Kurzbeschreibung

The project examines the role of human rights and ‘discretion’ reasoning in sexuality-based asylum claims. Applying the concept of act/identity dichotomy, it investigates the ways in which human rights are drawn on and applied in refugee status determinations in Germany, France and Spain. The aim is to deconstruct exclusionary conceptions of identity and group membership in refugee status determinations. By drawing on queer theory, human rights literature and case law, it seeks to contribute toward a more inclusive approach to sexuality-based claims, but also those based on religion or political opinion.

Kurzbeschreibung

(nicht vorhanden)

Kurzbeschreibung

Im März 2012 startet das Projekt „Sprach- und Lernförderung Unbegleiteter Minderjähriger Flüchtlinge (UMF) zur Integration in das deutsche (Aus-)Bildungssystem“ in Kooperation zwischen dem FIBW und dem Institut für Sprachen. Dieses Projekt hat die mittelfristige Vorbereitung oder die Schul- und Lernförderung Unbegleiteter Minderjähriger Flüchtlinge zur Integration in das deutsche Ausbildungssystem zum Ziel. Es beinhaltet den Entwurf eines Konzepts zur Sprach- und Lernstandsmessung für die Zielgruppe UMF in den Sprachen: Arabisch, Somalisch, Amharisch, Tigrinya, Dari und Kurdisch, die Durchführung Schulvorbereitender und Schulbegleitender Sprachkurse sowie Ausbildungsvorbereitender und -begleitender Maßnahmen. Begleitet wird das Projekt durch eine wissenschaftliche Forschung, in deren Verlauf eine Studie zur rechtlichen Stellung, schulischen Situation der UMF’s, sowie eine Empfehlung weiterer politischer und zivilgesellschaftlicher Maßnahmen entsteht. Das Projekt wird aus Mitteln des Europäischen Flüchtlingsfonds (EFF) über das Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF) gefördert und hat eine Gesamtlaufzeit von drei Jahren bis Ende Februar 2015.

Kurzbeschreibung

Das Projekt prüft, wie neue Konzepte von „Städten statt Camps“ in die aktuelle Debatte um Migration und Entwicklung passen. Warum haben diese derzeit Konjunktur? Es vergleicht diese Konzepte miteinander und ordnet sie ein. Welche migrations-/flüchtlings-/menschenrechtlichen Belange sind zu beachten? Wie kann eine solche Stadt aussehen?

Kurzbeschreibung

(nicht vorhanden)

Abstract

European Union (EU) asylum law features many common standards for refugees and individuals with wider protection needs. Not least for that reason, human rights law is increasingly influencing EU asylum law. What is the scope of the influence of refugee law on human rights law, what are its legal ramifications and its limits? The project examines these questions in respect of the various legal concepts associated with the term “protection” in EU asylum law: protection against harm in the country of origin (including the internal protection alternative) and “protection elsewhere” in another country, drawing on jurisprudence from five EU States. Given the lack of clarity of the ordinary sense of the term “protection, this project first traces the origins of the term as contained in the 1951 Convention, and how the use of the term changed over time. How does protection relate to the criteria of the refugee definition? Does the Convention imply a relation of refugee protection in the state of asylum with absent protection in the home country? If so, what is the place of human rights law in the protection granted in a state of asylum? Second, the project analyzes how material EU asylum law circumscribes whether there is protection against harm in asylum seeker’s home countries – in the home region and the so-called “Internal Protection Alternative “(IPA – Articles 6-8 of the EU Qualification Directive How do and should courts determine whether or not there is available protection? Which actors are and should be considered capable of providing protection? Third, the project scrutinizes the concept of protection in respect of the norms on “protection elsewhere” (first countries of asylum and safe third countries, Articles 35 and 38 of the Procedures Directive). How does this concept compare to protection in asylum seekers’ home countries? Which actors are and should be considered legally capable of providing “protection” in safe third countries/first countries of asylum? The project concludes with an assessment to what extent these concepts of protection differ, cross-pollinate, and demonstrate a convergence of internal legal obligations under refugee law with obligations under human rights law. Results will be published in 2016.

Kurzbeschreibung

(nicht vorhanden)

Kurzbeschreibung

(nicht vorhanden)

Abstract

Doctoral fellows will be part of a small, highly interdisciplinary research group and work on individual doctoral projects. Different research perspectives will examine the umbrella topic of forced migration, which is understood as a cross-border “migratory movement in which an element of coercion exists, including threats to life and livelihood, whether arising from natural or man-made causes” (International Organisation for Migration). The Mikrokolleg is located at Ruhr-Universität Bochum and professors from different disciplines define research perspectives that doctoral candidates can work on, such as (1) analyzing the root causes of international forced migration in the home countries, including poverty, loss of land, and the persecution due to ethnicity, traditions and religious beliefs, (2) evaluating the effectiveness of different international approaches to fight these root courses in the home countries, such as foreign aid, institution building and democracy promotion, (3) focusing on the rights of forced migrants and refugees in different legal orders and on the duties of the involved actors, including the host state, international of regional organisations,and/or (4) analyzing the geographies of movement by comparing the characteristics of different important migration routes.

Kurzbeschreibung

(nicht vorhanden)

Abstract

This PhD project investigates how judgments of the European Court of Human Rights affect asylum and refugee policies of the European Union. It further examines the role of different groups of actors encompassing non-governmental organisations, academia, and policy-makers regarding the nexus of ECtHR jurisdiction and EU policy-making processes. Applying a theory-building variant of process-tracing to three landmark judgments of the ECtHR, I aim to map out a causal mechanism that a) explains which actors and activities are impactful when transforming a judgment into policy, b) provides insights into variation in the effects of judgments and c) takes account of significant context variables. Drawing on previous research on the Court’s landmark judgment in the case of MSS v Belgium and Greece, a survey and follow up interviews with civil society actors, I am further exploring three issue areas: 1. Understanding the role and scope of influence of the ECtHR within the community of European countries and the European Union. The ECtHR has existed for almost six decades and was reformed in 2010. 47 states have signed the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and thereby committed to the ECtHR’s jurisdiction. Just before the ECtHR was created, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) had been established in 1952, now ruling 28 EU member states, and the EU institutions. What is the relationship between the two European Courts? How does it play out in EU policy-making processes? What is the ECtHR’s position within the architecture of the European Union? 2. Identifying the groups of actors who engage with the Court’s rulings, as part of the policy making process in the area of asylum. The Court’s rulings speak to several groups of actors – such as policy-makers, civil society actors, judges or academics – directly or indirectly involved in the EU and/or domestic policy-making processes. How do these actors perceive the role of the Court and its rulings? How do they process and channel the ECtHR’s decisions? What role do different groups of actors play in shaping the Court’s influence respectively a specific judgment’s impact? 3. Tracing ECtHR decisions within EU policy-making processes, in the area of asylum, and explaining variation among the trajectories of different judgments. While some judgments of the Court have caused heated public debates at the national and EU level, others have disappeared into thin air. What happens after the delivery of a judgment? How are judgments translated into policy? Are they at all? What are the conditions – such as actor constellations, political contexts etc. – that enhance a judgment’s impact? Which conditions lessen it? Which features of a judgment make it impactful within the policy process? Which features weaken its impact? And finally, can we identify an underlying causal mechanism which can explain the causal forces linking ECtHR judgments to EU policy decisions?

Kurzbeschreibung

The dissertation project is driven by the question what policies aimed at the return of migrants to their home countries tell us about the actors formulating them. Starting out from this overarching interest, I investigate what discursive strategies Western European state actors use to justify migrant return policies, and what political objectives these strategies serve. In a first descriptive step, a comprehensive mapping of return policies in two exemplary country case studies (the United Kingdom and Germany) is carried out. In a second step, I investigate and compare how migrant return policies are justified in specific national arenas, and how these policies relate to and reflect both international norms and national conceptions of membership. This is done through an in-depth analysis of the policy-making processes leading up to and following the establishment of temporary protection schemes and voluntary return programs administered by the International Organization for Migration, paying close attention to these policies' degree of voluntariness and to the stated motivation of the actors formulating them.

Kurzbeschreibung

(nicht vorhanden)

Abstract

The dissertation investigates trends in the formulation and implementation of migrant return policies in the United Kingdom and Germany between the early 1970s and 2012, and investigates the factors and mechanisms underlying the observed changes over time. In a first step, my analysis brings to light two contravening trajectories: While over time, return-related legislation has become more inclusive, in that non-citizens' access to regularization and permanent residence has become easier in both countries under investigation, the implementation of migrant return has become more restrictive, in that a greater share of unwanted non-citizens is returned. In a second step, I show that while individual instances of restrictive return implementation are triggered by domestic electoral pressure, the overall restrictive trend in migrant return implementation that I observe constitutes the outcome of a long-term process of depoliticization and institutionalization. Depoliticization strategies serve to counteract the normatively charged nature of migrant return and remove related questions from public contestation. Processes of institutionalization, on the other hand, create administrative and operational capacities dedicated to migrant return, and therefore facilitate return implementation. Both processes originate at the domestic level. However, I show that international actors involved in the governance of migration have made important contributions on both counts: While the depoliticization of migrant return, i.e., its reframing from a normative to a primarily technical challenge, has taken place primarily in the domestic context, international actors have facilitated this shift through the provision of alternatives to outright coercion that help to remove the topic from the political sphere. The institutionalization of return practices, i.e., the building up of permanent (rather than ad hoc) administrative and operational structures dedicated to migrant return, on the other hand, crucially depends on a continuous demand for return-related services. While in the domestic context, this demand depends on the political dynamics of the day, international actors have over the past two decades catered to multiple domestic contexts and have therefore experienced a constant demand for their return-related services. Consequently, they have become a key site of return-specific capacity building. The possibility to draw on these international resources in turn enhances domestic authorities' ability to step up the efficiency of return implementation if and when called for by their electorate.