A Comparative Study of the Refugee Convention Article 1 F (exclusion) and Articles C-E (cessation)
The right to seek asylum, and the conflicting interests that may arise between the rights of the asylum seeker on the one hand and the recipient country's wish to control immigration on the other, have raised a series of different questions of judicial, moral and political character. Central judicial questions are linked to the recognition as a refugee, as defined by international law as well as national law. Particular moral and practical problems arise when the asylum seeker is suspected of having committed gross human rights violations, or of having participated in terrorist activities. The aim of the report is to provide a mapping of central questions that are linked to the above dilemmas. This is done through a presentation and analysis of the international legal framwork combined with a comparative study of legal practice in this field in five selected countries (Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Canada). The study also provides recommendations to policy makers and practitioners regarding procedural and institutional questions.
The International Protection Alternative in Refugee Law: Treaty basis and scope of application under the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol
Family law reform in Sudan: competing claims for gender justice between sharia and women’s human rights
Samia El Nagar, Liv Tønnessen