The legal position of asylum seekers in South African social security system is more nuanced as a result of their transitional stay or status in the country. Asylum seekers may often be present in South Africa for a quite a long time but their social security entitlement is more restricted, and similar to that of temporary residents. For example, asylum seekers’ social security position is completely different from that of refugees. Refugees enjoy the same social security treatment similarly to South African citizens and permanent residents. Refugees qualify for the constitutionally entrenched right to have access to social security, including appropriate social assistance. Refugees also qualify for other socio-economic rights contained in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. The exclusion of asylum seekers occurs despite the fact they are one of the vulnerable groups of noncitizens. Such exclusion forces asylum seekers to live under precarious conditions. It is fundamentally accepted that the drafters of the Constitution included the right to have access to social security, in order to ensure that everyone, irrespective of nationality and citizenship enjoys an acceptable standard of living. It is also fundamentally accepted that the right to have access to social security contained in section 27(1)(c) is limited by section 27(2) of the Constitution. Section 27(2) requires the State to take reasonable legislative measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of the right to have access to social security. The South African courts had on several occasions confirmed that the content of section 27(1)(c) is limited by section 27(2) of the Constitution and that the state cannot implement the right to have access to social security on demand. It had also been confirmed that the right to have access to social security is enforceable. This means the beneficiaries of this right may seek recourse from the courts of law when they are not satisfied about the progress relating to the implementation of the programmes relevant to the right to have access to social security. The right to have access to social security is also limited by section 36(1) of the Constitution. In the international arena, the right to have access to social security is recognised as the entitlement of everyone, but in some instances differential treatment can be made by the states. Such differential treatment should serve the legitimate state objective and all noncitizens should be treated equally.

Univ., Diss.--Eichstätt, 2001.

This thesis examines the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States from the perspective of Canada's obligations vis-a-vis asylum seekers under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Safe Third Country Agreement requires asylum seekers to lodge their refugee claims in the first country of arrival, as between Canada and the United States. Asylum seekers on the United States side of the border who are seeking to enter Canada for the purpose of claiming refugee status will be deflected to the United States to lodge their claims there. By deflecting asylum seekers in this manner, Canada effectively conscripts the United States to carry out its obligations under the Charter to furnish procedural and substantive protections to asylum seekers. This thesis examines certain features of the United States asylum system to which asylum seekers deflected under the Safe Third Country Agreement would be subjected, in order to determine whether, according to relevant Charter jurisprudence, deflection constitutes a deprivation of security of the person under section 7 of the Charter and whether such deprivation can be justified under section 1.

No description available.

No description available.

There is a crisis of asylum in Africa. In response to large and protracted refugee populations, declining donor assistance and a range of related security concerns, a significant number of African states have limited the asylum they offer to refugees. Some states have closed their borders to new arrivals and pursued early repatriations. Many other states have contained refugees in isolated and insecure camps. Given the scale of this crisis, the global pressures on asylum, and the disproportionate share of the global refugee burden borne by Africa, understanding the responses of African states poses an important challenge. A critical examination of the factors influencing the refugee policies of African states is, however, strikingly absent from the scholarly literature. The objective of this thesis is to address this gap by examining the responses of Kenya, Tanzania and Guinea to the arrival and prolonged presence of significant refugee populations. Drawing on field research, this thesis argues that the asylum policies of the three cases are the result of factors both related to the presence of refugees, such as burden sharing and security concerns, and unrelated to the presence of refugees, such as foreign policy priorities, democratization, economic liberalization and the sense of vulnerability experienced by many regimes in Africa. Drawing on a political history of the post-colonial African state, this thesis argues for an approach that recognizes the politics of asylum in Africa. Such an approach highlights the importance of incorporating the host state into any examination of asylum in Africa and the predominant role that broader political factors play in the formulation of asylum policies. This is not to suggest that factors such as the protracted nature of refugee populations, levels of burden sharing and security concerns are irrelevant to the study of asylum in Africa. Instead, the thesis argues that such factors are very relevant, but need to be understood in a more critical way, mindful of the political context within which asylum policies are formulated. This approach leads to important lessons not only for the study of asylum in Africa, but also for the future of the refugee protection regime in Africa.

Thesis (LL.M.). / Written for the Dept. of Law. Title from title page of PDF (viewed 2008/05/13). Includes bibliographical references.

Written for the Institute of Comparative Law. Title from title page of PDF (viewed 2010/04/20). Includes bibliographical references.

With a number of international and intranational conflicts still unresolved and new ones arising, refugees will continue to be in need of protection. South Africa, known for its tolerant constitution, is likely to receive more asylum seekers in the future. This research seeks to investigate the experiences of refugees in Port Elizabeth, South Africa, as reported by practitioners assisting refugees in the area. The explorative study aims at examining the issues refugees commonly find challenging, describing positive and negative developments in the experience of refugees and discussing how their experience can be improved. An analysis of basic human needs theory serves as a framework for the study. The researcher conducted face-to-face interviews with the participants. The analysis of the data gathered emphasised the challenges refugees face in seeking to satisfy their needs. The main themes that were identified from the data include: a lack of knowledge and awareness about refugee issues and a misconceptions regarding different groups of migrants; current socioeconomic challenges in South Africa; xenophobia; refugees as a heterogeneous group; and refugee access to services. The challenges faced by refugees in Port Elizabeth were identified as access to justice and correct documentation, access to healthcare, housing and education, as well as xenophobia, police protection and crime. Recommendations were made regarding the improvement of the refugees’ experience, including educating public sector employees and government officials about refugee rights, sensitising communities about refugee issues, offering refugees language courses and providing them with an induction into their rights and employing translators in health clinics to improve access to healthcare.

The European refugee problem between 1933 and 1947 posed serious difficulties for the nations of asylum. Despite the trend towards immigration restriction, France and the United States remained the foremost countries of refuge and resettlement during the interwar years. The overwhelming numbers of refugees, however, tested their tradition of asylum, and both nations failed that tradition from the humanitarian point of view. / During the 1930's, the French harried the Americans for refusing to aid and resettle the refugees from France, complicating the diplomatic relations between the two countries. Disagreements over the proper handling of refugee affairs continued throughout the war years. After the war, the Americans and the French concluded that their disagreements postponed a successful solution to the refugee problem, and by 1947 they had embarked on a more cooperative refugee relationship through the auspices of the United Nations.