Crisis Within A Crisis: A Comparative Analysis Of Covid-19’s Implications On Greece And Spain’s Migrant And Refugee Processing Policies

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic came a collective global panic regarding health, safety, and security. Since the major outbreak of the coronavirus in March of 2020, few issues have received scrutiny and attention in the public sphere. Yet, the problems that existed before COVID-19 have not become obsolete, however, they were removed from the public eye. One such issue to receive less scrutiny is the treatment of the most vulnerable populations in the world—migrants and refugees. Spain and Greece’s locations on the Mediterranean Sea mean they are often the first place migrants seek refuge in their journey to Europe. In the past, both have infringed upon their human rights in ways that have invited global skepticism and scrutiny. The research in this thesis examines how COVID-19 has affected Greece and Spain’s migrant and refugee processing policies. I first establish how each country processed migrants and refugees prior to the pandemic. I then draw from news sources, government documents, videos, and first-hand accounts from volunteers, medical professionals, as well as migrants and refugees to show how these policies have shifted since March 2020. One of COVID-19’s defining implications on both countries’ migrant and refugee processing policies is the increased brutality of border protection methods which involve the illegal refoulment of migrants and refugees. Through my research, I find that both Greece and Spain’s policies have become stricter and more brutal in their treatment of migrants and refugees and their negligence of these groups’ human rights

Advocating the Temporary Rights to Work for Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Transit in Indonesia

Refugees and asylum seekers are stuck in three to unknown years of protracted transit in Indonesia in their route to reach a destination country. The status of foreign refugees and asylum seekers has deprived them access to basic human needs such as the right to earn a living, education, and healthcare service. This study focuses on the issue of the prohibition to work for refugees and asylum seekers by reviewing the law and regulation concerning refugee protection, rights to work for foreigners, and fundamental human rights. In addition, a review of international norms and conventions on human rights, as well as a focus group discussion with academia on the topic of access to work for refugees, were also conducted. The main questions to be addressed are: first, what is the legal basis for the policy to deprive the rights to work for refugees and asylum seekers in Indonesia? Second, is the regulation used as the legal basis for the policy coherent with other regulations? Third, the study also probes the possible regulations that will allow access to work. Finally, the study departs from the standpoint that while deprivation to work is inherently a human rights violation, the state\u27s right to protect economic wellbeing from presumed threats for its citizens is also rightful. As a contribution to the discourse, this study offers a perspective that can be used as the basis for a legal breakthrough for refugees and asylum seekers access to the economy that balances the need to respect refugees\u27 human rights and accommodate state concerns regarding job security and economy for the citizens

Asylum and COVID-19: An International Disinterest in the Sanctity of a Fundamental Right

N/

\u3cem\u3eChevron\u3c/em\u3e: Fueling the Right Against Title 42 and the Denial of U.S. Asylum Rights

This Note was inspired by the questionable treatment of Haitian asylum seekers in Del Rio, Texas, where horseback U.S. officials charged at them using reins as whips, before immediately deporting them back to Haiti. The U.S. government justified its actions by claiming that Title 42 permits U.S. officials to prohibit the entry of individuals when there is a danger of introducing certain diseases, such as COVID-19. However, Title 42 conflicts with the United States’ codified commitment to the principle of non-refoulment, prohibiting it from returning certain refugees to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened. Accordingly, the U.S. government is facing several lawsuits exposing Title 42‘s function of immigration regulation through alleged COVID19 pretenses. Thus, this Note will breakdown the United States’ displacement of the right to seek asylum by (1) analyzing U.S. treaty obligations through the lens of past Haitian refugee litigation and Haiti’s current affairs and (2) evaluating the U.S. government’s contention that Title 42 is entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council

Refugee crisis in Venezuela and regional cooperation: the impact of Brazil, Chile and Colombia policies.

The Venezuelan migration crisis has been challenging the South American region's migratory and legal asylum systems since its beginning. In terms of state infrastructure, the region's countries were not prepared to receive this number of people fleeing the deterioration of the Venezuelan state due to its economic and social crisis, leading to a systematic violation of human rights. The present research analyses, in the first place, the drivers of the Venezuelan migration movement, particularly the economic and social crisis, and human rights violations. In the second place, it explores the main international and regional legal and policy standards embraced by the region, which could apply to the present migratory movement, focusing on the regional responses provided in the last years. Lastly, this study analyzes the individual country legal frameworks and policy standards of Brazil, Chile, and Colombia, including their human rights impacts in practice. The outcome shows the lack of a common regional approach in practice, emphasizing the individual country policies. It also indicates the significant presence of an initial general welcoming approach and creativity in providing pathways for the regularization of Venezuelan migrants and refugees in the region, affected by the continuity of new arrivals and the pandemic. Additionally, it highlights the non-prioritization of the asylum system by governments and Venezuelans, showing a trend in the region where most beneficiaries have opted for other forms of regularization because of celerity and practicality. This situation represents a challenge subject to political instability and not providing integral and specific protection

What does border externalization mean and what impact do the migration policies of the EU have on migrants' and refugees' human rights? What are the legal consequences for states that commit the human rights violations?

The EU is well-known for its policy of externalisation, that is, shifting the migration control away from its own borders (as a second, destination country) and towards third countries. This practice challenges human rights law. The thesis addresses the meaning and development of the border externalization. Furthermore, it explains how the migration policies are impacting migrants' and refugees' human rights. Finally, the thesis argues that states can be held responsible for the human rights violations happening due to the EU's policy of externalisation. Thus, overall, the thesis is concerned with the EU migration control and its member states and the human rights situation in Libya. The migration policies have changed in the past to new forms of non-entrée in which the border control is carried out by the authorities of the state of origin or transit. This is, because the early non-entrée practices were legally challenged, and did not protect European states from legal accountability. By funding the Libyan Coast Guards and entering agreements with a politically unstable country that also has a poor human right record, the EU and its member states are supporting the violations of migrants' and refugees' rights. These violations range from breaches of the right to life, the right to seek and enjoy asylum, the principle of non-refoulment, the right against torture and ill-treatment, the right to liberty, and the right to remedy. The violations are especially grave in migration-related detention in Libya where detainees experience inhuman living conditions and abuse. The thesis argues that the EU and its member states, particularly Italy due to the special cooperation between the Italian and Libyan authorities, are in breach of international as well as European law. The thesis concludes that state responsibility follows from Article 16, 17, and 47 ARSIWA are violated as well as Article 3 ECHR

A Pandemics Treaty: A Boon for Africa

This article illustrates the weaknesses of the current global health framework. It highlights two pillars a new treaty regime ought to be built upon. The analysis seeks to establish how these pillars could have helped Africa during the pandemic and can indeed help Africa in future pandemics. The analysis suggests the need for a unified global health regime or pandemics’ treaty that promotes a level legal and political playing field regarding future pandemics. The treaty could focus on coordination of research and development; build a stronger global framework that reinforces legal obligations and norms; provide for universal access to medicines, vaccines, and medical infrastructure