Suchergebnisse

Abstract
'Time' plays an important role in refugee status determination (RSD) because whilst fear must be current, the fear relates to present or future risk. This article examines the role of time in RSD and how time impacts upon the granting of refugee protection. Thus it concentrates on the test of a 'well-founded fear' in article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention. Claims from persons fleeing armed conflict raise particular challenges because of the fluidity, unstable conditions, and protracted character of conflicts. Furthermore, the unpredictable nature of conflict means that people are, at times, already fleeing from harm that might well eventuate in the future but that is not yet current.
Drawing on jurisprudence of the senior courts and appeal tribunals in Australia and the United Kingdom (UK), the article shows how these have long engaged with considerations of time in refugee matters. In determining who qualifies for refugee protection, courts and tribunals look backwards and forwards. Hidden within this process are assumptions about time that lie – almost invisibly – at the heart of the protection regime. When assessing whether a person has a 'well-founded fear' of being persecuted, the courts in Australia and the UK embrace a future-looking approach; a 'clear and present danger' is not required. The timeframe is that of the 'reasonably foreseeable future', situated somewhere between the 'not too remote' and the 'present or immediate future'. This necessarily contains a degree of predictive speculation, understood to mean an exercise in prediction falling short of fact-finding. To be sure, foreseeability and certainty of risk are not to be conflated. Yet, at times, conflation between the two has occurred (by courts and tribunals), leading to exclusionary practices and outcomes. This has been the case, for example, where the situation in the country of origin was relatively stable but nevertheless fluid, meaning that while there could be a significant risk in the future, the risk was low at the time the decision was made.
Considering that armed conflict continues to be the main driver for people claiming refugee protection in Australia and the UK, how senior courts and appeal tribunals understand and apply the timeframe of reasonable foreseeability in fluid situations (between peace and conflict) is key. This article highlights some best practices in that regard, including ensuring that this timeframe does not expand and contract with the apparent certainty or uncertainty of a situation.

This new diagnostic consensus guideline is a joint project of the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology [ESGAR] that now merges the former ECCO-ESGAR Imaging Guideline and the former ECCO Endoscopy Guideline, also including laboratory parameters. It has been drafted by 30 ECCO and ESGAR members from 17 European countries. All the authors recognize th e work of and are grateful to previous ECCO and ESGAR members who contributed tocreating the earlier consensus guidelines on imaging and endoscopy. The former guidelines have been condensed into this new diagnostic consensus guideline which consists of two papers: the first detailing assessment at initial diagnosis, to monitor treat ment and for the detection of complications; the second dealing with the available scoring systems and general considerations regarding the different diagnostic tools. The strategy to define consensus was similar to that previously described in other ECCO consensus guidelines [available at www.ecco-ibd.eu]. Briefly, an open call for participants was made, with ECCO participants selected by the Guidelines' Committee of ECCO [known as GuiCom] on the basis of their publication record and a personal statement and ESGAR participants nominated by ESGAR. The following working parties were established: diagnostics at initial diagnosis, diagnostics for monitoring treatment in patients with known IBD, diagnostics for the detect ion of complications, scores for IBD, and general principles and technical aspects. Provisional guideline statements and supporting text were written following a comprehensive literature review, then refined following two voting rounds. The first voting round introduced a more comprehensive voting procedure, in which each Guidelines participants voted on all statements by explicitly reviewing those statements together with their respective supporting text and references. The second voting round included optional national representative participation of ECCO's 36 member countries and ESGAR's 28 member countries. The level of evidence was graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine [www.cebm.net]. The ECCO statements were finalized by the authors at a face-to-face meeting in Barcelona in October 2017 and represent consensus with agreement of at least 80% of the present participants. Consensus statements are intended to be read in context with their qualifying comments and not in isolation. The supporting text was then finalised under the direction of each working group leader [SV, TK, GF, VA, EC], before being integrated by the consensus leaders [CM, JS, AS].

This new diagnostic consensus guideline is a joint project of the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology [ESGAR] that now merges the former ECCO-ESGAR Imaging Guideline and the former ECCO Endoscopy Guideline, also including laboratory parameters. It has been drafted by 30 ECCO and ESGAR members from 17 European countries. All the authors recognize the work of and are grateful to previous ECCO and ESGAR members who contributed to creating the earlier consensus guidelines on imaging and endoscopy. The former guidelines have been condensed into this new diagnostic consensus guideline which consists of two papers: the first detailing assessment at initial diagnosis, to monitor treat ment and for the detection of complications; the second dealing with the available scoring systems and general considerations regarding the different diagnostic tools. The strategy to define consensus was similar to that previously described in other ECCO consensus guidelines [available at www.ecco-ibd.eu]. Briefly, an open call for participants was made, with ECCO participants selected by the Guidelines' Committee of ECCO [known as GuiCom] on the basis of their publication record and a personal statement and ESGAR participants nominated by ESGAR. The following working parties were established: diagnostics at initial diagnosis, diagnostics for monitoring treatment in patients with known IBD, diagnostics for the detection of complications, scores for IBD, and general principles and technical aspects. Provisional guideline statements and supporting text were written following a comprehensive literature review, then refined following two voting rounds. The first voting round introduced a more comprehensive voting procedure, in which each Guidelines participants voted on all statements by explicitly reviewing those statements together with their respective supporting text and references. The second voting round included optional national representative participation of ECCO's 36 member countries and ESGAR's 28 member countries. The level of evidence was graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine [www.cebm.net]. The ECCO statements were finalized by the authors at a face-to-face meeting in Barcelona in October 2017 and represent consensus with agreement of at least 80% of the present participants. Consensus statements are intended to be read in context with their qualifying comments and not in isolation. The supporting text was then finalised under the direction of each working group leader [SV, TK, GF, VA, EC], before being integrated by the consensus leaders [CM, JS, AS].