Changing the way science helps society thrive is our grand challenge

UT Austin writes about Whole Communities and Whole Health grand challenge and President Gregory Fenves announces the grand challenge in his State of the University address in an article published in 2018.Office of the VP for Researc

The Michigan Guidelines on the Right to Work

The right to work is fundamental to human dignity. It is central to survival and development of the human personality. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), decent work sums up the aspirations of people in their working lives-for opportunity and income; rights, voice and recognition ... Work is interrelated, interdependent with, and indivisible from the rights to life, equality, the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, an adequate standard of living, the right to social security and/or social assistance, freedom of movement, freedom of association, and the rights to privacy and family life, among others

The Michigan Guidelines on the Internal Protection Alternative

In many jurisdictions around the world, \u27internal flight\u27 or \u27internal relocation\u27 rules are increasingly relied upon to deny refugee status to persons at risk of persecution for a Convention reason in part, but not all, of their country of origin. In this, as in so many areas of refugee law and policy, the viability of a universal commitment to protection is challenged by divergence in state practice. These Guidelines seek to define the ways in which international refugee law should inform what the authors believe is more accurately described as the \u27internal protection alternative.\u27 It is the product of collective study of relevant norms and state practice, debated and refined at the First Colloquium on Challenges in International Refugee Law, in April 1999

The Michigan Guidelines on Risk for Reasons of Political Opinion

The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“Convention”) recognizes as refugees those who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted on the basis of inter alia “political opinion,” are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of their home countr

The Michigan Guidelines on Well-Founded Fear

An individual qualifies as a Convention refugee only if he or she has a well-founded fear of being persecuted. While it is generally agreed that the well-founded fear requirement limits refugee status to persons who face an actual, forward-looking risk of being persecuted (the objective element ), linguistic ambiguity has resulted in a divergence of views regarding whether the test also involves assessment of the state of mind of the person seeking recognition of refugee status (the subjective element )

The Michigan Guidelines on Protection Elsewhere

Refugees increasingly encounter laws and policies which provide that their protection needs will be considered or addressed somewhere other than in the territory of the state where they have sought, or intend to seek, protection. Such policies-including country of first arrival, safe third country, and extraterritorial processing rules and practices-raise both opportunities and challenges for international refugee law. They have the potential to respond to the Refugee Convention\u27s concern that the grant of asylum may place unduly heavy burdens on certain countries by more fairly allocating protection responsibilities among states. But insistence that protection be provided elsewhere may also result in the denial to refugees of their rights under the Refugee Convention and international law more generally. The challenge is to identify the ways in which the protection regime may be made more flexible without compromising the entitlements of refugees. To this end, we have engaged in sustained collaborative study and reflection on the legal basis of protection elsewhere policies. Research conducted by the University of Melbourne\u27s Research Programme in International Refugee Law was debated and refined at the Fourth Colloquium on Challenges in International Refugee Law, convened in November 2006 by the University of Michigan\u27s Program in Refugee and Asylum Law. These Guidelines are the product of that endeavor. They reflect the consensus of Colloquium participants on the minimum international legal requirements for valid protection elsewhere policies, as well as our views on the procedures by which international legal obligations may reliably be fulfilled in the implementation of such policies

The Michigan Guidelines on Well-Founded Fear

An individual qualifies as a Convention refugee only if he or she has a well-founded fear of being persecuted. While it is generally agreed that the well-founded fear requirement limits refugee status to persons who face an actual, forward-looking risk of being persecuted (the objective element ), linguistic ambiguity has resulted in a divergence of views regarding whether the test also involves assessment of the state of mind of the person seeking recognition of refugee status (the subjective element )

The Michigan Guidelines on the Exclusion of International Criminals

With a view to promoting a shared understanding of the proper approach to Article 1(F)(a) exclusion from refugee status, we have engaged in sustained collaborative study and reflection on relevant norms and state practice. Our research was debated and refined at the Sixth Colloquium on Challenges in International Refugee Law, convened in March 2013 by the University of Michigan’s Program in Refugee and Asylum Law. These Guidelines are the product of that endeavor, and reflect the consensus of Colloquium participants on how decision makers can best ensure the application of Article 1(F)(a) in a manner that conforms to international legal principles

The Michigan Guidelines on Protection Elsewhere

Refugees increasingly encounter laws and policies which provide that their protection needs will be considered or addressed somewhere other than in the territory of the state where they have sought, or intend to seek, protection. Such policies-including country of first arrival, safe third country, and extraterritorial processing rules and practices-raise both opportunities and challenges for international refugee law. They have the potential to respond to the Refugee Convention\u27s concern that the grant of asylum may place unduly heavy burdens on certain countries by more fairly allocating protection responsibilities among states. But insistence that protection be provided elsewhere may also result in the denial to refugees of their rights under the Refugee Convention and international law more generally. The challenge is to identify the ways in which the protection regime may be made more flexible without compromising the entitlements of refugees. To this end, we have engaged in sustained collaborative study and reflection on the legal basis of protection elsewhere policies. Research conducted by the University of Melbourne\u27s Research Programme in International Refugee Law was debated and refined at the Fourth Colloquium on Challenges in International Refugee Law, convened in November 2006 by the University of Michigan\u27s Program in Refugee and Asylum Law. These Guidelines are the product of that endeavor. They reflect the consensus of Colloquium participants on the minimum international legal requirements for valid protection elsewhere policies, as well as our views on the procedures by which international legal obligations may reliably be fulfilled in the implementation of such policies