Abstract
Abstract Drawing on data from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland, this article shows that during the process of interpreting the refugee definition and applying it to the context of the Military/National Service Programme (MNSP), the definition is subject to various interpretations and applications. As a result, the treatment of similarly situated Eritrean asylum applications differs from one country to another. The article illustrates that asylum courts from the selected jurisdictions sideline relevant factors that classify the MNSP as slavery by failing to engage normatively with the international law definition of slavery. The findings suggest that a defective incorporation of international legal instruments in the assessment of protection claims based on slavery contributes to conflicting interpretations and applications of the refugee definition and can unduly de-legitimise Eritrean applications for refugee status as ‘unwanted migrants’.
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call