• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Refugee Law >The Emperor's New Safe Country Concepts: A UK Perspective on Sacrificing Fairness on the Altar of Efficiency
【24h】

The Emperor's New Safe Country Concepts: A UK Perspective on Sacrificing Fairness on the Altar of Efficiency

机译：皇帝的新安全国家理念：英国关于牺牲效率坛上的公平的观点

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The adoption and implementation of Council Directive 2005/85/EC1 (the ‘Procedures Directive’), marks the end of the legislative stage of a nascent Common European Asylum System (CEAS) by establishing minimum standards on ‘fair and efficient asylum procedures in the Member States’. These minimum standards broadly relate to matters such as access to procedures, the right to remain pending decisions, examination requirements, the right to legal assistance, the right to an effective remedy and the application of the ‘safe country’ concepts. The Procedures Directive sets out harmonized criteria for the application of the safe third country and the safe country of origin concepts. Nevertheless, various provisions of UK law and the Procedures Directive itself indicate gaps in harmonization. This state of affairs creates the potential for diverse safe country designations, undermines the rights due to refugees in similar circumstances and could, therefore, result in the failure to uphold properly the principle of non-refoulement. In particular, by rendering a range of minimum standards ‘subject to certain exceptions’,2 the application of the safe country concepts within the Procedures Directive can be seen as an integral part of the drive towards more efficient asylum procedures within EU Member States. For example, the administrative regime created by the UK's ‘New Asylum Model’ (NAM) allows procedural safeguards to be lowered at the front end of the process before a substantive examination of safe country applications has taken place; applicants from countries the UK considers to be safe third countries or safe countries of origin are allocated to ‘fast track’ procedures reducing the amount of time available to prepare and present a case; in some cases, applications can be declared inadmissible without any substantive examination. This article focuses on the harmonized criteria relating to these two concepts and their inclusion within the UK asylum system, before exploring whether, and if so, to what extent, the application of such criteria reduces the level of procedural and concomitant substantive protection available to asylum seekers.
机译：理事会指令2005/85 / EC1（“程序指令”）的通过和实施，标志着新生的欧洲共同庇护系统（CEAS）立法阶段的结束，它确立了有关“公平和有效的庇护程序”的最低标准。成员国'。这些最低标准广泛涉及诸如程序访问权，待决决定权，审查要求，法律援助权，有效补救权和“安全国家”概念的适用等事项。 《程序指令》规定了应用安全第三国和安全原产国概念的统一标准。但是，英国法律的各种规定以及《程序指令》本身都表明了协调方面的差距。这种状况使人们有可能指定各种各样的安全国家，破坏在类似情况下因难民而应享有的权利，因此可能导致未能正确地坚持不驱回原则。尤其是，通过制定一系列“除某些例外情况外”的最低标准2，在程序指令中应用安全国家概念可以被视为欧盟成员国内寻求更有效庇护程序的组成部分。例如，英国“新庇护模式”（NAM）建立的行政体制允许在对安全国家/地区申请进行实质性审查之前，在程序的前端降低程序性保障；来自英国认为是安全第三国或原籍国安全国家的申请人被分配到“快速通道”程序，以减少准备和提出案件的时间。在某些情况下，无需任何实质审查，即可宣布申请不予受理。本文着眼于与这两个概念相关的统一标准及其在英国庇护系统中的纳入，然后探讨此类标准的应用是否以及在何种程度上降低了庇护可利用的程序性和附带性实质性保护水平寻求者。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号