University of Kent Open Access Journals
Not a member yet
879 research outputs found
Sort by
Red Pens, White Paper: Wider Implications of Coulthard’s Call to Sovereignty
Transcript of a roundtable conversation focused on Glen Coulthard's book Red Skins, White Masks
GB14 Analysis Tool Code Book
This supplementarty file is the Gender Bias 14 Code Book, which supports the GB14 Analysis Tool
The Beginning of a New Era? Thinking About Feminism, Law and Being Left Alone
Reflections on activism, law and change in Afghanistan in light of Dianne Otto's scholarship
Feminism, Women Judges, Judicial Diversity and the High Court of Australia
This paper was originally presented at the workshop on Diversity and Legal Reasoning held at Queen Mary University of London on 23 November 2016, sponsored by the Centre for Research on Law, Equality and Diversity and the Centre for Law and Society in a Global Context. McLoughlin examines the political and judical discourse surrounding the arrival of women judges to the High Court of Australia and considers what this reveals about the nature of commitments to judicial diversity and prospects for feminist aspirations to the achivement of more far-reachig forms of diversity
The right to leave a country: general implications and the case of migrants
AbstractThe article explores the right to leave a country, including one’s own and its relation to migration. Taking States’ sovereignty as a point of departure, it examines the correlation between the international provisions on the right to leave a country (e.g., the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966) and the methods that States use to control migration; such as the externalisation and closure of borders, increased document requirements and the criminalisation of migration. Moreover, the right to enter a country is critically examined as it constitutes the necessary corollary to the right to leave a country. The analysis reveals a systematic violation of the discussed right due to the States’ fear of cross-border crime and as a demonstration of their sovereign power. Therefore, the data lead to the conclusion that there is a negative impact on people on the move, and particularly asylum refugees. Keywordsborders, sovereignty, migrants, surveillance, violations, human right
Queering Asylum Anxieties: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Refugee Claims
Over the last three decades, an increasing number of Anglophone courts have recognised asylum claims on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Such jurisprudence has been heralded for “progressing” LGBTI rights. Yet, the progressive promise of these “pro-LGBTI” decisions leaves much more to be desired. Often formulated under the rubric of a “particular social group,” the extent to which queer refugees have been granted protection has been contingent on whether they subscribe to normative ideas of intimacy, identity, and injury. Specifically, queer refugees must demonstrate they have a “well-founded fear of persecution” by subscribing to ethnocentric assumptions about sexual citizenship, gender expression, erotic relationships, and state violence. While the concept of fear has been central to the grant of asylum under international law, it has also been mobilised in legal, political, and academic responses to the adjudication of such claims. Specifically, the fear about having a refugee jurisprudence that is too queer has led to states attempting to curb opening the proverbial “floodgates.” This anxious attempt at control has been painfully fleshed out in the way courts navigate the nexus between “authenticating” immutable sexual or gender identities and “counting” what amounts to sustained state persecution. Drawing on appellate case law from Australia, UK, US, and the EU, this paper disturbs how fear stifles the recognition of queer identity, intimacy, and injury. By disrupting judicial gestures, it considers how “asylum anxieties” continue to undermine queer claims for protection
The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in the Protection of Women Fleeing Gender-Based Violence in their Home Countries
More than one million persons crossed the Mediterranean Sea in 2015 into the European Union (‘EU’) leading many to describe the situation as the worst refugee crisis in Europe since the Second World War. The role of International Human Rights Law in ensuring the protection of asylum seekers from return to countries where they would face prohibited treatment is consequently of particular interest. In 2015, approximately 27.7% of persons claiming asylum in the EU were women and girls and reports suggest most flee war, armed conflict, persecution and sexual or gender-based violence. In the context of increasing reliance by asylum seekers and refugees on the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’) as a protection mechanism against return to ill-treatment, torture and persecution, examination of the Court’s approach is essential. Adopting a gender analysis based on feminist legal theory, this paper explores the case law of the Court relating to gender-based violence and discrimination against women. Using a comparative approach, the paper analyses how principles and concepts developed in ‘domestic’ cases are applied in ‘expulsion’ cases, in order to query the impact of the Court as a mechanism for the effective protection of women seeking refuge in Europe. The paper considers the extent to which International Human Rights Law as interpreted by the Court responds to the international protection needs of those at risk of gender-based violence. It compares how the principles regarding the prohibition of gender-based violence and discrimination against women developed by the Court in ‘domestic’ cases are applied to ‘expulsion’ cases where the breach of Article 3 ECHR is feared as a result of treatment in the receiving country. Protection against gender-based violence from a ‘male network’ and the Court’s reliance on this concept in ‘expulsion’ cases is explored in particular