Immigration has become an increasingly debated topic within the UK and it is submitted at the outset that the media obfuscation of reality and acting as scaremonger has further compounded rational debate in this area. This is further perpetuated by the media focus on national security and the terror threat post 9/11, which is increasingly shaping the Government's immigration law and policy de facto.
However, the blurring of the distinction between the need to legislate for immigration on the one hand and protection from terrorism on the other is further perpetuated by the patchwork of piecemeal immigration legislation in the UK, which is further compounded by the legal rights of asylum seekers.
[...] This further highlighted by the dichotomy in protection afforded by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 1950 and the Convention on the Status of Refugees 1951 (Convention) to asylum seekers. The focus of this analysis is to critically evaluate whether the ECHR affords better protection to asylum seekers with reference to relevant case law under both treaties. If we firstly consider the Convention, Harvey posits that the “definition of refugee status contained in the 1951 Convention, widely adopted by states was drafted in a specific historical context. [...]
[...] For example, in the US Board of Immigration Appeals in the case of Acosta[24] they adopted the ejusdem generic approach in interpreting the 1951 Convention and commented that shared characteristics might be an innate one such as sex, color, or kinship ties, or in some circumstances it might be a shared experience such as former military leadership or land ownership”[25]. Conversely, the Court of Appeal has held that gender is not a Convention reason and Lord Hoffman presiding in the Shah and Islam case[26] commented that it was anomalous that gender was not a Convention reason for refugee protection, which contrasts with the position under the ECHR. [...]
[...] 4th Edition Oxford University Press Weatherhill, (2005). Cases and Materials on EU Law. 7th Edition Oxford University Press. Legislation & Websites Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 Human Rights Act 1998 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2003 Asylum and Immigration Act 2004 Convention on the Status of Refugees 1951 at www.unchr.org/1951RefugeeConvention European Convention on Human Rights 1950 available in full at www.hri.org Dublin Convention 97/C 254/01 Dublin Regulation II Council Regulation No. [...]
[...] Immigration controls, the family and the welfare state: a handbook of law. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. (1996) Available at www.unhcr.org/refworld/country Ibid. Islam v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Shah [1997] Imm. A. R (2002). [2002] UKIAT 221. Clayton (2008) op.cit Ibid. Ibid. [1997] 2 ALL ER 723 Ibid. (1997) 23 EHRR 413 C. F. Doebbler (2004) International Human Rights Law: Cases and Materials. CDP Publishing. ECHR available in full at www.hri.org D. Hoffman & John Rowe (2006). [...]
[...] 7th Edition Oxford University Press. C. Harvey (2004). Seeking Asylum in the UK: Problems and Prospects. Cambridge University Press. Convention available at www.unchr.org/1951RefugeeConvention Ibid. Clayton (2008) op.cit. Ibid. Ibid. Convention available at www.unchr.org/1951RefugeeConvention [2004] UKHL 56 Ibid. Clayton (2008) op.cit. J.C. Hathaway (2007). The Rights of refugees under International Law. Human Rights Law Review 2007, 433-435. [1995] 3 S.C.R. Ibid Hathaway (2007) op.cit. Available at www.un.org/en/documents/udhr Ibid. Hathaway (2007) op.cit. Clayton (2008) op.cit Convention available at www.unchr.org/1951RefugeeConvention Article 9. S. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
