bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Regional Refugee Regimes
Authors: Tsourdi Evangelia (Lilian) 
Published: June 2021

Abstract
This chapter examines refugee protection in Europe, defining Europe based on its two distinct legal regimes, the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe (CoE). The EU and its Member States have developed a regional asylum framework, encompassing legislative, responsibility-allocation, and practical components. In parallel, EU border control, visa, and migration measures impact asylum by deflecting protection obligations to non-EU countries. The chapter then analyses the EU’s ambivalent asylum system before turning to the CoE, focusing on both the European Convention on Human Rights and soft law adopted in the CoE framework. EU asylum law has an expansive impact beyond the EU, including in neighbouring non-EU countries. To illustrate these expansive trends, the chapter looks at refugee protection in Turkey and Ukraine.
Regional Refugee Regimes
Authors: Azhigulova Khalida 
Published: June 2021

Abstract
This chapter reflects on refugee protection laws and practices in the political region of Central Asia, which includes five post-Soviet States. Four of them—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan—are parties to the Refugee Convention and its Protocol and have been at the crossroads of massive refugee movements since the 1990s. The fifth State, Uzbekistan, is not a party to either instrument. The chapter undertakes a comparative analysis of local legislation, refugee status determination procedures, and jurisprudence in asylum cases between 2010 and 2017, and draws on findings from fieldwork in Central Asian States in 2016–17. It advances two main arguments. The first argument is that refugee protection in the region is highly politicized and aligned with the self-interests of the States. The second argument is that, despite the lack of full compliance with refugee law in the region, over the past two decades, the ratification of the Refugee Convention and international pressure in landmark refugee cases and other efforts has led to noticeable improvements in refugee protection, and a reduction in refoulement in three States which care about their political image internationally (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan).
Regional Refugee Regimes
Authors: Ramasubramanyam Jay 
Published: June 2021

Abstract
This chapter examines some of the ongoing challenges in the South Asian region and demonstrates the lacunae that persist with respect to conceptualizing displacement there. It explores protection mechanisms that have been established in the region as ad hoc alternatives to hegemonic protection norms, given the lack of a formal institutional approach there. The chapter provides some insights into whether a consistent and comprehensive regional approach to refugee protection can be identified based on past practices. As will be evident throughout, a South Asian regime for refugee protection can be conceived largely through individual State practice and through bilateral agreements. In fact, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation has construed refugee movement as a matter of bilateral or trilateral relations, and has regarded international agreements as constricting States’ freedom of action. The chapter then considers refugee movements in the region, discussing the ‘Eurocentrism’ of the global refugee regime that led to the establishment of a de facto framework of subcontinental defiance. It assesses UNHCR’s operational presence in South Asia and its impact on refugee protection. Finally, the chapter examines how national constitutional provisions have been interpreted in a way that provides some protection to refugees.
Regional Refugee Regimes
Authors: Foster Michelle , Hood Anna 
Published: June 2021

Abstract
This chapter discusses three of the most prominent approaches to refugee law and displacement issues in Oceania and analyses what they might reveal about the field of refugee law and the region of Oceania. The chapter looks first at the extent to which actors in the region have engaged with international refugee law. While adherence to international refugee law treaties is relatively low, it is not non-existent. The chapter then considers the approach to refugee law of the traditional regional hegemon: Australia. For decades, Australia has worked to encourage its regional neighbours to adopt policies that complement its own approach to refugee matters. Although Australia has had some success in obtaining support for its refugee policies from Pacific Island States, there have also been pockets of strong resistance. Finally, the chapter assesses some of the approaches to displacement adopted by Pacific Island States.
Smuggling of Migrants and Refugees
Authors: Schloenhardt Andreas 
Published: June 2021

Abstract
This chapter focuses on the smuggling of migrants in the context of refugee movements, and examines the scope and application of international law pertaining to these phenomena. The principal binding global instrument on this topic is the United Nations Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air which, on the surface, coexists alongside international refugee law in situations where smuggled migrants are seeking asylum. Although the Smuggling of Migrants Protocol expressly recognizes the protection afforded to refugees under international law, its interpretation, operation, and implementation often run into conflict with the Refugee Convention. All too frequently, measures to prevent and combat the smuggling of migrants focus exclusively on law enforcement, criminal justice, and restrictive border measures without recognizing the rights of refugees, asylum seekers, and smuggled migrants, which are the subject of this chapter.
Complementary Protection
Authors: McAdam Jane 
Published: June 2021

Abstract
Beyond the Convention refugee, there are other forced migrants deserving of protection. This chapter considers the scope and content of ‘complementary protection’ in international law, and its application in a number of domestic jurisdictions. As the principle of non-refoulement has developed in human rights law to preclude removal to a real risk of serious harm, it has given rise to the concept of complementary protection. This describes protection granted on the basis of an international protection need arising outside the Refugee Convention, accompanied by a status in domestic law. At a minimum, complementary protection precludes the removal of individuals who face a real risk of being arbitrarily deprived of life, or being subjected to the death penalty, torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, although the list of rights giving rise to complementary protection is not closed. By its very nature, it is complementary to refugee protection, which means it should only be considered following a comprehensive evaluation of a person’s claim against the Refugee Convention definition and a finding that the applicant is not a refugee.
Temporary Protection and Temporary Refuge
Authors: Durieux Jean-François 
Published: June 2021

Abstract
Unlike ‘complementary protection’, the concepts of ‘temporary refuge’ and ‘temporary protection’ represent challenges to the Refugee Convention, exposing a real or perceived flaw in the way the Convention articulates immediate protection with longer-term solutions. This flaw tends to come to light mainly within the context of large-scale influxes of refugees, situations in which another ‘broken link’ all too often surfaces, namely between the principle of non-refoulement and the principle of international solidarity. Despite significant differences dictated by the time at which, and the space within which, they appeared in the law and practice of States, temporary refuge and temporary protection regimes share the ambition of regulating the continuum from admission and immediate relief to international (or regional) mobilization towards durable solutions. While temporary refuge was first conceptualized in the Asia-Pacific region, temporary protection reached a higher degree of formalization on the European continent, to the point of becoming a term of art in European Union law. It was originally conceived as a return-oriented protection mechanism, largely outside the Refugee Convention regime, before being recognized as a procedure of exceptional character and a prelude to the full operation of Convention standards. Regrettably, the only binding instrument covering all aspects of temporary protection—a 2001 EU directive—has never been implemented and may soon be repealed. While scholarly and policy debates over temporary refuge and/or temporary protection have creatively explored the outer limits of international refugee law, they have thus far failed to dispel ambiguities regarding the scope of ‘regimes of exception’ in refugee law and their relationship to the Refugee Convention-based regime. The time may have come to unpack the varied issues which temporary refuge and temporary protection have come to represent, in order to address them within known legal frameworks.
Exclusion
Authors: Gilbert Geoff , Bentajou Anna Magdalena 
Published: June 2021

Abstract
This chapter examines the exclusion provisions in article 1F of the Refugee Convention, which can only be properly understood when analysed in the context of international criminal law and the international law of armed conflict. Article 1F provides that the Convention shall not apply to persons with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed (a) war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, (b) serious non-political crimes, or those who (c) are guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. The chapter then explores how article 1F was initially understood, before considering its application in practice and the increasing intermingling of certain ideas: exclusion as pre-status and retroactive; the difficulties of conceiving of refugee status without the guarantee of non-refoulement; the overlap of the different phrases used in the Refugee Convention when dealing with crimes and the security of the country of asylum; and how crimes that are not particularly serious might yet indicate a danger to the security of the hosting State or be contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, a threat to national security, or even simply a public order concern. In addition, standards of proof, sequencing, regional mechanisms, and complementary human rights protection regimes add layers of complexity to the analysis.
Refugee Children
Authors: Pobjoy Jason 
Published: June 2021

Abstract
This chapter focuses on refugee children. International law affords all refugee children special protection, under both the Refugee Convention and, of particular significance, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The CRC recognizes children as independent rights-bearers, entitled to a comprehensive set of civil, political, social, economic, and cultural rights that are designed to cater for their specific needs. The rights set out under the CRC apply to all children, wherever they find themselves, without discrimination. Evidently there is a significant protection gap. This chapter traces the development of international law relating to refugees and to children, before addressing six key issues: first, the notion of childhood and the difficulties in proving age; secondly, the application of the refugee definition to children; thirdly, the extent to which the CRC is capable of affording independent and more appropriate forms of protection status for children; fourthly, a refugee child's entitlement to appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance (article 22 of the CRC); fifthly, the availability of durable solutions; and finally, family reunification.
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Refugee Claims
Authors: Millbank Jenni 
Published: June 2021

Abstract
This chapter explores two key themes in modern refugee jurisprudence concerning sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) claims over the past 35 years. First, there is a persistent, indeed widening, gap between the formal acceptance of SOGI claims in refugee law—broadly taken to include authoritative international guidance, interpretative norms, and binding domestic precedent—and the implementation of such law through the low-level administrative practice that comprises the vast bulk of refugee status determination (RSD). Secondly, although SOGI claims are often considered as marginal or exceptional cases, they should be seen as a key axis from which to understand major developments and failings of refugee law across the board. The chapter then suggests that SOGI claims are a paradigm example of the ontological challenges at the heart of RSD. These include the enduring challenges posed by fact-finding and evidentiary practices such as future-focused risk analysis, credibility assessment, and the interpretation of claims across culture.
Stateless Refugees
Authors: Lambert Hélène 
Published: June 2021

Abstract
This chapter focuses on stateless refugees. The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (Stateless Convention) and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness together form the foundation of the international legal framework on statelessness and the protection of stateless persons. As the refugee definition in article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention makes clear, it has always been assumed that having or not having a nationality is not a determinant element for being recognized as a refugee; in fact UNHCR datasets record stateless refugees as refugees. At the same time, considerations of nationality or lack thereof can have a strong bearing on the assessment of key elements of the refugee definition. For instance, claims for protection from individuals whose nationality was denied or withdrawn or whose nationality is ineffective may be relevant facts in the assessment of persecution or well-founded fear. The chapter therefore considers the extent to which the Refugee Convention protects stateless persons as refugees, scrutinizing all parts of the definition in article 1A(2).
The Right to Asylum
Authors: Gil-Bazo María-Teresa , Guild Elspeth 
Published: June 2021

Abstract
This chapter explores the right to asylum in international law of universal and regional scope, including the right to seek asylum and the right to be granted asylum,. It does so by examining the evolution of asylum in international law and practice, as well as the jurisprudence of a number of courts, most notably the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Asylum, understood as ‘the protection that a State grants on its territory or in some other place under the control of certain of its organs to a person who comes to seek it’, is a well-known institution in international law and its historical roots in State practice are well established. Asylum is different from refugee status, as the former constitutes an institution for protection, while the latter refers to the content of the protection offered to those who meet the refugee definitions under the relevant international instruments. The chapter then offers a critique of the current state of play regarding asylum, refugee status, and international protection, including in the context of the Global Compact on Refugees. It looks at trends arising in regional contexts and analyses their contribution to a holistic interpretation of States’ obligations towards refugees and others in need of protection.
Non-penalization and Non-Criminalization
Authors: Costello Cathryn , Ioffe Yulia 
Published: June 2021

Abstract
This chapter reviews the protections under international law which purport to secure refugees’ right to seek asylum by protecting them from penalization. Once a mere administrative matter, irregular migration and presence are now often made a crime in domestic laws, often with additional criminal offences such as for failure to cooperate in migration and asylum proceedings, or failure to have or produce identity documentation. In addition to criminalization, States also have meted out increasingly harsh treatment to those who breach their migration controls, irrespective of whether they are refugees or not. The chapter then analyses article 31 of the Refugee Convention, the provision which purports to protect refugees from penalization for ‘illegal entry and stay’. It argues that non-penalization reflects one of the objects and purposes of the Refugee Convention. The chapter also explores whether international human rights law substantively limits States’ ‘right’ to criminalize irregular entry and stay, and whether non-penalization of irregular entry or stay may be an emerging general principle of law.
The Right to Work
Authors: Ó Cinnéide Colm , Costello Cathryn 
Published: June 2021

Abstract
This chapter analyses the application of the right to work to asylum seekers and refugees, examining the right under international human rights law of global scope, in particular under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. While that instrument is often perceived as being normatively weak, due in part to a misunderstanding about the ‘progressive realization’ standard, the chapter highlights States’ immediate ‘minimum core’ obligations under the right to work. It also assesses the right under African, Inter-American, and European regional human rights mechanisms. Some deprivations of the right to work may entail breaches of regional treaties, directly or indirectly. Restrictions on the right to work may also contribute to violations of absolute rights, such as the prohibitions on inhuman and degrading treatment, or forced labour. The chapter then looks at two possible means of securing the right to work, namely domestic litigation and transnational political processes.
Cessation
Authors: Cole Georgia 
Published: June 2021

Abstract
This chapter focuses on the cessation of refugee status. Questions about when, how, and why refugee status ends remain critical for academics, States, UNHCR, and refugees alike. If States are uncertain about when their responsibilities towards refugees will end, the result may be ever-stricter policies concerning borders, refugee status determination procedures, and individuals, even once they have been granted some form of protection. The changes wrought by this restrictionism would likely be to the long-term detriment of the laws, norms, and institutions of the refugee regime. Article 1C of the Refugee Convention provides an exhaustive list of ways in which refugee status can end. Due to the significant consequences of the cessation of refugee status for individuals and States, however, legal experts and UNHCR promote a strict, but contested, interpretation of article 1C.
Refugee Naturalization and Integration
Authors: Khan Fatima , Ziegler Reuven (Ruvi) 
Published: June 2021

Abstract
Refugees' access to citizenship of their host country is key to their integration. Manifesting full and equal permanent political community membership, citizenship entails cessation of refugee status, pursuant to Article 1C(3) of the Refugee Convention. Yet the 2018 ‘Global Compact on Refugees’ omitted naturalization and 'local' integration from its list of objectives, merely describing ‘durable legal status and naturalization’ as ‘useful’. Globally, citizenship regimes vary widely, with direct ramifications for refugees’ access thereto; meanwhile. The Chapter highlights a ‘global north’/’global south’ divide regarding naturalization practices, situating then within an international law framework in which host countries remain (the) ultimate gatekeepers. The Chapter argues it is unhelpful to describes forms of integration that do not offer pathways to naturalization as ‘durable’, given that many refugees find themselves in protracted displacement with neither a ‘durable solution in sight nor the legal, economic, and social capacity to properly integrate in their asylum countries.
Restitution and Other Remedies for Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons
Authors: Bradley Megan 
Published: June 2021

Abstract
This chapter explores restitution and other remedies for refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs). Most refugees and IDPs never receive any formal redress for the wrongs they have suffered. Yet over the past 30 years, significant progress has been made in advancing international norms on remedies for refugees and IDPs, and experiences in countries from Bosnia and Kosovo to Rwanda and Iraq have strengthened understanding of the challenges involved in translating these principles into practice. Efforts have focused predominantly on the restitution of housing, land, and property (HLP), with the assumption that this is the most pertinent remedy for forced migrants, particularly because it may help enable return as the ‘preferred’ solution to displacement. The chapter assesses these developments and the state of research on this pivotal challenge. It reviews the approaches taken in major peace treaties, court decisions, and standards. The chapter then reflects on five intertwined challenges: (i) developing appropriate data collection techniques and evidentiary standards; (ii) balancing the rights of ‘secondary occupants’ and people in protracted displacement; (iii) mitigating risks associated with HLP restitution; (iv) developing a better understanding of how gender, race, class, and other intersecting power relations influence redress; and (v) moving beyond a narrow focus on property restitution to consider the wider range of losses associated with displacement.
Logics of dependence and independence: The local variants
Authors: Grädel Erich , Pützstück Phil 
Published: June 2021

Abstract
Modern logics of dependence and independence are based on team semantics, which means that formulae are evaluated not on a single assignment of values to variables, but on a set of such assignments, called a team. This leads to high expressive power, on the level of existential second-order logic. As an alternative, Baltag and van Benthem have proposed a local variant of dependence logic, called logic of functional dependence ($ {\textsf {LFD}}$). While its semantics is also based on a team, the formulae are evaluated locally on just one of its assignments, and the team just serves as the supply of the possible assignments that are taken into account in the evaluation process. This logic thus relies on the modal perspective of generalized assignments semantics and can be seen as a fragment of first-order logic. For the variant of $ {\textsf {LFD}}$ without equality, the satisfiability problem is decidable. We extend the idea of localizing logics of dependence and independence in a systematic way, taking into account local variants of standard atomic dependency properties: besides dependence and independence, also inclusion, exclusion and anonymity. We study model-theoretic and algorithmic questions of the localized logics and also resolve some of the questions that had been left open by Baltag and van Benthem. In particular, we study decidability issues of the local logics and prove that satisfiability of $ {\textsf {LFD}}$ with equality is undecidable. Further, we establish characterization theorems via appropriate notions of bisimulation and study the complexity of model checking problems for these logics.