Search

Begin New Search Topic Protection Political Geography Global Focus

31. Comparative perspectives on airport asylum procedures before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Author:
Regina Jefferies
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted unprecedented border restrictions and closures around the world, slowing international air travel to a fraction of its pre-pandemic levels. Yet, persecution, conflict, disasters and violence – at times exacerbated by COVID-19 –continue to displace millions of people, forcing many to seek safety in other countries. Problematically, many States’ pandemic-related border restrictions have failed to provide exceptions for refugees and people seeking asylum.1 This has not only left people at risk of serious harm but has potentially resulted in numerous instances of refoulement. Even prior to the pandemic, overlapping international legal regimes governing air travel, passenger processing and international protection created particular difficulties for refugees and people seeking asylum, who were often unable to satisfy visa or other documentary requirements.2 Arguably, these have become even more entrenched during the pandemic, especially as some States have used COVID-19 as a cover for justifying blanket restrictions. Furthermore, in practical terms, limits on ‘non-essential’ travel have drastically reduced the number of flights available and severely curtailed access to air travel. This Policy Brief examines how different countries have dealt with international protection needs during the pandemic and provides guidance moving forward. It does so by examining the pre-pandemic use of airport asylum procedures in seven different countries (Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Germany, Uganda and the United States), as well as those countries’ subsequent use of border restrictions and/or closures in response to COVID-19. By reviewing a range of different approaches, it highlights persistent issues of transparency, procedural fairness and accountability that pre-date – but have been exacerbated by – the pandemic. With respect to measures suspending or limiting air travel, it identifies a number of recommended practices to ensure that States continue to meet their international protection obligations towards refugees and asylum seekers, while also responding to public health concerns. Although human rights law permits States to impose exceptional measures in a public health emergency (which must be necessary, proportionate and reasonable, as well as non-discriminatory), international law still requires that people seeking protection are given an effective opportunity to do so. As such, no risk to public health can justify a State denying asylum seekers and refugees access to their territory without appropriate safeguards to prevent refoulement and safeguard minimum rights.
Topic:
Borders, Mobility, COVID-19, Protection, and Asylum Seekers
Political Geography:
Global Focus

32. Curbing deception - A world survey of legal restrictions of so-called ‘conversion therapies’

Author:
Lucas Ramón Mendos
Publication Date:
02-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
ILGA World (International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association)
Abstract:
‘Conversion therapy’ is a term describing pseudo-scientific and harmful practices used to attempt altering a person’s gender expression, gender identity or sexual orientation. In 2020, ILGA World has released a ground-breaking report on the issue: Curbing Deception is an extensive global research into laws banning ‘conversion therapies’ both at the national and subnational level. The report explores the vast field of techniques used for the purpose of attempting to alter lesbians, gays and bisexuals’ sexual orientation, to prevent trans youth from transitioning or make trans people de-transition, or to force our gender expressions and roles to align with the social binary stereotypes of masculinity and femininity. It also analyses strategies beyond legal reform to restrict these harmful practices worldwide. Experimentation and abuse have long taken place under the legitimising cloak of medicine, psychology and science. As the report details, gruesome practices – including electroshock ‘therapies’, forced internments in ‘clinics’ and exorcisms – are still applied in numerous countries, pushing people of diverse sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions to living self-loathing lives, up to the extreme consequences of committing suicide. Protection from similar ineffective and cruel treatment is as urgent as ever: our report also exposes how - thanks to the tireless advocacy of activists, survivors and grassroots organisations – States, health professionals and international human rights bodies across the world are speaking up against so-called ‘conversion therapies’.
Topic:
Human Rights, Law, Reform, Regulation, LGBT+, Protection, and Conversion Therapy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

33. The role of complementary pathways in refugee protection

Author:
Tamara Wood
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
Abstract:
Complementary pathways provide a significant opportunity to enhance refugees access to protection and durable solutions, and to facilitate international responsibility-sharing in the protection of refugees. They also provide potential benefits to states and communities hosting refugees, helping to address current skill and labour shortages in countries of destination and fostering positive public attitudes to refugees. However, realising these benefits requires clarity in the nature, objectives and minimum standards required of complementary pathways, and clear frameworks for implementation that will ensure that such pathways promote, and do not risk undermining, the international protection regime.
Topic:
Migration, Refugees, and Protection
Political Geography:
Global Focus

34. Protecting Women Peacebuilders: The Front Lines of Sustainable Peace

Author:
Melinda Holmes, Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini, and Stacey Schamber
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN)
Abstract:
This report distills the range of threats to women peacebuilders, analyzes existing protection mechanisms, and provides guidance to protect women peacebuilders.
Topic:
Civil Society, Women, Peacebuilding, and Protection
Political Geography:
Global Focus

35. Lessons Learned from the First Generation of UN Investigative Mechanisms for Future Criminal Accountability: Considerations for CSO engagement with the United Nations Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar

Author:
Ferencz International Justice Initiative
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
1. The struggle for justice and accountability in Burma/Myanmar (hereinafter Myanmar1 ) has reached a milestone. Until now, concrete steps to address impunity for the most serious international crimes committed by the military—including well-documented patterns of mass atrocities indicating war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide—have largely been ad hoc, partial, or symbolic. In 2018, however, Member States of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council took the extraordinary step to pursue justice and accountability with the establishment of the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM). While there is no guarantee that the IIMM process will lead to meaningful accountability, it provides the best chance to date. The engagement of CSOs with the IIMM will be an essential part of the process. 2. This Report is designed primarily to inform and assist CSOs from Myanmar that may wish to engage with the IIMM. Based on desk research and interviews with UN staff and CSOs working with similar mechanisms in other contexts, the Report aims to help CSOs from Myanmar better appreciate what to expect in terms of the risks, benefits, and the various forms of engagement with the IIMM. The Report can also assist IIMM staff to build the best possible relationship with CSOs from Myanmar. 3. The Ferencz International Justice Initiative consulted UN staff and civil society activists working at, or engaged with, the following investigative mechanisms (collectively referred to as “the Mechanisms”) 2 : • Syria: The International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes Under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic Since March 2011 (Syria IIIM); • South Sudan: The Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan (CHRSS); and • Iraq: UN Investigative Team for Accountability of Da’esh (UNITAD)
Topic:
Security, United Nations, Accountability, Justice, Investigations, and Protection
Political Geography:
Southeast Asia, Myanmar, and Global Focus

36. FORCE VS. LEGITIMACY: UN PEACEKEEPING AND PROTECTING CIVILIAN LIVES

Author:
Anup Phayal
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Political Violence @ A Glance
Abstract:
In recent years, protection of civilians has become a key mandate for UN peacekeeping missions. A number of studies show that deploying peacekeepers in a post-conflict country can sustain the peace and lower violence against civilians. For this reason, there is a growing consensus to increase the military capacity of peacekeepers, not only to deter potential perpetrators, but also to conduct counter-insurgency style operations against spoilers of peace (see here, here and here). Yet, the core principles of peacekeeping—such as neutrality, minimal use of force, and dialogue—are incompatible with the preference for a military-centric approach, even though interventions today warrant some degree of coercive capacity against armed violence by opportunist actors. Furthermore, participating troops in “peacekeeping” missions often have less incentive to take risk by fighting against local actors. In light of this complexity, it is difficult to assess how military peacekeepers can best achieve the goal of civilian protection.
Topic:
United Nations, Peacekeeping, Legitimacy, Civilians, and Protection
Political Geography:
Global Focus

37. Safe Journeys and Sound Policy: Expanding protected entry for refugees

Author:
Claire Higgins
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
Abstract:
Protected entry procedures are visa mechanisms that allow individuals to apply for entry into another country for the purpose of accessing protection under international refugee or human rights law. Procedures are made available within countries of origin or first asylum, their primary function being to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees can travel safely across international borders and avoid potentially dangerous or exploitative irregular journeys. This Policy Brief draws on past and current State practice to outline what these procedures look like, and how they should operate as tools of refugee protection. It speaks to a core objective of the Global Compact on Refugees, which is to expand access to third-country solutions for refugees and asylum seekers. Forced migration is currently at record highs worldwide, but not all those who are displaced will want or need to move outside their region of origin. UNHCR has identified a relatively small number of refugees, 1.4 million people, as needing resettlement under its annual program in 2020. This means that States could make a real difference by expanding the use of protected entry procedures and other complementary pathways to increase access to protection and solutions.
Topic:
Refugees, Forced Migration, Protection, Migration Policy, and Asylum Seekers
Political Geography:
Global Focus

38. Global Peace Operations Review: 2019

Author:
Alexandra Novosseloff, Paige Arthur, and Marc Jacquand
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Global Peace Operations Review
Abstract:
After several years at a crossroads, United Nations peace operations took a definitive turn in 2019, shifting away from large, multidimensional, “conflict management” operations toward models that are smaller, more flexible, and have greater reliance on partnerships. This edition of Peace Operations Review surveys a year of reforms, the twentieth anniversary of the first protection of civilians mandate, and innovative approaches to peace operations transitions. Peace Operations Review 2019 takes stock of recent trends in peace operations. With articles from Alexandra Novosseloff, Marc Jacquand, and Paige Arthur, the review: Summarizes five key trends in peace operations, touching on the issues of UN reform, the role of the Security Council, transitions, an enhanced “spectrum” of peace operations, and resources vs. mandates Examines UNAMID’s innovative approaches to the forthcoming transition in Darfur Surveys the current state of affairs of protection of civilians mandates, with proposals for greater focus on risk management
Topic:
United Nations, Peacekeeping, Reform, UN Security Council, and Protection
Political Geography:
Sudan, Darfur, and Global Focus

39. Fighting Fire with Fire: The Growing Nexus between Atrocity Prevention and Counterterrorism and Its Implications for the Use of Force to Protect Civilians

Author:
Colin Thomas-Jensen
Publication Date:
02-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
By the fall of 2014, before the United States and its partners began the military campaign to erode the territory held by the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria, the international community understood the horrors endured by civilians living under IS control. While IS leadership plotted politically motivated attacks against its enemies in the region and in the West, reports trickling out from areas under the group’s merciless grip and IS’s own online propaganda clearly indicated a grave pattern of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including violence targeted at ethnic and religious minorities; women; the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community; and other vulnerable groups. As the United States considered its response to the rise of IS, the duality of the group’s threat—an external one to Americans and American interests and an internal one to civilians living in IS-held areas—animated two communities of US policy makers that had rarely interacted with one another: those focused on counterterrorism and atrocity prevention. The US-led military operation to prevent genocide by IS against the Yazidi community on Mount Sinjar, Iraq, that President Barack Obama announced on August 7, 2014, included the first volley of airstrikes in the more-than-three-year counterterrorism campaign to defeat IS in Iraq and Syria. Important for the atrocity-prevention community, the airstrikes and deployment of Special Operations Forces (alongside humanitarian experts) to help coordinate the evacuation of civilians demonstrated an openness on the part of senior US policy makers to use counterterrorism capabilities to prevent a mass atrocity. In hindsight, however, US-led lethal action against IS fighters who threatened thousands of Yazidis trapped on Mount Sinjar was more the outcome of a unique set of circumstances than a harbinger of a more collaborative relationship between the counterterrorism community and policy makers focused on preventing atrocities committed by state actors, such as the governments of Syria, South Sudan, and Myanmar, and nonstate actors, including militia groups with little to no connection with international terrorist networks. With terrorist groups such as IS, Boko Haram in the Lake Chad Basin, and al-Shabaab in the Horn of Africa almost certain to continue atrocities against local populations in areas in which they operate, a fundamental question for policy makers arises. Did the extreme circumstances under which the United States and its partners decided to intervene on Mount Sinjar necessarily represent a threshold for action, or can a more normalized relationship between the atrocityprevention and counterterrorism communities be advanced—a relationship that would seek to leverage counterterrorism tools and resources to take decisive action to protect non-US citizens from atrocities while improving measures to avoid civilian casualties, including civilians killed during actions taken by US counterterrorism partners? Drawing from interviews with nearly 40 former and current US policy makers and outside experts1 , as well as a convening of 20 experts at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in June 2017, this paper explains the increasing relevance of the counterterrorism–atrocityprevention nexus and defines some of the significant challenges of closer collaboration between those communities, with a specific focus on preventing imminent atrocities. Defining when (including clearly articulated criteria for what constitutes “imminent” in this scenario), how, and under whose authority to use force to prevent atrocities against civilians is only one element of broadening a counterterrorism strategy that also includes diplomacy and countering violent extremism (CVE) efforts. 2 This paper is narrowly focused on the use of force and argues that in some circumstances, the atrocity-prevention agenda can be advanced by using counterterrorism tools—including lethal strikes—to prevent imminent atrocities against civilians in areas where terrorist groups operate.
Topic:
Counter-terrorism, Islamic State, Civilians, Atrocity Prevention, and Protection
Political Geography:
Iraq, Middle East, Global Focus, and United States of America

40. ALNAP Guide: Evaluation of Protection in Humanitarian Action

Author:
Ian Christoplos, Neil Dillon, and Francesca Bonino
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
ALNAP: Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance
Abstract:
This companion to the ALNAP EHA Guide offers protection-specific insights for evaluators and evaluation commissioners across the humanitarian sector. It covers the planning, data management and analysis phases of evaluation and addresses a range of challenges that – whilst not all unique to protection – are often exacerbated by the contexts in which protection activities typically take place. Challenges addressed include those arising from the multi-faceted nature of protection activities, the difficulty understanding cause-effect relationships underlying protection risks, and the challenges of accessing and managing very sensitive data, sometimes drawn from communities in conflict.
Topic:
Performance Evaluation, Guidelines, Humanitarian Response, and Protection
Political Geography:
Global Focus