Refugee and Human Rights Law Standards Applicable to Asylum Governance and the Right of Asylum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter interrogates key standards and trends in asylum governance, exploring the compatibility of emerging asylum regimes with international and regional refugee and human rights law. The chapter takes a global view, while drawing on practice from Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Jordan, South Africa and Türkiye, where relevant. First, we briefly set out the most relevant international and regional human rights and refugee law instruments, as well as the relationship between human rights and refugee law in this area and the (potential) impact of the UN GCR on global asylum governance. Second, we provide an account of key binding international and regional standards governing access to asylum, asylum procedures, the scope of protection and content of protection. The following section is devoted to the tension between paradigms of deterrence and containment and admission to territory, including the emergence of pushbacks as a systematic global practice; ‘safe third country’ mechanisms; perceived ‘instrumentalisation’ of asylum; externalisation of asylum; and alternative solutions to moderate containment approaches. Finally, the chapter addresses tendencies related to the temporariness of protection, encompassing differential treatment between groups of protection seekers and refugees, issues of exploitation due to limitations on the right to work and ‘vulnerability’ as a protection issue.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".