The New Refugees and the Old Treaty: Persecutors and Persecuted in the Twenty-First Century

When the fledgling U.N. negotiated a treat to protect refugees after the Second World War, member states focused on Europe as well as on events causing forced migration that occurred prior to 1951. No one imagined that cross-border escape from persecution would become a global phenomenon and remain one more than sixty years later, or that this human rights treaty would be needed in the twenty-first century. In fact, as increased numbers of asylum seekers from developing countries reached the most developed regions of the world during the last thirty years, critics have questioned the merits of this treaty and argued that the Refugee Convention has become outmoded and obsolete. This Article considers how well suited this treaty is for the protection of refugees fleeing persecution in today\u27s world. The author first looks at how the nature of the state itself has evolved and finds that too many governments today fail at providing significant portions of their citizens with the most basic level of human security. A new cast of persecutors apart from the state now exerts authority and power in such societies, targeting particular societal groups using new forms of persecution. Examining how states have adapted this multilateral agreement to these changing circumstances, the author finds that this treaty continues to be vital in protecting the human rights of refugees thanks to two important treaty elements: a clear and fundamental purpose to protect individuals whose governments have been unwilling or unable to do so, and flexible terms that have enabled jurists and government officials to adapt the refugee definition to the changing nature of forced migration. Accordingly, the author\u27s analysis confirms the conclusion of the International Law Commission Special Rapporteur on Treaties over Time that subsequent practice by the parties may guide an evolutive interpretation of a treaty

Arthur C. Helton 1949-2003

Through his advocacy, teaching and scholarship, Arthur Helton enabled some of the most vulnerable people on earth, as well as those who work to advance their rights, to ensure that governments strive to live up to their legal and moral obligations to protect and assist the displaced

Developing the Substantive Best Interests of Child Migrants: A Call for Action

This Article attempts to accomplish two goals. First, it provides an overview of what is known and unknown about international child migrants. While this Conference will focus to some degree on child migrants in the United States, this Article shows how significant this phenomenon is around the world. Therefore, this Article provides data and points out the research gaps surrounding this issue. Equally significant is the lack of legal and policy tools available for governments to respond well and in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child ( CRC ) to the children themselves. First, informed by social science research, this Article briefly sets out the grounds for treating children as unique. This will lay the foundation for policy makers to think about child migrants as children first and above all. Second, this Article then looks at norms and practices that recognize the uniqueness of children and child migrants in particular. Finally, this Article suggests examples of how we-scholars, practitioners, policy makers, and adjudicators- might begin to develop better tools to address what sets child migrants apart

Oral History: William Iannello

Research paper devoted to the life of my grandfather, William Iannello, a second-generation Italian American. His parents came to the United States during the first decade of the 1900s from Calabria, the southernmost region of the Italian mainland

Andrew I. Thompson - From Tragedy to Policy: Representations of Muslims and Islam in U.S. Mainstream Media

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11th came a flood of criticism of Islam and Muslims in the U.S. media. Many saw Islam as the root cause of the attacks, but failed to assess the political or social issues in the Middle East, or even the United States’ role in the region. An example of this is the New York Times’ section that ran immediately after the attacks entitled ‘A Nation Challenged,’ which included titles such as: “Yes, this is about Islam,” “This is a religious war,” “Barbarians at the gate,” and “The one true faith.” This project analyzes the mainstream print media’s—New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time, and USA Today—representation of Muslims and Islam from September 11, 2001 to December 31, 2001 and its relation to U.S. foreign policy. My assertion is that the mainstream media employed rhetorical emulating, and sometimes mimicking, of Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations theory when representing Muslims and Islam, which in turn supported aggressive military action in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. In support of my assertion, I find that Huntington’s clash of civilizations absolves the US of all guilt regarding the attacks. Once the theory is adopted it becomes a given, something intrinsic to politics, thus making the ‘clash’ seem inevitable. The Clash of Civilizations theory also supports aggressive military action because of the implicit and explicit denunciation of all ‘civilizations’ that are not ‘Western.’https://epublications.marquette.edu/mcnair_2013/1016/thumbnail.jp

An Early Black Cemetery on York Street

Many are familiar with William H. Tipton, a well-known local photographer who recorded iconic views of the town, battlefield, and monuments surrounding Gettysburg. What many people may not know is that Tipton built a house in the early 1900s right on top of Gettysburg’s first African-American cemetery. [excerpt

Aiding and Abetting Persecutors: The Seizure and Return of Haitian Refugees in Violation of the U.N. Refugee Convention and Protocol

Pursuant to Executive Order 12,807 of May 23, 1992, the “Kennebunkport Order,” United States Coast Guard cutters have been intercepting boatloads of Haitian citizens in international waters off the coast of Haiti and turning them over to the Haitian authorities in Port-au-Prince. No questions are being asked to determine if any of these citizens are bona fide refugees fleeing persecution. All are simply returned. Does the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (Protocol), to which the United States is a party, permit the U.S. government to do this? That question is now before the United States Supreme Court. Regarding United States obligations under the Protocol, the United States government claims that the United States may seize refugees and return them to a country of persecution, as long as such refugees are not within United States borders. This Article examines the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Convention) and the Protocol in light of that claim

Beyond the Supreme Court: A Modest Plea to Improve Our Asylum System

Moderating a session at the Workshop on the Supreme Court and Immigration and Refugee Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, Peter Spiro asked just how important the Supreme Court really is to refugee and immigration law. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has actively interpreted the Refugee Convention and Protocol, and its decisions have had an adverse affect on important protection issues. James Hathaway knows this well. Yet his article focuses on the two Supreme Court decisions that most practitioners and scholars agree have not translated into serious protection problems in the United States or abroad

For Safety and For Liberty, The Devan Family of Gettysburg

This article explores Gettysburg’s 19th century black history through the exciting experiences of the Devan family. Originally from Frederick County, Maryland, they came to Gettysburg as free people of color. In town, one member of the family was suspected of assisting slave catchers by handing over escaped slaves for a profit. Four members of the family served during the Civil War in the United States Colored Troops, three of whom died in the service. This complex story proves the fact that black history is extremely complex and should not be painted by historians with a single brush stroke

The State of Asylum Representation: Ideas for Change

The plight of refugees-those who flee persecution-touches a chord with Americans, who have supported both a substantial overseas resettlement program and a fair system for asylum seekers. U.S. laws provide a seemingly full opportunity for asylum applicants to explain their fear or actual experience of persecution. In fact, the U.S. offers an extensive process of interviews, hearings, and appeals to ensure that bona fide refugees are not sent back to their persecutors. The substantive law, too, has been developed considerably through administrative and judicial precedents. But how meaningful is a process that, no matter how extensive and developed, leaves asylum seekers on their own to present their claims when only experts understand how the process works and what the case law means? Asylum applicants often have escaped life threatening situations in their home countries and have overcome financial and physical obstacles to reach the United States, only to be faced with a daunting and confusing asylum application process. Legal assistance is permitted, but it must be at no expense to the government. While some asylum seekers find competent representation, many do not. Most of the key players in the U.S. asylum process-the representatives, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( INS ) trial attorneys, the Asylum Officers and the Immigration Judges– believe that representation makes a difference for those seeking relief and for the effectiveness of the system. Immigration Court data indicates that represented asylum cases are four to six times more likely to succeed than pro se ones. The time has come to develop ways for all asylum seekers to have the type of legal assistance needed to more fully ensure that bona fide refugees receive the protection that the U.S. public wants to give them and that our laws require. Despite the importance of legal representation, there has yet to be a systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of the current delivery mechanisms in place to aid those in need of legal services and the effect of representation on the asylum system in general. This paper examines the state of affairs with regard to asylum representation and attempts to understand better the barriers to representation. It also begins to assess the effects of representation on asylum seekers and the asylum system itself, and to analyze the various ways in which the representation system can be improved