The Restriction of Refugee Rights during the ÖVP-FPÖ Coalition 2017–2019 in Austria

ABSTRACTVarious laws and policies exist in Iran that discriminate against people labelled as ‘others’. The state-owned and state-controlled media outlets, the most important being the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), are used to publicise and to promote such laws and regulations in the form of propaganda. While the laws and regulations are state administered, Iranians are the targeted audience of such propaganda and are encouraged to take heed and to act on the ‘otherness’. The Iranian public is legally incited to violate the human rights of the ‘other’. This article focuses on the recent Iranians migrants and their thoughts on human rights of Afghan refugees in Iran as an ‘other’ in relation to the appropriateness of the representation of the human rights of Afghan refugees on IRIB. The research draws on quantitative and qualitative data from a study of 101 recent Iranian migrants. An analysis of the data reveals discrimination of Iranian migrants, a majority of whom are refugees themselves, against the Afghan refugees in Iran. These results are indicative of a larger human rights issue within Iran that goes beyond the state policies and regulations and shows a lack of knowledge of the human rights of refugees, on the part of the Iranian population.

In this chapter, concept of refugees, legal status of refugees, educational rights of refugees, concept of multicultural education are discussed. This section on refugees and immigrants in Turkey, multiculturalism, multicultural education concept aims to investigate basic human right of the refugees, immigrants and asylum seekers, right of education. Principles and recommendations should be produced on structuring and management of multicultural educational environments that would support right and struggle of existence of refugees, who would affect the future social, cultural, economic and political structure of Turkey, in this structure. As a result, in Turkish context, a “Commission for Educational Programs and Strategies for Refugee and Immigrants” that would include multidisciplinary experts and implementers and would be activated within National Education Ministry and organized also in periphery could produce and implement action plans and projects to provide educational rights of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers in rational, academic, legal, political and humane manner.

The term ‘refugee’ refers to an individual who has been forced to leave his or her homeland to escape persecution, war, or natural disasters. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution, which may be directed towards a specific social group for reasons of religion, race, nationality, political opinion, or membership. This study was conducted to examine the protection of the human rights of Rohingya refugees during their stay in Malaysia. In total, 300 Malaysians were involved in answering an online questionnaire that utilized a Likert scale measurement. The data collected was formulated using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS). Overall, following the profiling of the human rights of refugees in Malaysia, the findings indicated that the most significant right of the refugees was the Right to Employment. Refugees should be able to obtain employment rights as Malaysia faces a shortage of workers, especially in certain fields offering ‘3D jobs’. This refers to industries that are dirty, difficult, and dangerous.

In this chapter, concept of refugees, legal status of refugees, educational rights of refugees, concept of multicultural education are discussed. This section on refugees and immigrants in Turkey, multiculturalism, multicultural education concept aims to investigate basic human right of the refugees, immigrants and asylum seekers, right of education. Principles and recommendations should be produced on structuring and management of multicultural educational environments that would support right and struggle of existence of refugees, who would affect the future social, cultural, economic and political structure of Turkey, in this structure. As a result, in Turkish context, a “Commission for Educational Programs and Strategies for Refugee and Immigrants” that would include multidisciplinary experts and implementers and would be activated within National Education Ministry and organized also in periphery could produce and implement action plans and projects to provide educational rights of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers in rational, academic, legal, political and humane manner.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the presented paper, which has empirical nature, is to obtain data on how the rights of refugees are perceived today. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: The research problem of the paper is: How do youth in Germany and Poland evaluate refugee rights and what factors influence their attitude towards refugee rights? The survey method was used in the research. The data collection took place 2013/2014. In Germany, the survey included a total of 2157 students, in Poland 1211 respondents. THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: The study was based on the assumption that attitudes towards refugee rights are predicted by such factors as: human dignity, empathy, religious beliefs, and socio-political perceptions and convictions. Based on these determinants, a conceptual model was created and used in the research. RESEARCH RESULTS: The findings show that respondents differ regarding refugee rights. German youth show some support for refugee rights and Polish youth are ambivalent. The strongest predictor for support of refugee rights for both groups is the concept of multiculturalism. The capacity for empathy and an advocacy of a politically active Christianity are important predictors, but only for the German sample. CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The fact that religious beliefs have hardly positive impact on the support of refugee rights is a desideratum for religious education.

The point and purpose of the definition of a refugee so far discussed in the preceding chapters is that a refugee be afforded the rights set out in the Refugee Convention. The most important of these rights is the right of non-refoulement set out at Article 33 of the Refugee Convention: the right not to be returned to face persecution. It is far from the only right the Refugee Convention bestows on a refugee, though. This chapter briefly outlines the rights of refugees at Articles 2 to 34 and the way in which the Refugee Convention imparts those rights to refugees at different points in their literal then metaphorical journey as refugees. The key reference point for analysis and understanding of the rights of refugees is Professor James Hathaway’s substantial work on the subject, The Rights of Refugees under International Law, at the time of writing in its second edition. Hathaway begins by observing that the rights of refugees were in the past largely uncontroversial in the industrialized world because most such countries admitted refugees as long-term residents, either formally or in practice. In doing so, these countries broadly, if incidentally, imparted rights in compliance with the requirements of the Refugee Convention. It was therefore access to the territory, the definition of a refugee and the refugee status determination process that were controversial. The reverse was true in the developing world, where the vast majority of the world’s refugees are hosted.

O objetivo do presente trabalho é mostrar a relevância da OC nº 21/2014 da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos para, via controle de convencionalidade, garantir a proteção dos direitos das crianças refugiadas no Brasil. Para tal, foi realizada uma pesquisa bibliográfica e documental na doutrina, legislação e jurisprudência nacionais e estrangeiras. Verificou-se que, somente após a Segunda Guerra Mundial, os direitos dos refugiados começaram a receber atenção da comunidade internacional. Assim, também, constatou-se que o direito de refúgio é um direito fundamental, cuja interpretação deve ser realizada, via controle de convencionalidade, à luz dos documentos internacionais de direitos humanos, a exemplo da Convenção relativa ao Estatuto dos Refugiados, aprovada em 1951, e da OC nº 21/2014 da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos. Concluiu-se, a partir da análise de uma decisão judicial brasileira que, embora os avanços, ainda é necessário um maior conhecimento sobre o controle de convencionalidade por parte das autoridades brasileiras, de forma a melhor proteger os direitos de crianças.

Being a Contracting Party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its Protocol with geographical limitation, Turkey provides conditional refugee status, not refugee status, to persons feeling persecution as a result of events occurring outside Europe. This study focuses on the rights of conditional refugees under Turkish laws and questions whether these rights comply with or diverge from the rights of refugee under the Convention. It draws conclusions on the significance and challenging character of the identified divergences and on the changes that Turkey needs to make in its laws in case of an eventual lifting.

Climate change and other environmental problems are increasingly leading to the displacement of populations from their homelands, whether through drought, flooding, famine or other causes. Worse, there is currently no protection in international law for people made refugees by such means. Following on from her previous explorations of environmental justice as it relates to future generations and indigenous peoples, Laura Westra now turns her attention to the plight of ecological refugees. In Part I, Westra provides an overview of what defines an ecological refugee and their present legal status. Part II goes into greater depth as to who the vulnerable are and what protection they have in international law. Part III looks to the future, advocating a comprehensive approach to the problem. With extensive examples and analysis, this is a compelling treatment that will be indispensable for legal professionals, government and business leaders, academics and students of the role of law in the protection of the rights of refugees.

The origins of refugee rights are closely intertwined with the emergence of the general system of international human rights law. Like international human rights, the refugee rights regime is a product of the twentieth century. Its contemporary codification by the United Nations took place just after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and was strongly influenced by the Declaration's normative structure.

Ethiopia became the second largest refugee hosting country in Africa – with the count of registered refugees and asylum seekers reaching 905,831 as of 31 August 2018. Displaced from twenty-six countries worldwide, most refugees fled from protracted crisis, famine, instability, forced military conscription and repression in South Sudan, Somalia and Eritrea. Although Ethiopia acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereafter called the Refugee Convention) and has furthermore ratified the Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa (hereinafter called the African Refugee Convention), it has, for the most part, pursued a strict encampment policy and adopted restricted service provision approaches in the administration of refugees’ affairs. Compared to a range of international legal obligations it has assumed, some limitations continued to feature nationally – hampering the effective implementation of the rights of refugees in various scales. Since 2016, Ethiopia’s policy drive in relation to refugees started to gravitate from the current ‘camp-based basic services provision’ approach to a more ‘progressive and rights-centered’ model that also considers alternatives to the encampment of refugees. A landmark expression of nine intertwined pledges – proposed on the occasion of the 71st UN Summit on Refugees and Migrants held in New York, kindled a new glimmer of hope for the refugee community and furthermore provided a solid political basis and direction for enhanced protection and provision of civil, political and socio-economic services to refugees. At the Summit, Ethiopia rolled a comprehensive approach – committing, in global solidarity, to provide refugees shelter, rights and improved livelihood opportunities. To carry out the commitments, Ethiopia embarked on the design of a holistic policy frame, legislative actions and strategic response mechanisms fostering peaceful coexistence, greater inclusion and entitlement of refugees. As such, one interwoven policy regime that assists refugees to receive enhanced protection and attain quality livelihood is related to interventions focusing on the regulation of practice relating to the Out of Camp Policy (OCP), legal residency, freedom of movement and engagement in gainful employment. Over the years, positive headways have been recorded in Ethiopia’s policy orientation on refugees. Yet, in many areas including residency, freedom of movement and engagement in gainful employment, refugees’ legal entitlements and experience remained challenged by regulatory gaps and uncertainties. This set of circumstances entailed that the evolving legal frameworks, institutional response mechanisms, challenges and opportunities need to be analyzed in the contemporary context in order to understand the full spectrum of their contents and implications on the rights of refugees and recommend informed interventions. The central objective of this empirical study is to review normative developments, institutional arrangements and experiences in Ethiopia – particularly focusing on rights of refugees to legal residency, freedom of movement and engagement in gainful employment – both within and outside of the OCP setting. More specifically, the study scrutinizes key features of international and national legal frameworks that are pertinent in the context of the rights of refugees in Ethiopia, new changes in policy and regulatory approaches, and the projected effect of the application of such approaches. Furthermore, contours of Ethiopia’s OCP regime – including the processes, eligibility requirements, and rights and obligations of refugees granted such status will be examined in context.

Against the backdrop of the bilateral cooperation on migration control between individual European Union Member States and third countries, this article examines whether the implementation of readmission agreements can hamper access to protection for asylum-seekers subjected to a return procedure. It concludes that no issue of incompatibility with refugee and human rights law seems to stem from the text of readmission agreements – administrative tools used to articulate the procedures for a smooth return of irregular migrants and rejected refugees to countries of origin or transit. Nevertheless, instances of informal practices of border control, especially in situations of emergency and mass influxes demonstrate how the existence of a readmission agreement may boost the use of swift and accelerated identification and return procedures in dissonance with international human rights and refugee law. As readmission agreements do not generally include separate provisions on refugees, a real risk exists of removing asylum-seekers, as unauthorised migrants, to allegedly “ safe third countries” . The article hails, therefore, as an added value, the insertion of both non-affection clauses and procedural human rights clauses creating extra safeguards for removable asylum-seekers. To this end, a number of concrete proposals of draft provisions are put forward as a platform for further discussion among legal scholars and policy-makers.

South Africa’s progressive refugee legislation, together with its rights-regarding Constitution and a strong focus on administrative law, provide a powerful legal framework for the protection of refugee and asylum-seeker rights. Yet, despite numerous successful court challenges advancing these rights, many rights-violating practices have persisted. Asylum seekers face problems accessing the proper status determination procedures and are illegally detained and deported. The effects of court judgments upholding asylum-seeker and refugee rights have been blocked because courts lack a supportive socio-political support structure to implement their decisions. Government actors do not feel strictly bound by the law, have few incentives for compliance, and are largely unaccountable for legal violations. By better understanding the barriers to effective legal decisions, public interest lawyers and courts can develop broader strategies aimed at overcoming these barriers and increasing the effectiveness of legal decisions.

This article examines refugee-related violence by exploring the effect of extensive refugee rights on the risk of civil conflict and violent attacks against refugees by local population. The provision of fundamental rights, such as the freedom of movement, can reduce refugee groups’ grievances, the risk of radicalization, and the ability of militant organizations to recruit refugees, thereby decreasing the risk of civil conflict. Regarding the behavior of local population toward refugees, two opposing effects of refugee rights may be at play. Extensive refugee policies may trigger civilian backlash by aggravating the perception of threat posed by refugees and increase the risk of civilian attacks against refugees. On the other hand, allowing refugees to integrate into society may provide economic benefits for locals and facilitate socialization between groups, reducing the motivation of citizens to target refugees. Using an original global dataset on refugee rights, I find that liberal refugee policies are associated with a reduction in the risk of civil conflict as well as anti-refugee violence in host states. This suggests that host governments and international organizations should give greater priority to guaranteeing refugee rights and promoting income-generating activities among uprooted populations to minimize potential security risks associated with refugees.

The COVID-19 pandemic came as a shock for the entire world, and it is still ongoing, consequentially hindering mankind from following their normal lives. The novel coronavirus was first reported from the Wuhan city, Hubei province of China, and WHO was aware of the same on 31 December 2019. The entire world came to still for months to prevent the virus from spreading. In India, there was a massive displacement of over 200 million migrant workers due to the sudden lockdown in the country. During this turmoil, the authors feel that the rights of the climate refugees were overlooked. This article will examine the health rights of the climate refugees during this pandemic with a specific focus on the climate refugees staying in the Sundarban Delta during this pandemic. The authors have undertaken a theoretical and qualitative data analysis to analyse the same. The study’s findings showcase the vulnerability due to the negligible health facilities available for them. In this regard, the article would identify the lacuna in the legal framework for protecting the rights of the climate refugees and will argue for integrating and interpreting International Law and Human Rights Law to at least cover the health rights of the climate refugees during pandemics. The authors suggest that the rights of climate change refugees should not be ignored.