AbstractMany of the refugees around the world today are children. Some of these children are travelling alone without anyone looking after them. These children flee from their countries to save their lives and as they are children they need special care and protection. This thesis has investigated the protection given to unaccompanied children during the asylum process in the two key instruments in the area: the Convention of the Rights of the Child and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The Refugee Convention does not contain any procedural rights and does not specifically acknowledge children, even though they are included in the scope of the Convention. On the other hand, the Convention of the Rights of the Child includes some procedural rights, mainly the right of the child to be heard (article 12). But the convention provides no guidance when it comes to determining the refugee status for children.The purpose of this thesis is to look into the relationship between these two conventions and present current rights that occur when an unaccompanied child seeks asylum. The rights that are stated were thereafter derived from the different conventions so that the protection in them could be analyzed.In this thesis, it has been shown that the Convention of the Rights of the child contains important rights and protection for unaccompanied children during the asylum proceedings. The problem seems to be that the state parties do not comply with the rights in the convention. The conclusion of the thesis is that it is better to use the rights and protection that are already in place, meaning the Convention of the Rights of the Child, than creating an entirely new instrument. A lot of the problems that we have today may be solved with the third optional protocol of the Convention of the Rights of the child, since its purpose is to realize the rights that are stated in the convention.

The topic of asylum seekers committing crimes in their host countries has re- ceived plenty of attention in Swedish media and within the political sphere. Some have expressed that committing crimes in Sweden should lead to an asylum seeker’s application being automatically rejected. Currently Swedish law permits the exclusion of asylum seekers who have committed certain crimes in in Sweden, which leads to the asylum seeker not receiving a residence permit. The thesis aims to establish whether it is legally possible to make exclusion easier and how excluded asylum seekers should be dealt with when they cannot be deported. The analysis uses both the traditional legal method and the com- parative method. The latter method aims to shed light on the similarities and differences between the implementation of the relevant articles in the Qualifi- cation and Return Directives in different member states of the European Union. The thesis particularly focuses on Finland due to its administrative law being very similar to that of Sweden. The results are used to highlight discre- pancies in the implementation of the directives and to point out how Swedish legal practitioners may act in order to be able to exclude more asylum seekers who have committed crimes in Sweden. The essay finds that courts rarely deve- lop their arguments as to why a certain crime motivates exclusion, particularly those crimes concerning refugees. Legal practitioners should therefore clarify when and how they implement the exclusion articles. Additionally, legal practit- ioners tend to exclude asylum seekers eligible for subsidiary protection based on court judgements whereas the law allows exclusion at an earlier stage. The thesis also finds that legal practitioners should look towards case law from ot- her EU member states when determining whether or not a crime is serious. The thesis ultimately finds that Swedish legislation cannot be made more strict if it is to be in accordance with the Qualification Directive. Finally, alternatives to Sweden’s current system of issuing temporary residence permits to foreigners who cannot be deported due to the principle of non-refoulement are also asses- sed. The thesis concludes that current Swedish legislation is generous in terms of issuing residence permits and that the Qualification Directive allows for Sweden to take other measures in order to restrict excluded foreigners’ rights.

<p>Diplomatiska försäkringars legalitet behandlas utifrån gällande internationell och nationell rätt.</p>

Diplomatiska försäkringars legalitet behandlas utifrån gällande internationell och nationell rätt.

This essay aim to concern the regulations regarding asylum, foremost in the European Union and partly in an international context. After having a course about human rights in a European perspective I decided that I wanted to know more about the right to asylum, and therefore the regulations regarding asylum in a European judicial context as well as in an international approach. The three main question formulations are: 1. How are the overall EU legal frameworks as regards asylum law constructed? 2. What does the international principle of Non-Refoulement (not sending back refugees who risks being subject to inhuman punishment) implicate, which is sometimes referred to within asylum law at a EU level? 3. What is the situation as things stand in the field of asylum and migration? The purpose is to carry out an investigation of the right to asylum, as it is applicable in the judicial field. Furthermore, the aim is to carry out a comprehensive investigation of right regarding asylum order to further limiting the investigation somewhat with relevant regulations as well as legal principles in the area. Forward the purpose is to, partially study how the major regulations in the area of asylum law are able to be subject for comparison, but also to see how they can correlate. The aim is therefore to highlight these general, but crucial regulations that exists within the field of asylum mainly at a EU level and a little lesser internationally, in order to carry out an analytical comparison between them. The method for the essay entails an interpretation of the regulations by means of grounds of legal dogma and thereinafter with a comparative method. The result of the essay reveals that the European regulations regarding asylum is immensely inclusive containing a broad spectrum with everything from the right to asylum, criterias and mechanisms for administration of asylum applications, the best interest of the child to the rights which are destined to accrue to those who seeks asylum. The result also demonstrates that the international regulations as well as the European regulations provides for the rights which are destined to accrue to those who seeks asylum. The result also demonstrates that the international principle of Non Refoulement fully aim to protect those in need of protection of their lives or freedom to return to areas where this can be adventured. Likewise the result demonstrates that the regulations in these area both can be compared as well as they can be placed in relation to each other because of their correlation. The analysis of the essay, as well as its conclusion directs that the regulations are able to be put in a tighter context than it at first seems like. Additionally the essay detects that the European regulations, particularly those in stages of revise would be very helped by more influence from the international regulations, for example The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

<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.