Supervising the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Article 35 and beyond

Kälin, Walter

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511493973.032

Cited by 31 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…See also Grahl-Madsen (1997), 150. 153 See e.g. Kälin (2003), 623-624;Lewis (2012), 46-47, 150-151;Türk (2013), [50][51] Article 29(1)(c) of the 2013 Procedures Directive.…”

Section: The Unhcrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…156 Although those amicues curiae and other submissions to courts should be 'regarded as authoritative statements whose disregard requires justification' [Kälin (2003), 627].…”

Section: The Unhcrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…158 See e.g. Kälin (2003), 625; Edwards (2013), 168; Chetail (2019), [389][390][391]. For the states' reluctance to provide the UNHCR with requested data, see Lewis (2012), 45.…”

Section: The Unhcrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…UNHCR (1990), [254][255]. See also Kälin (2003), 617, claiming that the states' unwillingness to be too burdened with duties towards the UNHCR led to the exclusion of Article 35 of the 1951 Refugee Convention from the list of provisions to which no reservations may be made, as provided for in Article 42.…”

Section: Lack Of International Asylum Courtmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Seeking Convergence? A Comparative Analysis of the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union on Seeking Asylum

Lysienia

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2009 two courts have been shaping human rights of asylum seekers in Europe: the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Side by side, the courts examined who is protected from refoulement, when and how asylum seekers can be detained and what remedies they should have access to. Did they seek convergence in their asylum case-law or paid no attention to each other’s jurisprudence? Did they establish a coherent standard of the asylum seekers’ protection in Europe? Judicial dialogue between the ECtHR and CJEU in the area of asylum is at the heart of this study. The book offers also a comprehensive overview of the asylum case-law of the two courts and identifies the main convergences and divergences in their approach to protection against refoulement, immigration detention and effective remedies.

show abstract

“…See also Grahl-Madsen (1997), 150. 153 See e.g. Kälin (2003), 623-624;Lewis (2012), 46-47, 150-151;Türk (2013), [50][51] Article 29(1)(c) of the 2013 Procedures Directive.…”

Section: The Unhcrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…156 Although those amicues curiae and other submissions to courts should be 'regarded as authoritative statements whose disregard requires justification' [Kälin (2003), 627].…”

Section: The Unhcrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…158 See e.g. Kälin (2003), 625; Edwards (2013), 168; Chetail (2019), [389][390][391]. For the states' reluctance to provide the UNHCR with requested data, see Lewis (2012), 45.…”

Section: The Unhcrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lack Of International Asylum Courtmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Seeking Convergence? A Comparative Analysis of the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union on Seeking Asylum

Lysienia

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…25 Essentially, the Guiding Principles identify and reinforce the intersection of specific IHRL and IHL guarantees for IDPs. 26 They explicitly recognize the right not to be arbitrarily displaced and spell out in detail the rights of those who are displaced. They further reaffirm that a government cannot deny access to international humanitarian organizations providing assistance to IDPs if it is unable or unwilling to provide the necessary assistance itself, and underline the right of IDPs to either return voluntarily to their homes or places of habitual residence or to resettle voluntarily in another part of the country.…”

Section: The 1998 Guiding Principles On Internal Displacementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protecting internally displaced persons: The value of the Kampala Convention as a regional example

Dieng¹

2017

Int. rev. Red Cross

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the value of the African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention) in the general quest for the regional and global protection of internally displaced persons (IDPs). It contends that the absence of a globally binding legal instrument for the protection of IDPs underlines the importance of the Kampala Convention and the possible contribution it can make to global and regional efforts to create a binding legal framework for the protection of IDPs. While recognizing some challenges that may impact the full implementation of the Convention, the article concludes by noting its various positive elements that are invaluable in overall efforts to create a comprehensive global legal framework to enhance protection of IDPs.

show abstract

Refugee Status Determination Process for LGBTI Asylum Seekers: (In)Consistencies of States’ Implementations with UNHCR’s Authoritative Guidance

Güler

2018

LGBTI Asylum Seekers and Refugees From a Legal and Political Perspective

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Supervising the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Article 35 and beyond

Cited by 31 publications

References 0 publications

Seeking Convergence? A Comparative Analysis of the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union on Seeking Asylum

Seeking Convergence? A Comparative Analysis of the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union on Seeking Asylum

Protecting internally displaced persons: The value of the Kampala Convention as a regional example

Refugee Status Determination Process for LGBTI Asylum Seekers: (In)Consistencies of States’ Implementations with UNHCR’s Authoritative Guidance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About