<p>The purpose of this study has been to investigate the prospects for identifying and prosecuting individuals suspected of war crimes, within the process of exclusion from refugee status under article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and using subsequent mechanisms for extradition or prosecution in international criminal law. A number of principles within human rights law and public international law have been advocated by the UNCHR and several human rights NGOs as necessary for a thorough application of the exclusion clauses; one that takes individual responsibility into account and upholds the aims and purposes of the exclusion clauses. There is a discussion as to whether specialised or accelerated exclusion procedures are justified for reasons of security and efficiency, or if they put the rights of the individual at risk and limit the opportunities for gathering information to support investigation and prosecution of the crime in question. Apart from the instruments of asylum law and procedure that have emerged within the EU harmonisation process, there are no general, binding rules on the procedural aspects of the exclusion clauses. One principle that regulates the consequences for the individual of exclusion from refugee status and decisions on extradition is, however, the principle of <em>non-refoulement</em>. Although partly contested in state practice, there is widespread consensus in international jurisprudence and doctrine that the principle, following its status as a <em>jus cogens</em> rule, prohibits every state from returning any individual to a territory where he or she may face torture or other cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment, irrespective of any security risks that the individual may pose to the custodial state.</p><p>Extradition or prosecution of individuals suspected of crimes under article 1F(a), based on universal jurisdiction and the principle of <em>aut dedere aut judicare</em>, has gained increased support from international conventions, such as the 1948 Convention on Genocide and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The principles are widely upheld by human rights NGOs, and tendencies in practice and policy among the member states of the EU and the parties to the Rome Statute point towards the development of a customary rule of universal jurisdiction among these states. Continuing resistance to the Rome Statute and to universal jurisdiction among influential states such as the USA, Russia, China and India nevertheless serves to exclude these states from being bound by such an emerging customary rule of universal jurisdiction. There are compelling arguments as to why breaches of <em>jus cogens</em>-rules should include or give rise to <em>erga omnes</em> rights or obligations for all states to exercise universal jurisdiction over such breaches. Without the support of major states it is, however, difficult to establish the existence of the general state acceptance of universal jurisdiction as is required for the principle to attain <em>jus cogens</em>-status and become universally applicable, regardless of state consent. Future prospects for adequate and efficient identification and prosecution of suspected war criminals depend on the correct and thorough application of the exclusion clauses, in combination with the development of existing rules of universal jurisdiction, and not least on the willingness and ability of states to overcome the political, economic and institutional obstacles that presently may prevent many states from extraditing or prosecuting individuals who fall within the scope of article 1F(a) of the exclusion clauses.</p>

The purpose of this study has been to investigate the prospects for identifying and prosecuting individuals suspected of war crimes, within the process of exclusion from refugee status under article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and using subsequent mechanisms for extradition or prosecution in international criminal law. A number of principles within human rights law and public international law have been advocated by the UNCHR and several human rights NGOs as necessary for a thorough application of the exclusion clauses; one that takes individual responsibility into account and upholds the aims and purposes of the exclusion clauses. There is a discussion as to whether specialised or accelerated exclusion procedures are justified for reasons of security and efficiency, or if they put the rights of the individual at risk and limit the opportunities for gathering information to support investigation and prosecution of the crime in question. Apart from the instruments of asylum law and procedure that have emerged within the EU harmonisation process, there are no general, binding rules on the procedural aspects of the exclusion clauses. One principle that regulates the consequences for the individual of exclusion from refugee status and decisions on extradition is, however, the principle of non-refoulement. Although partly contested in state practice, there is widespread consensus in international jurisprudence and doctrine that the principle, following its status as a jus cogens rule, prohibits every state from returning any individual to a territory where he or she may face torture or other cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment, irrespective of any security risks that the individual may pose to the custodial state. Extradition or prosecution of individuals suspected of crimes under article 1F(a), based on universal jurisdiction and the principle of aut dedere aut judicare, has gained increased support from international conventions, such as the 1948 Convention on Genocide and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The principles are widely upheld by human rights NGOs, and tendencies in practice and policy among the member states of the EU and the parties to the Rome Statute point towards the development of a customary rule of universal jurisdiction among these states. Continuing resistance to the Rome Statute and to universal jurisdiction among influential states such as the USA, Russia, China and India nevertheless serves to exclude these states from being bound by such an emerging customary rule of universal jurisdiction. There are compelling arguments as to why breaches of jus cogens-rules should include or give rise to erga omnes rights or obligations for all states to exercise universal jurisdiction over such breaches. Without the support of major states it is, however, difficult to establish the existence of the general state acceptance of universal jurisdiction as is required for the principle to attain jus cogens-status and become universally applicable, regardless of state consent. Future prospects for adequate and efficient identification and prosecution of suspected war criminals depend on the correct and thorough application of the exclusion clauses, in combination with the development of existing rules of universal jurisdiction, and not least on the willingness and ability of states to overcome the political, economic and institutional obstacles that presently may prevent many states from extraditing or prosecuting individuals who fall within the scope of article 1F(a) of the exclusion clauses.

No description available.

À une époque où l'immigration internationale est de plus en plus difficile et sélective, le statut de réfugié constitue un bien public précieux qui permet à certains non-citoyens l'accès et l'appartenance au pays hôte. Reposant sur le jugement discrétionnaire du décideur, le statut de réfugié n’est accordé qu’aux demandeurs qui établissent une crainte bien fondée de persécution en cas de retour dans leur pays d'origine. Au Canada, le plus important tribunal administratif indépendant, la Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada (CISR), est chargé d’entendre les demandeurs d'asile et de rendre des décisions de statut de réfugié. Cette thèse cherche à comprendre les disparités dans le taux d’octroi du statut de réfugié entre les décideurs de la CISR qui sont politiquement nommés. Au regard du manque de recherches empiriques sur la manière avec laquelle le Canada alloue les possibilités d’entrée et le statut juridique pour les non-citoyens, il était nécessaire de lever le voile sur le fonctionnement de l’administration sur cette question. En explorant la prise de décision relative aux réfugiés à partir d'une perspective de Street Level Bureaucracy Theory (SLBT) et une méthodologie ethnographique qui combine l'observation directe, les entretiens semi-structurés et l'analyse de documents, l'étude a d'abord cherché à comprendre si la variation dans le taux d’octroi du statut était le résultat de différences dans les pratiques et le raisonnement discrétionnaires du décideur et ensuite à retracer les facteurs organisationnels qui alimentent les différences. Dans la lignée des travaux de SLBT qui documentent la façon dont la situation de travail structure la discrétion et l’importance des perceptions individuelles dans la prise de décision, cette étude met en exergue les différences de fond parmi les décideurs concernant les routines de travail, la conception des demandeurs d’asile, et la meilleure façon de mener leur travail. L’analyse montre comment les décideurs appliquent différentes approches lors des audiences, allant de l’interrogatoire rigide à l’entrevue plus flexible. En dépit des contraintes organisationnelles qui pèsent sur les décideurs pour accroître la cohérence et l’efficacité, l’importance de l’évaluation de la crédibilité ainsi que l’invisibilité de l’espace de décision laissent suffisamment de marge pour l’exercice d’un pouvoir discrétionnaire. Même dans les environnements comme les tribunaux administratifs où la surabondance des règles limite fortement la discrétion, la prise de décision est loin d’être synonyme d’adhésion aux principes de neutralité et hiérarchie. La discrétion est plutôt imbriquée dans le contexte de routines d'interaction, de la situation de travail, de l’adhésion aux règles et du droit. Même dans les organisations qui institutionnalisent et uniformisent la formation et communiquent de façon claire leurs demandes aux décideurs, le caractère discrétionnaire de la décision est par la nature difficile, voire impossible, à contrôler et discipliner. Lorsqu'ils sont confrontés à l'ambiguïté des objectifs et aux exigences qui s’opposent à leur pouvoir discrétionnaire, les décideurs réinterprètent la définition de leur travail et banalisent leurs pratiques. Ils formulent une routine de rencontre qui est acceptable sur le plan organisationnel pour évaluer les demandeurs face à eux. Cette thèse montre comment les demandeurs, leurs témoignages et leurs preuves sont traités d’une manière inégale et comment ces traitements se répercutent sur la décision des réfugiés. / In an era where international immigration is increasingly difficult and selective, refugee status constitutes a valuable public good that enables some non-citizens access and membership to the host country. Based on the discretionary judgment of the decision-maker, refugee status is only granted to claimants who establish well-founded fear of persecution if returned to their home country. Canada’s largest independent administrative tribunal, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), is charged to hear refugee claimants and make refugee status determinations. This dissertation investigates why significant disparities exist among IRB’s politically appointed decision-makers’ refugee status grant rates. As little was known about the concrete ways Canada allocates opportunities for entry and legal status for non-citizens, lifting the blanket of administration was necessary. By exploring refugee decision-making from a Street Level Bureaucracy Theory (SLBT) perspective, and an ethnographic methodology that combined direct observation, semi-structured interviews and document analysis, the study sought first to understand whether the variation in grant rates were a result of differences in decision-makers’ discretionary practices and reasoning and second to trace the organizational factors that foster variation. In line with previous scholarship on SLBT that document how the work situation structure discretion and how individual views play in decision-making; this study demonstrates substantive differences among decision-makers in terms of their work routines, conceptions of refugee claimants and the best way to conduct their work. The analysis illustrates how decision-makers apply not a singular but a variety of approaches to the refugee hearing, ranging from rigid interrogation to the more resilient interview style. Despite clear organizational constraints on decision-makers that target to increase consistency and efficiency of refugee determinations, the significance of credibility-assessment and the invisibility of the decision-making space leave ample room for discretionary behavior. Even in rule-saturated environments like administrative tribunals which extensively regulate discretion; decision-making hardly means neutral and hierarchical rule adherence. Instead discretion is nested within the context of interaction routines, work situation, rule adherence and law. It is inherently difficult if not improbable to control and discipline discretionary decision-making even in organizations that institutionalize and standardize training and communicate their demands clearly to decision-makers. When faced with goal ambiguity and with demands that they consider run against their discretionary authority, decision-makers reinterpret their job definition and routinize their practices. They formulate an encounter routine that is organizationally acceptable to assess the people in front of them. This dissertation illustrates how unevenly the claimants, their testimony and evidence are treated and how these treatments are reflected on the refugee decision.

Eritrean refugees are compelled to flee their country mainly to avoid forced conscription into indefinite military service, arbitrary arrest and detention for prolonged periods without trial. The majority of Eritrean refugees are young people, who leave their country in search of a better life and sources of livelihoods. The mass migration of Eritrean refugees has started to have adverse effects on the country’s socio-economic landscape. The main destination and country of refuge for the majority of Eritrean refugees is Ethiopia. Although no serious violations of human rights have been reported among Eritrean refugees living in Ethiopia, it a well-known fact that the Ethiopian Government has not fully extended the internationally accepted rights of those who have been forced to flee their own states, to refugees. For example, freedom of movement for refugees is restricted, which is obviously compounded by the encampment policy, which requires that all refugees should be confined to designated refugee camps. This situation seriously undermines the UNHCR’s efforts to enhance refugees’ self-reliance, independence, and chances of local integration. There has not been much research undertaken regarding the Ethiopian Government’s legal framework on refugees and its impact on the protection of the rights of refugees. In 2014, Ethiopia hosted the largest number of refugees in Africa. This phenomenon was largely attributed to the Ethiopian Government’s ‘open door’ policy towards refugees. The present study is an attempt to critically examine Ethiopian refugee law and determine the extent to which the national laws protect the rights of refugees. Although the study is limited in scope to the situation of Eritrean refugees, the principles and standards of treatment discussed apply to all refugees living in Ethiopia. / Public, Constitutional and International Law / LL. M.

With the increase in unaccompanied children in 2015, it has become common to discuss the legal status of unaccompanied children. By the Swedish law persons under the age of 18 are considered to be minors and therefore have no ability to make decisions in personal matters with legally binding effects. A childs case does not always require the same seriousness as adult cases to be able to obtain a residence permit. This leads to at different asylum process for unaccompanied children who lack guardians upon arriving to Sweden. Various assessments are made for unaccompanied children that adults do not need to undergo for a residence permit. Through the legal dogmatic method, an analysis and report has been made in relation to the EU law, current Swedish laws and international commitments that affect unaccompanied childrens rights within Swedish legislation. The courts way of assessing grounds for protection, as well as how these are tried has been analyzed. The concept of unaccompanied children has been defined, but the focus on their rights in Sweden has also been reported. / I samband med ökningen av ensamkommande barn under år 2015 har det blivit ofta förekommande att diskutera ensamkommande barns rättsliga ställning. Personer som är under 18 år betraktas enligt svensk rätt som omyndiga och har därför ingen förmåga att med rättslig bindande verkan fatta beslut i personliga angelägenheter. Ett barns ärende behöver inte alltid ha samma allvar och tyngd som krävs för att vuxna personer ska kunna få uppehållstillstånd vilket leder till en annorlunda asylprocess för ensamkommande barn som saknad vårdnadshavare vid ankomsten till Sverige. Det görs olika bedömningar för ensamkommande barn som vuxna inte behöver genomgå för uppehållstillstånd. Genom den rättsdogmatiska metoden har det gjorts en analys och redogörelse i relation till EU-rätten, gällande svenska lagar och internationella åtaganden som påverkar ensamkommande barns rättigheter inom den svenska lagstiftningen. Domstolarnas sätt att bedöma skyddsgrunder samt hur dessa prövas inför domstolar har bedömts och analyserats. Begreppet ensamkommande barn har definierats men även fokus på deras rättigheter i Sverige har redogjorts.