Asylum Rights in International Law - Essay Example

? Asylum Rights in International Law The right of asylum, otherwise known as political asylum, relates to an individual rejected by their own country being protected by another sovereign authority. The institution of asylum dates from the same time with the start of civilization. It is an international concept that still has not received apt considerations in terms of the inalienable rights in the international human rights charter. There exist setbacks in terms of interpretation where many states argue that they cannot put their sovereignty to test due to the international human rights stipulations. Asylum develops from persecution and many different forms of persecution can lead to application of asylum. There are specific persecutions that lead to an individual gaining the refugee status. Persecution on the basis of gender practices has been common in the recent years. This has advanced the claims for asylum among many people across the world. Persecution ranges on different factors which can include gender, religion and social status. An additional note is that the meaning of persecution may also comprise discrimination of persons opposing colonialism. Many states have incorporated their immigrant requirements and asylum allowance into the same legal structure. The decision of a granting a persecuted individual or a refugee asylum depends on the state. This paper seeks to analyze the status of asylum within international human rights law. It also discusses the existing tensions between asylum, human rights and sovereignty. The features of asylum rights are clearly spelt in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It declares categorically that every individual has a right to freedom of residence and freedom within the borders of each country. In fact, it maintains, under article 13, that every individual has the right to leave and return to any state including their own. In article 14 of the UDHR every person has right to seek and enjoy asylum to any countries after being persecuted (Weissbrodt & Vega, 2007 p16). The conditions for this are that this right may not be brought into play in instances of prosecutions legitimately coming from non-political crimes. This right cannot be referred to if the person is facing persecution from their country due to acts that are contrary to the principles and purposes of the United Nations. The rights to asylum therefore, are well spelt out and cannot be enjoyed at the expense of a country’s security and derogation of the international law. It is apt to discuss the description and status of refugees who are different form asylum seekers. On the contrary, human rights work brings about challenges for asylum supporters. This field of international human rights has witness intense reforms since the mid twentieth century. This was the time when the principle normative frame for refugees was recognized. The gender based approach on understanding the fundamental rights has changed what counts as rights violation. This is on a scope that the violations are not only viewed as private or stately induced but political violations. Clearly this informs the description of asylum as political based (Gibney, 2005 p74). International human rights subject has thus transformed to incorporate issues linked to gender-based public issues, sexuality and sexual orientation. International human rights are viewed on grounds of development, globalization and health. Home displacement has emerges as a key area of concern, shifting the dominance of a country’s sovereignty as a rationalization for non-involvement. These progress challenges asylum advocates to modernize the initial notions in refugee protection. This should be done while keeping grip of the old internationalist system in a situation where exilic defense of asylum seekers is in challenges. In international law, all contracting states to the United Nations should give sympathetic consideration to individuals who are unable to get travel documents from their countries. Under article 31, all these people without documents are protected so long as they avail themselves to the authorities. They should also show a good cause for seeking the illegal entry (Goudapell & Raulus, 2011 p112). The host countries should afford the refugees all the facilities and amenities and no restrictions should be imposed. From these provisions it is clear that the international puts a clear difference from a refugee and asylum seeker. The story of Edward Snowden is a known example of how different states contradict the international law on asylum. Snowden was held in a transit zone of a Moscow airport where he had to fill numerous applications. His passport was revoked by the country of his origin hence he had to seek asylum to any country around the world. He claimed that the United States had prompted this on claims that he had intended to have a home outside of the United States. The Russian administration, on the other hand, maintained that he could only stay there after he shuns the United States. India, Brazil and Poland rejected his application for asylum. Norway, Ecuador and Ireland accepted his application on condition that he physically enters their soil to fill the political asylum application. The rest of the many countries initiated the wait and see policy since they did not wish to antagonize the United States. This is an example of a test on international law and how asylum affects its implementation. In this example, the United States is on the wrong side of interpretation of international law and asylum. This is a country viewed as the ideal face of democracy and strong institutions of government. However, it does not give Snowden his full rights and freedoms. India also revoked Snowden’s application for asylum. It is clear that this India acted out of its own sovereignty as a state. This also characterizes its foreign policy as weak. Snowden did not reveal something new since these practices contradicting international law are engaged even by the weakest governments. Most countries do not preserve the majesty of international rule of law. The respect and dignity of international law are at most times ignored on claims of safeguarding a country’s sovereignty. Politics is the central issue in Snowden's case. International law permits him to apply anyplace he wishes to, but the decision to accept him solely rests on the individual country. Due to the bilateral ties these countries have with the United States, they are not ready to jeopardize their transactions and relations. Across time there have been similar instances where people are confined in such transit zones. Another transit zone dweller is Mehran Karimi Nasseri, an Iranian refugee. He remained in France’s Charles de Gaulle airport for close to seventeen years. When a refugee enters into a transit zone, they are considered as not present. From this most of the countries ward off the opportunity of protecting them as required by international law. This has created new policies by many countries to accommodate more refugees in transit zones. Conversely, the European Court of Human Rights abandoned this point as it is in violation of human rights nuances and norms. These countries have expanded their transit zones but still have the power and authority to detain and deport the refugees to their origins. However, legal issues are a challenge to the jurisdictional and transactional issues of asylum. The legal issues are mainly on the condition of a transit-zone as perched areas within an airport and flexible rights of the national systems in such situations. Interestingly a transit zone is on a specific territory in which it is placed. It is not probable that it is considered not to be a part of the state. One key characteristic is that the sates establish these zones to counter entitlements and legal rights of individuals in transit. Most states do not uphold the decrees of international law and play games with jurisdiction. In fact, all international airports have these zones where refugee and stateless people await t be either admitted or deported to their origins. Generally, the airlines get the role of taking care of the transit individuals. This relates they don’t afford the refugees and stateless individuals all their rights and freedoms. The basic needs like food and medicine are not guaranteed for the individuals who seek asylum. Considerations on gender are not given and the asylum seekers are hulled in one room regardless of gender (Freedman, 2003 p204). The rights of these individuals are infringed since they do not get the right treatment at the transit zones. These zones are characteristically described as detention centers for individuals seeking asylum. The services here contravene the international human rights guarantees and norms. These facilities consist of one to two rooms where there is no ratio on the number of occupants. They are deprived access to the outside environment on claims that they are a threat to national security, homeland integrity and can be terrorists (Hathaway, 2005 p311). The states like Slovak republic, Bulgaria and Romania have the worst transit zones in the universe. Here, the refugees and detainees do not receive any official backing concerning filing an asylum claim. They are deprived of any assistance on looking for refugee status as the international refugee law and human rights require. However in Europe Britain treats asylum seekers in tandem with international law (Great Britain, 2007 p342) In summary, the scope of international law on asylum seekers remains multifaceted. Each state maintains its own provisions on international rights for asylum seekers. The consideration of applications for asylum depends on the relations of the state with the origin of the asylum seeker. Bilateral transactions and relations are key factors that shade the implementation of asylum rights. Although the rights are stipulated clearly on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, most states do not follow these laws. Asylum rights are ignored on claims that the state is protecting its sovereignty and national security. In the real sense, they are protecting their bilateral ties. Asylum and refugee rights are at most times ignored at the transit zones at airports. These are institutions are developed by the states to counter asylum seekers. Their main rights to food and medicine are not guaranteed. Bibliography FREEDMAN, J. (2003). Gender and insecurity: migrant women in Europe. Aldershot, Ashgate GIBNEY, M. J. (2005). Immigration and asylum: from 1900 to the present 1. Santa Barbara, Calif. [u.a.], ABC-CLIO. GREAT BRITAIN. (2007). The treatment of asylum seekers. London, The Stationery Office. GOUDAPPEL, F. A. N. J., & RAULUS, H. S. (2011). The future of asylum in the European HATHAWAY, J. C. (2005). The rights of refugees under international law. Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press. WEISSBRODT, D. S., & VEGA, C. D. L. (2007). International human rights law: an introduction. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. Union: problems, proposals and human rights. The Hague, the Netherlands, T.M.C. Asser Press. Read More