The essence of this study is to clarify the position of the Islamic tradition with regard to refugees based on the main Islamic Sunni sources and to examine the interface between this tradition and the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees. This study is the first that carries such examination since the endorsement of the 1951 Convention. This study is composed of four chapters with an introduction and a conclusion. The first chapter explains the concept of jiwar (protection), which was a governing custom in the Arabs' life in the jahiliyya, while the second chapter traces the concept of jiwar after the advent of Islam in Mecca. The purpose of the two chapters is to establish how the Prophet and his followers dealt with the jiwar custom when they were oppressed and sought jiwar the non-Muslims and also when they were able to offer jiwar to fleeing non-Muslims in Medina. The third chapter deals mainly with aman (safe conduct) in the Islamic tradition. It also defines several relevant terms, such as dar al-harb, dar al-Islam, mustajir, muhajir, musta'min and dhimmi, in order to put the concept of aman in context. Due to its particular significance, the study undertakes an extensive examination of the different interpretations of the verse (9:6) which is considered the cornerstone in legalising, by analogy, the concept of refuge in the Qur'an. The fourth and final chapter comprises a comparison between the Islamic tradition relating to the laws of aman and the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees. The conclusion however, highlights the close similarities between the Islamic tradition and the Geneva Convention and therefore recommends the Arab and Islamic governments to endorse the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees. And if necessary to make reservations concerning certain Articles taking account of the internal circumstances of each state.

No description available.

No description available.

Depuis plusieurs années, des règles émergent en matière d'entrée, de séjour et d'éloignement dans l'ordre juridique de l'Union européenne. En marge des traités, avec les accords de Schengen, des règles ont été conçues afin de permettre la réalisation de la libre circulation. Alors que les politiques nationales s'orientaient vers des politiques d'immigration choisie, les disparités nationales laissaient émerger le phénomène d'immigration shopping. Or, l'intervention de l'Union européenne était limitée par le principe d'attribution des compétences. Le Traité d'Amsterdam a marqué un tournant à travers la création de l'espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice en attribuant une compétence partagée en matière d'immigration. Avec le Traité de Lisbonne, ce cadre constitutionnel offert par le Traité Amsterdam est réaffirmé et consolidé. Trente ans après l'accord de Schengen, les règles adoptées constituent désormais un ensemble, organisé et structuré.L'étude de ce système normatif, le droit européen des étrangers, permet de caractériser la politique d'immigration, au-delà du discours politique. Structurée autour du contrôle des flux migratoires et de la maitrise de l'immigration, il apparait que celle-ci demeure restrictive et sécuritaire. Néanmoins, le respect des droits fondamentaux, sous le contrôle de la Cour de justice, et les relations étroites avec la politique d'asile et la libre circulation des citoyens permettent d'atténuer ce régime de police. Toutefois, les ambiguïtés qui en résultent constituent un frein au développement d'une politique d'immigration. L'immigration familiale devrait être exclusivement organisée par la politique d'immigration. Et les choix en matière d'asile ne devraient pas reposer sur des préoccupations migratoires. / For several years, rules have been emerging regarding entry, residence and expulsion in the legal order of the European Union. On the sidelines of the treaties with the Schengen Agreement, rules have been created to enable the realization of free movement. While national policies were oriented towards selective immigration policies, national disparities allowed the phenomenon of “immigration shopping” to emerge. But the intervention of the European Union was limited by the principle of conferral of competences. The Amsterdam Treaty was a turning point in the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice by giving a competence shared on immigration legislation. With the Lisbon Treaty, the constitutional framework provided by the Amsterdam Treaty is reaffirmed and consolidated. Thirty years after the Schengen Agreement, the rules adopted are now a whole, organized and structured.The study of this normative system, the European Law on Foreign Nationals, can characterize immigration policy, beyond political discourse. Structured around the control of migratory flows and the mastery of immigration, it appears that it remains restrictive and safe. Nevertheless, respect for fundamental rights, under the control of the Court of Justice, and close relationships with the asylum policy and the free movement of citizens can mitigate this police regime. However, the resulting ambiguities remain an obstacle to the development of immigration policy. Family immigration should be organized exclusively by the immigration policy. And choices about asylum should not be based on migration concerns.