Asylum Law

Since approval of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2016, it has been widely and repeatedly claimed that a 'right to explanation' of decisions made by automated or artificially intelligent algorithmic systems will be legally mandated by the GDPR. This right to explanation is viewed as an ideal mechanism to enhance the accountability and transparency of automated decision-making. However, there are several reasons to doubt both the legal existence and the feasibility of such a right. In contrast to the right to explanation of specific automated decisions claimed elsewhere, the GDPR only mandates that data subjects receive limited information (Articles 13-15) about the logic involved, as well as the significance and the envisaged consequences of automated decision-making systems, what we term a 'right to be informed'. Further, the ambiguity and limited scope of the 'right not to be subject to automated decision-making' contained in Article 22 (from which the alleged 'right to explanation' stems) raises questions over the protection actually afforded to data subjects. These problems show that the GDPR lacks precise language as well as explicit and well-defined rights and safeguards against automated decision-making, and therefore runs the risk of being toothless. We propose a number of legislative steps that, if taken, may improve the transparency and accountability of automated decision-making when the GDPR comes into force in 2018.

Se è vero che la questione immigratoria costituisce una delle problematiche più studiate degli ultimi anni, è pur vero che essa continua ad offrire nuovi spunti per rimeditare su taluni delicati risvolti, che sempre più frequentemente assumono  (purtroppo) una rilevanza drammatica. Si tratta di un tema al centro dell’attenzione anche perché la sfiducia dei cittadini europei nelle politiche dell’Unione in tema di immigrazione e la oggettiva difficoltà nella risoluzione di delicati problemi legati a questo complesso fenomeno rischiano di minare in radice il processo di integrazione europea In particolare, al di là del clamore mediatico che ha già suscitato, la riforma del sistema di asilo (CEAS) continua a richiedere un’attenta riflessione per le sue complesse implicazioni: le principali disposizioni del Regolamento Dublino III sono sottoposte a più di un controllo, sia a livello dell’Unione europea sia a livello nazionale, e su molte di esse si sono già formate opinioni discordi.
Peraltro, attualmente, il diritto di asilo più di ogni altro diritto è fortemente soggetto ai condizionamenti della società civile e al centro di molti programmi politici, di conseguenza, le pressioni dirette a modificare il CEAS sono sì legate alla necessità di migliorare il sistema, che è risultato inadeguato alle forti pressioni migratorie degli ultimi anni, ma risultano soprattutto finalizzate a dare una risposta veloce al malcontento di quelli che identificano l’immigrato con la causa di tutti i problemi attuali (e persino di quelli futuri!).
In tale ottica, è appena il caso di ricordare che in Italia la l. 46/2017, che ha convertito il decreto Minniti-Orlando, ha introdotto significative novità, al fine di adeguare la “macchina della giustizia” italiana all’enorme carico di lavoro giudiziario derivante dall’incremento del fenomeno immigratorio. Ma, come evidenziato dal C.S.M., il carattere meramente eventuale dell’udienza di comparizione del richiedente e la soppressione del doppio grado di merito (pur non costituzionalmente garantito) sembrano comprimere eccessivamente i diritti individuali, informando i procedimenti giurisdizionali nella materia della protezione internazionale alle sole esigenze di  celerità e snellezza.
In realtà, la vera falla del sistema è rappresentata dal mancato rispetto, da parte degli Stati membri, dei principi di fondo di tale politica: il principio di solidarietà e il principio di equa ripartizione della responsabilità, anche sul piano finanziario (art. 80 TFUE). Il carattere volontaristico costituisce, al contempo, il limite di tale meccanismo che non sempre trova un’adeguata risposta ai bisogni dei cittadini degli Stati terzi, nella comprensione e negli sforzi attivi e gratuiti. E, la proposta sul tavolo di discussione sembra accontentare proprio gli Stati che maggiormente dimostrano insofferenza verso i migranti e che hanno fatto della chiusura all’immigrazione la loro bandiera.
Al contrario, gli Stati geograficamente più esposti (come l’Italia) continuano ad incassare solidarietà soltanto a parole e a dover affrontare situazioni ai limiti della loro capacità di gestione, senza alcuna condivisione degli oneri, finanziari e di altra natura.
Non meno complicate sono, poi, le questioni relative all’immigrato irregolare e ai minori non accompagnati, oggetto di difficile bilanciamento tra esigenze di ordine pubblico e pubblica sicurezza e la necessità di assicurare un elevato livello di tutela dei loro diritti fondamentali; bilanciamento che si è tradotto, almeno per il momento, in regole che costituiscono un grave affievolimento di tali diritti. Inoltre, grazie anche all’apporto della giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia, alcuni passi in avanti sono stati fatti per il ricongiungimento familiare, anche se ancora insoddisfacenti e non risolutivi.
Tali problematiche (e non solo) costituiscono l’oggetto di questo ambizioso volume. Il progetto, promosso da ELSA Napoli, ha visto il coinvolgimento di laureandi e neolaureati di diritto. Nondimeno, la giovane età degli studiosi non deve ingannare il lettore: lontano dall’essere una mera compilazione, il lavoro si è basato su una ricerca puntuale e su argomentazioni ben motivate. E il risultato finale conferma che gli obiettivi non sono stati disattesi.

More than 800,000 Syrians registered in Turkey have now been protected under a temporary protection regime, being addressed as ‘guests’ or ‘temporary protection beneficiaries’ by the Turkish authorities. Implementation of the temporary protection policy for Syrians means
that Syrians are neither refugees nor asylum seekers under Turkish domestic law. In 2013 Turkey adopted its first law that regulates asylum, namely the Law on Foreigners and
International Protection (the 2013 Law), which entered into force in April 2014. The 2013
Law promises better protection standards and more safeguards for asylum seekers and refugees, but how about Syrians in Turkey? In view of recent legal developments on asylum
namely, adoption of the 2013 Law and Regulation no. 29153 on Temporary protection (the 2014 Regulation), this article examines the current legal protection regime of Syrians in
Turkey.

This article examines the ways in which EU's political priority to counter migrant smuggling affect the provision of humanitarian assistance and access to rights to irregular immigrants and asylum seekers. It explores the effects of EU policies, laws and agencies' operations in anti-migrant smuggling actions, and their implementation in two EU member states – Italy and Greece in the context of the 'European refugee humanitarian crisis' during 2015–2017. It shows that the effects of EU and national policies criminalising the facilitation of entry and residence of irregular immigrants extend beyond cases where civil society actors have faced actual prosecutions and criminal convictions when assisting irregular immigrants and asylum seekers. We use the notion 'policing the mobility society' to capture wider punitive dynamics which affect the activities of civil society actors, especially those critically monitoring and politically mobilising for the rights of migrants.

The basic objective of this article is to engage with the conceptual question of how to theorize the relation between uncertainty and governmentality in studies on conflict-induced displacement and its aftermath. It explores the experiences of asylum-seekers in Turkey in relation to the bureaucratic processes of refugee status determination, local dispersal and third country resettlement, illustrating two main points throughout. First, protracted uncertainty, associated in particular with indefinite waiting, imperfect knowledge and the volatility of legal status, is a defining element of the experience of being an asylum-seeker in Turkey. Second, this uncertainty invading the everyday lives of asylum-seekers has a powerful governing effect, serving to contain, demobilize and criminalize them through the production of protracted uncertainty, which in turn is normalized as a necessity of bureaucracy and/or security. In view of this analysis, the article broadly invites readers to question the governmentalities of asylum and border regimes that not only discipline refugees’ everyday movement and activity, but also determine how the uncertainty of ‘refugeeness’ is framed and made sense of.

This volume was written in the aftermath of the so-called refugee crisis
which tested the ability of the European states, governments and residents
to receive and grant protection to people fleeing war and conflicts. The
absence of a comprehensive and coordinated response on the level of the
European Union, unilateral and self-centred responses of its individual
Member States to the challenges posed by mass migration, and the rise of
xenophobic and racist sentiments within populations as well as in political
programmes all revealed the level of solidarity and hospitality problems
that both the European Union and its Member States have in coping with
migration challenges. Through these developments, it became clear how
fragile the Schengen Area, the Common European Asylum System and
even the sole concept of asylum are. The unwillingness of certain EU
Member States to agree with the solidarity-based quota system or to
implement this system raised fundamental questions of why some of them even aspired to the European Union membership—was it only for the money? Was it for better and worse, or was it really just for the better, i.e. for the benefits deriving from the EU membership?

This article looks at securitization/humanitarianization dynamics in the EU external sea borders to track and critique the substantial transformation of the role played by human rights in the Mediter-ranean. Mapping the evolution of maritime engagement up to the 'refugee crisis', it is revealed how the invocation of human rights serves paradoxically to curtail (migrants') human rights, justifying interdiction ('to save lives'), and impeding access to safety in Europe. The result is a double reification of 'boat migrants' as threats to border security and as victims of smuggling/trafficking. Through a narrative of 'rescue', interdiction is laundered into an ethically sustainable strategy of border governance. Instead of being considered a problematic (potentially lethal) means of control, it is redefined into a life-saving device. The ensuing 'rescue-through-interdiction'/'rescue-without -protection' paradigm alters the nature of human rights, which, rather than functioning as a check on interdiction, end up co-opted as another securitization/humanitarianization tool.

Clearly a state has a right to expel aliens generally, and a state has a right to grant asylum to aliens, but the question is whether an individual has a right to asylum opposable to the state’s right to expel. In the literature, it is commonly understood that no such right exists. Treaty obligations discussing a “right to asylum” are understood in various ways, generally not to provide for a right to receive asylum but apply for it. However, the past few decades have shown a growth in conventions addressing asylum, especially, but not limited to, the European context. With refugee flows being an inherently international concern with a need for durable solutions, increasingly refugees are being assimilated to refugee-seekers. States are reacting or anticipating these issues by adopting domestic rights to asylum, at least for individuals qualifying as refugees. These trends suggest an evolving international consensus on opinio juris and state practice that refugees must receive asylum. Thus, it appears that the right to asylum for refugees exists under customary international law.

The paper will proceed broadly in two sections viewing the issue from different perspectives. In the first section, the paper will begin by examining the “right to asylum” from the perspective of the states, the authors of the Refugee Convention and similar agreements. The paper will conclude that the “right to asylum” in those agreements is directed at states, not individuals. In essence, states have a right vis-à-vis other states to grant asylum to aliens and not have that act be viewed as hostile.

However, this right of the state does not necessarily exclude a right of individuals to receive asylum if convention or customary international law also demand it. Accordingly, the second section examines the right of the individual to receive asylum. In the first sub-section, the author looks at conventional law and in the following sub-sections he looks at customary international law, specifically state practice and opinio juris. In the conclusion, the author argues that, although there is a state right to grant asylum, there is also an individual right to receive it in certain circumstances. This conclusion is based on widespread and consistent practice granting asylum as an obligatory consequence of refuge.

Many scholars of international refugee law assert that there is no definition of refugee under international law except that given in the Refugee Convention. This assertion, however, overlooks the dynamic way that the Refugee Convention is interpreted and is usually made without a detailed analysis of customary international law. This article attempts to address this shortcoming in the literature by examining conventional and customary international law contributing to the contemporary definition of refugee. Furthermore, it will attempt to do this is an even-handed manner, concluding that the definition has expanded in favor of claimants in some aspects, but, actually, contracted against the favor of claimants in others.

First, the article will examine the definition of refugee under the Refugee Convention, especially the evolving technique for interpreting the Convention, to determine whether the definition has outgrown its conventional shell.

Second, the article will undertake a comprehensive analysis of state practice and opinio juris on this question, examining the most up-to-date sources. In particular, it will reflect on the role of specially interested or specially affected states in the formation of customary international law and the growth of “subsidiary” protection. Also the article will consider the contribution of the practice and opinio juris of international organizations in the frame of the contemporary international law’s understanding of the contribution international organizations can make.

Lastly, the article will look at the opposite side of the coin: the ways in which customary international law may have narrowed the definition beyond the terms of the Refugee Convention.
It will conclude by proposing the new definition of a refugee under conventional and customary international law based on the findings.

Abstract: Some anthropological examinations of documents have emphasized their role as regulatory technologies that enact control and legibility over both citizens and “aliens.” This article shows, however, that documentary practices and forms both reinforce and undermine attempts to make persons governable. My analysis centers on the “pink card,” the identity document issued to asylum seekers in Greece, which in 2010 was the European country with the highest number of asylum cases pending in limbo. Examining how both state functionaries and asylum seekers engage with it, I show how the pink card takes on unpredictable meanings with indeterminate effects, which can disrupt the regulatory functions of the asylum procedure. Through ethnographic data drawn from encounters between asylum seekers and police, interviews with asylum seekers, and case material, I argue for a consideration of how things themselves govern—that is, dispose, position, and shape—the activities and tools of state regulation. [anthropology of documents, asylum, limbo, governance, Greece, European Union]

a cura di), Confini d'Europa. Modelli di controllo e inclusioni informali (titolo provvisorio), Raffaello Cortina, Milano 2016. 1 Chiedere asilo in tempo di crisi Accoglienza, confinamento e detenzione ai margini d'Europa di Giuseppe Campesi (Università degli Studi di Bari) Sommario: 1. Introduzione; 2. Controllare e immobilizzare i richiedenti asilo in Europa; 3. L'agenda europea sulle migrazioni; 4. Accoglienza, confinamento e detenzione in Italia; 4.1. L'approccio hotspot; 4.2. La riforma del sistema di accoglienza; 4.3. La reinvenzione della detenzione amministrativa; 5. Conclusioni. Draft forthcoming in: Marchetti Chiara, Pinelli Barbara (a cura di), Confini d'Europa. Modelli di controllo e inclusioni informali (titolo provvisorio), Raffaello Cortina, Milano 2016. Draft forthcoming in: Marchetti Chiara, Pinelli Barbara (a cura di), Confini d'Europa. Modelli di controllo e inclusioni informali (titolo provvisorio), Raffaello Cortina, Milano 2016.

This piece provides a detailed analysis of the Recast Asylum Procedures Directive (Recast APD). Although we are now two decades into harmonization of asylum procedures at the European Union (EU) level, we begin in Part 2 by revisiting the rationale for this process. We contend that the most persuasive rationale for procedural harmonization, in an EU legally committed to refugee protection, is to ensure fair procedures, and to prevent a race to the bottom in procedural standards. Efficiency must serve fairness, not vice versa. The original Asylum Procedures Directive (APD) failed to meet this aim by a long margin. The Recast APD is the product of the new, post-Lisbon legislative environment, so as Part 3 suggests, it comes with high hopes for improvement, particularly given the Parliament’s relatively new role as co-legislator on asylum matters. Our analysis reveals that the Recast APD contains many improvements on its predecessor, but overall our assessment is mixed, particularly if we assess it in terms of the objective of setting clear basic minimum standards of fairness. We attempt to explain this ambivalent outcome by suggesting that the Directive reflects two competing stereotypical views of the asylum seeker. On the one hand, there is a strong notion that asylum procedures must work to weed out ‘abusive’ claims. In contrast, there is also a strong acknowledgement that some asylum seekers are particularly vulnerable or have special needs (as will be seen, different terminologies are used in different contexts). As we argue, these stereotypes create complexity, and crowd out the basic notion of refugee status determination (RSD) as a process for recognising refugees, on the assumption that many (although of course not all) of those who apply will be so recognised.

This contribution interprets the east-central European post-liberal governments’
recent anti-immigrant, anti-refugee and anti-human-rights hysteria in the context of the increasing dependence of the region’s societies for livelihood on employment in the western EU, the widespread racialization of east European labor in the western EU, and the refusal of east European political elites and societies at large to consider possible “Left” critiques of the EU. Given those circumstances, and laboring under related anxieties, post-state-socialist political elites and societies have assumed a fundamentalist-racialist posture. They redirect their repressed anger toward incoming refugees, claim an ahistorical, essential kind of Whiteness and contribute to rigidifying European discussions of “race.”

To access the article, please follow the link to the publisher https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/slavic-review/article/unbearable-whiteness-of-the-polish-plumber-and-the-hungarian-peacock-dance-around-race/59244B15CB295020E51DF252BDA76604.

If the above link does not work, please look up Slavic Review in your own institution's library website and download the paper from there.

If that fails, please contact the authors at jborocz@rutgers.edu or jborocz@gmail.com or msarkar@binghamton.edu and they will be happy to provide a copy. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Migration was a critical policy area for Turkey even before Turkey became an official candidate country to the EU in 1999. Especially, with the end of the Cold War in the 1990s Turkey began to face the challenges of being a country of origin and destination, while acting as a transit country for documented and undocumented migration. Although the foundations of a migration policy were shaped in Turkey prior to the EU accession process, the EU accession process had an important catalyser effect in transforming the migration and asylum policies. This paper presents an overall analysis of the changes experienced in Turkey since 1999 on the asylum field with a projection of three possible scenarios of convergence, cooperation and conflict on Turkey-EU relationship. In that respect, this paper aims to map out the important periods that have influenced the transformation of the asylum policy in Turkey. It also looks at the changes brought to the policy structures both in Turkey and the EU with the Syrian refugee protection crisis, EU-Turkey Deal and limitations on EU's accession conditionality. While locating the important events and drivers at the global, neighbourhood, EU and Turkish levels, this research based on extensive fieldwork interviews presents findings of a EU-Turkey relationship that lies between cooperation and conflict.

In this paper, we address three connected central issues in refugee law. Firstly, who is entitled to protection? Secondly, what should that protection entail – merely allowing the presence of refugees in the territory, or allowing access to the labour market and health and welfare systems? Thirdly, where should refugees receive protection – in the first country in which they arrive after fleeing their home country, or elsewhere? We analyze the current crisis of European refugee law by looking back at the drafting history of the 1951 Refugee Convention. European policy makers can learn from the way in which the drafters partially solved these issues in 1950/1951.

This article analyses from a socio-legal point of view how the European Union Agenda on Migration is reshaping the Common European Asylum System by focusing on the impact it has had on the reform of the Italian reception system. After a preliminary examination of the European Union standards on reception, this paper focuses on the European Union Agenda on Migration and shows that its main aim is to stimulate frontline Member States to reform their border control and reception practices by strengthening powers for the surveillance and detention of asylum-seekers. It then explores the Italian case, analysing how the hotspot approach has been implemented in practice and the influence it is having in pushing the Italian reception system from a policy model driven – albeit with a certain degree of ambiguity – by humanitarian concerns, to a model where security and border control priorities prevail. Finally, it concludes by describing some of the main features of the social sorting apparatus which was created by the European Union Agenda on Migration for discriminating between asylum-seekers in clear need of protection who can be relocated to other Member States, and others who should be trapped in the reception systems of frontline Member States.

Since 2011, Turkey has pursued an open door policy accompanied by a national temporary protection regime to protect more than three million Syrians fleeing civil war. Turkey is a party to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees but maintains a geographical limitation to the Convention. Turkey is also a party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Convention against Torture. Following a failed coup attempt, Turkey declared a State of Emergency in July 2016 which continues today. After this declaration, Turkey submitted a formal notice of derogation from the ECHR as foreseen under article 15, and notified the United Nations Secretary-General that it may take measures involving derogation from obligations under the ICCPR. Since its declaration of a State of Emergency, Turkey has also made a number of changes to its asylum law. In view of these recent developments, this article focuses on the protection of Syrians in Turkey in law and in practice and the consistency of this protection regime with Turkey's international legal obligations. The article has three main parts. The first examines the access of Syrians to the Turkish territories, education, the labour market, refugee status determination procedures , and durable solutions. The second identifies Turkey's international legal obligations towards Syrians. Building on this, the third part examines recent amendments in Turkish asylum law following Turkey's declaration of a State of Emergency and whether Turkish law and practice concerning Syrian refugees is consistent with Turkey's international legal obligations. By examining these issues, the article provides an overview of Turkish law and practice concerning Syrian refugees and explores whether it is consistent with Turkey's obligations under international law.

This contribution explains the European asylum policy crisis from three structural weaknesses of the Common European Asylum System: its reliance on coercion within the EU; its unrealistic expectations of what borders can achieve; and the premise of prohibition of refugee movement in its external dimension. The article then critically reviews the proposals that the EU has submitted since the publication of the European migration agenda in May 2015.

Recenti iniziative dell'Unione europea per affrontare la crisi dei rifugiati 1 di Giuseppe Morgese * Sommario: Premessa -1. Il metodo "hotspot" -2. Il reinsediamento e l'ammissione umanitaria dalla Turchia -3. La proposta di elenco europeo comune dei Paesi d'origine sicuri -4. Cenni alle iniziative di cooperazione con i Paesi terzi -Conclusioni

Migration is one of the key issues in contemporary European politics and society, placing high on the political agenda in local, national and transnational political contexts, and widely debated in the media. All European states must grapple with the challenges posed when people move across borders. However, little is known about the relationship between the construction and elaboration of political discourse and its impact on institutions and actors associated with immigration, as well as the lives and everyday realities of frequently vulnerable migrant populations. This book engages with politics and political discourse that relate to and qualify immigration in Europe. It brings together empirical analysis of immigration both topically and contextually, and interprets such empirical evidence with the use of policy and discursive analyses as methodological tools. Thematically, this volume focuses on how discourse and politics operate in issue areas as varied as immigrant integration and multi-level governance, Roma immigration and their respective securitization, the uses of language in determination of asylum applications, gendered immigrants the in informal economy, public perceptions of integration, economic interests and economic nationalism stimulating immigration choices, ideology and entry policies, asylum processes and the institutional evolution of immigration systems. These issues are analyzed with empirical evidence investigating the discursive formulation of immigration in political contexts such as the Netherlands, France, United Kingdom, Turkey, Switzerland, Scandinavian states, and Poland. Overall, this volume constitutes a unique effort to elevate the underlying but implicit discursive frames that affect politics of immigration, and that inevitably have institutional, legal, and policy implications. Finally, we offer a portrayal of both the public philosophy that emanates from how political and social actors approach the issue of immigration and politics that affect the functioning of immigration systems as a result.

In this article, I will analyze how the Italian reception system has been transformed after the 'refugee crisis', showing how the change cannot be reduced to a mere expansion of the reception capacity. I will do this by tracing a genealogy of the Italian reception system and highlighting its main features before and after the 'refugee crisis'. My hypothesis is that the 'refugee crisis' and the sense of emergency it created has stimulated the emergence of distinct segments within the Italian reception system functioning according to radically different philosophies and objectives. This, in addition to increasing the overall lack of consistency of the system, is having a profound impact on the rights of asylum seekers, greatly increasing the risk of their spatial and social segregation within Italian society.

Southern Europe, and especially Greece and Italy, have been faced with a steady flow
of refugees and migrants as a result of various conflicts in Europe’s southern
neighbourhood, demographic change and lack of economic development in parts of the
Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, as well as the impact of climate change.
In particular, the Syrian conflict and the transformation of Libya into a failed state have
led to a substantial increase in the number of incoming refugees and migrants, making
the management of those flows by the Greek and Italian authorities almost impossible.
This chapter aims to provide a brief history of irregular migration flows to Greece, present
challenges for border management and the current situation regarding reception facilities
in Greece, followed by statistics, and then analyse the asylum procedure in Greece and
Italy in some detail. Finally, the chapter concludes with a number of policy recommendations.

Özet
Bir tarafın zulmetme diğer tarafınsa bu zulümden kaçması eski zamanlardan bu yana vardır. Modern devletlerin oluşması ile birlikte, sınırları belirginleşmiş devlet topraklarındaki zulümden kaçan kişiye, ikame bir korumanın sağlanması ise daha yakın bir tarihe dayanmaktadır. Kişiye devletinin sağlamadığı veya artık sağlayamadığı ulusal korumanın uluslararası camia tarafından sağlandığı bu ikame koruma türü uluslararası korumadır. Genel kabul görmüş görüşe göre, uluslararası koruma ikame koruma ile başlar ve korunan kişiye kalıcı çözüm sağlanması ile sona erer.
Uluslararası hukukta, uluslararası koruma kapsamında yer alan kişilere kalıcı çözüm sağlanması amacıyla kabul görmüş üç yöntemden birisi yerel entegrasyondur. Yerel entegrasyon ile kişiye vatandaşa tanınan birçok hak tanınarak topluma entegre olması sağlanmakta ve sahip olduğu statü sona ermektedir. Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu’nun 2014 tarihinde yürürlüğe girmesi ile yabancıların ülkeye entegre olmaları yönündeki düzenleme ilk defa Türk hukukunda yerini almıştır. Bu araştırmanın konusunu, yabancı kişilerin ülkeye uyum sağlamaları için uluslararası hukukta kişilere sağlanan haklar, var olan hukuki düzenlemeler ve benzer haklar ile hukuki düzenlemelerin iç hukukta nasıl ele alındığı oluşturur.

Abstract
Persecution of one party and fleeing of the persecuted one exist from ancient times. With the formation of modern states, it is however more recent to provide a person fleeing from an oppression in a state with distinctive borders with substitute protection. This type of substitute protection in which the protection cannot provided by the government of the person but by the international community is the international protection. According to a generally accepted view, the international protection begins with the substitute protection and it ends with a durable solution for the protected person.
In international law, the three accepted methods aiming to supply a durable solution to the persons within the international protection are voluntary repatriation, resettlement and local integration. With local integration, the person is integrated to the society by according her many rights that are also accorded to citizens. By this way the status of the person in society is normalized. With coming in the force of The Foreigners and International Protection Law in 2014, the integration issue has held the first time in the Turkish Law. Legal regulations in the international law on the integration of the refugees and legal regulations in the Turkish Law on the integration of the refugees are the subjects of this study.

The present chapter examines the interplay between the Turkish asylum laws and the European asylum acquis as well as the EU-Turkey Cooperation in the field of migration. By exploring these issues, the chapter aims to establish how the EU and the EU asylum law and policies have affected Turkish asylum laws and policies, and the protection of forced migrants in Turkey.The chapter consists of three parts. The first provides an overview of the Turkish asylum system by examining the entry of migrants and asylum seekers to Turkey, their access to international protection procedures and the main protection categories provided under the Turkish Law on Foreigners and International Protection. The second part explores the role of the EU and the EU asylum acquis in shaping Turkey’s asylum laws. The third examines the EU-Turkey cooperation in the field of migration by focusing on the EU-Turkey Statement of March 2016, its progress and the legal issues raised by the Statement. Building on these parts, the chapter concludes by addressing the question as to how the EU and the European asylum law and policies have affected protection of forced migrants in Turkey.

Deportation, detention and dispersal have formed an occasional part of Britain's migration regime throughout the twentieth century, though they tended to be used in response to particular events or ''crises''. By the end of the twentieth century, however, deportation, detention and, most recently, dispersal have become ''normalized'', ''essential'' instruments in the ongoing attempt to control or manage immigration to Britain. This article outlines the use of detention, deportation and dispersal in the twentieth century exploring how they have evolved and then become an integral part of the migration regime into the twenty-first century. Where appropriate, British practices are compared with those of its European neighbours, where to differing degrees, deportation, detention and dispersal have also become everyday practices. In examining these practices in Britain, we consider the rationale and stated aims of their employment, as well as describing some of the consequences, where known, of detention, deportation and dispersal.

This annotated bibliography gives an account of legal and social sciences research sources related to refugee claims based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The bibliography, which focuses primarily on English language publications, includes close to 200 items that fall into the following two categories of research sources:

(1) scholarly publications on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) refugees and asylum-seekers and the refugee determination process;
(2) reports from international, inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations on the same topic.

Research sources are first organized topically according to the definition of a Convention refugee under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. As a second listing, a geographical classification is provided of the sources that focus on specific countries or regions. Finally, included is an alphabetical listing by author of all of the research sources we were able to locate for this project.

Document préparé pour la Section de la protection des réfugiés de la Commission de l’immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada dans le cadre d’une séance de perfectionnement professionnel sur l’orientation sexuelle, l’identité sexuelle et le processus d’octroi de l’asile. Le document passe en revue les faits nouveaux et les questions concernant particulièrement les lesbiennes, les gais, les bisexuels, les transgenres et les intersexués, ainsi que le processus de détermination du statut de réfugié au Canada.

Regulation (EC) Nr. 343/2003 (the "Dublin II Regulation") aims at distributing asylum applications - and asylum seekers - among the Member States of the EU. Even though it comprises a set of rules aiming at preserving family unity, its implementation still leads to the separation of asylum seekers from their family members in a wide range of situations. This problem, frequently discussed before national courts and constantly underscored by the UNHCR, legal doctrine and NGOs, has not been thoroughly examined to date. The present work aims at filling this gap. It first illustrates in detail the "conflict area" between the Dublin system and family unity, through in-depth legal analysis of the Dublin II Regulation and of its practice of application. It then re-examines the Regulation in the context of European and International human rights Law. As it will be seen, the maxim "Community legislation is not to be read in a legal vacuum" (John Usher) fully applies here, as human rights law complements the Regulation's 29 provisions with crucial safeguards, both substantive and procedural, for respect of family life.

La riforma del sistema europeo comune di asilo e i suoi principali riflessi nell'ordinamento italiano di Giuseppe Morgese * Sommario: Introduzione -1. I regolamenti "Dublino III" e nuovo "Eurodac" -2. La nuova direttiva "accoglienza" -3. La nuova direttiva "qualifiche" -4. La nuova direttiva "procedure"

ÖZ Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanununun (YUKK) yürürlüğe girmesi ile birlikte, YUKK ve Türk Vatandaşlık Kanunu (TVK) birlikte değerlendirildiğinde, Türkiye'de yaşayan gerçek kişileri vatandaş ve yabancı (vatansızları da kapsayacak şekilde) olarak nitelendirmek yanlış olmayacaktır. Hemen her devlette olduğu gibi, Türkiye'de de haklardan yararlanmak konusunda vatandaşların en imtiyazlı statüye sahip oldukları söylenebilir. Yine de gerek tebaayı temsil ilkesi, gerekse asgari had ilkesi gereğince yabancıların hakları da Anayasa ve taraf olunan milletlerarası sözleşmelerle garanti altına alınmıştır. Ancak söz konusu haklar da devletin egemenlik yetkisi gereği, belli şartlarda sınırlamalara tabi olabilecektir. Türk hukukunda bazı yabancılar iç hukuk kuralları gereğince diğer yabancılara nazaran özel statülü kabul edilmişlerdir. İç hukuk kurallarınca özel statü verilen yabancılar, doğumla Türk vatandaşlığına sahip olup yetkili makamlardan izin alarak Türk vatandaşlığından çıkmış kişiler, uzun dönem ikamet izni sahipleri, Turkuaz Kart sahipleri, süresiz çalışma izni sahipleridir. Kanunda aksi düzenlenmediği müddetçe, ilgili kişiler belli bazı haklar ve yükümlülükler dışında Türk vatandaşlarının sahip olduğu haklara sahiptirler. * Doç.Dr., Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi, maygun@anadolu.edu.tr

Solidarity has a key role to play in the allocation of responsibility for refugee protection, as is implied by Article 80 TFEU. Yet, EU law fails to provide a definition and a clear indication of what it entails, especially as for its external reach. Against this background, this article embarks on a theoretical/practical investigation of the normative bases of 'EU solidarity'. Building on a cosmopolitan vision, it unpacks the multi-polar/multi-functional nature of the concept, as a founding value and constitutional (meta-)principle of EU law. In such a guise, it will posit that solidarity gives rise to an (autonomous) primary law duty of responsibility sharing/good faith cooperation that requires 'fairness' and 'respect for fundamental rights', as a uniform/all-pervading structural command generally applicable across policy fields. So configured , solidarity governs intra/extra-EU relations (based on the principle of coherence). The institutional, material, and procedural aspects of solidarity are thus explored to distil its horizontal, vertical, and systemic facets. Combined, they arguably produce a triple duty of conduct, loyalty, and result that permeates EU integration as a whole, calling into question the self-serving approach currently guiding the Common European Asylum System's (CEAS) 'external dimension', as exemplified by the EU-Turkey 'deal'.

This report investigates how Turkey interprets, narrates and implements its obligations towards international protection for refugees, with an emphasis on the recent migration movements. This report examines the international protection, in particular refugee protection including temporary protection, focusing on the main legal and policy framework as well as the organisations and actors involved in policy implementation. It explores how Turkey applies international protection instruments, particularly the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The report highlights the gaps between policy and practice in the asylum regime. Furthermore, it examines the perceptions, experiences and strategies of meso level actors, involved in international protection, while also identifying the coping strategies and perceptions of individuals who go through the asylum system at the micro level. An emphasis on both meso and micro level actors is of the utmost important for unpacking how different actors within the asylum system navigate, internalise and/or resist the asylum system’s rationalisations. The report links political narratives to surrounding experiences and practices.