Syllabus/achievement requirements

 

Requirements

Achievement requirements for master’s level (10 credits):

Knowledge

Students are expected to achieve good understanding of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its Protocol. Specifically, good understanding of the following articles is required:

Article 1 (definition of a refugee, inclusion, exclusion and cessation clauses) Article 33 (non-refoulement)

Knowledge of the expanded definitions of refugee and conditions for return contained in the following regional instruments is also required:

The Cartagena Declaration on Refugees 1989.

OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa 1969.

European Council Directive on Minimum Standards for Qualification and Status of Third Country Nationals as Refugees 2004.

Knowledge of the following applicable guarantees within human rights instruments for defining persecution, assessing the state of origin's ability and will to protect the applicant, and restricting return of asylum seekers is also required:

 

  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Arts. 13 & 14)
  • Convention Against Torture (Arts. 1, 2 & 3)
  • European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (Article 3)
  • African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights 1981 (Arts. 5, 12 & 23)
  • American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (Art. 27)-American Convention of Human Rights 1981 (Art.5 & 22)

 

Skills

Students attain sufficient writing and oral presentation skills by analyzing and presenting refugee cases in class throughout the whole semester. The exam is a hypothetical fact pattern with accompanying legal instruments requiring analysis and conclusion of refugee status. This enables them to be able to draft decisions and legal advisory memos, or argue cases in court, hence they are prepared to work within immigration agencies, department of justice, NGOs, law firms, and UNHCR.

 

General competence

Students will be expected to critically analyze comparative cases from national tribunals and international human rights monitors- conducting evaluations of the analysis of the judges in comparison with protection theory and the normative language within the relevant legal instruments, in particular the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees.  They are asked to assess the clarity, comprehensiveness, fairness, and legitimacy of the judgment. Through oral presentations, the students are asked to explain protection theory as developed in the literature, UNHCR policy documents, and comparative case law.  Students should be able to explain the impact of the absence of an international refugee tribunal, the fragmentation of refugee law, and trends within regional systems (comparing the EU, OAS, and AU).   Students attain comprehension of the ethical dilemmas resulting from political pressures affecting the practice of refugee protection (chain refoulement, interception at the borders, excessive use of visas, detention, restriction of family reunification, etc).

 

 

Achievement requirements for bachelor's level (10 credits):

Knowledge

Students are expected to achieve knowledge of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its Protocol. Specifically, good understanding of the following articles is required:

Article 1 (definition of a refugee, inclusion, exlusion and cessation clauses) Article 33 (non-refoulement)
 

Skills

Students attain sufficient writing and oral presentation skills by analyzing and presenting refugee cases in class throughout the whole semester. The exam is a hypothetical fact pattern with accompanying legal instruments requiring analysis and conclusion of refugee status. This enables them to be able to draft decisions and legal advisory memos, or argue cases in court, hence they are prepared to work within immigration agencies, department of justice, NGOs, law firms, and UNHCR.

 

General competence

Students will be expected to critically analyze comparative cases from national tribunals and international human rights monitors- conducting evaluations of the analysis of the judges in comparison with protection theory and the normative language within the relevant legal instruments, in particular the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees.  They are asked to assess the clarity, comprehensiveness, fairness, and legitimacy of the judgment. Through oral presentations, the students are asked to explain protection theory as developed in the literature, UNHCR policy documents, and comparative case law.  Students should be able to explain the impact of the absence of an international refugee tribunal, the fragmentation of refugee law, and trends within regional systems (comparing the EU, OAS, and AU).   Students attain comprehension of the ethical dilemmas resulting from political pressures affecting the practice of refugee protection (chain refoulement, interception at the borders, excessive use of visas, detention, restriction of family reunification, etc).

 

Cases and reading

Students are expected to achieve good understanding of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its Protocol. Specifically, good understanding of the following articles is required: Article 1 (definition of a refugee, inclusion, exlusion and cessation clauses) Article 33 (non-refoulement)

Knowledge of the expanded definitions of refugee and conditions for return contained in the following regional instruments is also required:

The Cartagena Declaration on Refugees 1989.

OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa 1969.

European Council Directive on Minimum Standards for Qualification and Status of Third Country Nationals as Refugees 2004.

Knowledge of the following applicable guarantees within human rights instruments for defining persecution, assessing the state of origin's ability and will to protect the applicant, and restricting return of asylum seekers is also required:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Arts. 13 & 14) Convention Against Torture (Arts. 1, 2 & 3) European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (Article 3) African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights 1981 (Arts. 5, 12 & 23) American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (Art. 27) American Convention of Human Rights 1981 (Art.5 & 22)

Students will be expected to analyze comparative cases from national tribunals and international human rights monitors. They will be required to demonstrate good understanding of protection theory developed in the litterature.

 

Books from the reading list to be found in the Law Library (Oria).
Please note that this is just a 'quick search' for parts of the reading list.
Be careful always to consult the reading list for complete information.

If there are no available copies in the library, you can 'sign in' in the library database Oria with UiO username and password and make a reservation! 
 

Reading list

Goodwin-Gill, Guy & McAdam, Jane, The Refugee in International Law 3rd Ed., (Oxford 2007)(pages1-417)

( Guy Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, 2ndEdition, Oxford.) In addition, the students have to study asylum cases from Canada, USA, ECHR, IACHR, CAT, HRC, etc. and some articles that will be chosen from journals.

 

Cases

Students should read:

Bringas-Rodriguez v. Lynch, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Nov. 19 2015:

http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/resources/journals/wlo/9thcir/2015/11/bringas-rodriguez-v.-lynch.html (please read full case opinion linked to this site) Singh v. Lynch, US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Sept. 21, 2015: https://apps.americanbar.org/ababoards/blog/blogpost.cfm?threadid=32632&catid=14923 (please read full case opinion linked to this site) Khudaverdyan v. Holder, US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Feb. 27 2015): https://willamette.edu/law/resources/journals/wlo/9thcir/2015/02/khudaverdyan-v.-holder.html (please read full case opinion linked to this site) Mandebvu v. Holder, US Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, June 18, 2015:https://www.immigrantjustice.org/node/8936  (please read full case opinion) Angov v. Holder, US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Dec. 4, 2013: https://willamette.edu/law/resources/journals/wlo/9thcir/2013/12/angov-v.-holder.html (please read full case opinion)

Garcia- Milian v. Holder, US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Sept. 18, 2013: http://immigrantjustice.org/litigation/blog/garcia-milian-v-holder (please read full case opinion) Canadian HIV case:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2009/2009canlii47104/2009canlii47104.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAOSElWIGFuZCBhc3lsdW0AAAAAAQ&resultIndex=2

Required

Gender cases:

Students should read: F.B. v. the Netherlands (CAT/C/56/D/613/2014): http://www.refworld.org/type,CASELAW,,,568a963e4,0.html and CJEU- C 199/12, C 200/12 and C 201/12. Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v. X, Y, and Z Fourth Chamber the Netherlands 7 Nov 2013): http://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/cjeu-c-19912-c-20012-and-c-20112-minister-voor-immigratie-en-asiel-v-x-y-and-z#content

Exclusion:

Exclusion, students should read: UK Court of Appeal, AH v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, 14 October 2015: http://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/case-law/uk-court-appeal-ah-algeria-v-secretary-state-home-department-14-october-2015#content and Australia YVWV and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 66 (9 February 2015) http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2015/66.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=HCA%202014%2026%20or%202014%20HCA%2026

Cessation:

Cessation, students should read: Canada, Yong Guieco: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/38190/index.do

Non-Refoulement, students should read: Jama Warsame v. Canada, CCPR/C/102/D/1959/2010, UN Human Rights Committee (Sept. 2011): http://www.refworld.org/type,CASELAW,HRC,,4ee0f0302,0.html

and Chahin v. Sweden, CAT/C/46/D/310/2007, UN Committee Against Torture, (8 July 2011):

http://www.refworld.org/topic,50ffbce576f,50ffbce5796,4eeb3ac62,0,CAT,,SWE.html

https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/20/issue/1/prohibiting-collective-expulsion-aliens-europeancourt-

human-rights

Supplementary literature

Musalo, Moore & Boswell, Refugee Law and Policy, (Carolina Academic Press 1997), and 4th. ed.  2011

This is an American casebook which is highly recommended as it provides a clear, in-depth analysis of refugee law jurisprudence, legislation, and theory.

Hathaway, James, The Law of Refugee Status (Butterworths 1991)

This book provides a comprehensive analysis of the refugee definition, the concept of persecution, and cessation and exclusion clauses.

Hathaway, James, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law (Cambridge 2005)

This book discusses the rights of refugees to enter and remain in states, freedom from arbitrary detention, expulsion, right to security, food, shelter, healthcare, property, religion, education, documentation, work, social security, etc.

Grahl-Madsen, Atle, The Status of Refugees in International Law, vols. 1 and 2, (Sijthoff, Leyden 1972)

This is the classic treatise of Refugee Law. It offers a profound discussion of the historical evolution of refugee law.

Erika Feller, Volker Turk & Francis Nicholsen (Eds.), Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection (2003)

This is a collection of UNHCR commissioned papers on the key challenges to the 1951 Convention. It explains current thinking regarding interpretation of the refugee definition, non-refoulement, exclusion & cessation, internal flight alternative, and gender persecution.

Webber, Frances: Borderline Justice. The Fight for Refugee and Migrant Rights, 2012. 256 pages.

Hugo Story

Article on Persecution in war

 

 

Published Nov. 19, 2018 1:22 PM - Last modified Nov. 19, 2018 1:22 PM