Refugee Definition Research Articles

Drøftelse af flygtningebegrebets definition

AbstractThe main subject of the debate was whether or not it is advisable to extend the concept of refugee beyond the present strict legal definitions and include more humanitarian concerns as suggested by Poul Hartling. On the one hand it was maintained in alia that — an extension of the international concept would create a discrepancy between the national concepts and the international concept — the concept of refugee applicable at the time of passing legislation concerning refugees still pertains — the quota-systems require strict adherence to legal definitions — the unsuccessful conference on territorial asylum proved the difficulty of adopting common norms of a broad humanitarian nature wrich is at the same time acceptable to governments - it was easier for the UNHCR in his pragmatic international work of a humanitarian administrative and social nature to adopt a wide concept, whereas the national refugee agencies whose problems is primarily that of issuing residence permits have to apply a more precise and narrow definition. Others took the view that — even in international law the concept of refugee is not totally static; in this respect it was mentioned that in spite of unmerous laws on refugees in Sweden, a precise definition has never been found - a liberal interpretation of existing written norms was called for rather than attempts to establish totally new definitions in a legally binding form - humanitarian concerns are not opposed to legal concepts; on the contrary, the legal concepts emerge from humanitarian and other political concerns — the definition in international law is to be considered a minimum norm. It was suggested that the refugee concept could be much wider in the field of assistance rather than in the field of protection. The dichotomy of having two refugee concepts, an international and a national come out as a practical problem when it comes to recognizing the refugee status. Theoretically, the dichotomy does not create serious problems, because the recognition is declaratory, not constitutive. In practical terms, there is a problem, however, because there is only one (effective) recognition of refugee status, the national recognition. It was noted that the High Commissioner often responded spontaneously to emergency situations involving wholely or in part groups of people falling beyond or on the verge of his mandate. The UN General Assembly, however, never failed to welcome such action thereby accepting a wider definition of UNCHR's mandate. The problems of de facto refugees were discussed. Reluctance was expressed towards extending the number of categories of refugees, e.g. by adding C and D categories to the A and B categories existing in the Nordic countries. It was preferable to extend the general definition of refugee in the manner of e.g. the Netherlands, Switzerland, or Sweden. A consequence of recognizing de facto refugees explicitly one way or the other was that the concept of de facto refugee would disappear. A common international definition which includes de facto refugees was called for. On the other hand, a warning was issued against adopting a very precise definition thereby creating new limits and new categories of people needing humanitarian assistance or protection but falling outside accepted categories. The problem of lacking international sanctions against countries which do not apply the international minimum standards was mentioned. It was pointed out, however, that the good offices and diplomatic initiatives of the High Commissioner often proved highly effective. Finally, a number of participants invited the High Commissioner to engage deeper into regional arrangements and to open a regional office in the Nordic countries.

Proposed Revisions of U.S. Western Hemisphere Immigration Policies

The House of Representatives Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship and International Law on March 28, 1973, opened hearings on revision of the Western Hemisphere immigration system. The emphasis was to create a preference system to regulate the flow of the 120,000 ceiling immigrants who are admitted from this hemisphere each year. It became clearly evident early in the course of the hearings that the subcom? mittee members were to take an extremely conservative approach to any revi? sions. Upon the conclusion of the hearings the subcommittee completely rewrote H. R. 981 as originally introduced by Representative Peter W. Rodino Jr, an analysis of which was published in the Fall issue. Although the new bill still retains the H. R. 981 designation, the substance and language is entirely dif? ferent from the original bill. A preference system identical with one exception to that of the Eastern Hemisphere is proposed. Section 203 (a) (7) which grants a preference to refugees is amended by broadening the definition of refugee along the lines of that used by the U. N. High Commissioner for Refugees so that refugees from any part of the world can qualify. Secondly, provision is made by statute autho? rizing the Attorney General to parole additional refugees should seventh preference numbers not be available but only after consultation with the appro? priate congressional committees. Adjustment of status after two years is provided notwithstanding the numerical limitations specified in this Act. The maximum per country limitation is retained at 20,000 annually. No special treatment is accorded Canada and Mexico as recommended by the De? partment of State, a provision which was contained in Mr. Rodino's original version of H.R. 981. This subject received the greatest attention of the subcom? mittee and created the most controversy. An amendment sponsored by Representative Rodino to create special status for these contiguous nations failed in the full committee and later on the floor of the House (174?203). The bill was passed on September 26, 1973 by a vote of 336 to 30 and was referred to the Senate for consideration.

Re Tombouros.

The individual in international law — Aliens — Position of — Treatment by and responsibilities of the receiving State — Refugees — Geneva Convention on Status of Refugees, 1951 (Article 1) — Definition of refugee — Articles 27 and 28 — Obligation of contracting parties to issue identity papers and travel documents — Right of appeal against decision refusing refugee status — Proof of refugee status — The law of France.