Institute helps develop international guidelines on refugee protection
With the world witnessing its biggest refugee crisis since World War II, the need for guidance in asylum adjudication is crucial. The Refugee Convention is clear in stating that persons with a well-founded fear of being persecuted based on political opinion constitute refugees. Yet, the Convention does not define what constitutes ‘political opinion’.
This was the subject for the 7th Michigan Guidelines Colloquium in Ann Arbor. The colloquium gathered some of the world’s leading scholars and judges within the field of international refugee law, including Research Director at the Danish Institute for Human Rights, Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, who also serves as a member of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board.
“The great strength of the Michigan Guidelines is that it is developed by both scholars and judges. So it is extremely applicable in the real world and not just a product of academics safely situated in an ivory tower far from reality,” Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen explains.
What is ‘opinion’ what is ‘political’?
At first glance, it may seem self-evident what it means to be persecuted because of political opinion. But it is far from that simple.
For example, if a woman says to an abusive husband, ‘I won’t let you hit me anymore,’ is she implicitly expressing a political opinion that women are deserving of equal respect? Does opposition to China’s one-child policy constitute political opinion? Should whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden be given refugee status?
"Those are complicated questions, and the answer will vary depending upon the cultural filter through which the person’s situation is viewed," James C. Hathaway, Professor of Law at University of Michigan and host of the colloquium, explains.
Guiding without straitjacketing
The big challenge developing these guidelines is to provide a solid framework for what constitutes ‘political opinion’ without creating a straitjacket for the practitioners ruling in each asylum case.
“We are hoping to create a new, common starting point that will provide some clarity and a platform from which decision-makers and judiciaries can work. We must provide a framework that bodes consistency but at the same time allow for local considerations and estimates,” Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen says.
The result, the 7th Michigan Guidelines, will by all accounts become influential in asylum cases all over the world. That has been the case for each of the previous six guidelines.
Colloquium participant judge Hugo Storey, an Upper Tribunal Judge at the Immigration and Asylum Chamber, in the United Kingdom, and president of the European Chapter of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges, has high hopes for the guidelines. He said that over the years UK courts and tribunals had discussed and debated the Michigan Guidelines numerous times.