No description available.

The purpose of this thesis is to find out how the Swedish authorities comply with international law by studying the protection of asylum-seeking children that are apprehended by Swedish authorities according to the legislation of LVU because of abuse or neglect and thereafter are deported together with their parents. The aim of this thesis is to find out if Swedish legislation and praxis is consistent with international law through the Convention on the Rights of the Child and EKMR. Would it be possible to increase the protection of these children through incorporating the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Swedish law, through a wider interpretation of the principle of non-refoulement or through more morality in the law? The thesis has been conducted as a literature study where the right-dogmatic method has been used to compare Swedish and international law. The theories by Dworkin about morality and law have been compared to Peczeniks right-dogmatic theories. The review shows that Swedish authorities are infringing article 2, 3, 12 and 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, when it comes to the protection of asylum-seeking children. The best way to increase the protection is to incorporate the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Swedish law. By interpreting the principle of Non-refoulement in a wider manner the protection will also increase. However, the use of more morality in the judgements will not ensure the asylum-seeking children a reliable protection. Keywords: Asylum-seeking children, LVU, Convention on the Rights of the Child, EKMR, Non-refoulement, Dworkin, Peczenik.

No description available.

In the mid-2000s, the South African government systematically deported illegal Zimbabweans from their territory. In 2009, they placed a moratorium on the deportations and introduced the Zimbabwe Documentation Process (“ZDP”), which was to allow many of the millions of Zimbabweans to regularise their stay in South Africa.  During the moratorium, Zimbabweans continued to arrive in South Africa. As an immediate reaction, the Government of South Africa began to deny entry to Zimbabweans at the border, even when they claimed the need to seek asylum. The ZDP process finished at the end of 2010 and had only assisted approximately 275,000 individuals; a small number compared to the reported millions living in South Africa. In October 2011, the Government lifted the moratorium on deportations of Zimbabweans and, once again, systematically began deporting them. By August 2012, it was estimated that over 35,000 Zimbabweans had been deported from South Africa.  This thesis explores the actions carried out by the South African government to handle the large numbers of Zimbabweans within their sovereign territory. It specifically considers the deportations, non-admission at the borders and the asylum-system in South Africa in reflection with the Government’s international, regional and national refugee law obligations regarding non-refoulement.

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.

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.

Depuis quelques années, les États adoptent des politiques qui cherchent à séparer l’admission des réfugiés sur le territoire d’un État et l’attribution du statut de réfugié. En Europe, ce genre de politique est désigné par le terme externalisation. Cependant, par souci d’objectivité, nous avons choisi d’employer le terme extraterritorial. En effet, l’expression externalisation comporte en elle-même la critique de son objet. En Europe, aucune politique qui dissocie l’attribution du statut de réfugié et l’entrée sur le territoire d’un État n’a été mise en place, toutefois, cette idée fait partie des réflexions institutionnelles et elle reste un objectif de l’agenda européen. Ce mémoire cherche donc à analyser la proposition de traitement extraterritorial des demandes de statut de réfugié, faite en Europe, au regard de l’obligation la plus contraignante au sein du droit international des réfugiés : le principe de non refoulement. En ce sens, il sera nécessaire d'analyser l'étendue ainsi que les limites du principe de non refoulement, au regard de l’interprétation et de la mise en œuvre qui en sont faites. Ce mémoire démontrera que derrière une vive polémique sur la question, la proposition de traitement extraterritorial des demandes de statut de réfugié est compatible avec l’article 33 alinéa 1 de la Convention relative au statut des réfugiés. / For the past few years, States have been adopting policies aimed at separating the admission of refugees on a territory from the determination of their refugee status. In Europe, this kind of political choice is usually designated by the term externalization. However, we have used the term extraterritorial to qualify this process, as we felt that externalization lacked objectivity. Indeed, externalization contains an implicit criticism of our research object. In Europe, these extraterritorial policies have not yet attained a legal status. Indeed, no legal rules are being currently applied which provide for the dissociation between admission and determination. Nevertheless, this idea is part of ongoing reflections and it remains an objective of the European agenda. This thesis analyzes the legality of the European proposal related to an extraterritorial treatment of the status of refugee, in light of the theoretical principle of non-refoulement which is at the heart of the protection granted to refugees by international refugee law. To this end, it is necessary to analyze the scope and the legal limits of the non-refoulement principle in regards to its interpretation and implementation. Although there exists a lively debate on this issue, extraterritorial treatment of refugee claims does not, at least prima facie, violate the principle of non-refoulement enshrined in s. 33, para. 1 of the Convention relating to refugee status.

The subject matter of my thesis is the Dublin system which includes the Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18. February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national and the Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 concerning the establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention. The aim of this thesis is to acquaint its readers, point out the shortcomings and benefits of the existing regulation and evaluate the application of both regulations. I was trying to explain the functioning of this system with the help of the cases of ECHR and CJEU. My thesis is divided into five chapters. In the first chapter, I focused on the development of a common European asylum system before the adoption of the Regulation and then also at the Regulation itself and the objectives it observes. The second chapter is devoted to the principles and criteria for determining the responsibility of the Member State to examine an asylum application. After I mentioned the general principles set out in the Regulation, I have dealt with the actual procedure of determining the Member State. There is also...

No description available.

No description available.