Marjoleine Zieck

Peoples and minorities in international law

Preface. Table of Abbreviations. Part One: Evolution. Postmodern Tribalism and the Right to Secession T.M. Franck. Postmodern Tribalism and the Right to Secession, Comments R. Higgins. Africa: Lost between Self-Determination and Uti Possidetis J. Klabbers, R. Lefeber. The Evolution of Minority Rights in International Law N. Lerner. The Evolution of Minority Rights in International Law, Comments M. Nowak. Third Generation Rights J. Donnelly. Part Two: Levels of Identification and Protection. The Emergence of New Minorities as a Result of Migration R. Wolfrum. The European Communities and its Minorities B. de Witte. Indigenous Peoples C.M. Broelmann, M.Y.A. Zieck. The Degree of Self-Rule in Unitarian and Federal States Y. Dinstein. Part Three: Means of Enforcement. Fact-Finding into the Problems of Minorities B.G. Ramcharan. The International Judicial Protection of Peoples and Minorities A.M. de Zayas. The Legitimacy of the Use of Force to Protect Peoples and Minorities M. Bothe. International Representation of Peoples and Minorities A.C. Zoller. The Position of the UNPO in the International Legal Order M. van Walt van Praag. The Second Amsterdam International Law Conference. Synthesis H. Hannum. Table and Index of Treaties and Other International Instruments. Index.

The European Refugee Crisis from a Vantage Point of View

Europe is confronted with what is invariably referred to as a ‘crisis’: an ongoing influx of refugees mainly but not exclusively from Syria. Although the root cause of flight – the brutal Syrian civil war – rages already for five years, Europe appears to have been caught by surprise as a result of which individual states resort to taking unilateral measures with a view to stemming the flow. A rather popular measure appears to be the hasty erection of fences. The fall of the Berlin wall, long a symbol of a profound division within Europe, has been forgotten and new grim divisions are created: this time not to prevent people from leaving but to prevent them from entering and accessing protection. Barbed wire fences and walls have been erected within a very short time between Hungary and Serbia, Hungary and Croatia, Greece and Macedonia, Croatia and Slovenia, Bulgaria and Turkey, and Greece and Turkey.1 Other unilateral measures include the recently adopted Danish law that allows the seizure of assets (money and valuables exceeding 1300 euro) from incoming refugees,2 and the quotum set by Austria regarding the maximum number of refugees who may apply for asylum: 127,500 refugees within four years (i.e., 37,000 per year).3

The Limitations of Voluntary Repatriation and Resettlement of Refugees

UNHCR is charged with the pursuit of durable solutions for the problem of refugees. Those solutions are voluntary repatriation and assimilation within new national communities which means either local integration in the country of refuge - tangentially touched upon in this paper - or resettlement in a third state. ‘Voluntary repatriation’ is the generally preferred solution whilst ‘resettlement’ is considered to be the solution of last resort. This chapter will focus on the limitations of both solutions. Voluntary repatriation is an inherently complex and demanding solution. Beyond that, it hinges on the formal link of nationality - alternatively, in the absence of that particular link and even more tenuous: mere residence in the country of origin - of the refugees concerned even though that link may, owing to the passage of time, have turned into a rather artificial one and the same applies to former habitual residence of one’s forebears. Resettlement is a solution for relatively few refugees, tainted by scarcity and the leeway that apparently is considered, right or wrong, to inhere in the discretion of states to offer resettlement places. Both solutions date from a specific historic time and context, whereby resettlement, rather than local integration, developed as the solution for those who had valid objections to returning to their respective countries of origin. Nonetheless, on the basis of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, those with valid objections to return - that is, refugees in the sense of the Convention - are in essence entitled to local integration in the country of refuge rather than resettlement. In view of the limitations of voluntary repatriation particularly with respect to those who are trapped in protracted refugee situations, the original priority given to resettlement is worth revisiting.

Snakes in Ireland: Questioning the Assumption of 'Collective Responsibility' to Protect Refugees

The recognition of the international scope and nature of the problem of refugees, which induced the establishment of UNHCR and the adoption of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, did not result in shared responsibility for the protection of refugees but rather in a strict apportioning of responsibilities between UNHCR on the one hand, and states on the other. Rather than sharing the apportioned part as a collective responsibility, states become individually responsible for refugees who seek refuge in their respective territories, and hence only for part of the problem of refugees. This individual responsibility is triggered by observing the prohibition of refoulement. Since this prohibition is not coupled to a distributive mechanism, its observance may cause huge disparities in terms of numbers of refugees, and hence in the extent of responsibility individual states incur. Remedying these indiscriminate effects would require taking collective responsibility for the problem of refugees, more in particular, a system that would secure joint and several responsibility whereby individual states have the right of recourse to other states to recover ‘overpayment’, in short: a non-discretionary burden sharing mechanism that involves all states.

UNHCR's parallel universe: marking the contours of a problem

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

The Panamanian assumption of full control of the administration and operation of the Panama Canal

Approximately the entire 20th century, the Panama Canal (including a strip of land bordering the canal known as the ‘canal zone’) was essentially controlled by the United States, a control which included the primary responsibility for its defence. With the onset of the new millennium, however, the canal reverted to exclusive Panamanian control. This contribution will briefly recall the legal basis of this watershed which dates from 1977 and indicate if the United States retains any residual powers as regards the Panama Canal in particular its defence.

Reconceiving International Refugee Law.@@@UNHCR and Voluntary Repatriation of Refugees: A Legal Analysis.

Preface: Can International Refugee Law Be Made Relevant Again? J.C. Hathaway. I. Temporary Protection M.A. Castillo, J.C. Hathaway. II. Repatriation Aid and Development Assistance R.F. Gorman, G. Kibreab. III. Responsibility Sharing A. Hans, A. Suhrke. IV. Fiscal Burden Sharing A. Acharya, D.B. Dewitt. Afterword: Assessing the Prospects for Reform of International Refugee Law W. Frelick. Bibliography.Preface. Abbreviations. Introduction. 1. Of Solutions and Problems. Part One: The Legal Framework. 2. The Concept of International Refugee Law. 3. Some Historical Observations. 4. The Mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 5. Marking the Contours of Voluntary Repatriation. Part Two: Voluntary Repatriation in Practice. 6. Cambodia (Thailand) 1980. 7. Iraq (Turkey) 1991. 8. Cambodia (Thailand) 1992, 1993. 9. Mozambique (Malawi) 1993-1995. Part Three: Synthesis. 10. The Solution of Voluntary Repatriation. 11. The Concept of Refugee Law Revisited. Annex: The Case of the Indochinese Refugees or An Exceptional Case of Voluntary Repatriation. Select Bibliography. Index.