Suchergebnisse

Cover; Half Title; Title Page; Copyright Page; Table of Contents; List of contributors; Foreword; Preface; 1. The "Netanyahu doctrine": The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, and the invasion of Iraq; Introduction; The "Shultz doctrine" and the origins of the "war on terrorism"; The Israeli connection to the Shultz doctrine; The drafting of NSS-2002; The hour of the hawks; The spectre of nuclear terrorism; Operation Opera; Conclusion; 2. United States legal and policy approaches in the Global War on Terrorism; Introduction; The large scope of the War on Terror

1. Rediscovering international morality -- 2. Recognising free movement -- 3. Common utility and justice -- 4. The failed state phenomenon -- 5. Tackling forced displacement -- 6. Conceptualising refugees -- 7. The burden of burden-sharing -- 8. Migration and global development.

The Ashgate Research Companion to Migration Law, Theory and Policy complements the already successful Ashgate series Law & Migration, established in 2006 which now has a number of well-regarded monographs to its credit. The purpose of this Companion is to augment that Series, by taking stock of the current state of literature on migration law, theory and policy, and to sketch out the contours of its future long-term development, in what is now a vastly expanded research agenda. The Companion provides readers with a definitive and dependable state-of-art review of current research in each of the chosen areas that is all-embracing and all-inclusive of its subject-matter. The chapters focus on the regional and the sub-regional, as well as the national and the global. In so doing, they aim to give a snap-shot that is contextual, coherent, and comprehensive. The contributors are both world-renowned scholars and newer voices and include scholars, practitioners, former judges and researchers and policy-makers who are currently working for international organisations.

chapter COMMENTARY ON THE ACT -- part Section 14: immigration officers – powers of arrest -- chapter Section 19: England and Wales -- part Section 37: provision of immigration services -- chapter Section 42: amount of fees -- chapter THE ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION (TREATMENT OF CLAIMANTS, ETC) ACT 2004 -- chapter SCHEDULES -- chapter THE ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL (PROCEDURE) RULES 2005 STATUTORY INSTRUMENT 2005 NO 230 (L1) PART 1 -- part SECTION 2 -- chapter SECTION 3 -- chapter EXPLANATORY NOTE -- chapter STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN IMMIGRATION RULES (HC 302) – FEBRUARY 2005 -- chapter THE IMMIGRATION (EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2005 -- STATUTORY INSTRUMENT 2005 NO 47 -- chapter THE ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL (FAST TRACK PROCEDURE) RULES 2005 -- STATUTORY INSTRUMENT 2005 NO 560 (L) -- chapter ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL DIRECTIONS UNDER PARAGRAPH 7 OF SCHEDULE 4 TO THE NATIONALITY, IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM ACT 2002 -- chapter ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL PRACTICE DIRECTIONS.

Under international refugee law, there is provision for a State to deny protection to persons who might otherwise qualify for refugee status where their actions render them unworthy of it. In Australia an "adverse security assessment" under the 1979 Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation allows the State to take "prescribed administrative action" against a person in order to satisfy the "requirements of security" so as to include indefinite detention of a person who otherwise may qualify for refugee status under international law. The reliance by the Government on what is tantamount to a very broad "character test" in order to effect detention of genuine asylum-seekers has been described as "Kafkaesque" and "schizophrenic" by seasoned observers even within Australia itself. Less well remarked upon is the way in which the Australian system deems people to be "undesirable" once they are deemed to pose a direct or indirect threat to national security and then become "unremovable" because if they satisfy the refugee definition, are at risk of ill-treatment, and cannot be returned, there is little that can be done to them except to detain them indefinitely. This article draws that link and highlights the potential pitfalls for the Australian system for pursuing such a risky policy in refugee law.

When can one say that the law protects a religious tradition? The issue arose in the most extraordinary circumstances, with respect to funeral rites in the United Kingdom case of Ghai v. Newcastle City Council, involving an orthodox Hindu claimant and some Sikh intervener parties. The Court required the practice to be firmly established in religious doctrine-not just religious culture. This however, is unsatisfactory. Religious practices are not necessarily specific; the requirement wrongly privileges formal religions, forcing them to become stricter, and ignores behavior that is 'an aspect of a practice of religion.' It is a charter for extremism. (Human Rights Quarterly)