European Practice Towards Asylum Seekers - Essay Example

To what extent does current European practice towards asylum seekers concur with the image of a Fortress Europe Fortress Europe Role in providing Asylum Applications Academia Research Writer Farzeela Fortress Europe Fortress Europe is the term given to the working of the European Union to keep non-EU goods and nationals out of the Union's 25 member states. A classic example of a Fortress Europe policy is the development of a common asylum and immigration policy as a sign of Fortress Europe at work. (Wikipedia) Asylum Applications Annual and Per Capita UK, considered to be one of the richest countries in the world, hosts less than 2 per cent of the world's total refugee population. Global share: If we consider global refugee and asylum seeking population the UK ranks 32nd in the world in relation to the host country's overall size, population and wealth. The number of asylum applications the UK received in 2002 represented about 0.01 percent of the global refugee population and about 0.03 per cent of the refugee population in Europe. However, a recent poll revealed that on average the British public believes that 23 percent of the world's refugees and asylum seekers are in the UK, which is more than ten times the actual figure. According to the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), there were almost 19.8 million people of concern to the agency worldwide as of 1 January 2002, of which over 12 million were refugees and 940,800 were asylum seekers. Approximately one in every 300 people on earth is a refugee. (Refugee, 2005a) The world's poorest countries take responsibility for the vast majority of refugees. Nearly two third of all refugees are hosted in the Middle East and in Africa. Taking the greatest burdens are Iran, Burundi and Guinea. Indeed, monthly asylum figures in countries such, as Tanzania and Pakistan are comparable to the total annual asylum application statistics of some of the European countries. (Refugee, 2005a) Population: The UK also takes in a small number of refugees relative to its population. Whereas the UK hosts just over 3 refugees per 1,000 inhabitants or 0.3 per cent of its population, Armenia hosts 70, Congo hosts 40, and Yugoslavia hosts 38. (Refugee, 2005a) Europe: While in terms of absolute numbers the UK received more applicants (85,865) than any other EU country in 2002. Most of the applicants were from Iraq, Zimbabwe, Somalia and Afghanistan, countries with well-documented human rights abuses. Between 1990 and 2000, just under two million people applied for asylum in Germany, four times as many as in the UK. When compared to the size of the total national population among European countries to host asylum seekers, the UK ranked only 8th in Europe in 2002 and 12th over the past decade as a whole (1992-2001). Whereas the UK received 1.9 asylum seekers per 1,000 inhabitants, it lagged well behind Austria (4.6 per capita), Norway (3.9), Sweden (3.7), Switzerland, Ireland (3.1), Liechtenstein (2.8) and Luxembourg (2.4). (Refugee, 2005a) Applications in the UK accounted for 19 percent of all asylum claims lodged in the industrialised world during 2002, followed by the USA (14 percent), Germany (12 percent) and France (9 percent). The UK, Germany and France accounted for 50 percent of all asylum applications submitted in Europe in 2002, with the UK taking 24 percent. However, the UK's refugee population is by no means disproportionate when compared to the rest of Europe. In 2001, the UK's proportion of refugees to its population was roughly in line with that of Europe as a whole a ratio of 1 to 317. Refugee Action supports current discussions amongst European governments for a common, unified EU policy for dealing with asylum applications which would ensure that European countries share their responsibilities while maintaining the highest standards of refugee protection and human rights. (Refugee, 2005a) During 1992-2001, while 86 percent of the world's estimated 12 million refugees originated from developing countries. For many refugees, their status as members of persecuted ethnic or political groups meant that they could not find safety in neighbouring countries. The UK has yet to set a timetable for reaching the target, set by the world's richest countries in 1970, of giving 0.7% of its national wealth (GNP) to overseas aid. Today, only five of these countries i.e., Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are meeting this target. The UK's aid spending presently at 0.32 percent, down from 0.52 percent in 1979, remains below the EU average. On present form, it will be 40 years before the UK reaches the 0.7% target. Only a small proportion of overseas aid is spent on the world's main refugee-producing countries. (Refugee, 2005b) (UNHCR, 2005a) Fortress Europe Determination in Accordance with the 1951 Refugee Convention The end of the Cold War in 1989 held the promise of a new and better age for many people of Europe, particularly those who had suffered persecution. The 1951 Convention played a vital role in providing backup for people seeking to escape persecution. Western Europe implemented the convention to the utmost through establishing proper protection measures to the asylum seekers. Since 1989 there has been an exceptional rise in the number of people from Third World, Balkan and former Soviet Union states. The EU does not have an immigration policy dealing with legal asylum entry and only four countries Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark accept quotas of refugees on an annual basis. In an effort to cope up with this influx of people, the EU has over the last decade turned its attention to an internal 'harmonization' of Member States' refugee policies and determination procedures. Defining the meaning of 'refugee' and 'persecution', harmonizing that agreed meaning across Member States, assigning responsibility for status determination and administrative processes has been the focus of several recent treaties and frameworks resulting in the construction of a 'Fortress Europe'. (Wanda Sendzimir, 2005a) Role of UNHCR UNHCR was created in 1950 with the adoption of the Refugee Convention and the major legal foundation with an active participation of 26 Western countries, joined by other states such as Iraq, Egypt and Colombia. The original framers had not expected refugee issues to be amajor international problem for very long. UNHCR had been given alimited three-year mandate to help the post-World War II refugees. After which, the refugee crisis spread, from Europe in the 1950s to Africa in the 1960s then to Asia and by the 1990s it was back to Europe. In one innovative approach, some countries resorted to home-grown "temporary protection" arrangements to accommodate large-scale influxes of asylum seekers, such as the hundreds of thousands of civilians who fled Bosnia and, later, Kosovo during the 1990s. Some of the benefits and drawbacks, possessed by these schemes were: Benefits: They allowed civilians to enter acountry speedily and with aminimum of red tape. Disadvantages: Since there were no binding universal standards that apply to temporary protection, therefore the rights awarded to asylum seekers were often fewer in number and less generous in scope than those provided for under the Convention. Beneficiaries were usually granted only "temporary" residence, and government could end their protection arrangements at their own discretion. Countries, which earlier had welcomed limited numbers of refugees, began to close their doors. Because the 1951 instrument does not define the term 'persecution' the definition itself has been subjected to wildly differing and increasingly restrictive interpretations. Some capitals argued that the nature of persecution has changed over the past 50 years, and that people who flee civil war, generalized violence or arange of human rights, abuses in their home countries. In 1951, more refugees escaped from areas where there was no functioning government, where they were victims of shadowy organizations, rebel movements or local militia. Afew governments insisted that actions by these 'non-state agents' could not be considered as 'persecution' under the convention. (2005,a) Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts the right of persons to seek and enjoy asylum, the Convention makes no mention of such a right, or of any obligation on countries to admit asylum seekers. The Convention does protect only those refugees who lost, left behind or could not obtain proper documentation and so entered apotential asylum country unlawfully. (2005,a) Burden-sharing has become one of the most contentious issues among receiving countries, one that involves not just people and money but competition for food, medical services, jobs, housing and the environment. Left unresolved, the issues could threaten the very existence of the international refugee protection regime. The problem of internally displaced persons also demands urgent action. This group now numbers between 20 and 25 millions in at least 40 countries. Although they may have fled their homes for the same reasons as refugees, because they have not crossed an international border, they still, enjoy the legal protection of their governments and so are not covered by the Refugee Convention. The number of those seeking asylum in developed countries have increased substantially over the past two decades. In 2000, just over 400,000 persons applied for asylum in the 15 countries of the European Union, double the number in 1980, but down form ahigh of 700,000 in 1992. With the increase in asylum seekers comes an increase in expenditures to pay for refugee status determination procedures and for the social assistance provided to asylum seekers. By one estimates, that expense among developed countries around the world reached $10 billion in 2000. When only one-quarter of asylum seekers were ultimately granted refugee status, as happened in the EU in 1999. Balancing the interests of the governments with the needs of refugees is difficult but essential. UNHCR recently launched its global consultations with governments, legal scholars, non-governmental organizations and refugees. (2005a) 1985 Schengen Agreement In June 1985, seven European Union countries signed a treaty to end internal border checkpoints and controls. More countries have joined the treaty over the past years. At present, there are 15 Schengen countries, which include Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. All these countries except Norway and Iceland are European Union members. (Schengen Visa). The Schengen Agreement allows people that are legally present in European countries to the Agreement to move about freely without having the need to show passports when crossing internal frontiers or the national boundaries between the countries taking part in the Schengen Agreement, together with airports and seaports in the case of traffic to and from a Schengen country. On 1 May 2004, 10 new countries (Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Cyprus and Slovenia) became members of the EU. The ten new member states haven't automatically become fully operational members of the Schengen co-operation. Membership of the Schengen co-operation is a process in two steps. During the accession negotiations the new member states accepted the Schengen acquis. For the internal border controls to be lifted there has to be a separate verification and a specific European Council decision. This procedure is similar to what happened when the Nordic countries became full members of Schengen. In addition, the present Schengen Information System (SIS) database has limited capacity. A new system, SIS II, should be in place by 2007. On 1 May 2005 the European Agency for the Management of Operational Co-operation at the External Borders of the Member States became operational. It was given with the responsibility for co-ordination alliance between the Schengen states in the field of management of external borders. However, responsibility for the control and surveillance of external borders still lies with the Member States. There are certain measures adopted by the Schengen group among which the most important is "Asylum-seekers are not entitled to travel freely between the Schengen countries". (Schengen, 2005a) Dublin Convention The Dublin Convention of 15 June 1990 provided a mechanism for determining the State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States of the European Union. (EU, 2005a) 1992 Resolutions and Conventions The 1992 Resolution, which was endorsed at a meeting of the European Council in Edinburgh in December 1992, was one of the products of an ad hoc intergovernmental program on asylum policy which stated that the Member States were determined, to guarantee adequate protection to refugees in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and it reaffirmed their commitment to the Dublin Convention. It also stated that the ministers were aware that a rising number of applicants for asylum in the Member States were not in genuine need of protection and that they were concerned that such manifestly unfounded applications were overloading asylum determination procedures, delaying the recognition of refugees is the genuine need of protection and jeopardizing the integrity of the institution of asylum. (The UK Parliament, 2005) Unfounded Applications for Asylum Third Host countries: The principle of the third host country allows the Member States, to send applicants for asylum to that destination after an accelerated examination of their application. The identification of the host third country precedes the substantive examination of the application and applies to all applicants for asylum. A host third country must offer all the following guarantees to asylum applicants: Their life or freedom must not be threatened; They must not be exposed to torture or degrading treatment; They must already have been granted protection in the country in question or there must be some clear evidence of admissibility; They must be afforded effective protection against refoulement. Concept of safe countries: The Member States examine all applications for asylum individually. Provision is made for accelerated procedures where the applicant comes from a country regarded as 'safe'. Each Member State determines the countries it regards as safe and informs the other Member States. The indicative factors that it may take into account for the purpose of this assessment are as follows: Number of refugees and recognition rates over the last few years; Observance of human rights (adherence to appropriate international instruments and, how the country meets those obligations in practice); Democratic institutions (elections, political pluralism, freedom of expression, legal avenues of protection and redress); Stability (EU, 2005b) Germany Vs Afghan Taliban: The decision by the German government in Sept 2003, to increase the number of German troops deployed in Afghanistan and transfer 250 soldiers to the city of Konduz in the north of the country increased Afghan resistance to the Americans. The decision by the so-called 'security cabinet' of the German chancellery to expand the German military presence in Afghanistan means that the German army will, become part of "Operation Warrior Sweep" the name given to the military offensive by the US army to repulse Afghan resistance. German relief of the US army in the north of the country is aimed at allowing US troops to intensify their military offensive in the south. At the same time, German reinforcements in Afghanistan enable the US to free up troops for its war in Iraq. (Ulrich Rippert) Austria returns Bosnians: The civil war of 1992 in Bosnia was an excruciating experience for all Bosnian Serbs, Croats and Muslims. Today, seven years after the outbreak of the war and more than three years after the signing of the Dayton Agreement in Paris, more than 7,000 Bosnian displaced persons in Austria still live in refugee camps and have not managed to adapt to their new environment. According to Austrian government sources, about 65,000 Bosnian refugees, however, have 'integrated'. People are considered integrated when they can provide adequate housing and support for themselves and their dependents through legal employment. Until now Austria has returned thousands of Bosnians to their country but there is still a substantial number of displaced Bosnians in Austria who cannot return to their homes because other ethnic groups now dominate their places of origin. (e-merge, 2000) France and Algerians Incorporation of the asylum legislation into the third pillar of the European Union was a step towards more effective harmonization of this area of legislation in Europe. However, constitutional solutions, created for the third pillar turned out to be too complicated and ineffective, to create a common European asylum policy. It was due to the following reasons: Decreasing the role of the European Commission in comparison with the European Community. Marginal role of the European Parliament. Lack of judicial supervision of the European Court of Justice. Unclear nature of the new legal instruments of the third pillar (the so-called joint actions and common positions), as well as the necessity to obtain a unanimous decision of the Council of the European Union in order to pass any legal act. Treaty of Amsterdam June 1997 The most common proposals among the postulates were to communities the asylum and immigration policy, and, to bring them under the jurisdiction of the European Community. It is described as moving this area of legislation from the third to the first pillar of the European Union. The EU member states replied to this demand in the Treaty of Amsterdam. This had a critical meaning for the European asylum policy. The European Asylum Policy has several meanings: First of all, it means that as the Treaty comes into force, the European asylum legislation takes the form of communities legal acts, that is, ordnances, directives and decisions binding legal instruments. Secondly, communitization means that with regard to European asylum law, the legislation provisions of the Community apply, that is, the European legislation is applied before the domestic legislation in case of a conflict between the two. On the other hand, the principle of direct effectiveness of the community law results in direct application of its provisions within the domestic legal system upon meeting certain requirements, indicating a change in nature of cooperation. The European Parliament, which is the only body of the Community formed by election, takes part in creation of the community asylum legislation. Lastly, the asylum issues for the first time is subjected to judicial supervision of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, which will 'ensure respect for the law in interpretation and application of the Treaty resolutions.' (UNHCR, 2005b) UK Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 Claims for Asylum: Sec 69. 1. A person who is refused, leave to enter the United Kingdom under the 1971 Act may appeal against the refusal to an adjudicator on the ground that his removal in consequence of the refusal would be contrary to the Convention. 2. If, as a result of a decision to vary, or to refuse to vary, a person's limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, he may be required to leave the United Kingdom within 28 days of being notified of the decision, he may appeal against the decision to an adjudicator on the ground that such a requirement would be contrary to the Convention. 3. A person who- a. has been refused leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of a claim for asylum made by him, but b. has been granted (whether before or after the decision to refuse leave) limited leave to enter or remain, may, if that limited leave will not expire within 28 days of his being notified of the decision, appeal to an adjudicator against the refusal on the ground that requiring him to leave the United Kingdom after the time limited by that leave would be contrary to the Convention. 4. If the Secretary of State- a. has decided to make a deportation order against a person under section 5 1. of the 1971 Act, or b. has refused to revoke such an order, that person may appeal to an adjudicator against the decision or refusal on the ground that his removal in pursuance of the order would be contrary to the Convention. 5. If directions are given as mentioned in section 66(1) for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom, he may appeal to an adjudicator on the ground that his removal in pursuance of the directions would be contrary to the Convention. 6. 'Contrary to the Convention' means contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Refugee Convention. (Immigration and Asylum Act 1999) Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 Removal of Asylum seeker to Third country: Section 80. The following shall be substituted for section 11 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33)- Removal of asylum claimant understanding arrangement with member States: 1. In determining whether a person in relation to whom a certificate has been issued under subsection (2) may be removed from the United Kingdom, a member State is to be regarded as- a. a place where a person's life and liberty is not threatened by reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion; and b. a place from which a person will not be sent to another country otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention. 2. Nothing in section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 prevents a person who has made a claim for asylum from being removed from the United Kingdom to a member State if the Secretary of State has certified that- a. the member State has accepted that, under standing arrangements, it is the responsible State in relation to the claimant's claim for asylum; and b. in his opinion, the claimant is not a national or citizen of the member State to which he is to be sent. 3. Subsection (4) applies where a person who is the subject of a certificate under subsection (2)- a. has instituted or could institute an appeal under section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (immigration appeal), and b. has made a human rights claim (within the meaning of section 113 of that Act). 4. The person may not be removed from the United Kingdom in reliance upon this section unless- a. the appeal is finally determined, withdrawn or abandoned (within the meaning of section 104 of that Act) or can no longer be brought (ignoring any possibility of an appeal out of time with permission), or b. the Secretary of State has issued a certificate in relation to the human rights claim under section 93(2)(b) of that Act (clearly unfounded claim). 5. In this section 'standing arrangements' means arrangements in force between two or more member States for determining which State is responsible for considering applications for asylum. (Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002) Britain Immigration Vouchers: Vouchers are issued on the basis of the applicant's circumstances at the time the voucher becomes available, not at the time the application was first made. For example, a woman who is engaged should be treated as a single woman and is, therefore, eligible to receive a voucher. If, however, she marries after applying for a voucher or receiving her voucher but before traveling to the UK she loses her entitlement to the voucher. You should make applicants aware of the possible relevance of a change in their circumstances, and ask them to sign the following declaration before they receive their voucher. (UK Visas) English Language Test: IELTS is a comprehensive test of English language proficiency designed to assess the ability of non-native speakers of English who intend to study in the medium of English. IELTS tests the complete range of English language skills, which will commonly be encountered by students when studying or training in the medium of English. It is accepted by most Australian, British, Canadian and New Zealand academic institutions. An increasing number of United States' academic institutions accept IELTS for admissions purposes. (CEII, http://ceii.org/ielts.htm) (UK Visas) Marriage Restrictions: The term spouses currently means husbands or wives who are married to each other. This will change from 5 December 2005 when, under the Civil Partnership legislation, same sex couples who register their civil partnership will be treated in the same way as married couples for immigration purposes by the UK authorities. It does not matter where the marriage takes place, so long as the legal procedure involved is recognized in UK law. Under UK immigration law, partners who have lived together as husband and wife for more than two years have the same rights as spouses. (Immigration and Marriage/Cohabitation) Emigration of Asylum Seekers in Germany For ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the Basic Law provides both for citizenship immediately upon application and for legal residence without restrictions. The law provides that children born to legal foreign residents be granted citizenship. Individuals may retain both German citizenship and that of their parents until the age of 23. The law reduced the period of residence legal foreign residents must spend in the country in order to earn the right to naturalize from 15 to 8 years. The Basic Law and legislation provides for the granting of asylum and refugee status to persons who meet the definition in the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. In practice, the Government provided protection against refoulement and provided refugee status. Both the Federal Government and state governments cooperated with the office of U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in assisting refugees. Individuals attempting to enter via a 'safe country of transit' were ineligible for asylum and could be turned back at the border or returned to that 'safe country of transit' if they managed to enter the country. (Germany, Reports on Human Rights Practices 2003) Migration Management A significant shift in the language of immigration policy has led to conduct an analysis on migrants and their economic and social outcomes. Labor migration is only one aspect of migration to be managed. The UK is competing for a larger share of the English speaking overseas student market and students are currently the largest category of migrants each year. At the same time, political instability and poverty fuels movements of irregular migrants and asylum seekers. Many immigrants and refugees are subsequently entitled to be joined by their dependants. UK, European policy makers, and organizations employing migrants, need to know how legislative impacts on migration issues. (Migration) European Border Police and expanded Database Under the Spanish presidency, immigration and asylum policy was made a priority issue at the summit conference of 2003 according to which common guidelines for handling people seeking asylum are to be developed. According to Chancellor Gerhard Schroder "The ultimate goal of harmonizing the right to asylum across the EU is a fair distribution of the burden." The human dimension of the issue should never be forgotten. Germany's recently signed immigration law could provide good examples for standards on asylum policy. A common European border police force will be established. A visa database will be created. And third countries will be rewarded for the cooperation in taking back illegal immigrants, instead of being penalized for lack of cooperation. (German Embassy Washington, D.C) Example: The increase in the number of applications from asylum seekers for refugee status to Ireland are illustrated in the following graph and table. (Racism, 2005) Applications for Refugee Status to Ireland Compared with selected European Countries Year Ireland UK Denmark Germany 1992 39 32,300 13,991 4,38,191 1993 91 28,500 14,473 3,22,599 1994 355 42,200 6,700 1,27,210 1995 424 55,000 5,100 1,29,517 1996 1179 37,000 5,900 1,51,300 1997 3883 41,500 5,100 1,36,000 (Racism, 2005) Opportunities and threats of Enlargement The capacity problem is gradually becoming related less to legacies and transformation problems and more to the impact of economic backwardness. The preparations for accession could also be at variance with the aim of catch-up growth. For example, the implementation of certain elements of the internal market acquis, the implementation of the environmental acquis and the Schengen acquis, call for an unparalleled investment drive. This creates a genuine risk that the efforts which the candidate countries will need to make for EU accession will be at the expense of their public investments on the physical and knowledge infrastructure, the strengthening of market institutions and support for regional and sector-specific adjustment processes. Other accession problems concern the policy dilemma that the enlargement process could result in a new division within Europe and that hard borders will arise between those countries 'ready for membership' and those that are considered not yet to measure up. Common problems should not detract from the fact that the enlargement is an opportunity to foster a more stable political and economic order throughout Europe. (OECD, 2005) EU has started Narrowing their Asylum Policies Even a modest eastern enlargement would make it difficult for the EU to provide an overlap among the various types of borders and frontiers as required by a Westphalian state-building process. The EU will become a Westphalian type of state only if it is able to secure clear, relatively hard, and centrally governed borders. However, the EU is likely to end up with soft border zones, rather than hard and fixed external borderlines as envisioned by the Schengen regime. A 'maze Europe' is likely to emerge with different legal, economic, security, and cultural spaces separating cross-border multiple cooperation. The construction of a Westphalian type of state would be a difficult and costly option for the EU. In any case, a hard border regime does not appear necessary, wise, or sustainable, even when it comes to combating cross-border crime and migration. Assuming unavoidable eastern enlargement, the EU could opt for a very limited enlargement in stages; accompany enlargement with the creation of a small core group of states able and willing to embark on a more advanced form of integration; or adjust the neo-medieval model to the contemporary European environment. If the emerging neo-medieval empire can provide an alternative to absolute sovereignty, manage the presence of overlapping authorities, recognize multiple cultural identities, and facilitate the flow of goods, services, and people through Europe's borders, it may be a good thing. (OECD, 2005) Bibliography CEII, available from e-merge, vol: 1, 2000 available from accessed on 12 Dec, 2005 EU, available from Accessed on 12 Dec, 2005a EU, available from accessed on 12 Dec, 2005b German Embassy Washington, D.C., available from accessed on 12 Dec, 2005 Germany, Reports on Human Rights Practices 2003, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2004, available from accessed on 12 Dec, 2005. Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, Chap c.33 available from accessed on 12 Dec, 2005 Immigration and Marriage/Cohabitation, available from accessed on 12 Dec, 2005 Migration, Available from Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Chap 41 available from accessed on 12 Dec, 2005 OECD, available from accessed on 12 Dec, 2005. Racism, available from accessed on 12 Dec 2005. Refugee available from accessed on 12 Dec, 2005a Refugee available from accessed on 12 Dec, 2005b Schengen, available from accessed on 12 Dec, 2005a Schengen Visa, available from accessed on 12 Dec, 2005 The UK Parliament, available from accessed on 12 Dec, 2005 UNHCR available from Accessed on 12 Dec, 2005a UNHCR, Sept 2001 available from accessed on 12 Dec, 2005a UNHCR, Oct 2004 available from accessed on 12 Dec, 2005b Ulrich Rippert, 2003 available from accessed on 12 Dec, 2005 UK Visas, available from accessed on 12 Dec, 2005 Wanda Sendzimir available from accessed on 12 Dec, 2005a Wikipedia, Accessed from Read More