4 (19 

February 2001).

The Personal Security of Refugees, Executive Committee of the High 

Commissioner's Programme, Sub-Committee of the Whole on International 

Protection, 22ndmtg. U.N. Doc. EX/1993/SCP/CRP.3 (5 May 1993).

Readings

Core

E. Odhiambo-Abuya, 'Past Reflections, Future Insights: African Asylum Law and 

Policy in Historical Perspective', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 19, 

no. 1 (2007), pp. 51–95.

E. Odhiambo-Abuya and G. Mukundi, 'Assessing Asylum Claims in Africa: 

Missing or Meeting Standards?', Netherlands International Law Review, vol. 

53, no. 2 (2006) pp. 171–204. 

E. Odhiambo-Abuya, 'Revisiting Liberalism and Post-Colonial Theory in the 

Context of Refugee Applications', Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, vol. 

24, no. 2 (2006), pp. 193–227. 108 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

J. Oloka-Onyango, 'Human Rights, the OAU Convention and the Refugee Crisis 

in Africa: Fourty Years after Geneva', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 

3 (1991), pp. 453–460.

Extended

J. Crisp, 'No Solution in Sight: The Problem of Protracted Refugee Situation in 

Africa', in I. Ohta and Y.D. Gebre (eds), Displacement Risks in Africa: Refugees, 

Resettlers and Their Host Population (Kyoto and Melbourne: Kyoto University 

Press and Trans Pacific Press, 2005), pp. 17–52. 

III.2. The OAU Refugee Convention

Main Debate

Does the OAU refugee convention fill the gaps in the international refugee law?

Main Points

Similarities and differences between the OAU Refugee Convention and the 1951 

Geneva Convention 

Substantive elements v. procedural elements

III.2.1 Extended Grounds of Persecution: 

 'External Aggression, Occupation, Foreign 

 Domination or Events Seriously Disturbing 

 Public Order'

Main Debates

Are these grounds extensive enough to address every ground of persecution in the 

regional context?

Who decides the occurrence of these events in a certain country? 

Would it be desirable for these grounds of persecution to be universal standards? 

Main Points

From whom should the country of origin information be obtained?WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 109

Group/Prima facie recognition

Procedural issues related to group/prima facie recognition

Other grounds of persecution, including 'gender', 'sex', 'sexual orientation' etc.

Treaties

OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugees Problems in Africa, 

10 September 1969, 1001 U.N.T.S. 45.

Readings

Core

G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 15–20 [G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in 

International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 4–6].

Lawyers Committee of Human Rights, African Exodus – Refugee Crisis, Human 

Rights and the 1969 OAU Convention (New York: LCHR, 1995), pp. 29–30.

Editor's Note

See Section I.2.3.1 on Africa.

III.2.2 Family Unity

Main Debate

Who is a family member for the purpose of granting derivative status and family 

reunion of refugees?

Main Points

Nuclear family v. extended family

Issues of polygamy v. monogamy

Traditional Africa practices v. Islamic practices 

Relatives v. dependants 

Readings

Extended

J. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law (Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 533–560.110 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Editor's Note

See Section II.1.4 on Family Unity.

III.3 Sub-regional Legal Framework

 for the Protection of Refugees

III.3.1 East Africa

Main Debates

Are Eastern African states meeting their obligations under these human rights and 

refugee law instruments they have ratified at the continental and sub-regional 

levels? 

What are the roles of eastern African states in the protection of refugees?

Main Points

Distinctive and similar features of the Eastern Africa states 

Emergence of national refugee-specific legislation for the protection of refugees 

Development of IDPs policy frameworks

Treaties

The Treaty Establishing the East African Community, 1999. 

Soft Law

Dar-es-Salaam Declaration on Peace, Security, Democracy and Development in 

the Great Lakes Region, 19–20 November 2004.

International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, Protocol on the Protection 

and Assistance to Internally Displaced Persons, 30 November 2006.

International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, Protocol on the Property 

Rights of Returning Persons, 30 November 2006.

International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, Protocol on the Prevention 

and Suppression of Sexual Violence against Women and Children, 30 

November 2006.

Regional Parliamentarian Meeting, Kinshasa Declaration, 26–28 February 2007. WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 111

Readings

Extended

J.M. Fitzpatrick, Human Rights Protection for Refugees, Asylum Seekers, and 

Internally Displaced Persons: A Guide to International Mechanisms and 

Procedures (New York: Transnational Publishers Inc., 2002), pp. 297–301.

III.3.1.1 Kenya 

Legislation

The Constitution of Kenya (Revised Edition), 1998, Chapter V on Fundamental 

Rights and Freedoms of the Individual, Sections 70–84.

The Refugees Act, 2006.

The Immigration Act, cap 172, S. 5 and Schedule on Work Permits (class M); 

S.6 (3).

The Aliens Restriction Act, cap 173, S.3 (2); rule 6(1).

Readings

Core

E. Odhiambo-Abuya, 'Legislating to Protect Refugees and Asylum Seekers in 

Kenya: A Note to the Legislator', Research Paper Series, vol. 1, no. (2004).

G. Verdirame, 'Human Rights and Refugees: The Case of Kenya', Journal of 

Refugee Studies, vol. 12, no. 1 (1999), pp. 54–77.

Extended

J. Crisp, 'A State of Insecurity: The Political Economy of Violence in Refugeepopulated Areas of Kenya', African Affairs, vol. 99 (2000), pp. 601–632.

J. Crisp, 'New Issues in Refugee Research: A State of Insecurity: The Political 

Economy of Violence in Refugee-Populated Areas of Kenya', Working Paper 

No. 6, Geneva, UNHCR.

J. Hyndman and B.V. Nylund, 'UNHCR and the Status of Prima Facie Refugees 

in Kenya', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 10, no. 1–2 (1998), pp. 

21–48.

M. Katzarova and A. Korkeakivi, African Exodus – Refugee Crisis, Human Rights 

and the 1969 OAU Convention: a Report of the Lawyers Committee of Human 

Rights (New York: LCHR, 1995), pp. 64–71.112 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

E. Odhiambo-Abuya, 'Refugee Status Imtaxaan in Kenya: An Empirical Survey', 

Journal of African Law, vol. 48, no. 2 (2004), pp. 187–206.

E. Odhiambo-Abuya, 'Refugees and Their Interpreters: Lessons from the Kenyan 

Experience', Australasian Review of African Studies, vol. 25 (2004), pp. 66–76.

P.G. Opata and S.M. Singo, 'The Economics of Displacement: A Study of the 

Changing Gender Roles, Relations an its Impact on the Livelihood and 

Empowerments of Women Refugees in Kenya Camps', Occasional Paper 

Series, no. 5 (2005), Centre for Refugee Studies, Moi University.

III.3.1.2 Uganda

Legislation

Ugandan Constitution, 1995, National Objectives and Directive principles of 

State Policy, Sec. V., Chapter Four: Protection and Promotion of fundamental 

and other human rights and Freedoms.

The Refugees Act, 2006.

The Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act, 1999.

Policy

The National Policy on Internally Displaced Persons, 2004.

Readings

Core

S.T. Beraki, The Human Rights Dimension of Refugee Status Determination in 

Uganda: a Critical Analysis of the Right of Asylum Seekers to a Fair Hearing, 

An LLM dissertation submitted to the School of Graduate Studies (Uganda: 

Makerere University, 2008). 

A. Kiapi, 'The Legal Status of Refugees in Uganda', East African Journal of Peace 

and Human Rights, vol. 3, no.1 (1997), pp. 115–129.

Z.A. Lomo, A. Naggaga, and L. Hovil, 'The Phenomenon of Forced Migration in 

Uganda: An Overview of Policy and Practice in Historical Context', Refugee 

Law Project Working Paper, no. 1 (2001), Kampala.

Extended 

K. Huff, K. and R. Kalyango, 'Refugees in the City: Status Determination, 

Resettlement and the Changing Nature of Forced Migration in Uganda', 

Refugee Law Project Working Paper, no. 6 (2002).WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 113

K. Huff and R. Kalyango, 'A Drop in the Ocean: Assistance and Protection for 

Forced Migrants in Kampala', Refugee Law Project Working Paper, no. 16 

(2006).

Z.A. Lomo, 'The Struggle for Protection of the Rights of Refugees and IDPs 

in Africa: Making the Existing International Legal Regime Work', Berkeley 

Journal of International Law, vol. 18, no. 2 (2000), pp. 268–284.

Refugee Law Project, Critique of the Refugees Act (2006).

R. Sengendo, 'Do Refugees Have Rights? The Case of Tesfaye Shiferwa Awala v. 

Attorney General', East African Journal of Peace and Human Rights, vol. 11, 

no. 2 (2005), pp. 301–322.

S. Tindifa, 'Refugees and Human Rights in Uganda: A Critical Assessment of the 

Law, Policy and Practice', East African Journal of Peace and Human Rights, vol. 

5, no. 1 (1998), pp. 53–63. 

III.3.1.3 Tanzania 

Legislation

The Refugees Act, 1998.

Policy

National Refugee Policy 2003.

Readings

Core

L. Landau, 'Challenge without Transformation: Changing Material Practices in 

Refugee-Affected Tanzania', Journal of Modern African Studies, vol. 42, no. 1 

(2003), pp. 31–60.

B. Rutinwa, 'Assertions Regarding the Impact of Refugees in Tanzania', The 

African, 8 July (2004), p. 10.

Extended

A. Armstrong, 'Aspects of Refugee Wellbeing in Settlement Schemes: An 

Examination of the Tanzanian Case', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 1, no. 1 

(1988) pp. 57–73.

J. Crisp, Lessons Learned from the Implementation of the Tanzania Security Package, 

Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit UNHCR, May 2001.114 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

J.F. Durieux, 'Preserving the Civilian Character of Refugee Camps – Lessons 

from the Kigoma Refugee Programme in Tanzania', Track Two, vol. 9, no. 3 

(2000), pp. 25–35.

K. Kamanga, 'International Refugees Law in East Africa: An Evolving Regime', 

Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, vol. 3 (Winter/Spring 2002), pp. 

25–35.

K. Kamanga, 'Refugee Presence: Impact on the Environment and Economic 

Development', The African, 10 July (2004), p. 10.

K. Kamanga, 'Impact of Refugee Presence on Internal and Regional Security', The 

African, 12 July (2004), p. 10.

G. Verdirame and B. Harrell-Bond, Rights in Exile: Janus-Faced Humanitarianism 

(New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2005).

III.4 Protection Challenges in Africa 

Main Debates

Are African states willing and ready to deal with refugees who flee war, break 

down of public order, foreign invasion and persecution in their home country?

To what extent is the interface between Immigration law and Refugee law hurting 

protection of refugees in the region?

What is the relevance of regional cooperation or integration such as the East 

African community, SADC, COMESA, IGAD to the protection of refugees 

or forced migration? 

To what extent will the plight of host populations be ignored in protection of 

refugees? 

Main Points

Political willingness to accord refugee protection

Institutional preparedness

Professionalism of authorities responsible for refugee affairs

Resources demands on host countries, particularly in context of mass influx of 

refugeesWWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 115

III.4.1 Exclusion Clause 

Main Debates

Is refugee protection in Africa protected from being exploited by fugitives from 

justice?

Role of the international community during conflicts that disturb public order 

and generate mass displacement

Main Points

Exclusion during mass influx situation

Sources of excludable crimes/acts

Procedural safeguards 

Treaties

Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1907.

Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), in Agreement for the 

Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European 

Axis (London Agreement), 8 August, 1945, 58 Stat. 1544, E.A.S. No. 472, 

82 U.N.T.S. 280.

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 

75 U.N.T.S. 287, 1950.

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and 

Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 75 U.N.T.S. 31, 1950. 

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick 

and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 75 U.N.T.S. 85, 1950. 

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 

135, 1950.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, New 

York, 9 December 1951, U.N.T.S 1021, vol. 78.

No. 17512 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, 

and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts 

(Protocol I), 1977.

Statute of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 25 May 1993 as 

amended in 1998 and 2000.116 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Statute of the International Tribunal for Rwanda, UNSC Res. 935 and 955, 

1994.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998.

United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crimes, United 

Nations, 2000.

Soft Law

Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, UN 

General Assembly Resolution 47/133 of 1992.

Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, 1996. 

Readings

Core

G. Gilbert, 'Current Issues in the Application of the Exclusion Clauses', in E. 

Feller, V. Türk, and F. Nicholson (eds), Refugee Protection in International 

Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection (Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 425–478.

A.H. Okba, The Application of Exclusion Clause to Refugees under International 

and Municipal Law in Uganda, LLM dissertation submitted to the School of 

Graduate Studies (Kampala, Uganda: Makere University, 2008).

Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Refugees, Rebels and the Quest for Justice,

Washington, D.C., 2002.

Extended

Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Exclusion from Protection, International 

Journal of Refugee Law, Special Supplementary Issues on Exclusion (2000), 

pp. i–ii.

L. Yu, 'Separating Ex-combatants and Refugees in Zongo, DRC: Peacekeepers 

and UNHCR's "Ladder of Options"', New Issues in Refugee Research, Working 

Paper No. 60 (August 2002).

Editor's Note

See Section II.2.1.6 on Exclusion from Convention Refugee Status.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 117

III.4.2 The Interface between Refugee Law 

 and Immigration Law

Main Debate

Border patrol and control v. entry of genuine refugees

Main Points

Non-refoulement

Refugee law v. immigration law

Illegal immigrants v. genuine refugees

Rejection at the frontier, expulsion of genuine refugees

Cases

Zimbabwe Exiles Forum v. Minister of Home Affairs, 27294/2008, [2011] 

ZAGPPHC 29, 17 February 2011, (High Court of South Africa (North 

Guateng, Pretoria)) (unlawful to arrest and detain asylum seekers without 

verifying their status or granting access to the refugee system). 

Readings

Core

J. Hathaway, 'Refugee Law Is Not Immigration Law', World Refugee Survey

(2002), pp. 38–45.

Extended

Human Rights Watch, 'No Healing Here – Violence, discrimination and Barriers 

to Health for Migrants in South Africa', 7 December 2009.

III.4.3 Urban Refugees versus Camp Refugees

Main Debate

Legality of the encampment of refugees

Main Points

Urban refugee management and protection

Self-reliant v. vulnerable refugees settled in urban areas118 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Limitation of assistance to camp based refugees

Camp location v. right to free movement

Soft Law

The Security and Civilian and Humanitarian Character of Refugee Camps and 

Settlements: Operationalizing the 'Ladder of Options', Executive Committee 

of the High Commissioner's Programme, Standing Committee, 18th mtg., 

U.N. Doc. EX/50/SC/Inf.4 (27 June 2000).

Note on Military and Armed Attacks on Refugee Camps and Settlements, 

Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Programme, Sub 

Committee of the Whole on International Protection, 38th Sess., U.N.Doc. 

EX/SCP/47 (10 August 1987).

Readings

Core

Human Rights Watch, 'Hidden in Plain View: Refugees Living without 

Protection in Nairobi and Kampala', 2003.

Extended

O. Bakewell, 'Refugee Aid and Protection in Rural Africa: Working in Parallel 

or Cross-purposes?', New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper, no. 35 

(March 2001).

E. Odhiambo-Abuya, 'From Here to Nowhere: Protracted Refugee Situations 

in Africa', in A. Edwards and C. Ferstman (eds), Human Security and NonCitizens in the New Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 

2008).

UNHCR, Report of the Mid-Term Review: Self-Reliance Strategy for Refugee Hosting 

Areas in Moyo, Arua and Adjumani Districts, Uganda, RLSS Mission Report 

March 2004, (Geneva: UNHCR, 2004).

III.4.4 Resettlement 

Main Debates

Is resettlement a right or privilege? 

Who determines whether to resettle or not? 

Are African states suitable to resettlement? WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 119

Main Points

Resettlement v. protection concerns 

Absence of legal provisions for durable solutions 

Readings

Core

J. Milner, 'Recent Developments in International Resettlement Policy: 

Implications for the UK Programme', in V. Gelthorpe and L. Herlitz (eds), 

Listening to the Evidence: the Future of UK Resettlements, (London: Home 

Office, 2003), pp. 53–66.

J. v. Selm, 'The Strategic Use of Resettlement: Changing the Face of Protection?', 

Refuge, vol. 22, no. 1 (2004), pp. 39–48.

Extended

G. Kibreab, 'Local Settlements in Africa: A Misconceived Option?', Journal of 

Refugees Studies, vol. 2, no. 4 (1989), pp. 125–146. 

United Nations Development Group, UNDG Guidance Note on Durable Solutions 

for Displaced Persons (New York: UNDG, 2004).

Editor's Note

See II.2.1.5 on Internal Protection Alternative. 

III.4.5 The Plight of IDPs 

Main Debates

Do we need to expand the UNHCR mandate to accommodate IDPs?

Who should be responsible for the plight of IDPs? Is it a local or international 

problem? 

Main Points

The main legal framework for the protection of IDPs

Rural IDPs v. urban IDPs

IDPs v. refugees 120 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Treaty

African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally 

Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention), adopted 23 May 2009 

(not yet entered into force).

Soft Law

Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, UN Document E/CN.4/1998/53/

Add.2.

Readings

Core

A. Adebe, 'The African Union Convention on Internally Displaced Persons: its 

Codification Background, Scope, and Enforcement Challenges', Refugee 

Survey Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 3 (2010), pp. 28–57. 

Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre and International Refugee Rights 

Initiative, The Great Lakes Pact and the Rights of Displaced People: A Guide 

for Civil Society, September 2008. 

D. Korn, 'Exodus Within Borders: An Introduction to the Crisis of Internal 

Displacement' (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1999). 

S. Ojeda, 'Kampala Convention on Internally Displaced Persons: Some 

International Humanitarian Law Aspects', Refugee Survey Quarterly, vol. 29, 

no. 3 (2010), pp. 58–66. 

J. Oloka-Onyango, 'The Plight of the Larger Half: Human Rights, Gender 

Violence and the Legal Status of Refugee and Internally Displaced Women in 

Africa', in C. Mulei, L. Dirasse, and M. Garling (eds), Legal Status of Refugee 

and Internally Displaced Women in Africa (Nairobi: Space Sellers Ltd, 1996), 

p. 41.

Extended

R. Cohen, 'Strengthening Protection of IDPs: the UN's Role', Georgetown 

Journal of International Affairs, vol. 7 (Winter /Spring 2006), pp. 101–110. 

N. Geissler, 'The International Protection of Internally Displaced Persons', 

International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 11, no. 3 (1999), pp. 451–478. 

W. Kälin, 'The Role of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement', Forced 

Migration Review, (October 2005), pp. 8–9.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 121

J. Oloka-Onyango, 'Forced Displacement and the Situation of Refugee and 

Internally Displaced Women In Africa', East African Journal of Peace and 

Human Rights, vol. 5, no. 1 (1998), pp. 1–31.

P. Orchard, 'Perils of Humanitarianism: Refugee and IDP Protection in 

Situations of Regime-induced Displacement', Refugee Survey Quarterly, vol. 

29, no. 1 (2010), pp. 38–60. 

M. Stavropoulou, 'Key Areas of Challenge in the Legal Status of Internally 

Displaced Women', in C. Mulei, L. Dirasse, and M. Garling (eds), Legal 

Status of Refugee and Internally Displaced Women in Africa (Nairobi: Space 

Sellers Ltd, 1996), p. 99.

Editor's Note

See Section II.4 for further discussions concerning IDPs.

III.4.6 Unaccompanied Minors 

Main Debates

Who is responsible for safeguarding the special protection needs of unaccompanied minors?

What kind of assistance can ensure the protection of unaccompanied minor 

refugees?

Main Points

Best interest of the child 

Duties of host states v. role of UNHCR and implementing NGOs 

Prospects of durable solution 

Soft Law

Accra Declaration on War-Affected Children in West Africa, ECOWAS member 

states, Accra, April 2000.

Readings

Core

M.S. Gallagher, 'Soldier Boy Bad: Child Soldiers, Culture and Bars to Asylum', 

International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 13, no. 3 (2001), pp. 310–353.122 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University 

Press, 1996), pp. 356–358.

UNHCR, Refugee Children in Africa: Trends and Patterns in the Refugee Population 

in Africa Below the Age of 18 Years, 2000, 2001.

UNHCR, Refugee Children: Guidelines on Protection and Care, 1994.

Extended

B. Harrell-Bond, 'Are refugee camps good for children?', New Issues in Refugee 

Research, Working Paper no. 29 (August 200), UNHCR.

III.4.7 Governance and Globalization

Main Debates

Are resources in the protection of refugees shared equally?

Should each region shoulder its burden in the protection of refugees? 

Main Points

Disparities between the south and the north

The south-north debate 

Readings

Core

E. Aukot, 'The Plight of Refugees as a Quest for Good Governance: Critically 

Imagining Refugees' Influence on the Democratic Process of a Host 

Community in Kenya', Recht in Afrika, no. 2 (2003), pp. 109–138.

B.S. Chimni, 'The Geopolitics of Refugee Studies: A View from the South', 

Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 11, no. 4 (1998), pp. 350–374.

B. Rutinwa, 'Presence of Refugees: Impact on Local Governance and 

Administration', The African, (16 July 2004), p. 10.

A. Suhrke, 'Burden-Sharing During Refugee Emergencies: The Logic of Collective 

Versus National Action', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 11, no. 4 (1998), pp. 

396–415.

Extended

A. Betts, 'International Cooperation and Targeting Development Assistance for 

Refugees Solution: Lessons from the 1980', New Issues in Refugees Research,

Working Paper No. 107 (2004), Geneva, UNHCR.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 123

J. Hyndman, 'Refugee Self-Management and the Question of Governance', 

Refuge, vol. 16, no. 2 (1997), pp. 16–22.

J. Milner, 'Sharing the Security Burden: Towards the Convergence of Refugee 

Protection and State Security', Working Paper, no. 4 (Oxford: Refugee Studies 

Centre, 2000).

O. Sadako, 'Solidarity and Nation Building: The Case of Refugees', East African 

Journal of Peace and Human Rights, vol. 5, no. 1 (1998).

III.4.8 The Search for Solutions to the Refugee 

 Problem in Africa

Main Debates

Given the African states political, social, cultural and economic reality, can 

refugees get durable solutions within Africa?

Should countries that produce refugees be held accountable and asked to 

contribute to their protection in the country of asylum?

Refugees' assistance v. local host communities 

Main Points

Legal frameworks to accommodate refugees

Divergent interests and perceptions

Political stability

Human, social and economic resources

Readings

Core

E. Aukot, 'It is Better to Be a Refugee than a Turkana in Kakuma: Revisiting the 

Relationship Between Hosts and Refugees in Kenya', Refuge, vol. 21, no. 3 

(2001), pp. 73–83.

UNHCR, 'Refugees in Africa: the challenges of protection and Solutions', 

Regional Parliamentary Conference on Refugees in Africa, Cotonou, Benin, 

1–3 June 2004.

Extended

A. Betts, 'International Cooperation between North and South to Enhance 

Refugee Protection in Regions of Origin', Working Paper, no. 25 (Oxford: 

Refugee Studies Centre, 2005), pp. 40–63.124 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

A. Betts, 'Public Goods Theory and the Provision of Refugees Protection: The 

role of the joint- Product Model in Burden Sharing Theory', Journal of Refugee 

Studies, vol. 16, no. 3 (2003), pp. 274–296.

N. Binaifer, 'In the Name of Security: Erosion of Refugee Rights in East Africa', 

World Refugee Survey, USCR. 

J. Crisp, 'Africa's Refugees: Patterns, Problems and Policy Challenges', UNHCR 

Working Paper, no. 28 (August 2000).

B. Rutinwa, 'Presence of Refugees: Impact on Health Services', The African, (13 

July 2004), p 10.

B. Rutinwa, 'Presence of Refugees: Impact on Education Services', The African, 

(14 July 2004), p. 10.

B. Rutinwa, 'Presence of Refugees: Impact on Water Services', The African, (15 

July 2004), p. 10.

UNHCR, 'Putting Refugees on Development Agenda: How Refugees and 

Returnees can Contribute to Achieving the Millennium Development Goals', 

FORUM/2005/4, 2005.

III.4.9 Protection During Mass Repatriation 

 Programmes 

Main Debates

Forced return v. voluntary return during mass repatriation

Should refugees be involved in the decision making process of repatriation? 

Main Points

Monitoring the repatriation exercise to ensure voluntary and safe return

The various stakeholders in the repatriation exercise 

Reading

Core

Lawyers Committee of Human Rights, African Exodus – Refugee Crisis, Human 

Rights and the 1969 OAU Convention (New York: LCHR, 1995), pp. 

111–138. WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 125

SECTION IV 

Asian Framework 

for Refugee Protection 

This section of the Refugee Law Reader examines the legal norms developed in Asia 

regarding refugee protection. The challenges in framing this section arose from 

several overlapping reasons. Only a few countries are State Parties to the 1951 

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Furthermore, there is no regional 

convention on human rights and the non-binding AALCO (Asian African Legal 

Consultative Organization) principles have not had any serious influence on the law 

and practice in the region. Moreover, most countries in Asia have not passed national 

legislation on the status of refugees, with the result that there is little case law and the 

status of refugees frequently is not distinguished from that of noncitizens in general. 

While there is literature on the origin and condition of refugees, this rarely includes 

legal analyses of the relevant issues. Even the legal texts that exist, for example 

the Memorandum of Understanding between UNHCR and Pakistan, are not readily 

accessible.

 Nonetheless, there are important materials available and the Section on Asia has 

organized them in three parts. The first presents general materials on the challenges 

to refugee protection in Asia. It includes readings that explain Asian exceptionalism, 

and thus provide a setting in which to appreciate the selected references. The second 

portion of this section focuses on the State Parties to the 1951 Convention: Cambodia, 

China, Japan, Philippines, and South Korea. It examines national legislation, case law, 

and literature exploring the protection afforded to refugees. The concluding part of 

the Section on Asia addresses the protection concerns that arise in states that are 

not party to the 1951 Convention. Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Thailand were 

selected for this examination, based on the large numbers of refugees they host or 

the existence of a corpus of reasonably evolved practices and laws. It should be noted 

that three of these states are in South Asia; this contrasts to the State Parties to the 

1951 Convention, all of which are located in Southeast Asia or East Asia. As materials 

on countries in Central Asia and West Asia have not been included, in this context the 

Section on Asia refers to South Asia and Southeast Asia.126 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

IV.1 Protection Challenges in Asia

Main Debates

Why most Asian states are not parties to the 1951 Convention?

Does the Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) offer a model for dealing with 

mass influx of refugees in Asia?

Main Points

Asian exceptionalism

Concerns of post-colonial states

UNHCR refugee status determination (RSD)

Mass influx of refugees

International burden sharing

Illegal migration

Soft Law 

Final Text of the Asian African Legal Consultative Organization's (AALCO), 

1966.

Bangkok Principles on Status and Treatment of Refugees, 2001. 

UNHCR, 'Putting Refugees on Development Agenda: How Refugees and 

Returnees can Contribute to Achieving the Millennium Development Goals', 

FORUM/2005/4, 2005.

UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion No. 22 (XXXII), 1981.

UN Guidelines on Internally Displaced Persons, 1998.

Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) Indo-Chinese Refugees, 1989.

Readings

Core

C. Abrar, 'Legal Protection of Refugees in South Asia', Forced Migration Review, 

vol. 10 (April 2001), pp. 21–23. 

M. Kagan, 'The Beleaguered Gatekeeper: Protection Challenges Posed by 

UNHCR Refugee Status Determination', International Journal of Refugee 

Law, vol. 18, no. 1 (2006), pp. 1–29. 

V. Muntharborn, The Status of Refugees in Asia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 

pp. 3–29.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 127

RSDWatch.org, An independent source of information about the way the UN 

Refugee agency decides refugee cases. The Asian states in which UNHCR 

conducts RSD include Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, India, 

Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. 

UNHCR, 'Putting Refugees on Development Agenda: How Refugees and 

Returnees can Contribute to Achieving the Millennium Development Goals', 

FORUM/2005/4, 2005.

Extended

H. Adelman (ed.), Protracted Displacement in Asia: No Place to Call Home 

(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008).

S. Bari, 'Refugee Status Determination under the Comprehensive Plan of Action 

(CPA): A Personal Assessment', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 4, 

no. 4 (1992), pp. 487–513. 

A. Betts, 'Comprehensive Plans of Action: Insights from CIREFCA and the IndoChinese CPA', New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper no. 120 (2006). 

B. S. Chimni, 'Cooption and Resistance: Two Faces of Global Administrative 

Law', New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, vol. 37, 

no. 4 (2005), pp. 799–827. 

B. S. Chimni, 'Outside the Bounds of Citizenship: The Status of Aliens, Illegal 

Migrants and Refugees in India', in R. Bhargava and H. Reifeld (eds), Civil 

Society, Public Sphere and Citizenship: Dialogues and Perceptions (New Delhi: 

Sage Publications, 2005), pp. 277–313, pp. 277–285, 295–297. 

B. S. Chimni, 'Status of Refugees in India: Strategic Ambiguity', in R. Samaddar 

(ed.), Refugees and the State: Practices of Asylum and Care in India 1947–2000

(New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2003), pp. 277–313. 

S. E. Davies, Legitimizing Rejection: International Refugee Law in South East Asia 

(Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2008). 

S. Davies, 'The Asian Rejection: International Refugee Law in Asia', Australian 

Journal of Politics and History, vol. 52, no. 4 (2006), pp. 562–575. 

A. Schloenhardt, 'Immigration and Refugee Law in the Asia-Pacific Region', 

Hong Kong Law Journal, vol. 32, no. 3 (2002), pp. 519–548. 128 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

IV.2 States Party to the 1951 Refugee Convention

Main Debate

Has ratification of 1951 Convention made a difference? 

Main Points

National legislation or its absence

Urban refugees

Rights of refugees

Human rights

IV.2.1 Cambodia

National Legislation

Law on Nationality, Cambodia, 9 October 1996. 

Exit and Reside in the Kingdom of Cambodia, of Immigrant Aliens, Cambodia, 

21 June 1996.

Law on Immigration, Cambodia, 22 September 1994.

Readings

Core

Amnesty International, 'Amnesty International Report 2008 – Cambodia', 28 

May 2008.

United States Department of State, '2007 Country Reports on Human Rights 

Practices – Cambodia', 11 March 2008.

IV.2.2 China

Readings

Core

E. Chan and A. Schloenhardt, 'North Korean Refugees and International Refugee 

Law', InternationalJournal of Refugee Law, vol. 19 (2007), pp. 215–245, 222–

225. 

J. Seymour, 'China: Background Paper on the Situation of North Koreans in 

China', Writenet Report, commissioned by UNHCR, 2005, pp. 4–6, 11–12. WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 129

Extended

J. R. Charny, 'Acts of Betrayal: The Challenge of Protecting North Koreans in 

China', Refugees International, (April 2005), pp. 1–64.

V. Muntharborn, 'Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human 

Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea', UNGA, 62nd Session, 

A/62/264 (2007), pp. 9–13.

IV.2.3 Japan

National Legislation

Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, Japan, 1951. 

Case Law

Afghan v. Japan (Prosecutor) Heisei 14 (2002) U (Criminal Case) No.129. 

(Misapplication of Article 70-2 of the Immigration Act).

Hanrei Jiho (Ryo Kan-ei) Case. Japan: High Courts. 6 December 1982. 

(Contentions based on the assumption that the accused is a Treaty Refugee 

according to Article 1, Para C of the Refugee Treaties, are not supportable).

Sougil Yung Decision. Japan: Supreme Court. 26 January 1976. (The case hold that 

the principle of non-refoulement of political criminals cannot be recognised as 

an established customary law among nations).

Turkish v. Japan (Minister of Justice) Heisei 14 (2002) Gyo-U (Administrative 

Case) No. 49 (Lawsuit for Revocation of Decision to Reject Application for 

Refugee Status) Nagoya District Court, Date of Decision 15 April 2004 (The 

court revoked the decision not to recognize the plaintiff as a refugee and 

affirmed the nullity of the written deportation order issued to him).

Readings

Core

M. Dean and M. Nagashima, 'Sharing the Burden: The Role of Government 

and NGOs in Protecting and Providing for Asylum Seekers and Refugees in 

Japan', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 20, no. 3 (2007), pp. 481–499. 

M. Kaneko 'Beyond "Seclusionist" Japan: Evaluating the Free Afghans/Refugee 

Law Reform Campaign after September 11', Refuge, vol. 21, no. 3 (2003), 

pp. 34–44. 130 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Extended

O. Arakaki, Refugee Law and Practice in Japan (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008).

S. Banki, 'Burmese Refugees in Tokyo: Livelihoods in the Urban Environment', 

Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 19, no. 3 (2006), pp. 328–344.

IV.2.4 Philippines

National Legislation

The Philippines Immigration act of 1940 (Commonwealth Act of 613).

Reading

Core

'USCRI Country Report – Philippines', 2004.

Extended

V. Muntharborn, The Status of Refugees in Asia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 

pp. 81–89. 

IV.2.5 South Korea

National Legislation

Immigration Law no. 1289, South Korea, 5 March 1963, Last Amended on 5 

February 1999.

South Korea Nationality Act 1948, Last amended 2004, Act no 7074. 

Act on Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans, South Korea, 2000.

Readings

Core

J. R. Charny, 'Acts of Betrayal – The Challenge of Protecting North Koreans in 

China' Refugees International, (April 2005), pp. 16–18. 

Human Rights Watch, 'Country summary – South Korea', 2007.

Extended

B. Adams, 'Korea needs to Open its Doors', JoongAng Daily, (21 August 2007).WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 131

IV.3 States Not Party to the 1951 Refugee 

 Convention

Main Debate

Is there a need for a national law on refugees?

Main Points

Status of aliens and refugees

Stateless refugees

Role of judiciary

Burden sharing

IV.3.1 Bangladesh

National Legislation

Bangladesh Citizenship Order, 1972.

Bangladesh Control of Entry Act, 1952.

Reading

Core

C. R. Abrar, 'State, Refugees and the Need for a Legal Procedure', in C. R. Abrar 

and S. Malik (eds), Towards National Refugee Laws in South Asia, (Dhaka: 

University of Dhaka, 2003), pp. 45–49. 

Extended

S. Sen, 'Stateless Refugees and the Right to Return: The Bihari Refugees of South 

Asia – Part 1', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 11. no. 4 (1999), 

pp. 625–645, 629–639. 

S. Sen, 'Stateless Refugees and the Right to Return: The Bihari Refugees of South 

Asia – Part 2', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 12, no. 1 (2000), 

pp. 41–70.132 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

IV.3.2 India

National Legislation

R. Trakroo, A. Bhat and S. Nandi (eds), Refugees and the Law (New Delhi: 

Human Rights Law Network, 2006), pp. 68–76. 

The Foreigner's Act, India 1946.

Passport Act, India, 1920.

Passport Act, India, 1967. 

Registration of Foreigner's Act, India, 1939.

Foreigner's Order, India, 1948.

Illegal Migrants Act, India, 1983.

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Protection of Human Rights Act, India, 1993.

Case Law

National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Another, 

1996 SCC (1) 742 (Right to Life and Liberty) Article 21 of the Constitution 

of India.

Dr. Malvika Karlekar v. Union of India (Criminal Writ Petition No. 583 of 1992) 

(Right of asylum seekers to approach UNHCR).

The Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005) 5 Supreme Court Cases 665 

(Aliens; Aggression; Illegal Migrants; Powers of State).

The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakmas, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 615 

(Citizenship of Chakma Refugees).

Anand Swaroop Verma v. Union of India (2002) (VI AD (DELHI) 1025 CRLW. 

No. 746/2002 8.8.2002).

Reading

Core

S. Baruah, 'Citizens and Denizens: Ethnicity, Homelands and the Crisis of 

Displacement in Northeast India', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 16, no. 1 

(2003), pp. 44–67. 

P. Oberoi, Exile and Belonging: Refugees and State Policy in South Asia (New Delhi: 

Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 77–103. WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 133

P. Saxena, 'Creating Legal Space for Refugees in India: the Milestones Crossed 

and the Roadmap for the Future', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 

19 (2007), pp. 246–272. 

Extended

B. S. Chimni, International Refugee Law: A Reader (New Delhi: Sage, 2000), 

Chapter VIII.

R. Dhawan, Refugee Law and Policy in India (New Delhi: PILSARC, 2004), pp. 

32–80, 43–59.

R. Kharat, Tibetan Refugees in India (New Delhi: Kaveri Books, 2003), pp. 46–

71, pp. 84–94.

Model Law, drafted by the Eminent Persons Group (EPG), South Asia and 

PILSARC, and others.

E. Rolfe, 'Refugee, Minority, Citizen, Threat: Tibetans and the Indian Refugee 

Script', South Asia Research, vol. 28 no. 3 (2008), pp. 253–283. 

D. K. Singh, Stateless in South Asia: The Chakmas between Bangladesh and India, 

(New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2010), pp. 180–182, 194–95, 197–200.

IV.3.3 Nepal

National Legislation

Interim Constitution 2063 of Nepal, 2007.

Citizenship Act 2063, Nepal, 2006. 

Immigration Act 2049, Nepal, 1992. 

Extradition Act 2045, Nepal, 1988.

Reading

Core

USCRI World Refugee Survey 2009 – Nepal.

Extended

S. Banki, 'Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal: Anticipating the Impact of Resettlement', 

Briefing Paper (Austcare, Griffith University, Australian National University, 

Institute for Ethics, Governance and Law, 2008).134 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

IV.3.4 Pakistan

National Legislation

The Foreigner's Act of Pakistan, 1946.

Foreigner's Order of Pakistan, 1951.

Pakistan's Citizenship Act, 1951.

Foreigner's (Amendment) Ordinance, Pakistan, 2000. 

Readings

Core

P. Oberoi, Exile and Belonging: Refugees and State Policy in South Asia', (New 

Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 136–169.

A. R. Sheikh, 'Toward a Legal Regime for Refugee Protection in Pakistan', 

Refugee Watch, no. 19 (August 2003).

Extended

D. A. Kronenfeld, 'Afghan Refugees in Pakistan: Not All Refugees, Not Always 

in Pakistan, Not Necessarily Afghan?', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 21, 

no. 1 (2008), pp. 43–64. 

M. Zieck, 'The Legal Status of Afghan Refugees in Pakistan, a Story of Eight 

Agreements and Two Suppressed Premises', International Journal of Refugee 

Law, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 253–272. 

IV.3.5 Thailand

National Legislation

Immigration Act, B.E. 2522, Thailand, 1979.

Readings

Core

G. Loescher and J. Milner, 'Protracted Refugee Situation in Thailand: Towards 

Solutions', Presentation to the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand, 

1 February 2006.

V. Muntarbhorn, Refugee Law and Practice in the Asia and Pacific Region: Thailand 

as a Case Study, Research Paper, (Thailand: UNHCR, 2004).WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 135

Extended

A. Alexander, 'Without Refuge: Chin Refugees in India and Malaysia', Forced 

Migration Review, vol. 30 (April 2008), pp. 36–37. 

A. Betts, 'Public Goods Theory and the Provision of Refugee Protection: The Role 

of the Joint-Product Model in Burden-sharing Theory', Journal of Refugee 

Studies, vol. 16, no. 3 (2003), pp. 274–296. 

P. R. Chari, M. Joseph and S. Chandran (eds), Missing Boundaries: Refugees, 

Migrants, Stateless and Internally Displaced Persons in South Asia (New Delhi: 

Manohar Publishers, 2003). 

P. Oberoi, Exile and Belonging: Refugees and State Policy in South Asia (New Delhi: 

Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 232–244. 

N. Obi and J. Crisp, 'Evaluation of UNHCR's Policy on Refugees in Urban 

Areas – A Case Study Review of New Delhi' UNHCR, Evaluation and Policy 

Analysis Unit, 2000. 

UNHCR, 'UNHCR's Policy and Practice Regarding Urban Refugees', A 

Discussion Paper.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 137

SECTION V 

European Framework 

for Refugee Protection

In this section The Refugee Law Reader turns to the legal norms developed in Europe 

regarding refugee protection. This is a complex area, as two quite separate actors both 

have significant impact on asylum and related protection issues. First, the Council of 

Europe, comprising 47 countries, addresses general human rights protection, and its 

activities have significant implications for the legal position of asylum applicants and 

refugees. Second, the European Union (EU), an organization that is entirely separate 

from the Council of Europe (though the EU's 27 Member States are simultaneously 

members of the Council of Europe), has embarked on an active programme to develop 

new legal norms affecting immigration, borders, and asylum. 

 The first part of Section V focuses on the soft law that the Council of Europe 

has developed in its inter-governmental cooperation efforts. The backbone of these 

materials are the Recommendations and Resolutions of the Committee of Ministers 

and the Parliamentary Assembly relating to international protection. Although these 

documents are politically binding, they do not have immediate legal consequences. 

Nonetheless, they are useful as aids to interpretation of the undertakings of states 

with regard to international protection. The second portion of this section examines 

the European Convention on Human Rights, a core treaty of the Council of Europe. 

Although the Convention itself makes no reference to international protection of 

refugees, the judgments issued by the European Court of Human Rights impose 

important obligations regarding asylum on State Parties. Furthermore, all members of 

the Council of Europe must adhere to the Convention and must accept the jurisdiction 

of the European Court of Human Rights.

 The second half of Section V highlights the key EU legislation, both Regulations 

and Directives, concerning international protection of asylum seekers and refugees. 

Although the central concern of the EU is the successful functioning of the internal 

market (a market for the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital across 

the internal frontiers), the EU expanded its scope in 1999 to include immigration and 

asylum. Indeed, the EU has adopted three five-year programmes (the most recent 

Stockholm Programme lasting until 2014) in order to create a Common European 

Asylum System intended to be based on a harmonized interpretation and application 

of the 1951 Geneva Convention. This portion of the section also includes important 138 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is competent to issue 

binding interpretations of EU law, though it normally cannot receive complaints 

directly from individual asylum seekers. 

 Within the Council of Europe one of the main challenges to refugee protection 

stems from the ever increasing case load of the European Court of Human Rights. 

Protocol No. 14 to the Convention, intended to enhance the Court's capacity, has thus 

far not resolved the growing backlog. Within the EU one of the central challenges is 

that, despite the goal of developing a Common European Asylum System, genuinely 

common standards and practices are far from a reality. In addition, the EU is placing 

increased priority on external migration control measures; these actions inevitably 

limit access to asylum procedures, and thereby restrict access to protection, for 

unknown numbers of persons in need of international protection. WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 139

V.1 The Council of Europe 

V.1.1 Legal and Policy Framework 

 for Refugee Protection

Main Debate

Should the Council of Europe play a greater role in standard setting in the area of 

asylum in a wider pan-European context?

Main Points

Binding v. non-binding regional instruments

Committee of Ministers recommendations v. Parliamentary Assembly resolutions

Establishing harmonization between EU and non-EU states

Treaties

Regional

Core

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental 

Freedoms and its protocols, 4 November 1950, E.T.S. 005.

European Agreement on the Abolition of Visas for Refugees, 20 April 1959, 

E.T.S. 031.

European Agreement on Transfer of Responsibility for Refugees, 16 October 

1980, E.T.S. 107.

European Convention on Extradition, 13 December 1957, E.T.S. 24. 

European Social Charter, 18 October 1961, E.T.S. 035.

European Social Charter (Revised), 3 May 1996, E.T.S. 163.

European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading 

Treatment or Punishment, 26 November 1987, E.T.S. 126.

Extended

European Convention on Consular Functions, 11 December 1967, E.T.S. 061.

Protocol to the European Convention on Consular Functions concerning the 

Protection of Refugees, 11 December 1967, E.T.S. 61A.

European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, 27 January 1977, E.T.S. 

090.140 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Protocol Amending the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, 

15 May 2003, E.T.S. 190.

Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, 16 May 2005, 

E.T.S. 196.

Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, 1 February 

1995, E.T.S. 157.

European Convention on Nationality, 6 November 1997, E.T.S. 166. 

European Convention on Repatriation of Minors, 28 May 1970, E.T.S. 071.

Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, 

16 May 2005, E.T.S. 197.

Soft Law

Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 'Resolution 14 (1967) on 

Asylum to Persons in Danger of Persecution', 29 June 1967.

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation 70 (2) 

(1970) on the Acquisition by Refugees of the Nationality of Their Country of 

Residence', 26 January 1970.

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 'Declaration on Territorial 

Asylum', 18 November 1977.

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation R (81) 

16 on the Harmonisation of National Procedures Relating to Asylum', 5 

November 1981.

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation R (84) 1 

on the Protection of Persons Satisfying the Criteria in the Geneva Convention 

Who Are Not Formally Recognised as Refugees', 25 January 1984.

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation R (84) 21 

on the Acquisition by Refugees of the Nationality of the Host Country', 14 

November 1984.

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation No. R (94) 

5 on Guidelines to Inspire Practices of the Member States of the Council of 

Europe Concerning the Arrival of Asylum-Seekers at European Airports', 21 

June 1994.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 141

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation R (97) 

22 Containing Guidelines on the Application of the Safe Third Country 

Concept', 25 November 1997.

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation R (98) 

13 on the Right of Rejected Asylum Seekers to an Effective Remedy against 

Decisions on Expulsion in the Context of Art. 13 of the European 

Convention on Human Rights', 18 September 1998.

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation R (99) 23 

on Family Reunion for Refugees and Other Persons in Need of International 

Protection', 15 December 1999.

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation R (2000) 9 

on Temporary Protection', 3 May 2000.

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation R (2001) 18 

to Member States on Subsidiary Protection', 27 November 2001.

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation R (2003) 5 

to Member States on Measures of Detention of Asylum-Seekers', 16 April 2003. 

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation R (2004) 

9 to Member States on the Concept of "Membership in a Particular Social 

Group" (MPSG) in the Context of 1951 Convention', 30 June 2004. 

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation R (2004) 

14 to Member States on the Movement and Encampment of Travellers in 

Europe', 1 December 2004.

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation R (2005) 

6 to Member States on Exclusion from Refugee Status in the Context of 

Art. 1F of the Convention Related to the Status of Refugees', 23 March 

2005.

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation R (2006) 

6 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Internally Displaced 

Persons', 5 April 2006.

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 'Guidelines on human rights 

protection in the context of accelerated asylum procedures', 1 July 2009.142 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Soft Law

Council of Europe: Parliamentary Assembly

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation 773 (1976) 

on De Facto Refugees', 26 January 1976.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation 1236 

(1994) on the Right of Territorial Asylum', 12 April 1994.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation 1327 (1997) 

on the Protection and Reinforcement of the Human Rights of Refugees and 

Asylum-seekers in Europe', 24 April 1997.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation 1374 

(1998) on Situation of Refugee Women in Europe', 26 May 1998.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 'Recommendation 1440 

(2000) on Restrictions on Asylum in the Member States of the Council of 

Europe and the EU', 25 January 2000.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation 1470 

(2000) on Situation of Gays and Lesbians and Their Partners in Respect of 

Asylum and Immigration', 30 June 2000.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation 1475 (2000) 

on Arrival of Asylum-seekers at European Airports', 26 September 2000. 

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation 1503 (2001) 

on Health Conditions of Migrants and Refugees in Europe', 14 March 2001. 

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation 1550 (2002) 

on Combating Terrorism and Respect for Human Rights', 24 January 2002.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 'Recommendation 1624 (2003) 

on Common Policy on Migration and Asylum', 30 September 2003.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation 1652 (2004) 

on Education of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons', 2 March 2004. 

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation 1645 

(2004) on Access to Assistance and Protection of Asylum-Seekers at European 

Seaports and Coastal Areas', 29 January 2004.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation 1644 

(2004) on Terrorism', 29 January 2004.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 'Resolution 1437 (2005) 

"Migration and Integration: a Challenge and an Opportunity for Europe"', 

27 April 2005.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 143

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation 1703 

(2005) on Protection and Assistance for Separated Children Seeking Asylum', 

28 April 2005.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Resolution 1509 (2006) 

Human Rights of Irregular Migrants', 27 June 2006.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Resolution 1569 (2007) on 

Assessment of Transit and Processing Centres as a Response to Mixed Flows 

of Migrants and Asylum-Seekers', 1 October 2007.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation 1889 

(2009) on Improving the Quality and Consistency of Asylum Decisions in 

the Council of Europe Member States', 20 November 2009.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Resolution 1707 (2010) on 

Detention of Asylum-Seekers and Irregular Migrants in Europe', 28 January 

2010.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation 1901 

(2010): Solving Property Issues of Refugees and Displaced Persons', 28 

January 2010.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Recommendation 1917 

(2010) Migrants and Refugees: A Continuing Challenge for the Council of 

Europe', 30 April 2010.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Resolution 1765 (2010) on 

Gender-Related Claims for Asylum', 8 October 2010.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Resolution 1768 (2010) 

Roma Asylum-Seekers in Europe', 12 November 2010.

Soft Law

Commissioner for Human Rights

Commissioner for Human Rights 'Recommendation CommDH (01) 1 

Concerning the Rights of Aliens Wishing to Enter a Council of Europe 

Member State and the Enforcement of Expulsion Orders', 19 September 2001.

Commissioner for Human Rights 'Recommendation CommDH (04) 1 on 

Combating Trafficking of Children in Europe', 19 January 2004. Commissioner 

for Human Rights 'Preliminary Report CommDH (05) 4 on the Human 

Rights Situation of the Roma, Sinti and Travellers in Europe', 4 May 2005.144 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Commissioner for Human Rights, 'Human Rights Challenges of Migration in 

Europe' 17–18 February 2011.

Readings

Core

G. Tessenyi, 'Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council 

of Europe Concerning Asylum, Refugees and Other Persons', in Legal Status

of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers and the European Convention on Human Rights

(Chisinau, 2001), pp. 210–220.

Editor's Note

The Committee of Ministers is empowered to make recommendations to Member States 

on matters for which the Committee has agreed a 'common policy'. Recommendations 

of the Parliamentary Assembly contain proposals addressed to the Committee of 

Ministers, the implementation of which is the competence of national governments.

Resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly embody decisions on policy issues and have 

no binding effect.

V.1.2 The European Convention on Human 

 Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Main Debates

Refugee protection under regional v. universal treaties

Subsidiary protection under human rights treaties – a potential challenge to the 

primacy of the 1951 Convention? 

Has the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) exhibited too much or 

too little deference to national refugee decision-making bodies?

Main Points

Scope of protection against refoulement under Art. 3 of the ECHR v. Arts 1 and 

33 of the 1951 Convention

Effective remedies for rejected asylum seekers under the ECHR 

Expulsion

DetentionWWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 145

Treaties

Regional

Core

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental 

Freedoms and its Protocols, 4 November 1950 (213 E.T.S. 222).

Cases

Core

Art. 3 – prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Soering v. UK, ECtHR Judgement of 7 July 1989 (holding extradition from 

UK to USA of a German national charged with capital crime and at risk of 

serving on death row would be a violation of ECHR Art. 3, recognising the 

extra-territorial effect of ECHR provisions).

Cruz Varas and others v. Sweden, ECtHR judgement of 20 March 1991 

(recognizing the extra-territorial effect of ECHR Art. 3 similarly applicable to 

rejected asylum seekers; finding no Art. 3 violation in expulsion of a Chilean 

national denied asylum, noting that risk assessment by State Party must be 

based on facts known at time of expulsion).

Vilvarajah and others v. UK, ECtHR judgement of 30 October 1991 (finding 

no breach of Art. 3 although applicants claimed to have been subjected 

to ill-treatment upon return to Sri Lanka; this had not been a foreseeable 

consequence of the removal of the applicants, in the light of the general 

situation in Sri Lanka and their personal circumstances; a mere possibility of 

ill-treatment is not in itself sufficient to give rise to a breach of Art. 3, and 

there existed no special distinguishing features that could or ought to have 

enabled the UK authorities to foresee that they would be treated in this way).

H.L.R. v. France, ECtHR judgement of 29 April 1997 (finding no violation of Art. 

3 in case of expulsion of the applicant to Columbia, as there was no relevant 

evidence of risk of ill-treatment by non-state agents; thereby recognising that 

ill-treatment caused by such actors would fall within the scope of Art. 3 if the 

authorities are not able to obviate the risk by providing adequate protection).

Jabari v. Turkey, ECtHR judgement of 11 July 2000 (holding violation of Art. 

3 in case of deportation that would return a woman who has committed 

adultery to Iran; Art. 13 violated as well due to the lack of an effective 

remedy with suspensive effect to challenge the rejection of her asylum claim).146 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Venkadajalasarma v. Netherlands, ECtHR judgement of 17 February 2004 

(current situation in Sri Lanka makes it unlikely that Tamil applicant would 

run a real risk of being subject to ill-treatment after his expulsion from the 

Netherlands).

Said v. Netherlands, ECtHR judgement of 5 July 2005 (asylum seeker held to 

be protected against refoulement under Art. 3; the Dutch authorities had 

taken his failure to submit documents establishing his identity, nationality, or 

travel itinerary as affecting the credibility of his statements; the Court instead 

found the applicant's statements consistent, corroborated by information 

from Amnesty International, and thus held that substantial grounds had been 

shown for believing that, if expelled, he would be exposed to a real risk of ill- 

treatment as prohibited by Art. 3).

Bader v. Sweden, ECtHR judgement of 8 November 2005 (asylum seeker held to 

be protected against refoulement due to a risk of flagrant denial of fair trial 

that might result in the death penalty; such treatment would amount to 

arbitrary deprivation of life in breach of Art. 2; deportation of both the 

asylum seeker and his family members would therefore give rise to violations 

of Arts 2 and 3).

D. and others v. Turkey, ECtHR judgement of 22 June 2006 (deportation of 

woman applicant in view of the awaiting execution of severe corporal 

punishment in Iran would constitute violation of Art. 3, as such punishment 

would inflict harm to her personal dignity and her physical and mental 

integrity; violation of Art. 3 would also occur to her husband and daughter, 

given their fear resulting from the prospective ill-treatment of D).

Salah Sheekh v. Netherlands, ECtHR judgement of 11 January 2007 (asylum 

seeker held to be protected against refoulement under Art. 3; there was a real 

chance that deportation to 'relatively safe' areas in Somalia would result in his 

removal to unsafe areas, hence there was no 'internal flight alternative' viable; 

the Court emphasised that even if ill-treatment be meted out arbitrarily 

or seen as a consequence of the general unstable situation, the asylum seeker 

would be protected under Art. 3, holding that it cannot be required that an 

applicant establishes further special distinguishing features concerning him 

personally in order to show that he would be personally at risk).WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 147

Sultani c. France, ECtHR judgement of 20 September 2007 (finding no 

violation of Art. 3, despite the applicant's complaint that the most recent 

asylum decision within an accelerated procedure had not been based on 

an effective individual examination; the Court emphasized that the first 

decision had been made within the normal asylum procedure, involving full 

examination in two instances, and held this to justify the limited duration of 

the second examination which had aimed to verify whether any new grounds 

could change the previous rejection; in addition, the latter decision had 

been reviewed by administrative courts at two levels; the applicant had not 

brought forward elements concerning his personal situation in the country of 

origin, nor sufficient to consider him as belonging to a minority group under 

particular threat).

N.A. v. UK, ECtHR judgement of 17 July 2008 (the Court considered the 

general principles applicable to cases of expulsion or deportation of rejected 

asylum applicants, restating that substantial grounds must have been shown 

for believing that the applicant faces a real risk of treatment contrary to 

Art. 3; the assessment of the existence of such real risk must necessarily be 

a rigorous one, basing itself on both the general situation in the country of 

destination and the applicant's personal circumstances; while the Court will 

have regard to whether there is a general situation of violence in the country 

of destination, such a situation will not normally in itself entail a violation of 

Art. 3 in the event of deportation; however, the Court has never excluded the 

possibility that a general situation of violence in the country of destination will 

be of a sufficient level of intensity as to entail that any removal thereto would 

necessarily breach Art. 3, yet such an approach will be adopted only in the 

most extreme cases of general violence where there is a real risk of ill-treatment 

simply by virtue of an individual being exposed to such violence on return; in 

addition, protection under Art. 3 exceptionally enters into play where there 

are serious reasons to believe that a certain group is systematically exposed to 

a practice of ill-treatment and the applicant establishes membership of such 

a group; in such circumstances, the Court will not insist that the applicant 

show the existence of further special distinguishing features; against that 

background, considering the cumulative factors in the case, the information 

about systematic torture and ill-treatment of Tamils found to be of interest 148 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

to the Sri Lankan authorities upon return, and the current climate of general 

violence and heightened security in Sri Lanka, there were substantial grounds 

for finding that the applicant would be considered of interest to the authorities, 

and therefore deportation at the present time would be a violation of Art. 3).

N. v. Sweden, ECtHR judgement of 20 July 2010 (deportation of woman to 

Afghanistan would give rise to a violation of Art. 3; the Court observed that 

women are at particular risk of ill-treatment in Afghanistan if perceived as 

not conforming to the gender roles ascribed to them by society, tradition and 

even the legal system; reference was here made to UNHCR observations that 

Afghan women having adopted a less culturally conservative lifestyle, such 

as those returning from exile in Iran or Europe, continue to be perceived 

as transgressing entrenched social and religious norms and may, as a result, 

be subjected to domestic violence and other forms of punishment; actual 

or perceived transgressions of the social behavioural code include not only 

social behaviour in the context of a family or a community, but also sexual 

orientation, pursuit of a professional career, and mere disagreements as to the 

way family life is conducted; as the applicant had resided in Sweden since 

2004, had attempted to divorce her husband, and had expressed a clear, real 

and genuine intention of not resuming the marriage, the Court could not 

ignore the general risk to which she might be exposed should her husband 

decide to resume their married life together, or should he perceive her filing 

for divorce as an indication of an extramarital relationship; in these special 

circumstances, there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant 

would face various cumulative risks of reprisals falling under Art. 3 from her 

husband, his or her family, and from the Afghan society).

See also Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, ECtHR judgement of 22 September 

2009 (reiterating the interpretation of Art. 3 in Salah Sheekh v. Netherlands

as regards the non-insistence on further special distinguishing features if the 

applicant establishes being a member of a group systematically exposed to a 

practice of ill-treatment).

Particular issues of evidence and proof

N. v. Finland, ECtHR judgement of 26 July 2005 (asylum seeker held to be 

protected against refoulement under Art. 3, despite the Finnish authorities' WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 149

doubts about his identity, origin, and credibility; two delegates of the Court 

were sent to take oral evidence from the applicant, his wife and a Finnish 

senior official; while retaining doubts about his credibility on some points, the 

Court found that the applicant's accounts on the whole had to be considered 

sufficiently consistent and credible; deportation would therefore be in breach 

of Art. 3).

R.C. v. Sweden, ECtHR judgement of 9 March 2010 (asylum seeker protected 

against deportation under Art. 3, despite the Swedish authorities' doubts 

about his credibility; while acknowledging the need to give asylum seekers 

the benefit of the doubt, the Court held that they must adduce evidence 

capable of proving that there are substantial grounds for believing that they 

would be exposed to a real risk of ill-treatment, and that they must provide 

a satisfactory explanation for alleged discrepancies if there are strong reasons 

to question the veracity of their submissions; if such evidence is adduced, it is 

for the State to dispel any doubts about it; and while accepting that national 

authorities are generally best placed to assess the facts and the credibility, the 

Court did not share their conclusion about the applicant's general credibility; 

the Court referred to a medical report concluding that the applicant's injuries 

were consistent with his alleged exposure to torture, thus corroborating his 

story about political activities in Iran, and to information on ill-treatment 

of demonstrators in Iran; as the applicant's account was consistent with that 

general information, he was held to have discharged the burden of proving 

that he had already been tortured, so that the onus to dispel any doubts about 

the risk was resting with the State; the current situation in Iran, and the 

specific risk facing Iranians returning from abroad without evidence of their 

legal departure from the country, were adding a further risk; the cumulative 

effect of these factors led the Court to conclude that there were substantial 

grounds for believing in a real risk of detention and ill-treatment of the 

applicant if deported to Iran).

Particular issues of national security and criminal offences

Chahal v. UK, ECtHR judgement of 15 November 1996 (holding that deportation 

of a Sikh separatist to India on national security grounds would be in breach 

of ECHR Art. 3, as he would face real risk of being subjected to treatment 150 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

contrary to Art. 3; the prohibition in Art. 3 is absolute also in expulsion 

cases, and the activities of the individual in question, however undesirable or 

dangerous, cannot be a material consideration).

Ahmed v. Austria, ECtHR judgement of 17 December 1996 (reconfirming the 

absolute nature of Art. 3; deportation of a Somali convicted of serious criminal 

offences would therefore be a violation of Art.3, as the applicant was under 

the risk to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by non-state 

agents upon expulsion).

Saadi v. Italy, ECtHR judgement of 28 February 2008 (reconfirming the absolute 

nature of the prohibition in Art. 3 of torture and inhuman or degrading 

treatment or punishment, and hence of the protection against refoulement, 

irrespective of the victim's conduct; the applicant had been prosecuted in Italy 

for participation in international terrorism and, as a result, his deportation to 

Tunisia was ordered, whereas in Tunisia he had been sentenced in absentia 

to 20 years' imprisonment for membership of a terrorist organization and 

for incitement to terrorism; noting the immense difficulties faced by States 

in protecting their communities from terrorist violence, the Court held that 

this cannot call into question the absolute nature of Art. 3, thus reaffirming 

the principle stated in Chahal v. UK that it is not possible to weigh the 

risk of ill-treatment against the reasons put forward for the expulsion; the 

'diplomatic assurances' sought by Italy from the Tunisian authorities were 

not accepted by the Court, stating that the existence of domestic law and 

accession to international treaties guaranteeing respect for fundamental rights 

in principle are not in themselves sufficient to ensure adequate protection 

against the risk of ill-treatment where reliable sources have reported practices 

resorted to or tolerated by the authorities which are manifestly contrary to the 

principles of the ECHR; even if diplomatic assurances had been given by the 

receiving State, the weight to be given to such assurances would depend on the 

circumstances in each case, and the Court would still have to examine whether 

the assurances provided in their practical application sufficient guarantee 

against the risk of prohibited treatment).

See also Muminov v. Russia, ECtHR judgement of 11 December 2008; Ben 

Khemais v. Italy, ECtHR judgement of 24 February 2009; O. v. Italy, ECtHR 

judgement of 24 March 2009; Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, ECtHR WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 151

judgement of 22 September 2009; Trabelsi v. Italy, ECtHR judgement of 

13 April 2010; A. v. Netherlands, ECtHR judgement of 20 July 2010 (all 

reiterating the interpretation pronounced in Saadi v. Italy as regards the 

absolute nature of the prohibition in Art. 3). 

Health issues 

D. v. UK, ECtHR judgement of 2 May 1997 (applicant suffering from advanced 

stages of a terminal HIV/AIDS illness; expulsion to the country of origin, 

known for its lack of medical facilities and appropriate treatment in case, 

and where he would have no family or friends to care for him, would 

amount to inhuman treatment prohibited by Art. 3; the Court stressed the 

very exceptional circumstances of the case and the compelling humanitarian 

considerations at stake).

Bensaid v. UK, ECtHR judgement of 6 February 2001 (high threshold set by 

Art. 3, according to which a schizophrenic suffering from psychotic illness 

does not face a sufficiently real risk after his return to Algeria; not compelling 

humanitarian considerations as required under Art. 3, once the necessary 

treatment is available in the country of destination).

Aoulmi v. France, ECtHR judgement of 17 January 2006 (high threshold set by 

Art. 3, in particular if the deporting State has no direct responsibility for 

the potential infliction of harm due to substandard health services in 

country of origin; not proven that the applicant could not receive adequate 

medical treatment upon expulsion to Algeria; the binding nature of Rule 39 

indications was reconfirmed, hence deportation despite such indication was 

held to violate ECHR Art. 34).

N. v. UK, ECtHR judgement of 27 May 2008 (the ECtHR Grand Chamber 

maintained the high threshold set in D v. UK concerning cases of removal of 

aliens suffering from a serious mental or physical illness to a country where 

the facilities for treatment of that illness are inferior to those available in the 

CoE State; such decisions may raise an issue under Art. 3, but only in very 

exceptional cases where the humanitarian grounds against the removal are 

compelling; Art. 3 was held principally to prevent deportation where the risk 

of ill-treatment in the destination country would emanate from intentional 

acts or omissions of public authorities, or from non-State bodies when 

the authorities are unable to afford the applicant appropriate protection; 152 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

the fact that the alien's circumstances, including life expectancy, would be 

significantly reduced is not sufficient in itself to give rise to breach of Art. 3; 

the applicant had been diagnosed as having two AIDS defining illnesses, but 

was not presently considered critically ill, so her case was not found to disclose 

very exceptional circumstances such as in D v. UK, and implementation of 

the removal decision would therefore not give rise to a violation of Art. 3).

Internal protection alternative

Hilal v. UK, ECtHR judgement of 6 March 2001 (expulsion of Tanzanian 

opposition party member, having previously suffered serious ill-treatment in 

detention, would be contrary to Art. 3; no 'internal flight alternative' found 

to be viable in his case).

See also Chahal v. UK, ECtHR judgement of 15 November 1996; Salah Sheekh v. 

Netherlands, ECtHR judgement of 11 January 2007 (summaries above).

Family issues

Mayeka and Mitunga v. Belgium, ECtHR judgement of 12 October 2006 (the 

arrest, detention and subsequent deportation of a 5 year old child, transiting 

Belgium in order to join her mother living as a refugee in Canada, held to 

be in violation of Arts 3, 5, and 8; breaches of Art. 3 were found both due 

to the conditions of the child's detention, the conduct of the deportation 

of the child to DR Congo, and the resulting distress and anxiety suffered by 

her mother).

Muskhadzhiyeva and others v. Belgium, ECtHR judgement of 19 January 2010 

(detention of four children aged 7 months, 3½ years, 5 years and 7 years, 

awaiting transfer to Poland under the Dublin Regulation, over a month in 

the same closed centre as in the aforementioned case, not designed to house 

children, held to be in violation of Arts. 3 and 5; as the mother had not 

been separated from the children, her treatment had not reached the level 

of severity required to constitute inhuman treatment, and her detention had 

been lawful in accordance with Art. 5).

See also D. and others v. Turkey, ECtHR judgement of 22 June 2006 (summary 

above).WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 153

Procedural issues

Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, ECtHR judgement of 4 February 2005 

(evidence insufficient to find a violation of Art. 3 by the applicants' extradition 

from Turkey to Uzbekistan; the extradition constituted Turkey's non- 

adherence to the Court's indication of interim measures under Rule 39 of the 

Rules of Court, thereby violating ECHR Art. 34).

Ben Khemais v. Italy, ECtHR judgement of 24 February 2009 (violation of Art. 3 

due to deportation of the applicant to Tunisia; 'diplomatic assurances' alleged 

by the respondent Government could not be relied upon; violation of Art. 34 

as the deportation had been carried out in spite of an ECtHR decision issued 

under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court).

Trabelsi v. Italy, ECtHR judgement of 13 April 2010 (violation of Art. 3 due to 

deportation of the applicant to Tunisia; 'diplomatic assurances' alleged by the 

respondent Government could not be relied upon; violation of Art. 34 as the 

deportation had been carried out in spite of an ECtHR decision issued under 

Rule 39 of the Rules of Court).

M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, ECtHR judgement of 21 January 2011 (upholding 

the principle previously adopted in T.I. v. UK, admissibility decision of 7 

March 2000, according to which the deporting State is responsible under 

ECHR Art. 3 for the foreseeable consequences of the deportation of an 

asylum seeker to another EU Member State, even if the deportation is being 

decided in accordance with the Dublin Regulation; the responsibility of the 

deporting State comprises not only the risk of indirect refoulement by way 

of further deportation to risk of ill-treatment in the country of origin, but 

also the conditions in the receiving Member State if it is foreseeable that the 

asylum seeker may there be exposed to treatment contrary to Art. 3; thus, 

Greece was held to have violated Art. 3 due to the detention conditions and 

the absence of any measures to cover the applicant's basic needs during the 

asylum procedure; Belgium too was in violation of Art. 3 by having returned 

the applicant to Greece and thereby having knowingly exposed him to 

conditions of detention and living conditions that amounted to degrading 

treatment; the deficiencies in the Greek asylum procedure and the consequent 

risk that the applicant might have been returned to Afghanistan without any 

serious examination of the merits of his asylum application, and without 154 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

having access to an effective remedy in Greece, was held to be a violation 

of Art. 13 in conjunction with Art. 3; since the Belgian authorities knew or 

ought to have known that the applicant would have no guarantee that his 

asylum application would be seriously examined by the Greek authorities, the 

transfer from Belgium to Greece under the Dublin Regulation had given rise 

to a violation of Art. 3 by Belgium).

Extended

Art. 3 – prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 

Gomes v. Sweden, ECtHR admissibility decision of 7 February 2006 (application 

declared inadmissible; the complaints of risk of death penalty, life imprisonment and torture held to be manifestly ill-founded due to the contradictory 

information given by the applicant to the Swedish authorities, and the lack of 

documents substantiating his allegations).

Ayegh v. Sweden, ECtHR admissibility decision of 7 November 2006 (application 

declared inadmissible; the authenticity of documents invoked by the applicant 

was in dispute, and she was found not to have established a real risk to her 

life or physical integrity if deported to Iran; if the benefit of the doubt is to be 

given to asylum seekers, they must provide satisfactory explanation when the 

veracity of their submissions is questioned).

R (on the applications of Adam, Tesema, and Limbuela) v. Secretary of State for the 

Home Department (2004), 2004 EWCA 540, All ER (D) 323, Judgements 

of 21 May 2004 (UK judicial decision holding failure to provide shelter and 

assistance to destitute asylum seekers violates ECHR Art. 3.

S.D. v. Greece, ECtHR judgement of 11 June 2009 (violation of Art. 3 due to the 

conditions of detention in holding centres for foreigners).

A.A. v. Greece, ECtHR judgement of 22 July 2010 (violation of Art. 3 both due 

to the conditions in detention centre and to the Greek authorities' lack of 

diligence in providing the applicant with appropriate medical assistance).

Art. 1 – territorial scope of applicability

Xhavara et al. c. Italie et Albanie, ECtHR admissibility decision of 11 January 

2001 (Italian jurisdiction as regards the incident of a collision between an 

Italian military vessel and an Albanian boat that was intercepted by the Italian 

vessel, resulting in the death of irregular immigrants on-board the boat, was WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 155

undisputed; the application to the ECtHR was declared inadmissible due to 

non-exhaustion of domestic remedies).

Al-Adsani v. UK, ECtHR judgement of 21 November 2001 (state not responsible 

for torture that had taken place outside the Council of Europe Member State 

jurisdiction and was committed by agents of another State, even in case of an 

applicant of dual British/Kuwaiti citizenship; any positive obligation deriving 

from ECHR Arts 1 and 3 could extend only to the prevention of torture).

Medvedyev and Others v. France, ECtHR judgement of 10 July 2008, upheld by 

Grand Chamber judgement of 29 March 2010 (case not regarding asylum 

issues; however, the Court interpreted Art. 1 so as to imply State responsibility 

in an area outside national territory when, as a consequence of military action, 

it exercises control of that area, or in cases involving activities of its diplomatic 

or consular agents abroad and on-board aircraft and ships registered in the 

State concerned; as France had exercised full and exclusive control over a cargo 

vessel and its crew, at least de facto, from the time of its interception, and the 

crew had remained under the control of the French military, the applicants 

were held to have been effectively within the jurisdiction of France).

Art. 5 – deprivation of liberty

Saadi v. UK, ECtHR judgement of 11 July 2006, upheld by Grand Chamber 

judgement of 29 January 2008 (detention of an asylum seeker for 7 days to 

facilitate the examination of the case found to be justified under Art. 5 (1) (f); 

it was considered a necessary adjunct to the right of States to control aliens' 

entry and residence that States are permitted to detain would-be immigrants 

who have applied for permission to enter, whether by way of asylum or 

not; until the State has authorised entry, any entry is 'unauthorised' and 

detention is permissible under Art. 5 (1) (f), provided that such detention is 

not arbitrary; this requires that detention must be carried out in good faith, 

be closely connected to the purpose of preventing unauthorised entry, the 

place and conditions of detention should be appropriate, and the duration 

should not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued; however, 

informing the applicant's lawyer of the reason for the detention of his client 

after 76 hours of detention was incompatible with the requirement under Art. 

5 (2) to provide such information promptly).156 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

S.D. v. Greece, ECtHR judgement of 11 June 2009 (violation of Art. 5, since 

detention with a view to expulsion of the applicant had no legal basis in Greek 

law, and the applicant had been unable to have the lawfulness of his detention 

reviewed by the courts).

A.A. v. Greece, ECtHR judgement of 22 July 2010 (violation of Art. 5 as the 

period of detention subsequent to the registration of the applicant's asylum 

request had been unnecessary for the aim pursued; the applicant had further 

been unable to have the judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention).

Louled Massoud v. Malta, ECtHR judgement of 27 July 2010 (reiterating the 

interpretation of Art. 5 pronounced in Saadi v. UK as regards the protection 

from arbitrariness; Art. 5 held to be violated due to the failure of the national 

system to protect the applicant from arbitrary detention, and his prolonged 

detention could not be considered to have been lawful; it had not been shown 

that the applicant had at his disposal under domestic law an effective and 

speedy remedy for challenging the lawfulness of his detention).

Art. 9 – right to freedom of religion

Z. and T. v. UK, ECtHR admissibility decision of 28 February 2006 (application 

declared inadmissible; the Court not ruling out the possibility that, in 

exceptional circumstances, there might be protection against refoulement on 

the basis of Art. 9 where the person would run a real risk of flagrant violation 

of that provision in the receiving state).

Art. 13 – right to effective remedy 

Conka v. Belgium, ECtHR judgement of 5 February 2002 (the detention of 

rejected Roma asylum seekers before deportation to Slovakia constituted a 

violation of Art. 5; due to the specific circumstances of the deportation the 

prohibition against collective expulsion under Protocol 4 Art. 4 was violated; 

the procedure followed by the Belgian authorities did not provide an effective 

remedy in accordance with Art. 13, requiring guarantees of suspensive effect).

Gebremedhin v. France, ECtHR judgement of 26 April 2007 (holding that 

the particular border procedure declaring 'manifestly unfounded' asylum 

applications inadmissible, and refusing the asylum seeker entry into the 

territory, was incompatible with Art. 13 taken together with Art.3; emphasising 

that in order to be effective, the domestic remedy must have suspensive effect 

as of right).WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 157

Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, ECtHR judgement of 22 September 2009 

(holding a violation of Art. 13 in relation to complaints under Art. 3; the 

notion of an effective remedy under Art. 13 requires independent and rigorous 

scrutiny of a claim to risk of refoulement under Art. 3, and a remedy with 

automatic suspensive effect; the Court was not persuaded by the respondent 

State's argument that the applicants had failed to request asylum when entering 

Turkish territory, as this argument was not supported by any documents; 

in the absence of a legal procedure governing deportation and providing 

procedural safeguards, there were reasons to believe that their requests would 

not have been officially recorded; the administrative and judicial authorities 

had remained totally passive regarding the applicants' serious allegations of 

a risk of ill-treatment if returned to Iraq or Iran, amounting to a lack of the 

rigorous scrutiny required by Art. 13). 

See also Jabari v. Turkey, ECtHR judgement of 11 July 2000 (summary above); 

Keshmiri v. Turkey, ECtHR judgement of 13 April 2010 (violation of Art. 13, 

case almost identical to Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey).

Readings

Core

H. Lambert, 'The European Convention on Human Rights and the Protection of 

Refugees: Limits and Opportunities', Refugee Survey Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 2 

(2005), pp. 39–55, 40–49.

UNHCR, UNHCR Manual on Refugee Protection and the European Convention 

on Human Rights (April 2003, updated February 2007).

Extended

P. van Dijk, F. van Hoof, A. van Rijn, and L. Zwaak, Theory and Practice of 

the European Convention on Human Rights, (Antwerp – Oxford: Intersentia, 

2006), pp. 19–23, 427–40.

J. Fitzpatrick, Human Rights Protection for Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, and Internally 

Displaced Persons: A Guide to International Mechanisms and Procedures (New 

York: Ardsley Transnational Publishers Inc., 2002), pp. 359–427.

N. Mole and C. Meredith, Asylum and the European Convention on Human Rights

(Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2010).158 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

G. Noll, 'Seeking Asylum at Embassies: A Right to Entry under International 

Law?', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 17, no. 3 (2005), pp. 542–573.

R. C. A. White and C. Ovey, Jacobs, White and Ovey, The European Convention 

on Human Rights, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 179–182.

Editor's Note

The use of case law and case studies is an effective method for teaching the scope of 

protection offered by the ECHR. Complex issues of State jurisdiction under ECHR 

Art. 1 arise in connection with the exercise of extra-territorial immigration controls, 

whether in foreign territories or in international maritime areas.

Note the practical importance of interim measures under rule 39 of the Rules of Court, 

according to which the ECtHR may request the CoE Member State not to enforce a 

removal decision while the application submitted to the Court is still pending.

In addition to the scope of protection against refoulement, ECtHR judgements may 

also illustrate the occurrence of human rights violations in certain CoE Member States 

from which asylum seekers in other European States originate, as well as EU Member 

States to which other Member States consider transferring asylum seekers under the 

Dublin Regulation.

To compare the absolute protection under Art. 3 of the ECHR with Arts 1 F and 33 

of the 1951 Convention, see Section II.1.1 and Section II.2.1.6.

V.2. The European Union 

The EU comprises 27 Member States. It was established through three treaties 

signed by six European states in the 1950s, the most important being the EEC 

Treaty of 1957. Its original objectives were to achieve economic integration in the 

region. Three main transformations have subsequently taken place, which have 

significantly impacted upon the asylum field. These have resulted, firstly, from 

the continued enlargement of the group of states participating to 27 at present; 

secondly, through the consolidation of EU law in this area, which now takes 

priority over the national law of the Member States; and thirdly, the widening 

of the Union's responsibilities with the addition of justice and home affairs, 

including asylum and migration, as a Union or Community competence, in WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 159

1999. From that date the EU has been a central actor in determining the law of 

international protection in the Member States. The EU's structure incorporates 

several key institutions including the European Parliament, the European Council 

and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). 

 In addition, EU asylum law and practice has great potential to influence 

significantly the development of the international protection system more broadly. 

This is in part because many countries look to the EU as a leading standard-setter 

in legal and normative terms. In addition, however, given that State practice is a 

source of international law, harmonized practice (if and when it is achieved) in 27 

EU Member States will be extremely important in contributing to the evolution 

of international refugee law worldwide. 

Editor's Note

This section is structured to provide an overview of EU developments of refugee law. 

The section starts with the criteria and contents of protection and then follows the road 

of the asylum seeker attempting to access the procedure in order to be recognised as in 

need of protection. 

V.2.1 Towards a Common European Asylum 

 System (CEAS)

Main Debates

What are the objectives of EU involvement in asylum law?

Does it aim at human rights protection, application of asylum in the context of 

the EU internal market, or establishment of fortress Europe?

Is the EU involvement in asylum law raising or lowering standards in practice? 

What is the relationship of the 1951 Geneva Convention with EU asylum law?

What is the relationship between the 1951 Geneva Convention and Member 

States' national law enacted pursuant to the European community instruments?

What are the possible implications of the EU's decision to work towards full 

establishment of a common European asylum system by 2010?

Main Points

Historical development of EU law on asylum

Evolving EU competences over asylum matters 160 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Human rights and the EU

Institutional actors and their powers and roles

Evolving roles of the different EU institutions in EU asylum law- and policymaking

Readings

Core

E. Guild, 'The Europeanisation of Europe's Asylum policy', International Journal 

of Refugee Law, vol. 18 (2006), pp. 630–651. 

S. S. Juss, 'The Decline and Decay of European Refugee Policy',Oxford Journal of 

Legal Studies, vol. 25 (2005), pp. 749–792.

V.2.1.1 Evolution of the CEAS 

EU Documents

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the 

Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee 

of Regions, Policy Plan on Asylum. An Integrated Approach to Protection 

Across the EU, COM (2008) 360, 17 June 2008.

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European 

Parliament: Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: Assessment of the Tampere 

Programme and Future Orientations, COM (2004) 401, 2 June 2004.

Commission Staff Working Paper, Annex to Communication from the 

Commission: Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: Assessment of the 

Tampere Programme and Future Orientations, SEC (2004) 693, 2 June 

2004. 

Commission Staff Working Paper, The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: 

Assessment of the Tampere Programme and Future Orientations – List of the 

most Important Instruments Adopted, SEC (2004) 680, 2 June 2004. 

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, An Overview of Protection Issues in Western Europe: Legislative Trends

and Positions Taken by UNHCR, vol. 1, no. 3, European Series (Geneva: 

UNHCR, 1995).WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 161

UNHCR, 'Towards a Common European Asylum Policy', in C. Dias Urbano 

de Sousa and P. De Bruycker, The Emergence of a European Asylum Policy

(Brussels: Bruylant, 2004), pp. 227–295.

Readings

Core

O. Ferguson Sidorenko, The Common European Asylum System: Background, 

Current State of Affairs, Future Direction (The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 

2007), Chapter 1. 

J. McAdam, 'Regionalising International Refugee Law in the European Union', 

Victoria University of Wellington Law review 255A, vol. 38, no. 2 (2007), pp. 

255–280.

F. Nicholson, 'Challenges to Forging a Common European Asylum System 

in line with the International Obligations' in S. Peers and N. Rogers, EU 

Immigration and Asylum Law (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 

2006), pp. 505–537.

Extended

I. Boccardi, 'After Amsterdam: Towards an EU Asylum Policy?', Europe and 

Refugees: Towards an EU Asylum Policy (The Hague: Kluwer LawInternational, 

2002), Chapter 6. 

S. Craig, 'The European Commission's Proposals for Directives to Establish a 

Common European Asylum System: The Challenges of Accession and the 

Dangers of Negative Integration', European Law Review, vol. 27, no. 4 

(2002), pp. 497–502.

ECRE (ECRE, ENAR, MPG), 'Guarding Standards – Shaping the Agenda: 

Analysis of the Treaty of Amsterdam and Present EU Policy on Migration 

Asylum and Anti-Discrimination', April 1999.

S. Peers, 'Legislative Update: EU Immigration and Asylum Competence and 

Decision-Making in the Treaty of Lisbon', European Journal of Migration and 

Law, vol. 10, no. 2 (2008), pp. 219–247.

E. Thieleman and N. El-Enany, 'The Myth of 'Fortress Europe': The (True) 

Impact of European Integration on Refugee Protection', paper presented at 

Fourth ECPR Pan-European Conference on EU Politics, 25 to 27 September 

2008, University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia.162 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

V.2.1.2 Ongoing Development of the CEAS 

EU Documents

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Title V, Chapter 2, 

Consolidated version, OJ C 83/47, 30 March 2010, p. 75.

Treaty of the European Union, Consolidated version, OJ C 83/13, 30 March 

2010.

Protocol No 24 on Asylum for Nationals and Member States of the EU, OJ C 

83/305, 30 March 2010.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (including notably Arts. 18 and 

19), OJ C 83/389, 30 March 2010.

European Commission: Green Paper on the Future Common European Asylum 

System, COM (2007) 301 final, 6 June 2007.

European Council, 'The Hague Programme: Strengthening Freedom, Security 

and Justice in the European Union', OJ C 53, 3 March 2005.

European Council, 'The Stockholm Program – An Open and Secure Europe 

Serving and Protecting Citizens', OJ C 115/1, 4 May 2010.

European Commission, 'Delivering an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice for 

Europe's Citizens – Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme', 

COM (2010) 171, 20 April 2010.

Regulation (EU) No. 439/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council 

of 19 May 2010 establishing a European Asylum Support Office, OJ L 

132/11, 19 May 2010.

Readings

Core

H. Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law (Leiden/Boston: 

Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006), Chapter 2.

E. Collet, 'The European Union's Stockholm Program: Less Ambition on 

Immigration and Asylum, But More Detailed Plans', Migration Information 

Source, January 2010.

A. Missiroli, J. Emmanouilidis, Implementing Lisbon: the EU's Presidency's 

other (rotating) half, Paper European Policy Centre, December 2009.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 163

Extended

J. Pirjola, 'European Asylum Policy – Inclusions and Exclusions under the Surface 

of Universal Human Rights Language', European Journal of Migration and 

Law, vol. 11, no. 4 (2009), pp. 347–366.

ECRE, Comments on the Proposal for a Regulation establishing a European 

Asylum Support Office, 29 April 2009.

Editor's Note

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has begun its work providing 

common definitions of the core legal measures adopted as part of the CEAS. We can 

expect over the next years that important and unresolved issues of the CEAS will come 

before the Court. The rules on access to the CJEU changed in 2009 when the Lisbon 

Treaty created two new treaties and the restrictions precluding lower courts from 

referring questions to the CJEU were lifted. Among the outstanding question is how 

the CJEU will interpret the CEAS in the light of the 1951 Geneva Convention.

The Treaty of Lisbon amended the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which retains 

its name, and the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC), which is 

renamed as the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 

The legislative procedure for measures in the CEAS now follows the normal EU 

procedures of co-decision with the European Parliament. The Commission, as guardian 

of the Treaties, is responsible for ensuring that there is a common application of the CEAS 

in the Member States. This is challenging and the Commission has begun a number of 

enforcement procedures against Member States for failure to comply with the CEAS. 

V.2.2 Criteria for Granting Protection

V.2.2.1 Harmonization of the 1951 Geneva Convention 

 Refugee Definition

Main Debates

Is the EU legislation on qualification for protection consistent with the 1951 

Geneva Convention? 

How should the 1951 Geneva Convention exclusion clauses be applied in the 

context of the 'fight a gainst terrorism'?164 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Main Points

Different interpretations of the refugee definition among Member States

Persecution by non-state agents

Protection by non-state agents

Gender and sexual orientation

Refugee sur place

Internal flight alternative

Compatibility of rules on exclusion, revocation, cessation with 1951 Geneva 

Convention

Differentiation in rights accorded to 1951 Geneva Convention refugees and 

subsidiary protection beneficiariesCessation and exclusion

EU Documents

European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament 

and of the Council on minimum standards for the qualification and status 

of third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international 

protection and the content of the protection granted COM (2009) 551, 21 

October 2009.

Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for 

the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as 

refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the 

content of the protection granted, OJ L 304, 30 September 2004.

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR comments on the European Commission's proposal for a Directive 

of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum standards for 

the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as 

beneficiaries of international protection and the content of the protection 

granted COM (2009) 551, 21 October 2009, 29 July 2010.

UNHCR comments on the EC Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 

on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of Third Country 

Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees or as Persons Who Otherwise 

Need International Protection and the Content of the Protection Granted, 

28 January 2005.

UNHCR, 'Asylum in the European Union', A Study of the Implementation of 

the Qualification Directive, November 2007.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 165

UNHCR, ExCom Conclusion on the Provision of International Protection 

Including Through Complementary Forms of Protection, No. 103 (LVI), 7 

October 2005, paragraph (k).

UNHCR Statement on the "Ceased Circumstances" clause of the EC 

Qualification Directive, 1 August 2008.

UNHCR Statement on Article 1F of the 1951 Convention, July 2009.

Cases

Federal Republic of Germany v. B (C-57/09), D(C-101/09), Court of Justice of the 

EU, 9 November 2010.

Aydin Salahadin Abdulla and others v. Federal Republic of Germany, C-175/08, 

Court of Justice of the EU, 2 March 2010.

Opinion in the case of Abdulla, joined cases C-175/08, C-176/08, C-178/08, 

C-179/08 by Advocate General Mazák, Court of Justice of the EU, 15 

September 2009.

Opinion in the case of Germany v. B and D, joined cases C-57/09 and C-101/09, 

by Advocate-General Mengozzi, Court of Justice of the EU, 1 June 2010.

Bolbol Nawras v. Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, Case C-31/09, 

Preliminary reference from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 

January 2009.

Opinion in the case of Bolbol Nawras by Advocate General Sharpston, C-31/09, 

Court of Justice of the EU, 4 March 2010.

Secretary of State for the Home Department v. K; Fornah v. Secretary of State for the 

Home Department, 2006 UKHL 46.

See also the cases Chahal v. UK (V.1.2) and Adan and Aitseguer (V.2.4.1).

Readings

Core

N. Blake, 'The Impact of the Minimum Standards Directive 2004/83/EC 

on National Case Law', in The Asylum Process and the Rule of Law, IARLJ 

World Conference publication, April 2005 Stockholm (New Delhi: Manak 

Publications, 2006).

M. Gil-Bazo, 'The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 

and the Right to be Granted Asylum in the Union's Law', Refugee Survey 

Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3 (2008), pp. 33–52.166 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

E. Guild and M. Garlick, 'Refugee Protection, Counter-Terrorism and Exclusion 

in the European Union', in Refugee Survey Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 4 (2010), 

p. 63–82.

J. McAdam, 'The Qualification Directive: An Overview', in K. Zwaan (ed.), The 

Qualification Directive: Central Themes, Problem Issues, and Implementation in 

Selected Member States, (Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers 2007).

Extended

H. Lambert, 'The EU Asylum Qualification Directive, Its Impact on the 

Jurisprudence of the United Kingdom and International Law', International 

Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 55 (2006), pp. 161–192.

H. Storey, 'EU Refugee Qualification Directive: a Brave New World?', 

International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 20 (2008), pp. 1–49.

V.2.2.2 Subsidiary Protection

Main Debates

Does subsidiary protection threaten the 1951 Geneva Convention?

Are the needs of subsidiary protection beneficiaries less pressing or durable than 

those of refugees?

Is there a justification for giving different levels of entitlements to refugees and 

subsidiary protection beneficiaries?

Main Points

Relationship between directive and refugee determination process

Diminished rights under the EC temporary protection regime compared with 

1951 Geneva Convention rights

EU Documents

Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for 

the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons 

as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and 

content of the protection granted, OJ L 304, 30 September 2004.

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on 

minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and 

withdrawing international protection, COM (2009) 554/4.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 167

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, Statement on subsidiary protection under the EC Qualification 

Directive for people threatened by indiscriminate violence (Art 15(c)), 

January 2008.

See also the UNHCR documents in Section V.2.2.1.

Cases

M. and N. Elgafaji v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie, C-465/07, 17 February 2009.

Opinion in the case of Elgafaji, by Advocate-General Poiares Maduro, Court of 

Justice of the EU, 9 September 2008.

KH (Article 15(c) Qualification Directive) Iraq v. Secretary of State for the Home 

Department. CG [2008] UKAIT 00023. United Kingdom: Asylum and 

Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority, 25 March 2008. 

Readings

Core

H. Battjes, 'Subsidiary Protection and Reduced rights', in K. Zwaan (ed.) The 

Qualification Directive: Central Themes, Problem Issues, and Implementation in 

Selected Member States (Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2007), pp. 49–55.

ECRE, Complementary Protection in Europe, 29 July 2009.

R. Errera, 'The ECJ and Subsidiary Protection: Reflections on Elgafaji – and 

After', European Asylum Law Judges Association, European Academy 

Workshop, 19–20 October 2009.

Extended

M. Gil-Bazo, 'Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection, and the Right to be Granted 

Asylum under EC law', Research paper No. 136, UNHCR, November 2006.

G. Noll, 'International Protection Obligations and the Definition of Subsidiary 

Protection in the EU Qualification Directive', in C. Dias Urbano de Sousa 

and P. De Bruycker (eds), The Emergence of a European Asylum Policy (Brussels: 

Bruylant, 2004), pp. 183–194.

Editor's Note

See Section II.3.2 about other forms and instruments of protection after the 1951 

Convention.168 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

V.2.2.3 Temporary Protection

Main Debate

Does temporary protection threaten the 1951 Geneva Convention?

Main Point

Diminished rights under the EC temporary protection regime compared with 

1951 Geneva Convention rights

EU Document

Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving 

temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on 

measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving 

such persons and bearing the consequences thereof OJ L212 12, 7 August 2001. 

Readings

Core

N. Arenas, 'The Concept of 'Mass Influx of Displaced Persons' in the European 

Directive Establishing the Temporary Protection System', European Journal of 

Migration and Law, vol. 7 (2005), pp. 435–450.

K. Kerber, 'The Temporary Protection Directive', European Journal of Migration 

and Law, vol. 4 (2002), pp. 193–214.

G. Tessenyi, 'Massive Refugee Flows and Europe's Temporary Protection', 

in S. Peers and N. Rogers (eds), EU Immigration and Asylum law: text and 

commentary (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006), pp. 487–504.

Readings

Extended

D. Joly, 'Temporary Protection and the Bosnian Crises: a Cornerstone of the 

New European Regime', in D. Joly (ed.), Global Changes in Asylum Regimes 

(Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan, 2002), pp. 49–78.

Editor's Note

Temporary Protection is not in itself a status. Rather it is an administrative measure to 

deal with mass influx situations for a limited period of time. It can be combined with 

a suspension of the examination of individual claims. Temporary Protection can only 

apply on a group basis following a political decision by the Council.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 169

Compare the substantive rights for a person in an EC Temporary Protection regime 

with those for asylum seekers provided for in the Directive on Reception Conditions, 

on the one hand, and those for refugees provided for in the Geneva Convention and 

the Qualification Directive on the other.

V.2.3 Access to Territory and Access 

 to Procedures

Main Debates

Displacement activities v. duty to provide protection

Non-entrée policies v. duty to provide protection

Main Point

Tension between objectives of migration control, particularly control of irregular 

migration, and protection obligations

EU Document

Regulation (EC) No. 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council 

of 15 March 2006 Establishing a Community Code on the Rules Governing 

the Movement of Persons Across Borders (Schengen Borders Code), OJ L 

105, 13 April 2006.

UNHCR Document

UNHCR, Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of NonRefoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status 

of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol 26 January 2007.

Cases

M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, Grand Chamber, European Court of Human 

Rights, 21 January 2011 (see also Section V.1.2).

Readings

Core

ECRE, Defending Refugees' Access to Protection in Europe, December 2007.

J. van der Klaauw 'Irregular Migration and Asylum-Seeking: Forced Marriage 

or Reason for Divorce?', in B. Bogusz, R. Cholewinski, A. Cygan, and E. 170 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Szyszczak (eds), Irregular Migration and Human Rights: Theoretical, European 

and International Perspectives (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2004), Chapter II.6.

Extended

Oxfam, 'Foreign Territory: The Internationalisation of EU Asylum Policy' 

(Oxford: Oxfam, 2005), pp. 7–69.

T. Spijkerboer, 'Briefing Paper: Trends in the Different Legislations of the 

Member States Concerning Asylum in the EU: The Human Costs of Border 

Control', IPOL/C/LIBE/FWC/2005-23-SC1 PE 378.258, 2006.

Editor's Note

Examine how attempts to reconcile migration control and protection have been made 

when EC legislation was proposed and applied in practice and when the legislation 

was adopted.

V.2.3.1 The EU's External and Internal Borders 

Main Debates

Are states entitled to prevent arrival at their borders of persons seeking protection?

Do the 1951 Geneva Convention and article 3 of the ECHR create a right of 

access to territory?

Main Points

The claim to state sovereignty as regards the control of borders

Absence of a right to cross a border as such under international law

Borders in asylum regions

EU Documents

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending 

Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for 

the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the 

Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX), COM (2010) 61 final, 

24 February 2010.

Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 

15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the 

movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code).WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 171

Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council 

of 11 July 2007 establishing a mechanism for the creation of Rapid Border 

Intervention Teams and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 

as regards that mechanism and regulating the tasks and powers of guest 

officers, OJ L 199, 31 July 2007.

Council Resolution of 26 June 1997 on Unaccompanied Minors who are 

Nationals of third Countries, OJ C 221, 19 July 1997.

Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a 

European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the 

External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, OJ L 349/1, 

25 November 2004. 

Report on the Evaluation and Future Development of the FRONTEX Agency, 

COM (2008) 67.

UNHCR Document

UNHCR's observations on the European Commission's proposal for a Regulation 

of the European Parliament and the Council amending Council Regulation 

(EC) No 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of 

Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the 

European Union (FRONTEX), COM (2010) 61 final.

Readings

Core

S. Carrera, 'Towards a Common European Border Service?', CEPS Working 

Document no. 331, June 2010.

House of Lords–European Union Committee, 'Frontex, the EU External Borders 

Agency', 9th Report of Session 2007–08.

Meijers Committee, Views on the Commission Report on the Evaluation and 

Future Development of the FRONTEX Agency COM (2008) 67 final, 4 

April 2008.

Extended

R. Cholewinski, 'No Right of Entry: The Legal Regime on Crossing the EU 

Border', in K. Groenendijk, E. Guild, and P. Minderhoud (eds), In Search of

Europe's Borders (The Hague: Kluwer, 2003).172 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

E. Guild, 'Jurisprudence of the ECHR: Lessons for the EU Asylum Policy', in C. 

Dias Urbano de Sousa and P. de Bruycker (eds), The Emergence of a European 

Asylum Policy (Brussels: Bruylant, 2004), pp. 329–342.

E. Haddad, 'The External Dimension of EU Refugee Policy: a New Approach to 

Asylum?', Government and Opposition, vol. 43, no. 2 (2008), pp. 190–205.

S. Klepp, 'A Contested Asylum System: The European Union between Refugee 

Protection and Border Control in the Mediterranean Sea', European Journal 

of Migration and Law, vol. 12 (2010), pp. 1–21.

V. Mitsilegas, J. Monar & W. Rees, The EU and Internal Security (Basingstoke: 

Palgrave/ Macmillan 2003), pp. 109–111.

E. Papastavridis, ''Fortress Europe' and Frontex: Within or Without International 

Law?', Nordic Journal of International Law, vol. 79 (2009), pp. 75–111.

S. Peers, 'Key Legislative Developments on Migration in the European Union: 

SIS II', European Journal of Migration and Law, vol. 10 (2008), pp. 77–104.

Editor's note

See also the Gebremedhin v. France case in Section V.1.2 and the Prague Airport case 

in Section V.2.3.2.

V.2.3.2 Interception and Rescue at Sea

Main Debates

Who has responsibility for asylum-seekers intercepted or rescued at sea?

How does the position change if they are intercepted or rescued by Member 

States' registered vessels in

Member States' territorial waters?

international waters?

the waters of third states?

Main Point

Interaction between international law of the sea and rules of refugee and human 

rights law

EU Documents

Commission Staff Working Document, Study on the international law instruments 

in relation to illegal immigration by sea, SEC (2007) 691, 15 May 2007.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 173

Draft Council Decision supplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards 

the surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of the operational 

cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of 

Operational Cooperation at the External Borders, Council Doc. 5323/1/10, 

21 January 2010.

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR ExCom, 'Protection Safeguards in Interception Measures', Conclusion 

No. 97 (LIV), 10 October 2003.

UNHCR, 'Background Note on the Protection of Asylum Seekers and Refugees 

Rescued at Sea', 1 March 2002.

UNHCR, Selected Reference Materials: Rescue at Sea, Maritime Interception 

and Stowaways, November 2006.

UNHCR, Rescue at Sea. A Guide to Principles and Practice as Applied to 

Migrants and Refugees, September 2006.

Readings

Core

R. Barnes, 'Refugee Law at Sea', International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 

vol. 53, no. 1 (January 2004), pp. 47–77.

A. Fischer-Lescano, L. Tillmann & T. Tohidipur, 'Border Controls at Sea: 

Requirements under International Human Rights and Refugee Law', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 21, no. 2 (April 2009), pp. 256–296.

M. Pugh, 'Drowning not Waving: Boat People and Humanitarianism at Sea', 

Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 17, no. 1 (March 2004), pp. 50–69.

R. Weinzierl & U. Lisson, Border Management and Human Rights. A Study of 

EU Law and the Law of the Sea (German Institute for Human Rights, 2008).

Cases

R (on the application of European Roma Rights Centre et al) v Immigration Officer at 

Prague Airport & Anor (UNHCR intervening), 2004 UKHL 55; 2005, 2 AC 1.

V.2.3.3 Visas

Main Debates

Are visas a mechanism to move border control beyond the physical border?174 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Do protection seekers have a right to a visa even if they are in their country of 

origin?

Immigration control v. human rights protection

Main Points

Content of EU visa rules, particularly visa list and visa format

Connections between visa rules and asylum issues

EU Documents

Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council 

of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas, OJ L 243/1, 15 

September 2009.

Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 

9 July 2008 concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange 

of data between Member States on short-stay visas (VIS Regulation).

Council Regulation (EC) No 1932/2006 of 21 December 2006 amending 

Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals 

must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those 

whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, OJ L 405, 30 December 

2006. 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1091/2001 of 28 May 2001 on freedom of 

movement with a long-stay visa OJ L150 of 6 June 2001. 

Council Regulation (EC) No 334/2002 of 18 February 2002 amending 

Regulation (EC) No 1683/95 laying down a uniform format for visas OJ L53 

of 23 February 2002. 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1683/95 laying down a uniform format for visas, 

amended by Regulation (EC) 334/2002 of 18 February 2002 – consolidated 

version. 

Council Regulation (EC) No 693/2003 establishing a specific Facilitated Transit 

Document (FTD), a Facilitated Rail Transit Document (FRTD) and 

amending the Common Consular Instructions and the Common Manual, 

OJ L 99, 17 April 2003. 

Council Decision (EC) No 512/2004 establishing the Visa Information System 

(VIS), OJ L 213, 15 June 2004.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 175

Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 amending Regulation 

(EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be 

in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose 

nationals are exempt from that requirement as regards the reciprocity 

mechanism OJ L 141, 4 June 2005. 

Readings

Extended

E. Guild, 'The Border Abroad: Visas and Border Controls' in K. Groenendijk, 

E. Guild and P. Minderhoud (eds), In Search of Europe's Borders (The Hague: 

Kluwer Law International, 2003).

A. Meloni, Visa Policy within the European Union Structure (Berlin/New York: 

Springer, 2006), pp. 24–41.

S. Peers, 'Legislative Update, EC Immigration and Asylum Law: The New Visa 

Code', European Journal of Migration and Law, vol. 12 (2010), pp. 105–131.

S. Peers, 'EC Immigration and Asylum Law 2008: Visa Information System', 

European Journal for Migration and Law, vol. 11 (2009), pp. 69–94.

Editor's Note

Note the imposition of visas on every country producing large numbers of refugees/

asylum-seekers and the inevitable impact on the likelihood that they will enter illegally 

and/or use facilitators for smuggling them in. Readers should recall Article 31 of the 

1951 Geneva Convention.

V.2.3.4 Carrier Sanctions

Main Debates

Are carrier sanctions permitted under the letter of the 1951 Geneva Convention?

Should non-state parties be responsible for pre-screening asylum seekers?

Main Point

Carrier sanctions as a deflection mechanism

EU Documents

Council Directive (EC) 2001/51 supplementing the provisions of Article 26 of 

the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement OJ L187, 10 July 2001.176 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Council Directive (EC) 2004/82 on the obligation of carriers to communicate 

passenger data OJ L261, 6 August 2004.

Council Directive (EC) 2003/110 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes 

of removal by air OJ L 321, 6 December 2003.

Readings

Core

E. Basaran, 'Evaluation of the Carriers Liability Regime as a Part of the EU Asylum 

Policy under Public International law', Uluslararasi Hukuk ve Politika, vol. 4, 

no. 15 (2008), pp. 149–163.

V. Guiraudon, 'Before the EU Border: Remote Control of the "Huddled 

Masses"', in K. Groenendijk, E. Guild and P. Minderhoud (eds), In Search of 

Europe's Borders (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2003), pp. 191–214.

F. Nicholson, 'Implementation of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987: 

Privatising Immigration Functions at the Expense of International Obligations?', 

International Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 46 (1997), pp. 586–634.

Extended

A. Cruz, Shifting Responsibility: Carriers' Liability in the Member States of the

European Union and North America (Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books 

Limited, 1995).

P. Minderhoud & S. Scholten, 'Regulating Immigration Control: Carrier 

Sanctions in the Netherlands', European Journal on Migration and Law, 

vol. 2 (2008), pp. 123–147.

V.2.3.5. Extraterritorial Immigration Control and 

 Extraterritorial Processing

Extraterritorial immigration control refers inter alia to the system of immigration 

liaison officers used for some time by EU Member States which post officials 

from their border services in other countries, to reinforce checks and controls on 

entry to their territory from the point of departure. In addition, recent years have 

seen several debates about the possibility of obliging asylum seekers to request 

asylum of the EU from countries outside the Union, with the implication that 

this would be accompanied by restrictions on entry and/or rights to seek asylum 

within the EU. WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 177

Main Debates

What are the potential arguments for and against the legality of processing 

requests for asylum in the EU while claimants remain outside EU territory?

What practical problems could result from such a policy?

What are the potential implications of making financial assistance to non-EU 

States conditional upon more restrictive border control?

Main Points

External relations policy as tool to persuade non-EU States to carry out EU policies

Future prospect of external processing of asylum applications

EU Documents

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European 

Parliament on the managed entry in the EU of persons in need of international 

protection and the enhancement of the protection capacity of the regions of 

origin 'Improving access to durable solutions', COM (2004) 410, 4 June 2004.

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European 

Parliament on Regional Protection Programmes, COM (2005) 388, 1 

September 2005.

Communication from the Commission to the Council the European Parliament, 

the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the 

Regions. 'Migration and Development: Some Concrete Orientations' COM 

(2005) 390.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 

the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the 

Regions – A Common Immigration Policy for Europe: Principles, Actions 

and Tools, COM (2008) 359, 17 June 2008.

UNHCR Document

UNHCR, 'Observations on the Communication on Regional Protection 

Programmes', 10 October 2005.

Readings

Core

M. Garlick & J. Kumin, 'Seeking Asylum in the EU: Disentangling Refugee 

Protection from Migration Control', in B. Martenczuk and S. van Thiel 178 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

(eds), Justice, Liberty and Security: New challenges for EU External Relations', 

(Brussels: VUB Press, 2008).

S. Peers, 'EU Migration Law and Association Agreements', in B. Martenczuk 

and S. van Thiel, Justice, Liberty and Security: New Challenges for EU External 

Relations (Brussels: VUB Press, 2008).

B. Vandvik, 'Extraterritorial Border Controls and Responsibility to Protect: 

A View from ECRE', 26 September 2008.

K. De Vries, 'An Assessment of "Protection in Regions of Origin" in Relation 

to European Asylum Law', European Journal of Migration and Law, vol. 9 

(2007), pp. 83–103.

Extended

M. Garlick, 'The EU Discussions on Extraterritorial Processing: Solution or 

Conundrum?', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 18 (September/

December 2006), pp. 601–629.

M. Gil-Bazo, 'The Practice of Mediterranean States in the Context of the 

European Union's Justice and Home Affairs External Dimension. The Safe 

Third Country Concept Revisited', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 

18 (September/December 2006), pp. 571–600.

A. Klug & T. Houve, 'The Concept of State Jurisdiction and the Applicability 

of the Non-Refoulement Principle to Extraterritorial Interception Measures', 

in B. Ryan & V. Mitsilegas (eds), Extraterritorial Immigration Control, Legal 

Challenges (Nijmegen: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010), pp. 69–102. 

S. Kneebone, C. McDowell, and G. Morrell, 'A Mediterranean Solution? Chances 

of Success', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 18 (2006), pp. 492–508.

O. Lynskey, 'Complementing and Completing the Common European Asylum 

System: A Legal Analysis of the Emerging Extraterritorial Elements of EU 

Refugee Protection Policy', European Law Review, vol. 31, no. 2 (2006), pp. 

230–250. 

G. Noll, 'Visions of the Exceptional: Legal and Theoretical Issues Raised by 

Transit Processing Centres and Protection Zones', European Journal of 

Migration and Law, vol. 5 (2003), pp. 303–341. 

Editor's Note: 

See also Section V.2.4.4.3 on Safe Third Country.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 179

V.2.3.6 Biometrics and Databases

Main Debate

Interoperability v. the purpose limitation principle

Readings

Core

A. Baldaccini, 'Counter-Terrorism and the EU Strategy for Border Security: 

Framing Suspects with Biometric Documents and Databases', European 

Journal of Migration and Law, vol. 1 (2008), pp. 31–49.

E. Guild, 'Unreadable Papers?', in J. Lodge (ed.), Are You Who You Say You Are? 

The EU and Biometric Borders (Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2007), pp. 

31–45.

Meijers Committee, 'Proposal to Law Enforcement Authorities on Access to 

Eurodac', 6 November 2007.

Extended

E. Brouwer, 'Data Surveillance and Border Control in the EU: Balancing 

Efficiency and Legal Protection', in T. Balzacq and S. Carrera (eds), Security 

versus Freedom? A Challenge for Europe's Future (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 

pp. 137–154.

E. Brouwer, 'Eurodac: Its Temptations and Limitations', European Journal of 

Migration and Law, vol. 4 (2002), pp. 231–247.

V.2.4 Procedures for Granting Protection

Main Debates

Has the first phase of harmonisation of EC asylum law brought about consistency 

of decision-making and harmonisation in practice? If not, what further steps 

are required to achieve these aims? 

What do the extensive exceptions and qualifications to protection criteria and 

procedural safeguards in EU instruments mean for access to a fair and effective 

refugee status determination process?180 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Readings

Core

H. Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law, (Leiden/Boston: 

Martinus Nijhoff publishers, 2006) pp. 289–384.

K. Zwaan (ed.), 'The Qualification Directive: Central Themes, Problem Issues and 

Implementation in Selected Member States' (Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, 

2007).

V.2.4.1 Responsibility: The Dublin System

Main Debates

Distribution mechanisms v. protection obligations.

Who controls the identity of the asylum seeker?

Does the Dublin system provide sufficient safeguards against refoulement?

Are there risks that asylum seekers will not receive any substantive claim 

examination in the EU as a result of the Dublin system?

Main Points

Allocating responsibility for determining asylum claims

Implementing Dublin without prior harmonization in asylum policies

Identity and data protection

EU Documents

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on 

the evaluation of the Dublin system SEC (2007) 742, COM (2007) 0299.

Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the 

criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for 

examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a 

third-country national OJ L 050, 25 February 2003 (Dublin II).

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down 

detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 

establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State 

responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member 

States by a third-country national OJ L 222, 5 September 2003.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 181

Convention Determining the State Responsible for Examining Applications for 

Asylum Lodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities 

(signed in Dublin 15 June 1990, entered into force 1 September 1997) OJ 

C254, 19 August 1997.

Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 concerning the 

establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective 

application of the Dublin Convention OJ L316, 15 December 2000.

Council Regulation (EC) No 407/2002 of 28 February 2002 laying down 

certain rules to implement Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 concerning the 

establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective 

application of the Dublin Convention OJ L62, 5 March 2002.

Commission Communication Regarding the Implementation of Council 

Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000, 'Eurodac'.

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, The Dublin II Regulation. An UNHCR Discussion Paper, April 2006.

UNHCR Observations on Greece as a Country of Asylum, December 2009.

UNHCR Comments on Dublin II and Eurodac Proposals, 18 March 2009.

Cases

M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, Grand Chamber, European Court of Human 

Rights, 21 January 2011 (see also Section V.I.2).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) 

(Civil Division) made on 18 August 2010: NS v Secretary of State for the 

Home Department, Case C-411/10, OJ C 274/21, 9 October 2010; joined 

with Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland on 

15 October 2010: M.E. & others v Refugee Applications Commissioner, Case 

C-493/10, OJ C 13/32, 15 January 2011.

Petrosian and Others, ECJ, C-19/08, 21 March 2009.

Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, YI (Previous claims – Fingerprint match – 

EURODAC) Eritrea, 2007, UKAIT 00054.

Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home department ex parte Adan; Regina v. 

Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Aitseguer (Judgements of 

19 December 2000), 2001, 2 WLR, pp. 143–169. 182 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

TI v. UK, European Court of Human Rights 2000, Third Section Decision as 

to the Admissibility of Application 43844/98 (2000) 12 IJRL, pp. 244–267.

Readings

Core

ECRE, Comments on the European Commission Proposal to Recast the Dublin 

Regulation, 29 April 2009.

ECRE, 'Sharing Responsibility for Refugee Protection in Europe: Dublin 

Reconsidered', April 2008.

ECRE Summary Report on the Application of the Dublin II Regulation in 

Europe, March 2006, AD2/3/2006/EXT/MH.

C. Filzwieser, 'The Dublin Regulation v. the European Convention of Human 

Rights – A Non-Issue or a Precarious Legal Balancing Act?', December 2006.

Meijers Committee, Comments on Dublin and Reception Directive (CM0902), 

18 March 2009.

Extended

M. Byrne, 'Fortifying Europe: Poland and Slovakia Under The Dublin System', 

in M. Killingsworth (ed.), Europe: New Voices, New Perspectives (Melbourne: 

Contemporary Europe Research Centre, 2007).

R. Byrne, 'Harmonization and Burden Redistribution in the Two Europes', 

Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 16, no. 3 (2003), pp. 336–358.

E. R. Thielemann, 'Between Interests and Norms: Explaining Burden-Sharing 

in the European Union', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 16, no. 3 (2003), pp. 

253–273.

See also Section V.2.3.6 about Biometrics and Databases with regard to Eurodac.

Editor's Note

An analysis of the Dublin rules should consider the following:

• Are they compatible with the 1951 Geneva Convention and the ECHR?

• What kind of disputes might arise as to how to interpret the Dublin II rules?

• Is Dublin II a burden-shifting mechanism? What can be done to balance its 

impact on the EU's external border States? WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 183

V.2.4.2 Minimum Standards for Reception Conditions

Main Debate

Has the EU set an adequate standard for reception conditions?

Main Points

Purposes of EU power over reception conditions

Objectives of Directive 2003/9

Level of obligations in Directive

Exceptions from obligations

Application of the directive to particular groups: asylum seekers in detention; 

those under Dublin II

EU Documents

Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum 

standards for the reception of asylum seekers.

Report from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament 

on the application of Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down 

minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, COM (2007) 745.

UNHCR Document

UNHCR, Annotated Comments on Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 

2003 Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Reception of Asylum 

Seekers, 1 July 2003.

Cases

M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, Grand Chamber, European Court of Human 

Rights, 21 January 2011 (see also Section V.1.2).

Readings

Core

E. Guild, 'Seeking Asylum: Storm Clouds between International Commitments 

and EU Legislative Measures', European Law Review, vol. 29 (2004), pp. 

198–218.

N. Rogers, 'Minimum Standards for Reception', European Journal of Migration 

and Law, vol. 4 (2002), pp. 215–230.184 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Editor's Note

Is the Directive likely to raise standards anywhere?

What disputes might arise concerning its interpretation?

What are the consequences (legal and otherwise) of States' failure to respect their 

obligations to provide minimum reception conditions in practice?

V.2.4.3 Minimum Standards for Normal Procedures

Main Debates

What constitute appropriate minimum standards?

Harmonisation of standards v. deference to state law, policy and practice

Rights of vulnerable applicants to procedural protections (e.g. separated children, 

traumatized asylum-seekers)

Main Points

Low level of common minimum standards

Extended safeguards

Appeals

Remedies

EU Documents

European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and 

of the Council on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for 

granting and withdrawing international protection, COM (2009) 554, 21 

October 2009.

Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on Minimum Standards on 

Procedures in Member States for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status 

OJ L 326, 13 December 2005.

European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council 

and the European Parliament "A More Efficient Common European Asylum 

System: The Single Procedure as the Next Step", COM (2004) 503, 17 July 2004.

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR comments on the European Commission's proposal for a Directive 

of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum standards on WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 185

procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing international 

protection, COM(2009)554, 21 October 2009, August 2010.

UNHCR, Improving Asylum Procedures: Comparative analysis and recommendations for law and practice, March 2010.

UNHCR, Provisional Comments on the Proposal for a Council Directive on 

Minimum Standards on Procedures in Member States for Granting and 

Withdrawing Refugee Status (Council Document 14203/04, Asile 64, 9 

November 2004), 10 February 2005.

Cases

M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, Grand Chamber, European Court of Human 

Rights, 21 January 2011 (see Section V.1.2).

European Parliament v. Council, C-133/06, 6 May 2008 (Annulment of Articles 

29(1) and (2) and 36(3) of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 

2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting 

and withdrawing refugee status), European Court of Justice.

Readings

Core

D. Ackers, 'The Negotiations on the Asylum Procedures Directive', European 

Journal of Migration and Law, (2005) vol. 7, pp. 1–33.

ECRE, 'Information Note on the Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 

2005 on Minimum Standards on Procedures in Member States for Granting 

and Withdrawing Refugee Status', October 2006.

R. Errera, 'The Directive on Minimum Standards on Procedures in Member States 

for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status', Seminar on Current asylum 

issues and human rights, organized by the Warsaw Regional Administrative 

Court and the UNHCR Warsaw, Jablonna, 17–18 April 2007.

G. Gyulai, 'Country Information in Asylum Procedures – Quality as a Legal 

Requirement in the EU', Hungarian Helsinki Committee, 2007.

K. Zwaan (ed.), 'The Procedures Directive: Central Themes, Problem Issues 

and Implementation in Selected Member States' (Nijmegen: Wolf Legal 

Publishers, 2008).186 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Extended

J. van der Klaauw, 'Towards a Common Asylum Procedure', in E. Guild and C. 

Harlow (eds), Implementing Amsterdam: Immigration and Asylum Rights in EC 

Law (Oxford: Hart, 2001), pp. 165–194.

V.2.4.4 Minimum Standards for Specific Procedures

V.2.4.4.1 Accelerated and Manifestly Unfounded Procedures

Main Debate

Efficient v. fair procedures

Main Points

Contrast between UNHCR and EU definition of 'manifestly unfounded' claims

Abridged safeguards

Shifts in the standard and burden proof

Procedural and formal grounds (as opposed to grounds related to the merits) for 

channelling claims into accelerated procedures

EU Documents

Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on Minimum Standards on 

Procedures in Member States for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status, 

OJ 326 13, 13 December 2005, Arts. 23, 28, 34, 35, 39.

Resolution on Manifestly Unfounded Applications for Asylum, The Council, 

Conclusions of the Meeting of the Ministers responsible for Immigration 

Doc. 10579/92 IMMIG (London 30 Nov–1 Dec 1992).

Council Resolution of 20 June 1995 on Minimum Guarantees for Asylum 

Procedures OJ 274 13, 19 September 1996.

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, ExCom Conclusion No 30 (XXXIV), 'The Problem of Manifestly 

Unfounded or Abusive Applications for Refugee Status or Asylum', 1983.

UNHCR, ExCom Conclusion No 8 (XXVIII), 'Determination of Refugee 

Status', 12 October 1977.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 187

UNHCR, 'Position on Manifestly Unfounded Applications for Asylum', 3

rd

International Symposium on the Protection of Refugees in Central Europe

(Geneva: UNHCR, 1997), pp. 397–399.

UNHCR, An Overview of Protection Issues in Western Europe: Legislative Trends

and Positions Taken by UNHCR, vol. 1, no. 3, European Series (Geneva: 

UNHCR, 1995).

See also UNHCR, Improving Asylum Procedures, March 2010, in Section V.2.4.3.

Readings

Core

R. Byrne, 'Future Perspectives: Accession and Asylum in an Expanded European 

Union Manifestly Unfounded Claims', in R. Byrne, G. Noll, and J. VedstedHansen (eds), New Asylum Countries? Migration Control and Refugee Protection 

in an Enlarged European Union (The Netherlands: Kluwer International Law, 

2002), pp. 403–408.

S. Mullally, Manifestly Unjust: A Report on the Fairness and Sustainability of 

Accelerated Procedures for Asylum Determination (September 2001), pp. 59–65.

S. Oakley, 'Accelerated Procedures for Asylum in the European Union: Fairness 

Versus Efficiency', Sussex Migration Working Paper no. 43, April 2007.

Editor's Note

A discussion of accelerated and manifestly unfounded procedures should also consider 

their relationship to the notions of safe third country and safe country of origin. A 

consideration of procedural safeguards should consider issues such as, inter alia, legal 

representation, oral hearings, and appeals, with and without, suspensive effect.

V.2.4.4.2 Safe Country of Origin

Main Debate

Does the safe country of origin notion undermine the right to have a claim 

assessed individually?

Main Points

Safe country of origin notion:

As a bar to access to procedures188 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

As a rebuttable presumption of unfoundedness of claim

'White lists' of safe countries of origin

Need for individual assessment of claims

Criteria for designating countries as 'safe'

EU Documents

Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on Minimum Standards on 

Procedures in Member States for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status 

OJ 326 13, 13 December 2005, Arts. 23 (4) (c), 29, 30, 31, Annex II.

Council Conclusion on Countries in Which There Is Generally No Serious Risk 

of Persecution, Conclusions of the Meeting of the Ministers responsible for 

Immigration Doc. 10579/92 IMMIG (London, 30 Nov–1 Dec 1992). 

UNHCR Document

See also UNHCR, Improving Asylum Procedures, March 2010, in Section V.2.4.3.

Cases

European Parliament v. Council of the European Union, European Court of Justice 

(Grand Chamber), C-133/06, 6 May 2006.

Readings

Core

C. Costello, 'The Asylum Procedures Directive and the Proliferation of 

Safe Country Practices: Deterrence, Deflection and the Dismantling of 

International Protection?', European Journal of Migration and Law, vol. 7 

(2005), pp. 35–70.

ECRE, 'Broken Promises-Forgotten Principles: An ECRE Evaluation of the 

Development of EU Minimum Standards for Refugee Protection' (ECRE: 

London 2004), pp. 10–12.

H. Martenson and J. McCarthy, 'Field Report. "In General No Serious Risk 

of Persecution" Safe Country of Origin Practices in Nine European States', 

Journal of Refugee Studies vol. 11, no. 3 (1998), pp. 304–325.

Extended

R. Byrne and A. Shacknove, 'The Safe Country Notion in European Asylum 

Law', Harvard Human Rights Journal, vol. 9 (1996), pp. 190–196.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 189

V.2.4.4.3 Safe Third Country

Main Debates

Deflection and deterrence policies v. protection obligations

What minimum safeguards should there be for the implementation of safe third 

country returns?

Are European safe third country practices shifting the responsibility for refugees 

to transit states?

Main Points

Contrasts between UNHCR and EU criteria for determining safe third countries 

Safe third country lists

European safe third country notion

Chain deportations

EU Documents

Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on Minimum Standards on 

Procedures in Member States for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status, 

OJ L 326, 13 December 2005, Arts. 23(4), 26, 27, 37.

Resolution on a Harmonised Approach to Questions Concerning Host Third 

Countries Document WG I 1283, adopted 30 November 1992, (London 

Resolution).

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, ExCom Conclusion No 15 (XXX), 'Refugees Without An Asylum 

Country', 1979.

UNHCR, ExCom Conclusion No 58 (XL), 'Problem of Refugees and Asylum 

Seekers Who Move in an Irregular Manner From a Country in Which They 

Had Already Found Protection', 1989.

UNHCR, 'Global Consultations on International Protection, Background paper 

no 1: Legal and practical aspects of the return of persons not in need of 

protection', May 2001.

UNHCR, 'Global Consultations on International Protection, Background paper 

no 2: The application of the "safe third country" notion and its impact on the 

management of flows and on the protection of refugees', May 2001.190 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

UNHCR, 'Global Consultations on International Protection, Background paper 

no 3: Inter-State agreements for the re-admission of third country nationals, 

including asylum seekers, and for the determination of the State responsible 

for examining the substance of an asylum claim', May 2001.

See also UNHCR, Improving Asylum Procedures, March 2010, in Section V.2.4.3.

Cases

European Parliament v. Council of the European Union, European Court of Justice 

(Grand Chamber), C133/06, 6 May 2006.

M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, Grand Chamber, European Court of Human 

Rights, 21 January 2011 (see Section V.1.2).

Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Adan; Regina v 

Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Aitseguer, UK House of 

Lords, 19 December 2000, 2001, 2 WLR, pp. 143–169.

TI v. UK, European Court of Human Rights 2000 European Court of Human 

Rights Third Section Decision as to the Admissibility of Application 43844/98 

(2000) 12 IJRL, pp. 244–267.

Al-Rahal v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 184 ALR 

698, 20 August 2001.

Judgment in the cases 2 BvR 1938/93 and 2 BvR, German Constitutional Court 

2315/93, 14 May 1996, BVerfGE 94, 49.

Readings

Core

R. Byrne, G. Noll, and J. Vedsted-Hansen (eds), New Asylum Countries? 

Migration Control and Refugee Protection in an Enlarged European Union, (The 

Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2002), pp. 5–28.

S. Legomsky, 'Secondary Refugee Movements and the Return of Asylum Seekers 

to Third Countries: The Meaning of Effective Protection', International 

Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 15, no. 4 (2003), pp. 567–667.

E. Neumayer, 'Asylum Destination Choice: What Makes Some West European 

Countries more Attractive than Others', European Union Politics, vol. 5, no. 

2 (2004), pp. 155–180.

UNHCR, 'Global Consultations in International Protection, Regional Meeting 

Budapest, 6–7 June 2001, Conclusions'.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 191

Extended

R. Byrne and A. Shacknove, 'The Safe Country Notion in European Asylum 

Law', Harvard Human Rights Journal, vol. 9 (1996), pp. 190–196.

S. Lavenex, '"Passing the Buck": European Union Refugee Policies towards 

Central and Eastern Europe' Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 11, no. 2 (1998), 

pp. 126–145.

E. R. Thielemann, 'Why Asylum Policy Harmonisation Undermines Refugee 

Burden-Sharing', European Journal of Migration and Law, vol. 6 (2004), 

pp. 47–65.

Editor's Note

See Section V.2.5.2 regarding Readmission agreements.

V.2.4.5 Other Aspects of Decision-making

V.2.4.5.1 Evidentiary Issues

Readings

Core

R. Thomas, 'Assessing the Credibility of Asylum Claims: EU and UK Approaches 

Examined', European Journal of Migration and Law, vol. 8 (2006), pp. 86–92.

V.2.4.5.2 Persons with Special Needs

UNHCR document

UNHCR, EXCOM Conclusion on Children at Risk No. 107 (LVIII) – 2007, 

5 October 2007.

Readings

Core

R. Bruin, M. Reneman & E. Bloemen (eds), 'Care-full: Medico-legal reports and 

the Istanbul Protocol in Asylum Procedures', 2006.

L. Feijen, 'The Challenges of Ensuring Protection to Unaccompanied and 

Separated Children in Composite Flows in Europe', Refugee Survey Quarterly, 

vol. 27 (2008), pp. 63–73.192 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Extended

Care-Full Initiative, 'Principles and Recommendation by 35 Organisations 

Regarding Survivors of Torture and Ill-Treatment and Asylum Procedures', 

2006.

M. E. Kalverboer, A. E. Zijlstra and E. J. Knorth, 'The Developmental Consequences for Asylum-seeking Children Living With the Prospect for Five Years 

or More of Enforced Return to Their Home Country', European Journal of 

Migration and Law, vol. 11, no. 1 (2009), pp. 41–67.

Life Projects for Unaccompanied Migrant Minors – Recommendation (2007) 9 

and explanatory memorandum (2008).

Refugee Women's Resource Project and European Women's Lobby, 'Asylum is 

not gender neutral: a practical advocacy guide for protecting women seeking 

asylum', 2007. 

STEPS Study for the European Parliament, 'The Conditions in Centres for Third 

Country Nationals (detention camps, open centres as well as transit centres and 

transit zones) with a Particular Focus on Provisions and Facilities for Persons 

with Special Needs in the 25 EU Member States' IP/C/LIBE/IC/2006-181, 

December 2007.

V.2.4.6 Appeals

Main Debates

What is an effective remedy?

What is an independent tribunal?

Must appeal courts take into account new circumstances arising after the decision 

on the initial asylum claims?

Do appeals which do not have suspensive effect (ie. do not permit the appellant 

to remain in the country awaiting the outcome of the appeal) satisfy the 

requirements of an effective remedy?

Main Points

The meaning of 'effective remedy'

Right to legal assistance in preparing appealsWWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 193

EU Document

Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on Minimum Standards on 

Procedures in Member States for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status, 

OJ L 326, 13 December 2005.

UNHCR Document

See also UNHCR, Improving Asylum Procedures, March 2010, in Section V.2.4.3.

Cases

M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece, Grand Chamber, (European Court of Human 

Rights), 21 January 2011 (see Section V.1.2).

Opinion in the case of Samba Diouf, Case C-69/10 by Advocate General Cruz 

Villalon, Court of Justice of the EU, 1 March 2011.

M.B. and others v. Turkey, (European Court of Human Rights) judgment of 26 

August 2010, appl. 36009/08.

Gebremedhin v. France (European Court of Human Rights), judgment of 26 April 

2007, appl. 25389/05.

Readings

Core

E. Brouwer, Digital borders and real rights: effective remedies for Third-Country 

nationals in the Schengen Information System, (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff: 

2008), Chapters 9–10.

R. Byrne, 'Remedies of Limited Effect: Appeals under the forthcoming Directive 

on EU Minimum Standards on Procedures', European Journal of Migration 

and Law, vol. 7 (2005), pp. 71–86.

ECRE-ELENA, 'Survey on Legal Aid for Asylum Seekers in Europe', October 2010.

Extended

I. Staffans, 'Judicial Protection and the New European Asylum Regime', European 

Journal of Migration and Law, vol. 3 (2010), pp. 273–297.194 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

V.2.5 Removal and Detention

V.2.5.1. Detention

Main Debate

Is detention of asylum seekers consistent with EU Member States' international 

refugee and human rights obligations?

Main Point

The use of detention as a deterrent or punishment, in addition to containment

Readings

Core

K. Hailbronner, 'Detention of Asylum Seekers', European Journal of Migration 

and Law, vol. 7, no. 9 (2007), pp. 159–172.

Statewatch, 'Analysis on the Returns Directive', 9 June 2008.

STEPS Study for the European Parliament, 'The Conditions in Centres for Third 

Country Nationals (detention camps, open centres as well as transit centres and 

transit zones) with a Particular Focus on Provisions and Facilities for Persons 

with Special Needs in the 25 EU Member States' IP/C/LIBE/IC/2006-181, 

December 2007.

D. Wilsher, 'Immigration Detention and Common Asylum and Immigration 

Policy', in A. Baldaccini, E. Guild and H. Toner (eds), Whose Freedom, 

Security and Justice?: EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy (Hart 

Publishing, 2007), pp. 395–426.

Extended

E. Mincheva, 'Case Report on Kadzoev, 30 November 2009', European Journal of 

Migration and Law, Vol. 3 (2010), pp. 361–371.

Cases

Saïd Shamilovich Kadzoev v. Direktsia 'Migratsia' pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite 

raboti, Case C-357/09, 30 November 2009.

Opinion in the case of Kadzoev by Advocate General Mazák, Court of Justice of 

the European Union, C-57/09, 10 November 2009.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 195

V.2.5.1 Return Policies

Main Debate

Is there adequate protection for rejected asylum-seekers in order to ensure that 

return policies do not infringe the non-refoulement principle?

Main Point

Use of protection mechanisms to delay expulsion or removal

EU Documents

Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common standards 

and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country 

nationals, 2008/EC/115, OJ L 348/98, 24 December 2008.

Green Paper on a Community Return Policy on Illegal Residents', COM (2002) 

175 10 April 2002.

Commission communication on a Community return policy on illegal residents', 

COM (2002) 175, 10 April 2002.

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, 

the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the 

Regions 'Study on the links between legal and illegal migration'', COM 

(2004) 412, 4 June 2004.

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, 

in view of the European Council of Thessaloniki on the development of a 

common policy on illegal immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human 

beings external borders and the return of illegal residents', COM (2003) 323, 

3 June 2000.

Council Directive (EC) 2003/110 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes 

of removal by air, OJ L 321/26, 6 December 2003.

UNHCR Document

UNHCR ExCom Conclusion No 96 (LIV), 'The Return of Persons Found Not 

to Be in Need of International Protection', 2003.196 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Readings

Core

C. Rodier, 'Analysis of the External Dimension of the EU's Asylum and 

Immigration Policies', Summary and Recommendations for the European 

Parliament, DGExPo/B/PolDep/ETUDE/2006_11, PE 374.366, 8 June 

2006.

Meijers Committee, Note on the Returns Directive, CM08010 VIII, 27 May 

2008.

Extended

D. Acosta, 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in EU Migration Law: Is the 

European Parliament becoming Bad and Ugly? (The Adoption of Directive 

2008/15: The Returns Directive)', European Journal of Migration and Law,

vol. 11 (2009), pp. 19–39.

A. Baldaccini, 'The Return and Removal of Irregular Migrants under EU law: An 

Analysis of the Returns Directive', European Journal of Migration and Law, 

vol. 11, no. 1 (2009), pp. 1–17.

R. Cholewinski, 'European Union Policy on Irregular Migration: Human Rights 

Lost?', in B. Bogusz, R. Cholewinski, A. Cygan and E. Szyszczak (eds), 

Irregular Migration and Human Rights: Theoretical, European and International 

Perspectives (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2004).

Consortium of 13 NGOs, including Cimade, Amnesty International, EU, 

Churches' Commission for Migrants in Europe, Caritas Europa, Human 

Rights Watch and others, 'Common Principles on Removal of Irregular 

Migrants and Rejected Asylum Seekers', August 2005.

ECRE, 'Comments from the European Council on Refugees and Exiles on the 

Commission Green Paper on a Community Return Policy on Illegal Residents 

(Brussels, 10 April 2002, COM (2002) 175 final)', 2 August 2002.

Statewatch, 'Analysis on the Returns Directive', 9 June 2008.

Editor's Note

Note the practical relevance of these policies for rejected asylum-seekers and persons 

whose refugee status or Subsidiary Protection/Temporary Protection status has ceased.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 197

V.2.5.2 Readmission Agreements

Main Debate

Are the 'safeguard' provisions in readmission agreements sufficient

Main Points

Objectives of readmission agreements:

 • EU seeking to use readmission agreements to guarantee removal of 

irregular migrants, including those who have merely transited through 

other contracting party

 • rules on proof and presumptive evidence for nationality and transit route

 • safe guard clauses

EU Documents

European Commission, Communication to the European Parliament and the 

Council: An Evaluation of EU Readmission Agreements, COM (2011) 76 

final, Brussels, 23 February 2011.

Agreement between the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative 

Region of the People's Republic of China and the European Community on 

the Readmission of Persons Residing without Authorisation, OJ L 17/23, 1 

March 2004.

Agreement between the European Community and the Macao Special 

Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China on the Readmission 

of Persons Residing without Authorisation, OJ L 143/97, 1 June 2004.

Agreement between the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the 

European Community on the Readmission of Persons Residing without 

Authorization, OJ L 124/43, 2005.

Agreement between the Republic of Albania and the European Community on the 

Readmission of Persons Residing without Authorisation, OJ L 124, 1 May 2005.

Agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation on 

Readmission, OJ L 129, 1 June 2007.

Agreement between the European Community and Ukraine on the Readmission 

of Persons, OJ L 332, 1 January 2008.

Agreement between the European Community and Bosnia and Herzegovina on 

Readmission of Persons Residing without Authorisation, OJ L 332, 1 January 

2008.198 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Montenegro 

on Readmission of Persons Residing without Authorisation, OJ L 334, 1 

January 2008.

Agreement between the European Community and the Former Yugoslav Republic 

of Macedonia on Readmission of Persons Residing without Authorisation, OJ 

L 334, 1 January 2008.

Agreement between the European Community and Serbia on Readmission of 

Persons Residing without Authorisation, OJ L 334, 1 January 2008.

Agreement between the European Union and Pakistan on Readmission of Persons 

Residing without Authorisation, OJ L 287/50, 1 December 2010.

Readings

Core

J. Cassarino, Readmission Policy in the European Union, Study for the European 

Parliament, PE 425.632, 2010.

J. Cassarino (ed.), 'Unbalanced Reciprocities: Cooperation on Readmission in 

the Euro-Mediterranean Area'. Washington: The Middle East Institute, 2010.

A. Roig & T. Huddelston, 'EC Readmission Agreements: A Re-evaluation of the 

Political Impasse', European Journal of Migration and Law, vol. 3 (2007), pp. 

362–387.

M. Schieffer, 'Readmission and Repatriation of Illegal Residents', in B. 

Martenczuk and S. van Thiel, Justice, Liberty and Security: New Challenges for 

EU External Relations' (Brussels: VUB Press Brussels, 2008).

Extended

N. A. Abell, 'The Compatibility of Readmission Agreements with the 1951 

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees', International Journal ofRefugee 

Law, vol. 11, no. 1 (1999), pp. 60–83.

C. Billet, 'EC Readmission Agreements: A Prime Instrument of the External 

Dimension of the EU's Fight against Irregular Immigration. An Assessment 

after Ten Years of Practice', European Journal of Migration and Law, vol. 12 

(2010), pp. 45–79.

D. Bouteillet-Paquet, 'Passing the Buck: A Critical Analysis of the Readmission 

Policy Implemented by the European Union and its Member States', European 

Journal of Migration and Law, vol. 3 (2003), pp. 359–377.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 199

I. Kruse, 'EU Readmission Policy and its Effects on Transit Countries – The 

Case of Albania', European Journal of Migration and Law, vol. 8 (2006), pp. 

115–142.

M. Schieffer, 'Community Readmission Agreements with Third Countries – 

Objectives, Substance and Current Atate of Negotiations', European Journal 

of Migration and Law, vol. 3 92003), pp. 343–357.

Editor's Note

Readmission agreements will apply to rejected asylum seekers and to people removed to 

supposedly safe third countries and safe countries of origin. But it must be questioned 

whether readmission agreements concluded by the EC to date do contain adequate 

safeguards to ensure that people in need of international protection are not returned 

to persecution.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 201

SECTION VI 

Framework for Refugee 

Protection in the Americas

This section of The Refugee Law Reader examines the legal norms regarding refugee 

protection that have developed in the Americas. In particular, it highlights concepts 

and instruments that are unique to Latin America, where most of the regional 

developments have occurred. The sparse developments involving Canada and the 

United States are addressed at the end of the section.

 The first portion of this section addresses the regional instruments dealing with 

'diplomatic asylum', 'political asylum', and asylum provided to refugees. These 

concepts have a specific meaning in the Latin American context, and efforts to 

interpret and apply them have given rise to a substantial body of law. Materials in this 

section attempt to clarify 'diplomatic asylum' and 'political asylum' in the light of the 

overarching international law framework protecting refugees; the scarcity of literature 

in a language other than Spanish makes this a difficult task.

 The second part of this section focuses on the regional system of human rights 

and its impact on refugee protection in Latin America. It canvasses the instruments 

and the related jurisprudence, as well as the soft law developments that are an 

important complement to refugee protection in the region. The section then turns 

to an examination of the Cartagena Declaration of 1984, the principal regional 

instrument specific to refugee protection. The Cartagena Declaration, the written 

expression of regional customary law, is notable for its distinctive collective nature 

and its emphasis on durable solutions. Other non-binding texts that play an important 

role in the region are also examined.

 The section next reviews the application of the 1951 Geneva Convention in the 

context of regional norms and national legislation adopted in Latin America. With 

the sole exception of Cuba, all the states in the region have ratified the 1951 Geneva 

Convention. The development of national laws and jurisprudence concerning refugee 

status and refugee rights is in its infancy, however. 

 This section also examines the internal displacement of more than two million 

people in Colombia and the situation of internally displaced persons more generally in 

Latin America. It highlights the all too frequent interaction of collective persecution, 

refugees, and the internally displaced.

 The section concludes by noting the regional developments in North America 

between Canada and the United States.202 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

VI.1 Political Asylum, Diplomatic Asylum and 

 Refugee Status

Main Debates

What are the differences between diplomatic, political and territorial asylum 

within the Latin American protection framework?

To what extent does each of the three forms of asylum remain a discretionary 

right of a sovereign state? 

In Latin America, is it preferable to apply regional treaties on asylum when 

individuals seek asylum in states parties to these instruments?

Main Points

Diplomatic asylum as regional customary law in Latin America

Confusion caused by the distinction between political asylum and asylum granted 

to refugees based on the 1951 Geneva Convention

Consequences of lack of domestic norms concerning the application of the 1951 

Geneva Convention

Treaties

Convention on Territorial Asylum, 28 March 1954, OAS Treaty Series No. 19.

Convention on Diplomatic Asylum, 28 March 1954, OAS Treaty Series No. 18.

Treaty on Asylum and Political Refuge, 4 August 1939.

Convention on Political Asylum, 26 December 1933.

Convention on Asylum, 20 February 1928.

Cases

Columbia v. Peru, Judgement of 20 November 1950, International Court of 

Justice, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 273. (The court declared that the granting 

of asylum by the Colombian Embassy to the instigator of a military uprising 

against the government of Peru did not fulfil the conditions envisaged in 

the Havana Convention in as much as the asylum country does not enjoy 

a right to qualify the nature of the offence upon which asylum is granted 

by a unilateral and definitive decision; also, the alleged regional custom on 

diplomatic asylum neither includes a safe-conduct to leave the country of 

origin – in which the Embassy of the country granting asylum is based – nor 

extends protection for the time necessary to solve such a request).WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 203

Editor's Note

Please note that in reality, despite its title, the 1954 Convention on Territorial Asylum 

codifies the concept of political asylum as it has developed in the Latin American 

tradition. Likewise, the expression political refuge that appears in the 1939 Convention 

increases confusion in terminology in the Latin American legal context.

VI.2 Refugee Protection in the Framework of 

 the Inter-American Human Rights System

VI.2.1 Human Rights Instruments

VI.2.1.1 The Non-refoulement Principle and 

 the Rights of Refugees

Main Debate

What is the concrete impact of the explicit recognition of the right to seek and 

receive asylum by the American Declaration of the rights and duties of man? 

Main Points

Relevance of the regional framework of human rights protection in ensuring the 

right to asylum and the rights of refugees in Latin America

Comparison, in theoretical and practical terms, between the protection offered 

by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American 

Convention on Human Rights

Treaties

Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination 

against Persons with Disabilities, 7 June 1999.

Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, 9 June 1994.

Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of 

Violence against Women, 9 June 1994.

Inter-American Convention on International Traffic in Minors, 18 March 1994, 

OAS Treaty Series No. 79.204 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death 

Penalty, 8 June 1990, OAS Treaty Series No. 73.

Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area 

of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 17 November 1988, OAS Treaty 

Series No. 69.

Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, 9 December 1985, 

OAS Treaty Series No. 67, Art. 15.

American Convention on Human Rights, 22 November 1969, OAS Treaty Series 

No. 36, UN Register 08/27/1979 No. 17955.

Soft Law

American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 1948, Art. 27.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Cases

Article 8

Case Baena Ricardo and others v. Panama. Judgement of 2 February 2001 (the 

Court states that the minimum due process guarantees set forth in Article 

8.2 must be observed in the course of an administrative procedure, as well 

as in any other procedure leading to a decision that may affect the rights of 

persons). 

Article 25

Case Castillo Páez. Judgement of 27 November 1998 (according to the 

judgement, Peru has to indemnify for the material and moral harms caused, 

the family members of a disappeared person, including the father, the mother 

and the sister, who were forced to leave their country and seek asylum in the 

Netherlands).

Advisory Opinions

Advisory opinion on the juridical condition and rights of the undocumented migrants, 

17 September 2003 (OC-18/03, Series A Nº 18) (the fundamental principles 

of equality and non-discrimination, as rules of jus cogens, entail erga omnes

obligations of protection that bind all states and affects third countries as well, 

regardless of any circumstance or condition of a person concerned, including 

his/her regular or irregular migrant status).WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 205

Provisional Measures

Provisional measures in the case of Haitian and Haitian-origin Dominican persons 

in the Dominican Republic, 18 August 2000, in order that the Dominican 

Republic refrains from deporting or expelling from its territory two of the 

applicants, that it enables the immediate return to its territory of two others 

and that it enables the immediate family reunification on its territory of two 

applicants with their minor children.

Provisional measures, 12 November 2000, in order that the Dominican Republic 

stops the massive expulsion of foreigners and guarantees the requirements of 

due process in cases of deportation.

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

Individual Petitions

Admissibility of the case Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco y Otros v. Bolivia, Report No. 

53/04, 13 October 2004 (Petition No. 301/2002) (possible violation of the 

right to personal integrity, to personal liberty, to judicial guarantees, the rights 

of the child, the freedom of movement and residence with regard to refugees 

recognised in Chile wishing to reside in Bolivia).

Admissibility of the case 120 Cuban citizens and 8 Haitian citizens detained in 

Bahamas, Report No. 6/02, 3 April 2002 (Petition No. 12.071) (indications 

of the violation of Art. 27 of the American Declaration of the rights and duties 

of man, concerning the right to seek and receive asylum). 

Admissibility of the case Rafael Ferrer-Mazorra and others v. United States, Report 

No. 51/01, 4 April 2001 (Case No. 9903) (possible violation of the Articles 

1, 2, 17, 18 and 25 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of 

Man, with regard to the deprivation of liberty of the applicants, based on their 

illegal entry to US territory). 

Admissibility of the case interdiction of Haiti, Report No. 51/96, 13 March 1997 

(Case No. 10.675) (the Commission considered that the USA violated the 

right of Haitian citizens to seek and receive asylum when returning them to 

their country of origin despite that their life would be in danger there, after a 

summary proceeding of their asylum claims).

Admissibility of the case Joseph v. Canada, Report No. 27/93, 6 October 1993 (Case 

No. 11.092) (following the analysis of existing domestic remedies concerning 

the recognition of refugee status, the application was declared inadmissible). 206 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Admissibility of the case Honduras, Report No. 5/87, 28 March 1987 (Case No. 

9.619) (the state has the obligation to guarantee the situation, the security and 

the integrity of refugees hosted on its territory). 

Admissibility of the case Maria Eugenia Calvar Rivero and her daughter Maudie 

Valero Calvar, Report No. 6/82, 8 May 1982 (Case No. 7.602) (violation 

of the rights of the family, the right to work and the right to seek asylum as 

included in the American Declaration of the rights and duties of man). 

Admissibility of the case Eduardo Eloy Alvarez Hernández, Report No. 11/82, 

8 March 1982 (Case No. 7.898) (violation of the prohibition of arbitrary 

detention, the right to justice, the right to seek asylum and the rights of the 

family as included in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of 

Man). 

Annual Reports

Annual Report (2003), 29 December 2003 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.118) (obligation of 

states to ensure a reasonable possibility for asylum-seekers to substantiate their 

claim for refugee status and the reasons for which they fear being tortured if 

sent to a certain country, including the country of origin). 

Annual Report (1993), 11 February 1994 (OEA/Ser.L/V/ll.85) (analysis of the 

universal and regional legal framework applicable for refugees, internally 

displaced and stateless persons, specific analysis of the situation in Colombia, 

El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua and Peru).

Special Reports

Report on Immigration in the United States: Detention and Due Process, 30 

December 2010 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 78/10). (The Commission severely 

denounces many forms of detention of foreigners in the US).

Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, 22 October 2002 (OEA/Ser.L/V/

ll.116) (in the framework of anti-terrorist policies, the Commission analyses 

the situation of migrant workers, asylum-seekers, refugees and foreigners, 

particularly with regard to the right to liberty and security, to humane 

treatment, to due process and fair trial, and to non-discrimination).

Recommendation on Asylum and International Crimes, 20 October 2000 (OEA/

Ser./L/V/II.111, Doc. 20 Rev.) (recommendation for States to refrain from 

granting asylum to supposed perpetrators of international crimes). WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 207

Country Reports

Report on Haiti, Failed Justice or Rule of Law? Challenges Ahead for Haiti and 

the International Community, 26 October 2005 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.123) 

(analysis of the deportation of Haitian citizens from other countries and the 

preventive detention of foreigners).

Precautionary Measures

Precautionary measures, 27 January 1999, in order that the Bahamas suspend the 

deportation of a Cuban family, the members of which asked for asylum and 

that this process should respect the relevant procedural guarantees. 

Precautionary measures, 14 August 1998, in order that the Bahamas refrain from 

deporting a group of 120 Cuban nationals who applied for refugee status, while 

the Commission is examining in detail their allegations of human rights violations.

Precautionary measures, 16 January 1998, in order that Canada refrains from 

deporting a Sri Lankan national, recognised by Canada as refugee in 1991, 

while the Commission is investigating the human rights violations reported 

in the application. 

General Assembly of the Organisation of American States 

Resolutions

Resolution AG/RES. 1971 (XXXIII-O/03), 2003. The protection of refugees, 

returnees, and stateless and internally displaced persons in the Americas.

Resolution AG/RES. 1504 (XXVII-O/97), 1997. The situation of refugees, 

returnees, and internally displaced persons in the hemisphere.

Resolution AG/RES. 838 (XVI-O/86), 1986. Inter-American action on behalf 

of refugees.

Readings

Core

F. Galindo Vélez, 'Asylum in Latin America. Use of the Regional Systems to 

Reinforce the United Nations System for the Protection of Refugee', in 

Memoir of the Twentieth Anniversary of the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees

(Bogota: UNHCR, 2004), pp. 226–237, 240–245.208 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

VI.2.1.2 Protection against Extradition

Main Debate

To what extent does the regional practice in Latin America apply international 

principles concerning the extradition of asylum seekers and refugees?

Main Point

Comparison between protection against extradition and asylum granted to 

refugees

Treaties

Inter-American Convention against Terrorism, 3 June 2002, AG/RES. 1840 

(XXXII-O/02), Art. 13.

Inter-American Convention on Extradition, 25 February 1981, OAS Treaty 

Series No. 60.

Convention on Extradition, 26 December 1933, Arts 3 and 17.

Treaty on International Penal Law, 23 January 1889.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Precautionary Measures

Precautionary measures, 27 October 1999, in order that the government of 

Argentina refrains from extraditing a Peruvian citizen to his country of origin, 

in connection with political reasons, while his asylum claim is being assessed.

General Assembly of the Organisation of American States

Resolutions

Resolution AG/RES. 2249 (XXXVI-O/06), 2006. Extradition of and denial 

of safe haven to terrorists: mechanisms for cooperation in the fight against 

terrorism. 

VI.2.1.3 Other Norms

Treaties

Convention on rights and duties of states in the event of civil strife, 20 February 

1928, Art. 3. WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 209

VI.2.2 Specific Instruments of Refugee 

 Protection

Editor's Note

The most important instrument that specifically addresses the problems of forced 

migration in the region has a noticeable collective character and was elaborated ex 

post facto. This means that it was conceived in order to offer durable solutions for 

large groups of refugees, after their exodus had taken place. The other instruments 

maintain this collective character, which results in few references to the personal 

status of those concerned, other than the principle of non-refoulement. Moreover, these 

instruments do not have legally binding effect, except in a few concrete cases of forced 

displacement (such as in Guatemala). Nevertheless, the Cartagena Declaration – a soft 

law instrument – provides a written expression of a customary law definition in the 

regional framework. However, there is no recent practice concerning the application 

of the Cartagena Declaration, despite the occurrence of grave situations of forced 

displacement.

VI.2.2.1 Regional Definition and Proposals to Improve 

 Protection 

Main Debates

Is the Cartagena Declaration legally binding or is it a non-binding regional 

instrument?

What role does the Cartagena Declaration play within the framework of the 

global debate on refugee protection?

Main Points

Incorporation of the Cartagena principles into national legislation

Possibilities and likely impacts of applying the Cartagena Declaration in the 

framework of individualised refugee status determination

Soft Law

Mexico Declaration and Plan of Action, 2004.

San José Declaration on Refugees and Displaced Persons, 7 December 1994.

Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, 22 November 1984. 210 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

Annual Reports

Annual Report (1984–1985) 1 October 1985 (OEA/Ser.L/V/ll.66) (analysis of 

the situation of refugees in the American states, with special emphasis on en 

masse displacement and the importance of the Cartagena Declaration).

General Assembly of the Organisation of American States 

Resolutions

Resolution AG/RES. 1336 (XXV-O/95), 1995. The situation of refugees, 

returnees, and internally displaced persons in the hemisphere (recognition 

of the principles stated in the San José Declaration on Refugees and 

Displaced Persons, and a call for Member States to develop a process of legal 

harmonization in this regard). 

Resolution AG/RES. 774 (XV-O/85), 1985. The juridical situation of refugees, 

returnees, and internally displaced persons in the hemisphere (recommendation to Member States to apply the Cartagena Declaration in case of refugees 

on their territory).

Readings

Core

S. Corcuera, 'Reflections on the Application of the Broader Refugee Definition 

of the Cartagena Declaration in Individual Refugee Status Determination 

Procedures', in Memoir of the Twentieth Anniversary of the Cartagena 

Declaration on Refugees (Bogota: UNHCR, 2004), pp. 197–203.

L. Franco and J. S. de Noriega, 'Contributions of the Cartagena Process to the 

Development of International Refugee Law in Latin America', in Memoir of 

the Twentieth Anniversary of the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees (Bogota: 

UNHCR, 2004), pp. 92–119.

VI.2.2.2 Durable Solutions in the Regional Framework

Main Debates

Does the Central American peace process after 1984 provide a framework for 

creating durable solutions for refugees or is its significance limited to the 

particular historical and political circumstances?WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 211

Is the Mexico Declaration and Plan of Action a rhetorical compromise or a 

regional action plan?

Main Points

Peace process and assisted repatriation of refugees

Historical and comparative experiences

New focuses in the Mexico Declaration and Plan of Action and their potential 

impact on the progressive development of international refugee law

Soft Law

Mexico Declaration and Plan of Action, 16 November 2004.

Agreement on Resettlement of the Population Groups Uprooted by the Armed 

Conflict, Guatemala, 17 June 1994.

Principles and Criteria for the Protection of and Assistance to Central American 

Refugees, Returnees and Displaced Persons in Latin America, International 

Conference on Central American Refugees, CIREFCA, 30 May 1989, Doc. 

CIREFCA/89/9.

Declaration and Concerted Plan of Action in Favour of Central American Refugees, 

Returnees and Displaced Persons, International Conference on Central 

American Refugees, CIREFCA, 30 May 1989, Doc. CIREFCA/89/13/Rev.1.

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

Country Reports

Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Haiti, 11 February 1994 (OEA/

Ser.L/V/ll.85) (analysis of the situation of Haitian refugees and the situation 

of Haiti as country of origin). 

General Assembly of the Organisation of American States

Resolutions

Resolution AG/RES. 1040 (XX-O/90), 1990. The situation of refugees in Central 

America and the regional efforts for solving their problems.

Resolution AG/RES. 1021 (XIX-O/89), 1989. Central American refugees and 

the International Conference on Central American refugees.212 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Readings

Core

L. Franco and J. S. de Noriega, 'Contributions of the Cartagena Process to the 

Development of International Refugee Law in Latin America', in Memoir of 

the Twentieth Anniversary of the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees (Bogota: 

UNHCR, 2004), pp. 81–88, 102–107.

Extended

S. Aguayo, H. Christensen, L. O´Dogherty and S. Varesse, Social and Cultural 

Conditions and Prospects of Guatemalan Refugees in Mexico (Geneva: United 

Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 1987), pp. 59–68.

UNHCR, 'Mexico Plan of Action: The Impact of Regional Solidarity 2005–

2007', (San Jose: UNHCR, 2007), pp. 16–28.

VI.3 Application of the 1951 Geneva Convention 

 through the Regional Mechanisms and 

 National Legislations

Main Debate

Does the regional human rights protection framework (to the extent it is 

interpreted as legally binding by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights) 

effectively protect refugees' rights?

Main Points

Reluctance to directly apply the international obligations derived from the 1951 

Geneva Convention

Slow transposition of the 1951 Geneva Convention provisions into national 

legislation in Latin America

Paucity of national legislation and national administrative and judicial organs 

dedicated specifically to protecting refugees

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

Country Reports

Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers within the Canadian 

refugee Determination System, 20 February 2000 (OEA/Ser.L/V/ll.106) WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 213

(detailed analysis about the access to refugee status determination, the right to 

asylum, exclusion and expulsion practices in Canada). 

UNHCR Documents

UNHCR, 'Refugee Protection and International Migration in the Americas: Trends, 

Protection Challenges and Responses', December 2009.

Readings

Core

L. Franco and J. S. de Noriega, 'Contributions of the Cartagena Process to the 

Development of International Refugee Law in Latin America', in Memoir of 

the Twentieth Anniversary of the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees (Bogota: 

UNHCR, 2004), pp. 66–75.

VI.4 Protection of Internally Displaced Persons 

 with Special Attention to the Case of Colombia

Main Debates

In the case of Colombia, what have been the results achieved by the protection 

offered by national institutions, in contrast with the results of the protection 

offered by the international community?

What are the direct and indirect consequences of UNHCR's activities beyond its 

traditional mandate in Colombia: does assistance to the internally displaced 

come at the expense of refugees?

Main Points

National status of 'internally displaced person' versus refugee status

Situation of the internally displaced in host communities

Problems related to voluntary return (as durable solution) in the framework of 

a conflict

Protection of human rights (including non-refoulement) versus concerns of 

regional security

Eventual reparation measures in the Inter-American framework of human rights 

protection versus situation of grave and massive human rights violations214 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Cases

Article 22

Case of the Massacre of Ituango v. Colombia. Judgement of 1 July 2006 (the state 

must ensure the return of displaced persons to their territories of origin in 

conditions of security, or if this cannot be ensured, provide the necessary and 

sufficient resources in order that they can be resettled in similar conditions at 

the place they freely and voluntarily choose). 

Case of the Massacre of Mapiripán v. Colombia. Judgement of 15 September 

2005 (the state must take the necessary measures to guarantee that the family 

members of the victims of displacement can return in conditions of security 

to Mapiripán when they so desire). 

Case Moiwana v. Suriname. Judgement of 15 June 2005 (the state did not take 

the necessary measures to guarantee the safe and dignified return of displaced 

persons, nor did it carry out the necessary investigations about the human 

rights violations due to the forced displacement of this community, which 

caused them emotional, psychological, spiritual and economic suffering). 

Provisional Measures

Provisional measures in the matter of the indigenous community of Kankuamo, 

5 July 2004 (the Colombian state was required to guarantee the necessary 

conditions of security in order to respect the right to freedom of movement 

of the indigenous Kankuamo people, so that those who have been forcibly 

displaced could return to their home if they so desire). 

Provisional measures in the matter of the communities of Jiguamiando and 

Curbarado, 6 March 2003 (the state of Colombia was required to ensure 

that the applicants can continue to live in their habitual residence as well as 

to adopt the necessary measures in order that the displaced persons of these 

communities could return to their home). 

Provisional measures in the matter of the Peace Community of San Jose de Apartado, 

24 November 2000 (the state of Colombia was requested to ensure the 

necessary conditions in order that the forcibly displaced persons of the 

Community of Paz de San José de Apartado could return to their home). WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 215

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

Annual Reports

Annual Report (2005), 27 February 2006 (OEA/Ser.L/II.124) (analysis of 

the situation of Colombian refugees and migrants in Haiti and the human 

rights situation in Colombia, with special emphasis on the internal armed 

conflict and its consequences on the civil population, particularly the forced 

displacement). 

Annual Report (1998), 16 April 1999 (OEA/Ser.L/V/ll.102) (recommendations 

for states to adopt, respect and apply the Guiding Principles on Internal 

Displacement). 

Country Reports

Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala, 6 April 2001 (OEA/

Ser.L/V/ll.111) (analysis of the human rights situation of the population 

uprooted by the armed conflict, with special attention to its reintegration, the 

possession and ownership of land, the development and the access to basic 

services). 

Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Haiti, 8 February 1995 (OEA/

Ser.L/V.88) (analysis of the situation of internal displacement in Haiti as well 

as the situation of Haitian refugees, with special attention to the issues of 

rescue at see and their transfer to the Guantánamo military base).

Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala, 1 June 1993 (OEA/

Ser.L/V/ll.83) (historical analysis of the displacement in Guatemala, the 

signature of Agreements between the Government of Guatemala and the 

Permanent Commissions in 1992, and the specific problems experienced by 

this vulnerable population). 

General Assembly of the Organisation of American States

Resolutions

Resolution AG/RES. 2229 (XXXVI-O/06). Internally Displaced Persons.

Readings

Core

A. A. Cançado Trindade, 'Approximations and Convergences Revisited: Ten 

Years of Interaction between International Human Rights Law, International 216 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Refugee Law, and International Humanitarian Law (from Cartagena – 1984 

to San Jose – 1994 and Mexico – 2004)', in Memoir of the Twentieth Anniversary of the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees (Bogota: UNHCR, 2004), 

pp. 142–147.

M. Gottwald, Protecting Colombian Refugees in the Andean Region: The Fight 

against Invisibility (Geneva: UNHCR, 2003), pp. 7–10, 14–18.

VI.5 The North American Regional Materials 

Main Debates

Is the implementation of the 2002 Canada-USA "Safe Third Country" agreement 

leading to the violation of protection obligations by either country?

Treaties

Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the 

United States of America for cooperation in the examination of refugee status 

claims from nationals of third countries, signed on 5 December 2002, as part 

of the Smart Border Action Plan, and entered into force on 29 December 

2004.

Readings

Core

A. Macklin, The Values of the Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement (Ottawa: 

Caledon Institute of Social Policy, 2003).

Extended

D. Anker and Harvard Law Student Advocates for Human Rights, Bordering on 

Failure: the US-Canada Safe Third Country Fifteen Months after Implementation, 

The International Human Rights Clinic, Human Rights Program, March 

2006.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 217

NOTES ON THE EDITORS

Editor in Chief

Maryellen Fullerton

Brooklyn Law School, New York, USA

 Maryellen Fullerton is Full Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, New 

York, USA. Her areas of expertise include asylum, immigration, and refugee 

law, with research focusing, in particular, on comparative refugee law. 

Her world view and teaching methods have been shaped by her academic 

commitments, first as a Fulbright Scholar in Belgium and Germany, later as 

a German Marshall Fund Fellow in Hungary, and as a visiting scholar at the 

Center for Advanced Studies in Social Sciences in Spain. Among her recent 

works are her co-authored casebooks, Immigration and Citizenship Law: Process 

and Policy (7th edn. 2012) and Forced Migration: Law and Policy (2007). In 

addition to her academic research and scholarly publications, she served as 

a rapporteur for Human Rights Watch/Helsinki on several human rights 

fact-finding missions to Germany. She has been active in the International 

Law Association on the Committee on Internally Displaced Persons and on 

the Committee on Refugee Law (American Branch). For her work with law 

students representing asylum seekers, she was awarded the Migration and 

Refugee Services' Volunteer Service Award for Assistance to Refugees. She 

earned her bachelor's degree at Duke University, pursued graduate studies in 

Psychology at the University of Chicago, and then studied Law at Antioch 

School of Law, from which she received her J.D. degree. After her law studies 

she worked as a judicial clerk for Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr., Chief Judge, 

United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, and then 

served as a judicial clerk for Judge Francis L. Van Dusen, United States Court 

of Appeals for the Third Circuit. She joined the faculty of Brooklyn Law 

School in New York in 1980, where she has been a professor of law since 

1985. 218 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Editorial Board

Rosemary Byrne

Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland

 Rosemary Byrne is Associate Professor of International Law and the Director 

of the Centre for Post-Conflict Justice at Trinity College Dublin. Recently 

she completed a five year term as a Human Rights Commissioner at the Irish 

Human Rights Commission, and has been a Visiting Professor at the Paris 

School of International Affairs, Institut d'Études Politiques (Sciences-Po) and 

the China-EU Law School, China University of Political Science and Law. 

She has been a Government of Ireland Research Fellow and a Visiting Fellow 

at the Harvard Law School Human Rights Programme. Her research is in the 

areas of comparative refugee law and policy and international criminal law. 

She earned her bachelor's degree from Barnard College, Columbia University 

and her J.D. from Harvard Law School.

Bhupinder Chimni

Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

 B.S. Chimni is Professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and 

is the author of International Refugee Law: A Reader, one of the main 

international textbooks in the field. His areas of expertise include international 

law, international trade law and international refugee law. He served for three 

years as Vice Chancellor of the W.B. National University of Juridical Sciences 

and has been a Visiting Professor at the International Center for Comparative 

Law and Politics, Tokyo University, a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at Harvard 

Law School, Visiting Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative 

and Public International Law, Heidelberg, and a Visiting Scholar at the 

Refugee Studies Center, York University, Canada. He served as a member 

of the Academic Advisory Committee of the Office of the United Nations 

High Commissioner for Refugees for the period of 1996–2000. He is on 

the editorial board of several national and international journals including 

the Indian Journal of International Law, International Studies, International 

Refugee Studies, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal & Refugee Survey WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 219

Quarterly. Professor Chimni is part of a group of scholars who self-identify as 

the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) scholars.

François Crépeau

McGill University, Montreal, Canada

 François Crépeau is a Full Professor and holds the Hans and Tamar 

Oppenheimer Chair in Public International Law and is the scientific 

director of the Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism at the Faculty 

of Law of McGill University. He is the United Nations Special Rapporteur 

on the Human Rights of Migrants. He is guest professor at the Université 

catholique de Louvain (2010–2013). He has participated at many conferences, 

published numerous articles, and written and edited five books: Les migrations 

internationales contemporaines – Une dynamique complexe au cœur de la 

globalisation (2009), Penser l'international, Perspectives et contributions des 

sciences sociales (2007), Forced Migration and Global Processes – A View from 

Forced Migration Studies (2006), Mondialisation des échanges et fonctions de 

l'État (1997) and Droit d'asile: De l'hospitalité aux contrôles migratoires (1995). 

He is a fellow of the Institute for Research in Public Policies (IRPP) and heads 

the 'Mondialisation et droit international' collection at Éditions BruylantLarcier (Brussels). He is a member of several editorial boards: Journal of Refugee 

Studies, International Journal of Refugee Law, Refuge, Droits fondamentaux, 

Refugee Law Reader. He was a Fellow of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation 

in 2008–2011. 

Madeline Garlick

UNHCR, Bureau for Europe, Brussels, Belgium

 Madeline Garlick is the Head of the Policy and Legal Support Unit in the 

Bureau for Europe of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner 

for Refugees (UNHCR). Prior to her appointment to this post in 2009, 

she served for five years as Head of UNHCR's Liaison Unit to the EU 

Institutions. She holds a Master of Laws (LL.M.) from Cambridge University, 

UK, as well as an LL.B. (Honours) in general law and B.A.(Honours) in 

politics and German language and literature from Monash University, 

Melbourne, Australia. She is qualified as a barrister and solicitor in Victoria, 220 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

Australia, where she has practiced in various legal fields, including advice and 

representation for asylum seekers and refugees in Australia. In her previous 

career experience, she has worked for 'Justice', the British Chapter of the 

International Commission of Jurists, after which she worked for three years 

in Bosnia and Herzegovina, for the Commission for Real Property Claims of 

Displaced Persons and Refugees and for the Office of the High Representative. 

She has also served with the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus 

(UNFICYP), as a member of the Secretary-General's negotiating team, which 

sought to facilitate a resolution to Cyprus' political conflict, from 1999–2004. 

Madeline Garlick serves as an Editor in her personal capacity, and the views 

expressed or implied in The Reader do not necessarily represent the position 

of the United Nations or UNHCR.

Elspeth Guild

University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

 Elspeth Guild studied classics in Canada and Greece and law in London. 

She defended her thesis on European Community immigration law at the 

University of Nijmegen, where she now is the Jean Monnet Professor ad 

Personam of European Immigration Law at the Radboud University Nijmegen 

and at the Law Faculty, Queen Mary University of London. She is associate 

senior research fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels and 

a partner in the immigration department at the London law firm, Kingsley 

Napley. She also teaches at Sciences Po in Paris. She has published widely 

in the field of immigration and asylum law and policy in Europe. Her most 

recent monograph is Security and Migration in the 21st Century, Polity 2009. 

Professor Guild is the UK member of the Odysseus Network of academic 

experts in European Immigration and Asylum Law. She is frequently invited 

to advise both the European Commission and the Council of Europe on 

immigration and asylum issues.

Lyra Jakuleviciene

Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania

 Lyra Jakuleviciene is a Professor at Mykolas Romeris University in Lithuania 

and has over ten years of teaching experience in international law (human WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 221

rights, refugee and treaty law in particular). She served in the capacities of 

Legal Adviser and later as Liaison Officer of the United Nations High 

Commissioner for Refugees in Lithuania (1997–2003) and lately as the Head 

of United Nations Development Programme in Lithuania. Her international 

experience includes participation in the Söderköping process where she 

was responsible for the establishment and management of a Cross Border 

Cooperation Secretariat in Kiev, Ukraine in 2003. In this capacity Ms. 

Jakuleviciene has been working on facilitation and promotion of co-operation 

among ten countries in the Western CIS and the Central European/Baltic 

region on migration, asylum and other cross-border related issues, as well as 

on bridging the implementation of the UN priorities and strategies with the 

changing environment due to the EU enlargement process in the countries on 

both sides of the future EU external borders. Since 2006 she has been serving 

as an expert in building the European Asylum Curriculum, which was taken 

over by the European Asylum Support Office in 2011, as well as engaged in 

a number of studies and research projects on refugees, including the study on 

transposition of the ten EU asylum directives (2006–2007) and the study for 

the European Parliament on the future Common European Asylum System 

(2009–2010) among them. She holds a Doctor of Social Sciences (law) degree 

and is an author of over a dozen of articles on refugee protection, as well as 

the first book in Lithuania on the rights of refugees. Ms. Jakuleviciene is a 

permanent member of the Odysseus Academic Network in Europe and the 

Observatory on Free Movement of Workers.

Boldizsár Nagy

ELTE University, Budapest, Hungary

 Boldizsár Nagy read law and philosophy at the Eötvös Loránd University in 

Budapest and pursued international studies at the Johns Hopkins University 

SAIS Bologna Center. Besides the uninterrupted academic activity both 

at the Eötvös Loránd University (since 1977) and the Central European 

University (since 1992) he has been engaged both in governmental and nongovernmental actions. He acted several times as expert for the Hungarian 

Ministry fo Foreign Affairs, the Council of Europe and UNHCR and was 

counsel for Hungary in the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project case before the 222 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R

International Court of Justice. He was one of the founders of the European 

Society of International Law and sat on the board until 2010. He is member 

of the editorial board of the International Journal of Refugee Law and of 

the European Journal of Migration and Law. In 2004 Boldizsár Nagy joined 

the Odysseus academic network for legal studies on asylum and immigration 

in Europe. In recent years he has delivered lectures in Amsterdam, Beijing, 

Brussels, Cambridge, Geneva, Moscow, among others. (For further details 

see: www.nagyboldizsar.hu)

Luis Peral

European Union Institute for Security Studies, Paris, France

 Luis Peral holds a Ph.D. in Law, M.A. in Law of the European Union, M.A. 

in Political Sciences & International Relations (Universities Complutense 

and Carlos III of Madrid), and Diploma in English Law (University of Kent, 

Canterbury, UK). From 1992 to 2004, he taught Public International Law 

at University Carlos III of Madrid, where he organised a Masters Course on 

Cooperation to Development, Migration and Humanitarian Action. From 

2004 until he joined the EUISS as Research Fellow in 2008, he worked at the 

Center for Constitutional Studies of the Ministry of the Presidency under the 

Ramón y Cajal Research Program of the Spanish Government, whilst he was 

Senior Research Fellow at FRIDE and Director of the Conflict Prevention 

and Resolution Programme of the International Center of Toledo for Peace 

(CITpax). He has been visiting Scholar at the University of Michigan Law 

School, and a lecturer at several universities and institutions, such as the 

International Institute of Humanitarian Law (Sanremo) and the European 

Inter-University Center (Venice). He founded the Cuenca Colloquium 

on International Refugee Law in 2006. His research and publications, 

particularly, "Éxodos masivos, supervivencia y mantenimiento de la paz", are 

focused on International Refugee Law, Humanitarian Law, European Human 

Rights Law, Peacekeeping and Peace building. At the EUISS, he deals with 

the EU contribution to multilateralism and in particular to the international 

security system, EU-Asia relations with a focus on India, and international 

responses to conflict situations such as that of Afghanistan.WWW.REFUGEELAWREADER.ORG 223

Jens Vedsted-Hansen

University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark

 Jens Vedsted-Hansen earned his LL.M and LL.D. from the University of 

Aarhus, where he is a Professor of Law. Having worked as a research scholar 

at the University of Aalborg, Faculty of Social Sciences, and as assistant and 

associate professor at the University of Aarhus Law School, he became a 

research fellow at the Danish Centre for Human Rights in 1993. In 1997 

he joined the Faculty of Law at the University of Copenhagen as an associate 

professor. Since 1999 he has been a professor of human rights law at the 

University of Aarhus Law School. He has participated in various international 

research projects as a contributor, commentator or panel member. He is a 

member of the Odysseus Academic Network of Legal Studies on Immigration 

and Asylum in Europe, and of the editorial board of European Journal of 

Migration and Law. He served as a member of the Danish Refugee Appeals 

Board from 1987 to 1994. His research interests include administrative law, 

immigration and refugee law, and human rights law.

Editorial Staff

Anikó Bakonyi

Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Budapest, Hungary

 Anikó Bakonyi graduated from the Humanities Faculty at the Eötvös Lóránd 

University in Budapest and earned an M.A. degree in Human Rights at 

the Central European University. Her thesis focused on the repatriation of 

Bosnian refugees after the war in Yugoslavia. Before joining the Hungarian 

Helsinki Committee, she worked for the International Organization for 

Migration, coordinating an anti-trafficking program and later a compensation 

program for Roma forced labourers during WWII. She has also worked for the 

London-based International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims 

(ICHEIC) as a project manager. After returning to Hungary, she coordinated 

a project called 'Immigrant Budapest' at Menedék, the Hungarian Association 

for Migrants. At the Hungarian Helsinki Committee she is The Refugee Law 

Reader's coordinator.224 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R226 T H E R E F U G E E L A W R E A D E R www.refugeelawreader.org

The UN Refugee Agency

European Refugee Fund