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.
Everyday humanitarian diplomacy: Experiences from border areas
Cristina Churruca Muguruza
Using legal empowerment to curb corruption and advance accountability
Procedural fairness for curbing corruption. Taking bureaucratic decision-making out of the shadows
Migai Akech, Monica Kirya