LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Inderscience Enterprises Ltd
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: 200
Asylum was created by the international community in the 20th century to provide legal protection to individuals fleeing persecution by nation states; but the ability to secure asylum has been fundamentally reshaped by sovereign national interests in the 21st century. This paper has two objectives. First it explores the various ways in which nation-states have adopted policies and pursued agendas which prevent asylum seekers from gaining access to countries of asylum, which criminalize many who enter a country of asylum and which frustrate their ability to obtain asylum. When state signatories breach their legal obligations to the Refugee Convention, the UNHCR has the authority to exercise its ‘supervisory role’ to bring states’ back into compliance. I examine two UNHCR interventions in the United Kingdom which have failed. The paper concludes by discussing how and why it is necessary to radically rethink national asylum and migration policies.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Ramji-Nogales, J., A. Schoenholtz, and P. Schrag. 2007. “Refugee roulette: Disparities in asylum adjudication.” Stanford Law Review 60(2): 295-411.
    • Rehaag, S. 2008. “Troubling Patterns in Canadian Refugee Adjudication.” Ottawa Law Review 39: 335-365.
    • Trauner, F. and I. Kruse. 2008. “EC Visa Facilitation and Readmission Agreements: A New Standard EU Foreign Policy Tool?” European Journal of Migration and Law 10(4): 411-38.
    • UNHCR. 2011. A Year of Crisis. UNHCR Global Trends 2011. Geneva.
    • UNHCR. 2011. UNHCR Oral submissions in Joined Cases of NS (C-411/10) and ME and others (C-493/10'. Hearing of the Court of Justice of the EU. Luxembourg. (28 June). At: http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4e1b10bc2.pdf Vandvik, B. 2008. “Extra-territorial border controls and responsibility to protect: A view from ECRE.” Amsterdam Law Forum 1(1): 27-35.
    • Vayrynen, V. 2001. “Funding dilemmas in refugee assistance: Political interests and refugee reforms in UNHCR.” International Migration Review 35(1): 143-167.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article