Jump to content
The legal framework for refugee resettlement to the European Union with lessons from the American model / 6 Conclusion
The legal framework for refugee resettlement to the European Union with lessons from the American model / 6 Conclusion
Contents
Chapter
Expand
|
Collapse
Page
1–16
Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis
1–16
Details
17–26
1 Introduction
17–26
Details
1.1 Resettlement in the EU context
1.2 US resettlement policy as point of reference
1.3 Relevance of the topic
1.4 Methodology and structure
27–94
2 The concept of refugee resettlement entrenched in international and EU law
27–94
Details
2.1 Responsibility sharing through resettlement
2.1.1 Responsibility sharing at the international level: left to the discretion of states
2.1.2 Responsibility sharing at the EU level: mandatory relocation failed
2.1.3 Preliminary conclusion
2.2 Defining resettlement
2.2.1 The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
2.2.2 The European Union
2.2.3 The United States of America
2.2.4 Preliminary conclusion
2.3 Historical background and development of resettlement (with focus on the US)
2.3.1 The beginning of systematic and organized resettlement
2.3.2 Resettlement under the UNHCR
2.3.3 Adjustments in US immigration law
2.3.4 The Hungarian exodus
2.3.5 Towards a more diverse US immigration policy
2.3.6 The mechanized resettlement of Vietnamese
2.3.7 The 1980 Refugee Act
2.3.8 The disintegration of Yugoslavia
2.3.9 The decade of voluntary repatriation and reconceptualization of resettlement
2.3.10 Convention Plus
2.3.11 The terrorist attacks of 9/11
2.3.12 Harmonization efforts
2.3.13 Regained recognition of resettlement
2.3.14 The 2015-2016 refugee crisis
2.3.15 The Trump administration
2.3.16 Afghan mass displacement and the revival of parole power
2.3.17 Attempts towards private sponsorship
2.3.18 Preliminary conclusion
2.4 Functions of and motives behind resettlement
2.4.1 Functions
2.4.2 US motives
2.4.3 EU motives
2.4.4 Preliminary conclusion
2.5 Actors in the resettlement process
2.5.1 States
2.5.2 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
2.5.2.1 Legal basis, mandate and funding
2.5.2.2 The UNHCR and the US
2.5.2.3 The UNHCR and the EU
2.5.2.4 Criticism and shortfalls
2.5.3 Other non-state actors
2.5.3.1 Voluntary resettlement agencies in the US
2.5.3.2 From state-orientation to greater NGO-involvement in Europe
2.5.4 Resettlement beneficiaries
2.5.4.1 Refugee and subsidiary protection status in the EU
2.5.4.2 US refugee definition
2.5.4.3 Climate migrants
2.5.5 Preliminary conclusion
95–169
3 The international law framework for resettlement
95–169
Details
3.1 The relevant human rights and refugee law framework
3.2 Extraterritorial application
3.2.1 Extraterritorial application of human rights
3.2.1.1 Legal standard
3.2.1.2 Relevant ECtHR case law, decisions of other regional courts and UN Treaty bodies
3.2.2 Extraterritorial application of refugee law
3.2.3 Preliminary conclusion
3.3 Substantive rights
3.3.1 Non-refoulement
3.3.1.1 Human rights
3.3.1.1.1 Art 3 para 1 CAT
3.3.1.1.2 Arts 6 and 7 ICCPR
3.3.1.1.3 Art 37 lit a CRC
3.3.1.1.4 Arts 2 and 3 ECHR
3.3.1.2 Refugee law
3.3.1.3 Concluding remarks
3.3.2 Right to leave and to seek asylum
3.3.2.1 Human rights
3.3.2.2 Refugee law
3.3.2.3 Concluding remarks on the right to leave and to seek asylum
3.3.3 Procedural rights
3.3.3.1 Human rights
3.3.3.2 Refugee law
3.3.3.3 Concluding remarks
3.3.4 Non-discrimination
3.3.4.1 Human rights
3.3.4.2 Refugee law
3.3.4.3 Concluding remarks
3.3.5 Reception conditions
3.3.5.1 Human rights
3.3.5.2 Refugee law
3.3.5.3 Concluding remarks
3.3.6 Naturalization
3.3.6.1 Human rights
3.3.6.2 Refugee law
3.3.6.3 Concluding remarks
3.3.7 Preliminary conclusion
3.4 Responsibility for internationally wrongful conduct in relation to resettlement policies
3.4.1 Responsibility for complicity with the country of (first) refuge
3.4.2 Responsibility for and in connection with international organizations
3.4.2.1 Dual attribution
3.4.2.2 Derivative responsibility
3.4.3 Attribution of conduct of other non-state actors and private actors
3.4.4 Preliminary conclusion
170–242
4 Resettlement to the EU
170–242
Details
4.1 EU competence and its limits
4.1.1 Rules of competence
4.1.1.1 Centralized assessment
4.1.1.2 Extraterritorial processing
4.1.1.3 Cooperation with third countries
4.1.2 Principles governing the exercise of EU competences
4.1.2.1 Solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility
4.1.2.2 A policy in accordance with international refugee law and international and European human rights
4.1.2.3 Consistency
4.1.3 Preliminary conclusion
4.2 Evolution of an EU resettlement policy
4.2.1 Intergovernmental rapprochement by three Conventions
4.2.2 First attempts on solidarity and responsibility sharing
4.2.3 Calling upon resettlement
4.2.4 Protection in the region
4.2.5 Proposal for extraterritorial processing and third-country partnerships
4.2.6 A Joint EU Resettlement Program
4.2.7 Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM)
4.2.8 The Lisbon Treaty, mutual trust, and Dublin III
4.2.9 The 2015 European Resettlement Scheme
4.2.10 EU-Turkey Statement
4.2.11 The Proposal for a Union Resettlement Framework
4.2.11.1 The legal nature of the Proposal
4.2.11.2 Resettlement definition
4.2.11.3 Criteria to determine countries of (first) refuge
4.2.11.4 Eligibility criteria
4.2.12 Current resettlement policy
4.2.13 Preliminary conclusion
4.3 Institutional involvement in resettlement
4.3.1 Support through funding
4.3.2 Support through agencies
4.3.3 Accountability and legal protection
4.3.4 Preliminary conclusion
4.4 Analysis: Status quo of EU resettlement
4.4.1 Resettlement processing – national or EU level?
4.4.2 Implementation of the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibilities – discretion or mandatory quota?
4.4.3 A comprehensive CEAS – protection or migration management tool?
243–311
5 The resettlement process
243–311
Details
5.1 European and US resettlement practice in comparison
5.2 Selection
5.2.1 Selection procedures and practices of the UNHCR and EUMS
5.2.2 US procedure and practice
5.2.3 Analysis
5.2.3.1 Referral entities
5.2.3.2 Status determination
5.2.3.3 Resettlement of prioritized groups
5.2.3.4 Family reunification
5.2.3.5 Potential to integrate
5.2.3.6 Firm resettlement
5.2.3.7 Exclusion grounds
5.2.3.8 Security screening and health checks
5.2.3.9 Right to appeal the selection decision
5.2.3.10 Resettlement contract
5.2.4 Preliminary conclusion
5.3 Pre-departure, arrival and placement
5.3.1 Programs of EUMS
5.3.2 US program and practice
5.3.3 Analysis
5.3.3.1 Pre-departure orientation
5.3.3.2 Placement
5.3.3.3 Cooperation with local governments and receiving communities
5.3.3.4 Reception conditions
5.3.4 Preliminary conclusion
5.4 Long-term integration and naturalization
5.4.1 EU law and practice of EUMS
5.4.2 US law and practice
5.4.3 Analysis
5.4.3.1 Temporary approach versus long-term integration
5.4.3.2 Economic benefits
5.4.3.3 Harmonization of permanent residence status
5.4.3.4 Naturalization
5.4.3.5 Re-resettlement
5.4.4 Preliminary conclusion
312–318
6 Conclusion
312–318
Details
319–359
Bibliography
319–359
Details
General
Europe
US
Cases
ICJ
ECtHR and European Commission on Human Rights
CJEU
US Supreme Court
Other courts
Legal texts and International Treaties
EU secondary legislation
US legislation
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
CC-BY
Access
The legal framework for refugee resettlement to the European Union with lessons from the American model , page 312 - 318
6 Conclusion
Autoren
Janine Prantl
DOI
doi.org/10.5771/9783748934707-312
ISBN print: 978-3-8487-9007-4
ISBN online: 978-3-7489-3470-7
Share
Download PDF
Download citation
RIS
BibTeX
Copy DOI link
doi.org/10.5771/9783748934707-312
Share by email
Video schließen
Share by email Nomos eLibrary
Recipient*
Sender*
Message*
Your name
Send message
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.
