Cuestiones legales y prácticas a raíz de los movimientos de población a través del Mediterráneo

Los movimientos de población son un fenómeno con el que debemos aprender a vivir y que debemos gestionar lo mejor que podamos por el interés de todos. Entre otras cuestiones, esto exige que el trato entre Estados se base en la equidad y la igualdad, más que sobre unas expectativas desfasadas y surrealistas de derecho soberano

Refugees and Responsibility in the Twenty-First Century: More Lessons Learned from the South Pacific

[G]overnments throughout the world have tried to avoid dealing with the difficult questions raised by refugee and related movements. One method is to seek to redefine the problem as one not involving obligation or responsibility. Some governments also use the law in an attempt to limit the scope of their obligations. Another technique . . . is to engage in an exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction . . . and to seek to justify that practice on the ground that somehow obligations towards refugees need not be observed. States have also tried detention, discriminatory treatment, and denial of other human rights in their attempts to dissuade the refugee and asylum seekers . . . . In Australia, where there is no constitutional protection or Bill of Rights, the Government has continued to expand its field of executive, arbitrary power which began with the introduction of mandatory non-reviewable detention in 1991. In the case of the Tampa, Norway\u27s position, based on Article 98 of [the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea], customary international law and generally accepted humanitarian standards, was that Australia was obliged to allow those rescued into the nearest port: this, in Norway\u27s view, was Christmas Island. However, next port of call is not a self-defining or self-applying concept, and in many instances it may be relative to the particular circumstances of rescue . . . . [T]he premises of the international protection regime (which draws on the specifics of international refugee law, on human rights law, and on more generally applicable rules), does provide a normative and institutional framework within which States ought to seek solutions. The U.N. Committee on Human Rights found that [Australia\u27s] policy and practice of mandatory and non-reviewable detention was arbitrary and a breach of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and a similar conclusion was reached by the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in 1998. The question effectively arising in the Tampa case was whether the State primarily engaged had the courage to respond internationally, or whether it would look no further than its own narrow and short-term self-interest. The Tampa incident is a reminder that the refugee regime is not a seamless web, even if certain core and often competing principles retain their normative power

Entry and Exclusion of Refugees: The Obligations of States and the Protection Function of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Refugee problems today tend to have one factor in common-the huge numbers of people involved. But whether it is a case of one or of a mass of individuals, each arriving asylum seeker represents a challenge to established principles of state sovereignty. International jurists once wrote of the free movement of persons between nations, unhampered by passport and visa control. Since the late nineteenth century, however, the principle most widely accepted has been that each state retains exclusive control- an absolute discretion- over the admission to its territory of foreign nationals, refugees or not. Although in practice many countries concede that certain individuals may have some claim to enter (e.g., the close family members of local citizens or lawful residents), such claims must rely for their enforcement and implementation upon municipal law, and only rarely does international law have any relevance

You Cannot Shake That Shimmie Here

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mmb-vp/3451/thumbnail.jp

Temporary Refuge from War: Customary International Law and the Syrian Conflict

The rule of temporary refuge forms the cornerstone of states’ response in cases of large-scale influx of refugees. In the context of civilians fleeing armed conflict, this legal rule imposes a positive obligation on all states to admit and not to return anyone to a situation of risk to life, and to provide basic rights commensurate with human dignity. Also implicit in the rule is the expectation of shared responsibility for large numbers of refugees and international cooperation towards durable solutions. This article examines the customary international law of temporary refuge (also known as temporary protection) in relation to the Syrian conflict. It discusses implementation of the rule in the practices of three neighbouring countries to Syria, and in the EU. It finds Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan to have engaged in practices consistent with the rule of temporary refuge. However, the EU decided not to use the Temporary Protection Directive; instead individual member states have relied on the Refugee Convention and EU law, combined with various other measures not pertinent to temporary protection. It concludes that shared responsibility is the linchpin of temporary refuge. Absent this keystone, the rule of temporary refuge is likely to continue being implemented primarily in a regional context by countries the nearest to the country affected by conflict, as seen in the case of Syria

Colombia and Combined Flows of Migrants in the International Refugee Law

Colombia se ha convertido en los últimos años en un país de tránsitopara los flujos mixtos de migrantes. Estas dinámicas globales son consecuencia de las necesidades de los individuos de huir de sus países, debido a conflictos internos, violencia generalizada, violaciones masivas a los derechos humanos, persecución de Estado, catástrofes naturales o simplemente la esperanza de mejorar sus condiciones socioeconómicas. Esto ha causado que los migrantes deban acudir a redes internacionales de tráfico de personas cuando no pueden migrar legalmente, porque no cumplen con los requisitos de visado.Este artículo buscará promover el debate sobre estos asuntos de política pública internacional, a través de la presentación de un diagnóstico sobre la situación actual de los flujos mixtos de migrantes, el tráfico de personas y la efectiva protección a sus derechos humanos, desde el enfoque del derecho internacional de los refugiados.During the last years, Colombia has become a country of transit for combined flows of migrants. This global dynamic is the resultof the needs of individuals for escaping from their countries of origindue to internal conflicts, general violence, massive violation of human rights, State persecution, natural disasters or the simple hope of improving their social and economic conditions. This has forced migrants to resort to international human trafficking networks when they are not able to migrate legally since they are not in compliance with relevant visa clearance requirements.This article is intended to promote a debate on international public policies, by providing a diagnosis on the current situation of the combined flows of migrants, human trafficking, and the effective protection of their human rights from the point of view of the international refugee law

Kant's Cosmopolitan Law: World Citizenship for a Global Order

Philosoph