Research and publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Scholarship and research submitted to the Forced Migration Research Archive.
Browse
Recent Submissions
Item Open Access Item Open Access Item Open Access The Internal Protection Alternative Inquiry and Human Rights Considerations – Irrelevant or Indispensable?(2015-02) Ní Ghráinne, BrídThe Internal Protection Alternative (IPA) stems from the premise that if there is a safe place within a refugee applicant’s country of origin where he or she can relocate, the refugee definition is not engaged. Today, it is an inherent part of refugee status determinations in most states parties of the 1951 Convention, and has been incorporated into Article 8 of the 2011 Recast EC Qualification Directive. The main thrust of the IPA test across various jurisdictions is that it must be reasonable, or put another way, it must not be unduly harsh. The focus of this article, however, will be on the issue upon which states have diverged widely in their jurisprudence - the relevance and applicable standard of human rights considerations in determining the existence of an IPA. First, this article examines the position advocated by UNHCR that protection of basic civil, political, and socio-economic rights is a core requirement of the IPA. Considering that those who return to their country and are forced to relocate to obtain protection are, in effect, internally displaced persons, this article then discusses the relevance of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement to the IPA inquiry. Thirdly, this article analyses the approach put forward by the Michigan Guidelines on the Internal Protection Alternative and approved in New Zealand, and, fourthly, it examines the approach established in the jurisprudence of England and Wales. This article argues that in the context of the IPA inquiry human rights considerations must be taken into account, insofar as protection of human rights forms an ingredient of effective protection from the persecution feared. In addition, human rights conditions in the IPA may be of relevance when considering the possibility of indirect refoulement . Aside from these two instances, expulsion to an IPA where human rights standards are generally low is outside of the scope of the Refugee Convention. Complementary protection, however, may preclude expulsion in this regard and it is by taking such an approach to the IPA inquiry that the distinction between refugee and humanitarian claims may be appropriately maintained.Item Open Access The UNHCR’s Involvement with IDPs – ‘Protection of that Country’ for the Purposes of Precluding Refugee Status?(2014-10-31) Ní Ghráinne, BrídThe absence of protection from persecution is a precondition to qualifying as a refugee. However, protection is not solely provided by states and may stem from non-state actors (NSAs) such as international organizations. This article will examine whether such protection may be substituted for ‘protection of that country’ and, if so, under what circumstances, and whether it may thus preclude the application of the Refugee Convention. The focus will be on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees owing to its significant role in the protection of Internally Displaced Persons, persons who often go on to make a refugee claim upon fleeing the state. The article will first put forward an interpretation of the term ‘protection of that country’, by examining the refugee definition, in particular the meaning of the terms ‘that country’ and ‘protection’; by analysing relevant principles of EU law; and by outlining how these concepts have been elaborated by relevant jurisprudence on international organizations. The second half of the article will analyse the legal basis and scope of UNHCR’s mandate with IDPs, and will conclude by illustrating the reasons why the activities of UNHCR cannot constitute ‘protection of that country’ for the purposes of precluding the application of the refugee definition.Item Open Access Many Rivers to Cross: The Recognition of LGBTQI Asylum in the UK(2018-06-27) Dustin, MoiraThe Refugee Convention was not written with the persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, and intersex (LGBTQI) people in mind. This article shows the dilemmas this creates for LGBTQI asylum seekers and their advocates when establishing the case for protection. It uses the United Kingdom (UK) experience as an example and brings the literature on this topic up to date with reference to recent cases with implications for LGBTQI applicants. While there has been a welcome shift to recognize that LGBTQI persecution is a legitimate basis for asylum, contradictions and tensions between United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, European, and UK guidelines and instruments, as well as between UK policy and practice, have resulted in a lack of consistency and fairness in the treatment of LGBTQI asylum seekers. The article identifies three specific areas of concern and goes on to show what happens when they converge, using a case that exemplifies some of the problems – AR (AP), against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2017] CSIH 52. It concludes by suggesting a shift in the focus of questioning, from the identity of the asylum seeker to the persecution in the country of origin, as a possible basis for fairer treatment of LGBTQI asylum claims.Item Open Access The Relationship between Human Rights and Refugee Protection: An Empirical Analysis(2021-02-01) Abdelaaty, LamisWhat is the relationship between a government’s respect for the rights of its own citizens and that government’s regard for refugee rights? On one hand, we may expect that a country with high human rights standards will also offer a higher quality of asylum. Domestic laws that protect citizens’ rights may be extended to refugees, for example. On the other hand, there are reasons to theorize that a country with high human rights standards may offer a lower quality of asylum. For instance, governments may claim that protecting citizens’ wellbeing necessitates the rejection of refugees. To explore these questions, I analyse a global dataset drawn from reports by the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. I find that the relationship between citizens’ rights and refugee rights is modified by economic conditions and the size of the refugee population. Moreover, some domestic rights (like freedom of movement and labor rights) may increase protections for refugees, while others (like rule of law) may decrease them. Refugees have been largely absent from the literature on the politics of human rights. By systematically examining the relationship between human and refugee rights worldwide, this paper fills an important gap in the scholarly and policy literature.Item Open Access Rivalry, Ethnicity, and Asylum Admissions Worldwide(International Interactions, 2020-11-08) Abdelaaty, LamisWhy do countries welcome some refugees and treat others poorly? Existing explanations suggest that the assistance refugees receive is a reflection of countries’ wealth or compassion. However, statistical analysis of a global dataset on asylum admissions shows that states’ approaches to refugees are shaped by foreign policy and ethnic politics. States admit refugees from adversaries in order to weaken those regimes, but they are reluctant to accept refugees from friendly states. At the same time, policymakers favor refugee groups who share their ethnic identity. Aside from addressing a puzzling real-world phenomenon, this article adds insights to the literature on the politics of migration and asylum.Item Open Access Refugees and Guesthood in Turkey(2021-09) Abdelaaty, LamisEven as Turkey took in over three million Syrians at great expense, Turkish officials were referring to these individuals as guests rather than refugees. Despite significant legal developments in the country, and particularly the formalization of a temporary protection regime, this choice of labels reveals the influence of underlying political trends on Turkish policy-making regarding refugees. This paper compares Turkey’s reactions to the Syrian inflow with its responses to previous refugee groups, including Iraqis in 1988, Bosnians in 1992, Kosovars in 1998, and Chechens starting 1999. In so doing, it demonstrates that the refusal to designate certain populations as asylum-seekers or refugees enables Turkey to opt in or out of what might otherwise appear to be generally-applicable, national-level policies. Through these strategic semantics, policymakers retain a freedom to maneuver in response to international and domestic political incentives.