Suchergebnisse

Asylum & asylum-seekers are currently high on the agenda of European governments & the European Union. Controlling the numbers of asylum-seekers arriving in Europe has become a major political issue, as has the 'harmonization' of their reception & treatment. The present debate about asylum generally occurs against a background that presumes that liberal democracies have a long & honorable tradition of granting asylum, & that this generous & discretionary act has, over the last 10 to 15 years, been increasingly exploited by those who are not entitled to the protection of asylum. Yet, in fact, asylum predates liberal democracies by millennia, & the exploitation has usually been carried out by states, including liberal democracies, whose asylum practice has always reflected state interest & only incidentally benefited individuals. Asylum does have a long & contested history & the powers that be have fought over the right to grant & withhold asylum since its inception. It has been adapted in response to different needs over time, in particular the needs of states, with the different forms of asylum receding or coming to dominate, depending on historical & political necessity. 35 References. Adapted from the source document.

This paper picks up the themes addressed in the individual papers of this journal volume & seeks to highlight the emerging differences & similarities in the different states. It will ask whether harmonization under the new regimes that have been discussed in these papers continues to mean convergence toward a lowest common denominator & it will explore some of the constraints on policy formulation in this area. The purpose of the paper is to link the various themes raised throughout this volume, asking in particular whether the political shifts that have been discussed have resulted in changes in policy & practice at both national & European levels & to what extent national policy is dictated by the EU & its most powerful members. 1 Table, 18 References. Adapted from the source document.

Recent legislation introduced by European states to limit access to asylum is an attempt to reinforce the State's control of admission to its territory However, while certain of these states have effectively ceased to permit immigration, none have indicated that asylum should cease to be granted. This paper examines the reasons why States continue to grant asylum and suggests that there are certain conditions which are necessary for granting asylum, in particular, that the benefits to the asylum granting State outweigh any costs.

Sixty years after the signing of the Geneva Convention, not all refugees are able to access the protection promised, even in signatory States. In this article, the authors outline the different constraints preventing refugees from accessing asylum in one European Union Member State. These constraints are the difficulty asylum seekers have in entering Greek territory, their difficulties entering the Greek asylum system and finally, problems with the asylum system itself. They further argue that such constraints are not unique to Greece. Adapted from the source document.

Moral panic theory continues to be applied to a range of phenomena, allowing sociologists to refine our understanding of negative societal reaction aimed at people who are easy to identify and easy to dislike. Whereas the prevailing notion of moral panic rests on its noisy features, there are constructions that occur under the public radar. In such instances, government officials quietly institute policies and practices that adversely affect a targeted group. Moral panic over so-called bogus asylum seekers in the UK represents a noisy construction whereby claims making is loud and public. In the USA, however, that construction is remarkably quiet and does not resonate openly; still, much like their British counterparts, American officials have resorted to the use of confinement. This work explores the differences between the UK and the USA in the realm of moral panic over asylum seekers while remaining attentive to their shared consequences, the unjust detention of those fleeing persecution. Implications to social control and human rights in a post-11 September world are discussed throughout.