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.

Denna studie undersöker hur non-refoulement-principen upprätthålls inom internationell asylrätt jämfört med det gemensamma europeiska asylsystemet (CEAS) och närmare bestämt Asylprocedurdirektivet. Via en redogörelse för non-refoulement-principens position i internationell asylrätt och dess eventuella status som jus cogens har jag sedan analyserat i vilken utsträckning principen upprätthålls i Asylprocedurdirektivet. Genom att granska olika bestämmelser i Asylprocedurdirektivet samt tittat på rättigheter i asylprocessen har jag i mina slutsatser kommit fram till att non-refoulement-principen inte respekteras fullständigt i Asylprocedurdirektivet. Begränsade rättigheter under asylprocessen och bestämmelser om exempelvis ”säkra länder” riskerar att resultera i refoulement för den enskilde asylsökande. / This essay examines how the principle of non-refoulement is upheld within the international asylum law compared to the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and more precisely the Procedures Directive. By a examination on the position of the principle of non-refoulement in international asylum law and its possible status as jus cogens, I have thereafter analysed in what extent the principle is being upheld within the Procedures Directive. Through an assessment of different provisions in the Procedures Directive and by investigating the rights within the asylum process I have concluded that the principle of non-refoulement is not completely respected in the Procedures Directive. Limited rights during the asylum process and provisions on for example “safe countries” risk to result in refoulement for the individual asylum-seeker.

This paper addresses the principle of care in the recast asylum procedure directive (2013/32/EU). The purpose of the study has been to analyze how the principle of care is expressed in the directive regarding procedures for granting or rejecting asylum, as well as to analyze how the directive was implemented in Sweden. The recast asylum procedure directive aims to harmonize EU’s member states' procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection. Initially, this paper describes how the directive was created and how the principle of care is expressed in the directive and the meaning and content of the principle of care at EU level as well as its content and meaning according to Swedish law. To conclude, the Swedish implementation of the directive’s provisions directly connected to the principle of care will be discussed. The principle of care is one of the principles of good governance. The principles of good governance have been important in EU law to ensure legal protection for individuals when they are in contact with authorities of EU or Member States. In the analysis, what is found is that the principle of care can be divided into several sub-principles or requirements: individuals’ right to get their affairs treated; the obligation of authorities to investigate a request in an impartial manner; fair procedure and handling; authorities’ duty to take individual interests in consideration; authorities’ obligation to act within reasonable time and also other requirements regarding routines and procedure. Since a major part of this paper regards analyzing the relationship between EU law and national Swedish law, a discussion about the Member States’ institutional and procedural autonomy towards EU is also included. A conclusion is that the Swedish implementation of the directive's provisions related to the principle of care was deficient and that the directive itself restricts the Member States’ institutional and procedural autonomy. / Den här uppsatsen behandlar omsorgsprincipen i det omarbetade asylprocedurdirektivet (2013/32/EU). Syftet med arbetet är att analysera hur omsorgsprincipen uttrycks i direktivet avseende procedurer för beviljandet eller avslag av asyl, samt hur direktivet har genomförts i Sverige. Det omarbetade asylprocedurdirektivet syftar till att harmonisera EU- medlemsstaternas förfarande vid ansökan om internationellt skydd. Inledningsvis redogörs för hur direktivet skapades och hur omsorgsprincipen uttrycks i direktivet, vad omsorgsprincipen omfattar på EU-nivå, liksom principens omfattning i svensk rätt. Avslutningsvis analyseras genomförandet av direktivets bestämmelser med anknytning till omsorgsprincipen i svensk rätt. Omsorgsprincipen är en av principerna om god förvaltning. Principerna om god förvaltning har varit viktiga inom EU-rätten för att säkerställa ett rättsskydd för enskilda när dessa är i kontakt med EU:s eller medlemsstaternas myndigheter. Analysen kommer fram till att omsorgsprincipen kan delas in i flera mindre principer eller krav: enskildes rätt att få sina angelägenheter behandlade; myndigheters skyldighet att på ett opartiskt sätt undersöka en begäran; rättvis procedur och handläggning; myndigheters skyldighet att väga in enskildes intresse; myndigheters skyldighet att agera inom rimlig tid; samt andra krav på handläggningsrutiner. Eftersom en huvuddel av den här uppsatsen handlar om att analysera relationen mellan EU-rätt och svensk rätt, förs också en diskussion om medlemsstaternas institutionella och processuella autonomi gentemot EU. Slutligen presenteras slutsatsen att det svenska genomförandet av direktivets bestämmelser som anknyter till omsorgprincipen varit bristande och att direktivet har begränsat såväl medlemsstaternas institutionella som processuella autonomi.