Suchergebnisse

Abstract With global action being outpaced by climate change impacts, communities in climate-vulnerable countries are at increased risk of incurring climate-induced losses and damages. In the last few years, disasters from extreme weather events such as typhoons have increased and have breached records, with typhoon Haiyan being the strongest ever typhoon to make landfall. Such an event solicited global compassion and altruism where Canada and the USA, apart from doling out traditional humanitarian aid, also offered immigration relief opportunities to typhoon Haiyan victims who have familial connections to their residents. Drawing from these immigration relief interventions, this paper uses a sociopolitical approach in proposing a climate humanitarian visa that would be offered to climate change victims on the basis of transnational family networks and skilled labor. Noting that several countries such as in Europe have demographic deficits and labor shortages, such a scheme would benefit both climate change victims and receiving countries. To counter the risk of selective compassion against economically trapped populations, potential receiving countries could provide skills upgrading geared toward addressing their labor shortages through their existing development programs. While migration is only one strategy in a spectrum of responses to climate change impacts, a climate humanitarian visa could provide climate change victims a legal choice for mobility while invoking altruism, hospitality, and compassion from potential receiving countries, whether or not they historically cause climate change.

Limiting the scope of EU law vis-à-vis national legislative measures is one thing but creating un-Chartered territory in EU law is another. It is understandable why the Court would want to stay away from the currently toxic migration politics. But it is worrying that it is willing to further limit the scope of the Charter when it might be needed the most.

This article examines the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of X and X v. Belgium (C-638/16 PPU). The issue at stake concerns an application for a visa with limited territorial validity (LTV) requested by a Syrian family at the Belgian embassy in Beirut in order to apply for asylum in Belgium. The article discusses the different interpretations given by the Advocate General and the Court of Justice and agrees with the AG that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights leaves a limited margin of discretion to Member Sates and imposes a positive obligation to issue a LTV Visa in cases like X and X. It also concludes that the judgment in question clearly shows the need for the EU to adopt legislation regulating the issuance of humanitarian visas under the Visa Code.

En el presente trabajo se realiza un análisis de la migración venezolana al Perú, los derechos humanos a los que no tienen acceso los migrantes y la discriminación que sufren en su día a día por parte de la población y del propio gobierno con sus políticas públicas, específicamente la implementación de la visa humanitaria, solicitada a los migrantes venezolanos para ingresar al territorio peruano. Para comprender ello de mejor forma, se compara el actual caso venezolano con la migración peruana de los últimos años hacia la República Argentina. ; In this paper, a legal analysis of Venezuelan migration to Peru is carried out, the human rights to which migrants do not have access and the discrimination they suffer in their day-to-day lives by the population and the government itself with its public policies, specifically the implementation of the humanitarian visa, requested to Venezuelan migrants to enter Peruvian territory. For better understanding, the current Venezuelan case is compared with the Peruvian migration to the Argentine Republic during recent years.

AbstractImmigrants' naturalization is conditioned by demographic, socioeconomic and contextual factors, but little is known about how it is affected by permanent visa category and geographic location at the destination. Using the 2016 Australian Census and Migrants Integrated Dataset (ACMID) and Probit regression analysis, we examined how visa category and location of residence influence naturalization rates for Chinese and Indian migrants arriving in Australia between 2000 and 2016. Chinese migrants were most likely to naturalize if entering under a Humanitarian visa, and Indian migrants if under a Skilled Independent visa. Migrants in the Australian Capital Territory were the most likely to naturalize, and those in Victoria the least likely—a distinction sharpened by metropolitan as opposed to regional location. The transnational perspective, allied with cost–benefit and integration theories, performs well in accounting for these heterogeneities. The differences have clear policy and practice in Australia and for countries of origin.

L'ordinanza del 21 febbraio 2019 che ha imposto al Ministero degli esteri l'obbligo di rilasciare un visto umanitario ex art. 25 del codice dei visti europeo nei confronti di un minore non accompagnato bloccato in Libia fornisce l'occasione per riannodare le fila delle riflessioni e delle azioni intraprese in funzione della costruzione di canali d'ingresso legale in Europa per persone bisognose di protezione internazionale. A livello legislativo, il visto umanitario ex art. 25 è stato più volte sottoposto a tentativi di modifica in vista di un suo potenziamento, sollecitati dal Parlamento europeo e ostacolati dal Consiglio. Per quanto riguarda la giurisprudenza europea, l'art. 25 è stato oggetto della famosa sentenza XX contro Belgio. Attualmente, la Corte EDU è chiamata a pronunciarsi sul tema dei visti umanitari nel caso M.N. e altri contro Belgio. Nel contempo, per iniziativa della società civile, i visti umanitari ex art. 25 sono stati funzionali all'apertura dei Corridoi Umanitari in diversi Paesi europei. Quest'analisi mette in luce le tante incertezze e contraddizioni relative all'interpretazione e alla portata dell'art. 25 del codice dei visti europeo. Interpretando tale articolo alla luce dei diritti fondamentali, il Tribunale di Roma, partecipa alla costruzione del visto umanitario come strumento giuridico di protezione, inserendosi nel dibattito tra le relative politiche del diritto e le esigenza di tutela.

L'ordinanza del 21 febbraio 2019 che ha imposto al Ministero degli esteri l'obbligo di rilasciare un visto umanitario ex art. 25 del codice dei visti europeo nei confronti di un minore non accompagnato bloccato in Libia fornisce l'occasione per riannodare le fila delle riflessioni e delle azioni intraprese in funzione della costruzione di canali d'ingresso legale in Europa per persone bisognose di protezione internazionale. A livello legislativo, il visto umanitario ex art. 25 è stato più volte sottoposto a tentativi di modifica in vista di un suo potenziamento, sollecitati dal Parlamento europeo e ostacolati dal Consiglio. Per quanto riguarda la giurisprudenza europea, l'art. 25 è stato oggetto della famosa sentenza XX contro Belgio. Attualmente, la Corte EDU è chiamata a pronunciarsi sul tema dei visti umanitari nel caso M.N. e altri contro Belgio. Nel contempo, per iniziativa della società civile, i visti umanitari ex art. 25 sono stati funzionali all'apertura dei Corridoi Umanitari in diversi Paesi europei. Quest'analisi mette in luce le tante incertezze e contraddizioni relative all'interpretazione e alla portata dell'art. 25 del codice dei visti europeo. Interpretando tale articolo alla luce dei diritti fondamentali, il Tribunale di Roma, partecipa alla costruzione del visto umanitario come strumento giuridico di protezione, inserendosi nel dibattito tra le relative politiche del diritto e le esigenza di tutela.

Bringing together contributions from legal scholars and practitioners, this book contributes to a broader reflection on the extent to which policy controversies on humanitarian admission to Europe are channeled and managed through law. The book is divided into four parts. The first part identifies the international and European legal obligations that are binding on both the EU and the Member States, and the constraints they impose – potentially and actually – when dealing with migrants who are outside EU territory. The second part studies the legal framework of humanitarian admission in three Member States (Germany, Italy and Belgium), as well as the related procedures and practices. The third part focuses on the experiences of those seeking humanitarian admission, including how they mobilize the law to obtain legal access to Europe. It presents the results of ethnographic fieldwork conducted among refugees in a refugee camp in Uganda who are seeking resettlement, as well as the testimony of the lawyer who defended a Syrian family applying for a humanitarian visa in Belgium in a landmark case that was litigated before the CJEU (X. and X. v. Belgium). The fourth part discusses the prospects for future developments in the EU legal and policy framework, including attempts at reforming the EU Visa Code and establishing a Union resettlement framework. The book is edited by Marie-Claire Foblets and Luc Leboeuf, both from the Department of Law and Anthropology of the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology.

In the past 25 years, European migration policy has been externalized, resulting in a bifurcation of human movement. This has become clearly visible in the context of Syrian refugees. In two judgments, the EU Court of Justice was confronted with cases challenging the exclusion of Syrian refugees from Europe. This article seeks to analyse these judgments in the context of the broader developments in European migration law and policy. The core analysis developed here is that the bifurcation of human movement is reflected in a bifurcation of law. Excluded people are to be excluded not merely from European territory, but also from European law.

The subject of the glossary is to consider certain aspects concerning issuing of humanitarian visas . Its aim is to demonstrate the need for humanitarian visas in order to allow individuals to cross the external borders of the European Union in hopes of protection in one of its Member States . The prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment derives from the European Union and inter-national law . It confirms the importance of granting international protection to foreigners and accessibility to this procedure . This article is generally based on the Advocate General's opinion and the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-638/16 X and X v État belge . It is also noted that the Court did not comply with the recommendations of the Advocate General . The arguments used in this article are to show that people in need of international protection should be able to apply for a humanitarian visa under European Union and international law ; The subject of the glossary is to consider certain aspects concerning issuing of humanitarian visas . Its aim is to demonstrate the need for humanitarian visas in order to allow individuals to cross the external borders of the European Union in hopes of protection in one of its Member States . The prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment derives from the European Union and inter-national law . It confirms the importance of granting international protection to foreigners and accessibility to this procedure . This article is generally based on the Advocate General's opinion and the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-638/16 X and X v État belge . It is also noted that the Court did not comply with the recommendations of the Advocate General . The arguments used in this article are to show that people in need of international protection should be able to apply for a humanitarian visa under European Union and international law

AbstractWhile the Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) regime was formally introduced in October 1999 by the Howard Government, the concept of temporary protection was not totally alien to the Australian humanitarian landscape. Earlier examples reflected a standard use of temporary protection as a complementary or interim protection mechanism, offering short‐term group‐based protection where individual assessment under the 1951 Convention was both impractical and untimely. This paper focuses on the wider and more controversial changes in the use of temporary protection mechanisms that were to follow with the introduction of the TPV in 1999, which offered substitute protection for individually assessed Convention refugees who had arrived onshore without valid travel documents. It examines the history and evolution of the TPV policy regime from 1999 to the announcement of its abolition in 2008, arguing that the introduction and subsequent development of the policy may be understood as a product of a conservative, exclusionist political climate in Australia, following the unprecedented impact of the populist One Nation party in 1998, and later, the impact of September 11th. It also examines later amendments to the regime as a response to growing domestic disquiet about the impacts of the policy, and the abolition of the TPV policy under a new Australian government elected in late 2007.