Suchergebnisse

The asylum process -- The regional asylum offices -- The immigration courts -- The board of immigration appeals -- The United States courts of appeals -- Conclusions and policy recommendations -- Refugee roulette in the Canadian casino / Audrey Macklin -- Refugee roulette a UK perspective / Robert Thomas -- Consistency, credibility, and culture / Bruce Einhorn -- Asylum in a different voice? : judging immigration claims and gender / Carrie Menkel-Meadow -- Refugee roulette in an administrative law context : the déjà vu of decisional disparities in agency adjudication / Margaret Taylor -- Learning to live with unequal justice : asylum and the limits to consistency / Steven Legomsky -- The counsel conundrum : effective representation in immigration proceedings / Margaret Mckeown and Allegra Mcleod

President Biden faces many hurdles to constructing an effective international legal order on migration, not least of which is the absence of any such structure even prior to the dual challenges of the nationalist fallout of the Trump administration's rhetoric and policies and the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet the excesses of cruelty under Trump and the social instability resulting from the pandemic may have created political space for the Biden administration to lay the groundwork for a more comprehensive international structure that governs migration of all kinds. To that end, President Biden should cultivate normative authority in the migration arena by shifting the national discourse, shoring up international agreements and institutions, and building regional cooperation. ; Beasley School of Law ; Law

President Biden faces many hurdles to constructing an effective international legal order on migration, not least of which is the absence of any such structure even prior to the dual challenges of the nationalist fallout of the Trump administration's rhetoric and policies and the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet the excesses of cruelty under Trump and the social instability resulting from the pandemic may have created political space for the Biden administration to lay the groundwork for a more comprehensive international structure that governs migration of all kinds. To that end, President Biden should cultivate normative authority in the migration arena by shifting the national discourse, shoring up international agreements and institutions, and building regional cooperation. ; Temple University. James E. Beasley School of Law

Refugees dominate contemporary headlines. The migration "emergencies" at the southern U.S. border and the southern borders of the European Union, as well as the "crisis" in the Bay of Bengal, have drawn global attention to the dire inadequacies of the international refugee regime, even as extended through various principles of non-refoulement, in governing modern migration flows. Political responses to these mass movements, from the Brexit vote to the election of Donald Trump and his executive order halting the refugee resettlement process in the United States, have threatened the viability of refugee law's protections. At the policy level, numerous high-level stakeholders have convened in different constellations, through the United Nations and other bodies; many commentators agree that these meetings have accomplished little thus far in terms of law reform. The refugee law paradigm consumes so much space in the imagination of international lawyers and policymakers that it is hard even to begin to conceptualize an alternate approach to global migration law. The fear of losing even the narrow ground staked out to protect refugees stiffens the resistance to change. Proposals for reform tend to follow the tired old path of suggesting ways in which the refugee definition can be expanded to include new groups of migrants (ranging from climate change refugees to anyone fleeing serious human rights abuses) rather than critically evaluating the structure of global migration law more broadly. ; Temple University. James E. Beasley School of Law

As immigrant communities and immigrants' rights advocates stare down the barrel of the Trump administration, anti-trafficking appears to be the sole immigration-related issue that might gain bipartisan traction. As has historically been the case with refugees and asylum seekers, Democrats and Republicans may find common ground in concern over the situation of trafficked individuals, especially those subject to sexual trafficking. Refugee advocates and scholars have long raised concerns about the impact of collaborations with strange bedfellows on law and policy-making. Janie Chuang's article, Giving as Governance? Philanthrocapitalism and Modern-Day Slavery Abolitionism, raises a similar set of worries around the anti-trafficking agenda, introducing a new character to the cast: the philanthrocapitalist. This piece presents a comprehensive and thoughtful set of concerns about the outsized and largely unaccountable role of a new generation of hyperengaged donors in shaping the anti-trafficking policy agenda. ; Temple University. James E. Beasley School of Law

This chapter grapples with the question of whether the International Criminal Court (ICC) should be conceptualised as a mechanism of transitional justice. Most theorists insist that transitional justice is either an inappropriate or an unrealistic goal for the Court. Some scholars have proposed that the Court might more accurately be theorised as seeking to achieve political goals through 'juridified diplomacy'. Others suggest that the Court should speak to a global, rather than local, audience. A third school of thought criticises international criminal law as insufficiently focused on the preferences of societies affected by mass violence. Going one step further, some theorists suggest that the Court should be set aside in favour of mechanisms that are more responsive to local preferences. Although the incorporation of the ICC into a locally owned transitional justice paradigm faces substantial challenges, this chapter draws on a theory of 'bespoke transitional justice' to suggest ways in which this knotty relationship might be better designed. ; Temple University. James E. Beasley School of Law