Brief description:

My research will examine the application of Article 1F of the 1951 Refugee Convention. This so-called ‘exclusion clause’ stipulates that those who are suspected of having committed (international) crimes are undeserving of protection. There is no uniform understanding of ‘undeserving’ in the context of Article 1F, and research has demonstrated that the provision is applied in an variety of ways across jurisdictions. At the same time, ICL lacks an overarching policy of who is ‘deserving’ of prosecution, making it all the more difficult for immigration officials who are trying to navigate Article 1F cases. Furthermore, many excluded asylum claimants remain unprosecuted and exist in a legal limbo.
My research will explore the application of Article 1F in an attempt to uncover the scope and content of it across 8 focus countries. I will examine its connection with ‘crimmigration’, and in particular on how the increased criminalization and securitization of migration has impacted refugee law, particularly in the context of Article 1F decision-making. I will take issue with the blurring of lines between two legal arenas that are at odds with each other, i.e. the criminal law arena and the administrative arena (refugee status determinations), particularly in relation to procedures and also their core values.

Methodology:

My research has 8 focus countries: Australia, Canada, France, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and USA). I will adopt a comparative, mixed-methods approach comprised of doctrinal legal research and two empirical methods: 1) Qualitative Document Analysis of Article 1F decisions, and 2) Interviews/Focus Groups with immigration officials. I will analyze my data using thematic analysis techniques.

Keywords: 1951 convention, 1F, ICL, IRL, crimmigation, refugee exclusion

Home University:

Tilburg University

Faculty:

Department of Criminal Law

Supervisor: Elies van Sliedregt

Added to catalogue on: 17-05-2023

Additional information: