Suchergebnisse

Based on a systematic and empirical comparative study of six European Union countries, Christel Querton explores judicial decision-making in the context of persons fleeing armed conflicts in the EU. Addressing and redressing misconceptions about the relevance of the Refugee Convention, this book demonstrates how appellate authorities across the EU approach situations of armed conflict predominantly through outdated understandings of warfare and territoriality. Thus, they apply a higher standard of proof than is warranted by international refugee law. Adopting a gender perspective, Querton also shows how appellate authorities fail to acknowledge the gender-differentiated impact of armed conflicts. Drawing from gender and security studies, this book proposes an original conceptual framework which, supported by existing international legal standards, reframes the definition of 'refugee' and better reflects the reality of violence in modern-day conflicts. In doing so, it re-asserts the Refugee Convention as the cornerstone of international protection.

Abstract
The article explores whether the European Union Agency for Asylum's country guidance (CG) reflects the international protection needs of persons fleeing armed conflicts. It uses the Agency's guidance on Iraq as a case study through the lens of objectivity and relevance. The article highlights the disproportionate reliance on military and State-centric sources which adopt a traditional and narrow concept of security grounded in quantitative approaches. The article argues that the main sources of Country of Origin Information used in CG are inadequate to capture the present-day nature of violence in situations of armed conflict. The article makes the case for a re-balancing of sources to be included in CG that reflects wider security studies perspectives and approaches. The article also suggests that the indicators of indiscriminate violence used by the Agency are grounded in international humanitarian law norms and therefore fail to reflect international protection standards, whilst also being inadequate to capture the nature of violence in situations of contemporary armed conflict. The use of sources of information adopting wider security perspectives and qualitative approaches are encouraged and other factors, such as spheres of control by actors to the conflict, are proposed for inclusion into international protection assessments.

The article argues that although the gradual recognition of non-State actors as agents of persecution was hailed as a success in ensuring better protection for refugee women at risk of harm from their community or family, the associated development of non-state actors as agents of protection has had a detrimental impact on the protection of refugee women in Europe and more globally. More specifically, the article identifies various everyday practices of reliance on male family members and undefined social networks as actors of protection. These co-constructing practices are exercised by different entities involved in refugee status determination processes, including governments, national and regional courts, and regional and international asylum agencies. Although the trend has gone largely unnoticed, it has resulted in a sliding scale of protection for refugee women. The article argues that endorsing non-State actors of protection, such as male family members and undefined social networks, amounts to a requirement that women seeking asylum take action to avoid being persecuted by placing themselves under the protection of those private actors. This is contrary to international refugee law doctrine, fails to consider the possibility of new forms of harm and is, in itself, a breach of women's human rights.

AbstractThe article tests the claim of feminist scholars that concerns about gender have been marginalised in refugee law, by exploring the interpretation given to the concept of a 'Particular Social Group' set out in the 1951 Refugee Convention. It is argued that recent practice at the supranational level in the European Union has contributed to the deterioration of refugee protection standards for women seeking asylum from gender-based violence. However, the article demonstrates that a human rights-based approach to the interpretation of 'Particular Social Group', which is supported by extensive examples of good practice in individual Member States, has the potential to redress this.

More than one million persons crossed the Mediterranean Sea in 2015 into the European Union ('EU') leading many to describe the situation as the worst refugee crisis in Europe since the Second World War. The role of International Human Rights Law in ensuring the protection of asylum seekers from return to countries where they would face prohibited treatment is consequently of particular interest. In 2015, approximately 27.7% of persons claiming asylum in the EU were women and girls and reports suggest most flee war, armed conflict, persecution and sexual or gender-based violence. In the context of increasing reliance by asylum seekers and refugees on the European Court of Human Rights ('the Court') as a protection mechanism against return to ill-treatment, torture and persecution, examination of the Court's approach is essential. Adopting a gender analysis based on feminist legal theory, this paper explores the case law of the Court relating to gender-based violence and discrimination against women. Using a comparative approach, the paper analyses how principles and concepts developed in 'domestic' cases are applied in 'expulsion' cases, in order to query the impact of the Court as a mechanism for the effective protection of women seeking refuge in Europe. The paper considers the extent to which International Human Rights Law as interpreted by the Court responds to the international protection needs of those at risk of gender-based violence. It compares how the principles regarding the prohibition of gender-based violence and discrimination against women developed by the Court in 'domestic' cases are applied to 'expulsion' cases where the breach of Article 3 ECHR is feared as a result of treatment in the receiving country. Protection against gender-based violence from a 'male network' and the Court's reliance on this concept in 'expulsion' cases is explored in particular.

Despite often making `conventional claims' for asylum based on their political opinion, race, nationality or religion, many women also claim asylum in the United Kingdom (UK) on the basis that they fear persecution because of their gender. To be recognised as refugees, women asylum seekers must therefore often demonstrate that they fear persecution on account of their membership of a Particular Social Group (PSG). In the UK, the Refugee Convention ground of PSG is the most litigated, and women asylum seekers may face many obstacles to benefitting from the protection they require. This paper explores the development of the interpretation of the PSG ground in the context of gender-related claims for asylum and assesses its implication for the protection of women who fear gender-related persecution. In particular, it sets out a critical analysis of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal's determination in SB (Moldova)1 in light of the House of Lords' decision in Fornah.2 The paper demonstrates the Tribunal's failure to follow the decision of the majority in Fornah that the two limbs of article 10(1)(d) Qualification Directive, setting out the definition of a PSG, are alternatives and not cumulative and why this determination is flawed. The paper also concludes that the Tribunal has developed a more rigorous test for the definition of PSG where the group is gender-based despite the absence of domestic and international jurisprudence and rules of interpretation that would support this approach. The analysis highlights the discriminatory approach by the Tribunal and demonstrates that this approach cannot stand.

As co-founders and conveners of the Women in Refugee Law (WiRL) network, we are delighted to introduce this Special Issue. The contributors are WiRL members who take forward the network's objectives of recentring the study of refugee women by reviewing the state of protection in domestic jurisdictions and internationally, identifying setbacks to adequate protection for women at risk of persecution, and proposing inclusive ways forward.

Acknowledgement: The University of Malta would like to acknowledge its gratitude to the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy for their permission to upload this work on OAR@UoM. Further reuse of this document can be made, provided the source is acknowledged. This work was made available with the help of the Publications Office of the European Union, Copyright and Legal Issues Section. ; This research considers the law, policies and practice for gender-related asylum claims in nine EU Member States. The resulting comparative analysis demonstrates the many disparities in the way EU Member States handle such claims. The report concludes that women are not guaranteed consistent gender-sensitive treatment when they seek protection in Europe. It identifies a number of recommendations for a range of institutions in order to achieve a gender-sensitive asylum system across Europe ; N/A