No right to liberty: The detention of asylum seekers for administrative convenience

European Journal of Migration and Law

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 149-185

  O'Nions, Helen ^a  

^a NOTTINGHAM TRENT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Arbitrariness; Detention; Necessity; Proportionality; Sylum

Indexed keywords

EID: 53849116083     PISSN: 1388364X     EISSN: 15718166     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/157181608X317336     Document Type: Article

References (257)

1. Saadi v UK App 13229/03, judgement of 29th January 2008.
2. Carens, Joseph, 'States and refugees: a normative analysis', in Adelman, Howard (ed.), Refugee Policy. Canada and the US, Toronto: York Lanes Press 1991, pp. 18-29 at 25.
3. Gibney, Mathew, The Ethics and Politics of Asylum, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004.
4. Waltzer, Michael Spheres of Justice, New York: Basic Books 1983, pp. 35-40.
5. The wording of Article 14 is unfortunate in that it is not supported by a corresponding duty on states to provide asylum and it therefore offers the asylum seeker little assurance of sanctuary, Lauterpacht, H., International Law and Human Rights, Frederik Praeger 1950 at 422.
6. Brennan, Frank, Tampering with Asylum, St Lucia: Univ. of Queensland Press 2003, p. xiii.
7. Jesuit Refugee Service, Detention in Europe, October 2004. JRS listed 218 facilities for detaining migrants and asylum seekers in European 23 countries.
8. Hathaway, James, The Rights of Refugees in International Law, Cambridge University Press 2005 at 378-379.
9. Gluščié, Stjepan, Report to Support to Promotion of Reciprocal Understanding between the European Union and the Western Balkans, National report, Justice and Home Affairs CEPOR (SME s policy think tank centre) 2005 http://www.cepor.hr/projekti/Justice.pdf.
10. CPT/Inf (2006) 11 Poland para 59; CPT/Inf (2006) 41 Greece; see also European Parliament Resolution on the situation with refugee camps in Malta.
11. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Visit report: Ireland (2006) CPT/Inf (2007) 40;
12. CPT/Inf (2007) 18 Visit report: Germany, para 49 Hamburg remand prison is used to detain male and female foreign nationals with a view to expulsion alongside remand prisoners.
13. David Blunkett HC deb. 25th Feb 2002 col. 442.
14. Home Office Operational Enforcement Manual as of 2007, Chapter 38.10.1.
15. This was the case following the Yarlswood riots in 2004.
16. Visit: Poland (2004) CPT/Inf (2006) 11.
17. Bacon, Christine, The evolution of immigration detention in the UK, RSC Working Paper no 27, Univ. of Oxford: Refugee Studies Centre 2005, at 2.
18. Young, Craig, 'Political representations of geography and place in the introduction of the U.K. Asylum and Immigration Act (1996)', in Nicholson and Twomey (eds), Current issues of UK Asylum Law and Policy, Ashgate 1998, pp. 34-51 at 43.
19. Paolo Morante, "The US perspective', in Hughes, Jane and Liebaut, Fabrice (eds), Detention of asylum seekers in Europe: Analysis and perspectives, The Hague: Kluwer 1998, pp. 85-112 at 92;
20. see also Dow, Mark, American Gulag. Inside US Immigration Prisons, Berkeley: Univ. of California Press 2004,
21. and Welch, Michael, Detained Immigration Law and the expanding INS jail complex, Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press 2002.
22. Human Rights Watch, US 'Operation Liberty Shield' Undermines Asylum Seekers Rights, March 27th 2003.
23. Castles, S. and Loughna, S. note that Tanzania accommodated around 500,000 refugees in 2000 in 'Trends in asylum migration to industrialized countries 1990-2001',
24. in Borjas, G. and Crisp, J., Poverty, International Migration and Asylum, Palgrave 2005, pp. 39-69 at 53. There is no doubt that those countries immediately surrounding areas of conflict, such as Pakistan, Iran and Turkey have accommodated a far greater number of refugees.
25. Gibney, Matthew, Beyond the bounds of responsibility: Western states and measures to prevent the arrival of refugees, Global Migration Perspectives, No 22 Jan 2005, Global Commission on International Migration, Geneva at 6.
26. Des Places, Ségolène Barbou, Evolution of asylum legislation in the EU: Insights from regulatory competition theory, EUI Working Papers 2003/16, European University Institute, Italy.
27. Supra n. 20 at 61.
28. Supra n. 20 at 63.
29. Zetter, Griffiths, Feretti and Pearl, An assessment of the impact of asylum policies in Europe 1990-2000, Home Office Research Study, July 2003.
30. Field and Edwards, Alternatives to detention of asylum seekers and refugees, UNHCR Legal and Protection Policy Research Series, POLAS/2006/03 April 2006 Appendix 1, Australia.
31. Zetter et al., supra n. 25.
32. Gibney supra n. 21 at 9 notes that the original use of Guantanamo was to house Cuban and Haitain asylum seekers in the early 1990's.
33. Gibney supra n. 21 at 9.
34. General Assembly EX Com of the High Commissioners programme 58th session, 'Note on international protection', A/AC.96/1038 29th June 2007 para 30.
35. This was expressly acknowledged by the Home Office Minister, Lord Rooker, in January 2002, HL debates Hansard 23rd January 2002, Col 1462.
36. Hathaway, James, Reconceiving International Refugee Law, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff 1997, p. xx.
37. Tuitt, Patricia, The Law's Construction of the Refugee, London: Pluto 1996, at 19-20.
38. Ibid. at 19.
39. Ibid. at 23.
40. Ibid. at 146.
41. Ibid. at 148.
42. Samers, M., 'An emerging geopolitics of "illegal" immigration', EJML 2004, Vol. 6, 27-45 at 29.
43. Goodwin-Gill, 'Article 31 of the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees: non-penalization, detention and protection', in Feller, Turk and Nicholson, Refugee protection in international law, UNHCR 2003, pp. 185-258 at 225.
44. Hughes and Liebaut, supra n. 18 at 21.
45. Goodwin-Gill and McAdam, The Refugee in International Law, Oxford: OUP 2007, at 366.
46. Hathaway supra n. 8 at 410.
47. Goodwin-Gill supra n. 39 at 195.
48. Giakoumopoulos, Christos, 'Detention of asylum seekers in the light of Article 5 of the ECHR' in Hughes and Liebaut, supra n. 18, pp. 161-182 at 165.
49. Hathaway supra n. 8 at 418.
50. Gill and McAdam supra n. 41 at 462.
51. Grahl-Madsen, Atle, The Status of Refugees in International Law, Leiden: Sijthoff 1972, at 148.
52. Ibid, at 150.
53. Landgren, Karin, 'Comments on the UNHCR position on detention of refugees and asylum seekers', in Hughes and Liebaut supra n. 18, pp. 141-160 at 146.
54. Field supra n. 26 para 74.
55. Article 9 ICCPR and Article 5(1) ECHR.
56. Cf Goodwin-Gill and McAdam supra n. 41 at 463.
57. UNHCR, Revised guidelines on applicable criteria and standards relating to the detention of asylum seekers, UNHCR, February 1999, para 1.
58. HRC General Comment No 8, Right to Liberty and Security of Persons, (Art 9), 30th June 1982, para 1.
59. Edwards, Alice, 'Human rights, refugees and the right "to enjoy" asylum', 17 I (2005) 293-330 at 319.
60. A v Australia Communication No 560/1993 CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993.
61. Communication No 900/1999 CCPR/C/76/D/900/1999.
62. Commission on Human Rights, On right to be free from arbitrary arrest, detention and exile, UN Doc. E/CN.4/826/Rev.1, paras 23-30.
63. Van Alphen v Netherlands, No 305/1988 UN Doc CCPR/C/39/D/305/1988 (1990).
64. Celepi v Sweden, Communication No 456/1991 CCPR/C/51/D/456/1991.
65. Nowak, M, I Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - CCPR Commentary, Kehl am Rhein, Strasbourg: Engel Verlag 1993, p. 211;
66. Goodwin-Gill supra n. 39 at 223.
67. Report of the Working Group, UN Doc E/CN.4/1999/63 18th Dec 1999.
68. Commission on Human rights 55th Session Civil and Political rights, including torture and detention 'Report of the Working Group on arbitrary detention', E/CN.4/1999/63, 18th Dec 1998.
69. Ibid, recommendation 8, para 33.
70. Ibid, recommendation 9, para 34.
71. Bail for Immigration detainees, Submission to the UN Working group on arbitrary detention, Sept 2002 Executive summary.
72. Ex Com Conclusion 44 (XXXVII) 1986 A/AC.96/688.
73. UNHCR, Revised Guidelines on applicable criteria and standards for the detention of asylum seekers, UNHCR 1999, para 1.
74. Ibid.
75. The possible alternatives include regularly reporting and monitoring mechanisms, provision of a surety or guarantor, release on bail and open accommodation centres: Guideline 4.
76. Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's programme Standing Committee, Detention of asylum-seekers and refugees: The framework, the problem and recommended practice, EC/49/SC/CRP,13 4th June 1999.
77. Ibid, para 10.
78. Ibid, para 25.
79. Geneva 8-9th November 2001, para 1 lb in Feller et al. supra n. 39 at 256.
80. EX Com No 93 (LIII) 2002 on reception of asylum-seekers in the context of individual asylum systems para b, i and vi; Landgren supra n. 49 at 150.
81. Para 3.
82. 1997 Comm 560/1993 3rd Apr 1997, para 9.4,
83. also discussed by Tootell, Hughes and Petrasek, "The relevance of key UN instruments for detained asylum seekers', in Hughes and Liebaut supra n. 18 at 189.
84. Supra n. 81 at para 26(b).
85. C/E Recommendation Rec. (2003) 5, On measures of detention of asylum seekers, para 6.
86. 80)Although there is little hard law providing state obligations in this field.
87. 81)Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's programme, 'Detention of asylum-seekers and refugees: the framework, the problem and recommended practice', Standing Committee 15th Meeting 4th June 1999, EC/49/SC/CRP.13, para 14.
88. Field supra n. 26 para 70.
89. Chahal v UK (1996) 23 EHRR 413.
90. Clayton, Gina, Textbook on Immigration and Asylum Law, Oxford: OUP 2004, at 433.
91. App. No 19776/92 of 25th June 1996 and App. Nos 45355/99 and 45357/99 of Nov 27th 2003 respectively.
92. Brogan v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 117.
93. Article 5(1)3 ECHR.
94. Cornelisse supra n. 165 at 105.
95. App. No 26629/95 4.4.2000.
96. Para 73.
97. Para 78.
98. Chahal v UK (1996) 23 EHRR 413 at 464-466.
99. Article 51 (2) which states that the charter does not establish any new power or task for the community or union.
100. 2003/9/EC of 27th January 2003. For analysis see ECRI The EC Directive on the Reception of Asylum Seekers: 'Are asylum seekers in Europe receiving material support and access to employment in accordance with European legislation?', AD3/11/2005/EXT/SH.
101. Brussels, 3.4.2001 COM(2001) 181 final 2001/0091 (CNS), Proposal for a Council Directive laying down minimum standards on the reception of applicants for asylum in Member States (presented by the Commission) Article 7(2).
102. HL European Union select Committee 8th session, 'Minimum standards for reception conditions of asylum seekers - with evidence', November 2001.
103. UNHCR, Annotated Comments on Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27th January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, UNHCR, May 2007.
104. Mitsilegas, Valsamis, 'The directive on the reception of asylum seekers and its implementation in the UK', IANL 2996 Vol. 20(1), pp. 42-45 at 44.
105. 2005/85/EC 1st Dec 2005.
106. 2005/85/EC 1st December 2005, Article 18.
107. ECRE Press releases 30th Sept 2003, 29th March 2004.
108. UN GA Ex Comm of High Commissioners 55th session, 'Note on International Protection', A/AC.96/989, July 7th 2004 para 15.
109. UNHCR, 'Note on International protection', UN Doc A/AC.96/975, 2nd Jul 2003 para 12.
110. Young supra n. 17 at 45 criticises the UK's designation of Nigeria as 'safe' after the murder of the Ogoni activist Ken Saro-Wiwa.
111. Article 27(2)b. Article 30.
112. Goodwin-Gill and McAdam supra n. 41 at 397 and p. 400;
113. ECRE 'Broken promises', June 2004;
114. Tuitt supra n. 33 at 111;
115. Trost, Rachel and Billings, Peter, "The designation of "safe" countries and individual assessment of asylum claims', in Nicholson and Twomey supra n. 17, pp. 73-99.
116. Proposals for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common standards and procedures in member states for returning illegally staying third-country nationals COM(2005). 391 Final 1st Sept 200.
117. Article 14.
118. Article 15.
119. BBC news, 'Ukrainian detention centre', Friday 13th Dec 2002;
120. see also Make Borders History Campaign, 'No Border Camp. Ukraine', August 2007.
121. Para L.
122. European Parliament Resolution on the common immigration policy B6-0508/2006, 26th September 2006.
123. Paras 11, 12.
124. Boeles, Pieter, 'Editorial: Fair and effective immigration procedures in Europe?', EJML, Vol. 7, 2005, pp. 213-218 at 218.
125. Articles 1, 2.
126. Boeles, Brouwer, Woltjer and Alfenaar, 'Draft directive on minimum guarantees for individual freedom, security and justice in relation to decisions regarding movement of persons', EJML 2005, Vol. 7, pp. 301-319.
127. Mole, Nuala and Harby, Catharina, Immigration, Asylum and detention, ECRE, AIRE Centre, June 2004.
128. Wilkinson, Ray, 'Europe: The debate over detention', Refugees Magazine, UNHCR, Issue 113.
129. (1996) 22 EHRR 533.
130. [1994] 18 EHRR 237.
131. Executive Committee of the High Commissioners programme, 'Detention of asylum-seekers and refugees: the framework, the problem and recommended practice', Standing Committee 15th Meeting 4th June 1999, EC/49/SC/CRP.13, para 20.
132. There now appears to be international consensus that such transit zones are places of detention - Giakoumopoulos, Christos, 'Detention of asylum seekers in the light of Article 5 of the ECHR', in Hughes and Liebaut supra n. 18, pp. 161-182 at 172.
133. Lord Bassam HL debates Col 1081, 22nd July 2002.
134. OEM Chapter 38.1.1.
135. EWCA Civ 888.
136. BID, Submission to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, 2002 BID Part 4.2.
137. Weber and Gelsthorpe, Deciding to Detain: How Decisions to Detain Asylum-Seekers Are Made at Points of Entry, Cambridge: Institute of Criminology 2002 at 73.
138. Home Office Asylum Statistics 1st Quarter 2007, Table 13.
139. 2nd quarter 2006, Table 13.
140. BID supra n. 125 at para 4.9.
141. Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: UK and N Ireland UN Doc CCPR/CO/73/UK and CCPR/CO/73/UKOT 6th Dec 2001.
142. According to the SSHD there were 67 minors detained with their families on March 22nd 2007 -Hansard 16th April 2007, Col 461W.
143. UN Working Group Recommendation 13, para 40.
144. Home Office Operational Enforcement Manual, July 2001, Chapter 38.6.
145. BID supra n. 125, para 4.6.
146. Chapter 38.3.1 OEM On 27th February 2001, the Home Secretary listed the following nationalities as suitable for Oakington detention: Albania, Bangladesh, China, Czech Republic, Estonia, China, Iraq, India, Kosova, Latvia, Lithuania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe.
147. OEM Chapter 38.3.
148. OEM Chapter 38.5.
149. OEM Chapter 38.8.
150. Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Gil Alvaro-Robles, Report on visit to the UK 4th-12th Nov 2004, CommDH(2005)6 para. 66.
151. OEM Chapter 38. 1.
152. Weber and Gelsthorpe supra n. 126.
153. Barbara Roche HC Col 263W, 16th March 2000.
154. Quoted in Saadi v SSHD [2002] UKHL 41 at 3137.
155. HC Select Committee on European Union, Minutes of Evidence, Memorandum by HM Inspectorate of prisons, 1st February 2006.
156. HC Deb. 25 October 2001 Col 333W.
157. BBC, Detention Undercover: The real story, 2005.
158. Inquiry into allegations of racism and mistreatment of detainees at Oakington immigration reception centre and while under escort, July 2005.
159. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Report on a short follow-up inspection of Oukington Reception Centre, 5-7th June 2006.
160. IND Asylum Statistics 4th quarter 2007.
161. Burnham, Emily, Chullenging Immigration Detention. A Best Practice Guide, October 2003, ILPA, BID at 18;
162. Amnesty International, Seeking asylum is not a crime: Detention of people who huve sought asylum, Amnesty international UK 2005.
163. Select Committee on Home Affairs 2nd report, part 6, Detention and Removul, 2004.
164. Home Office asylum statistics 1st quarter 2007, March 31st 07, Table 17, 18. This figure is the same for the 4th quarter of 2006.
165. This has been argued by the Home Office as justification for detention, Amnesty International, Seeking asylum is not a crime: detention of people who have sought asylum, Amnesty international UK 2005 at 62.
166. R (on application of Saadi) v SSHD [2002] UKHL 41, [2002] 1 WLR 3131.
167. Saadi v UK [2007] 44 EHRR 50; Grand chamber judgment of 29th January 2008.
168. For more on the differential treatment in the UK, see Bacon supra n. 16 at 3.
169. The policy of return to the Kurdish autonomous area of Northern Iraq is discussed in the seminar by ILPA and Redress, Non-refoulement under threat Redress, London, November 2006 at 29.
170. R (on application of Saadi) v SSHD [2002] UKHL 41, [2002] 1 WLR 3131.
171. P. 3142. For commentary on Saadi see Berkowitz, Nathalia, 'Article 5, detention of asylum seekers', IANL 2006, p. 20 (3) 223-225;
172. 'Immigration and asylum: detention of asylum seeker for speedy processing of application', EHRLR 2006, 6, pp. 742-745.
173. [2001] 4 All ER 961, para 29.
174. Supra n. 158 at 3143.
175. [2007] 44 EHRR 50 para 40 citing Amuur v France, App. No 19776/92 of 25th June 1996, para. 41.
176. Grand Chamber [2008] para. 65.
177. [2007] 44 EHRR para. 44.
178. Cornelisse, Galina, 'Human rights for immigration detainees in Strasbourg: Limited sovereignty or a limited discourse?', EJML, Vol. 6, 2004, pp. 93-110 at 105.
179. Grand Chamber [2008] para. 74.
180. Ibid. paras 77-78.
181. Intervention of AIRA Centre, ECRE and Liberty and submission to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR, Para 5.
182. Grand Chamber [2008] para. 54.
183. Ibid.
184. Celepli v Sweden HRC Case 456/1991.
185. Field supra n. 26 para 34.
186. Para. 3(2).
187. Race Relations (Immigration and Asylum) Authorisation 2004.
188. Supra n. 158 at 3139.
189. Para. 50.
190. Aire Intervention supra n. 168, para. 6.
191. Cornelisse supra n. 165 at 96.
192. R (on the application of Daly) v SSHD, 2001 UKHL 26.
193. HM Inspector of Prisons, Report an the unannounced inspections of five non-residential short-term holding facilities: Queen's Building and Terminals, 1-4 Heathrow Airport, 10-13th Oct 2005 at 5.
194. HM chief inspector of Prisons, Report on unannounced inspection of Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre, 17-21ST July 2006. The report revealed that over 60% of detainees felt unsafe and 44% said they had been victimised by staff. The regime at Lindholme has also been criticised by Anne Owers for its 'prison culture' and lack of respect for the detainees;
195. BBC News, 'Prison culture at asylum centre', 16th June 2004. June 2007, up to 100 detainees at Dungavel removal centre in Scotland were refusing food following the suicide of a Kurdish asylum seeker. Specific issues included lack of legal representation and the indefinite time limit of the detention with a view to deportation (in some cases more than 18 months)
196. BBC News, 'Food protest by asylum detainees', 11th June 2007.
197. See p. 22.
198. Joint Committee on Human Rights 10th report, The treatment of asylum seekers, 2007, para. 226.
199. HL and HC Joint Committee on Human Rights, 'Government response to the Committee's tenth report of this session: the treatment of asylum seekers', 17th report of session 2006-7, HL Paper 134, HC 790 5th July 2007, paras 274 and 275, 276 respectively.
200. Paras 305 and 310 respectively.
201. Para. 329.
202. 'Government response to the Committee's tenth report of this session: the treatment of asylum seekers', 17th report of session 2006-7, HL Paper 134, HC 790, 5th July 2007, para. 55.
203. 13178/03, October 12th 2006, unreported.
204. YB 12 1969.
205. Hurtado v Switzerland Series A No 280-A.
206. App. No 28524/95, April 19th 2001 and App 40907/98, March 6th 2001 respectively.
207. CPT/Inf (2007) 18 of 18th April 2007 reports on detention conditions in Germany;
208. CPT/Inf (2006) 1 of 20th December 2006 criticises two centres in Greece;
209. CPT/Inf (2005) 13, 21st July 2005 criticises detention prior to deportation in Austria;
210. CPT/Inf (2006) 9, 23rd February 2006 describes conditions in Lithuania as 'unacceptable'.
211. UKHL 56.
212. CPT/Inf (2006) 28 of 10th August 2006.
213. Amnesty International supra n. 150.
214. Ibid. at 17-18.
215. Pourgourides, Christina, 'The mental health implications of the detention of asylum seekers', in Hughes and Liebaut supra n. 18, pp. 199-209 at 201.
216. Ibid. at 203.
217. Ibid. at 208.
218. Domanski, Maciej, 'Insights from refugee experience: A background paper on temporary protection', in Hathaway, Reconceiving International Refugee Law, pp. 20-34 at 24.
219. Domanski at 31.
220. Watters, Charles, "The mental health needs of refugees and asylum seekers: Key issues in research and service development', in Nicholson and Twomey, pp. 282-297 at 287.
221. Field and Edwards, Alternatives to detention of asylum seekers and refugees, UNHCR Legal and Protection Policy Research Series, POLAS/2006/03 April 2006.
222. Ibid. para. 89.
223. Ibid. para. 90.
224. Bruegel, I. and Natamba, E., Maintaining contact: What happens after detained asylum seekers get bail?, Social Science Research paper No 16, South Bank University London 2002.
225. Supra n. 203 para. 156.
226. Ibid. paras 166-172 produces evidence from projects in countries including UK, Lithuania, Australia and the US which supports this conclusion.
227. Ibid. appendix 1 Canada.
228. Ibid. appendix 1 UK.
229. In the absence of a reasonable suspicion that a person may be connected with terrorist offences.
230. Cornelisse supra n. 165 at 105.
231. Costello, Cathryn, "The asylum procedures directive and the proliferation of safe country practice: Deterrence, deflection and the dismantling of international protection', EJML 2005, Vol. 7, pp. 35-69 at 35.
232. Brennan supra n. 6 at 131.
233. Chahal v UK (1996) 23 EHRR 413.
234. Supra n. 165 at 104.
235. Amnesty International supra n. 153 at 49.
236. Ibid. at 52.
237. Teresa Hayter, Open Borders, the Case against Immigration Controls, Pluto 2000 at 119.
238. Gibney supra n. 3 at 15.
239. UN GA Ex Comm of High Commissioners 53rd session, 'Note on International Protection', A/AC.96/965, September 11th 2002, para. 44.
240. UN GA Ex Comm of High Commissioners 53rd session, 'Note on International Protection', A/AC.96/965, September 11th 2002, para. 45.
241. UN GA Ex Comm of High Commissioners 54th sessionm, 'Note on International Protection', A/AC.96/975, July 2nd 2003, para. 55.
242. UN GA Ex Comm of High Commissioners 56th session, 'Note on International Protection', A/AC.96/1008, 4th July 2005, para. 3.
243. BID supra n. 125 at para. 7.2.
244. Bacon supra n. 16 observes that private companies operating immigration centres in the UK see this as an extension of the prison regime and as a highly profitable growth area, p. 3.
245. Tuitt passim;
246. Schuster, L., 'A Comparative Analysis of the Asylum Policy of Seven European Governments', Journal of Refugee Studies 2000, Vol. 13, 1, pp. 118-132 at 128.
247. Landgren supra n. 49 at 159.
248. Hathaway, James, The Rights of Refugees under International Law, Cambridge University Press 2005.
249. Supra p. 31.
250. Tuitt supra n. 33
251. passim
252. Supra n. 3.
253. Home office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Managing Migration. A strategy to build stronger international alliances to manage migration, June 2007.
254. Amuur v France, App. No 19776/92 of 25th June 1996, para. 43.
255. General Assembly EX Com of the High Commissioners programme 52nd session, 'Note on international protection', A/AC.96/951, 13th September 2001, para. 46;
256. EXCOM Conclusions 44 (XXXVII) 1986; 85 (XLIX) 1998, paras cc, dd, ee.
257. Grand Chamber [2008] dissenting opinions.