This dissertation examines two different perspectives on refugee status and state sovereignty respectively, and their bearings on refugee protection regimes. It reveals how dominant views of refugee status and state sovereignty have contributed to establishing restrictive refugee law and policy associated with various forms of external migration controls in the 21st century, and provides alternative views that may contribute to creating more “just” refugee protection regimes.   When refugees came to be regarded as those who fled from various push factors, such as persecution, distress and wars etc. (the persecution perspective), refugee policies were developed to provide “push factors-free” environments. These have not necessarily included surrogate political membership in the country of asylum (particularly, in developed countries).  Instead, developed countries have endorsed humanitarian assistance schemes that aim to provide aid to refugees in regions of their origin rather than providing settlement in their own territories. Moreover, in refugee law, the fear of “persecution”, as a push factor, has become a critical factor in determining refugee status. As a parallel, governments have developed various forms of deterrence policies based on a traditional concept of state sovereignty that allows states to implement migration polices at their own discretion.  Under these circumstances, refugees find it difficult to reach developed countries, and many of them end up being “contained” in refugee camps or other facilities in regions of their origin for a long time.   This dissertation calls into question these views of refugee status and state sovereignty, by providing alternative views: the protection perspective and an account of sovereignty that requires “responsible” border control. The protection perspective regards the ruptured protection relationship between a state and a citizen (thus, the lack of state protection) as the core element of refugee status. According to this view, refugee status is inextricably associated with systemic failure of the nation-states system (not merely with push factors) that is designed to secure political membership for each individual in the international state system. Therefore, as a matter of justice, the ultimate remedy for refugeehood is to provide surrogate political membership in the country of asylum or to restore original political membership in the home country. This project also proposes a concept of “responsible” border control, according to which, a state should exercise state sovereignty in relation to border control within institutional frameworks in which multiple authorities, including human rights norms, have been institutionalized. In this way, the dissertation aims to provide a more “just” framework in which to propose, adopt and implement refugee law and policy. From this alternative perspective, refugees are perceived as those who have right to political membership in the country of asylum rather than mere humanitarian assistance in refugee camps or somewhere else. / Graduate

"The rights of refugees and basic human rights are inextricably linked. Today's human rights abuse is tomorrow's refugee movements. Quite often, refugees' rights are curtailed by the same states that declare them in accordance with international and domestic instruments, only because they are non-nationals. While the foundation of refugee rights is the principle that all men and women have the right to belong to a society in which they are protected by the state, the respect to the principle of non-refoulement is at the core of being a refugee. Even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) proclaims rights to all, including refugees, states use international principles of sovereignty to shut their doors in front of asylum seekers. Furthermore, it is not easy to utilise international mechanisms of protection to instigate complaints against a potential host state, based on its arbitrary act to shut its doors. This is because one needs to seek remedies before authorities of the same country where she or he has been denied. In addition, international law has few precedents on the matter even assuming it was treated as an exception to the former rule. This situation puts refoulement victims in a dilemma. ... Since the first time when the wave of asylum seekers from Rwanda hit Tanzania in 1959, the flow of refugees continues. Tanzania has hosted refugees not only from its neighbouring countries, but also as far as from South Africa, Zimbabwe and Somalia. With an estimated number of 602,00 refugees population in 2004, Tanzania was among the top five refugee-hosting countries in the world. Tanzania ratified the international and regional refugee instrumetns, as well as other human rights instruments that may enhance the protection of refugees. Subsequently, Tanzania enacted appropriate legislation in order to make the refugee instruments enforceable within the national legal framework. The principle of non-refoulement is enshriend in all legal instruments of which Tanzania has an international, regional and national obligation to respect. However, in recent years a trend of sporadic incidents in which the principle of non-refoulement was not respected, has been observed. For instance, in October 2004, 68 Burundian asylum seekers were forced to return to Burundi following the orders of the local authorities. One of the most recent incidents occurred in January 2005 when the government returned two families of nine persons, despite assurances made to UNHCR that they would be granted refugee status. This research looks at the obligation of the Government of Tanzania to protect rights of asylum seekers and refugees. This is in line with the principle of non-refoulement as enshrined under international and regional instruments of which Tanzania ratified. It further explores the role of international communities in responsibility sharing (often referred to in the humanitarian community as 'burden sharing') as a way to ensure that all states respect the principle of non-refoulement. ... The first part of this research is the introduction, that is, the background to the problem, problem statement, scope of the research, hypotheses, objective of the research, literature review, research methodology, and outline of chapters. The second chapter looks at the right to non-refoulement under international, regional and national legal instruments. Chapter three deals with respect of the principle of non-refoulement in the refugee operation of Tanzania. Chapter four examines the relationship between the principle of non-refoulement and responsibility sharing with a view to reflect on the role of the international community in promoting refugee rights. The last chapter is the conclusion of the research and recommendations." -- Introduction. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2005. / Prepared under the supervision of Dr. Atangcho Nji Akonumbo at the Department of Social Science and Management, Catholic University [of Central Africa] in Yaounde, Cameroon / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

Idag befinner sig över 50 miljoner människor på flykt runt om i världen. De har behövt lämna sina hem till följd av väpnade konflikter, förföljelse eller andra grova människorättskränkningar. Flera av dem behöver få skydd i andra länder. Dock är det svårt för många att få det. Inte minst gäller det de skyddsbehövande som försöker finna en fristad inom EU. Unionens yttre gränser har de senaste åren stärkts och blivit allt mer ogenomträngliga för tredjelandsmedborgare på flykt. De riskerar därmed att hindras från att få tillgång till skydd. Syftet med denna studie är att lyfta den här frågan ur ett rättighetsperspektiv och att undersöka det nuvarande rättighetsskyddet för de människor som behöver få tillgång till skydd inom EU. Delar av gällande folkrätt och EU-rätt undersöks för att se vad dessa rättssystem idag innebär för skyddsbehövandes tillgång till skydd. Vidare granskas den gällande rätten utifrån ett moraliskt och kritiskt perspektiv som utgår ifrån principen om skyddsbehövandes rätt till rättigheter. Principen grundas på de mänskliga rättigheternas grundtanke om att alla människor har lika och inneboende rättigheter samt Hannah Arendts analys om att människor på flykt riskerar att hamna utan rättighetsskydd i praktiken. Studien visar att skyddsbehövande som kommit till EU:s fysiska gränser eller möter medlemsstaterna till havs under vissa omständigheter har, i alla fall rent formellt, rätt att få komma in i unionen och erhålla skydd där. Detta enligt vissa bestämmelser inom både folkrätten och EU-rätten. Studien visar dock att skyddsbehövande som fortfarande befinner sig i ursprungslandet riskerar att i praktiken hamna utan skydd av sina rättigheter under gällande rättssystem. Folkrättens skydd når inte riktigt dit på ett tydligt sätt och EU:s extraterritoriella gränskontroll, i form av regler kring visum och transportöransvar, riskerar att stänga flera av dem ute från det skydd som de har rätt till när de väl kommit fram till unionens territoriella gränser. Flera skyddsbehövande blir således nekade sin rätt till rättigheter idag. / Today, over 50 million people are forcibly displaced worldwide. They have been forced to leave their homes due to armed conflicts, persecution or other human rights violations. Numerous people need protection in another state. However, for many of them it is difficult to get that kind of protection. This is true for many refugees and other people in need of international protection who are trying to find refuge within the EU. The union has in recent years strengthened the external borders which has made it increasingly difficult for third-country nationals to get access to the EU. This is affecting people in need of protection and their access to asylum. The purpose of this thesis is to highlight this issue from a human rights perspective and study how the rights of those people who need access to protection within the EU are safeguarded today. Parts of international law and EU law are examined to see what different rules mean for people’s access to protection. The existing law is then reviewed from a moral and critical point of view that revolves around the understanding that people in need of international protection have a right to have rights. This theoretical approach is partly based on the core principle of human rights which emphasizes the equal and inherent rights of all people and partly based on Hannah Arendt’s thoughts about the fact that people who are forcibly displaced risk being denied their rights. The study shows that people in need of international protection who have arrived at the EU’s physical borders or who the member states encounter at sea have, under certain circumstances, a right to enter the union and receive protection there through parts of both international law and EU law. However, people in need of protection who are still in the country of origin risk being denied their rights. This is because of possible gaps in international law and certain EU rules concerning visas and carrier sanctions which can exclude them from the protection that they are entitled to once they have arrived to EU territory. Thus, many people in need of international protection are today being denied their right to have rights.

[pt] O presente estudo tem o objetivo de compreender o desenvolvimento do conceito de safe third country (terceiro país seguro) e suas consequências para a proteção internacional dos refugiados, a partir do princípio do non-refoulement (princípio da não devolução). Busca-se analisar de que forma esta ideia está sendo aplicada pelos Estados, através dos tratados internacionais com a finalidade de transferência de solicitantes de refúgio a terceiros países supostamente seguros. Além disso, a pesquisa analisa a jurisprudência dos Sistemas Interamericano e Europeu de Direitos Humanos sobre as devoluções de refugiados e migrantes, assim como o diálogo entre as cortes internacionais sobre este tema, especialmente à luz das especificidades regionais do continente americano. Portanto, o trabalho demonstra que as políticas dos países com base na noção de safe third country são mecanismos para transferir suas responsabilidades em relação ao refúgio e representam obstáculos para a garantia dos direitos humanos de refugiados. / [en] The present study aims to understand the development of the concept of safe third country and its consequences for the international protection of refugees, based on the principle of non-refoulement. It seeks to analyze how this idea has been applied by States, through international treaties with the purpose of transferring asylum seekers to supposedly safe third countries. Moreover, the research analyzes the jurisprudence of the Inter-American and European Human Rights Systems on the returns of refugees and migrants, as well as the dialogue between international courts on this topic, especially considering the regional specificities of the American continent. Therefore, this research demonstrates that countries policies based on the notion of safe third country are mechanisms to transfer their responsibilities in relation to refuge and represent obstacles to guaranteeing the human rights of refugees. / [es] El presente estudio tiene como objetivo comprender el desarrollo del concepto de safe third country (tercer país seguro) y sus consecuencias para la protección internacional de los refugiados, a partir del principio de non-refoulement (principio de no devolución). Se busca analizar cómo dicha idea está siendo aplicada por los Estados, a través de tratados internacionales con el propósito de trasladar solicitantes de refugio a terceros países supuestamente seguros. Además, la investigación analiza la jurisprudencia de los Sistemas Interamericano y Europeo de Derechos Humanos sobre las devoluciones de refugiados y migrantes, así como el diálogo entre cortes internacionales sobre este tema, especialmente a la luz de las especificidades regionales del continente americano. Por lo tanto, el trabajo demuestra que las políticas de los países basadas en la noción de safe third country son mecanismos para transferir sus responsabilidades con relación al refugio y representan obstáculos para garantizar los derechos humanos de los refugiados.